As I pointed out in an earlier post, property owners (and tenants) have rights - and one of those rights is the right to due process.
Please use your intellect to think about the issues surrounding this tragedy instead of simply relying on your initial knee-jerk emotional reaction.
In my opinion, the organizers of the illegal "rave" have a lot more culpability in this tragedy than either the owner of the building, or the city's building officials. The tenant is equally culpable for creating and maintaining a fire hazard, and also for allowing people to live there illegally (assuming that he actually did so). As po0litically incorrect as it may be, I also think those who attended, and stayed at, the "rave" (yes, the victims) also have some culpability for being too ignorant or stupid to watch out for their own best interests and personal safety.
Finally, building codes for "existing" (read: old) buildings are quite often different from those for new construction. They also differ from locale to locale. I have yet to see any evidence that the building code for Oakland even requires sprinklers for a warehouse the age of the building in question. As far as illegal uses and occupancy go, no city could afford to employ the number of code officials it would take to track down and eliminate every illegal or nonconforming use within their jurisdiction. And to ask them to do so would be to invite a heretofore unprecedented level of government interference in the lives of property owners.
“So in your world, building inspectors should be able to walk in to any building they please and start issuing orders and directives?”
When the issue is human life and safety then I expect the building inspectors to use the authority granted to them under law. In California that’s the Health and Safety Code.
While I am less concerned about the owners of non-compliant structures I am very concerned about the guests of the owners who would attend an event at such a place ignorant of the fact that it is a death trap. It’s these innocent people who most need to be protected.
And you’re right that an old warehouse does not need to be retrofitted to fire codes. BUT when that warehouse is no longer being used as a warehouse but as a residential apartment building and a public event facility then yes, it does.
I live in Wyoming and we can do pretty much whatever we want on our own property. But if we decide to do use our kitchen as a bakery then it has to meet health code, or if we decide to convert one of our barns into apartments then it has to meet code to protect the lives of innocent people who would use the place with an expectation of safety.
I occasionally bake bread, pastries, and rolls for restaurants in the area and that required me to get a certification from the county Food Safety Division and they also came out to the house to inspect the kitchen and it passes every time it’s inspected. I don’t have a problem with this because it also assures me that other people who cook at home are also upholding the same standards I am and there’s very little risk in letting my kids eat their food.
Likewise I should be able to attend an event and not wonder if I’m going to tragically suffer and die because the owners could care less about my safety.
Both the Fire Marshall and Building Official would have jurisdiction for this occupancy. The FM for Life Safety and Fire Prevention code inspections and violations. The BO for construction and the change of occupancy done with out a permit. Building inspectors usually do not inspect after a C/O is issued unless there is new construction or other change. Fire Inspections can be done routinely or as needed in case of an urgent matter such as complaint of suspected violations.
The victims are not and were culpable. Most people may see a hazard but not truly understand what it means. In this case even though some stated they thought it was a fire trap they very likely believed they could get out in time if there was ever a fire. The chief tenet and the owner are certainly responsible for the numerous code violations that lead directly to the fire and loss of life.
Even if sprinklers would not have been required at time of original construction they may have been required under the changes. Other changes would have been needed to meet current code for the occupancy. Those changes very likely would have saved lives. Since they are based on stopping the spread of fire and people getting out quickly.
I think I would have slapped somebody if I had ever done an inspection and seen mezzanine stairs made out of pallets.