Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should the city have a plumbing inspector?

By Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens

Ken, the law can be changed.

Further, residents are certainly welcome to an opinion that they don't want the city have a plumbing inspector, whether it's the law or not, and the inverse opinion, too.

Anything that can be fashioned into a question can be a matter of public opinion. There's no such thing as, "it's not a matter of public opinion."

Jun 30, 2010, 3:27pm Permalink
Richard Gahagan

My mother did the plumbing in our house and didn't need anyone from the city, plumbing board, code enforcement angency, or the DPW to tell her how to do it or inspect it when she was done. This isn't a serious issue its a joke.

Here's how most plumbing jobs in Batavia are done:

Go to Home Depot buy the stuff you need, come home work on it a bit, go back to home depot, stop at Kelley's for a beer, ask advise from Kelly's MASTER plumbers, go back to home Depot, go home finish installation go back to Kelly's, I mean Home Depot to return the stuff you didn't use, there that's it your done.

Jun 30, 2010, 3:50pm Permalink
Janice Stenman

Seems silly to me that a master plumber needs to inspect your plumbing and unless the laws have changed since we remodeled a home in Batavia, there is no inspection for electrical work. Plus you have to have a licensed plumber to do the installation, where anyone can do the electrical.

I don't think anyone ever died from a leaky faucet. Not so with faulty electrical work!

Jun 30, 2010, 3:54pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Its just another stupid law that makes it tough to earn a living in this state. Every time the state needs money, they create another law.

Jun 30, 2010, 4:05pm Permalink
Ken Toal

Charlie,
It may be stupid in your eyes, but it is still the LAW.
The biggest reason it is so hard to make a living in this state is, the state needs more money for welfare and raises. Want to save a bunch of money, drop welfare, let them all move to some other state. They don't move they starve, oh well! Want to live for free, move to NY and get on welfare.

Howard,
Yea it could be changed, but it has not been, so it is STILL THE LAW.

Jun 30, 2010, 4:21pm Permalink
Gary Diegelman

It's just big government telling you what to do and forcing you to spend more money. Most people don't know a city resident can not do any plumbing work on their own without hiring a licensed plumber. That means no faucet replacements, no toilet seal replacements nothing. Wait til the town becomes a city and town residents are FORCED into the same law. I don't think so!

Jun 30, 2010, 5:54pm Permalink
Rich Martin

Well you people have finally convinced me that I am surrounded my morons. No plumbing inspector.... whats next no electrical inspector...how about know health inspectors Your idiots would be the first to cry like babies when some putz with a pipe wrench who thinks he's a plumber, screws up your plumbing system so bad that you now have to poop under the pine tree in your back yard! I can site case after case of so-called do it your selfers who have put themselves and their neighbors in danger. Like the idiot who connected the cold water line to the gas main on Dellinger ave. years ago. Flooded the gaas main and cause thousands of dollars of damage. then theirs the goof who hooked the exhaust vent of his water heater to a bedroom heat duct because the "pipe was warm". Do we need an inspection when a leaky faucet is repauired , no but to eliminate the inspector would be absolutly rediculous. The people are put in place by laws that are designed to protect the public health and to insure safe and sanitary conditions. Would you want your new home or building plumbed by someone who "says" he's plumber and not checked to see if it installed properly. If any of you had a clue , you would realize most plumbing is behind walls and under concrete floors and buried under ground. It's not cheap to expose and redo because the idiot who installed it thought he knew what he was doing. For the small fee of a plumbing permit and inspection I for one think it's cheap insurance.....Get rid of the Plumbing inspector...What the hell is wrong with you people?????????

Jul 1, 2010, 8:23am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Rich; first off I have no dog in this fight, I don't live or own property in the City of Batavia and I doubt I ever will, so you all can throw money around anyway you want for all I care. Charlie is right. You can have electrical work done by anyone you want so long as it passes inspection, you can have anyone put on a roof or build a garage or addition so long as it passes a code inspection. You can replace your brakes and tie rod ends on your car, as long as it passes the yearly inspection it doesn't matter if an ASE certified auto technician did it or not. Why then does plumbing work in the City of Batavia have to be done by a licensed plumber to pass code? Noone here is advocating stopping inspections. Especially if your tying into city water or sewer or gas lines, it should be inspected by a city employee. I don't believe that one has to be a master plumber to trace pipes and see where they are ultimately going to or coming from. If work is covered up by walls and concrete, then uncover it. If joe shmoe or an inept contractor screws up and misconnects something, he is then liable for his mistake. That's what contractor's insurance is for. Don't hire a contractor unless you know they are insured. I bet this plumbing law was dreamt up by an "old boy" group of local plumbers long ago who didn't want outside competition coming into their city.

Jul 1, 2010, 9:24am Permalink
Rich Martin

If I understand the way the city works, correctly, You can do your own plumbing in your own home as long as you get a permit and have it inspected. As far as a city employee doing the inspection... As long as he/she is qualified..no problem. The law states a when a municipality become a "city" then a plumbing inspector is required. If the city employee is going to be tasked with inspecting plumbing systems( your house or a 20story commercial building) then he/she had better be able to pass the competency test. It's usually a good idea to know what your looking at is installed properly
Bottom line issue we're talking about is the inspector position. The issue of having to hire a master plumber for every job is an argument for another day.

Jul 1, 2010, 9:51am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Rich wrote, "The law states a when a municipality become a "city" then a plumbing inspector is required."

Doesn't that seem a tad arbitrary? You can live in a town and no plumbing inspector. Living in a village, no plumbing inspector. Become a city, bingo: plumbing inspector.

It has nothing to do with population density, building sizes, or any other objective criteria; just the legal entity of the municipality.

That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe inspector's should be required in all locales, maybe not, but the current law seems entirely arbitrary.

Jul 1, 2010, 10:02am Permalink
Rich Martin

Howard, look it up. In NYS whan a community becomes a "city" there are requirements that must be met. That's just the way it is.I didn't make this up

Jul 1, 2010, 3:28pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

The law isn't arbitrary, Howard, but it IS complicated.

Cities and towns are different legal entities, one of the major differences between the two is that a city is allowed to directly provide certain services for its citizens (ambulance, fire, police etc...) and towns are not...

Know what, it's too late in the day to get into this one.

Jul 1, 2010, 8:29pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Cities generally have advanced systems for sanitation, utilities, land usage, housing, and transportation. The concentration of development greatly facilitates interaction between people and businesses, benefiting both parties in the process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City

Based on this definition, we certainly fall short.

Jul 1, 2010, 9:17pm Permalink
Mary E DelPlato

what ever happened to the town city merger????It only makes sense since the "city" is failing and the town of Batavia has brought in more business then the city...der der der!

Jul 1, 2010, 9:23pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Chris, how can it not be arbitrary if there is no rhyme or reason as to what is a town, a village or a city? Batavia is a City because some time ago, the leaders of the populace decided Batavia should be a city. There's nothing in New York that says a city is XX population density, or has XX number of five story or taller buildings, or has a cathedral. Some gatherings of populations are cities, some are not. That's the very definition of arbitrary. Since the law only applies to the arbitrary definition of a city, the law is arbitrary.

Jul 1, 2010, 9:28pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Chris, it should be pretty clear to you that we don't have the population nessasary to support all the services a city by definition should provide. The "City" of Batavia is just a small town.

A good percentage of our home owners can't afford the best of everything, that includes having Master Plumbers do small plumbing jobs like fixing a leaky sink. Because of a quirk in the law, we have a big city plumbing board and laws that make it very expensive to do repairs.

The "it's the law" argument doesn't mean much when very few of us have the money obey it.

Jul 1, 2010, 10:01pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

When Chris says that, "The law isn't arbitrary, Howard, but it IS complicated;" I don't think one can dispute his claim. Illustration: fire protection. Typically villages and towns do not have buildings over three stories, population concentrations or real estate that requires special training or equipment to address emergencies. It makes sense to mandate fire protection standards for a city that are more comprehensive than those for a village.

On the same note, sewer systems, easements, building codes and code enforcement would necessarily be more complex for larger, more diverse population centers. Although I agree with Charlie's inference in the parallel thread that residential plumbing code should not vary between villages and cities (not necessarily for the sake of economy- but certainly for integrity of public utilities and public safety), I do not agree that the agencies of enforcement should be identical. One needs to weigh public safety as a reflection of service dynamics rather than individual homeowner's plumbing skills or freedom of choice toward installation options. Let's face it, Charlie, if you live next door to a laundromat, you don't want half their waste water backing-up into your basement because the owner's cousin moonlights as a plumber!

When I rewired and updated the electric service in my home, I welcomed the inspection requirement. Even though I was employed as an electrician for decades, the inspection sticker verified my work and relieved any concern that should future circumstances result in an insurance claim, it has been documented; my electric service meets national, state and local electrical codes.

The political concerns in this matter are important, but secondary to the primary goal of safety. Public faith in board members to provide accredited inspector(s) or fair licensing of plumbers needs address separate from maintaining uniform application of code.

(Note: I edited this post. In the original draft I misspelled, laundromat.)

Jul 2, 2010, 2:54am Permalink
John Roach

CM,
What "political concerns in this matter are important" are you talking about?

I thought this was just debate and dicussion over hours to be worked (full or part time) by the inspector, the need to be a Master Plumber or not, and the availability of qualified people who meet the residency rules in Batavia. Now you say this is political?

Do you think the City of Batavia should ask the State for an exemption from this law, as other cities have done? If you were to win election, this would come to you for a vote.

CM,
On a side note, did you finally finish researching your Veteran's issue that you said resulted in your criticism of Mr. Hawley's arranging free bus trips for WW II vets. You were going to get back to me.

Jul 2, 2010, 7:03am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Howard, none of it is arbitrary.

Charlie, municipalities aren't based on population; they are based on what sort of government and what level of service the citizens wanted when the original charter was written.

This information is out there for you guys to find. Hell, some of you should already know and understand it. I'm not going to spend an entire Friday researching and writing a thesis on government entities though. Have a nice weekend folks.

Jul 2, 2010, 9:02am Permalink
C. M. Barons

John, I reiterated precisely the political concerns and if I wasn't clear enough for you, see the previous thread. They were voiced in detail two days ago.

Jul 2, 2010, 9:38am Permalink
Richard Gahagan

Wow you fellers sound really really smart you know everythin bout powatics, prumbing, guvermint, cities, towns, even villiges. The prumbing inspector law is really a key powitical issue for so many peeple in our cummunity. I bet your really impotent in your own minds too. Some yuz could probaby be prezident if ya ever felt like leavin hicksville.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Q-82q7FaIpU/R1grDrEy1nI/AAAAAAAABCE/5x1DjFe6-…

Jul 2, 2010, 11:06am Permalink
John Roach

CM,
I went back to reread your posts from a few (2-4)days ago to see where you addressed this inspection issue as political. I saw your comments on the 1964 Ford, birds, Bill Cox and that snake. But nothing about this being a political issue. Help me out here finding that thread.

Again also, any progress in your research on that veterans problem?

Jul 2, 2010, 10:46am Permalink
C. M. Barons

"Political concerns" summarized other posters' concerns with board membership- I made no previous post on the subject. I isolated that issue and made it clear I was limiting my comment to public safety. I am not a city resident and won't pretend to be.

In our OFF-SITE discussion of veterans issues I noted that I was engaged in research. Coercive baiting won't make the process go faster. Regardless of your motivation, I will research the topic to MY satisfaction because the issue of transitioning returning service people is important to ME. I won't reply with some half-baked analysis in deference to your impatience.

Jul 2, 2010, 11:13am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Chris, the law is entirely arbitrary. Long ago the residents of Batavia believed this was a boom town and the City of Batavia was incorporated. That growth never came to be here and in a lot of other places. The state in it's infinite wisdom passes laws without regard for these smaller municipalities ability to fund their mandates but, as John has explained over and over, we do have the ability to petition for an exemption. I believe that is what we have been talking about.

Chris ease up, we are just talking,we don't need you to arrogantly pretend to teach us things we already know.

CM it's good to see that you are still posting and that might be a sign that I was a little too tough on you.

Jul 2, 2010, 11:51am Permalink
John Roach

CM,
Your prior post (9:38 am) made it sound like you had commented on "political concerns", and thank you clearing that up.

What is your opinion on asking the State for any exemption form either the residency rules or even the whole law, as a good number of other cities have done? And I'll ask Mr. Hawley the same question.

As for my motivation on pressing you for an answer to the vet issue. You made criticisms of Mr. Hawley's free bus rides to DC for veterans. You then said this was based on some issue you had over transitioning of returning service members. Then it turns out you have to research what the problem is, after you made the connection of the problem to Hawley. But, it is a holiday weekend, so maybe next week you can tell us the results of your research. As a veteran, I am curious.

Jul 2, 2010, 12:00pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Charlie, Batavia is a city because that's how the charter is written. A Charter, by the way, that has been approved by the voters of this city since its inception. Are you saying all the work John Roach and his Charter Committee did last year was arbitrary? Are the changes that the voters approved arbitrary? Who's being arrogant?

John, any comments on the all the time you and your peers spent making arbitrary changes to City law?

Jul 2, 2010, 12:02pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

John...regarding the residency requirement:

"except in any city with a population of less than twenty-five thousand, where such inspectors shall be citizens and actual residents of the county or counties wherein the city is situated."

The above is an excerpt from NYS Laws & Regulations,GCT, Article 4, Section 48, Inspectors, qualifications.

Why can't Batavia use the existing population exception to the residency requirement? Am I missing something here?

Jul 2, 2010, 12:13pm Permalink
John Roach

Chris,
You're wrong. The Batavia was made a city by the state upon request of the people. The City Charter and the legislative act of making Batavia a city, while related, are not the same.

Towns and villages also have versions of charters. Then you Genesee County, that has none.

You owe Charlie one "I was wrong".

Jul 2, 2010, 12:13pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

John, the charter and the provisions therein are directly related to the municipal status of the city, starting with 'The corporate name of the City shall be the City of Batavia.'

Every time a charter is approved, the voters are re-affirming our status as a city. Any status change would would have to be approved by voters of the city and be immediately followed by a new charter.

They're not 'related', they're inextricably linked.

Jul 2, 2010, 12:31pm Permalink
John Roach

JoAnne,
I was told you have to ask for the exemption and be listed. Why, I don't know. You can find a listing of the cities exempted at the end of Article 4.

Jul 2, 2010, 12:25pm Permalink
John Roach

Chris,
When the Charter is changed, it is not re-affirming our status as a city. It is only changing what is basically a local law.

Stating in the Charter that we will have 6 wards in no way has anything to do with our status as a city, and if that was changed to 5 or 7, it would not be re-affirming our status as a city.

Adding a section to the Charter that has a City Historian is not reaffirming our city status.

Being allowed to be a city was followed by a charter. Having a Charter did not create the city.

Jul 2, 2010, 12:33pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

John, you're not understanding what I'm telling you. The City Charter is as it is because Batavia is a City. If Batavia were some other sort of incorporated municipality, the charter would be entirely different.

Batavia was created as a city because people wanted the things that only a City (in the legal sense) can provide. The ability to provide those things comes with a certain set of rules that were enacted to protect both the citizens and the municipality. The Charter is written in such a way that adheres to those rules and sets forth the structure to follow and enforce them, it is illegal for the charter to do otherwise. That's what inextricably linked means.

Jul 2, 2010, 12:47pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

The list of cities exempted precedes the "general exemption" I cited above, indicating to me that it applies to any city, otherwise not listed, that meets the population exemption.

Is it just a matter of the City of Batavia needing to formally indicate that it intends to take advantage of this exemption so it can be listed as such?

If the residency requirement is the big obstacle, as has been discussed here, it seems like an easy fix.

Has the request for an exemption been made? Denied?

Jul 2, 2010, 12:48pm Permalink
John Roach

Chris,
I understood that you were taking a shot at Charlie, and then asked me to comment.

One definition of arbitrary is: "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference". That's what happens anytime you vote on anything, right? So, to an extent, Charlie is right. On the other hand, who cares?

Jul 2, 2010, 12:57pm Permalink
John Roach

JoAnne,
Until a now, I don't think anyone had a problem with any of this, or even knew there was a problem. But as a result of a comment made at a recent City Council meeting, it has become a subject to talk about.

The City Council would have to vote on making the request, and they have not taken the matter up.

Jul 2, 2010, 1:02pm Permalink
John Roach

Charlie,
There is no debate as such with Chris.

I was lucky enough about 10 years ago to have some of this explained. The laws creating NY cities and changes to the laws were part of that.

Jul 2, 2010, 1:09pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

I guess that answers my question (thank you), but I am still of the opinion that the exemption sounds "automatic" by virtue of our population size.

I don't see where it is required to formally make the request for a specific listing.

On my tax return, I am exempt from completing the sections that pertain to City of New Residents because it is not applicable to me...I don't have to make a request to the state of NY to grant me an exception.

It just seems that the same principle would apply here, but then again, logic and government would have to go hand and hand for that to be true.

Jul 2, 2010, 1:26pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

John, the use of the word 'arbitrary' in this particular argument was meant as capricious, unreasonable or unsupported. The point is that the requirement for having a plumbing inspector in a City (in the legal sense) is none of the above.

I'm taking shots at Charlie because I find his 'ideology without consequence' view of government distasteful. For example intimating that having a plumbing inspector is just governmental interference while pooh-poohing the idea of safety and ignoring the fact that a City (in the legal sense) is responsible for responding to, clearing up, and paying for emergencies and accidents; particularly when they are caused by said City's refusal to follow the rules set forth in its own charter. A Charter, by the way, that was written in such a way as to reflect the City's corporate status.

Jul 2, 2010, 1:31pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Well Chris, I fnd government distasteful. I don't want government holding my hand. I believe it's my responciblity to take care of my own home and I don't want or need government to tell me how to fix my toilet seat. You like that firm grip around your neck and I get that. To each his own.

Jul 2, 2010, 1:44pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Charlie, I like it when my city doesn't spend tons of money responding to emergency calls resulting from improper or unsafe installations. Inspections help us avoid these problems, particularly with regard to commercial applications. You like to pretend that this is about your toilet, but there is a larger picture that you're willfully ignoring.

Your sarcasm and misrepresentation of the situation does a disservice to those people who respect your opinion as a former City Council President.

Jul 2, 2010, 1:58pm Permalink

Off topic, but what else is new here....

The whole conversation about being a city or not is a good one. Instead of squabbling, why don't we look at what the cost savings may be if we were to become a town or even a village. I don't think that is too much trouble or even wasteful. Not when this council doesn't even blink an eye at doing a study for just about everything else. Hey, I bet that there is even a grant for it somewhere. Maybe Cuomo could donate some of his massive war chest to the cause? He's gonna win by a landslide anyway.

Oh and Chris:

Posted by Chris Charvella on July 2, 2010 - 12:31pm
Every time a charter is approved, the voters are re-affirming our status as a city. Any status change would would have to be approved by voters of the city and be immediately followed by a new charter.

That's pretty thin, sir. The average voter has no inclination that their recent vote on the charter was in anyway connected with Batavia's contiuation as a city. More so, Not many people, including most on this site, can even legally explain the differences. To think that people are "re-affirming" that is just nonsensical.

CM

Good to see you on here, sir. Please do not stop that. I have a grave indifference to politicians who are above reproach.

Jul 2, 2010, 3:42pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Phil,

The fact that most people don't know what constitutes a City is the reason we're having the discussion. Voters not knowing what they're voting for is nothing new and isn't unique to Charter revisions, doesn't change the consequences though.

Jul 2, 2010, 3:46pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Chris, so it's OK to have the discussion unless we disagree with you? Then it's a "disservice". Get off your high horse, we are NOT performing a "service", we are chatting online. If someone doesn't like something I say, they might next time, who really cares? I don't like a lot of things I see written on this site but, I get over it...

You like bringing up titles but, I just go by Charlie these days.

Jul 2, 2010, 5:15pm Permalink

Authentically Local