990121

ReadAboutContentsHelp
Twenty-three citizens including contractors and architects, petitioned the Council to continue the office of Building Inspector. They wanted to keep the job separate from the Superintendent of Public Buildings, Bridges and Wharves because of the amount of time involved in the inspection of new buildings. See full description in Digital Collections

Pages

990121_Page_1
Complete

990121_Page_1

259 Memorial in Relation to Office of Building Inspector

Last edit almost 4 years ago by kmw
990121_Page_2
Indexed

990121_Page_2

[990121]

To the Conference Committee of the two Houses of the City Council.. Gentlemen: We the undersigned citizens of the City of Seattle, being at the present time actually engaged or personally interested in the present building operations now in progress in our young and growing City, would respectfully present unto your Honourable Committee, and the Council which you represent the following, our petition and memorial in relation to the question of the advisability of the continuance of the office of Building Inspector, or Superintendent of the inspection of private buildings, seperate and apart from that of Superintendent of the Public Buildings, Bridges and Wharves; and we represent unto you the following as our reasons for asking that said office shall be seperately organized and maintained. In our opinion the present and future wants of the City demand the services of an energetic and capable man who shall devote his entire time to the inspection of the wharves along the Water Front in order that the lives and property of our citizens may not be unnecessarily exposed, and that these duties in addition to those appertaining to the inspection and supervision of Public Bridges and Buildings will entirely consume one mans time. Regarding the Inspectorship of Private buildings we urge upon your Honourable Council the importance, first, of placing this office upon a basis and endowing it with powers commensurate with its importance; And secondy, providing such a rate of fees for the granting of permits as will make it self sustaining, thus reducing the strain upon the salary fund; without which provisions we regard the building Ordinances now

Last edit over 3 years ago by Seattle Municipal Archives
990121_Page_3
Complete

990121_Page_3

in force as useless and not productive of results equivalent to the costs thereof, and rather than see them so continued would recommend their repeal. However as a remedy permit us to suggest first the passage of an ordinance that shall require the submission and examination of plans of proposed buildings prior to the granting of building permits; That the Inspector may inquire into their conformity with the building ordinances; This course is desirable in the first place, because few of us builders can keep posted regarding statutory requirements of building Ordinances and further the Inspector with the laws before him is better qualified to pass upon the plans than we are in this regard; Second that especially in the business quarters a carful scrutiny should be kept upon building operations that the construction shall be kept within the laws. In addition to the above we would recommend that said office be made an adjunct of the board of Fire Commissioners for the reason first, that the major part of the rules prescribed in the building Ordinances are for the express purpose of reducing the fire risk, second that the records of said office being thus a part of the records of the fire department would impose an additional obstacle to the infringement of the laws, or the violation of those rules which are admitted to govern in the fixing of Insurance rates, as these matters would be brought more prominently to the view of Insurance men in this department than in any other thereby securing a more certain conformity to law on part of owners and builders; third, in case of conflagration it has in older cities been demonstrated that the recording of plans of interior construction greatly assisted the efforts of the fire department. And lastly we urge again

Last edit almost 4 years ago by kmw
990121_Page_4
Indexed

990121_Page_4

the importance of making this department efficient, if continued at all, and also the employment of practical builders and mechanics to discharge the duties, trusting that in the laudable effort to prune away from the City machinery all that is mere surplussage you will not make this important office so inefficient as to entirely destroy its usefulness, and we further petition that personal or partizan feelings may not be allowed to control your final action and with a firm belief that you will fully and carefully examine in to the question and we therefore urge upon your carful consideration the forgoing believing that the subject matter lies close to the best interests of our prosperous City.

E.H. Fisher architect Saunders & Houghton architects W. A. Harrington Geo. F. Frye J C Redward Contractor H Stenjmann architect Charles R Brown architect W H Albright Contractor Fred E Sander H A Heuss Contractor H. B. Phelan Contractor C. W. Lawton

Last edit almost 4 years ago by StephanieJoWebb
990121_Page_5
Indexed

990121_Page_5

H L Yesler Otto Banke Contractor F. U. Woodman Contractor James Parke Contractor Henry Ellis Contractor J J McIverst G Plettenberg M. Dow R. R. Mathews Contractor & Builder S. J. Meany Architect Sloan & Bryan Contractors

Last edit almost 4 years ago by StephanieJoWebb
Displaying all 5 pages