JC Love Field to Remain in Same Location

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgpix

Timeliness repair work involving FEMA and state government is apparently a SLOW pain in the arse.

---

I talked with Ronny Walker, Ruston Mayor, two weeks ago and this definitely is the case. You can't even move out the destroyed crappola yet without approval. And we, on purpose, swamped them all with correct data and photos etc.. to plead our various cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techman05

HD, you are absolutely right. There have also been reports that Ruston has been slow to grant permits or has refused them all together unless properties are brought up to current code. Highly illegal, but people aren’t fighting it. Just leaving places vacant.

---

Why do you say it’s highly illegal to require bringing the structure up to current code?

They are required to restore a structure to pre storm condition. If you make additions or change the footprint, you may have to bring the entire structure up to code. Depending on the level of insurance coverage individuals carry, many would have to come out of pocket a large sum if required to bring up to current code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techman05

They are required to restore a structure to pre storm condition. If you make additions or change the footprint, you may have to bring the entire structure up to code. Depending on the level of insurance coverage individuals carry, many would have to come out of pocket a large sum if required to bring up to current code.

---

I understood a permit office will require a rebuild or substantial repair job to conform to current local accepted building codes which can substantially increase the cost. This cost is paid by the homeowner; however, individuals have the choice of have paid extra insurance premiums to cover the extra cost to bring the home up to current code requirements in situations where there was an insurable loss.

I guess I'm asking, is there a Federal or State law you know of that says the local permit office can only require the owner to build/repair the property back to pre-storm condition rather than current building code? Is that exemption specific to natural disasters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgBark

I understood a permit office will require a rebuild or substantial repair job to conform to current local accepted building codes which can substantially increase the cost. This cost is paid by the homeowner; however, individuals have the choice of have paid extra insurance premiums to cover the extra cost to bring the home up to current code requirements in situations where there was an insurable loss.

I guess I'm asking, is there a Federal or State law you know of that says the local permit office can only require the owner to build/repair the property back to pre-storm condition rather than current building code? Is that exemption specific to natural disasters?

---

I honestly don’t know the law concerning this. This information is second hand from individuals I trust at their word that Ruston inspectors are severely overstepping. I can try to find out.

One of my houses suffered severe damage from a tornado, mostly a large oak tree was tossed through the house! My insurance company did its thing and agreed to pay my contractor $X (less the deductible) to make repairs. Separately I negotiated with my contractor to make changes to the house. No problem! The insurance company sent its check and I made up the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

One of my houses suffered severe damage from a tornado, mostly a large oak tree was tossed through the house! My insurance company did its thing and agreed to pay my contractor $X (less the deductible) to make repairs. Separately I negotiated with my contractor to make changes to the house. No problem! The insurance company sent its check and I made up the difference.

---

I don't believe this discussion is concerning what the insurance company will or won't do. That payment is based on the insurance contract. Sounds like this has to do with local building permits and perhaps the zoning laws being different for rebuilding/repairing. This is an interesting situation.

Heard on situation about a local business that was seeking permits to complete repairs. This business was not permitted to complete the repair because city inspectors told them the zoning had changed for that area. The law states that as long as the business is there, it is grandfathered in as legal-non conforming. By law, they can rebuild the business in the existing footprint without violating any laws. They chose not to fight it and are relocating outside the city limits, so those tax dollars are no longer going to city coffers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techman05

Heard on situation about a local business that was seeking permits to complete repairs. This business was not permitted to complete the repair because city inspectors told them the zoning had changed for that area. The law states that as long as the business is there, it is grandfathered in as legal-non conforming. By law, they can rebuild the business in the existing footprint without violating any laws. They chose not to fight it and are relocating outside the city limits, so those tax dollars are no longer going to city coffers.

---

The capitalist in me can see the advantage to such an ordinance/zoning law. The intent of such an ordinance is to prevent a seedy looking structure from going back up among some expensive and nice looking investment property. This is the only way our down town areas can be rehabbed for the long term in most instances. FWIW, I like what Ruston is doing so far, but I'm sure some of the businesses like you describe above would do things correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

The capitalist in me can see the advantage to such an ordinance/zoning law. The intent of such an ordinance is to prevent a seedy looking structure from going back up among some expensive and nice looking investment property. This is the only way our down town areas can be rehabbed for the long term in most instances. FWIW, I like what Ruston is doing so far, but I'm sure some of the businesses like you describe above would do things correctly.

---

You'll be sporting a Bernie bumper sticker by Thanksgiving ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Champ967

You'll be sporting a Bernie bumper sticker by Thanksgiving ...

---

I knew my post would draw out a certain element.

We have had several instances when trailer houses have been condemned and the zoning has changed to exclude trailers in that area. Someone building a new structure must meet all new zoning and code restrictions. I completely support that type of regulation. However, situations like the one I described only cast a negative light on the city. Now, the city will lose tax revenue and a broken down structure will remain an eyesore for as long as the current owner chooses to allow it to sit there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techman05

We have had several instances when trailer houses have been condemned and the zoning has changed to exclude trailers in that area. Someone building a new structure must meet all new zoning and code restrictions. I completely support that type of regulation. However, situations like the one I described only cast a negative light on the city. Now, the city will lose tax revenue and a broken down structure will remain an eyesore for as long as the current owner chooses to allow it to sit there.

---

I understand, but exceptions can't be part of the decision process. Otherwise, the federal guys come calling. There is likely an ordinance built in somewhere that forces the property owner to clean up the debris of the eyesore. That is a typical restriction, but some towns/cities have a longer process of getting things cleaned up than others. Also, if FEMA is still out there waffling around, property owners likely can't make a decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

I understand, but exceptions can't be part of the decision process. Otherwise, the federal guys come calling. There is likely an ordinance built in somewhere that forces the property owner to clean up the debris of the eyesore. That is a typical restriction, but some towns/cities have a longer process of getting things cleaned up than others. Also, if FEMA is still out there waffling around, property owners likely can't make a decision.

---

All true as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cal&Ken

I have heard that many people were unable to get permits to repair houses and simply walked away as well. It will take years to repair the damage done by that storm. It is sad to see!

---

It's usually the job of the contractor to pull a permit since they're ultimately responsible for meeting code requirements. If they're having issues getting one, then it falls on the contractor's shoulders to explain why. Have you heard any explanations as to why, and do you know if it's the same contractor?