EDITORIAL

We dontt need it, we dontt want it

Should retailers be held responsible when therr customers fail to take out a permit or make an unsafe repair? Some building officials think so and have been launching trial balloons to float the idea.

It isn't hard to guess the retailers' response to such ideas. Another layer of government regulation is the last thing they want. "Even if we could ensure our customers' compliance, we don't want to," one told us.

Code officials admit that it's hardly a secret that a lot of work gets done without the benefit of a building permit. They feel, with some justification, that public safety would be improved if they cast their official eye and approval on that new room addition, for example. Code officials say they just want to make sure everything is made as safe as possible because some amateurs simply don't know what they're doing.

So far, so good. Nobody is against public safety. But why should this extensive responsibility be dumped on the already burdened back of the retailer?

DAVID CUTLER publisbcr

"It's none of our business as to what (customers) are doing. Technically, it's not our responsibility," says Jerry Shields, a spokesman for Home Depot. He notes their stores provide products that meet local building codes and can be used by amateur builders. "We wouldn't sell something that could only be installed by a licensed electrician." He adds, "Our responsibility is to make sure people aren't taking on something they can't handle."

If, as some code officials claim, all they want is to present a short class for clerks on when building permits are needed, that's one thing. If, however, the underlying purpose of their public suggestions is to move towards a situation where retailers are legally responsible for the creations and corrections customers do at home, then that's far different.

It smacks of one more government move to stick business with the bill for everything that goes wrong in our imperfect world. As in similar cases, government should butt out.