# NAHB's Influence on the IRC



## Uncle Bob (Aug 29, 2010)

The ICC (International Code Council) would not be where it is today without the deal it made with the NAHB (National Association of Home Builders). The deal gave the NAHB eight (8) *guaranteed seats* on the IRC Technical committees; four (4) on the IRC Mechanical/Plumbing Code Committee, and four (4) on the IRC Building and Energy Code Committee.

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode%20Committee%20Rosters/roster_IRC-MP.pdf

and,

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode%20Committee%20Rosters/roster_IRC-BE.pdf

In return; the NAHB; with it's powerful financial and political ally the NAR (National Association of Realtors); lobbied State and local governments to adopt the ICC - IRC.

Since then, the NAHB has been able to dilute the IRC with numerous code changes and amendments; in an effort to make the IRC ineffectual; and they are succeeding.

While everyone is concentrating on one big issue; like Residential Fire Sprinklers; the NAHB is pushing through numerous other code changes that weaken the effectiveness of other requirements of the IRC; or eliminate them entirely.

Just one example of this is the addition of the term "affordability" to R101.3 Purpose; added in the 2003 IRC.

The purpose of this thread is not to attack the NAHB; who are protecting the interests of their members; but, to show how the influence of stake-holders is weaking the effectiveness of the codes.

The proposed codes and code changes, should be written by structrual, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical Engineers; and the committees should be comprised of, members who are knowledgeable professionals in that specific area of expertise; and, not stake-holders whose primary objective is financial gain.

If the ICC truely believes that I-Code Certification represents a special knowledge of that particular code; then perhaps only those with that certification should be admitted to the that particular code committee.

The codes that were originally designed to protect the public; have become political tools, that protect and promote the financial interests of stake-holders.

Ya'll have a nice day,  

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Aug 29, 2010)

Boy BOB! You really want to get me fired up!


----------



## conarb (Aug 29, 2010)

Well said Uncle Bob:

But we have to go back further to the settlement of the lawsuit made between the code groups and the NFPA giving the fire people dominance in building codes, building codes and fire codes should be separate.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> The codes that were originally designed to protect the  public; have become political tools, that protect and promote the  financial interests of stake-holders.


To that I'd add "... that protect and promote the  financial interests of stake-holders, *and advance the interests of those groups with various political and social agenda". *

I agree, all stakeholders should be removed from the process, the word "affordability" is the refuge of scoundrels wanting to cut corners and should be removed from all codes. The codes should not be used to promote the sale of any products, or as a vehicle to promote religious, political, or social beliefs.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 29, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> To that I'd add "... that protect and promote the  financial interests of stake-holders, *and advance the interests of those groups with various political and social agenda". *


Sorry, but there is no such thing as someone(s) that have no agenda(s) including every single person on this board.


----------



## RJJ (Aug 29, 2010)

When the ICC was formed, my feeling was that at long last we will have one code. Finally an end to searching through all the different codes to find answers. Boy I must be as dumb as dirt! Also, my belief was that all the little click's like BOCO would end. I guess I was double dumb on that one! My first real venture, with ICC was Minnesota to see what it was all about. Oh the hearing room was humming with the RFS debate about to come up. The night before was a firemen pep rally! The vote past everyone left and I suppose all important business had been taken care of for that year. The NHAB proceeded to push through the little codes and corrections they could. It was a disgrace the whole hearing. As I sat on the plane, I had a thousand different thoughts and a usual I wrote a letter to ICC. The return was lip service. Others across the country raise the same issues. With no result.

Baltimore was a repeat with pipe fitters voting on code issue to keep a job. The hearing was shut down for fire code violations. Well done ICC. The hearing rooms had to be separate and one almost needed to pack a lunch to get from one to the other. We voted in a new President, but nothing has changed. I left those hearings with the same disappointment. However, unlike the Twin City mess, I was now seasoned and had no expectation for a move in the right direction.

UB: you raise an old question with regard to stake holders? Do you all realize that just about 2/3 of the members of ICC are not even code officials! We have two Board members that are not even employed by a governing body. They have retired! Check the Bylaws.

Here is an issue raise by Gary Schenk from SEA TEC Washington. I had the pleasure to meet Gary and we Sat in on the Baltimore Fire side chat.

From Gary!

"I engaged in another exercise to further prove this point a few months ago. There are two ICC board members that have retired but remain in office. If you read the bylaws, it is quite clear that board members must be designated representatives of a governmental authority, etc. and we questioned how it was that these individuals were still holding their seats. After receiving a letter from the president of ICC which stated that our interpretation was incorrect and that all was on the up and up, we respectfully disagreed and asked that the issue be brought before the whole board for discussion at their next meeting. Every board member was also asked individually to discuss the matter in an open forum and account for what comments that they made.

 To make a long story short, the president stated to the rest at their meeting that he had addressed our issues and that was the end of that. There was not a discussion and nobody spoke for this member organization, and I mean nobody. No credence was given to this request from WABO, a member chapter, and not a single reply was sent back to us. But still, we are told that it is our association and our money. Sometimes actions speak louder than words and WABO has several examples of where this has happened."

UB: The stakeholders are only the tip of the iceberg! Soon I will write on ICC and the trickle up effect!  Not to hijack your thread,but if you do the math the code official is not represented in ICC. If we start with 2/3 not being code officials and through in a code teacher and a state organization the actual number of code officials on the floor or as members is small. We have been left in the dust. Why? Well it is because we don't have a national organization for code officials. ICC is not ours! The money you pay as a member, services the will of ICC. Don't be fooled! It's time for the Building Official to take off the blinders! Oh ya, we get little card that says member and certs at the cost of 2 to 3 hundred each that say we are cast in stone ICC A number 1.  END of rant!


----------



## incognito (Aug 30, 2010)

The influence of NAHB is at best minimal. They have no votes when it comes to voting for code adoptions. If we, the ones doing the actual voting, are convinced by the arguments they make on a code issue we have no one to blame but ourselves. I am more deeply concerned by the fact that we have turned our organization over to the fire service by giving them voting rights and they have no qualms about buying whatever best suits NFPA and NFSA. We have lost our organization and there does not appear to be any way to gain it back.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 30, 2010)

The subject of this thread is; *NAHB's influence on the IRC .*

*NAHB's Influence on the IRC *

The ICC (International Code Council) would not be where it is today without the deal it made with the NAHB (National Association of Home Builders). The deal gave the NAHB 

eight (8) 

*guaranteed seats*

 on the IRC Technical committees; four (4) on the IRC Mechanical/Plumbing Code Committee, and four (4) on the IRC Building and Energy Code Committee.



http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode Committee Rosters/roster_IRC-MP.pdfhttp://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode%20Co...ter_IRC-MP.pdf

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode Committee Rosters/roster_IRC-MP.pdfand,



http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode Committee Rosters/roster_IRC-BE.pdfhttp://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode%20Co...ter_IRC-BE.pdf

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode%20Committee%20Rosters/roster_IRC-BE.pdf' rel="external nofollow">

In return; the NAHB; with it's powerful financial and political ally the NAR (National Association of Realtors); lobbied State and local governments to adopt the ICC - IRC.



Since then, the NAHB has been able to dilute the IRC with numerous code changes and amendments; in an effort to make the IRC ineffectual; and they are succeeding.



While everyone is concentrating on one big issue; like Residential Fire Sprinklers; the NAHB is pushing through numerous other code changes that weaken the effectiveness of other requirements of the IRC; or eliminate them entirely.



Just one example of this is the addition of the term "affordability" to R101.3 Purpose; added in the 2003 IRC.



The purpose of this thread is not to attack the NAHB; who are protecting the interests of their members; but, to show how the influence of stake-holders is weaking the effectiveness of the codes.



The proposed codes and code changes, should be written by structrual, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical Engineers; and the committees should be comprised of, members who are knowledgeable professionals in that specific area of expertise; a

nd, not stake-holders whose primary objective is financial gain.



If the ICC truely believes that I-Code Certification represents a special knowledge of that particular code; then perhaps only those with that certification should be admitted to the that particular code committee.



The codes that were originally designed to protect the public; have become political tools, that protect and promote the financial interests of stake-holders.



Ya'll have a nice day, :grin:



Uncle Bob


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 30, 2010)

Incognito said;

"The influence of NAHB is at best minimal. They have no votes when it comes to voting for code adoptions."

How many code additions and/or code changes have been voted on; that didn't first go through the code committee.

You vote on what the code committee presents to you.

Doesn't that make the NAHB'S influence significant?

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Aug 30, 2010)

UB: I know you are trying to bring the thread back to center and I am sorry I started to Hijack it. The problem does not fall just on the NAHB or and other individual group. I agree that too many seats on a committee by any one group is not in the best interest of the code. The term affordability is a wonderful word plugged in to create the maze for fall back position when face with a more restrictive and  cost  consuming means of construction. Perhaps a definition is in order for that term. "Just what is affordable?" Who applies this magic to come up with affordability? Is there a graph or chart that allows us to understand this rational? How many members voted on this term was it 40 or 50? Maybe it is a none issue? The latest issue of the IRC has some 200 new pages. Lots of ink and soon to go to a two volume set. Before long inspector will need a hand truck just to pull around the code. 20 some pages just on wall bracing! Do you think Simpson was behind the curtain with fingers crossed? What  was NAHB's position on all this. How!!! I will stop now!


----------



## Min&Max (Aug 30, 2010)

Regardless of NAHBs' position it is up to us to either vote yes or no. Blaming NAHB for our own stupidity is ridiculous.


----------



## CowboyRR (Aug 30, 2010)

Do you really think that this thread would be allowed on an ICC message forum?

I have no problem with NAHB being on committees in limited numbers. They can bring a good balance to the discussions. The root cause of the problems with the code book lies in the totally messed up code development process as a whole. The process is a shambles -  a topic for a different thread.

I agree with RJJ's posts. Current ICC leadership is not in touch with the organization's roots. They have pushed the ICC far away from the basic mission. This is an issue of greed coupled with an elevated sense of self-importance amongst ICC leaders. The second big move that needs to be made - relocate the ICC headquarters out of DC and put it in an "affordable" MidWest location. The ICC has become way too "political" - lobbying on behalf of ICC leaders interests.


----------



## north star (Aug 30, 2010)

** * ** 

To all:

There are some good suggestions from CowboyRR [ and others ] regarding

the current position of ICC and some suggested ideas as to what ICC could

do to "right the ship".

I for one, do not believe that ICC WILL "right the ship". They are going

to continue down the dillusional, self serving path they have chosen /

created until they are bankrupt. It's still all about the money and their

self interests [ *Side Note:* Does anyone remember the Enron,

Worldcom, and other implosions? All together now, ...can we say

"greed!"  ]

As interested code officials, realistically, what do you see happening

in the near and long term future? NOT what we want, but what is

going to happen?    And not just with ICC!      What about some

other type of unified codes for everyone?   Is it going to return

to some type of "amended codes per state", ...or  "per jurisdiction" in

the future?      I think that ICC is just a stepping stone.    They

simply cannot continue to sell memberships and code related

literature and expect to survive.

Rant  paused...

** * **


----------



## RJJ (Aug 30, 2010)

I will address the implosion issue under the trickle up effect. There are things we can do and should do. Stake-holders is only one spoke in  the wheel. I don't believe we need a new code writing organization. Even with ICC the States adopt what they want. So the bar hasn't been raise much higher then the state level. God forbid, we have the Fed in this cause nothing they do works without 2 czars and 40 thousand clerks.

The question is still out on what does affordability mean?


----------



## conarb (Aug 30, 2010)

\ said:
			
		

> The question is still out on what does affordability mean?


It means "cheap" so you can produce a product and sell it to more people. It also means "disposable", so you can continually sell it to the same people, I'll never forget a speech from a NAHB executive when I was a member in the early 70s, the gist was that we built homes too well, they lasted almost forever, that we should take a page from the auto manufacturers' book and build homes that are disposable so we could continue to sell homes to people. The NAHB has achieved their dream of a disposable home through the Energy and Green Codes.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 30, 2010)

RJJ,

The backbone of the NAHB's goals is "affordability". From the NAHB website (which they are cutting me off of more and more areas that I can access without being a member);

_Building Codes_


Support a single coordinated set of national model building codes for jurisdictions choosing to adopt a building code that provides for:
​

Responsible code development procedures as reflected by the current procedures of the International Code Council.
​

Appropriate levels of voting representation by NAHB nominees on code development committees.
​

A user-friendly, stand-alone residential building code that includes housing *affordability as a major determinant* in its development, as currently represented by the International Residential Code.
​

[*]

Continue to support the adoption of state-enabling legislation that:
​[*]


Calls for the creation of state-wide codes based on a coordinated set of national model building codes developed in accordance with the criteria stated above.
​

Allows state-wide amendments to the model codes to account for jurisdictional differences or to enhance housing affordability by providing cost-effective requirements to provide for the health and safety of the occupants of homes.
​

Creates statewide minimum-maximum code requirements by recommending that there be no local amendments, which make the code more restrictive or housing less affordable.
​

[*]

Continue to oppose any building code or building code provision that is detrimental to the goal of providing decent, safe, and affordable housing and that does not include jurisdictional flexibility.
​[*]

Ask HUD to withhold federal grants and loans to those states that use building codes that exceed the national model building codes and to apply the same restriction to any other stand-alone law that deals with a building code.
​Affordability to the NAHB is the builder's cost of construction; not affordable homes.
​Uncle Bob
​


----------



## RJJ (Aug 30, 2010)

So how do we find this magic affordable home and who decides what code should be applied? We all know that the I codes are a minimum over all.   I suppose there is no rational to what is affordable!


----------



## CowboyRR (Aug 30, 2010)

RJJ said:
			
		

> I will address the implosion issue under the trickle up effect. There are things we can do and should do. Stake-holders is only one spoke in  the wheel. I don't believe we need a new code writing organization. Even with ICC the States adopt what they want. So the bar hasn't been raise much higher then the state level. God forbid, we have the Fed in this cause nothing they do works without 2 czars and 40 thousand clerks.The question is still out on what does affordability mean?


"Affordability" is what the market will pay for a home within a given set of specifications - and it varies by location. What makes you think that the ICC CEO isn't already pushing the org. toward a Federal regime with his eye on being that czar? I think it is more likely than you might imagine.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 30, 2010)

> So how do we find this magic affordable home


Limit the contractors profit to a maximum 10%, and limit the size of the home to 1400 sq ft maximum with no garages and that is an "affordable" home.

Don't count the lot price when determining affordability as the owner can always choose a cheaper lot it just might not be the neighborhood where he wants to live


----------



## RJJ (Aug 30, 2010)

MT: What happened to capitalism? 10% ?

CowboyRR:  I believe the Cash Cow is on the Train and ready to hand over the Keys to the kingdom for the right price.

This is why I raise the questions? The HAHB has and will be a problem, but as I state before they are only one piece of the puzzle.

We code enforcement, BO, fire guys and gals are even on the chess board.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 30, 2010)

RJJ,

"We code enforcement, BO, fire guys and gals are even on the chess board. "

That, I can help you with; they are called "Pawns"; the most expendable pieces on the board.

Uncle Bob


----------



## ewenme (Aug 30, 2010)

Affordable is the difference between granite and formica; it's the difference between plush and bare-bones; it's the difference between usability and show. Affordable doesn't have to be 'throw away' any more than an over-priced home. Ever notice that many a 'trailer court' was built in the flood plain?  Ever wonder why?  It was cheap, and the insurance was paid by the inhabitants, not the court owner. In a flood, the 'affordable homes' are washed away to make room for the newer ones.

The problems arise from the facts that people: no longer believe in sweat-equity; no longer have the skills in trades; no longer have a desire to learn; and no longer think that they need to live within their means. Codes started out to save lives, addressing fire and life-safety issues which was a good thing. Now codes are about other things, like which kind of fasteners to use, how to brace a wall to survive level 7 earthquake, how to include many products not known a few short years ago.  A house can still be built under the older codes and be quite a nice place to live. The codes are the new way to 'take care of people who are too stupid to think and act for themselves.'  The word quality has taken on new meaning:  I can get a three bedroom three bath home on a 12,000 sq ft lot for $XXXXXXXX. Quality should be: I bought a house in  2010 and expect to live there into my old age and pass it on to my grandchildren.

OK, I'll get off the soapbox.  The NAHB is made up of people just like us: they are doing a job and trying to get ahead. It's too bad that all the trades organizations don't get together in an effort to bring quality up across the board. A house is not just carpentry, or wiring, or plumbing, or HVAC: it's all them with the crowning touch of quality of workmanship and pride. Affordable can have that too. It just takes skill.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 30, 2010)

RJJ



> MT: What happened to capitalism? 10% ?


Nothing happened to it I was just wondering how many of their members would agree to it to advance their call for "affordable" housing  

The other limit is realtors with exclusive listings

They get a 6% fee on the sale of the raw land

Another 6% on the sale of the lot to the builder

and another 6% on the sale of the final home

$70,000 lot = $4,200

$230,000 home = $13,800

Total $18,000 or 22% of the cost of the home

Most of the time around here the realtor is the developer and maybe even the contractor on a small subdivison (50 lots or less).

UB

Sorry about the rant but you did mention the NAHB and Realtors being in bed together and it got me thinking


----------



## RJJ (Aug 30, 2010)

UB: I did not proof the post. I should have said are not! SO WE AIN'T EVEN PAWNS!

Now we are getting someplace. It seems that afforable is starting to take shape or is it!


----------



## incognito (Aug 31, 2010)

Ewenme is on the right track. Stainless steel sink, no dishwasher but a place for one in the future, no finished basement(screw the energy code), small two stall garage(20 x 20), vinyl windows and siding, one full bathroom with rough-in for additional in basement, 2-3 bedrooms and any interior color you want as long as its white. Lot size 70 x 120. Home sq.ft.--1000 to 1200. And no sprinkler system on the property---lawn or fire.


----------



## conarb (Aug 31, 2010)

Why do we need "affordable housing"?  We have an oversupply of housing caused by the government propping up prices by tax benefits and guaranteeing/subsidizing mortgages.

I follow an appraisers forum on a daily basis, in addressing the oversupply of houses a guy came up with an idea to create the economic benefits of war without killing people by destroying part of the housing stock in this country, I don't agree with this, but throw it out for food for thought.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> IMO, much of deflation is that people don't WANT to buy, over and above  that the income levels are not high enough to sustain prices.  Why buy a  new home if you think it's going to lose value?  Buying a new car?   Wait or buy a used one.  Don't buy that new couch or bed.  Get multiple  bids for any work and watch the bids drop, with the contractors knowing  that price is a major issue now, and can/will put off the work if it's  too much, subjectively.





			
				\ said:
			
		

> Deflation the result of Too much supply.Think of WWII - how much in goods did we ship 3,000 / 5,000 / 10,000 miles,
> 
> and then deliberately destroy, or use to destroy other goods and people.
> 
> ...


Are they nuts?

¹ http://appraisersforum.com/showthread.php?p=2027854#post2027854


----------



## RJJ (Aug 31, 2010)

Some really great posts! Here are a few things from the NAR's sine we have them in the mix.

from the 3rd quarter of 09 affordable housing: 178k  Income level for a house hold 61,324.00

             2nd quarter 2010                         177K   .....................................  60.498.00

From a purely economic sense affordability is nothing more then the cost relative to the amount that the purchaser is able to pay.

So how does this term have anything to do with building codes? Why should it be considered? Is it purely a fall back to you are costing me to much. IS that a real argument to be considered?


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Aug 31, 2010)

When the ability of the populus to purchase housing is decreased, then the cost of housing also must decrease.  Affordability.

Wages are decreasing, which is part of the overall economic stymulus plan (to stymie).  The NAHB has always focused on the difference between cost and profit.  Anything that deters the profit margin is bad.  But that is the business of builders is to make profit.  NAHB is not an advocate of government housing.

The NAHB has a financial stake in the ICC.  There is a direct link between the ICC and profit.

Code Officials do not have a direct link between the ICC and financial well being.  AND I mean ALL Code Officials.

We have gone through many years of Code Officials attacking each other over who is most interested in the safety of the public.  So for every time a Code Official says that one group is in bed with some outside organization with a profit motive, there is another opportunity for a like kind response.

So, UB is right to be concerned about the NAHB.  I have personnally watched the NAHB get more than one Fire Marshal dismissed from a job, because the Fire Marshal tried to enforce the code adopted.  I have watched as more than one Code Official sat next to and supported the NAHB.  They will try to divide and concur.  They have the financial resources to do that in any municipality or state organization.

Code Officials can talk about them, but without the financial ability to take on the NAHB, talk is all you get.


----------



## TJacobs (Aug 31, 2010)

Since affordability is subjective, it should not even be in the codes.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 31, 2010)

Not only does the NAHB have a base for control of the IRC, by having guaranteed seats on the committee; it is a "partner" of the ICC in designing the IRC code requirements through the new ICGG;

"The Consensus Committee is made up of more than forty groups representing a broad spectrum of the industry.

(Note: not including Code Officials)

Its purpose is to review the working draft of the national standard based on NAHB's Model Green Home Building Guidelines and to develop* ICC/NAHB National Green Building Standard.*

Unlike the Guidelines, which are intended to be used in the construction of one- and two-family homes, the new standard will be applicable to all new home construction, including multifamily units.

http://www.buildingonline.com/news/viewnews.pl?id=5970

In other words; the NAHB will be writing the codes!

On their website they often refer to "educating code officials".

As with other "alternative methods and materials" you will see in upcoming IRC's the statement;

"Building in accordance with the ICGG shall be approved by the Building Official."

In other words the IRC requirements will not control construction methods and materials. The NAHB is writing it's own codes and requiring the building officials, plan reviewers, and inspectors to learn the NAHB's standards for construction.

The next step is for local government code inspectors to be required to become a NAHB verifier;

http://www.nahbgreen.org/Resources/Verifiers/becomeverifier.aspx

It's the fox building the hen house,

Uncle Bob


----------



## Min&Max (Aug 31, 2010)

UB, I am not sure it will be any worse than what we have today. The IRC has become nothing more than conglomoration of useless requirements as marketed by Simpson Strong Tie and other marketing companies. And lets not forget who had to vote all this in before it became code required. All anyone has to do to sell it to us(code officials) is claim it is necessary to provide for health, safety and welfare of the public.


----------



## ewenme (Aug 31, 2010)

The picture that is being painted is ugly:  special interest groups formulate the 'best code' ideas, and submit them for review to a committee, which then makes a recommendation to the ICC body membership, which then reviews them and decides whether to vote yea or nay. Then along comes other special interest groups with fire in the belly and swords on high to point out to the code officials which is the right way to vote; and voila, we have new code, more code, better code. Pardon me whilst I put on the chest waders.  Swim for your life, it's not safe in these waters any more.

While I overly simplified my rendition of how codes are promulgated, I don't think it's much better in real life. Simpson, Gypsum, Engineered lumber, steel, insulation, etc., each industry has its own goals and products to promote.  Some are tried and true, and some are new and undergoing testing to see if they can make the grade. Who is pushing for new anything?  Owners? I doubt it, they just want the finished product as cheap as they can get it, but as high class as it can get [nothing cheap but the price?]. Contractors? I think they want to be able to build quickly, down and dirty, and be outta the picture ASAP, so the owners are left holding the bag. Architects? I doubt it here too; although they like to try new stuff, it's not the new stuff that makes the money, usually, it's the appearance, the neighborhood, the 'name' or the size.

So, what role does code play in the whole picture. I think a smaller and smaller role. If you look back to the times when codes were new they played a huge role, but they were focused on the important matters. Now, the codes are all over the board, and a big/long code seems to be the result. If we can't make houses better by good construction practices, then let's make them worse by applying too many words that don't say much. Meaning is lost and/or confusing in code language. Where is the Engrish teacher when he/she is needed?

OK, I'm getting off the soapbox again. I am still trying to imagine a 'Uniform Building Code' that makes sense. A Common Code for Construction? A Good Sense Code for Construction?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 31, 2010)

"Affordable housing is when you live with your mother in-law and when you run out of beer she picks up a six pack of buck horn!

Can't help my self. Sorry

pc1


----------



## jar546 (Aug 31, 2010)

I am always hearing that all of the changes are brought on by companies that have a stake in the outcome in order to sell more products.  I do not think that is true.  The changes in the 09 for wall bracing for example actually hurts Simpson from selling their braced wall panel units because there are now more options for wall bracing that previously did not exist in the 06 code.

Does anyone think that the electrical suppliers like Leviton and others caused the tamper-proof receptacles to be passed?


----------



## RJJ (Aug 31, 2010)

ewenme: I have to agree! We have a watered down code with the important issues being lost in mix of special interest. Affordability should not be a fall back for position for poor building. Should it be left out? I say no! Somehow we need to find the balance.

In a general statement, I would say that the majority of code people on this BB have a sense of balance between good code compliant construction and cheap trash that someone wants to install. I do not get the sense that many enforce made up codes or take the attitude of because I said so. Yet, every three years we are hand new junk to understand, enforce and justify.

Can someone explain how 200 pages got added to a code in one 3 year period? Was there that much wrong with the prior code? Was the public left unprotected?  I guess we could say they are now 200 pages safer.


----------



## peach (Aug 31, 2010)

Lobbyists do that.. lobby for their special interests.  The voting members get the codes changed.. not the committees.  The committee makes a recommendation for the membership to vote on...


----------



## Yankee (Aug 31, 2010)

duplicate post


----------



## Yankee (Aug 31, 2010)

Many additions to the code book are for products that are new, but in many cases the "old fashioned" way of building may still be used. For instance the use of dimensional lumber hasn't been removed as a choice. But if one wants to use trusses or engineered lumber then there are requirements to go along with that choice.


----------



## incognito (Sep 1, 2010)

It is the unnecessary "stuff" that is added to the code under the guise of health, safety and welfare that drives many crazy. Green building, fire sprinklers, 90% of Simpson product line and the list goes on. Well built and affordable are both possible and contractors that are NAHB members do a better job than most at putting the package together.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 1, 2010)

incognito said:
			
		

> It is the unnecessary "stuff" that is added to the code under the guise of health, safety and welfare that drives many crazy. Green building, fire sprinklers, 90% of Simpson product line and the list goes on. Well built and affordable are both possible and contractors that are NAHB members do a better job than most at putting the package together.


I don't disagree that there is a lot of "stuff" included, but my point being (for instance) the Simpson line of items is not required to be used. But if a builder CHOOSES to use a product then it has requirements that go along with it. These choices in many cases have been added because SOME builders think they can build less expensively using new products than using conventional methods and materials. SO we can argue all day as to what should and shouldn't be in the code, and that is exactly what happens (with a bit of political/economic pressure here and there).


----------



## RJJ (Sep 1, 2010)

Jeff: On The leviton issue probably not! But they will make a larger profit as a result of a need to comply. Businessmen just don't take it on the chip. They find a way to profit. If the regulations become to intensive they move to other areas for profit. I have not looked closely at Simpson and the impact of wall bracing but my gut feeling is they stand to profit from these changes. They are not going to give up a market share.

We all know that the stake-holders are present and will remain so. It is not a bad thing for them to have a stake. The size of the stake is what is important. We could raise issues of who is going to profit and how much, but these things just muddy the water. More importantly is the effect produced by them on the built environment and what it adds or detracts from the code.

Another issue is all that take part in the hearings. From my position many are just trying to hear themselves speak. I may be wrong and others may have a different view. NAHB is included in this along with code officials. ICC loves it cause the end result is more code and ink to sell.


----------

