Money is money, I don't like to part with mine unless there's a good reason.
At the end of the day, the city offers very little in this case of value, but they offer a wide variety of inconveniences as part of the process.
What if the inspector comes out, and incorrectly says something is wrong? I've had it happen before. They're just another layer of unnecessary complexity, why bother with them?
Then there's this:
Quote:
|
They said that "normally they wouldn't but because the contractor might alter the foundation of the patio base that they need to see scope of work, inspect the base before they put the pavers down, then inspect again after they're done to 'protect you' and make sure they're doing a good job."
|
So first you have scope, then awaiting approval.
Then they'd need to inspect the base beforehand.
Then inspect the base again when it's done.
That right there turns a 2-3 day job into a 5-10 working day job. Screw that.