We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Rob Roberts • 2 months ago

I love Frederick Melo's articles!

Steve Carlson • 2 months ago

So how does this help the numerous people who have been hurt by the city's wrongful enforcement? What about all the people who lost their homes because the could not afford the costly repairs and had the place torn down?

lostoncampus • 2 months ago

code doesnt prevent someone from affording repairs.

stormyweather1 • 2 months ago

So long as the sellers are required to disclose those areas in which historical compliance falls short of current standards, this would seem to be a very reasonable approach.

Opinionsarejustthat • 2 months ago

Good point. I've had 3 major home improvement projects over the years and found the inspectors to be friendly, professional and accommodating.

Raj Beekie • 2 months ago

Coming soon. Tenant sues landlord and city after suffering injuries because rental was not up to code when compared with newer houses.

lostoncampus • 2 months ago

tenant cant sue, as they woud be aware the house's age. 100 year old houses dont have the same code as newer houses. Read the story again, FAil!

Raj Beekie • 2 months ago

Hi lostoncampus, The things you have mentioned has never stopped people from suing. Yes, I did read the story.

Tronald Dumbp • 2 months ago

The City of St Paul, through its fire department, has been guilty of over reach for decades. They have adopted a jack booted approach to code enforcement that is not only unfair but has been found to be illegal. They haven't followed modern building code philosophy but have adopted a scorched earth policy that gave not credits to compliance with earlier codes. They should have been sued repeatedly over this concept. Kudos to BAMN for their efforts on this issue.

Akicita • 2 months ago

This is great news, since my house was built in 1911 and I've put off some improvements because I didn't want to deal with the expenses of bringing the house up to code on other, non-related issues. I was told I would need to put in new smoke detectors throughout the house just because I wanted to replace a basement entry door. Huh? What's with that? Now maybe I'll go ahead and do it.

lostoncampus • 2 months ago

a door? Dont bother calling ANYONE- go buy it, put it in = DONE.

I LOVE the change for driveways too - Ive had the "code Nazi's" issue me a couple "move/fix it or we'll Fine your A**" declarations telling me to move my truck 3 feet forward, so it was 100% on blacktop. Im going home soon to move it back where I WANT it, and clear up room for my 2nd vehicle.

Jim Rockford • 2 months ago

You will still be required to install smoke detectors an CO alarms, as that is state code.

Sandmannd • 2 months ago

Not to mention these are for the safety of you and your family. Regardless of law, you should always have working Smoke Detectors in your home.

permalink • 2 months ago

I will be the one determining what is **safe** in my home and what my **needs** are.

Radio Cameron • 2 months ago

I hope you are enjoying living in your yurt.

permalink • 2 months ago

Actually I live in a 2 bdrm/ 2 bath farm house in the sticks built by my Great-Grandfather in 1936. He didn't have a smoke-detector either...

Gary Stephanson • 2 months ago

Yet another area government should not be involved in.