Printable View
I rarely agree with anything in the Washington Examiner, but this article is correct about unnecessary licensing in Detroit. The city administration should look at eliminating as many of these as possible, which is probably all of them.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ho...rticle/2621219
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
It's why there are licensing requirements in various locales for interior decorators, casket sellers [[not morticians, just people who SELL caskets) fortune tellers, and people who shampoo your hair.
Allow me to spout my moderate libertarian view here.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
Regulation is necessary, but currently often over-used to serve entrenched interests. We need regulation -- but we should only regulate where there is little ability to know what you're getting, and a lot of risk.
Yes, regulate water systems.
No, don't regulate hairdressers.
Most likely the reason it seems redundant is because Detroit has always been at the forefront in licensing. They were at it before the State government got involved.
We are over licensed everywhere, but especially Detroit.
What we need is for the Institute for Justice, a national public interest law firm specializing in eminent domain and regulatory abuses, to come to Detroit and clean it up regulatory-wise. It has represented scores of small businesses across the country fighting regulatory abuse and almost always wins.
It's the best City Hall fighter in the nation. Check them out at www.ij.org and send them a few bucks. [[It among other legal battles if fighting govt confiscation of cash owned by small business people on the basis that it may be laundered money; it beat the govt in a recent case and recovered the money taken from a small inner city Detroit grocer - $38,000.
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Wesson
Look at elevator licensing / inspection. Detroit was no doubt where the first elevators were installed -- so it was natural to figure out licensing. Today -- there's just no reason why Detroit needs its own elevator codes and licenses separate from the State of Michigan who do the rest of the State. Except that its jobs and cash.
I makes sense that Detroit was just first on the scene -- but today so many of those local licensing requirements are mostly just regulatory capture.
I agree with a $72 license. One of the advantages of dealing with someone licensed [[at least from what I know in Windsor) is that you know they are bondable [[ie, they had a recent criminal records check or the city verified they had no criminal record with the municipal PD) as part of their license requirement. For example, someone who does messages can't have a criminal record because there's a concern that there can be drug running or prostitution. Escorts also have to be yearly licensed and can't have criminal records in Windsor for that reason. Would you feel comfortable hiring an unbonded housekeeper not knowing whether they had a criminal record for burglary? I wouldn't trust their references alone because their reference could be a friend or family member claiming to be a client and lying. Criminal record searches don't lie. Security guards are also licensed individually for that reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
I like the $72 licensing aspect of window washers because in Windsor there a lot of people who collect $1,100 a month on government disability with free dental care who work under the table as contractors. If window washers are licensed and the government aid office verifies it, I know they are not scamming taxpayers for that disability cheque.
I would even take it a step further and say you need a license to panhandle on a public street so the police can deal with them aggressively harassing everybody [[but that's a little beyond the article).
As for business licenses, if a pawn shop was allowed to be run by someone with a criminal record, would you be more concerned that they were selling fenced goods? The pawn shop fee of a grand might be ok as municipal police regularly check purchase records for stolen goods and that's an added cost, so why not forward that cost to the business instead of the taxpayer? Should a bar be licensed? In the sense a license verifies the operators don't have criminal records or is a method for limiting criminal activity, I would agree with it. Felons shouldn't be allowed to operate businesses without the public knowing they are felons.
$72 as verification they don't have a criminal record is not a lot. But, if the license fees were excessive without a valid reason except being a tax grab, i'd be opposed. For example, a licensed plumber paying extra city fees daily for any plumbing fix [[as the article suggests) is excessive and just a tax grab. It should just be a yearly license fee.
That's why I check to make sure every contractor I work with is bonded and insured. Ask them to email you their cert, call the company and verify. Many insurance companies have automated call centers to verify insurance numbers, it really isn't hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by davewindsor
Think of it this way - you should do the same thing for the license. Just because they have a piece of paper saying they are licensed doesn't mean anything, you still need to call to verify. If you are going to do that with a license, might as well do that with insurance. So what is the license buying you?
Maybe it's different in Detroit. But, it's not that easy to verify insurance in Ontario. To use an example, roofers aren't required to be licensed in Ontario like in Michigan. I had to call 20 places for a roofing quote on a house before one finally faxed me a copy of their insurance certificate with their quote. I called their insurance broker to verify and that's who I went with. I kid you not. I suspect there are a large number of roofers in Ontario that don't carry insurance, run a cash, fly-by-night operation and have drug related criminal records. Complaining about them isn't even a realistic option because it's not anonymous and once they find out who you are, you can expect a few broken windows when you are not around.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
Out of those other 19, only four faxed me a written quote--the rest didn't return my call or said they were too busy and gave me a verbal ballpark figure over the phone. Ideally, you should verify insurance if you have the time and patience to call everyone in the phone book. In the amount of time I wasted, I could have redone the roof myself. Maybe it's different in Michigan, but it's not my experience that "it really isn't hard" to verify insurance in Ontario. There is not a call center. You have to call their insurance broker directly.
If a city license required they had an annual criminal record check and proof of insurance and the city verified it, it would make my life a whole lot easier because I could just call the city for a confirmation. At least, that's what I would expect from a city license.
Whether the City takes any effort to verify no criminal background, insurance, and knowledge probably tells you whether this particular license has any public value -- or whether it is just market protection by the incumbents.Quote:
Originally Posted by davewindsor