http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/401574/abel-harding/2011-03-20/abel-harding-risk-removing-regulation (http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/401574/abel-harding/2011-03-20/abel-harding-risk-removing-regulation)
Quote
Submitted by Abel Harding on March 20, 2011 - 12:53am
It’s safe to say this wasn’t exactly the push towards deregulation every Florida business had envisioned.
Last week, a Florida House committee voted to end regulation of nearly 30 professions. Among the professions tapped for entry by the unwashed masses â€" interior design, professional surveying and mapping, professional geology and landscape architecture. The legislation, if passed by the full House and successful in the Senate, would repeal licensing and examination as well as continuing education requirements.
“Too often, these regulations are designed an implemented in a way that burdens the private sector,†said state Rep. Esteban Bovo, a Hialeah Republican, in a release touting the vote.
That theory is not without validity in some cases â€" for example, why “hair wrapping†would be regulated is beyond me â€" but advocates within at least one of the affected industries argue that abandoning some regulations could destroy their profession.
“We are experts trained to do site design,†said Kenn Bates, an Orlando landscape architect and president of the Florida chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects. “Opening up the door for anyone to do what we do could put consumers at risk.â€
Landscape architects complete a minimum of five years of schooling and are required to pass a tough licensing exam to qualify for a Florida license. That education includes requirements associated with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bates said the result could be practitioners unfamiliar with requirements that could put property owners at risk if someone sustains an injury.
But it’s not just compliance with state and federal laws. One architect said the licensing requirements also build credibility among other professions a landscape architect must work with.
“Our particular skill set deals with a cross-section of the other professions,†said Chris Flagg, president of Flagg Design Studios LLC, in downtown Jacksonville.
Flagg, who has served as the lead master planner of the University of North Florida campus since 1984, said deregulation would “dismember our ability to interact with these other professions.â€
“What’s ironic is that recently two states, Vermont and Washington, have strengthened their landscape architecture regulations,†said Steve Lovett, a partner at Ervin Lovett Miller, a Jacksonville environmental design practice.
Lovett said only one state, Colorado, currently doesn’t regulate the industry.
Industry professionals like Bates say the move to deregulate an entire industry blind-sided them and could prod professionals to flee the state. It also could impact students, delivering a result counter to the one backers say they’re looking for.
“There are around 300 students enrolled in three Florida universities studying to join the profession,†he said. “We have students close to graduating. They’d leave the state. It’s not creating jobs, it’s pushing jobs away.â€
Government licensing is instituted with the purpose of protecting consumers but often ends up hurting them by restricting competition and making services more expensive than they would otherwise be. This can actually be the hidden purpose behind this regulation in order to shield established businesses and professionals from competition they would rather not face. Why not let the consumer balance qualifications, experience and reputation versus the price and decide which is the best fit for them?
In some professions, regulation does restrict competition - "hair wrappers"? - and deregulation will have little consequences. If you get a bad hair job, it grows out, and you don't go back to that person again. In other professions - from the list above Surveying and Mapping - the cost of having a poor job done by someone who doesn't know what they are doing, could be significant. If they get your property lines wrong, you could be in costly litigation, pay substantial sums to "real" surveyors to get a correct survey, and other costs. In a worst case, based on a bad survey, you might build your house or commercial building so it is not fully on "your" property. This may not be discovered until your neighbor notices, and sues you, and you have to pull down your building. Some professions do not lend themselves to word-of-mouth recommendation. Billy Bob the Surveyor may do 10 or 100 "right" before he botches yours - and the cost of that error will be considerably more than any savings on the price of the survey.
Let's make a clear distinction between "government licensing" and "regulation".
For example, in my field, the COJ instituted a new "Low Voltage License" that has to be bought (not even "applied for", just "bought") for every Cat-5/6/CCTV job that my company does. Is that regulation? No, it's another tax on small business. So what are we, as a small business supposed to do? Well, we have to pass that silly tax on to our customers, thus raising the cost of the job (even if it's minuscule in the grand scheme of things.) But that minuscule amount can mean the difference between us getting the job, and the guy that hires illegal workers to run cable at half the cost of us (but taking twice as long) getting the job.
Do I have a point with this post that's related to the topic? Well, slightly. My company has worked closely with AIA and ASID members for years. In my job, it's in my best interest for my clients to do quality work, because work for them means work for me. And that means quality work, that brings in repeat business. While the analogy can be made that geek squad brings us in business with their shoddy work (which it does, we make so much money correcting geek squad flunky mistakes that it's not even funny) the consequences for shoddy work in interior design and landscape architecture are completely and utterly different.
Regulation in industries such as are being deregulated are there for a purpose. I don't want any tom, dick, or harry telling my construction contractor where to put structurally decorative components in my building. (Some people seem to thing that interior design is just "matching the carpet with the drapes".. it's not.) The same can be said about the other industries that are involved. Licensing through the professional body and government body, plus the time it takes to achieve those certifications, in my book equates to the fact that I'm going to get quality workmanship out of those entities.
I think certifications from professional bodies are great and if the government wants to provide recommendations that's ok, too (you know, if it doesn't get too expensive to administer). But consumers should be able to hire someone without a license or certification if they want to and suffer the consequences, if any. Licenses and certifications are not guarantees of competence and the requirements to obtain them are sometimes irrelevant or outdated.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on March 20, 2011, 03:46:08 PM
I think certifications from professional bodies are great and if the government wants to provide recommendations that's ok, too (you know, if it doesn't get too expensive to administer). But consumers should be able to hire someone without a license or certification if they want to and suffer the consequences, if any. Licenses and certifications are not guarantees of competence and the requirements to obtain them are sometimes irrelevant or outdated.
That's an ignorant perspective. It's not about "recommendations". The purpose of licensure is to protect the public, specifically addressing "health, safety, and welfare."
In many of these professions (such as Landscape Architecture, the discipline that was referenced in the article), the MINIMUM standard of qualifications is:
1.) a 5-year or graduate degree from an accredited university in the specific professional field of study,
and2.) two or more years of approved professional experience working under the direction of a qualified licensed professional,
and3.) passing a multi-part rigorous licensure exam that demonstrates professional proficiency, often administered by a national certification board. Typically there's also an additional state-administered exam section requiring competency in state laws & professional practice,
and4.) continuing education requirements that encompass specific aspects of practice.
Colorado for many years was the only state that didn't have landscape architectural registration. Many states, including Vermont and Washington, used the extent of practice error and litigation as the basis for strengthening landscape architecture to a "practice act" from a "title act". In fact, in 2007 Colorado determined it to be necessary to reinstate professional standards for landscape architects. If Florida removes regulation it would be another HUGE step backwards - and would make Florida the only state where landscape architecture isn't subject to professional standards and regulations.
For the sake of Health, Safety, and Welfare, this would be unwise - as would the deregulation of many other professions.
Stifling competition is not a good way to foster competition.
Licensing and regulations are too often just a means to keep a brother down.
There is a legitimate argument to be made on each side.
Alright, Buckethead. I'm now a landscape architect. I'll give you the job you want for half the price. But I've not had one day of actual training or experience.
Still interested?
Quote from: buckethead on March 20, 2011, 05:59:34 PM
Stifling competition is not a good way to foster competition.
Licensing and regulations are too often just a means to keep a brother down.
There is a legitimate argument to be made on each side.
It's not about competition, or keeping anyone down. Not everything is a capitalistic discussion. It's about HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE...! There's no side of an argument that puts public safety at risk unnecessarily.
Should we stop elevator inspections? Take down speed limit signs? Eliminate building codes?
When you deregulate professions that require extensive training, expertise, and can save/improve lives - you do so at a great expense, and at a very high litigation cost.
Clearly not.
I would design my own landscaping. (Under corporate direction)
Corporate=the wife.
But as for the red herring, I might be inclined to hire a number of individuals for various projects depending on the work history, references, portfolio etc... of those individuals.
Quote from: buckethead on March 20, 2011, 07:24:51 PM
Clearly not.
I would design my own landscaping. (Under corporate direction)
Corporate=the wife.
But as for the red herring, I might be inclined to hire a number of individuals for various projects depending on the work history, references, portfolio etc... of those individuals.
Based upon your answer, I wonder if you have a sufficient understanding of Landscape Architecture to comment on its merit to regulate or deregulate it.
Quote from: Steve_Lovett on March 20, 2011, 07:24:18 PM
Quote from: buckethead on March 20, 2011, 05:59:34 PM
Stifling competition is not a good way to foster competition.
Licensing and regulations are too often just a means to keep a brother down.
There is a legitimate argument to be made on each side.
It's not about competition, or keeping anyone down. Not everything is a capitalistic discussion. It's about HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE...! There's no side of an argument that puts public safety at risk unnecessarily.
Should we stop elevator inspections? Take down speed limit signs? Eliminate building codes?
When you deregulate professions that require extensive training, expertise, and can save/improve lives - you do so at a great expense, and at a very high litigation cost.
So hair cuts and landscape design are public safety concerns? No one has, to my knowledge, suggested ending inspections or code enforcement.
FWIW: public safety is ALWAYS at risk.
Minimizing risk is a matter of trade offs. This conversation touches on that very point.
Try to pick up on any tongue in cheek remarks as well. (such as "keeping a brother down")
Hyperbolic but illustrative.
Quote from: Steve_Lovett on March 20, 2011, 07:27:29 PM
Quote from: buckethead on March 20, 2011, 07:24:51 PM
Clearly not.
I would design my own landscaping. (Under corporate direction)
Corporate=the wife.
But as for the red herring, I might be inclined to hire a number of individuals for various projects depending on the work history, references, portfolio etc... of those individuals.
Based upon your answer, I wonder if you have a sufficient understanding of Landscape Architecture to comment on its merit to regulate or deregulate it.
I'm guessing you are a landscape architect? I would imagine it entails a bit more than landscape design, therefor there are likely codes to be met, federal, state and local, design criteria, and like anything, more than meets the eye. I would say it is fair to suggest that I am not qualified to determine whether regulation of profession A or B is meritorious, but in the grand scheme, the topic is worth revisiting. Input from professionals in their fields would be most welcomed.
I do know a few cheesy quotes: Every cause becomes a business. Every business becomes a racket.
Most often these rackets seek to use the coercive power of governments to maintain their grip. (Not intended as a slight against Landscape architects, Hair dressers, or any profession in particular)
I wonder how the insurance companies will enter this equation? Most likely, a person offering services that did not meet the previous standards for licensure would not be eligible for liability insurance coverage. For the homeowner hiring services directly, it would then be at the homeowner's risk. However most corporate consumers require certificates of insurance before paying for services.
Quote from: buckethead on March 20, 2011, 07:31:27 PM
Quote from: Steve_Lovett on March 20, 2011, 07:24:18 PM
Quote from: buckethead on March 20, 2011, 05:59:34 PM
Stifling competition is not a good way to foster competition.
Licensing and regulations are too often just a means to keep a brother down.
There is a legitimate argument to be made on each side.
It's not about competition, or keeping anyone down. Not everything is a capitalistic discussion. It's about HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE...! There's no side of an argument that puts public safety at risk unnecessarily.
Should we stop elevator inspections? Take down speed limit signs? Eliminate building codes?
When you deregulate professions that require extensive training, expertise, and can save/improve lives - you do so at a great expense, and at a very high litigation cost.
So hair cuts and landscape design are public safety concerns? No one has, to my knowledge, suggested ending inspections or code enforcement.
I don't have enough hair to comment on that question - but I'm sure my wife would like some level of certainty that the chemicals being applied to her head for her hair treatments are understood, safe, and properly applied.
The design of a playground when a child falls is a public safety concern. So is a traffic accident when plantings block visibility of oncoming vehicles. So are swimming pools and the surrounding deck spaces. So are accommodations for those in wheelchairs. So are waterfronts.....and trails...and the ability to slide safely into second base. I suspect you would be SHOCKED by how many hundreds of millions of dollars are litigated for injuries and deaths that occur because the design of these areas is below accepted professional practice - and completed by those not qualified to undertake this work.
There is clear case-study precedent that the costs of deregulation are far in excess of the costs to administer professional licensure and oversight, at least in this case.
Very pertinent points. It won't be the last time my arguments are shot down so thoroughly!
Again, I am not suggesting to deregulate (de-license... is that a word?) every profession, but I can certainly see opening up various fields to some degree.
Quote“What’s ironic is that recently two states, Vermont and Washington, have strengthened their landscape architecture regulations,†said Steve Lovett, a partner at Ervin Lovett Miller, a Jacksonville environmental design practice.
I guess that'll teach me to read on... :D
Quote from: buckethead on March 20, 2011, 08:02:45 PM
Very pertinent points. It won't be the last time my arguments are shot down so thoroughly!
Again, I am not suggesting to deregulate (de-license... is that a word?) every profession, but I can certainly see opening up various fields to some degree.
Quote“What’s ironic is that recently two states, Vermont and Washington, have strengthened their landscape architecture regulations,†said Steve Lovett, a partner at Ervin Lovett Miller, a Jacksonville environmental design practice.
I guess that'll teach me to read on... :D
Frankly, I thought the article's justification for Landscape Architecture was lame -- the issue isn't protectionism for current practitioners and up and coming students -- it IS Health, Safety, and Welfare -- protecting the public's interest. Period. If that wasn't articulated in the article, it should've been.
We tend to be on a deregulation kick lately - and a lot of decisions are being made at the state legislature level from an uneducated perspective. I think we should look more thoughtfully at the net result of some of these decisions and realize that what we cut or deregulate may come at a much higher cost.
Do you want an unlicensed structural engineer designing an interstate bridge, high rise building, or the house you live in? Just go to a third world nation to see what that will get you.
It is beyond the reasonable capabilities of a lay or business person, who, typically, rarely engages licensed professionals for various needs, to be able to determine the standards of a true professional in the subject profession. Nor, is it efficient for our society that every citizen and business enterprise be required to reinvent the wheel by having to study and validate (can you see the wave of law suits if they don't?) the life history, experience, and up-to-date education of every candidate for a "professional" job. Licensing is one government service that is probably done far more efficiently on behalf of all of us than we can do in the private sector. Don't underestimate the clout of the legal ramifications should a "professional" stray from his/her field's standards.
If the legislature is really intent on doing this, by the way, then let it start with lawyers, the profession most represented among our elected representatives. I would like to see that "debate"!
Life is a great balancing act. We certainly do not want the type of deregulation that led to investment bankers circumventing mortgage rules but often licenses just become a fee collection process. It will always be hard to constantly review them in a climate where people want to underfund everything unless it will blow up on a foreign land.
Regulation?
Jacksonville- Parks, Recreation, Entertainment and in 2005 to include Conservation.
A new Downtown Authority with total control over the Entertainment District.
A new Director Tera Meeks, Division Chief of Property Management and Programming over the Preservation Projects.(Conservation)
2010-856 pending legislation of a 1 mile ban on transient vendors.
Daniel O'Byrne new Director of Visit Jacksonville.
Shipyards I, Landmar II, Shipyards III the Promised 680' Downtown Public Pier. 2010-604- The Public Trust has been totally crushed.
USS Adams 2010-675. Just one Finance amendment.
Our city charter. Legislation pending to restore the Code of Ethics that was in our charter in 1968 and removed in 1972. Will it happen?
Regulation?
Quote from: stjr on March 20, 2011, 09:41:33 PM
Do you want an unlicensed structural engineer designing an interstate bridge, high rise building, or the house you live in? Just go to a third world nation to see what that will get you.
It is beyond the reasonable capabilities of a lay or business person, who, typically, rarely engages licensed professionals for various needs, to be able to determine the standards of a true professional in the subject profession. Nor, is it efficient for our society that every citizen and business enterprise be required to reinvent the wheel by having to study and validate (can you see the wave of law suits if they don't?) the life history, experience, and up-to-date education of every candidate for a "professional" job. Licensing is one government service that is probably done far more efficiently on behalf of all of us than we can do in the private sector. Don't underestimate the clout of the legal ramifications should a "professional" stray from his/her field's standards.
If the legislature is really intent on doing this, by the way, then let it start with lawyers, the profession most represented among our elected representatives. I would like to see that "debate"!
Do you want an unlicensed carpenter framing your houses? In Duval County that's exactly what you have. (One does need to purchase an occupational license to do business in Duval). In St Johns county however, there is an examination given that must be passed, along with $400 worth of books to be bought (4 books) before one can frame a house legally. No bother; some licensed framers have taken to "pimping" their licenses to unlicensed (not to mention the vast majority within our borders illegally) framers.
Are houses in Duval County less sound than those in St Johns? (That's why there are building codes and inspections)
There are professions where licensing makes sense, just like there are those that don't, unless you want governments creating ever growing bureaucracies and fee grabbing.
BTW, I agree on the lawyer part.
A historic reason for regulation at the state level was the very corrupt operations of the local regulating bodies.
Until the 1960's it was nearly impossible for a person of color or a woman to get licensed as a contractor in Duval County because the local board was controlled by the established contractors.
My mother was actually the first woman to get a contractor's license in Duval County in 1953 only because she had powerful political backing and promised not to do any work for anyone but the family. Her office buildings and houses are still standing.
The State took over a lot of professional regulation because of the patchwork and corrupt workings at the local level. Many of the regulated professions actually asked for a single statewide regulatory body so that they did not have to reapply in every county when doing business there.
Government: Because we care about your health, security and welfare we have limited your choices of whom you can hire to perform certain services for you. Corruption, cronyism and paternalism cannot possibly be factors in our decision making.
Citizen: But I just want to be able to make those decisions for myself. What if I find someone who doesn't measure up to your standards but is qualified enough to meet my needs and will charge me less than someone on your list?
Gov't: Citizen, you have shown over and over again that you don't have enough information to make good decisions about many of these things that we regulate. You fall for cons and scams repeatedly and when you house falls down in a storm or your fake insurance company doesn't pay off we have to come along and pick up the pieces.
I'm still up in the air with this one because even though these industries are looking at deregulation, there's nothing here that tells me that the planners and architects won't still require a licensed contractor in the RFP.
So sure, Joe Businessowner can have his un-licensed buddy do the design work for his new office - failing to comply with ADA, Fire and Safety etc. and he can pay to have all of that fixed - this is why we have professionals doing the inspections (hopefully).
Able Abe Businessowner put the wording in his RFP that he is only taking bids from licensed professionals, so his job ends up on-time and on-budget.
I guess where I'm going with this, is that even with some de-reg, there are checks and balances in place to help prevent some of these issues, and yes Loki, you may end up losing jobs to un-licensed companies, but it only takes someone once to get burned and those companies tend to not stay around very long.