The Definition Of Intrusion

OK, so let me see if I have this straight.

It's perfectly acceptable for a governmental body - oh, let's say a county board of zoning appeals - to require a homeowner to go to the expense of relocating his home, on his own property because he failed, for whatever reason, to have that home placed exactly according to code in terms of established setbacks from his property line.

But it isn't acceptable for that same county government to establish building codes and provide inspectors to ensure those codes are being enforced - codes that would have discovered the incorrect placement prior to the home being erected.

Forgive me if I appear to be dense, but does anyone else see an inconsistency here?

On the one hand, we have Mitch and Pam Hunsberger, of Mentone, who had the trauma and expense of their basement collapsing because proper building codes weren't followed, and no one was there to check the shoddy work to keep it from being a potential hazard.

The Kosciusko County commissioners flatly refuse to establish and enforce building codes. They say such an ordinance and enforcement of those codes would be an undue intrusion into the private lives of county citizens.

On the other hand, we have the case of Billy and Linda Caudill, of Pierceton.

The commissioners have no qualms at all about intruding on the private property rights of the Caudills, dictating where on their property their home can be situated.

Isn't an iron-clad, no-room-for-flexibility, setback requirement just as intrusive as a building inspector? Isn't telling someone where they have to place their home on their own property every bit as intrusive as requiring that same homeowner - and their hired construction contractor - to construct that home to well-established, safe building standards?

The Hunsbergers suffered a loss because of that lack of "intrusion," and it could have been much worse.

Suppose one of their five children had been sleeping in the basement when that wall collapsed? Fortunately, when the basement wall collapsed no one was injured or killed, but the fact that the shoddy construction would have been detected - at the time of construction - if it was properly inspected can't be forgotten.

As it is, the Hunsbergers were put in a position of having to spend three months paying for an uninhabitable home and rent on another while repairs were made.

Doesn't the county bear some responsibility here? Did it not charge the original home owner for a building permit?

No, we're told by the county powers that be that the Hunsbergers' situation is merely a civil matter to be settled in court. The fact that the whole mess could have been avoided by a little benign "intrusion" doesn't sway these policymakers. When it comes to construction, it's "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" on the part of the county.

Yet those same leaders aren't above "intruding" into the Caudill's property rights, telling them how far away from their property line they could build their home - a home the county has no intention of inspecting anyway.

No, the Caudill's home can be of such poor-quality construction that a good spring breeze could blow it down. That's not the county's problem. But woe be unto that homeowner if their their poorly-constructed home is within some arbitrary setback line. Then the full force and weight of the county government is brought to bear and that home will have to be moved - come hell or high water.

Don't get me wrong. I'm for a small, unintrusive government every bit as much as the commissioners. I also place a high value on private property rights and the freedom to use that property as you choose, as long as it doesn't have a direct, adverse effect on your neighbors.

I also think the county has every right to establish development standards for every zoning classification, and to inspect construction to ensure those standards are being met. Both are appropriate functions of local government.

But by applying that same principle, it's also appropriate to enforce safe building standards. What's more, it's wholly inconsistent to do one while flatly refusing to do the other.

If we accept the county commissioners' position that it is an inappropriate use of their powers to enforce building codes, then it follows that it is also an inappropriate use of their powers to intrude on how a property owner builds on his own land. Indeed, to put any restrictions on how that land is used.

I don't see either as being inappropriate. I do see insisting on one while shirking the other as contradictory - even irresponsible.

Had the county had a building inspector, the in violation of the setback requirements of the Caudill's home would have been discovered well before it was in place and required great expense to the Caudills to move it so it complied with the zoning requirements.

Had the county had building codes and an inspector to enforce them, the Hunsbergers wouldn't have suffered the trauma and expense of having their home literally crumble beneath them.

Limited, unintrusive government? Yes, that's a worthy goal. But not at the expense of safety, and not when pursuing that goal is done in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner.