TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:I would think that a judge could declare a code invalid/obsolete as he could declare a law unconstitutional. From what I have read, the technology has improved since the code was passed.
So even though he construction didn't meet code, it would be better than the code and meet the intent.
IANAL so I am using my best logic.

You might be right on that, and hopefully so in this case. I am not a fan of a government entity coming back after something has been approved twice and then changing the terms. It screams 'someone wants a bribe or a bigger bribe,' or that the city no longer finds your business politically correct.

Backstops are a major capex. I wonder if they have records of some sort of approval or coordination with the city when or before it was put in place. That would be an excellent basis for a waiver too I would think in my not so humble and completely ignorant opinion.

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, for two years the modern backstop was all fine and good to go, but now its a problem? This is either someone looking for "brownie points" from their bosses, or political. Hopefully a judge will see through this mess and make it right. Running a safe operation should be paramount.

However wouldn't a judge have to follow the law or code guidelines? On the flipside I wonder if there is a worthwhile argument that the site has been cleared twice previously and is not changed since.

Why do they even need to get it certified a second time?