Laserfiche WebLink
involvement in the field of housing. <br /> Ila Trendsin Housing Inspection <br /> - provisions r the inspection of housing have been completely <br /> Historically, local prov�s�ons fo � . <br /> • n has been fit among two or more agencies, and the <br /> inadequate. usually the function � <br /> pertinent code <br /> sections have been spread among several local ordinances. <br /> • ow, minimum code standards were made available and <br /> Following the�rorlc of C.E.A.c �.�►. 1in , <br /> resulted in the passing of <br /> housing codes. This consolidation of housing requirements <br /> - in inspection. Originally much of the work was devoted to <br /> resulted in the field of housing p � <br /> complaint and referral inspections. <br /> A. Complaint and Referral Inspections <br /> � <br /> In most communities the housing inspectors are expected to center their efforts <br /> ' complaint nt and referral inspections. This approach satisfied the persons <br /> pnma niy on colmp a � <br /> and referrals and helps improve some of the municipality's <br /> making the complaints <br /> substandard housing , <br /> . However, it does little to bring about general improvements <br /> • community and actually constitutes an inefficient way of using <br /> �n any section of the com ]� <br /> the available inspection manpower ower because the men have to spend so much time <br /> � <br /> traveling from one area to another. <br /> d inspectors realize this unsystematic method not only wastes <br /> Many supervisors an � First <br /> • effective via of upgrading housing and curbing blight. , <br /> time but also �s an ineffective ]� � <br /> ns the inspectors are usually instructed to confine their <br /> on complaint inspections p . . <br /> • dwelling unitspecifically involved unless the general conditions <br /> investigations to the de � . . <br /> inspection of the entire building is deemed necessary. This <br /> are so bad that an �nspe . <br /> t ins ections are piecemeal and do not ordinarily bring entire <br /> means most complaint � � <br /> dwellings Up to code <br /> standards. Second, even though numerous complaints are <br /> rs are often given so many to check each day that they do not <br /> unwarranted, inspectors � . . . <br /> • other obviously substandard houses in the vicinity of those <br /> have time to inspect oth y . . <br /> • Consequently, these "rotten apples are left to spoil the block, <br /> complained about. cons � ]�, <br /> while the house that has been improved stands alone. <br /> s have found the did not have enough facts on hand <br /> Too often inspection agencies � � • . <br /> distribution of the substandard housing i n their communities. <br /> about the extent and d�s <br /> Thus, they were unable <br /> to convince their superiors and the public about the <br /> t inspections as the major method of uncovering violations <br /> inadequacy of mpla�n p <br /> and checking residential � <br /> ial bli ht in neighborhoods. It is the consensus of housing <br /> ofinspections are the most effective way of doing both. Fortunately, <br /> officials•als that area �nspect�o� <br /> in the 1960's, as one city after another began developing the comprehensive <br /> provided for in the Housing Act of '1959, this information <br /> community renewal plans <br /> finally started to become available. It verified the need for systematic inspections <br /> 5 <br />