Limits of Inspection Authority

"Safetyism," the prioritization of physical and emotional safety as a sacred value, hinders economic growth by stifling innovation through excessive regulations and barriers, such as halting projects over minor environmental or safety concerns. It inflates costs via bureaucratic expansions in institutions, redirecting funds from productive uses like faculty hires or infrastructure. Culturally, it fosters fragility, anxiety, and depression in youth by avoiding risks, eroding resilience, free debate, and ideological diversity, leading to polarization and "cancel culture". This overprotection stunts personal and societal growth, diminishing adaptability and vitality.

Loading
loading...

Limits of Inspection Authority

February 23, 2026
mike@standardsmichigan.com

“The Dressmaking Factory” 1914 | Charles Ginnar
@Tate

Building inspection authority refers to the governmental power granted to building officials and inspectors to enforce building codes, conduct site visits, review plans, issue permits, and ensure construction complies with safety, structural, zoning, and environmental standards.

Its significance lies primarily in protecting public safety by identifying hazards, preventing structural failures, fire risks, and health threats from substandard work. This authority mandates minimum quality levels, reducing risks of collapses, injuries, or fatalities—lessons reinforced by historical disasters.

It promotes accountability among designers, builders, and owners, ensuring durability, energy efficiency, and accessibility while supporting sustainable urban development. By halting non-compliant projects or requiring fixes, inspectors safeguard communities, preserve property values, and minimize long-term costs from repairs or liabilities.

Ultimately, this regulatory framework upholds trust in the built environment, balancing innovation with life-protecting oversight for residents, workers, and the public.

Here are the primary **ANSI-accredited standards developers that develop and publish model building codes, related consensus standards for construction safety, inspection, structural integrity, energy efficiency, plumbing, fire safety, and similar areas incorporated into or referenced into public law:

– **International Code Council (ICC)** — Develops the International Building Code (IBC), International Residential Code (IRC), International Fire Code (IFC), and other model codes widely adopted for building inspection and enforcement, plus ANSI-approved standards.
Link: https://www.iccsafe.org

– **National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)** — Publishes NFPA 1 (Fire Code), NFPA 101 (Life Safety Code), NFPA 5000 (Building Construction and Safety Code), and numerous fire safety/inspection standards referenced in building codes.
Link: https://www.nfpa.org

– **International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)** — Develops the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) and Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC), key for plumbing/mechanical inspections.
Link: https://www.iapmo.org

– **ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers)** — Develops ANSI/ASHRAE standards like 90.1 (Energy Standard for Buildings) and others for HVAC, energy, and indoor air quality, often referenced in codes.
Link: https://www.ashrae.org

– **ASTM International** — Produces thousands of material, testing, and performance standards (e.g., for construction materials and inspection methods) referenced in building codes.
Link: https://www.astm.org

– **American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)** — Develops ASCE 7 (Minimum Design Loads), ASCE 24 (Flood Resistant Design), and structural/inspection-related standards.
Link: https://www.asce.org

Building inspection authority, while essential for safety, can be abused through corruption, such as inspectors accepting bribes to approve substandard work, overlook violations, expedite permits, or ignore stop-work orders. Examples include cases in New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Honolulu, where inspectors took cash, gifts, or favors to falsify approvals or fast-track processes, enabling unsafe or non-compliant construction.This abuse distorts fair competition, favors corrupt developers or connected parties, and erodes public trust in regulatory systems.

More critically, it limits economic development by inflating costs (e.g., bribes add 10-30% to projects), causing delays from bureaucratic extortion or backlogs exploited for payoffs, deterring legitimate investment, and misallocating resources toward sub-optimal or risky builds.Corruption in permitting and inspections discourages foreign and domestic developers, slows urban growth, reduces infrastructure quality, and hampers long-term competitiveness. In booming markets, it exacerbates inefficiencies, diverts funds from productive uses, and ultimately stifles job creation and sustainable expansion.

 

Layout mode
Predefined Skins
Custom Colors
Choose your skin color
Patterns Background
Images Background
Standards Michigan
error: Content is protected !!
Skip to content