After 'skinning' by contractor, licensing needed

Editor:

I agree with the Oct. 30 editorial regarding the need for licensing of homebuilders. The News-Times opinion could not have been more timely with regards to my current opinion but too little too late to help my situation.

I have recently been involved with a general contractor who has left me high and dry with an uncompleted renovation project. I have discovered that he obtained his general contractor status just days prior to breaking ground on my project.

Thirteen months into a six-month project I fired him, after loss of tens of thousands of my dollars and countless empty promises of completion from him.

I am left with subcontractors who have not been paid for work they completed one year ago despite the fact that I paid the contractor. The subcontractors have been quite reasonable with me, for which I am grateful, but they are also losers in this game because of my contractor.

Legal recourse is unsatisfying because the general contractor was not required to have the assets to cover his commitments. The money I paid to him is gone (to who knows what) and even a judgement would be essentially worthless because it would be impossible to collect. This would be likely easier to collect if he would be required to demonstrate assets to cover his commitments.

I fully support The News-Times position and would in fact, opt for even more stringent requirements for contractors.

The barber needs a license to give me a shave, yet I was skinned by someone who did not have to meet any requirements other than the cost of applying for the license.

Neil Epperly

Martinez