North Carolina stands as a tragic reminder of what happens when a state’s government prioritizes corporate interests over the well-being of its citizens. The recent devastation wrought by Hurricane Helene has exposed the consequences of over a decade of building code deregulation. This crisis didn’t appear overnight; it was built, step by step, by decisions that placed short-term economic gains and the influence of powerful interest groups above public safety and environmental resilience.
Republican lawmakers in North Carolina, in collaboration with the powerful Home Builders Association, have spent years dismantling critical regulations designed to protect communities from the growing risks of climate change. Since taking control of the state legislature in 2010, these politicians have consistently rejected or rolled back regulations that would have helped to mitigate storm damage, protect wetlands, and elevate homes in flood-prone areas. Lawmakers even went so far as to limit how often building codes are updated, effectively leaving communities exposed to outdated safety standards for longer periods. These choices—deliberate and well-documented—are not just policies. They are a failure to honor the public trust and a breach of the ethical obligations that elected officials have to protect their constituents.
The ethical implications of North Carolina’s deregulatory path are profound. Building codes, while often dismissed as regulatory red tape, exist to save lives. They ensure that homes and businesses can withstand the elements and prevent catastrophic loss. When policymakers strip these protections away, they place profit above people, allowing corporations to externalize the risks onto the public. This is not a matter of bureaucratic oversight; it is a conscious decision to value short-term economic growth over human life and community resilience.
Consider Hurricane Helene. The storm washed away homes and flooded entire communities—not only because of its intensity but because so many structures were built without the robust protections that modern building codes provide. For years, the Home Builders Association argued that strict building standards would drive up housing costs, making homes unaffordable. Many politicians, swayed by these arguments and millions in campaign contributions, went along with it. They failed to address the real cost: communities left unprepared for storms that scientists have long predicted will increase in severity due to climate change.
Ethically, one must ask: what is the role of government if not to safeguard its people? Politicians have a duty to act in the public interest, but in North Carolina, that duty has been subverted by corporate influence. This trend exemplifies regulatory capture, where industries co-opt the very institutions meant to regulate them, transforming those agencies into tools for profit rather than public safety. When legislators and industry executives work together to weaken standards, they betray the public trust. Their allegiance shifts from the citizens they serve to the companies that fund their campaigns.
From a political science perspective, North Carolina’s policy trajectory reflects a disturbing shift in how we understand the role of the state. This situation reveals the powerful impact of interest groups and illustrates the theory of regulatory capture in action. The Home Builders Association has not only influenced legislation but has effectively reshaped North Carolina’s approach to public safety. This case illustrates how state-level decisions can set the stage for broader national trends, particularly as we approach the 2024 presidential election. A second Trump administration, for example, has made clear its intent to implement Project 2025—a deregulatory blueprint that seeks to weaken environmental protections and dismantle federal disaster preparedness programs. North Carolina’s experience with building code deregulation could well be a harbinger for other states if the federal government follows suit.
The state’s building code decisions have not only placed lives at risk but have also compromised North Carolina’s eligibility for federal climate resilience grants. Federal agencies like FEMA prioritize funding for states that maintain up-to-date building codes, which is not possible when code updates are deliberately delayed. North Carolina has already lost millions in potential grants, a tragic irony given that these funds could have been used to bolster the very protections that were stripped away. This loss places an added burden on taxpayers, who now must foot the bill for preventable damage, all while bearing the consequences of inadequate safety standards.
North Carolina’s deregulatory approach has effectively shifted the costs of disaster resilience from corporations to the public. This setup is more than a policy choice; it is an ethical failure. When politicians prioritize the financial interests of a few over the safety of many, they create a society where disaster and economic instability are inevitable. This approach is not only unsustainable but fundamentally unjust, as it forces communities to bear the brunt of choices made by those who have the means to avoid the consequences.
As we approach the upcoming election, the issue of regulatory policy is more critical than ever. Voters must decide whether they want leaders who will continue down the path of deregulation or those who will prioritize public safety and resilience. North Carolina’s experience should serve as a cautionary tale, reminding us that strong building codes are not an inconvenience but a necessity. They represent an investment in our future, one that places the well-being of people above the interests of corporations.
The choices we make today will shape the world we live in tomorrow. North Carolina’s approach to building codes has shown us what happens when leaders fail to act responsibly, prioritizing profit over the common good. It is time for a new direction, one that balances economic interests with ethical obligations to protect and serve the public. In this crucial election year, the stakes have never been higher, and the responsibility lies with all of us to demand better from our leaders.