Please drop city-run home sale inspections in any form.
D
Deb Rana
11 years ago
The only purpose this serves is for the city to make money from homeowners selling their homes. It is completely unnecessary.
K
Kurt Netzer
11 years ago
These should be private transaction and Government should not be involved
K
Kurt Netzer
11 years ago
These should be private transaction and Government should not be involved
K
Kristine Falk
11 years ago
Is this what homeowners want? There are already enough mandatory inspections for sellers when selling their homes. Buyers have the right to put contingencies into their offers based on the outcome of any inspections they wish to have performed. The city does not need to get involved with this process! Smaller government!
W
Wendi Meath-Nelson
11 years ago
This is will impact those of us in barely "affordable" Eden Prairie housing the most Solid (not upper) MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES!! Probably not the wealthy or the poor. We DO MOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO AFFORD THIS! WE ARE LUCKY IF WE HAVE EQUITY!!! It is a VERY BAD, REGRESSIVE idea. SHAME ON YOU FOR CONSIDERING IT!
M
Marcy myers
11 years ago
I disagree with the point of sale inspection. This is something that should be paid for by the buyer. It is up to them to make sure the home they are buying is in satisfactory condition.
S
Steve Hahnfeldt
11 years ago
Taxes are high enough without adding another useless fee on
R
Robb Hiller
11 years ago
Well intentioned idea gone wild. No need and invasion of city government plus wasteful. Just wait till we see the costs to add people and processes by the city! Where will it stop?
D
David Fosdick
11 years ago
I STRONGLY oppose the POINT of Sale Ordianance
P
Patrick Tschumper
11 years ago
We do not need increased regulations. Eden Prairie housing is just fine.
D
Daniel Robbins
11 years ago
This sounds like an unconstitutional infringement on our 4th amendment rights. If a state inspector comes into our homes they have full access to everything in our house for inspection with out a warrant.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
D
Daniel Robbins
11 years ago
This seem like a constitutional infringement on our 4th amendment right of unwarranted searches. I have attached the section of constitution:
T
Todd L Walker
11 years ago
Encourage concerned homeowners to call, write, post your opnions on this ordinance to the city council and mayor ASAP. Another council meeting is this Tuesday 3/3, we don't want to be 'blindsided' again.
R
Rick Davidson
11 years ago
As someone who had to administer a POS ordinance that had private inspectors conduct inspections, I have to agree with your assessment of the quality of the inspections. The problem with inspection existing homes is that there is very little training available for these inspections. Typically homes deteriorate over time. When does something get to the point where it needs to be replaced? That is most often going to be based on opinion and an uneducated one at that. I also used to see a lot of write ups for things like not having GFCI outlets in kitchens and baths. This is not a safety hazard and the National Electrical Code does not require they be routinely replaced. I also say a lot of handrails and guardrails written up because the "didn't meet code". Fact is, they met the code when they were built and state laws says they still "meet code". Codes change over time and the new rules might make homes "safer" but that doesn't mean that existing homes are unsafe. If they are, then the City better get at it and save us.
R
Rick Davidson
11 years ago
Your comments are spot on. As someone who is getting up in years, my wife and I have discussed gifting our home to one of our children. Did you know this ordinance would require our home to undergo an inspection and repairs even if our child lived in our home as a caregiver? The ordinance even gives the City the authority to prohibit occupancy until the repairs are completed!
R
Rick Davidson
11 years ago
Those are good questions. Did you know that EP does not do its own electrical inspections? I have two master electricians that work for me and they question how someone who never does electrical inspections can undertake such an inspection. Either this is a money thing or there is more to it. Ordinances never get weaker over time. They are made stricter. Residential sprinkler advocates have made no secret of their desire to get sprinklers mandated in existing homes. What better way than a POS ordinance. EP staff members, with support from the Council, lobbied legislators in the last session on city time with city vehicles in city uniforms to oppose a bill that would have prohibited mandatory sprinklers in new homes like ND, SD, WI, and IA have done. Wouldn't be a stretch to expect this upgrade to be require in a few years.
R
Rick Davidson
11 years ago
While it is stated that this is a revenue neutral idea, if the City charges $185 per inspection and last year there were 1550 homes listed for sale, the City would take in $286,750. Does that sound revenue neutral. If every one of those inspections involves 3 hours of staff time, you are approaching nearly 3 full time equivalent positions. Do staff members have that much free time or will staff be hired? Sales come at the same time of year as demands on city inspectors. How long will you wait for an inspection or will you need to hire a private evaluator at $300 to $500? It has been argued that it only addresses life safety items! Read the ordinance. There are things like cracked paint on 10% of a window, dampness (?), improperly hung gutters, deteriorated antennas, and a host of other miscellaneous items. How do you inspect a snow covered roof or do you wait till spring? How do you paint surfaces the city inspector says are deteriorated when it is January? What is a "deteriorated foundation"? What do you base this on? It will be opinion or you will be asked to hire a structural engineer to validate safety. You see, city inspectors receive no training in these types of inspections. They inspect to the Minnesota Building Code which contains specific requirements. I have been in code enforcement for over 40 years and have worked for a city that had a POS ordinance. What a headache. It is impossible to have uniformity. Buyers inspectors find things the sellers inspector missed. It isn't that hard for the process to be overlooked and then when the new owner sells their home they may have things to fix that should have been fixed by the previous seller. I used to look at inspection reports for the same house that might occur from inspections over a 3 to 5 year period. It was almost funny. You wondered how it could be the same house because of things that were missed by one inspector, caught by another, and then caught again by a third! It was stat
R
Rick Davidson
11 years ago
Featured
This ordinance will require that you have a city inspection if you gift your home to a child. The list of deficiencies which is argued to be life safety is not limited to that. Furthermore, the deficiencies will be based on opinions.
K
Kenan Aksoz
11 years ago
Government should not regulate the sale of private property
Please drop city-run home sale inspections in any form.
The only purpose this serves is for the city to make money from homeowners selling their homes. It is completely unnecessary.
These should be private transaction and Government should not be involved
These should be private transaction and Government should not be involved
Is this what homeowners want? There are already enough mandatory inspections for sellers when selling their homes. Buyers have the right to put contingencies into their offers based on the outcome of any inspections they wish to have performed. The city does not need to get involved with this process! Smaller government!
This is will impact those of us in barely "affordable" Eden Prairie housing the most Solid (not upper) MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES!! Probably not the wealthy or the poor. We DO MOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO AFFORD THIS! WE ARE LUCKY IF WE HAVE EQUITY!!! It is a VERY BAD, REGRESSIVE idea. SHAME ON YOU FOR CONSIDERING IT!
I disagree with the point of sale inspection. This is something that should be paid for by the buyer. It is up to them to make sure the home they are buying is in satisfactory condition.
Taxes are high enough without adding another useless fee on
Well intentioned idea gone wild. No need and invasion of city government plus wasteful. Just wait till we see the costs to add people and processes by the city! Where will it stop?
I STRONGLY oppose the POINT of Sale Ordianance
We do not need increased regulations. Eden Prairie housing is just fine.
This sounds like an unconstitutional infringement on our 4th amendment rights. If a state inspector comes into our homes they have full access to everything in our house for inspection with out a warrant. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This seem like a constitutional infringement on our 4th amendment right of unwarranted searches. I have attached the section of constitution:
Encourage concerned homeowners to call, write, post your opnions on this ordinance to the city council and mayor ASAP. Another council meeting is this Tuesday 3/3, we don't want to be 'blindsided' again.
As someone who had to administer a POS ordinance that had private inspectors conduct inspections, I have to agree with your assessment of the quality of the inspections. The problem with inspection existing homes is that there is very little training available for these inspections. Typically homes deteriorate over time. When does something get to the point where it needs to be replaced? That is most often going to be based on opinion and an uneducated one at that. I also used to see a lot of write ups for things like not having GFCI outlets in kitchens and baths. This is not a safety hazard and the National Electrical Code does not require they be routinely replaced. I also say a lot of handrails and guardrails written up because the "didn't meet code". Fact is, they met the code when they were built and state laws says they still "meet code". Codes change over time and the new rules might make homes "safer" but that doesn't mean that existing homes are unsafe. If they are, then the City better get at it and save us.
Your comments are spot on. As someone who is getting up in years, my wife and I have discussed gifting our home to one of our children. Did you know this ordinance would require our home to undergo an inspection and repairs even if our child lived in our home as a caregiver? The ordinance even gives the City the authority to prohibit occupancy until the repairs are completed!
Those are good questions. Did you know that EP does not do its own electrical inspections? I have two master electricians that work for me and they question how someone who never does electrical inspections can undertake such an inspection. Either this is a money thing or there is more to it. Ordinances never get weaker over time. They are made stricter. Residential sprinkler advocates have made no secret of their desire to get sprinklers mandated in existing homes. What better way than a POS ordinance. EP staff members, with support from the Council, lobbied legislators in the last session on city time with city vehicles in city uniforms to oppose a bill that would have prohibited mandatory sprinklers in new homes like ND, SD, WI, and IA have done. Wouldn't be a stretch to expect this upgrade to be require in a few years.
While it is stated that this is a revenue neutral idea, if the City charges $185 per inspection and last year there were 1550 homes listed for sale, the City would take in $286,750. Does that sound revenue neutral. If every one of those inspections involves 3 hours of staff time, you are approaching nearly 3 full time equivalent positions. Do staff members have that much free time or will staff be hired? Sales come at the same time of year as demands on city inspectors. How long will you wait for an inspection or will you need to hire a private evaluator at $300 to $500? It has been argued that it only addresses life safety items! Read the ordinance. There are things like cracked paint on 10% of a window, dampness (?), improperly hung gutters, deteriorated antennas, and a host of other miscellaneous items. How do you inspect a snow covered roof or do you wait till spring? How do you paint surfaces the city inspector says are deteriorated when it is January? What is a "deteriorated foundation"? What do you base this on? It will be opinion or you will be asked to hire a structural engineer to validate safety. You see, city inspectors receive no training in these types of inspections. They inspect to the Minnesota Building Code which contains specific requirements. I have been in code enforcement for over 40 years and have worked for a city that had a POS ordinance. What a headache. It is impossible to have uniformity. Buyers inspectors find things the sellers inspector missed. It isn't that hard for the process to be overlooked and then when the new owner sells their home they may have things to fix that should have been fixed by the previous seller. I used to look at inspection reports for the same house that might occur from inspections over a 3 to 5 year period. It was almost funny. You wondered how it could be the same house because of things that were missed by one inspector, caught by another, and then caught again by a third! It was stat
This ordinance will require that you have a city inspection if you gift your home to a child. The list of deficiencies which is argued to be life safety is not limited to that. Furthermore, the deficiencies will be based on opinions.
Government should not regulate the sale of private property