Posted on 08/03/2003 5:57:48 PM PDT by mhking
EBENSBURG, PA-August 3, 2003 — Cindy Lenz purchased an inflatable vinyl pool for about $50 so her family could cool off. Instead, she's steamed because a government agency says she needs a building permit or she could be fined.
Ben Grush, a building inspector for the Cambria-Somerset Council of Governments, which handles zoning for Ebensburg and other municipalities, said inflatable pools have been creating problems.
"Last year, pools like this started popping up all over the place. Some are 36 inches deep, some less. In most jurisdictions, they would be required to be fenced," Grush said.
The Lenz pool is 18 inches deep. Ebensburg's zoning law says that pools deeper than that must be fenced to protect against children falling in.
Grush said the agency is just doing its job. "If a toddler drowns and we haven't done our jobs, we're in between and get the blame," he said.
The Lenzes said they would appeal.
"Who would think that you would need government permission to buy a $49 inflatable at Wal-Mart and put it in your driveway?" said Edward Lenz, Cindy's husband.
I agree! We must be protected from our own poor decisions!
One of my friends has a street that backs his yard and he was concerned about his toddler running out into it. Do you know what the moron did? He put up HIS OWN FENCE to protect HIS KID from the dangers of the world! Everyone knows that YOUR KID is EVERYONE ELSES RESPONSIBILITY rather than YOUR OWN!
Yikes… Sorry for the rant. I just don’t want to live in a Nerf world where I have to view life through a chain link fence either.
This man appears to be suffering an acute case of common sense. You must act fast, as this terrible condition can be contagious!
Have him contact a lawyer or the local city commission, they specialize in cases such as his.
As much as it pains me I'll have to side with the inspector on this one. The "I'll only run the filter when nobody's in the pool" and the "stay outta the pool 'til I get off work" defense just doesn't cut it in this litigation crazy society we live in.
The inspector is doing your friend a favor. It would only take one mishap where the neighborhood punk decides to go pool hoping while the filter is on and ZAP! Your friend has one fried punk in his pool and a major lawsuit on his hands.
I suspect he (or a buddy) could do the electrical work himself and he wouldn't need a licensed electrician. In most locals the inspector doesn't care who did the work. He only checks to see that it was done correctly and up to code.
As for the blow up kiddie pool, I think the building codes would only apply to permanent structures, unless the local government passed some ordinance banning kiddie pools without a permit. If that's the case you have more serious problems than worrying about a permit. It's either time for a recall election or it's time to move.
Don’t worry. We’re having an intervention next week and are going to force him to drink enormous amounts of coffee and watch CNN for three days straight.
That should cure him.
Maybe we should lower the speed limit to 5 miles per hour and require padded bumpers (and streets). The safety of the child certainly isn't the responsibility of the parents, is it?
We got a fence law costing property owners HUNDREDS of MILLIONS when some stupid idiot here in Houston left her two year old unattended and he/she drowned in a neighbor's pool.
Naturally, trying to shift the blame from herself in any way possible, she blamed everybody else. The disgusting thing is the irresponsible b***h got away with in front of our handwringing liberal city council. For her negligence with her child she should have been censured. For hosing her neighbors due to her negligence she should have been hung.
You decide on a case-by-case basis, balancing the risks with the costs (material and otherwise) of reducing the risks.
I don't see why this is such a difficult concept to understand, but no one who's replied to me so far seems to get it.
Right! Risk analysis should be something everyone uses when making important decisions. For example:
I have a kid and am concerned he might run out into the street and get hit by a car, drown in my neighbor’s pool, be attacked by a dog, or kidnapped by a child molester. I think I’ll put up a fence in my back yard.
Why not let the parents be responsible for watching what their kids do? If you feel that you might not be able to keep an eye on them all the time buy a fence for your yard. I’m pretty sure that my pool is not going to wander off my property and drown someone on theirs. No one wants a child to die but inevitably, some will and the cost/risk analysis you cite above, in this instance is an undue liability to a private property owner for his/her neighbors decision to have children.
If you want to make that argument (which may well be correct), you should back it up with facts. How great is the risk of a child drowning in a pool of the size in question? How much does a fence reduce that risk? How expensive is a fence? And so on. Of course, those who argue on the other side should also back their claims up with facts, and the burden of making the case is properly on them to show that the law is needed.
But that isn't an argument I'm interested in having. I was merely arguing the principle that regulation of safety hazards on private property is not necessarily unacceptable (and the remark that raised the hackles of the libertarian radicals was merely that I understood the requirement for a fence, as opposed to the requirement for a building permit).
I think I 'get it' just fine.
It goes something like this:
The lemmings that nowadays pass for Americans can't be bothered to pay attention to the world around them. And the very last thing they will ever do is take responsibility for their own actions. They'll pretend that the world hasn't been and always will be a dangerous place. And when these naive fools bang their knees and stub their toes on the coffeetable of life, they go running and screeching like 3 year olds to mommy and daddy (ie, lawyers and government).
And mommy will say "There there, don't you worry your pretty little heads about that mean old man next door and his swimming pool/fast food/cigarettes/guns/dogs/diving board."
And so we go about 'balancing risks', which is a neat little way of saying trading safety for freedom. And it is assumed that my freedom is there for you to trade (its not). That I can't eat that donut because your @ss is too fat. That I can't have a diving board because you're too stupid to use it correctly. And so on.
And the next thing you know, the entire country is dumbed down and childproofed to the level of two year olds, which of course is justified by socialist medicine - if someone hurts themself, everyone else pays for it. Therefore everyone is going to have a say in your behavior, and they have decided its cheapest for them if you live your life in a straitjacket and are spoon fed gruel before you are sent to bed at a decent hour.
OK. Here’s a fact: I am in the process of paying 10k to have a new fence put up in my back yard. I have a pool but even if I did not I would still have a fence put up because it provides a safe environment for my daughter to play in when I cant pay 100% attention to her. If I did not want to replace the fence at all I would consider it an undue liability to have to shell out that amount of money.
”How great is the risk of a child drowning in a pool of the size in question? How much does a fence reduce that risk? How expensive is a fence?”
How greatly is the risk of a child drowning in any pool diminished if they play in their own fenced in back yard? I’m not saying a fence will not make a big difference in a child’s safety but that in this instance the pool owner should not be the responsible party THE KIDS PARENTS SHOULD BE. I did not decide to have my neighbor’s kids. It was entirely their decision but it’s somehow my responsibility to provide for their safety.
”I was merely arguing the principle that regulation of safety hazards on private property is not necessarily unacceptable (and the remark that raised the hackles of the libertarian radicals was merely that I understood the requirement for a fence, as opposed to the requirement for a building permit).”
I am in favor of enacting safety codes in instances where the potential exists to cause harm to individuals or damage to property beyond one’s own.. That’s where government involvement should end in my opinion.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the idea behind what you are advocating but it’s a little like social entitlement programs. They start for noble, altruistic reasons and wind up becoming a social encumberment with an negative aggregate effect greater than the sum of the problems they purport to correct.
Congrautuliations. You win the big prize.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.