I'd like to write back to Roger Kalter and the readers and issue an apology for my lack of fact checking in an recent article which made its way to the printed page. I have in fact seen various versions of the IPMC and through the apparent misinterpretation on my part, I inserted conjecture in the wrong light on facts about warrants (Sec. 104.3 "Right of entry," IPMC), which Kalter corrected. It would have been correct to assume I had not ("had not" being the operative phrase) read any or all of the IPMC or prepared prior to attending the meeting (July 2, 2013), because the decision to go was made at the last minute. At that point in time, there was no way which I could have read it since I had just learned about it.
While I do apologize for the mistakes, I do stand by other various concerns. As such, making a mistake in facts or wording can easily turn into a nightmare; for that, while opinion pages are in fact, opinion, all of us learn from our mistakes and I stress the importance of fact checking and proofreading before any submission. Perhaps if my words were altered, I would not have to write this for you today.
Yet I do have frustration with the new code which are beyond the scope of local municipalities, and that cities and counties are naively accepting pre-written standards (because they sound good and are convenient) without realizing implications on the national and international scale. On the local level, things seem fine and dandy. Until, like the Cape Coral woman I explained about in the previous article, was kicked out of her home because it did not meet certain criteria of the IPMC, even though it was perfectly safe and a non-nuisance to the community.
This is abuse of the IPMC by code enforcers who have the sole ability to interpret it any way they want. A founded fear that the code will be abused, because it already has.
This is only one example which pertains to a larger agenda that is being played out on the global scale and seeks to bring all daily human action under codified control. For this very reason, some towns in the U.S. have already repealed previous versions or refrained from adopting the IPMC because of the threat of abuse and broader abilities of a bureaucracy over private property rights which arises from such action.
However, to bring it back down to the local level, I agree with the recent article written by Brad Bauer in The Anchor (Jan. 15) that, "No one wants to argue against assuring public health and safety ..." [but] "maybe council should be looking for more of a carrot, and less of a stick approach here."
I can't wait to continue writing on subjects I enjoy and of course do the necessary research to make the articles correct and enlightening.