Thank you for reaching out to DPIE about this story so that we can explain our perspective and clarify some inaccuracies in previous reporting.

As the building code officials for Prince George’s County, it is our responsibility to ensure anything constructed within the County is safe and adheres to local, state and international building code standards. This is accomplished by our permitting process. The permit application is submitted, reviewed by structural engineers, approved and the construction is then inspected to ensure safety. Our primary goal is to ensure the safety of every citizen through the permitting and code enforcement process.

In this particular case, an inspector saw a ramp in the front of a home, checked permits and determined that it was unpermitted and there had been no safety inspections. This unpermitted construction of the ramp is a violation of Prince George’s County code that was established by lawmakers to ensure that erected structures, such as decks, building additions and ramps are safe because they comply with local, state and international building code standards. Without the proper plans and inspections, there is no way to ensure the ramp is properly anchored, has necessary footings, is properly tied down, has adequate railings, has proper slope and meets all American with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The inspector then contacted the homeowner via mail, as is the standard procedure, and asked them to comply with the permit requirement of plan submission, review and final inspections to ensure the ramp’s safety – or remove it.

For over 10 months, the agency reached out to the homeowners’ adult son numerous times to discuss helping him obtain the permit. Agency personnel, including a permit supervisor, offered to assist him in completing the paperwork if he would come to DPIE’s Largo office with the necessary documents. The son never did that and said he wanted a waiver because he felt he should not have to get a permit because he was planning to move his parents to an assisted living facility.

When the violation was not abated, the issue became a court matter. The homeowners were notified by the court via mail. The parents reached an agreement with the County to end the court case. Meanwhile, DPIE staff continued efforts to get the son to obtain a permit for the ramp. He still did not do so. Instead of working with our staff to obtain the proper permit and safety inspections, he opted to dismantle the ramp. At no time did anyone from this agency remove his ramp. Until he tore it down, DPIE employees offered him assistance to get it permitted so that it could stay put. Our department director, Dr. Haitham Hijazi, assigned an associate director to go to the house and encourage the son to get the permit and to again offer our agency’s assistance in obtaining it, but by the time he arrived, the ramp was removed.

It is important to note that the process to get the permit could have been completed and the permit issued within a few hours. At no time did DPIE staff threaten his parents or remove the ramp. The son opted to do that instead of following the process to obtain a permit and safety inspections for the ramp. In this case, as in any other, the concern is for safety by ensuring that the ramp was built to recognized local, state and international building code standards. These standards are meant to ensure the structures are safe. In this case there was more than 10 months from the initial notice of violation and several attempts from our agency to assist; instead the ramp was removed.

We hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

Please feel free to contact us again if you need additional information.

Sincerely,

Avis Thomas-Lester

A moveable hoop isn’t a permanent structure. Too bad fraud and conversion laws don’t appear to cover government bureaucrats who extort money in situations like that.

My Sister lives in that County. The needed permit is the “Mother May I” permit. A bunch of petty power bureaucrats think they run everything. She was cited a $50 fine for not getting a permit for her son’s basketball hoop. Because they painted a foul circle in their driveway and shadowed where the movable hoop went it was considered a permanent structure.

I’m mystified b as to what permit it would need.

Why in the world would you think that a courthouse is compliant? Government buildings, particularly old government buildings are the least likely to comply. After all, those making the law gave them a pass.
For example: section 508 has been applicable to the federal government, first as guidelines, then as requirements since 1986. Yet today there are internally developed portals, that they require the employees to use which do not comply with the 2000 technical specs and the 2017 version is right out. 😀 So to recap, it’s been a set of required technical specifications since mid 2001, six months after publication, at least with the agency I work for, tools are distributed with the browser to perform checks, and yet the developers using those browsers never even bother to check until someone asks them “how in the heck am I supposed to use this image map”? Those are the easy ones, modifying a building for wheelchair access? Don’t make me laugh. Putting braille directly on touch activated buttons? That really did make me laugh. Fortunately they weren’t launch controls. 😀

But even on its own terms the “should” argument fails. You can bet your bottom dollar that this bureaucracy has bent the rules to help out some favored interest. Which means, of course, that following these silly rules (or I should say silly in this case) isn’t the categorical imperative that they are making it out to be in this case. The smartest thing Alinsky ever said was to hold people to the standards they set for others. It has a real clarifying effect.

Just imagine taking the Alinsky approach to zero tolerance policies–this time with respect to how teachers are disciplined–then ask, well, is it fair to treat kids differently? Or with cops–punch a cop, and you’re getting charged–why wasn’t that the case when the Baltimore cop was beating the crap out of the citizen? Why didn’t the other cop arrest the cop who was doing the illegal bearing? And if you really want to get radical–ask the really hard question–if cops have the right to defend themselves against a beating (often with deadly force) why don’t citizens have the same right when confronted by a cop illegally beating the,?

Prince George’s County, not Montgomery County.