By Tabitha Evans Moore, EDITOR & PUBLISHER

LYNCHBURG, Tenn. — Should Metro Moore County develop building codes and hire an “as needed” building inspector to enforce them? That’s been the debate heating up around the dinner table and on social media since March’s Metro Council meeting.

On one side are those who feel that citizens should receive a benefit in the form of a basic building inspection for the cost of their building permit. They see it as a way of helping local homeowners and protecting public safety and property values.

On the other side, there are those who feel that a mandatory building inspection is overkill and a bureaucratic overreach that will slow down development and add too much additional red tape to the process.

During their March meeting, Metro Council member and Metro Planning Commission Chair Dexter Golden attempted to take the temperature of the room on moving forward with the Planning Commission plan which involves developing guidelines for four basic inspections that are standard operating procedures in many of the surrounding counties: a foundation inspection, a framing inspection, a systems inspection, and a final inspection.

In Tennessee, building inspection requirements vary by county and municipality. Some local governments, like Metro Moore County, have chosen to opt out of the state’s residential inspection program entirely. According to Tennessee’s Municipal Technical Advisory Services (MTAS) about 20 percent of counties opt out.

After a lengthy discussion, the Council voted 7-5 to move forward with developing a plan with Arvis Bobo, Amy Cashion, Jimmy Hammond, John Taylor, Gerald Burnett, Dexter Golden, and Greg Guinn voting in favor of developing building codes and Daryl Richards, Shane Taylor, Douglas Carson, Robert Bracewell, and Peggy Sue Blackburn voting against moving forward. Houston Lindsey, Marty Cashion, and Bradley Dye were absent from the March meeting.

“The yeses have it,” Chair Amy Cashion stated in March. “But I wouldn’t put too much into it. When you come back, we can get into the pros and cons when the other three members are here.”

With a narrow majority, Planning Commission Chair Dexter Golden told the Council that his group would put a little more work into it before bringing a proposal back to the Council. On Tuesday, April 1, the Metro Planning Commission will start that process and here are some things to consider:

The Case for Hiring a Building Inspector

One of the strongest arguments in favor of hiring a building inspector is public safety. Without proper oversight, buildings may not meet structural, electrical, or fire safety standards, putting residents at risk. A qualified inspector ensures that homes and businesses are built to code, reducing the likelihood of future problems.

Property values are another key consideration. Poorly built structures can drive down home values in a community, while strict adherence to building codes can help protect long-term investments. Additionally, some insurance companies and mortgage lenders require inspections before approving policies or loans, making a local inspector a valuable resource for homeowners.

There’s also the question of liability. If the county lacks an inspector and unsafe construction is approved—or goes unchecked — Metro could open itself up to legal challenges. A dedicated building inspector would ensure that the county is enforcing state and local regulations, reducing its risk of potential lawsuits.

The Planning Commission also argues that more, unknown builders from outside the county are coming is and that a building inspector would protect them from “some jack leg builder.”

Lastly, supporters argue that hiring an inspector is already self-sustaining and that citizens deserve to receive something for the recently increased building permit fees. Inspection fees are already built into the new fee structure and there would be no additional financial burden to taxpayers to provide the essential service. It’s also important to note, that any inspector would be hired “as needed” and that no fulltime position is being proposed.

The Case Against Hiring a Building Inspector

Opponents of hiring a building inspector cite a concern about adding more government oversight to the building process. Developers and homeowners may feel that additional inspections create unnecessary red tape and delays, discouraging growth and making it harder for individuals to complete projects on time.

Some argue that a county-level inspector may not be necessary at all. The state already enforces building codes in some areas, and private inspectors can be hired when needed. If the current system is working, why add another layer of government?

Finally, there is the potential for pushback from builders and property owners who might see the inspector as an obstacle rather than a benefit. Stricter enforcement of codes could also prolong the building process and lead to homeowner frustration.

What’s Next?

As the debate continues, county officials will need to weigh the benefits of increased oversight against the costs and potential downsides. The decision will likely come down to whether the need for safer, better-regulated construction outweighs the financial and bureaucratic concerns.

What do you think? Should the county invest in a building inspector, or is the current system sufficient? •

{The Lynchburg Times is a locally owned and locally operated community newspaper in Lynchburg, Tennessee. We’re the only newspaper that publishes new stories every morning at 7 a.m. plus breaking news as it happens. It’s also one of the few women-owned newspapers in the state. We’re supported by both readers and community partners who believe in independent journalism for the common good. You can support us by clicking here. }