# congress building code, good idea bad idea???



## cda (Jul 24, 2012)

A bi-partisan bill seeking support from public safety aims to reduce loss of life and damages after disasters.

A hearing for the Safe Building Codes Incentive Act is set for this Tuesday, July 24 at 10:00 a.m. and will be webcast live.

The Safe Building Code Incentive Act would create a financial incentive for states that have adopted and are currently enforcing statewide building codes for residential and commercial structures. Under the proposed law, states that do so would qualify for an additional 4-percent in post-disaster funding.

The program would be administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Congressman Jeff Denham (CA-19), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, spoke to fire service media about the pending legislation.

The bill, HR 2069, was introduced by Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-21) and was referred to Chairman Denham’s subcommittee.

"We can cut the cost and amount of damage done with stronger building codes; we did it in California," Denham said.

Denham explained that the goal is for nationally recognized codes to be selected and enhanced at the state level to address local perils, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, fire, ice storms and other natural catastrophes.

"We want to make sure we're empowering states to put in the types of safeguards they need," Denham said.

In addition, standardized building codes would create a consistent playing field for design professionals, suppliers, and builders, and create a minimum standard that consumers could rely upon.

However, "Most importantly," Denham said, " it's about saving lives."

The witness list for the hearing includes Chief Hank C. Clemmensen, First Vice President of the International Association of Fire Chiefs; Mr. Chad Berginnis, CFM, Executive Director, Association of State Floodplain Managers; Mr. Jim Mullen, President National Emergency Management Assoc; and Mr. Jimmy Gianato, Director of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, State of West Virginia.

Thirty-one states currently qualify or could qualify with minor legislative changes to state laws and regulations, including: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10745818/building-code-legislation-aims-to-save-lives-funding


----------



## mjesse (Jul 24, 2012)

The Feds provide money to Illinois (and other States I'm sure) for adopting the latest ICC Energy Code. The State has mandated its enforcement, yet provides little to no funding or education for municipalities imposed to upheld these mandates.

The State easily approved the mandate to collect the funds, then does not pass it on to those who need it to do their job.

There may be good ways to put nationwide Codes into practice, but waving money at Illinois State government is NOT it.


----------



## Coug Dad (Jul 24, 2012)

What a wonderful use of our unlimited taxing resources to create more federal control over local issues.  It has work so well for the schools, highway departments, immigration and a host of others that it is a slam dunk certainty that it will be sucessful in the code enforcement environment.  After all, it is all about saving lives and the children.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 24, 2012)

More tax dollars from states that do not or experience less natural disasters and sounds like re-distribution and adds to the bureauracy. Let alone requires to adopt an "approved" statewide building code which Virginia and still FEMA denied disaster assistance to earthquake victims.

Francis


----------



## fatboy (Jul 24, 2012)

I think the Fed's need to butt-out-ski........JMHO


----------



## jpranch (Jul 24, 2012)

For more information on this bill click on this ICC link: http://capwiz.com/iccsafe/issues/bills/?bill=49069586

Please take notice of who the sponsers are???


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 24, 2012)

> The Safe Building Code Incentive Act would create a financial incentive for states that have adopted and are currently enforcing statewide building codes for residential and commercial structures


How about the states that do not have statewide enforcement? Would it not be money better spent to get them on board?

We do not have state wide enforcement of residential codes. I think Colorado is the same.

Now to contradict myself the elected Federal reps have a bigger job to do and that is how do they cut spending not increase it with more programs.


----------



## Coug Dad (Jul 24, 2012)

Is ICC endorsing this bill?  I could not tell from the link.


----------



## Coug Dad (Jul 24, 2012)

Boxer, Feinstein and Cant(wait to spend)well.  What a surprise.


----------



## righter101 (Jul 24, 2012)

Great, another unfunded mandate.

Let's give the feds control over the building codes.

Unfunded mandates.  More regulation.  This is insane.

I support the building codes entirely, but we need to have a serious disucssion on a national level on what services and entire agencies we are going to cut.

The train is headed over the cliff soon if we keep doing what we are doing.


----------



## conarb (Jul 24, 2012)

> The program would be administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).


This is already happening here in California, a year ago my structural engineer and a plan checker (also a SE)  were fighting over  column to beam connections, I was meeting with the engineer to discuss what could be done to satisfy her and he said: "I don't know why she's objecting, I've desighned to FEMA standards", he reached up into a shelf and pulled down a book written by FEMA, opening it to show me the FEMA details he had used.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 24, 2012)

Conarb

Your SE and the plan checker should not be talking about FEMA reports.  They should be dealing with the requirements in the CBC.  After the Northridge earthquake FEMA sponsored research to address some of the problems.  Initially engineers followed the recommendations in these reports as good practice.  Over time the recommendations have been refined and incorporated in the building code.  Thus strict adherence to the FEMA reports could reflect dated thinking.

FEMA's role was limited to sponsoring research that resulted in recommendations and making the information available to engineers.  FEMA is not involved in publishing formal standards.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 24, 2012)

The discussion about unfunded mandates is misplaced.  The article says that the states that have good codes will be availible to additional post disaster funding.  This suggests you have to have a disaster before you can get that money.

The legislation is an attempt to incentivise good practices while leaving the exact nature of the resulations and their implementation in the hands of the state.

Seperate from this legislation we have a situation where a number of states make an effort to implement effective building codes throughout the state while in a number of states the codes are dated and enforcement is poor to non-existant.


----------



## Coug Dad (Jul 24, 2012)

Sorry Mark, those are the same agruments used when the US Department of Educaton was founded in the late 1970's.  We're here to help and only those poor districts who really need our help will be impacted.  Good school districts will have no impact.  I was there, I remember. You can see where that got us.


----------



## righter101 (Jul 24, 2012)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> Sorry Mark, those are the same agruments used when the US Department of Educaton was founded in the late 1970's.  We're here to help and only those poor districts who really need our help will be impacted.  Good school districts will have no impact.  I was there, I remember. You can see where that got us.


Excellent point.  Excellent starting point for eliminating entire government agencies.  Department of Education can go.

We do not need a new agency, committee, vision, or action by an existing agency.  Let the states take care of it.  Period.

Name one thing that the Federal Government does well.......

Now interject that in to an already bureacratic process (I-Codes).  Honestly, will this improve things?


----------



## pwood (Jul 24, 2012)

[quote=righter101;87481Name one thing that the Federal Government does well.......

you are kidding, right?


----------



## Mark K (Jul 24, 2012)

My first choice would be to get rid of the department of agriculture and the payments to farmers for not growing crops.  Get rid of price support for milk.

Get rid of food stamps.  Let the poore starve.

No more inspection of food.  Firms that produce contaminated food will lose customers.

No more controls on testing of drugs.  Let the drug manufacturers experiment on the general public.

Get rid of the FBI.

Get rid of Medicaid.  Let the poor die off.

Cut Social Security.  Encorage the elderly to get a job.

No more FEMA aid after disasters.  It is God's will that all the heathens die off.

No more Army Core of Engineers flood control efforts.

Get rid of the Federal Highway Administration.  No more aid for highway projects.  Business will take up the slack.


----------



## cda (Jul 24, 2012)

pwood said:
			
		

> righter101;87481Name one thing that the Federal Government does well.......you are kidding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## righter101 (Jul 24, 2012)

pwood said:
			
		

> righter101;87481Name one thing that the Federal Government does well.......you are kidding said:
> 
> 
> 
> > No, I am looking for examples of things that the Federal Government does well.  What programs have they run that are a resounding success, models of efficency and delivery of promised services, free (largely) from fraud, waste and corruption.


----------



## righter101 (Jul 24, 2012)

Mark K said:
			
		

> My first choice would be to get rid of the department of agriculture and the payments to farmers for not growing crops.  Get rid of price support for milk.Get rid of food stamps.  Let the poore starve.
> 
> No more inspection of food.  Firms that produce contaminated food will lose customers.
> 
> ...


I am not advocating elimination of all government services.  Your sarcasm is noted however.


----------



## cda (Jul 24, 2012)

Maybe the bright side is we will all become """ FEDERALES """"" building/fire inspectors, and be set for life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mark K (Jul 24, 2012)

What sarcasm??  Do you mean to tell me that the Tea Party and the GOP do not believe what they have been telling us?

We still need tax collectors so we can double the size of the army, increase the sizes of prisons, and subsidize the rich?


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 24, 2012)

Seriously . . .


*Guaranteed Health Care*: *ban all HMO's and medical insurance. Outlaw the American Medical Association. Change the medical deductions on the 1040 to 100%. Result: People will shop for their medical needs, thereby reducing inflated prices of pharmaceuticals, laboratories, doctors, and hospitals. After all, medical insurance is designed to guarantee that the medical industry be paid, not that people receive adequate treatment.* 

*Social Security*: *Since when?* 

*Education: The Government should stay out of it. Government interference only perpetuates existing stupidity. *

*Welfare*: *Get a job.* 

*National Security: Who would be stupid enough to invade the U.S.? And what would they do with us if they won? Would it be any worse than what we have now? *

*Congress: Cut salaries to what these idiots are worth. Minium wage for entry level. *

*Protecting the public from itself: The government has no business interfering in people's lives or protecting us from our own stupidity. *

*Lobbyists and Special Interests:* *Tax all cash flow at 50%.* *Tax all religious institutions that engage in politics. (separation of church and state works both ways)* 

*Equal Rights:* *Get over it.* 

*Personal Income Tax:* *Dump it. Flat tax corporations 50% of gross with no deductions* 

On Reforming the Government 




Merge the Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, DIA, and ATF. Move them all to a compound in Area 51 and post National Guard or Reservist MP's as sentries. 

Disband the IRS, lay off all employees and relocate them to their own "retirement" community in Area 51. 

Francis


----------



## tmurray (Jul 25, 2012)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> Seriously . . .[*]*Congress: Cut salaries to what these idiots are worth. Minium{sic} wage for entry level. *


I always think it would be interesting to see the results that would occur if you cut back on politician's pay. The reason why you don't have educated professionals taking these jobs is because the private sector pays so much more, so you end up with career politicians who have no idea how the private sector works yet is making laws and regulations for it. You get what you pay for. If you pay the same wage as McDonald's you're going to get the same people and I'd really hate to see the guy who can't even get my burger order right try to run a country...


----------



## Builder Bob (Jul 25, 2012)

tmurray said:
			
		

> I always think it would be interesting to see the results that would occur if you cut back on politician's pay. The reason why you don't have educated professionals taking these jobs is because the private sector pays so much more, so you end up with career politicians who have no idea how the private sector works yet is making laws and regulations for it. You get what you pay for. If you pay the same wage as McDonald's you're going to get the same people and I'd really hate to see the guy who can't even get my burger order right try to run a country...


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 25, 2012)

Au contraire tmurray, better benefits is what was attractive when I took a government job after 25 years on commission.

You don't have people running for office because of the media bias.

While millions of Americans saw their incomes decrease, their job opportunities dissipate and their home values drop as the economy dipped, the 535 men and women they elected to represent them in the U.S. Congress were not only shielded from the economic downturn but  gained during it.

The average American’s net worth has dropped 8 percent during the past six years, while members of Congress got, on average, 15 percent richer, according to a New York Times analysis of financial disclosure.  The median net worth of members of Congress  is about $913,000, compared with about $100,000 for the country at large, the Times’ analysis found.

This wealth disparity between lawmakers and the people they represent seems to be *continually growing*. Nearly half of Congress — 249 members  — are millionaires, while only 5 percent of American households can make the *same claim*.

Even among the super rich, members of Congress fare better than other wealthy Americans. While the net worth of the richest 10 percent of Americans has remained stagnant since 2004, lawmakers’ net worth has seen double-digit growth, the Times reports.

Members of the House have fared especially well. From 1984 to 2009, the average net worth of the 435 House reps  more than  doubled, from $280,000 to $725,000, not including home equity,  according to a Washington Post analysis of financial disclosures.

And while lawmakers in the “people’s house” grew significantly richer, the people they represent became slightly poorer, with the average wealth of an American household dropping from $20,600 to $20,500 over the same time period, the Post reports.

This growing disparity may be due, in part, to the rising cost of campaigning, which may deter less-affluent citizens from seeking public office.

To win a House seat, candidates spent an average of $1.4 million in 2010, four times as much as was spent in 1976, according to the Federal Election Commission. Winning a Senate seat is nearly 10 times as expensive, with the average successful Senate campaign shelling out nearly $10 million in 2010.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/as-americans-get-poorer-members-of-congress-get-richer/

Francis


----------



## Keystone (Jul 25, 2012)

Charley Reese's final column

A very interesting column.. Be sure to Read the Poem at the end.

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel...He has been a journalist for 49 years.

He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000 People -By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it... is up to you.

This might be funny if it weren't so true.

Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,

Tax his bed,

Tax the table,

At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,

Tax his mule,

Teach him taxes

Are the rule.

Tax his work,

Tax his pay,

He works for

peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,

Tax his goat,

Tax his pants,

Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,

Tax his shirt,

Tax his work,

Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,

Tax his drink,

Tax him if he

Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,

Tax his beers,

If he cries

Tax his tears.

Tax his car,

Tax his gas,

Find other ways

To tax his ***.

Tax all he has

Then let him know

That you won't be done

Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;

Then tax him some more,

Tax him till

He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,

Tax his grave,

Tax the sod in

Which he's laid...

Put these words

Upon his tomb,

'Taxes drove me

to my doom...'

When he's gone,

Do not relax,

Its time to apply

The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax

Building Permit Tax

CDL license Tax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Dog License Tax

Excise Taxes

Federal Income Tax

Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

Fishing License Tax

Food License Tax

Fuel Permit Tax

Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)

Gross Receipts Tax

Hunting License Tax

Inheritance Tax

Inventory Tax

IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)

Liquor Tax

Luxury Taxes

Marriage License Tax

Medicare Tax

Personal Property Tax

Property Tax

Real Estate Tax

Service Charge Tax

Social Security Tax

Road Usage Tax

Recreational Vehicle Tax

Sales Tax

School Tax

State Income Tax

State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)

Telephone Federal Excise Tax

Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax

Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes

Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax

Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax

Telephone State and Local Tax

Telephone Usage Charge Tax

Utility Taxes

Vehicle License Registration Tax

Vehicle Sales Tax

Watercraft Registration Tax

Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 25, 2012)

Yup, taxing our way to prosperity

Francis


----------



## steveray (Jul 25, 2012)

No building permit tax here.....we gave the town back at least as much as we spent...(1/2 of what we took in)


----------



## tmurray (Jul 25, 2012)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> Au contraire tmurray, better benefits is what was attractive when I took a government job after 25 years on commission.


That's kind of what I'm talking about. If that job had a low wage (assuming benefits included in wage) you would not have applied for the position. You current employer would have ended up with someone who has no experience and likely little to no education. Lets look at the net value of 725,000$. In the private sector someone with the same level of responsibility would make that as an annual salary, so why would they consider taking that much of a pay cut? The only reason would be because they wanted to "give something back" or "contribute to society". Maybe I'm just too jaded, but these people are too few and far between to rely on them.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 25, 2012)

steveray said:
			
		

> No building permit tax here.....we gave the town back at least as much as we spent...(1/2 of what we took in)


Here it is actually illegal for fees to contribute to the general fund because of the definitions of tax and fee. Basically all fees must be used in the department that they were collected by.


----------



## pwood (Jul 25, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> pwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> > No, I am looking for examples of things that the Federal Government does well. What programs have they run that are a resounding success, models of efficency and delivery of promised services, free (largely) from fraud, waste and corruption.


mark k covered some of the basics. I am glad that I can drive to work on a interstate highway every day. I had two horses but they didn't care for the 100 mile commute every day. I like knowing that the country is safe from the nut job, religious wackos of the world thanks to those in uniforms. social security, medicare, and soon national healthcare for all are good things. Have you ever needed life threatening surgery but were too poor to afford surgery? Trust me, it is a bietch! sure the system has flaws but if you think it is that bad move yourself to loredo,mexico or syria,or afghanistan and whine about their shortcomings to their leaders. You will have a lot of raw material.

             The federal gov. is not alone in low performance status. Look how well private industry is doing! we're not perfect, but there is no place i'd rather be than here.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 25, 2012)

tmurray said:
			
		

> That's kind of what I'm talking about. If that job had a low wage (assuming benefits included in wage) you would not have applied for the position. You current employer would have ended up with someone who has no experience and likely little to no education. Lets look at the net value of 725,000$. In the private sector someone with the same level of responsibility would make that as an annual salary, so why would they consider taking that much of a pay cut? The only reason would be because they wanted to "give something back" or "contribute to society". Maybe I'm just too jaded, but these people are too few and far between to rely on them.


I'm generally not a good example to reference since I'm with little or no experience - 3 yrs. home inspections on the side. No related formal education when hired; Associate Automotive Technology. I did a better job at selling myself.

I Think an issue in this discussion is not responsibility but accountability and the Feds have built themselves a wall of immunity whereas the private sector would be prosecuted for the same kind of performance or financially ruined by media misinformation.
















http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2012-04FedBenefitsWP_0.pdf

Francis


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 25, 2012)

All US congressmen and senators are elected by the residents of their state. Therefore they should be considered state employees and their wages and benefits would be set by their individual states.

Might be a small reminder of who they work for and who they are suppose to represent.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 25, 2012)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> I Think an issue in this discussion is not responsibility but accountability and the Feds have built themselves a wall of immunity whereas the private sector would be prosecuted for the same kind of performance or financially ruined by media misinformation.


I have to completely agree with this statement. The issue with a representative democracy is that the general populace isn't intelligent enough to use it to their advantage. People line up to put themselves in the "Liberal" or "Conservative" boxes while most of the populations are moderates. Members of political parties will never serve their constituents because their members exist to further the goal of the party as a whole.

As for the posted stats on earnings based on education level; I'm certainly not an advocate of paying someone based on their level of education, but the duties as it relates to their job function...Let's be honest, there are people who didn't even finish college running some extremely profitable companies.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 25, 2012)

Funy thing about the states with the least amount of collage graduates in elected positions they all have a balanced budget or a surplus

http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/states-see-budget-surpluses

About one in four of the nearly 7,400 elected representatives across the country do not possess a four-year college degree, according to a report released Sunday evening by The Chronicle of Higher Education in Washington. That compares with 6 percent of members of Congress, and 72 percent of adults nationwide, said the report, which is based primarily on the officials’ self-reported biographical information.        Arkansas has the least formally educated Statehouse, with 25 percent of its 135 legislators not having any college experience at all, compared with 8.7 percent of lawmakers nationwide. It was followed by state legislatures in Montana (20 percent), Kansas (16 percent), South Dakota (16 percent) and Arizona (16 percent).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/education/13legis.html

Your degree may help you get a job but your pay and continued employment should be based on you doing your the job you where hired to do.

The only job a politician does consistantly and to the best of his or her abilities is work towards getting re-elected.


----------



## steveray (Jul 25, 2012)

I wish!.....I know it gets gray here but that is the way I believe most of this state runs......



			
				tmurray said:
			
		

> Here it is actually illegal for fees to contribute to the general fund because of the definitions of tax and fee. Basically all fees must be used in the department that they were collected by.


----------



## Alias (Jul 25, 2012)

steveray said:
			
		

> No building permit tax here.....we gave the town back at least as much as we spent...(1/2 of what we took in)


None here either.  City pays at least 50% of my expenses from the General Fund.  For my department to be self-supporting, I'd need two things:

1. To raise the permit fees at least 50%, and

2. A building surge

Sue


----------



## GBrackins (Jul 25, 2012)

I'm all for a uniform building code that is administered and enforced fairly and equally based upon the needs and safeguards of the citizens of that particular state. Because of my occupation I've always lived in states with a uniform building code since the 70's.

What I am against is the Feds using our tax dollars as an incentive for change. If people have a disaster they should help equally, not say "oh well you don't have a building code so you get 4% less, better come around to OUR way of thinking." The Feds are excellent at "getting" people to think their way by dangling a carrot out for them to try and get a nibble."

 If people are happy paying higher insurance premiums or not being able to get insurance, and having less government control on their lives I'm all for that. After all that is what this country was founded on, I thought ....


----------



## Mark K (Jul 25, 2012)

According to the no incentive for change logic when the Misissippi River floods the feds should pay on the the floor insurance policy to rebuild the house that was washed away at least two times before.

I believe that the proposed incentives are a way to reduce the longterm costs of disaster aid.

Having less government sounds fine but the more people you get in a concentrated area the more government you need.  If you want little government then move to Alaska or Northern Canada where there is nobody around.  Interesting California has a statute that effectively says that if you have an isolated residence in a remote rural location that they are not going to hassel you for most building code requirements.

On the other hand the more people who move to Alaska the more government they will need.


----------



## GBrackins (Jul 26, 2012)

actually my understanding is FEMA will pay out, and then tell you you'll have to rebuild to the current standards or you won't be covered .... FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program is not aid, its an insurance policy that you pay for


----------



## GBrackins (Jul 26, 2012)

I understand what you are saying Mark, something needs to be done to entice states without a building code to adopt one. insurance companies can increase rates, or refuse to cover as in the example of FEMA National Flood Insurance Program. But we are talking about people (who pay taxes) after a disaster being told that because their state does not have a building code you're worth 4% less .... leaves a sour taste in my mouth

my understanding in Massachusetts is that the insurance industry put pressure on the Commonwealth to adopt the Icodes a few years back. Prior to that Massachusetts wrote and published their own Uniform Building Code that could not be modified by communities. Now we have the ICodes with amendments. insurance companies have the power to make requirements for people to be insured .....


----------



## Alias (Jul 26, 2012)

GBrackins said:
			
		

> actually my understanding is FEMA will pay out, and then tell you you'll have to rebuild to the current standards or you won't be covered .... FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program is not aid, its an insurance policy that you pay for


You are correct Gary.  And *anyone* can purchase flood insurance if they so desire, or earthquake insurance for that matter.

We had FEMA remap our area a couple of years ago and they reclassified the south of town as Zone A.

I had someone put a manufactured home in prior to the official maps taking effect and they were warned of the rezoning.  Earlier this year they tried to come back on the city because we 'allowed' them to build there.  Couldn't do it because we had warned them in writing of the FEMA remap.

Sue


----------

