It all depends on how things are interpreted, in our case, we (the owner through me) had the pleasure of having a person of the same position of another utility company help us out because he was acting as consultant by the architect hired, so we surgically wrote our letters according to letters and phrases in the building code and other laws.

Wow, I had no idea how many ways there were to interpret those words!

Please reply that I am interpreting your replies succinctly.I really appreciate your help. 

Administrative law often looks more to the intent than the written word and agencies are charged by legislative bodies to interpret the law and apply that interpretation.

Are they interpreting the rules differently?

The city inspector is the one who can interpret the ordnances for you.

I'm sure a lot of you have read How to Win Friend and Influence People, and I think that genuine approach to resolving conflicts and making sure that everyone (as much as possible) gets something beneficial from your interactions is central to whatever endeavor you're in, real estate or not.The question about wholesalers and hard money lenders I think comes down to the different degrees of risk the two parties take on when they're working with someone, and we're probably hardwired to interpret their lesser risk as being purely about extracting value.

The way I interpret the code is that if the heat and hot water being off for a set amount of time is not something that was caused by your property then the HOA master insurance policy, HOA, or possibly offending tenant will need to cover the temporary housing expenses.  

Need a lawyer to interpret it for me.

The legal concept is called disparate impact and, ever since the federal Fair Housing Act was enacted in 1968, all federal courts of appeal have interpreted the law to mean an entity can get sued for housing discrimination if its actions have a disparate impact on a protected class, regardless of intent.In its decision last week, the Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court’s judgement, holding that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, and are an important component to the Fair Housing Act’s role in moving the country toward a more integrated society.