« Wednesday Links DoBro's Average Household Income to Double? »
May 7, 2008
Should the DOB be Abolished? Builders Think So
At a City Council hearing yesterday on improving safety at construction sites, reps from the real estate industry and construction unions called for the Department of Buildings to be shut down, according to an article in the Times. Builders want the DOB to be replaced by a public corporation charged with overseeing construction. “The Buildings Department is collapsing under the weight of its own reform,” said Louis J. Coletti, president of the Building Trades Employers’ Association. Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, said the corporation would “do more to protect the safety of the public, as well as construction workers, than most of the 12 bills submitted at the Council.” Those bills, which were also discussed yesterday, include a proposal to have the DOB appoint independent safety inspectors at the expense of developers for sites with a history of violations. Robert LiMandri, the acting DOB commissioner, endorsed the independent inspector idea but is against a bill proposed by Councilmember Letitia James that would involve setting up a “whistleblower’s hot line.”
Many Propose Ways to Make Construction Sites Safer [NY Times]
Photo by Boon Wuldenhoos
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4799
Comments
I fail to see why a private organization would do anything hut the industries bidding. The Fanny May has not done the public right and a private group supervising the industry would just come up with excuses why injuries are inevitable and always the employees fault.
Personally I think the supervising of construction should be moved to the Fire department (with the addition of appropriate experts and training) after all its they who die when the buildings aren't properly built or maintained.
Also a private organization would give the electeds out saying we don't supervise. It only means that you can pay the people at the private agency more and get the same poor result. The DOB has allowed the industry to self certify and its been one disaster after another-literally!
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 9:08 AM
Oh I bet builders want the DOB shut down. I've had my share of headaches with the DOB as a homeowner, but that doesn't remotely sound like a good idea. It'll last as long as it takes a bunch of people to die in some horrible way as a result of chnaged or unenforced building code.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 9:52 AM
The DOB is actually part of, or presided over by, the Fire Department.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 9:54 AM
classic shit. if they privatize DOB all hell will break loose.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 9:54 AM
Tish James wants to set up a hotline? A hotline? Great solution. As if any construction site insider doesn't know they could already call any number of people - hopefully including her own office - if they know of a problem. What an idiot.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 10:18 AM
As much as I currently loathe the DoB, I don't think a complete shutdown would solve anything. It would certainly cause more chaos than there already seems to be. The problem is the bureaucracy, not the agency itself. What needs to happen is a streamlining of their processes that will result in average folks trying to do relatively small projects (i.e. interior walls, etc.) NOT being forced to spend exorbitant amounts of cash on expeditors just to get things done within three months.
I am one of the "average folks" that I'm referring to. I have recently rented a commercial space in Gowanus with the intention of building practice studios for musicians. We started construction a few weeks ago, and were building interior walls, all up to code. We did not, however, have permits. Due to a complaint that was filed back in January about our neighbor tenants (they have a security guard living illegally and were reported for it), DoB came and slapped us with a Stop Work Order. Since then (last Monday), I've had to shell out $2500 for an architect, $2500 for an expeditor, and the fine is going to be $5500. So, about ten grand just to build some rooms. I was under the impression that the DoB's latest tear was more about luxury condos, not small business people who are doing their best to do things right while staying under the radar. Ugh.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 10:33 AM
Translation: We want to go back to the "old" ways of running the construction business in Brooklyn.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 10:34 AM
Exactly, 10:34. We know who would staff this "corporation". If we can call them a corporation.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 10:52 AM
newsflash: foxes urge dismantling of henhouse! walls and door "inefficient," says president of foxes.
what do they mean by a "public corporation." as in, publicly owned, by shareholders? i can't imagine a bigger disaster than that. if they mean something else, i fail to see how that would remedy the problems at the DoB, and i notice they don't provide a single example of how it would do so (in the article, at least).
Posted by: i disagree at May 7, 2008 10:55 AM
Dear 10:33 - did you ever think that you were running a commercial venture that would have various members of the public walking through your space cosuming large quantities of potentially dangerous electricity. It was right to get fined. Think about public safety. I suppose you don't believe in insurance as well.
Doing away with the DOB is a ill conceived idea. The Dept. has its problems but so doesn't every other agency. Abolishing it won't make things easier.
Guliani wanted to make the DOB part of the Fire Dept. That was also a bad idea. If anything the FD is even more ill prepared to deal with it. Their building planning division is a disaster.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 12:57 PM
Things are finally starting to turn for the better and developers want to pull the plug. Just about every new building in the South Slope has a stop work order in place now or in the very recent past due to inferior excavation/foundation/underpinning work. Knowing that the DoB has their eyes open and special enforcement teams are making surprize inspections, why would contractors continue working in ways that place the public and property in danger? Because the Environmental Control Board is the real joke. Start collecting those $5000 fines and maybe we will see improvement! For the DIY @ 10:33, NO ONE pays the full penalty... NO ONE.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 1:24 PM
all those who oppose the FD what is your idea?-its NOT under the FD now. The FD does some fire related inspections but it would IMO be better under one roof with training and properly certified employees. What is your solution-the status quo? The DOB is terrible. Ripe with corruption and inefficiencies. To the person who was fined without permits---in most states they would arrest you for not getting the required permits. The DOB should get those who violate stop work orders arrested. None of this fine nonsense. You will see it stop when they start putting violators in jail!
Sid from Brooklyn
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 1:30 PM
12:57:
Of course we thought of that. We have insurance on the space. As I mentioned, we have done everything up to code, and would have continued to do so until finished. We have already made the structure of the building much stronger by virtue of what we've done. Thanks for your concern, though, shrouded as it was in a veil of contempt.
1:24:
Not sure I get your full meaning.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 2:28 PM
"Builders want the DOB to be replaced by a public corporation charged with overseeing construction."
Like the Port Authority? YIKES!!!!
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 2:29 PM
Sid
They DO arrest people who violate SWOs, it says it right on the violation. Plus, this is NYC: DoB is a tremendous bureaucracy, and because of that, most people try to sidestep them to avoid headaches and spending wads of cash. For a big developer, that cash may not be a big deal, but to someone like 10:33 (music studio guy), those fines and extra costs could sink his startup business, and for what? A few interior walls? If they're not even structural, his GC should be able to just apply for the work permit and slap them up without having to get architectural plans approved first.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 2:34 PM
"We did not, however, have permits."
So you got fined. I mean, the system is definitely onerous, but your complaints are far less than valid considering you didn't exactly follow the rules yourself.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 3:06 PM
I think the poster is more questioning the basis of the rules themselves than complaining that he got caught.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 5:51 PM
"I think the poster is more questioning the basis of the rules themselves than complaining that he got caught."
Yeah, I realize this. My point is that it's somewhat disingenuous to break the rules, get caught, and then assert the rules have no validity. Had he followed the rules to the letter, he'd have a better ethical position from which to criticize the process.
Posted by: guest at May 7, 2008 6:33 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.