From the TU: The Risk of Removing Regulation

[urbanlibertarian]

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/401574/abel-harding/2011-03-20/abel-harding-risk-removing-regulation

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.”
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.”
“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.”

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?

[Charles Hunter]

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.

[RiversideLoki]

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.

[urbanlibertarian]

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.

[Steve_Lovett]

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, and
2.) two or more years of approved professional experience working under the direction of a qualified licensed professional, and
3.) 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, and
4.) 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.

[buckethead]

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.

[RiversideLoki]

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?

[Steve_Lovett]

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.
   

[buckethead]

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.

[Steve_Lovett]

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.

[buckethead]

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.

[buckethead]

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)

[dougskiles]

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.

[Steve_Lovett]

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.

[buckethead]

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.

“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...