Dear Editor:
People who live, work and play in New Westminster should be concerned, if not afraid. This time not about Ebola or radical extremism, but about our own city government.
Recently I had the opportunity to research New Westminster's Building Bylaw No. 6897, 2003 enacted "to regulate the construction, alteration, repair or demolition of buildings and structures" ... "for the health, safety and protection of persons and property." I found what I was looking for, and something deeply troubling I would never have expected to find.
Sandwiched among the many building bylaw requirements appeared statements disclaiming accountability by the city for the results of some of its most basic and essential building regulation responsibilities. For instance, the city disclaims accountability for the permits it issues; its acceptance of designs, drawings, plans or specifications; its own building inspections; and even compliance with its own bylaws (see Building Bylaw ss. 5.4, 5.5 15.1). Unbelievably, this bylaw explains that its purpose is not intended to protect owners, owner/builders or constructors from economic loss nor intended to provide assurance that construction undertaken pursuant to a city-issued building permit is free from defect, latent or otherwise (see Building Bylaw s. 3.2). But, isn't providing assurance to New Westminster's residents and visitors a purpose of city regulation? If the city doesn't fully assure us of safety before occupancy of a building, who will? Don't we wan t the city's unequivocal assurance that our buildings are safe?
Even having been hardened by almost 40 years of public sector service during which I thought I had seen the worst of bureaucratic self-protection tactics, the city's abrogation of guaranteed due diligence, duty-of-care responsibility and full public accountability in this critical area astounded me. Setting aside that the city would likely not let you, as an individual, refuse accountability for failing to abide by any of its dozens of bylaws, it has somehow found it acceptable to generously exempt itself from its own enactments. Can you imagine a contractor performing construction in your home while claiming that it isn't accountable for the results? Can you imagine telling your boss that you're not accountable for the results of your work? Of course not. It's silly.
We pay taxes to the city. We pay the city for building permits and related services when we want to build a home or business or have construction work done. And, what do we receive from the city in return? Denial of accountability, in advance.
Without strict accountability in building permitting and inspection, very bad things can happen. Imagine this scenario: A newer highrise residential condo building in New West collapses. There are casualties and millions of dollars in losses. Outside investigators find that the constructor had substituted substandard structural materials and taken construction shortcuts to cut costs and increase profits.
They also find that the city had failed to conduct a proper review during permitting and had not identified some very clear indications of the inadequacies during inspections. After losing so much already, those affected by the collapse now learn that the city denies any accountability, citing provisions of Building Bylaw No. 6897, 2003, and plans to use this self-created shield of protection to deny compensation to victims and their families.
Fortunately, this incident did not happen, and hopefully never will, but dangerous structural deficiencies in modern buildings that were attributed, in part, to inadequate building inspections are a reality.
A 30-second Internet search produced multiple examples. Here are just two. Fort McMurray, 2011: Completed in 2003, the Penhorwood Condominium project was ordered for immediate evacuation and later demolition due to the imminent threat of collapse. Leduc, 2012: the Bellavera Green Condo Complex was evacuated due to structural and other building issues, just one year after its first residents moved in during 2011.
Thankfully, these incidents did not involve actual building collapse, but could have resulted in catastrophe because the defects were found not during construction as they should have been, but after occupancy. Although the defects were caught before disaster could strike, the debacles resulted in high costs and major disruption to residents and others that could have been avoided.
Now, we don't know for certain whether these incidents can be traced directly to government-enacted denial of accountability, but it would not be an unrealistic stretch to conceive of less than full due diligence performance by municipal or other government employees/contractors and their leaders responsible for building regulation, knowing well that bylaws could serve to protect them from any accountability for the outcomes of their work. Today it's generally accepted that when people and their employers are held accountable for the results of their work, they perform to a far higher standard.
I expect that some may try to deny, spin or deflect this serious issue or discredit the writer's findings as false, or the possibilities as nothing more than fear mongering. The best way for you to evaluate the truth is to read the bylaw, and particularly the sections I've cited, then decide for yourself if the city's self-exception from accountability is acceptable to you. Building Bylaw No. 6897, 2003 is available from the city's website or at city hall. Understand that I'm not calling for a return to the draconian provisions of the Code of Hammurabi (3000 BC) in which the penalty when someone was killed in a building collapse was death to those responsible, but what I would like to see is full acceptance of accountability on the part of the city and its personnel involved in building permitting and inspection, no exceptions.
In the event the city's leaders haven't heard, the days of sovereign, or crown, immunity are over. Government has to be held to at least the same standard of accountability that it demands of its citizens and residents.
Before I studied the city's bylaw, I was non-committal as to who should lead our city government. Now, after consideration of this seriously anti-constituent provision of the law and leery that there may be more of the same in other city bylaws, I believe it's time for a change at the top in the upcoming election. We need a leader who will ensure that city government is fully accountable to its residents and who will accept full responsibility for its actions.
Steve Hales, New Westminster
