Search
  • Arne Mortensen
    • May 14, 2015
    • 1 min read

Code Compliance Officer


May 2015

Code Compliance Officer

Recently the County Commissioners voted (Joe Gardner voted No) to add a compliance officer to the County building and planning department (B&PD). Unless we think most people are cheats and would endanger people for a few dollars, a compliance officer is superfluous. If we need one, then something is broken. And, if the sentiment I hear expressed about the B&PD is any indication, the department is broken. Spending money to force compliance to an underlying problem area makes no sense.

A good B&PD would have no trouble with compliance because people would value the service. Such a service would not be about “permitting;” it would be about certifying. Customers would flock to the department for advice. People would be glad to pay reasonable fees to be certified … it would be just like getting your product UL approved.

Typical government answers have been given: “It is for your health and safety?” Let them prove that. Let them justify the hiring not in terms of compliance, but in measurable terms of public welfare. I bet they can’t do that. Be prepared for bafflegab from them.


0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Commenting on a TDN letter to the editor

In “without reservations” letter of 19 June, the author is amazed that candidates for county commissioner express “no” reservation about the coal terminal. This candidate is amazed that people with l

50

"We can do better"

I spent a couple of hours at the Millennium meeting on Tuesday, May 24. That was long enough for me to see that the event clearly was only political and not scientific, and that made me sad as I ran

50

Meet and Greet

The contentious intraparty (both Republican and Democrat) struggle going on has left many of us puzzled as well as apprehensive about the upcoming presidential primary as well as the November general

10

JOIN THE CONVERSATION: 

  • Facebook Clean Grey