# Gas logs



## ICE (Mar 3, 2012)

Some time ago I was with a friend looking at new condominiums to buy.  At one location in the city of Anaheim Hills I noticed a conventional wood burning fireplace that was plumbed with gas pipe for a log lighter or gas logs but no appliance was installed.  The chimney has a damper that could close completely.  I mentioned that the damper should have hardware that prevents it from closing all the way.  The salesperson asked me what I based that statement on and I told her that I am an inspector.

Well that's as far as it went, until I got a call (at work) from the Anaheim Superintendent of Building.(SOB)  It seems that the saleslady told the developer who called the building dept.  They had my name because I had to sign in and they were able to track me down....and chew me out.  The SOB was angry that I created a ***** storm in his jurisdiction.  The SOB stated that the hardware to prevent the damper from closing isn't required until or unless there is a gas appliance installed in the fireplace.  The SOB of Anaheim went so far as to call my SOB who concurred and who called me to tell me so.

I don't get it.  The part can't cost $2 and takes 20 seconds to install.  I say that if gas is plumbed to the fireplace, the damper should be blocked and not wait for a H/O to do it because he installed a log lighter.  It is worth noting that the hardware is never installed before I require it, with or without a log lighter/gas log.

Just in case either SOB is looking in:

So far, nobody has objected when I have required the hardware and despite your instruction, I get it every time.

Tiger


----------



## Msradell (Mar 3, 2012)

I personally don't think it's a good idea to block the damper so it can't close completely until the gas appliance is installed.  You're just allowing a known air leak which will help reduce energy efficiency.  When and if the Gas Appliances installed the damper should be modified.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 3, 2012)

I'll also play the devils advocate, and what I would feel compelled to enforce. The gas appliance is not in place, may very well never be in place, you are enforcing code based on your assumption of what may happen. Not a good position. Document the presence of the gas piping, and the advice to install hardware upon installation of said gas appliance, and move on.


----------



## ICE (Mar 3, 2012)

Msradell said:
			
		

> I personally don't think it's a good idea to block the damper so it can't close completely until the gas appliance is installed.  You're just allowing a known air leak which will help reduce energy efficiency.  When and if the Gas Appliances installed the damper should be modified.


We require glass doors to take care of that.  The damper is held open perhaps 3/8".  The damper seldom fits airtight to begin with and the hardware really adds little on most.  If there were a tight fit, which I suppose does happen, the hardware adds a lot.

Be careful with the word "modified."  If the damper is "modified", the listing is void.


----------



## ICE (Mar 3, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> I'll also play the devils advocate, and what I would feel compelled to enforce. The gas appliance is not in place, may very well never be in place, you are enforcing code based on your assumption of what may happen. Not a good position. Document the presence of the gas piping, and the advice to install hardware upon installation of said gas appliance, and move on.


I guess I could leave them a note in the fireplace.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 3, 2012)

You can't enforce a requirement on something that is not installed. Regardless of your personal preference. Period.


----------



## ICE (Mar 3, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> You can't enforce a requirement on something that is not installed. Regardless of your personal preference. Period.


Well until they break my fingers I guess I can.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 3, 2012)

I should have said, you shouldn't enforce requirements based on something not installed. Of course you can force it.......and I hate to quote brudgers, but at that point you are making them do the dance.


----------



## ICE (Mar 3, 2012)

Well fatboy, sometimes ya just gotta think outside the box.  I knew this would stir the pot some because most folks look at the code as a box and if it's not in the box then it's not code.  Common sense isn't allowed because my common sense may differ from other's common sense.  Keep in mind the piddling amount this will cost.

It's the cheapest dance they've ever been to.

You said this, "You can't enforce a requirement on something that is not installed."  The gas pipe is installed.  That's all I need to know.

Msradell said this, "You're just allowing a known air leak which will help reduce energy efficiency."  You should have added "and save lives."


----------



## fatboy (Mar 3, 2012)

Cost doesn't mean jack.....and neither does the piping. And this isn't a "box" question. The provision of the piping is for a possible future installation, may or may not happen. No matter how warm and fuzzy it makes you feel, enforcing anticipated future uses is overstepping your authority. JMHO  Done.


----------



## ICE (Mar 3, 2012)

Aw come on fats, you can't be done already.  "Warm and fuzzy" is it.  Do you think I'm covered in fur?

I wonder how many inspectors that see this will think, "Oh crap, I haven't been getting the hardware, ever."

I reckon you are concerned with how many would be polluted with my take on code enforcement.  Your concern is valid and I should preface what I post at forums with a disclaimer stating "Do not attempt this at home."

Tiger


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 3, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> We require glass doors to take care of that. The damper is held open perhaps 3/8". The damper seldom fits airtight to begin with and the hardware really adds little on most. If there were a tight fit, which I suppose does happen, the hardware adds a lot.Be careful with the word "modified." If the damper is "modified", the listing is void.


You should NOT be requiring glass doors on wood burning fireplaces

http://www.rumford.com/GasketedFPdoorsIntertekopinion.pdf


----------



## ICE (Mar 3, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> You should NOT be requiring glass doors on wood burning fireplaceshttp://www.rumford.com/GasketedFPdoorsIntertekopinion.pdf


That is interesting.  I wonder what is being done about this.  Apparently not much because this is the first I've heard about it.  Soon enough it will be a moot point around here because the Air Quality Management District will outlaw burning wood.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Mar 3, 2012)

If they install a ventless logset it does not require a damper clamp. In fact, it would defeat the purpose. You cannot enforce what ifs. That is where we get a bad name.

If they have drywall stacked in the unfinished attic at the final inspection do you cite them for work without a permit because they might finish the room at some point in the future? I think you are trying to stir it up on this one.


----------



## ICE (Mar 3, 2012)

Daddy-0- said:
			
		

> If they install a ventless logset it does not require a damper clamp. In fact, it would defeat the purpose. You cannot enforce what ifs. That is where we get a bad name. If they have drywall stacked in the unfinished attic at the final inspection do you cite them for work without a permit because they might finish the room at some point in the future? I think you are trying to stir it up on this one.


There's no such thing as a vent-less log set in my jurisdiction.

I'm not looking into the future at what ifs.  The gas pipe is there now.

*"do you cite them for work without a permit because they might finish the room" * If an attic is stocked with drywall, I have questions.  Do you ask about attics stocked with plywood?  Do you make sure that the ceiling works as a floor too?  I am one of the most easy going inspectors around when it comes to work without a permit.  I could tell you stories but then you could tell me that I give inspectors a bad name.

I did know that the pot would get stirred with this one.  So go ahead and blame me for the bad name we have, I can handle it.

Look around, I'm alone in this.  Nobody will agree with me so it's not a widespread problem of rogue inspectors now is it.

People had to die before the code addressed the problem.  Shirley Prudence demands that I look for a way to enforce the code rather than look for a way to ignore it.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 3, 2012)

I know that I said I was done, but actually I'm inclined to agree with daddy-o, me thinks you are trying to get some action going this weekend, and the traffic is slow.


----------



## ICE (Mar 3, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> I know that I said I was done, but actually I'm inclined to agree with daddy-o, me thinks you are trying to get some action going this weekend, and the traffic is slow.


Actually fatboy it is all true and it is always slow here.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Mar 3, 2012)

I am not trying to egg you on or put you down or anything like that. My point is this... a gas line stubbed into a fireplace is just that. You don't know  what if anything will ever be installed. We have lots of unvented logsets here. Many models can be a vented decorative appliances OR an unvented fireplace. Only the vented decorative appliance requires a damper clamp.

We have lots of builders who have attics set up to be finished in the future. A good builder will stock the shower unit and the drywall in the attic leaning on the wall as a courtesy to the client so they don't have to try to get it in the attic window later. We make a note on the final inspection that the space is not finished and move on. That is all you can legally do IMO.

I have always respected your opinions and almost always agree with them but in this case I do not. And of course that is also just an opinion.


----------



## ICE (Mar 3, 2012)

Daddy-0- said:
			
		

> I am not trying to egg you on or put you down or anything like that. My point is this... a gas line stubbed into a fireplace is just that. You don't know  what if anything will ever be installed. We have lots of unvented logsets here. Many models can be a vented decorative appliances OR an unvented fireplace. Only the vented decorative appliance requires a damper clamp. We have lots of builders who have attics set up to be finished in the future. A good builder will stock the shower unit and the drywall in the attic leaning on the wall as a courtesy to the client so they don't have to try to get it in the attic window later. We make a note on the final inspection that the space is not finished and move on. That is all you can legally do IMO.
> 
> I have always respected your opinions and almost always agree with them but in this case I do not. And of course that is also just an opinion.


Everybody, including my SOB agrees with you.  I am OK with that and do it my way because I can.  You are right in that a gas stub is just a gas stub and I don't know what will become of it.  I know what can become of it and I know that the clamp seldom gets installed by contractors so I have no confidence that a H/O will install a clamp.  I just feel better knowing that a $2 clamp may save a life.  I am also convinced that code allows me to do so.

The contractors that stock attics are doing a good thing and I wouldn't stand in their way as long as the original construction accommodated a room in the attic.  Here in So. California, we don't have many tall attics because we don't have snow or maybe we lack imagination.  I do encounter plywood because they want to turn the attic into a storage space.  I find this at the framing inspection and more often than not, I must say no because the ceiling isn't built for that.

I remember when the vent-less appliances hit the market.  My AHJ said no and it remains so today.  I haven't asked about them for a long time so I could be wrong.  I don't mind being wrong at all as long as I finally find out about it.

And by the way Daddy-0-, I remember you as a level headed guy that is worth paying attention to.  We will not always agree and I wouldn't expect that we should.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 5, 2012)

Did you want the condo?

If so you may have blown it, but then again I'm sure you rather blow it then have you're home blow it.


----------



## steveray (Mar 5, 2012)

Most of the "unvented" units I have seen say that they can not be installed unvented in "tight construction"...if so, and we allow them, we are buying in to the liability for a CO claim I imagine....


----------



## north star (Mar 5, 2012)

*= =*





> "The SOB of Anaheim went so far as to call my SOB who concurred and who called me to tell me so."


Interesting & humorous choice of abbreviated references! *$ $*


----------



## brudgers (Mar 5, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Well fatboy, sometimes ya just gotta think outside the box.  I knew this would stir the pot some because most folks look at the code as a box and if it's not in the box then it's not code.  Common sense isn't allowed because my common sense may differ from other's common sense.  Keep in mind the piddling amount this will cost. It's the cheapest dance they've ever been to.  You said this, "You can't enforce a requirement on something that is not installed."  The gas pipe is installed.  That's all I need to know.  Msradell said this, "You're just allowing a known air leak which will help reduce energy efficiency."  You should have added "and save lives."


    They don't have to install it.    They can take out the gas line to the fireplace, instead.    It's all about options (another of Milton's directives).


----------



## texasbo (Mar 5, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Everybody, including my SOB agrees with you.  I am OK with that and do it my way because I can.


And shockingly, there are still those who have negative feelings about public employees and building departments...

Hopefully you're also requiring EER windows in walk-in closets because someone might sleep in one someday.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 5, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> And shockingly, there are still those who have negative feelings about public employees and building departments...  Hopefully you're also requiring EER windows in walk-in closets because someone might sleep in one someday.


  I think he has to prohibit downspouts from discharging on sidewalks first.


----------



## High Desert (Mar 5, 2012)

Obviously you're enforcing the International Ice Code on this. I'm sure either your jurisdiction or the State of California has language  that can put the liability directly on you for requiring someone to do something that is not a code requirement. Even though you think you're doing a good turn and think it right and common sense, inspectors have been sued for a lot less than this.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 5, 2012)

I would bet that most of the "contractors" in the area don't want to go any where near a court house.


----------



## High Desert (Mar 5, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> I would bet that most of the "contractors" in the area don't want to go any where near a court house.


They're probably afraid of retribution.


----------



## ICE (Mar 5, 2012)

High Desert said:
			
		

> They're probably afraid of retribution.


Bit of a sour puss aren't you?  Considering getting sued over such a trifling thing as this is


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 6, 2012)

High desert, you have got to admit that after seeing all of the pictures that ICE has posted that he has saved lives. The people in his area should be criminally prosecuted for the absolutely horribly unsafe work that they perform on a regular basis. It is no wonder he interprets the code in the strictest of manners. I for one see his point in requiring the opening hardware since they have provided the connection for the appliance the fact that they have not yet installed just means they should use the highest figure applicable from table G2453.1. Everyone knows full well that they will not get a permit when the appliance goes in. Until such a time as he is called on it by the contractor or property owner why stop.


----------



## conarb (Mar 6, 2012)

Hammer:

If the Green Rater requires blower door tests and he can't seal glass doors, how is he going to get the test to work if the damper is propped open?


----------



## texasbo (Mar 6, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> High desert, you have got to admit that after seeing all of the pictures that ICE has posted that he has saved lives. The people in his area should be criminally prosecuted for the absolutely horribly unsafe work that they perform on a regular basis. It is no wonder he interprets the code in the strictest of manners. I for one see his point in requiring the opening hardware since they have provided the connection for the appliance the fact that they have not yet installed just means they should use the highest figure applicable from table G2453.1. Everyone knows full well that they will not get a permit when the appliance goes in. Until such a time as he is called on it by the contractor or property owner why stop.


gb, I simply can't agree with this statement. Look at what you wrote. You are stating that because some inspector comes up against some bad contractors, he should take the law into his own hands with OTHER contractors. Seriously?

I don't disagree that if you encounter violations you should take appropriate action. How in the world does that justify excessive action taken on everyone else? There are many public servants who have gone to jail for such blatant disregard for the law. And they probably had an even better excuse than "I do it my way because I can"....

If this is such an important issue, the ordinance needs to be changed. We don't need inspectors out there flying by the seat of their pants.


----------



## tmurray (Mar 6, 2012)

conarb said:
			
		

> Hammer:If the Green Rater requires blower door tests and he can't seal glass doors, how is he going to get the test to work if the damper is propped open?


You tape that sucker closed the same way you tape over all the other intentional building envelope penetrations. Then, after the test, you just remove the tape.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 6, 2012)

conarb said:
			
		

> Hammer:If the Green Rater requires blower door tests and he can't seal glass doors, how is he going to get the test to work if the damper is propped open?


You've seen what goes on in his area; do you honestly believe that the people there are trying to have LEED certified homes? If Green Rater goes there at all it will be for a home that has been done right from start to finish, not one of these crazy projects ICE has to ride rough shod over. Then again he could be like others that just let this stuff go saying not my problem. The way I see it he is a true servant to his community and there is no doubt in my mind that he goes above and beyond in an honest attempt to help people.

Believe it or not I’m not a preacher and there’s no bromance going on, but sheesh the guy is one of the good guys.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 6, 2012)

Seeing "what goes on in his area" doesn't justify blatantly disregarding the code, and his supervisor's direction.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 6, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> gb, I simply can't agree with this statement. Look at what you wrote. You are stating that because some inspector comes up against some bad contractors, he should take the law into his own hands with OTHER contractors. Seriously? I don't disagree that if you encounter violations you should take appropriate action. How in the world does that justify excessive action taken on everyone else? There are many public servants who have gone to jail for such blatant disregard for the law. And they probably had an even better excuse than "I do it my way because I can"....
> 
> If this is such an important issue, the ordinance needs to be changed. We don't need inspectors out there flying by the seat of their pants.


Where is the taking the law into your own hands part? Read the legal aspects of code enforcement, he has some latitude here his policy has been set and he is consistent in his enforcement. If the pipe is installed then it counts as a part of the appliance, wahlah no issue, opening required.


----------



## righter101 (Mar 6, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> You can't enforce a requirement on something that is not installed. Regardless of your personal preference. Period.


The gas pipe has been stubbed out.  Something is installed.

Would you then, allow a toilet rough-in to be installed in a compartment that is way to narrow to accomodate the required side clearances?  since it's only a rough in.

If someone wants to rough in for a toilet, sink, and shower for a "future" bathroom, we would require them to also rough in the exhaust fan.  Am I wrong to do this?

Very similar to what is being discussed.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 6, 2012)

deleted: reformatting


----------



## righter101 (Mar 6, 2012)

Daddy-0- said:
			
		

> I am not trying to egg you on or put you down or anything like that. My point is this... a gas line stubbed into a fireplace is just that. You don't know  what if anything will ever be installed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## texasbo (Mar 6, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Daddy-0- said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## righter101 (Mar 6, 2012)

Lets use a future bathroom room arguement.

I am building a house and may or may not some day put a 2nd bathroom in.

I indicate on my plans a "rough in" for the toilet, shower and sink.

The plans examiner tells me that i need to install an exhaust fan.  He cites a section in the code that requires it in a bathroom.

I try to argue that "its not a bathroom".  You don't know what I may or may not do with that rough in sink drain and toilet flange and 36x36 area for a shower pan with a rough in drain.

Do they need an exhaust fan at least roughed in, or is that over reaching??


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 6, 2012)

California Tort Claims Act of 1963; California public officials are absolutely immune to malicious prosecution cases. "...even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause."


----------



## High Desert (Mar 6, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> High desert, you have got to admit that after seeing all of the pictures that ICE has posted that he has saved lives. The people in his area should be criminally prosecuted for the absolutely horribly unsafe work that they perform on a regular basis. It is no wonder he interprets the code in the strictest of manners. I for one see his point in requiring the opening hardware since they have provided the connection for the appliance the fact that they have not yet installed just means they should use the highest figure applicable from table G2453.1. Everyone knows full well that they will not get a permit when the appliance goes in. Until such a time as he is called on it by the contractor or property owner why stop.


Come on. There is no proof whatsoever that ICE is the great savior of human life. That's complete conjecture. If you require something that is not required, that's bullying, plain and simple. You can't make up your own rules.

ICE, I was trying to be polite in telling you I thought you were going above the code. Since you pressed the issue, I will be blunt and tell you you are.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 6, 2012)

"The gas pipe has been stubbed out. Something is installed.

Would you then, allow a toilet rough-in to be installed in a compartment that is way to narrow to accomodate the required side clearances? since it's only a rough in.

If someone wants to rough in for a toilet, sink, and shower for a "future" bathroom, we would require them to also rough in the exhaust fan. Am I wrong to do this?

Very similar to what is being discussed."

Nothing is installed other than a gas stub that may or may not ever be used.

Rough-ins are just that, for a POSSIBLE future installation. We have almost always full basements in this part of the country, there are always bath rough-ins included. No, I don't try to figure out how it will be arranged, because most likely it will get moved before it is all said and done. And no, we don't require a fan be roughed in.

We see sometimes see A/C linesets roughed in for future use. Should we require the coil be installed, the electrical stubbed out outside, the base set? No, not here. Rough-ins are a convienient option for possible future use.

Heck if I used that theory, I would have to have them finish the basement immediately when it was installed, because if its there, I must assume they will use it in some fashion, and not get a permit to do it correctly. NOT.

JMHO


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 6, 2012)

We all have the pipes for an unlisted gas appliance and should probably have an opening for ventilation that follows us around. Just like that pipe that all of us has, we all have opinions on how to apply the code. The fact is that ICE is consistent in his enforcement he believes he is right, and he is protected by the law.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 6, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> We don't need inspectors out there flying by the seat of their pants.


  By the looks of it, ICE couldn't do what his community requires, if he didn't.  Some people have it what it takes.

  On the other hand, I'm not suggesting that you should.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 6, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> California Tort Claims Act of 1963; California public officials are absolutely immune to malicious prosecution cases. "...even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause."


  The way the city attorney explained it to me; if you are consistent, you are protected. Even if you are consistently wrong.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 6, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> By the looks of it, ICE couldn't do what his community requires, if he didn't.  Some people have it what it takes.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm not suggesting that you should.


On the contrary, he could do what his community requires by simply enforcing the code.

However, it doesn't surprise me that you are in the "just because I found some other violations across town, I now have the right to start pulling code requirements out of my azz" camp.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 6, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The way the city attorney explained it to me; if you are consistent, you are protected. Even if you are consistently wrong.


The city attorney obviously felt the need to include the "even if" clause when speaking of your efforts.

I'm sure you were humiliated.

3 days later when you finally realized what he was talking about.

p.s. I'm glad to see the man-crush thing is still alive and well between the two of you. It's simply adorable.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 6, 2012)

> Even if you are consistently wrong.


  Don't be jealous.  You know I can't keep you off my mind.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 6, 2012)

Ice: The SOB of Anaheim went so far as to call my SOB who concurred and who called me to tell me so.

KZQ: Seems like the SOB has established the policy.

Ice: Just in case either SOB is looking in: So far, nobody has objected when I have required the hardware and despite your instruction, I get it every time.

KZQ: After having been informed of the policy you persist. Around here that’s a CLM (career limiting move).

FB: You can't enforce a requirement on something that is not installed. Regardless of your personal preference. Period.

Ice: Well until they break my fingers I guess I can.

KZQ: SOB’s can read and while yours proally doesn’t know you as ICE. I’ll bet he will remember the conversation he had with the other SOB. Another CLM.

Gbhammer: Until such a time as he is called on it by the contractor or property owner why stop.

KZQ: Because his supervisor  already called him on it.

TBO: Seeing "what goes on in his area" doesn't justify blatantly disregarding the code, and his supervisor's direction.

Gbhammer: he has some latitude here his policy has been set and he is consistent in his enforcement.

KZQ: Are you suggesting that an inspector could support that that was his consistent policy when the SOB already disagreed?

Gbhammer: California Tort Claims Act of 1963; California public officials are absolutely immune to malicious prosecution cases. "...even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause."

KZQ: That seems incredible but if you say so, it’s so. However it doesn’t mean that Ice will still have a job.

Bill


----------



## High Desert (Mar 6, 2012)

All I can say is over zealous ARCO (Anal Retentive Code Official). Oh I forgot, many, many lives have been saved because of this.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 6, 2012)

Thanks for sifting through all the other stuff and summarizing this post KZQ.


----------



## ICE (Mar 6, 2012)

Well somebody has to be the worst inspector ever on two legs and it looks like I am carrying the nomination.  But wait.....one, two, three legs........are you guys sure about this?

Tiger


----------



## Frank (Mar 6, 2012)

Putting a damper hold open clamp in a masonary fireplace without gas logs installed could be construed as a violation of 2009 IBC 2111.7.1 Damper requiring the damper be put in place.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 6, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Well somebody has to be the worst inspector ever on two legs and it looks like I am carrying the nomination.  But wait.....one, two, three......are you guys sure about this?Tiger


Don't worry ICE Tiger, you maybe a lot of things to a lot of people, but you aren't even close to the worst building inspector...and I think your SOB would have made that clear to you by now if you were.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 6, 2012)

It's funny how ya’ll find ICE to be getting so thin. I know you're all worried that there may be a green code violation, and some poor contractor is being picked on.

If I were a betting man I would say that most who doth protest do so over ICE's attitude toward his detractors than to the implementation of his policy.

OK

Done

Just for the record, in our jurisdiction we would not require the hardware it is no longer our policy to do so. We used to enforce a lot of things because we thought people would do something with out permits if we gave them an inch. We did so without any fear of legal repercussion because our policies were clear and consistent. We stopped doing it, it took six or seven years to get it to the point where we recommended the change to the powers that be, we decided we could not tell people they had to do more than the adopted code required because we just knew they planned a violation. We changed the policies for the most part because over the last 6 years the builders and contractors in the area have become more responsible and conscientious of what the ICC code requirements are. That is not to say that there are not those fly by night hacks out there who can’t drive a nail much less find a code book in the library.


----------



## High Desert (Mar 6, 2012)

I didn't single out ICE for anything. I would have made the same comments to anyone that posted the same information and situation. The point I was trying to make is you need a valid code section to enforce anything you write up. If you think the code is wrong and should say something else, then change the code. Don't stretch it to something you want it to say based on "what ifs" and "what they might do."


----------



## ICE (Mar 6, 2012)

This was sprinkled amongst demands and pronouncements at another thread.



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> If you don't know, how about putting your "chief" on the line?
> 
> I checked your website, and couldn't find anything under "dirt daubers", "rats" , "intergallactic" or "stature", so I need some direction. Should I call some of your local HVAC contractors? I'm sure they could point me in the right direction.


This came to me as a private message the last time he thought I was out of line.



			
				KZQuixote said:
			
		

> If I was contracting in your jurisdiction I'd eat you for lunch.Bill


The rest of you will have to excuse me if I seem wrong in my approach to such people.  In my minds eye, they are characters...... cartoon characters.  Yosemite Sam and Foghorn Leghorn.....see if you can put the cartoon with the character.

Remember that what I do has no reflection on you.

This is just a forum.

Almost all of you are a 1000 or more miles away and for many I'm a world away.

Almost none of you work a territory that is even remotely similar to mine and never have/never will.

So the next time I say something you find to be outrageous, pause for a moment and remember it's just him.  Who cares ....really now, think about it.  Does it matter so much that I said something at a forum?  You come up with stupid **** like he's gonna be out of a job and they can be sued over a $2 clamp.  Get real....reality is civil service with a union in California.  I could sell and install the clamps until I was told no.  I could shoot clamps through their front door and all would be forgiven with counseling.

In the words of Rodney King  "**** you people, I don't want to get along"


----------



## High Desert (Mar 6, 2012)

We aren't all protected by the law to do whatever we deem the code should intend.  Must be nice to have all that power.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 6, 2012)

You can do what you want, obviously. I thought we were discussing code requirements.


----------



## ICE (Mar 6, 2012)

High Desert said:
			
		

> Must be nice to have all that power.


It can be a burden at times.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 6, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> "I could sell and install the clamps until I was told no.  I could shoot clamps through their front door and all would be forgiven with counseling.  In the words of Rodney King  "**** you people, I don't want to get along"


Dude you've already been told you can't require them. Now you you're boasting that you, a public employee, could require them, sell them and install them with impunity? Where's the SOB when we need him?

Note to SOB, Ice is way beyond counseling. Shooting clamps through front doors!?!?

Actually I've been exchanging with the SOB (slightly different acronym) all along.

"and all would be forgiven with counseling." there's something wrong here. Can you folks pick it out?

And I realize that you "don't want to get along"

Bill/Foghorn


----------



## ICE (Mar 6, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> Dude you've already been told you can't require them. Now you you're boasting that you, a public employee, could require them, sell them and install them with impunity? Where's the SOB when we need him?Actually I've been exchanging with the SOB (slightly different acronym) all along.
> 
> Foghorn


Well Sam 50% is long odds huh.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 6, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Well Sam 50% is long odds huh.


Hey TBO,

Just to save you the search.

http://www.cascaderangeriders.org/Pictures/Yosemite_Sam.png

Bill


----------



## texasbo (Mar 6, 2012)

Hey, they didn't have my permission to post my photo!



			
				KZQuixote said:
			
		

> Hey TBO,Just to save you the search.
> 
> http://www.cascaderangeriders.org/Pictures/Yosemite_Sam.png
> 
> Bill


----------



## texasbo (Mar 6, 2012)

All that power...and the "reality of civil service with a union in California".



			
				High Desert said:
			
		

> We aren't all protected by the law to do whatever we deem the code should intend.  Must be nice to have all that power.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 6, 2012)

I'm making sure to copy this madness, so that you don't erase it as you often do when you post one of your delirious rants. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't needed as evidence some day.

You serve a great purpose on this forum; hopefully many young inspectors will read your semi-coherent drivel, and realize that you are exactly what they DON'T want to imitate.

There used to be a lot of guys in this field like you, you know, before it became more of a profession. Almost all of them were weeded out long ago. Our department even had an ICE. Had.

You asked a few bizarre lines ago if people thought you were the worst inspector. Nah, you're just exactly the same as every other power hungry maniac that struts around making up their own rules and trying to play God. No better, no worse...

Sincerely,

Yosemitebo



			
				ICE said:
			
		

> This was sprinkled amongst demands and pronouncements at another thread. This came to me as a private message the last time he thought I was out of line.
> 
> The rest of you will have to excuse me if I seem wrong in my approach to such people.  In my minds eye, they are characters...... cartoon characters.  Yosemite Sam and Foghorn Leghorn.....see if you can put the cartoon with the character.
> 
> ...


----------



## fatboy (Mar 7, 2012)

"The rest of you will have to excuse me if I seem wrong in my approach to  such people.  In my minds eye, they are characters...... cartoon  characters.  Yosemite Sam and Foghorn Leghorn.....see if you can put the  cartoon with the character."

"Sincerely,

Yosemitebo"

Whoa, back up here, go look at my profile, yosemite sam has been there for most of the time. So, is it me, or TXBO?


----------



## Mac (Mar 7, 2012)

GBHammer wrote: "Even if the state had not nixed sprinklers in one and two family dwellings we would not require them for a house that had been moved. The footings and foundations and any other new construction would need to meet the the IRC."

Fatboy wrote: "Ditto to GBH, even if we had not amended them out, I would not have required them. JMHO"

So, which is the worse offense? Enforcing made up codes or not enforcing hte real ones?


----------



## Frank (Mar 7, 2012)

"So, which is the worse offense? Enforcing made up codes or not enforcing hte real ones?

In our jurisdiction, enforcing made up codes after being told not to.

We have sent new inspectors down the road for that.

Not enforcing real ones tends to get reeducation.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 7, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> "Whoa, back up here, go look at my profile, yosemite sam has been there for most of the time. So, is it me, or TXBO?


Hi FB,

We'll have to ask Ice. He's the one setting policy.

Bill


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 7, 2012)

Mac said:
			
		

> So, which is the worse offense? Enforcing made up codes or not enforcing hte real ones?


Not sure why one has to be worse than the other, but rather shouldn't you be asking which is worse as an isolated incident of either, or a continued and consistent behaviour?


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 7, 2012)

Mac said:
			
		

> GBHammer wrote: "Even if the state had not nixed sprinklers in one and two family dwellings we would not require them for a house that had been moved. The footings and foundations and any other new construction would need to meet the the IRC." Fatboy wrote: "Ditto to GBH, even if we had not amended them out, I would not have required them. JMHO"
> 
> So, which is the worse offense? Enforcing made up codes or not enforcing hte real ones?


Sorry but what is the made up code in this. The house just because you moved it is not being altered, so why is a sprinkler required? The only thing altered is the footing foundation and location / soil / seismic.

Now if the seismic classification for the site was more restrictive than where the house had been constructed, we would require an engineer to analyze the structure to see if it needed braced wall panels or any further alterations to make it work at that site. If it exceeded 50% then we would think about a sprinkler if the state let us enforce that code. Have you read chapter 12 of the IEBC it specifically says what is required for a moved structure and sprinkler is not in there. It does say under conformance that you need to meet the requirements of this code if you do work inside, not you must redo the whole house because you picked it up and set it down.


----------



## Mac (Mar 7, 2012)

From the IRC:

R101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement.......   of detached one- and two family.......

I don't see "movement" in the EBC scope.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 7, 2012)

Mac said:
			
		

> From the IRC: R101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement.......   of detached one- and two family.......
> 
> I don't see "movement" in the EBC scope.


IEBC 309.1 MOVED STRUCTURES

IEBC chapter 12 RELOCATED OR MOVED BUILDINGS


----------



## Mac (Mar 7, 2012)

Yipes! My New York EBC doesn't have a 309.1 - it stops at 308! Ch.12 is there plain as day. Still, if an application came in to relocate a house, I believe NY State would want the Res Code used, which does not include sprinklers yet. I hear they might be in the next revision...

I realize everybody has somewhat altered codes, as is appropriate to regional needs, and thier own approach. Doesn't mean my way is the only way. I just read the codes and apply the rules.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Not sure why one has to be worse than the other, but rather shouldn't you be asking which is worse as an isolated incident of either, or a continued and consistent behaviour?


Do you mean continued and consistent bad behaviour when your supervisor has specifically told you that you are interpreting it wrong, and you intentionally ignore his direction, or some other kind of continued and consistent behaviour?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 7, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> it became more of a profession.


  The day you retire, it will become even more of one.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The day you retire, it will become even more of one.


Gosh, did I hurt your feelings a little earlier in the thread? So much so that you feel the need, like a little child, to start playing the internet forum equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I"? Surely you can do better than that.

And make no mistake, long after I retire, I'll still be around slapping down idiots like you.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 7, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Do you mean continued and consistent bad behaviour when your supervisor has specifically told you that you are interpreting it wrong, and you intentionally ignore his direction, or some other kind of continued and consistent behaviour?


  Time to invoke Godwin's law.  "Just following orders" isn't an excuse.

  However, given your character, I can see why you might demand obedience rather than encourage ethical behavior.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Time to invoke Godwin's law.  "Just following orders" isn't an excuse.
> 
> However, given your character, I can see why you might demand obedience rather than encourage ethical behavior.


And by ethical behavior, you of course mean making up your own rules, despite what the code says.

A perfect example of why you'll still be dealing with me long after I retire....


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 7, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Do you mean continued and consistent bad behaviour when your supervisor has specifically told you that you are interpreting it wrong, and you intentionally ignore his direction, or some other kind of continued and consistent behaviour?


Isn't that what is really being discussed here.  It doesn't matter if you are enforcing too much code, or not enough, it is more a discussion of what the ramifications are if you continually and consistently continue that behavior.  I don't see the point in polarizing the issue into rights and wrongs, or which is worse, rather why don't we ask ourselves, what happens when this action is continued and consistent.  I have seen it move from one AHJ to another, for no other reason than a "that's what everybody else is doing (or not doing)" excuse.  Take the conversation somewhere meaningful texas-bo, and turn this into a thread that actually addresses the why, rather than the what.  Mac brings up a good point, and a direction that is relative to this thread:

Is too much code enforcement or too little code enforcement worse?  I didn't think either was worse than the other, but asked rather if the why and how is worse than the what in this case.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2012)

I think that trying to determine what is right and wrong is infinitely more meaningful than taking the lazy way out and hiding behind "I'm covered because I'm consistent". So please don't tell me to take the conversation somewhere meaningful.

Also, please don't tell me that you too, along with a dangerous and irresponsible architect and a megalomaniac inspector, think that you're going to do it your way, simply because you know you can get away with it because you're consistent, whether it's right or wrong, or for God's sake, that you're in a union.

The whole premise of "I want this because of what somebody may do down the road" is reckless and actionable, especially when your supervisor has told you, correctly, to stop. This is no different than requiring an EER window in a media room because you "just know" somebody's going to go to sleep in there some day.



			
				Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Isn't that what is really being discussed here.  It doesn't matter if you are enforcing too much code, or not enough, it is more a discussion of what the ramifications are if you continually and consistently continue that behavior.  I don't see the point in polarizing the issue into rights and wrongs, or which is worse, rather why don't we ask ourselves, what happens when this action is continued and consistent.  I have seen it move from one AHJ to another, for no other reason than a "that's what everybody else is doing (or not doing)" excuse.  Take the conversation somewhere meaningful texas-bo, and turn this into a thread that actually addresses the why, rather than the what.  Mac brings up a good point, and a direction that is relative to this thread:Is too much code enforcement or too little code enforcement worse?  I didn't think either was worse than the other, but asked rather if the why and how is worse than the what in this case.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 7, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> A perfect example of why you'll still be dealing with me long after I retire....


  The longer I'm dealing with them after you retire, the better.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 7, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> I think that trying to determine what is right and wrong is infinitely more meaningful than taking the lazy way out and hiding behind "I'm covered because I'm consistent". So please don't tell me to take the conversation somewhere meaningful.  Also, please don't tell me that you too, along with a dangerous and irresponsible architect and a megalomaniac inspector, think that you're going to do it your way, simply because you know you can get away with it because you're consistent, whether it's right or wrong, or for God's sake, that you're in a union.  The whole premise of "I want this because of what somebody may do down the road" is reckless and actionable, especially when your supervisor has told you, correctly, to stop. This is no different than requiring an EER window in a media room because you "just know" somebody's going to go to sleep in there some day.


  Instead, rely on your famous "BO."


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 7, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> I think that trying to determine what is right and wrong is infinitely more meaningful than taking the lazy way out and hiding behind "I'm covered because I'm consistent". So please don't tell me to take the conversation somewhere meaningful.


All I asked was instead of only addressing what is right and wrong, address the why and how, which is at the root of the problem.  It's like addressing a person's action or behavior in the moment it happened, and never giving any consideration to where it stems from.  I gave you window to make a complete point on this subject and in turn you came back and made a cowardly half claim that I, in the least support such behavior, or at the most might actually actively participate.  As brudgers said, don't address the end result or the excuses that follow, but address the underlying assumption that has already been purchased.


----------



## ICE (Mar 7, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> turn this into a thread that actually addresses the why, rather than the what.


Some things just need to be done.  A couple of weeks ago I had an inspection that included a 120volt receptacle in a planter that is small with no drainage.  I told them to remove it because it is obvious that the planter will flood in a hard rain and the receptacle will be submerged.  I posted a picture here.  Well there is no code for that and boy did I get the "Who the Hell do you think you are B/S".  One guy went so far as to tell me I think I am God.  What a bunch of weak sisters you are.  Open the lid on your box and recognize that now and then you need to step out in front.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> All I asked was instead of only addressing what is right and wrong, address the why and how, which is at the root of the problem.  It's like addressing a person's action or behavior in the moment it happened, and never giving any consideration to where it stems from.  I gave you window to make a complete point on this subject and in turn you came back and made a cowardly half claim that I, in the least support such behavior, or at the most might actually actively participate.  As brudgers said, don't address the end result or the excuses that follow, but address the underlying assumption that has already been purchased.


You're reading what you want to read. I am addressing the "assumption of what has already been purchased", and that is that it's OK to require someone to do something based on your perception of their future actions. I, and many others here reject that.

The second purchase in this perverted market, is that "well, whether it's wrong or not, it's ok because I'm consistent". Sorry, but I want a refund on that one too. I refuse to settle for, "I'm covered by a technicality, whether I'm right or wrong". Brudgers and ICE, with their lack of both values and integrity, are ok with that. I am not.


----------



## High Desert (Mar 7, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The way the city attorney explained it to me; if you are consistent, you are protected. Even if you are consistently wrong.


So if you're consistently inept and terrible in performing your job, it's all good?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 7, 2012)

High Desert said:
			
		

> So if you're consistently inept and terrible in performing your job, it's all good?


  You'll have to ask Texbo for a quality of life answer based on experience.  As far as legal protection, however, that is my understanding.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 7, 2012)

try forgetting ICE and brudgers for a moment, and playing devil's advocate, is there any circumstance or reason where it would be okay to require something based upon your perception of someone's future actions?  When we red tag a house for work without a permit and there are only bundles of shingles sitting on the roof, but no work has actually been performed, are we over stepping our bounds (remember I am not comparing this to ICE's example), or should we have tagged them for illegal out-door storage, and then when work starts come back and tag for work without a permit?



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> ...that it's OK to require someone to do something based on your perception of their future actions.


To stay consistently within the boundaries of the code, and adhere to the strictest interpretation or sense of the code is the other end of the spectrum, and yet it is still covered by such technicalities.  Your refusal to settle can be admirable, and yet it remains a personal conviction which is not required by the code, and can be overturned by the BO, or SBO, or SOB if there personal conviction does not agree with yours.



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> ...that "well, whether it's wrong or not, it's ok because I'm consistent". Sorry, but I want a refund on that one too. I refuse to settle for, "I'm covered by a technicality, whether I'm right or wrong".


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 7, 2012)

High Desert said:
			
		

> So if you're consistently inept and terrible in performing your job, it's all good?


I also believe those are legitimate legal grounds for termination of employment as well...it isn't a perfect system either.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 7, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> ...and playing devil's advocate, is there any circumstance or reason where it would be okay to require something based upon your perception of someone's future actions?  When we red tag a house for work without a permit and there are only bundles of shingles sitting on the roof, but no work has actually been performed, are we over stepping our bounds (remember I am not comparing this to ICE's example), or should we have tagged them for illegal out-door storage, and then when work starts come back and tag for work without a permit?


I believe a stop order for a stocked roof is over kill. How about a business card with a note asking them to call in? If they do, Great. If they ignore you then a follow up would be required.

Bill


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 7, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> I believe a stop order for a stocked roof is over kill. How about a business card with a note asking them to call in? If they do, Great. If they ignore you then a follow up would be required.Bill


Thanks.  We tried that...didn't work so well, and hard to document.  Our first step is always a soft and fuzzy approach.  Even harder to document when we card them on Friday and work is completed by Monday, with a denial from the soon to be ex-home-owner.  New home-owner calls the next February complaining about water issues from ice-damning.  No ice-protection.  Not a perfect system by any means, no guarantees.  We could just let them go I suppose, but I bleieve it is a valid tangent to this thread.


----------



## tmurray (Mar 7, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> I believe a stop order for a stocked roof is over kill. How about a business card with a note asking them to call in? If they do, Great. If they ignore you then a follow up would be required.Bill


we leave a permit application and business card when we see minor work requiring a permit. I was amazed that almost everyone gets a permit after they find that application.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 7, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> is there any circumstance or reason where it would be okay to require something based upon your perception of someone's future actions?


 The perception of someone's future actions is pretty much the basis for exit signs, smoke detectors, fire alarms, etc. etc.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> try forgetting ICE and brudgers for a moment, and playing devil's advocate, is there any circumstance or reason where it would be okay to require something based upon your perception of someone's future actions?  When we red tag a house for work without a permit and there are only bundles of shingles sitting on the roof, but no work has actually been performed, are we over stepping our bounds (remember I am not comparing this to ICE's example), or should we have tagged them for illegal out-door storage, and then when work starts come back and tag for work without a permit? To stay consistently within the boundaries of the code, and adhere to the strictest interpretation or sense of the code is the other end of the spectrum, and yet it is still covered by such technicalities.  Your refusal to settle can be admirable, and yet it remains a personal conviction which is not required by the code, and can be overturned by the BO, or SBO, or SOB if there personal conviction does not agree with yours.


We can play "what-if" all day long, and that is really not productive. My comments were regarding gas log installations (or lack thereof), and the irresponsible notion of hiding behind consistency with lack of regard for what is right.

 To answer your specific question regarding roofing, unless you have a specific ordinance, then you need to red-tag them for whatever violation bundles on a roof constitutes, if any. If it doesn't constitute a violation, then there are a number of other members who have posted excellent  solutions without exceeding the bounds of the code.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The perception of someone's future actions is pretty much the basis for exit signs, smoke detectors, fire alarms, etc. etc.


Yes, and apparently you missed the oh-so-subtle difference between the items listed above and requiring damper hold open devices for a phantom gas appliance.

Of course, given your apparent lack of judgement, you probably require exit signs in doghouses based on the premise that sooner or later they'll be expanded into high-rise hotels. Without permits.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 7, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> To answer your specific question regarding roofing, unless you have a specific ordinance, then you need to red-tag them for whatever violation bundles on a roof constitutes, if any. If it doesn't constitute a violation, then there are a number of other members who have posted excellent  solutions without exceeding the bounds of the code.


But that is my point.  Those options/solutions are not specifically in the code either.  They are excellent solutions, but they are not within the boundaries of the code.  The bundles on a roof in our jurisdiction only constitutes a violation of our out-door storage ordinances.  To tag some-one for a loaded roof with out-door storage is borderline asinine.  A red tag for stop work (business cards had little to no effect), has the exact same effect for us as the business card and application (we usually include an application with a red-tag) has for others.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> But that is my point.  Those options/solutions are not specifically in the code either.  They are excellent solutions, but they are not within the boundaries of the code.  The bundles on a roof in our jurisdiction only constitutes a violation of our out-door storage ordinances.  To tag some-one for a loaded roof with out-door storage is borderline asinine.  A red tag for stop work (business cards had little to no effect), has the exact same effect for us as the business card and application (we usually include an application with a red-tag) has for others.


My point was, that you don't take code prescribed punitive action, unless you have a code violation. Or you have an ordinance allowing you to do so.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 7, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Of course, given your apparent lack of judgement, you probably require exit signs in doghouses based on the premise that sooner or later they'll be expanded into high-rise hotels. Without permits.


Making a ridiculous examples for comparison does little to address the issue.  Making judgement calls and interpretations is an integral part of the code, whether right or wrong:

2006 IBC

*104.10 Modifications & 104.11 Alternative materials, design, and methods of construction and equipment.*

The code also gives much leeway to the BO and inspectors actions, much to yours, and others chagrin.  That is what is in the boundaries of the code.  A nice big loop-hole to step out of the box with impunity and require more if so deemed by the individual whether it is right or wrong.

*104.8 Liability.*

You don't have to like it, and you don't have use it that way if you don't want to...but unless your jurisdiction amended or removed those sections specifically, good luck with your values and dignity speeches.  They don't apply to anyone other you, and those you over see.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 7, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Making a ridiculous examples for comparison does little to address the issue.  Making judgement calls and interpretations is an integral part of the code, whether right or wrong:2006 IBC
> 
> *104.10 Modifications & 104.11 Alternative materials, design, and methods of construction and equipment.*
> 
> ...


Hi Papio,

Section 104.8 Protects an inspector from liability when he or she is acting in "good faith". I'm telling you that to knowingly force a contractor or homeowner to do something that that inspector knows is not supported by the code is not acting in good faith. Then to go on a public forum pronouncing that you don't care and you're going to continue that behavior, in any place other than California, would just add another nail to your coffin.

Bill


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Making a ridiculous examples for comparison does little to address the issue.  Making judgement calls and interpretations is an integral part of the code, whether right or wrong:2006 IBC
> 
> *104.10 Modifications & 104.11 Alternative materials, design, and methods of construction and equipment.*
> 
> ...


And many inspectors and code officials have lost their jobs for taking the code into their own hands as you suggest here; believing that this section gives you carte blanche to form your own vigilante force .  Fortunately, for those who think like you, there is a usually a more rational (and realistic) interpretation held by their boss.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 7, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> Hi Papio, I'm telling you that to knowingly force a contractor or homeowner to do something that that inspector knows is not supported by the code is not acting in good faith. Then to go on a public forum pronouncing that you don't care and you're going to continue that behavior, in any place other than California, would just add another nail to your coffin. Bill


Hi Bill.  No, I totally get that, and I have no doubts that I would be without a job (politically) if I had done the same, when my supervisor had already made the position clear.  I don't, however, believe that you can fully discredit the reach of 104.10 & 104.11, and in ICE's instance, would be difficult to overcome if his CBO/SOB/SBO would have sided with him, although Section 112, allows a process of appeals for the contractor.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 7, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> And many inspectors and code officials have lost their jobs for taking the code into their own hands as you suggest here; believing that this section gives you carte blanche to form your own vigilante force .  Fortunately, for those who think like you, there is a usually a more rational (and realistic) interpretation held by their boss.


And now you have finally said it..."a more rational (and realistic) interpretation!"  Only the word interpretation is in the code book (104.1)...you are not afforded any guarantees that the BO's interpretation shall be more rational or realistic than any other persons.  You are making a false argument and are in my opinion, still no worse or better than ICE.  You just are doing what you do, based upon your interpretation.  Hopefully if you are, or ICE is out of line, there controls and measures by which to correct that continued behavior or go separate ways, but don't lie, and say ICE does not have that leeway by code (until his SOB boss makes their determination).  His SOB will handle him as they see fit, not you.

Let me know when you want to talk about the root of the problem, rather than being self-righteous about the what.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 7, 2012)

Bill,

You may think that I am a conspirator and sympathizer with ICE, I assure you I am not. As I posted earlier it took years to get the powers that be to change policy and go by just what the code said. The reason they had not was because the contractors, builders and even home owners knew so little about the new ICC codes that the inspectors were incouraged to just make everyone do it "this way". There was a huge list of "this ways", and then the 13 fire districts had a huge list of their "this ways" which were almost all different from ours. 6 years in my own department two years proving myself and making buddy with the fire marshals, and then another year meticulously going over the 09 codes so that almost all the AHJs in the county were on the samr page. I worked hard to get rid of the "we always did it this way" attitude.

Saying all that, I still have no problem believing ICE when he says he has reason to believe _*that in *__*his area*_ the installation of the gas line is an unsafe waiting to kill.

As an inspector he can use some discretion with 09 IBC 116 unsafe structures and require an unsafe to be removed or made safe as he deems nesecary.

He has one super who chewed him out for it, but he has more than one guy in his chain of command and in past post he has referenced supers that approve of his actions as an inspector.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> And now you have finally said it..."a more rational (and realistic) interpretation!"  Only the word interpretation is in the code book (104.1)...you are not afforded any guarantees that the BO's interpretation shall be more rational or realistic than any other persons.  You are making a false argument and are in my opinion, still no worse or better than ICE.  You just are doing what you do, based upon your interpretation.  Hopefully if you are, or ICE is out of line, there controls and measures by which to correct that continued behavior or go separate ways, but don't lie, and say ICE does not have that leeway by code (until his SOB boss makes their determination).  His SOB will handle him as they see fit, not you. Let me know when you want to talk about the root of the problem, rather than being self-righteous about the what.


Wow, what a straw man argument. Let's see, your interpretation: " The code allows me to require whatever I want to, regardless of what the code says, because the code says I can. Furthermore, I'm a government employee, I do the same bad things all the time, and I'm in a union, so, hey, I'm covered".

My interpretation: "Unless you have amended the code, you can't make up your own rules".

Ya, I feel pretty secure that mine is more rational, and realistic.

And please spare me the heart-rending plea regarding the "root of the problem". You define the root of the problem the way you want to, and I'll define it the way I want to. You don't get the luxury of dictating to others what the "root of the problem is", especially when you haven't a clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 7, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> *"You define the root of the problem the way you want to, and I'll define it the way I want to. You don't get the luxury of dictating to others what the "root of the problem is", especially when you haven't a clue what you're talking about.*


I rest my case.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 7, 2012)

Hi GB,

I do not imagine you as any sort of conspirator.

As a contractor I take issue with any inspector who imposes their worries about future events on my decisions, particularly when there's no code to support the requirement. I mean we all seem to agree that the violation might possibly happen at a future date by persons who will be responsible for their actions when they take them. I'm also concerned about the air loss that will always be occurring in the meantime.

Bill


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 7, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I rest my case.


"Irony is an insult conveyed as a compliment"


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 7, 2012)

This has got to count as a "hot topic" if anything does.

Over a hundred post in a couple of days and 1400 + views

"Whew" may even be a record.


----------



## ICE (Mar 7, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> This has got to count as a "hot topic" if anything does.Over a hundred post in a couple of days and 1400 + views
> 
> "Whew" may even be a record.


It's hot and has a fowl odor.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 7, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> Hi GB,I do not imagine you as any sort of conspirator.
> 
> As a contractor I take issue with any inspector who imposes their worries about future events on my decisions, particularly when there's no code to support the requirement. I mean we all seem to agree that the violation might possibly happen at a future date by persons who will be responsible for their actions when they take them. I'm also concerned about the air loss that will always be occurring in the meantime.
> 
> Bill


I think he addressed the air loss issue.



			
				ICE said:
			
		

> We require glass doors to take care of that.  The damper is held open perhaps 3/8".  The damper seldom fits airtight to begin with and the hardware really adds little on most.  If there were a tight fit, which I suppose does happen, the hardware adds a lot.Be careful with the word "modified."  If the damper is "modified", the listing is void.


----------



## ICE (Mar 7, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> This has got to count as a "hot topic" if anything does.Over a hundred post in a couple of days and 1400 + views
> 
> "Whew" may even be a record.


The counter that keeps track of the views is not clear to me.  Does it mean that 1400 individuals viewed a thread or does it count each time anyone views?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 7, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> you haven't a clue what you're talking about.


  His is an expert opinion based upon personal experience, in this regard.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 7, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> Hi GB,  I do not imagine you as any sort of conspirator.  As a contractor I take issue with any inspector who imposes their worries about future events on my decisions, particularly when there's no code to support the requirement. I mean we all seem to agree that the violation might possibly happen at a future date by persons who will be responsible for their actions when they take them. I'm also concerned about the air loss that will always be occurring in the meantime.  Bill


 I find your concern with the conservation of hot air to be a bit ironic.  The lack of concern over the loss of life, a bit disappointing.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> His is an expert opinion based upon personal experience, in this regard.


Congratulations; you have graduated from "I know you are but what am I?", to "Same to you but more of it".


----------



## texasbo (Mar 7, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I find your concern with the conservation of hot air to be a bit ironic.  The lack of concern over the loss of life, a bit disappointing.


Yes, because everyone knows that a niche in the wall is certain to kill.

Just keep requiring those exit signs in doghouses, brudgers, and maybe someday Fido will find his way out and bring your dentures back to you.


----------



## High Desert (Mar 7, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I also believe those are legitimate legal grounds for termination of employment as well...it isn't a perfect system either.


I wasn't referring to whether they can get fired, but rather to the California Tort Claim Law. You can miss a lot of stuff on an inspection, even maliciously, and be protected by the law. That's absolutely ludicrous.


----------



## ICE (Mar 7, 2012)

High Desert said:
			
		

> I wasn't referring to whether they can get fired, but rather to the California Tort Claim Law. *You can miss a lot of stuff on an inspection*, even maliciously, and be protected by the law. That's absolutely ludicrous.


Stupid people want a job too.  But don't take my word for it when you can ask them yourself.  I'm pretty sure that malicious wouldn't be a stretch either.  Come to think of it, ludicrous fits too.  You're pretty good, it's like you know these people.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 7, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I find your concern with the conservation of hot air to be a bit ironic.  The lack of concern over the loss of life, a bit disappointing.


Got any figures on the loss of life averted by a lone inspector rejecting his supervisor's instructions and forcing the populace to "Do the Dance"?

FogHorn


----------



## ICE (Mar 7, 2012)

There you go High Desert, a triple threat just popped up.


----------



## High Desert (Mar 8, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Stupid people want a job too.  But don't take my word for it when you can ask them yourself.  I'm pretty sure that malicious wouldn't be a stretch either.  Come to think of it, ludicrous fits too.  You're pretty good, it's like you know these people.


I've run accross a few too many.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 9, 2012)

This thread was just getting warm, what up?

We were about to get into some energy conservation ideology or is it idiotology (you know real save the world stuff).

Ok maybe that’s not fair. There are some very smart people on both sides of the argument.


----------



## righter101 (Mar 9, 2012)

I think we should contact Bruce Buffer and have him do some fight announcements for this thread.  Have an audio file that opens up when you click on this thread....


----------



## GBrackins (Mar 9, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> There are some very smart people on both sides of the argument.


and some not so smart sitting on the sideline watching to see who taps out first after Bruce Buffer introduces the combatants in the Octagon ....


----------



## Daddy-0- (Mar 10, 2012)

Wasn't able to check the site this week until now and WHOA. I thought this thread was dead on page one. As I said on page one, I usually agree with ICE just not on this topic. At least he is motivated for the right reasons. I know he is trying to protect the people by trying to make things safer. I don't see any god complex.

One of the hardest things we have to do is learn to stay in the book and ignore "what ifs."

I will get slaughtered for saying this.... I do believe that it is important sometimes to NOT enforce the book per se. If I enforced all of the book they would never pass a framing inspection. Any good structural inspector can find 20 or more violations on a house if you looked hard enough. Focus on what's important.

I look forward to many more posts from ICE and value his opinions greatly.


----------



## ICE (Mar 2, 2014)

There's a log lighter under the glass.  The damper has no hardware to prevent it from closing.  I came across this at a house for sale.


----------

