New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-11-07
CONFERS TOO
MUCH POWER
Council Objects to Pro-
vision About Notice of
Requirements.
SAYS PENALTY SYSTEM
WOULD BE ABUSED
Attitude Result Of Report OF
Building Code Committee
Of Organization.


The Advisory Council Of Real Ests,.
Interests, through It, building cod.
committee. Henry ". Hodge. chairman;
otto VI. Eidlitz and Julius FRANKIE. Ia,
registered a strong objection 70 certain
Cctions Of Ordinance 10. 2.i22 Of the
Building Code. which is nov before ii.
Board OF Aldermen for hnal adoption.
This ordinance relates 10 the enforce.
ment Of Chapter Y Of the Code d Ord.
nances and provides for notice o. re-.
quirements or Of violations, with iudi.
cial remedies and penalties.
Those sections Of the code 20 which
the council particularly objects sr..
first. that relating 10 the provision
whereby the Superintendent Of Build.
ings may. within his discretion, obtain
a restraining order from the courts
which will preclude any owner from
occupying his building or using il. or
his structure or whatever portion OF 4
may be designated by the Suporin.
tendent Of Buildings. upon the ground
that some section Of the code had bcca
violated. This repOsos within the
Superintendent Of Buildings very arb.
trary and absolute power says the
council. land may be a source Of much
misuse. Should some minor change
have been made, such as emitting
toilet room or providing an extra one,
putting IN a sink. emitting a stand pipe,
leaving out a partition, all Of which
would not affect the buildings safety
20 any extent. in accordance with the
strict letter Of the law. these would,
however. present an opportunity to the
Superintendent 70 refuse 20 grant an
occupancy certificate for the building
or part Of It.
"This section is closely related 70
that one providing for certificates Of
occupancy which was also questioned
By the council few weeks ago, upon
the ground that such an elaborate sy,.
TEN OF occupancy certificates Is 70.
iustihable by any present unsatls-
factory building, because Of the use o.
buildings for other purposes than those
for which they were intended. Il vas
then stated that the occupancy OF many
buildings has been changed, as, for IN
stance. old private houses have been
used for shops and lofts and churches
have been converted into warehouses
and shops, and other changes Rave
been made; but in almost all such cases
of change Of occupancy where alters-
tions were necessary plans were mrs,
required to be filed with the Bureau OF
Buildings and taken care OF automati-
cally.
1T may be that there is some abuse
by these changes, but II IS very doubt
full whether they are so farreachins IN
extent as 20 Justify such complicated
system of occupancy certificates. Prob
ably the most serious objection TO tbs
particular ordinance is that relating 10
penalties. Section 654. Paragraph ],
gives the Superintendent Of Buildings
mower 10 impose fine of from not less
than $40 20 not more than $50 for
violation Of an order In Paragraph 3
Of the same section the Superintendent.
is permitted 70 impose penalty OF
from $50 70 $3.50 II his order Is not
complies with within the period OF ten
days. The council opposes the imposl'
ton Of the smaller penalty because u
will become the occasion for petty an
noyance By building inspectors OF the
Building Department.
"If violation is sufficiently serious
II should have the penalty that
larger imposed To-day, with the pen.
alty of $50. there are many cases no,
prosecuted By the Corporation Counses
because the cost would be excessive
If this penalty is made less than
$50 many inspectors Will be tempted 10
issue more violations than are te'
ouired. with the certainty that theooi'
poration Counsel will not prosecute
them. Such an opportunity would onp
cause serious inconvenience 70 prop
ertv owners. for with penalties 80 los
and 70 be imposed AZ the Superinteha'
ont's discretion will either make :
dead letter of this entire section OF WIN
lead TO great abuse and isVor''s"'
which * worse. ,.,.,.
an order to eliminate this posslolllN
Of irritation and annoyance TO proper
owners the council has strongly nrse'
the removal Of this particular eiaust'
Section 655 of this ordinance, Nn".
makes any violation misdemesnor =
: a dangerous power 20 confer 9pv"
any public officials so that they can oe
clare property owners or ouiioere
entity OF crime because Of non-eomp'l
snce with some minor order. Inns ss.
t;on reflects the general idea runnlns
through this entire ordinance OF e..
ferring upon a public official unllinneJ
power. not regarding the pefs0"''
EQUATION of the official