MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Brickbat: Without Government Who Would Make Sure Buildings Aren't Fire Hazards?

house fireJon Helgason / DreamstimeA media analysis of Oakland, California, records found that from 2011 to early this year just 21 percent of buildings flagged by firefighters for possible code violations actually received follow up inspections. Of those, only a handful were inspected within a month of the referral.

Photo Credit: Jon Helgason / Dreamstime

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    They must have outsourced their inspection scheduling to the NHS.

    Clearly their budget is overstretched. How about a 300% increase and a pension vacation, huh boys? Will that make it all better?

  • Radioactive||

    don't forget the umbrella drinks, and the scantily clad slave girls with the soothing palm fronds to cool their brows...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    But they're still collecting fees and fines, right?

  • Radioactive||

    well, duh! need to keep the trough full...

  • Don Escaped Texas||

    I worked for the city of Memphis 30 years ago, and we did a good job on follow-up.

    The only loss I ever experienced was a combination of owner negligence and arson.

    To be clear, though: the insurer would straighten out an owner if needs be.

  • Longtobefree||

    "I've been getting complaints from random small business owners that say they get fire inspections over and over again for no reason and charged a fee," Kaplan said Monday.

    Read your sentence carefully; the fees are the reason.
    (And maybe, if you have hot waitresses)

  • Tony||

    Something actually within my wheelhouse. The history of government enforcing fire codes goes like this: some horrible catastrophe happens, we figure out what the main problems were, and then we require buildings to mitigate those problems. Yada yada yada, hundreds of people no longer die in theaters because doors don't open outward. You tell me why it's a better world in which these safety features optional. The market will sort it out? If scores of children get piled up at inward-opening doors and die of smoke inhalation, they won't choose that theater next time?

  • ace_m82||

    You tell me why it's a better world in which these safety features optional.

    Mistakes:

    You assume competence.

    You assume there isn't a better answer to the question (see modern seat belts).

    The market will sort it out? If scores of children get piled up at inward-opening doors and die of smoke inhalation, they won't choose that theater next time?

    It happens just as often when government demands it. Google "seen vs unseen".

    Also, when people, especially children, die, people will demand change, one way or another. And yes, the owner of that building would likely be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. No-one would ever do it again for simple fear.

  • tinder download||

    very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online