S. 67 Tying the hands of the homeowner
March 8 Labor, Commerce, & Industry Committee
S. 67 is a bill that prohibits an unlicensed installer from purchasing heating & air equipment from a distributor. On the other hand, it criminalizes a distributor from selling equipment to an individual unless they are licensed.
I have decided not to support S. 67 for a number of reasons. Most importantly, LLR is not doing a satisfactory performance of regulating licensed installers and the investigation of un-licensed installers. S. 67 placed an additional burden on LLR by forcing the agency to be responsible for distributors as well. Currently, LLR cannot enforce regulations on an unlicensed entity. So, this bill must contain a plan to license distributors. This new regulation will only exacerbate problems and will not protect the public. Possibly LLR needs more resources to implement current regulations?
S. 67 will impose liability on the distributor. What kinds of records should be expected of distributors? Should we hold the distributor responsible for lapsed licensing, or forged documents? This will surely lead to the inclusion of distributors in tort cases involving improper installations.
Also, S. 67 does not permit a homeowner from purchasing HVAC equipment for installation on his or her own home. I agree that those in the business of residential installations should be licensed; yet a homeowner should be permitted to attempt this or any other kind of improvement. A tremendous encroachment on individual freedom is imposed in this legislation. I am not aware of any other law that ties the hands of the homeowner. This will definitely lead us down a slippery slope. What’s next? Water heaters? Plumbing supplies? Light bulbs? Should the safety squad outlaw individuals from working on their car?
I have always been very skeptical of new government regulation, simply because it increases the scope of government leading to increased overhead in the market. The public ultimately suffers, as new regulation usually lead to increased costs.
“Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government.” Milton Friedman
Fortunately, the chairman of the subcommittee, Sen. Danny Verdin, was wise enough to make the motion that this bill be recommitted to subcommittee for further review.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
doesn’t an unenforceable regulation create more problems than it would solve?
March 9th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
doesn’t an unenforceable regulation create more problems than it would solve?
March 10th, 2007 at 1:20 am
It seems to me that some folks in columbia put in bills just to have something to do.
I think this is one of them. It is stupid. Government should not be responsible for protecting us from ourselves.
March 10th, 2007 at 1:20 am
It seems to me that some folks in columbia put in bills just to have something to do.
I think this is one of them. It is stupid. Government should not be responsible for protecting us from ourselves.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Shades of a bill to require dining establishments to offfer soda straws only indivudually wrapped. Some of these would seem to be things better handled by regualtory agencies with oversight than by fiat from the legislature.
The heating and air folks already have enough spurious regulations over refrigerants thanks to bad science apparently coupled with a multinationals patent on freon R-12. Al Gores estate probably generates enough ozone to replenish any depletion in the upper atmosphere (though EPA still considers the ozone as a pollutant go fig!)
March 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Shades of a bill to require dining establishments to offfer soda straws only indivudually wrapped. Some of these would seem to be things better handled by regualtory agencies with oversight than by fiat from the legislature.
The heating and air folks already have enough spurious regulations over refrigerants thanks to bad science apparently coupled with a multinationals patent on freon R-12. Al Gores estate probably generates enough ozone to replenish any depletion in the upper atmosphere (though EPA still considers the ozone as a pollutant go fig!)
March 13th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
What about in condos? I see a real problem with allowing unlicensed self-installation in condos. The whole building could burn down. In a neighborhood, that’s less likely and only the self-installer is in jeopardy. And his kids, I guess.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
What about in condos? I see a real problem with allowing unlicensed self-installation in condos. The whole building could burn down. In a neighborhood, that’s less likely and only the self-installer is in jeopardy. And his kids, I guess.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Kevin,
Well thought through response. I think your options for not supporting this bill are valid. Over-regulation leads to frustration and loss of personal freedoms. And in the end result if legislation such as the noted bill is passed it does lead to a slippery slope where people are not allowed to think for themselves or apply practical common-sense solutions to problems. Rather, they develop a hand-out philospohy which is opposite of what our founding fathers desired for our country.
Keep up the critical thinking,
Graham
March 21st, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Kevin,
Well thought through response. I think your options for not supporting this bill are valid. Over-regulation leads to frustration and loss of personal freedoms. And in the end result if legislation such as the noted bill is passed it does lead to a slippery slope where people are not allowed to think for themselves or apply practical common-sense solutions to problems. Rather, they develop a hand-out philospohy which is opposite of what our founding fathers desired for our country.
Keep up the critical thinking,
Graham