Totally agreed, and this post is the perfect example of why: people should want to be inspected! The whole point of a city building code is to have rules to keep people safe in situations that aren't obvious to, e.g., the DIY shed-builder.
If I'm building a shed in the backyard, and I have the opportunity to call an employed expert to make sure I'm not gonna fuckin' kill somebody? Yes! Give me that!
Some elements are for safety. Some elements are aesthetic: give the town a coherent look and feel. Some elements are economic: promote property value, ban what could be seen as ugly or low class. Some elements regulate interactions between neighboring lots: setbacks, placement of windows, rules for fences and trees, limits on combining adjoining properties. Some elements serve redistributive or consumer protection goals: minimum dwelling sizes and features, standards for light and air. Some elements seek to curate the community's demographics. Obviously we regulate plumbing for safety and sanitation reasons. We also regulate plumbing to prevent illegal second kitchens, which could bring renters or multigenerational (immigrant) households into homes meant for affluent (white) nuclear families.
It is multifaceted, overlapping (safety at all costs? or find a way to price out the dirty poors and blame it on safety?), and different people at different times may be intentionally lying or genuinely confused about the intentions behind and effects of different rules. And that's just in theory. In practice there are whole other layers regarding what goes on at the permit counter, in variance/discretionary review hearings, and in day to day enforcement operations.
Instead, permits are a way to find ways to raise assessments and therefore property taxes. Given the recurring costs, it’s no surprise at all that a lot of work is done without inspections.
So unless you have some disagreement with tax in general or property tax specifically, I’ll argue that the permitting and inspection process in most cities is a good thing for society despite the personal hassle. It ensures that buildings are safe and helps the city assess the changing value of homes.
Quick edit: I will acknowledge that your point is correct that inspections and taxes cause a lot of work to be done without notifying the city and hoping they don’t notice.
I could easily see (and probably agree with) the argument that we should be taxing land and not improvements. It feels a bit unfair to spend time and money to improve your own land, not be able to realize any gain/income from that improvement until you sell it, but meanwhile be on the hook for extra taxes every year.
To be clear, I think property taxes (or land-value taxes) are reasonable: desirable land is a scarce resource, and we should ensure landowners are doing productive things with it. But the current assessment process leaves much to be desired IMO. (And that's without even getting into California's Prop 13 nonsense.)
Thank you for a succinct explanation of the benefits of land value tax over the current system.
Elsewhere in this thread someone mentioned that nails and screws are not interchangeable, but there are situations like decks where nails also aren't sufficient. You need carriage bolts.
