<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Permit me to ignore building codes]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by jleejj</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/oregons-measure-63/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:21:49 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/oregons-measure-63/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Vote yes or support the bureaucracy </strong></p><p>Have you ever tried to actually get a building permit? &nbsp;Or have you ever owned a home in Oregon? &nbsp;This editorial seems out of touch with the reality of the modern building department. &nbsp;Lane county, Oregon requires a permit to replace a failed water heater with an identical model, or fix a leaking pipe if more than 5 feet of pipe need replacing. &nbsp;</p><p>
Permits have little to do with safety and everything with skimming profits from the building industry and monitoring homeowners for taxable improvements. &nbsp;I'm not suggesting that shoddy unsafe work doesn't get done in Oregon. &nbsp;Lots of it occurs! &nbsp;But it already occurs outside the permitting process and this measure won't change that. </p><p>
What this measure does offer is simplicity and sanity for those of us who have no interesting in making our homes a firetrap in the first place. &nbsp;This measure also does not exempt homeowners from following the state building code. &nbsp;If new home buyers are worried about improvements, they can pay for inspections at the time of purchase.</p><p>
I say vote YES for 63! &nbsp;Stop letting the government and large contractors regulate the improvements you make to your home.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Vote yes or support the bureaucracy </strong></p><p>Have you ever tried to actually get a building permit? &nbsp;Or have you ever owned a home in Oregon? &nbsp;This editorial seems out of touch with the reality of the modern building department. &nbsp;Lane county, Oregon requires a permit to replace a failed water heater with an identical model, or fix a leaking pipe if more than 5 feet of pipe need replacing. &nbsp;</p><p>
Permits have little to do with safety and everything with skimming profits from the building industry and monitoring homeowners for taxable improvements. &nbsp;I'm not suggesting that shoddy unsafe work doesn't get done in Oregon. &nbsp;Lots of it occurs! &nbsp;But it already occurs outside the permitting process and this measure won't change that. </p><p>
What this measure does offer is simplicity and sanity for those of us who have no interesting in making our homes a firetrap in the first place. &nbsp;This measure also does not exempt homeowners from following the state building code. &nbsp;If new home buyers are worried about improvements, they can pay for inspections at the time of purchase.</p><p>
I say vote YES for 63! &nbsp;Stop letting the government and large contractors regulate the improvements you make to your home.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>