Jump to content

Anybody got info on NY legislation


Recommended Posts

I have heard that the NY legislature passed a bill for a Licensing law in NY. I gave it a quick read and it seems that grandfathering will require 3 years (counting from 1 year after the governor signs the bill into law) AND 350 inspections. Does anybody have any other details or info? My guess is that this will cut down on competition. Has it done so in other states? Have you guys who made grandfathering requirements seen a big financial benefit? I did not look too closely at the requirements for people starting out but it looks like 96 hours of class, testing, 75 accompanied inspections and then 250 "supervised". How has this affected people in other states?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No info for you from out here but that's one serious old boy's network you will soon have. That's about a year working for somebody else's firm with no hope whatsoever starting out as an independent. Let's see 96 hours in the company class room for about $5K, 75 tag along inspections and then 250 supervised inspections which will no doubt be "drive by" supervised for the most part. Maybe in the name of fairness get paid a $40K salary for the whole year with a 5 year no compete clause. Somebody's been asleep. Sounds like the big players had some powerful advocacy or the unions want a piece of this action.

The math....325x$400=$130,000+$5,000(training)-$40,000(salary)=$95K gross per head Not bad considering a staff of 4 could crank these clones out like popcorn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sort of like the 3 years requirement for grandfathering, but not the 350 inspections. There are always those who try to jump in at the last minute to slide under the grandfather line, but 3 years....? The 350 flat-out favors big-market players and BUCKETHEADS who get steady numbers from thier crooked realtor cohorts.

I like the 96 hours and the testing, but I'd rather see the testing apply to everyone ("Grandfathers" included). If Grandpa can't pass the test, maybe he needs the training too.

The rest of it stinks to high heaven. That kind of thing has been implemented in other states, not to the benefit of anyone as far as I can tell, except those already "in". Asking existing inspectors to train their soon-to-be competitors is totally counter-intuitive, unless one plans to take advantage of them. I wouldn't do it.

I hope ASHI wasn't a prime mover in this legislation, but it wouldn't surprize me a bit.

Pete, did NY have any law on the books previously, or was it wide open?

It seems to me there were some previous threads here about New Jersey and/or Pennsylvania having problems with this "mentoring" set-up, try the archives.

Brian G.

The Wretched Scent of Protectionism Wafts Through the Air... [:-yuck]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NY state did not have any law previoulsy although a few counties had their own.

I must admit that we are not that worried since we meet the requirements. I do feel badly for the people that are close and have invested in real tools and a legit education and background. But I am also glad there will some elimination fo the hacks with a clipboard and a flashlight that are out there ripping people off with impunity. I wish the law had more consumer protection like MA but it is better than nothing.

As for the mentoring many professions require it (plumbing, real estate agent, doctors) but training the competition does seem weird.

I think Chris Prickett posted a reasonable fee schedule for training someone. I think if the trainee paid for the 75 accompanied and then was paid by the trainer for the 250 "supervised" that would be fair to all parties. For example Trainee pays $100 per inspection for the 75 and then they go out on their own and I pay them $150 per inspection, maybe a little more if they get referrals or similar type incentives.

I has to be put in place, there will never be a law that is favorable to inspectors an dthe public each side has to give a little..

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing. It gets me when these states go from having nothing (any jackass with a ladder and maybe a box of cards) to a law that will stymie all but the most determined AND well-heeled newbies. 96 hours of training, $7500 (or whatever) for the mentor, plus the lost difference on the next 250 inspections, tools, cards & brochures, website, etc., etc., etc....ouch. Straight from one extreme to the other, damn that middle ground.

Brian G.

God Bless MS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Mike and all,

The Gov did sign the bill. He (the Department of State actually) wants to change some language which he can do via a "chapter amendment". We (NYSAHI) can still kill this thing if needed. The changes all make sense except the apparent desire to license or register the HI companies. This need to be further clarified as the franchise companies appear to be pleased with the change.

Tom Corrigan, from the state that still doesn't license anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian G. I kind of take offense to the remark that to have 350 inspections in 3 years you are a buckethead. 350 is a about 1 year of inspections for me and "I aint no buckethead". Real Estate agent referrals make up less than 50% of my business. You and only you have total control of the volume of your business (along with market conditions) I have a guy in a local chapter who said he converts 1 out of 20 phone calls into an inspection. I book at least 9 out of 10 phone calls. I wish I had more competition like him. Seeya in San Antonio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike and all,

We will be conducting another NYSAHI conference call on monday night. The purpose is to develop a direction on changes to the makeup of the council and also the DOS desire to control the Companies.

My best guess is that neither will be a deal killer, however there are greater minds than mine looking at this thing.

The effective date will be Jan 1, 2005 for those that are interested.

I,ll post any info I can.

Tom Corrigan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm biased.

I'll probably sneak past the minimum requirements for grandfathering and I feel rather secure in that knowledge. But, I am aware that there are quite a few shylocks that will also be grandfathered and that makes me ambiguous.

On Monday I inspected a home that I wrote 20 pages of expensive defects and improper installations only to find out that on the previous Saturday another inspector had given the structure a clean bill of health.

I'm pretty sure this will be my first appearance in court as an expert witness, and the opposition has 2,000 inspections under their belt.

I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, late November in Rochester is so scenic. Can you say "gray"?

I'll know in a week or so which inspector had the biggest uhhh... which inspector seemed more credible. If it's not me, I may pay for your ticket myself; I have thirty pounds of tenderloin in the freezer and I can grill it to perfection.

All the trades have been called in to see who's correct and which one of us is a REALTOR kissing, fair to the house, needs glasses kind of guy.

Screw them. I'm right and it's inarguable. At least I hope it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by hausdok

Hmmm,

I just read a newspaper article from Rochester where they say all HI's in business will be grandfathered. Does this mean that if someone has been doing inspections wrong for 20 years that nobody is going to catch it and get him/her straightened out, so that everyone is playing off the same sheet of music?

Seems like any meaningful licensing needs to have a uniform baseline of competency to begin with and there is no way to know with grandfathering based on time in business or number of inspections, whether the inspector is competent or a knucklehead.

Any ideas on this?

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Welcome to the wonderful world of licensing. This can all be explained with one sentence.

Politicians don't put voters out of business.

This is only the beginning. Wait until **** gets in there and starts trying to watering it all down so that anyone can be a state approved licensed home inspector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

First let me say i'm happy without licensing. If licensing is to come it must be as meaningfull as we can make it.

Many of the "blind guys" exist in NYS because the buyers only recourse for a bad inspection is litigation. There are provisions in this law that allow for the DOS to revoke a license. This can't be a bad thing.

If only we were as successfull as Dennis R. in the great state of taxichussetts.

Tom Corrigan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tom Corrigan

Mark,

First let me say i'm happy without licensing. If licensing is to come it must be as meaningfull as we can make it.

Many of the "blind guys" exist in NYS because the buyers only recourse for a bad inspection is litigation. There are provisions in this law that allow for the DOS to revoke a license. This can't be a bad thing.

If only we were as successfull as Dennis R. in the great state of taxichussetts.

Tom Corrigan

I agree, it should be meaningful. I just don't have a lot of faith in the process. My lack of faith is based on experience. For example, has licensing of (fill in a profession here) in your state put the bums and crooks out of business?

I didn't think so. Now I'm sure that SOME of them have been eliminated, and that's a good thing, but at what cost to honest guys like you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Originally posted by Jeff Remas

Brian G. I kind of take offense to the remark that to have 350 inspections in 3 years you are a buckethead. 350 is a about 1 year of inspections for me and "I aint no buckethead".

A thousand pardons Brother Remas, I should have qualified that statement with "in my area". I would note however that I said the number favored big market players and bucketheads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for your suggestion of peer review and competence testing. The problem is trying to police the process. The peer review board would, by necessity, be employees of the state. Just working for the state requires a 50 point IQ drop. The other issue is keeping the review process clean and objective. There's a lot of room for pocket padding there, especially if the review is done by an individual rather than a board.

Possibly, the review board could be made up of a pool of inspectors that had to fulfill an obligation..like jurors to make sure the applicant had the right stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...