It sounds too good to be true, and it may be...
What's good for Roy Carroll
is good for John Hammer to write about.
...building inspections – allowing developers to use licensed private inspectors rather than the city or county employees who perform them now.
who helped cause the last financial crises.
...As long as the private inspectors are enforcing the same regulations, whether they work for the government or a private company shouldn’t make a big difference.
The financial industry regulates itself.
How has that worked out?
According to [Roy Carroll, Marty Kotis, Koury, Lomax, Griffin etc...'s] plan being considered, cities and counties could charge the same inspection fees that they do now, but builders could pay a private firm to perform and sign off on the inspections.
Since the firm would have to be licensed by the state and would risk losing that license, and thus its livelihood, if it passed work that was not up to code, the private inspectors could be considered less likely to pass work that was not up to code than government employees who have a job for life unless they commit some heinous crime while on the clock.
...A private inspector would have all the incentive of private enterprise. A private inspector who got the reputation of not showing up on time wouldn’t stay in business long.
A private inspector who doesn't pass everything
would be out of business quicker.
...Private inspectors would allow the government to run a much more efficient operation since the big projects [for Roy, Marty, Lomax etc...] would tend to use private inspectors. But the government inspectors would still be available at the same price for anyone who wanted to use them.
...Private inspectors would have good reason to work with builders to operate within the code but to push the envelope and see what could be done.
Private inspectors would have good reason
to do what Roy, Marty, Lomax etc... are told to do,
even if it's illegal/wrong/unethical
to make our "big project" folks richer
by letting them cut corners on safety and cost.
Government inspectors have no incentive to allow anyone to try anything new, even if it would be better than doing things the way they have always been done."