Comment by mabbo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mabbo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day, and if stuff gets falsified on the affidavit we go after you after-the-fact".

My wife used to work as an engineer approving (or demanding changes) to plans for Toronto. The biggest problem is that developers will cut every-single-corner and later plead ignorance when they build the 'wrong' (cheaper) way.

Here's what would happen in the scenario you're describing: Developers would build whatever the heck they like. Then, they'd be told "You built something that doesn't meet code". The developer would say "Well, my mistake, but it's built now and do you really want to tear down this new housing development that people paid for 3 years ago?". Now you have a political situation where the people who want to move in are being told that the building has to be torn down. Politicians would get involved, and the building (not meeting code) would be allowed to stay.

This would repeat over and over again.

I completely agree that we need a straightforward set of clear, consistent rules. But the idea of pre-approval without checking what the developer plans to build, how they plan to deal with waste-water, storm-water, parking, and a long list of other requirements, that's asking for trouble.

This seems like the sort of behavior which can be disincentivized with steep fines. You, a developer, built a large building not to code? You have to pay to have it re-worked, and in addition you pay the local town $1000 per domicile affected per day it's delayed. Made-up example, but you get the idea.

Createdmall development company, take the contract, deliver faulty building, accept payment, pay out funds to employees (subcontractors) and owners of the company, shut down company if the district comes after them.

It would incentivize his sort of behavior too.

Ensure that developers/owners may be held personally liable. There should be lots of ways to do this: bonds, insurance, promissory notes, collateral.

Also known as "Whoopsies I went bankrupt sorry!"

This actually happens today, even with all the existing rules.

Shell corporations can be made to funnel money around to the right people then die. As it is incredibly difficult to pierce the veil due to corporation protections being more important than human health and safety, all the "law" will find is a dead corporation with no assets. The developers will have already stripped it clean and started 10 more in the same way.

What if the owners were required to sign the affidavit personally and the affidavit included an assumption of personal liability for the damages if anything in the affidavit is found to be false?

Yes, it can be disincentivized with steep fines. But then you just end up back where we are now. Developers would not build if they face the future prospect of such steep fines. What happens if the code is unclear or ambiguous (and when big money is involved everything magically becomes ambiguous).

This is why a balanced regulatory approach is needed - one that is more proactive than reactive. By the time we're reacting way too much damage has been done.

This sounds like the sort of disincentive (after the units are sold and the horse has left the barn) that a good lawyer can easily prevent. Just like movies & funds can make/lose money that can't be clawed back, you just build an investment that pays out on sale to be nonexistent/bankrupt when fined.

Are there regulatory ways around this? Of course, but they are complex, restrict the market in other ways, and lead to different distortions.

The method for dealing with this is to require that the developer post a bond.

Bonds, however, create their own host of incentive problems.

If the city/public is funding a building, i would think they are checking if it is built to code before they pay the company in full.

If its not built to code, the contractor didnt finish the job and will not be paid until the building is up to code.

If its a private investor building the building, thats on them, they shouldve hired better contractors or been more thorough in their management of their contractors

The problem is the tragedy of the commons.

Flooding is a big issue right now in Toronto because we've had a few 'incidents'. You can build a building such that every drop of rain is gone from the property within minutes of it landing, straight into the storm sewers. But you can't have everyone do that, or every rainfall will mean a major flood in the lower-lying areas. And anyone in Toronto back in 2013 remembers exactly what that is like (last week too, nearly).

Instead, regulations now say that new buildings have to retain their water for as long as possible. You can release it, just not all at once, and hopefully not all of it. Green roofs are great to absorb the water. Car washes in the underground parking garage. Options like this exist, but they cost money.

This is only one example (storm water management). There are others. The goal of the city regulating certain engineering aspects of the buildings isn't just to protect those directly living in the building, it's to protect the city as a whole.

Fuck NIMBYism straight to hell, but don't tell me that the developer flooding my property isn't my problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com