Despite two consecutive vetoes by former Governor Pataki, the protectionist interior design lobby is once again pushing their monopolist legislation. read more

A protectionist crusade spearheaded by special interest groups is
seeking to limit free and fair competition in the field of interior
design. As a part of this effort, lobbying organizations like Interior
Designers for Legislation in New York have recently introduced two
pieces of anti-competitive legislation.

Bill A6534 seeks to restrict the free use of the term “interior
designer” to those who have obtained a special certification under New York’s higher education law. Contrary to what its supporters would have you believe, such certification has been demonstrated to have no positive impact on public health or safety. Its chief effect is to limit the pool of persons who can call themselves “interior designers,” conferring a competitive advantage on the narrow class of “certified” interior designers at the expense of uncertified counterparts who do the exact same work. They seek to exclude those who lack this more or less arbitrary certification despite the fact that “certified” interior designers and their uncertified counterparts have practiced their trade in harmony for years. Bill A6534 rips the useful description of “interior design” from the public domain and limits its use to a limited and self-interested guild.

Assembly Bill 4816 is yet another attempt by the interior design
protectionists to unjustly insulate themselves from the competitive
market. This bill distinguishes “certified” interior designers from
their counterparts who do the very same work and singles them out for an exemption from the state sales tax. While there is nothing
objectionable per se in an exemption from the sales tax, there is a
real problem when such an exemption is doled out to a politically
favored group at the expense of its competition. If Bill 4816 is
passed, an interior designer doing the exact same work as a “certified” counterpart would be forced to charge more or profit less than his tax-exempt peer. This distortion of the economic playing field is not good for the interior design market and is certainly not in the
interest of the public! Unless Bill 4816 is amended to apply to all
practitioners of interior design, and not just a “certified” favored
group, the Assembly should reject it.

Back to top