Notice I said rule oriented, and not intrusive or other similar words. You are right that they should insist on safety etc., and I have no problem with that.
But what's the chance that they will evaluate the safety of this, vs. saying - no engineering plans? No inspector? No permit? Fail, big fine, and we'll bill you for demolition.
I don't want to pay for a government inspection of this type of crap after the fact. It's far less expensive for the public to simply force him to take it down at his own expense if he lacks the proper inspections / permits. However, it's unlikely to become an issue until something bad happens which IMO is a reasonable compromise.
But what's the chance that they will evaluate the safety of this, vs. saying - no engineering plans? No inspector? No permit? Fail, big fine, and we'll bill you for demolition.
And not even evaluate the specifics.