# The Erosion of Freedom Through Green Laws



## packsaddle (Jul 16, 2010)

Did you know that businesses in New York City are fined if they leave their doors open in the summer?

Inspectors go around and write citations to business owners who don't comply.

$200 for the first offense, $400 for the second offense.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 16, 2010)

*Great Start, Time to obey the law, no different than speeding or seatbelts*

July 8, 2010

9 Stores Fined for Propping Doors Open

By ANDREW BORYGA

Nine stores in Manhattan and the Bronx have been hit with $200 fines for leaving their doors open on hot days in the hope that the escaping cool air will lure sweaty customers. They are the first fined as part of a new law passed in 2008.

Last year, only warnings were given out. So far this year, the city’s Department of Consumer Affairs has inspected 105 stores. Seventy were in compliance, 26 were issued warnings and nine that had been warned last year were hit with fines, said Kay Sarlin, a spokeswoman for the department.

Fines start at $200, and go up to $400 for any further infractions in an 18-month period. The legislation states that any business larger than 4,000 square feet or part of a chain with five or more stores in the city must keep doors closed when using an air-conditioning system.

Ms. Sarlin said the stores are:

In the Bronx:

- Jeans Plus, 62 East 170th Street

- Bronx Kidstown, 4100 East 170 Street

- Jimmy Jazz, 101 East 170 Street

- V.I.M., 540 Bergen Avenue

In Manhattan:

- Filene’s Basement, 4 Union Square South

- Forever 21, 40 East 14 Street

- Armani Exchange, 129 Fifth Avenue

- Brooklyn Industries, 161 Eighth Avenue

- DSW, 4 Union Square South

Ms. Sarlin said inspectors respond to complaints and keep an eye out for offenders throughout the summer. Last year, the department reported an 81 percent compliance rate, and amid heavy media coverage of the law, it seemed businesses were getting the message.

During the heat wave of recent days, however, plenty of stores seemed to be in violation, as City Room made its own inspection.

A digital thermometer read a refreshing 79 degrees 10 feet away from a Zara’s on 17th Street and Fifth Avenue, despite it being a muggy 97 degrees two blocks away. A street jewelry vendor named Jamaal stood near the doors, enjoying the breeze — “Whenever I need a break I stand near the door for some fresh air,” he said. “It’s always nice and cool.”

Jamaal was disappointed five minutes later when, after a brief conversation with Zara’s manager, who was unaware of the law, the doors were shut. “Guess it’s back to work for me,” Jamaal said.

Filene’s Basement and DSW at 4 Union Square had their doors wide open — and both, indeed, received fines. Ten feet from the doors, a small group stood around talking on cellphones, smoking cigarettes and killing time.

Malik Boyd, 28, one of them, stood in the cool 78 degrees near the doors while waiting for a group of friends. “I appreciate the arctic breeze, especially on days like these,” he said.

Mr. Boyd says he works in retail and understands the law and the argument for energy conservation, but ultimately doesn’t blame shop owners for doing what they do.

“The reason why the retail stores do it is to attract the tourists,” he said. “The people who live in the city know the ploy already. The stores do it to catch that tourist taking his one and only stroll down Fifth Avenue because he’ll be easy to lure with the breeze.”

He added, “It’s business; sometimes you got to do what you got to do.”


----------



## mark handler (Jul 16, 2010)

So now all energy conservation codes are "green codes"

"....Let no man break the laws of the land...."

*"The Erosion of Freedom Through Green Laws"* You can say the same thig with all sections of the building code, Isn't that what homeowners say when you bust them for illegal additions, Erosion of Freedom, its my house.


----------



## packsaddle (Jul 16, 2010)

Since you obviously support this draconian legislation, perhaps you could explain to us, in detail, where exactly the line of demarcation is between green laws and personal freedom.

You can start with something like "I, Mark Handler, believe it is okay for the government to fine homeowners who leave their front porch light on because ________."

Thanks, in advance.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 16, 2010)

Draconian legislation

According to you.

Is obeying the speed limit in a school zone, Draconian?

Is obeying the building codes, Draconian?

Is it your choice which codes to enforce, If it is, that is not a democracy? It will lead to Anarchy (from Greek: "without rule")

You tout the United States Constitution, but it starts “We the People” not,  "I the Packsaddle".

If you don't like the code, have it changed, Good luck.

Draconian legislation

•Water consumption reduction

•Diverting 50% of construction waste from landfills

•Separating water meters for commercial buildings’ indoor and outdoor water use

•Moisture-sensitive irrigation systems for large landscape projects


----------



## conarb (Jul 17, 2010)

Albert Einstein did believe that society was evolving into Socialism for the good, but he also warned:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the  far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?¹


I think both "A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual" and " bureaucracy ..... becoming all-powerful and overweening"  are inevitable consequences, our codes are evolving into the laws of bureaucracy that is becoming all-powerful and overweening, and  Inspectors are becoming the "enforcers".

¹ http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm


----------



## mark handler (Jul 17, 2010)

Each state and local jurisdiction has controls over which codes, and how those codes, are enforced.

If you don’t like so called energy or green codes, change them locally or move.

If New Yorkers don’t like the energy conservation code, they will change it.  Your ideas and thoughts on the subject, will change nothing.


----------



## conarb (Jul 17, 2010)

Mark:

My understanding is that the Governor of Washington has successfully blocked their energy code, we in California will be given the opportunity ion November to block our infamous global warming law, AB32, by initiative.  We should all get together and vote to block it, if we can do that maybe we can get an initiative on the ballot to ban all green and energy codes, I'm sure we can count on your support.  Inspectors enforcing these misguided laws is tantamount to the inspectors in Oakland and San Francisco enforcing their 1950s redevelopment laws, destroying acres of homes, including grand Victorian homes, in Oakland's West Oakland and San Francisco's Western Addition, the real intent of those redevelopment laws was to get rid of the black residents. Many other laws have been found to be unconstitutional, like racial quotas, should they ever have been enforced in the first place?  A good friend was Oakland's only black inspector in the 50s, he was just sick when he had to go around red-tagging old homes for building code violations, knowing that he was selected to do the dirty work becasue of the color of his skin. He should have refused but he wanted to keep his job, inspectors today should stand up ad refuse to enforce these misguided laws that are political and have nothing to do with the public health and safety, but everything to do with political agenda.


----------



## packsaddle (Jul 17, 2010)

You didn't answer the question.

So, here it is again in case you missed it the first time:

Where exactly is the line of demarcation between green laws and personal freedom?

All you have to do is fill in the blank:

"I, Mark Handler, believe the line of demarcation separating green legislation and personal freedom is _______________."

If you continue to avoid the question, then stay out of this thread.....it was not created for you anyway.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 17, 2010)

packsaddle said:
			
		

> stay out of this thread.....it was not created for you anyway.


Do I really care what you think, No.

Draconian thoughts, More like childish, wanting to take you ball and go home?


----------



## Mark K (Jul 17, 2010)

While laws and regulations can be opressive the voters have the power, if they wish, to change them.

What is threatening to my freedoms are public servants, including rogue building officials, plan checkers, or inspectors, who take it upon themselves to subvert the laws and impose their own version of the building code.  If these public servants cannot in conscience enforce the legaly adopted laws and regulations they should either quit their job or formally notify their employer that they cannot do their job.

Enforce what you understand are the building codes not what you think they should be.


----------



## conarb (Jul 17, 2010)

\ said:
			
		

> What is threatening to my freedoms are public servants, including rogue  building officials, plan checkers, or inspectors, who take it upon  themselves to subvert the laws and impose their own version of the  building code.


Hypothetical:  Pack's  a CBO, I bring him plans and specs after January 1st to permit a single family home, there are no fire sprinklers, as a matter of fact neither Pack nor I believe in fire sprinklers for a host of reasons published here in the past, Pack issues the permit.  How does that threaten your freedoms?  Both he and I and my customer have exercised our freedom to build what we want the way we want, not to a code bought and paid for by a corrupt industry.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 17, 2010)

If he does not enforce the Law, he is in violation of that law and it could have both financial and criminal repercussions.

*If you do not like the law change it.*

"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." --Thomas Jefferson 1781.


----------



## conarb (Jul 17, 2010)

Would you exercise this rule against *Harriet  Tubman* (1820-1913), who violated the federal Fugitive Slave Laws by  participating in the Underground Railroad for escaped slaves, or against  *Rosa Parks* (1913-2005), who was arrested in 1955 for violating the  segregation laws in Montgomery, Alabama, by refusing to move to the back  of the bus when the bus driver told her to give up her seat to a white  passenger?  Blind obedience was not accepted as a  defense during the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg, when many Nazis  claimed that they were just "following orders." Wouldn't inspectors just "following orders" be just as guilty as the Nazi war criminals?

"An unjust law is no law at all" - Martin Luther King, Jr, quoting St.  Augustine

We have a tradition at law in this country called "Jury Nullification", where jurors can refuse to impose unjust laws.


----------



## packsaddle (Jul 17, 2010)

Where exactly is the line of demarcation between green laws and personal freedom?


----------



## Mark K (Jul 17, 2010)

The situation I was thinking of was where I want to comply with the code but the building official or inspector requires that I comply with other requirements.

When a public servant is acting in his official role he is constrained with respect to how he can act.  The official is limited to interpreting and enforcing the applicable regulations.  He has his full freedoms when not performing his official duties and he can, and I will suggest morally should, lobby for changes to the regulations.

A building official can allow alternates in accordance with Section 104.11 of the IBC as long as he can make a good faith statement that the reasons for allowing the alternate are consistent with the criteria of Section 104.11.  If the building official attempts to use this provision on a regular basis to effect a code change then he has crossed a line and has modified the building code without due process and has acted illegally.

While the first situation impacts my rights I argue that the other situations can have consequences some of which include:

•	Regulations are not limited to protecting the applicant but are some times implemented to protect other members of society.  Changing the regulations without due process impacts the rights of other members of society.

•	When there is great diversity in how the code is interpreted and enforced in different jurisdictions many design professionals and contractors do not pay a lot of attention to what the code says but wait to see what the building official will require.  This can have a negative impact on the quality of the applications and on the construction.  It also leads to a loss of respect for the building department.

•	When the building official has illegally modified the building code he may place the owner of the property at risk when the conflicts with the code are later identified.

•	I believe that there is a correlation between the belief that the building official or inspector can do whatever they want and the perception of corruption.

Further the hypothetical situation put forth is based on the assumption that the applicant is an informed consumer and understands the arguments for and against the code change.  I will suggest that in many instances this understanding may be lacking.  The situation gets murky when a developer is building the house on speculation and the development company will go out of business shortly after the project is sold.

Sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  We need to be careful of rationalizations since they may have unintended consequences.

The arguments about unjust laws are on shaky ground.

Harriet Tubman was not a civil servant.

In the case of Rosa Parks she was participating in an act of civil disobedience and working to change the law.  As I have stated previously the building official or inspector has the option of being civil disobedient but with this comes two conditions.  First the individual is up front and public in his or her civil disobedience and two he or she recognizes and accepts the consequences of his or her actions.  I suggest more reading on the issues related to civil disobedience and on the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi.

I believe that you will find that soldiers in the military are told that they can refuse an illegal order but they are given some ground rules on how this is done.  I believe that they must formally state their objection.

Martin Luther King Jr. confronted the unjust laws and participated in civil disobedience.  I do not see this in building officials who make unofficial changes in the building code.

Jury nullification does not apply to building officials since he is not a jury member.

Civil disobedience recognizes the legal structure and confronts it.  I have respect for individuals who participate in an act of civil disobedience.  I do not have the same respect for civil servants who subvert the laws and regulations and are not up front about it.


----------



## conarb (Jul 17, 2010)

\ said:
			
		

> Jury nullification does not apply to building officials since he is not a  jury member.


It would if Pack refuses to enforce the Green Code, he is fired and sues his employer for wrongful termination, the jury could believe that Pack's reasons for not enforcing the code were valid, sealing up buildings built with toxic products, and find in Pack's favor because the law was ill conceived. There are now ample instances of people getting sick in sealed up homes, Pack also knows that people disconnect the mechanical ventilation systems because of the expense of operation, Pack can testify that he refuses to enforce the Green Code because it is a threat to the health and safety of the building occupants.


----------



## JBI (Jul 17, 2010)

Has anyone considered the possibility that due to the incredibly high electrcity useage in NYC (and the Eastern Seaboard as a whole) the amount being used to cool off the outdoors puts an incrediuble strain on an always overworked power grid subjecting parts of the northeast to rolling blackouts on high demand days even when these businesses keep their doors closed?

The line of demarcation is, was and always will be when personal freedom interferes with the greater good.


----------



## conarb (Jul 18, 2010)

Well I guess you don't want your green to be LEED then, it was in New York that it was proven that LEED buildings consume 29% more energy  than comparable non-LEED buildings.

You are also positing the premise that we are all utilitarians then with 'The greatest good for the greatest number". Bentham was pretty much disposed of by Wittgenstein.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> Contemporary philosophers such as Matthew Ostrow  have critiqued utilitarianism from a distinctly Wittgensteinian perspective. According to these  philosophers, utilitarians have expanded the very meaning of pleasure to  the point of linguistic incoherence. The utilitarian groundlessly  places pleasure as his or her first principle, and in doing so subordinates the value  of asceticism,  self-sacrifice or any other "secondary" desire. Of course, the  utilitarian will deny this contention altogether, claiming that ascetics  also seek pleasure, but have merely chosen an alternative path in which  to achieve it.
> 
> Yet such an argument is implicitly tautological ("What is it that  people want? Pleasure. But what is pleasure? What people want."). The  utilitarian therefore has no ultimate justification for primarily  valuing pleasure, other than to say that "this is the way it should be."  In this critique, utilitarianism is thus ultimately reduced to a form  of dishonest ethical intuitionism, unable to  recognize or acknowledge its own groundlessness.¹


 This philosophy ties in well with asceticism posed by Bentham, we all sacrifice, live in 1,200 square foot soviet-style apartment blocks on train lines so we don't need to drive cars, if we do drive cars we have to drive little ugly Prisuses as we wear our hair shirts.  Each generation sacrifices it's life for the succeeding generation, instead of a meritocracy we plunge into egalitarianism, no grades in schools, no scores in games, everybody is the same, we become like colonies of ants and work for the benefit of the government, the value of people is the tax they generate for the government. I can't imagine a more miserable existence.

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism


----------



## mark handler (Jul 18, 2010)

Where exactly is the line of demarcation between green laws and personal freedom?

Pack, You are the thread starter, entitled "Erosion of Freedom Through Green Laws".

You are the one that needs that,  "line of demarcation".


----------



## JBI (Jul 18, 2010)

ConArb - Seriously?


----------



## mark handler (Jul 18, 2010)

So Dick

you are equating an energy code to civil rights law.

You really have lost it.


----------



## conarb (Jul 18, 2010)

\ said:
			
		

> you are equating an energy code to civil rights law.


Yes, I'll sit in the back of the bus any day before paying the several hundreds of thousands more to build a home that it's costing my customer and the added liability and hassle it's adding on me. Those I really hate are the profiteers and those who want to "save the earth" putting people's lives and health at risk, our freedom is being taken away more so than Rosa Parks' ever was.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jul 18, 2010)

Their version of what is Green, and the Energy Code will control the codes from now on.

It's a done deal; and has nothing to do with internal U. S. politics (Democrats & Republicans). The real powers that be; have already signed agreements to combine Mexico, Canada and the United States into one goverment; following the blueprint of the European Nations (The European Union).

Every State in this country has a WTO office (World Trade Centers). Trade and commerce in the U. S. is already being controlled by the WTO; and Trade with other countries is already controled by the WTO (World Trade Organization). Our laws are subordinate and subject to WTO International Regulations. Sub-orgainzations are in place; two of which are SPP and CFR;

http://www.spp.gov/

and,

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/building_a_north_american_community.html

And, there is nothing we can do about it; but, *adapt*. There will be no political borders between Canada, Mexico and the U. S.. Yes, we will still have subordinate governements; just like in Europe (Germany, France, Spain, etc.). We have grown fat and weak; not unlike the Roman Empire.

Energy is one of the keys; and *we will* reduce our consumption. The new "Smart Meters" are being installed to regulate our use of electricity; which by the way, are being produced for water service, natural gas and other forms of energy.

Just like the proles; in George Orwell's "1984"; you do have a certain amount of freedom, in that as long as you don't challenge the new world order, you won't be as closely watched as persons of higher status. You will be permitted to engage in gambling, sensuality, and various other vices; your football games and parades. As long as you continue to work and consume, your other activities are without importance."

Oh, by the way; those cell towers that you see when you travel around the country, are not just cell towers. I'd tell you what they are really for, but you wouldn't believe me.

I didn't agree with a lot of the codes when I first started Inspecting; but, I inspected in accordance with the codes as written; and, will in the future. My personal opinion is not relevant.

If you want to stay in the Codes Business; whether as a Builder, Engineer, Architect, Building Offical, or Inspector; learn the Energy/Green Codes and apply them. As for me, I have spent too much money and time to quit now; just because there are some more code changes I don't agree with.

Don't hunt in the King's forest,

Uncle Bob


----------



## mark handler (Jul 18, 2010)

Dick

Your website is touting how much energy savings people can get if they install your windows, but here you whine and tilt at energy windmills. Green is ok as long as it is lining your pocked. That is a very quixotic outlook on life. You are a very knowledgeable guy and we agree on many things, But tone it down a bit And Think about what you are saying. Your posts are counterintuitive.



			
				conarb said:
			
		

> http://www.superwindows.info/Energy Efficiency
> 
> Triple-pane SuperWindows reduce energy consumption in a typical home by as much as 70%. Even the best dual-pane windows rarely reach even 30% savings.
> 
> PG&E report, indicates just how much more energy efficient Superwindows are than regular windows. (Click on the graphic to see PG&E's report.)


How much more do you make off the "Triple-pane SuperWindows" than single or double pane windows?


----------



## packsaddle (Jul 18, 2010)

> The line of demarcation is, was and always will be when personal freedom interferes with the greater good.


Who determines the "greater good"?

You?  Obama?

The Bill of Rights is about "individual" rights, not the greater, or "collective", good.

It's about sovereign, inalienable, individual rights (i.e. "life, lilberty, and the pursuit of happiness").

Dick, perhaps you (and other California business owners) should explore suing the federal government for inverse condemnation via regulatory taking.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 18, 2010)

packsaddle said:
			
		

> pursuit of happiness


Not actual happiness



			
				packsaddle said:
			
		

> Who determines the "greater good"?


Obviously not you, If you knew, you wouldn’t need to ask.



			
				packsaddle said:
			
		

> Dick, perhaps you (and other California business owners) should explore suing the federal government for inverse condemnation via regulatory taking.


Why in the world would Dick try to sue, He made his money from selling "green" energy efficient Triple-pane SuperWindows


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jul 19, 2010)

When you see a post that you disagree with; you are welcome to debate it; however, when you start attacking the person instead of addressing subject, you are degrading, not only the person; but, this forum.

Thanks,

Uncle Bob


----------



## mark handler (Jul 19, 2010)

I noticed you did not chid Conarb, when he and pack went after me in other threads


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jul 19, 2010)

Mark Handler,

"Packman *must comply with his state laws as set forth by* SECO, the Texas State Energy Conservation Office."

I deleted that part of my post within a few minutes of posting (not fast enough); so the debate would not be changed ; however, the "Texas State Energy Conservation *Office*";

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=34&pt=1&ch=19&rl=1

is not a State Agency; and has no enforcement authority that is relevent to Packsaddle's work.

Uncle Bob


----------



## mark handler (Jul 19, 2010)

Thank you for clarifying that

And the chiding could have been nipped in the bud, have some of the parties responed to private mail requests

By the way UB, you private mailbox is full too


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jul 19, 2010)

Full Mailbox,

Sorry about that; I'm a packrat; but, have deleted a few.

My e-mail address is at the bottom of all my posts.

Uncle Bob


----------



## ewenme (Jul 19, 2010)

If someone wants to build a green home, then let them do it; but don't force anyone to build something they are paying for that they don't want. That is the line of demarcation: power versus force. I have the power, in the form of my available dollars, to build the house I want; but if you force me to build something I don't want, then you have crossed the line and you have invaded my rights to the pursuit of happiness, and my freedom of choice.

As for the business owners who run the AC and open the doors too, they are stressing an already over-stressed utility. If they want to turn off the AC, then let them open the doors, otherwise their stupidity should cost them, in the form of fines; or they can generate their own power to waste as they wish. Can't have it both ways. IMHO.


----------



## texas transplant (Jul 19, 2010)

I have to agree with JBI.  With the brown and black outs in areas do to the load placed on the electrical system by the cooling demand, making people keep the door closed is for the greater good.  What they were doing had the potential to be the straw that  broke the back of the electrical system and put nursing homes and hospitals in the dark.

Also I am not a fan of SFR sprinklers, but if your jusrisdiction has the law, as a code official you have to enforce it.   I don't agree that a BO who issued permits without SFR sprinklers when they are required by law can be considered the equal of Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubman.  That's kinda like me saying my 12 year old son is on the same level playing baseball as Willie Mays.  But I also don't think that requiring SFR sprinklers could be considered the same as the what the Nazi's did in WWII either.

Now if Pack issues the permit contrary to the law as an act of civil disobediance and is willing to suffer the penalty for that disobediance thats another thing.   That is what civil disobediance is about.  Doing something to bring attention to a wrong in order to get it changed.   What I call a wrong is gonna be different than what you call a wrong.


----------



## jim baird (Jul 19, 2010)

"...force me to build something I don't want, then you have crossed the line and you have invaded my rights to the pursuit of happiness, and my freedom of choice...."

Ewenme manages a less shrill, less alarmist way to make pack's protest, albeit just as flawed.

I like to drive my car at 100 MPH with no seat belt, I like to take a baseball bat and beat people who look different from me with it, I can't tolerate the beeping of a smoke alarm.  Timothy McVeigh told the patrolman that stopped him on the highway that he didn't need no stinkin' driver's license.

You don't have to be a member of society at all, but you may end up enjoying your solitary thoughts behind bars.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 19, 2010)

The Erosion of Freedom Through Green Laws

*IGCC Section 1007.3 Sale of existing buildings and tenant spaces.* Buildings and tenant space that are *sold* shall comply with Sections 1003.2 and 1003.3 within 1 year of sale.

So I have the freedom to sell my office building "as is" but the buyer does not have the freedom to use it "as is" for an office building for more than 1 year.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jul 19, 2010)

*"The erosion of freedom Through Green Laws"*

I don't believe that the Federal Green Laws are designed to save energy "throughout" the country. If they were; they would include requiring existing buildings to comply; just as the ADA requirements did; and, provide a timeline to bring all existing buildings up to snuff.

The small percentage of buildings (especially homes) in the U. S., effected by the Green laws and codes will not provide any significant energy savings over the next 100 years.

If the "powers that be" were really conserned with energy conservation; they would require businesses to lower their ceilings (conditioned building envelope); and limit residential ceiling heights to eight feet; pass and enforce laws that restrict the use of commercial lighting for advertising and entertainment (Las Vegas for example).

The new "Smart Meters" being required on residential homes are not extended to "the bright lights of Vegas", or  commercial lighting for advertising and entertainment of business' in New York, Los Angeles, and the Fort Worth/Dallas metroplex. Turn off those lights at dusk; and the energy crisis will come to an abrupt end.

The Green Laws and Codes are aimed directly at the middle class; that is people who have earned enough money to buy/build "a new home". People who are rich; like Al Gore; will always be able to afford high utility costs regardless of the increase.

It's about the elimination of the middle class in our society.

Uncle Bob


----------



## ewenme (Jul 19, 2010)

When green building goes away what will replace it as the latest fad to be incorporated into the codes and forced upon the unwilling?

"...one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all." Where is the liberty and the justice in forcing people to do things they would rather not do. I'd rather have an outhouse than an indoor toilet because of many factors, but I manage quite well in society. I'd rather not have neighbors' house walls within six feet of my walls, and yet, I manage quite well in society.

For the government to take away my right to decide what I need is an abrogation of my rights and a usurpation of my liberty. I'm waiting for the second coming of Common Sense. It appears that Comomon Sense was killed sometime between 1776 and 2010.


----------



## Bootleg (Jul 19, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Where exactly is the line of demarcation between green laws and personal freedom? Pack, You are the thread starter, entitled "Erosion of Freedom Through Green Laws".
> 
> You are the one that needs that,  "line of demarcation".


Wouldn't that line be difference for all of us?


----------



## packsaddle (Jul 19, 2010)

Nobody seems to want to answer my question.

Why?

How far will you go to enforce green laws?

Will you fine somebody for leaving their porch light on?

Will you pay a fine for leaving your porch light on?

Will you fine a homeowner because he/she still has an incandescent light in their home in 2012?

Will you pay a fine for having an incandescent light in your home?

Do you agree that it is wrong for the government to tell you what kind of lightbulb you can have in your home?

At what point does green laws infringe on your personal freedoms?

These are the kind of questions you need to begin asking yourselves if you plan to remain in the code enforcement industry.


----------



## jim baird (Jul 19, 2010)

So much heat, so  little light.

Moderators are mighty tolerant to allow so much political going in...or is it philosophical?

Here's what I think I found unsettling about ewenme's reply:

"... I have the power, in the form of my available dollars..."

The statement appears to say that money equals power.  Is that the same as one dollar=onevote?

The Supreme Court's recent ruling re campaign finance has virtually given the election process over to those with the "power" to blanket the media thickly enough to soak their POV through the thickest moss on sleeping brains.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jul 19, 2010)

Packsaddle,

As a Building Inspector; I will enforce all codes adopted by the AHJ and/or per the Building Official's guidance; including the Energy Codes; and, including all that you mentioned. When I can't do that; I will quit; but, I still believe that (for the time being) I can do more good within the system. I didn't like Code Enforcement (weeds, grass, junk vehicles, etc.) so I allowed my State Accredidation to expire.

I don't like the idea of having to wear seat belts; because I believe they are dangerous; but, I wear them.

As far as my personal rights are conserned; they have already been taken away; and, I'm too poor and too old to give a tinker's ****. My time to fight the good fight is pretty much over; other than giving lip service to my opinions.

You have to enforce codes that you disagree with don't you?

Uncle Bob


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jul 19, 2010)

Jim,

"Moderators are mighty tolerant to allow so much political going in...or is it philosophical?"

From the looks of the rest of the forum; this is about "the only game in town".

I wish we had a chat room.  We could take subjects like this there and have some real philisophical discussions.

However, I believe that with Green being so new; and just in it's infancy we should kick it around the yard; and see where it lands.

When we can no longer express our opinion about pending code requirements; then we will surely be in a lot of trouble.

This is a Sunday School meeting; compared to the Mini-soda sprinkler threads on the old BB.

Uncle Bob


----------



## mark handler (Jul 19, 2010)

Where were the Naysayers and critics of the energy codes in the seventies when insulation was required in walls, roofs and in floors; Where were the Naysayers and critics when minimum U values were imposed; Where were the Naysayers and critics when minimum seers are required for FAUs.

Basically nonexistent.

Now the Naysayers and critics are coming unglued over the following:

 Siting of the building

Energy Efficiency- Passive design strategies dramatically affecting building energy performance

Materials Efficiency- Reuse and recycle

Totally amazing

Constructive criticism is a good thing but blaming it on some of the reasons in previous posts, ridicules, the world is no longer flat.


----------



## Bootleg (Jul 20, 2010)

packsaddle said:
			
		

> Nobody seems to want to answer my question.Why?
> 
> How far will you go to enforce green laws?
> 
> ...


Packsaddle,

I would like to answer your questions.

But I need to know where I can go to educate myself on the new code from where you collected the above questions.


----------



## TJacobs (Jul 20, 2010)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> *"The erosion of freedom Through Green Laws"*I don't believe that the Federal Green Laws are designed to save energy "throughout" the country. If they were; they would include requiring existing buildings to comply; just as the ADA requirements did; and, provide a timeline to bring all existing buildings up to snuff.
> 
> The small percentage of buildings (especially homes) in the U. S., effected by the Green laws and codes will not provide any significant energy savings over the next 100 years.
> 
> ...


One helluva post UB...you split the arrow!


----------



## ewenme (Jul 20, 2010)

Mr Baird:

Ask any person of little means, and they will tell you that, indeed, money is power: the power to take care of oneself, the power to buy food, clothing and shelter [and, gasp, entertainment]. Ask any person of grand wealth and they will tell you that money is power: the power to buy what you want; the power to control estates and businesses; the power to vacation anywhere you want, etc. Money is a tool, and like any good tool, it has the power to work for you if you have some it, but it takes away your power when it's gone.

votes and money should not be used in the same sentence: as in one vote equals one dollar. Votes should not be bought or sold at any price. However, I think big-money has overcome the power of the vote. Why else would over 75% of the voters avoid the polls? [That statistic comes from the local figures; less than 25% of the eligible voters participated in the primary held in our county.] If one person one vote held sway all the way to the deciding elections in November, not the electoral college, then voter turn out would mean something more than it currently does. But I digress.

One person one vote. Money is power. People are wont to make their own choices. When you wrap them all into one sandwich and take a bite, you have tasted freedom. If you don't like the taste, then join in to make the rules to your liking, just like you neighbor has the right to do. Who is 'them' 'they' and all those being blamed for the problems? It is us. Like Pogo said, 'We have met the enemy and he is us.'

Complaining does not solve any problems. Pick a direction and start walking, doing, and eventually you'll get there. If no one comes along, oh well. Lead, follow, but get out of the way.  And, yes, cliches have their roots in truth.


----------



## Bootleg (Jul 20, 2010)

I think UB is on to something and would like hear more.

Example cell towers:

Oh, by the way; those cell towers that you see when you travel around the country, are not just cell towers. I'd tell you what they are really for, but you wouldn't believe me.


----------



## JBI (Jul 20, 2010)

Bootleg - We probably don't want to know (just thinking about the possibilities is scary...).

UB - You're the man! Reminded me of why I enjoy coming here.

All - I agree that some (many?) code provisions go farther than (or fall shorter of) what I'd like to see, BUT... I have made conscious decisions to NOT participate in the process of developing or modifying them and so cannot complain about their content; I have made conscious decisions to become involved in their enforcement and so (coupled with an oath to uphold them) cannot pick and choose only those I agree with in my employment; I have made conscious decisions to follow the laws of the land and so would always comply with the adopted codes on my own property/project.

My days of being a 'marginal man' are all but a memory. I find living within a society AND by that societies rules more pallateable at this point in my life. I will still fight the good fight; support the noble cause; I just find fewer of them than I used to.

Would I personally build a deck 29 3/4" above grade without a guard? Hell no!

Must I approve one constructed that way? Of course I must, it complies with the code.

Will I advise the homeowner/contractor that I think it's a bad idea or that in my opinion it's dangerous? Absolutely! That and a note in the property/permit file helps me to sleep at night.

If you honestly believe that personal freedom must always trump the 'greater good', then you must also agree that standing up in a crowded, dark theatre and yelling 'FIRE' at the top of your lungs is OK. I for one could never defend that position.


----------



## Bootleg (Jul 20, 2010)

John,

Don't you think we lose a little bit of our freedoms daily and we need people who are on the lookout and keep an eye on  big bother so we are not led by the nose to slaughter?


----------



## JBI (Jul 20, 2010)

Of course I do Bootleg. Sadly that is a part of modern society, and it will get worse before it gets better.

I just don't think fining NYC businesses for 'cooling off the neighborhood' is a bad thing - at least no worse than fining/jailing (or maybe thumping the snot out of) the schmuck who yelled fire in the theatre. I'd focus more on the trampling of actual 'personal' rights and not the trampling of societys' rights by individuals. Don't forget that the 'society' is composed of individuals, each of whom has the same 'rights' you seek to defend. Collectively, IMHO, the multitudes rights deserve protection from wreckless individuals at least as much as the individual deserves protection from regulation.

What those businesses are doing is potentially threatening the health, safety and welfare of millions of individuals (not to mention wrecklessly wasting increasingly valuable energy...) with complete disregard for the potential harm.  If they want to attract business, why not buy an oversized (or digital) thermometer for their front window with a sign above it reading 'Our current indoor temperature is...' Same effect without the wasted energy.


----------



## jim baird (Jul 21, 2010)

Not to hijack this bus, but I think the reasoning behind greenification of codes standards is to establish at least a toehold in the long steep climb it will take to counteract global warming, which is a phenomenon that has been empirically demonstrated.

Where my thinking diverges is my refusal to confuse global warming with climate change.  Climate changes, in my thinking, are events that occur over time spans we cannot imagine, but can only theorize about based on evidence like the fossil record.

We may melt the ice caps and all the glaciers but still not change the climates.  Humanity itself may not survive the effects of its own activity, but the planet  will be just fine.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 21, 2010)

Freedom Is Not Free

We know from our revolutionary origin, two World Wars, and the 9/11 attacks, that there are real enemies outside our country who would impose their will on us if we did not protect it vigorously and vigilantly.

But the idea that freedom is never free also applies to the price every citizen must pay to be part of a democratic society that reveres both rights and responsibilities.

*Every law restricts someone’s personal liberty while it seeks to protect our lives, property, and fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, and privacy. *

We pay for our freedom by obeying laws we don’t like, paying taxes we don’t want to pay, and by refraining from conduct that interferes with the personal freedom of others to choose how they want to live, and by supporting their rights to make choices that do not harm us or others, and to live and let live.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes provided a good guideline: “Your right to swing your fist ends where another man’s nose begins.” The other side of that observation is, “We have a right to swing our fist so long as we don’t hit someone else’s nose.”

If we exercise our freedom responsibly, we acknowledge that an act is not ethical simply because it’s legal, nor is it proper simply because it’s permissible. As Justice Potter Stewart said, “There’s a difference between what we have a right to do and what is right to do.”

An ethical citizen will often choose to do less than the law allows and more than it requires.

Michael Josephson


----------

