LETTERS: CAUTION ON CITY CODES

To the editor:

Three cheers for Councilman Richard Eggiman for having the courage to speak out against the latest version of the BOCA Code and for the Missourian for reporting the issue on the front page where an item of such importance belongs.

The Building Officials and Code Administrators Code has grown from a small pamphlet of 20 years ago to today's complex, unfathomable conglomeration of charts, legalese and mumbo jumbo which runs several hundred pages long. It is so complicated there is often disagreement on what it all means, even among city staff who sometimes have to get another opinion from city hall. Worse, the code gets bigger and more convoluted year by year as rules are piled on top of rules.

The code becomes city ordinance when the City Council officially adopts it, a process which occurs every three years. The problem is the code has become too complex for most people -- including well-intentioned councilmen and city staff -- to understand, so those communities that use the code often just rubber stamp it into law. That's when the real problems begin.

When blindly enforced, the code deprives citizens of privileges they take for granted, stymies growth of the community and can even deprive senior citizens of a retirement lifestyle they have worked decades for.

Take Mr. Smith, for example, a mythical jeweler I invented to illustrate my point. Smith took over the family jewelry business on Main Street 30 years ago when his father retired. The spacious apartment above the store where Mr. Smith lived as a child is now rented out to newlyweds and generates $4,800 annually for Smith. Smith wants to retire and sell his building to Mr. Jones, a faithful employee these past 15 years.

Jones sings the purchase agreement and becomes the new owner. He goes down to city hall to apply for his business license but is informed that the city must inspect the building before a license will be granted. In a few days, a representative from the city shows up at the jewelry store, looks around and says something like, "Oh, Mr. Jones, this building is out of compliance with the BOCA Code. You'll have to make changes. You can't have people living upstairs (a $4,800 annual loss) unless you build a fire-separation ceiling, install fire doors and get it all certified by an architect. Then you'll have to install emergency lighting and emergency exit signs, a fire escape, more fire extinguishers and more smoke alarms and have the wiring inspected and the furnace inspected and ... ." The list can go on an on, depending on the circumstances.

All of a sudden Smith's retirement dream and Jones' business opportunity have evaporated because their own city has effectively made their building obsolete. Mr. Jones needed that $4,88 rental income to make the deal work, and he doesn't have the money to make all the changes demanded by the city. Smith and Jones don't understand how a building can suddenly become uninhabitable. They feel betrayed.

Lots of people feel betrayed these days by various city codes and regulations. Zoning is another example. Sometimes, for the benefit of the city, a neighborhood is rezoned from residential to commercial, but then the city refuses to allow commercial operations on the property. The city claims that, despite the commercial zoning, the building or the property boundary or the parking situation or any number of things are such that a commercial operation is not permissible. The hapless property owner learns that his house doesn't make a very good home any longer because his street is now a four-lane thoroughfare, but neither can he use it for commercial purposes. He's in limbo.

Reading this, our city staff will say, "But the code and zoning make the city safer," and they are right. But I will echo Mr. Eggiman's sentiments: "How safe is enough?" Absolute safety can never be attained. Driving slower is probably safer than driving faster, but walking is safer still. Do we outlaw driving? Newer cars are safer than older cars. Do we outlaw older cars? Why, then are we outlawing older buildings?

City Inspector Rick Murray would like to see more fire prevention as opposed to fire extinguishing, he told me recently when I visited his office. An admirable undertaking. Our fire department spends much of its resources informing the public about fire and safety hazards on the premise that a more educated community is a safer community. Another commonsense approach.

But our city goes too far when it denies a citizen the use of his property merely because it does not meet newer standards. Isn't Cape Girardeau making laws retroactive when it forces citizens to modify older buildings to meet current building standards? What happened to the grandfather concept which many other cities utilize?

I'm glad Mr. Eggiman is asking commonsense questions and resisting piling yet another layer of regulations on our backs. Architects, engineers, the legal system and the insurance industry have made the United States the safest place in the world to live and work and will continue to do so, code or no code.

Let's use common sense. Cape Girardeau has a reputation as a difficult place to build, expand or purchase a business or home. Let's find out why, and let's do something about it. We have a new city manager and a pro-active, diverse City Council. The time is right to reverse the trend. The city can begin by adopting a grandfather clause for older/historic buildings. Secondly, it should allow buildings which have been zoned commercial to be used commercially.

STEVE ROBERTSON

Cape Girardeau