# Is it time for a new code organization?



## Darren Emery

Food for thought and discussion:  With the direction the ICC code library is heading, is it time for another group of concerned building officials to in essence "reinvent the wheel"?  Do we really need a 904 page document to build a home?  (my copy of the 2012 IRC)


----------



## jar546

I believe the undertaking would be extremely expensive, take an enormous amount of work and be cost prohibitive since the wheel would essentially be reinvented at multiple levels beyond the IRC.  In my opinion, it would eventually evolve into a similar situation.

There is no shortage of people submitting code change proposals.  Just look at the small percentage that is accepted.

Can it be done?  Yes, absolutely.  At this point I can only see a for profit company having the resources to undertake something of that magnitude.


----------



## globe trekker

Darren,

I will echo what "Jeff" has stated. IMO, we do not need to re-invent the "code wheel"!

As code officials, we can amend out or in, things that apply to our respective jurisdictions.

It appears as though we will need to do just that, so that we do not have a 904 page

elephant to manage. Essentially, some are already doing this (in each jurisdiction),

just not to a large degree.

The Cow will not do anything for free, and, also IMO, ..they will continue to prostitute

themselves out to the highest bidder, which will result in more and more pages being

added to all the code books. Various lobby groups regularly descend upon The

ICC Ivory Tower to woo & romance them in to inserting various "self interest" (i.e. -

mucho profito) requirements and systems in to the code books for adoption.

Editing the various code books to the best interest of our individual locations will be

a cost & time issue, but it will also benefit each jurisdiction with what applies to

that individual jurisdiction. This will however, be another trumpeting of the

statement *"why isn't there a consistent set of codes for us to follow? XYZ city*

( _________ = you fill in the blank ) *doesn't require us to do this / that / the other,*

*...why isn't there a set of codes that applies uniformly in every jurisdiction?*



If we (all) do not want a 904 page elephant, then it will be up to each of us to

place the elephant on a permanent diet and remove the various pages and sections

that we do not want.

The Cow has shown over and over and over and over again, that they are not

concerned with the content or size of their code books, ..only that we continue to

buy them!

.


----------



## Frank

NFPA tried and expensively failed to create a new building code (NFPA 5000) and get it adopted

IF NFPA cannot get a new building code off the ground, it is highly unlikely that a new organization would be able to


----------



## jpranch

well... since I might be perceived as the cow these days I just had to add my 2 cents. I'm a building official dealing with all the same stuff that everybody here on this board has to deal with. Am I concerned about the size, minutia of details, and complexity of the codes not to mention specific content? You bet I'am and I can tell you that I'm not alone here. Am I concerned about the revenue of the ICC? Absolutely. No revenue = no membership services. jar is correct about the costs to reinvent the wheel. My guess for the cost to replace IRC with another document is about 2 to 3 million. Now with all that said we all must understand that the codes are not developed in the board room, councils, etc... but are developed at the code development hearings. Votes can only be cast by governmental members. (Ya I already know what is coming) We desperately need code officials in the hearings to put a stop to the madness. But I'm willing to bet that you all already know all this. Here is the good news at least here in Wyoming: Our chapter membership just approved $6,000 in scholarships to get our people to the hearings. It get better: The International Association of Building Officials 2013 ICC Code Development Hearings Atlantic City | IABO has a the ability (funding) this year and will be offering scholarships for 100 building officials to attend to code hearings. Perhaps the best news is that CDP Access cdpACCESS   is kicking into high gear and WILL be live this coming November. You want to talk about a game changer! So with all of this I realize that I have opened myself up for some criticism but what the hell, Let'er buck!


----------



## Darren Emery

JP - I certainly don't see you as the cow.   More like the rancher trying to teach the cow new tricks!

Hang in there - if ICC is to be successful (not just make money, but accomplish the task) it's gonna take guys like you living in the trenches and standing up for what's right.

Peace,

Darren


----------



## High Desert

It's not ICC that's responsible for the volume of the codes. ICC was formed as one body by ICBO, BOCA and SBCCI by it's members. We are ICC. It's those that submit code changes and get them successfully passed are the ones responsible for the volume of the codes. If anyone has been at a code hearing lately it's predominately stacked with industry, special interest goups and consultants. We need more code officials at the hearing to testify and try to limit what goes into the codes. The International Association of Building Officials main goal right now is to try to get funding for scholarships for governmental members to attend the Atlantic City hearings. Because of budget cuts and declining revenues we have all faced the past 5-6 years it's becoming more difficult to have your jurisdiction fund us.

Most of the ICC chapters have been notified of IABO's plan to try to fund as many voting members as possible for Atlantic City. ICC in itself does not write the codes, we do as ICC voting members. Get involved.


----------



## High Desert

You're right on the money JP.


----------



## Darren Emery

Great point High Desert.  I find it odd that the current system was built in such a way that as you state "industry, special interest groups and consultants" can so greatly influence the code that we rely upon.

I learned to be an inspector under the UBC, but was not at all involved in the development process.  Does anyone happen to recall - was the voting swayed by these same interests back the Boca / UBC  days?


----------



## jpranch

It sure was in BOCA land. I don't know about SBCCI and ICBO but would venture a guess it was the same? I'm quite convinced that NFPA faces the same challenges.


----------



## Jobsaver

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Food for thought and discussion:  With the direction the ICC code library is heading, is it time for another group of concerned building officials to in essence "reinvent the wheel"?  Do we really need a 904 page document to build a home?  (my copy of the 2012 IRC)


One day, I intend to use all of my ICC codebooks to build my retirement home. I will use them as fill.


----------



## Frank

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Great point High Desert.  I find it odd that the current system was built in such a way that as you state "industry, special interest groups and consultants" can so greatly influence the code that we rely upon.  I learned to be an inspector under the UBC, but was not at all involved in the development process.  Does anyone happen to recall - was the voting swayed by these same interests back the Boca / UBC  days?


Yes the same interests sent the same lobbyists,  After the merger the manufacturers and industry groups saved mony by only having to lobby one set of code changes.


----------



## fatboy

There are several posts above that echo my feelings........the building officials community are the ones that are ultimatelly responsible for approving or rejecting code proposals. I understand that not everyone can get there, but hopefully with CDP Access there will be an "on the street" vote. No, we can't recreate the code, it will end up in the same place. JMHO


----------



## jpranch

Now here is something to think about: Lobbying by industry? Ladies & gents, the way they lobby is changing as we speak. CDP Access is changing that. I can see in the very near future direct lobbing to each and every voting member if they expect to be even marginally successful. So where will they get the contact information??? It sure as hell will not be from me. That's a promise!


----------



## RJJ

Well I am not out spoken on many issues! I am and have been a member of IABO since the start. This group needs support and members. The idea is to represent the building official, keep them informed and present topic and positions for voting. The concept is to try and create a level playing field and to either support or oppose stakeholders. Will it work maybe! People need to get to the hearings. Blocks of votes are what it takes if you understand the game. Industry and Fire have figured this out. The building officials have watched the game from the back row. It is time for us to step up!!! Took a few years for us to get JP elected. Need votes to see him on the ICC board again. I believe  IABO is there for us we need to support and we need to vote.

As some may recall I spoke out with vigor on remote voting. Not afraid to call a spade a spade. We must get in the game if we want our voices heard. ICC has started to listen but remember they sell ink. The more ink the more they can sell. We must provide the balance. End of rant!


----------



## Codegeek

High Desert said:
			
		

> It's not ICC that's responsible for the volume of the codes. ICC was formed as one body by ICBO, BOCA and SBCCI by it's members. We are ICC. It's those that submit code changes and get them successfully passed are the ones responsible for the volume of the codes. If anyone has been at a code hearing lately it's predominately stacked with industry, special interest goups and consultants. We need more code officials at the hearing to testify and try to limit what goes into the codes. The International Association of Building Officials main goal right now is to try to get funding for scholarships for governmental members to attend the Atlantic City hearings. Because of budget cuts and declining revenues we have all faced the past 5-6 years it's becoming more difficult to have your jurisdiction fund us.Most of the ICC chapters have been notified of IABO's plan to try to fund as many voting members as possible for Atlantic City. ICC in itself does not write the codes, we do as ICC voting members. Get involved.


I'm one of those consultants.  However, I write code changes and speak on issues that make good code language, not because I'm trying to get something in the code for a client.  While my code changes which have been approved will benefit my client and I did write them on behalf of a client, I wrote them because they cleaned up code language or made good code sense.

I've seen code changes get approved based on emotional issues rather than good code language.

I recently sat through the building envelope portion of the IECC hearings in Dallas this past April.  Most of the time, there were less than 10 code officials in the room listening to code changes.  As a former code official, I spoke up on several items as it either made good code language or was going to make poor code language or something that would be difficult to enforce.  Very seldom will I speak on an issue where I am at odds with my fellow code officials unless we just disagree on how something is interpreted, which will happen anyway.  Bottom line, if it's good code language then I'm all for it.  If it's benefiting a small percentage then it's not good code language and has no business being in the code.


----------



## globe trekker

This is a great topic and associated discussion!

I agree that the manufacturers and fire code officials HAVE figured the game out and

are in it to the hilt. One major problem that I see for the building officials is the lack

of funding, and in some instances, ..the actual time to attend any hearings.   The

CDP Access should help greatly in this effort!

Much Thanks to "jpranch" for being one of our own on the ICC board!  He is doing a

GREAT job!

.


----------



## jpranch

Thanks Globe. I would agree that the fire guys have it figured out along with others. Now this is not any kind of shot at them at all. The fact is that they are very organized and that is to their credit. I see it also in the councils as I attend as many meetings as possible. Let me tell you that the ICC Fire Service Membership Council chaired by Fulton Cochran and his governing committee have it going on! They are very organized, focused, and most importantly very active. Again this is to their credit.

*Now I would like to say something that I have been meaning to for quite some time and this REALLY needs to be said: There are NO "fire guys" and "building guys" in the board room. The focus is on the membership and the ICC as an organization. That has been my experience to date.  *​


----------



## Mark K

There is a long history of special interests trying to influence the building codes.   They like the model codes such as ICC since it saves them from trying to influence multiple states, counties, or cities.

There was one anti-trust case where a group was found guilty of trying to stack the voting on a particular issue.

A little perspective.  It was stated that “…the building officials community are the ones that are ultimatelly responsible for approving or rejecting code proposals.”  The building code, as opposed to model codes such as the IBC, is adopted by a governmental body, not the building official.  While building officials have a role in the process they are in one sense just another special interest group, admittedly with different interests and biases.

While I believe there are major problems with the directions our codes have gone I believe that the complaints about the total volume of the code are generally over stated.  The reality is that unless you have to deal with special cases much of the code can be ignored because it does not apply to your project.  The trick here is to know when you need to refer to the other portions of the code.


----------



## ewenme

What about buying the rights to the 1997 Uniform Building Code; using it as the base document [it was a very good code, IMHO] and a 'new organization' forming with the goal of Uniform Simplified Codes? Don't everyone pop my dream bubble at once.


----------



## jpranch

ewenme said:
			
		

> What about buying the rights to the 1997 Uniform Building Code; using it as the base document [it was a very good code, IMHO] and a 'new organization' forming with the goal of Uniform Simplified Codes? Don't everyone pop my dream bubble at once.


Ok, I'm not sure if the ICC has the exclusive rights to the 97 UBC but I'm thinking if they (we) do what....... price would we put on that? As a sidebar the codes are currently under copyright attack. So if the copyrights disappear you will be giving it away for free.

Post script: This is not only the I-codes but NFPA, ANSI, IAPMO, etc... are all facing the same issue.


----------



## Mark K

In one of the Federal Court Districts it is established case law that there cannot be copyright on laws and regulation as adopted by the government.  Building codes are governmental regulations.  Thus while the ICC can have a copyright on the IBC as a model code when the document is adopted by a jurisdiction there cannot be a copyright on the adopted building code.

I believe that there will still be an opportunity for ICC to sell a lot of code documents but the prices will drop because they will have competition.  ICC will have to find other revenue sources.

In the other federal court districts the courts have not rendered an opinion thus leaving the legal question unresolved although other legal precedents strongly support the existing court ruling.  It will probably continue in this state of uncertainty until either other courts adopt similar rulings or the Supreme Court considers the matter.  I doubt that ICC is eager to litigate this matter.


----------



## pyrguy

The start of the ICC goes way back to about 1994. It took almost 6 years to get the three code bodies to the table and agree on the 2000 codes. There was a late 1990's edition (IIRC) but... (I was in Georgia then and the state stayed on the 1994 SBCCI Code until about 2001)

And this was after they had agreed on the CABO IRC codes for a couple of editions. There was also an undercurrent that the Architects and PE's were looking for a uniform code across the US.


----------



## jpranch

Excellent discussion ladies & gents. All of you give me pause to think. Thanks.


----------



## RJJ

ewenme: I don't believe that would be possible. ICC has become well entrenched and the codes are being used just about everyplace.

I one time member gene B. told me once when frustrated with ICC that  I needed to learn how to work the system. That was sound advise. As members we need to improve the organization we have that take effort and being involved. Over the last several years ICC has begun to listen and now in some ways we have a voice through Jim Brown. We need to continue to fix what needs improvement.


----------



## peach

Back in the "olden days" when Bill Tangye was in charge of SBCCI, the members of SBCCI were firmly entrenched about not participating in ICC - that's why most of the I Code provisions are from UBC or BOCA... SBCCI was late to the dance.  There were some very good provisions the SBC had that should come back into the I Codes (ok.. not the 24/25 stair geometry)..

The special interests groups are the ones with the money to travel to the Code Development hearings, and usually equal the number of voting members at any one time.. they can easily overwhelm the process (not just with hospitality suites and give aways).

the reason the model code groups worked so well was partly that travel wasn't so extensive.. in SBCCI land it was Miami to Ashville.

Remote voting is a good first start.


----------



## RJJ

I agree peach, but there must be control of who is voting and there must be information available. Many who can't go would take part, but so many it seems don't care. They have an attitude that give me my check and what ever is in the book I will try to enforce.


----------



## BSSTG

Greetings,

Here's a change for all that would help. Just limit the length of each code. You want to add something in there, then take something else out. Actually, it would help if all governmental entities would take on this philosophy. How bout the tax code. Limit it to 100 pages instead of 18,000.

Biggest problem is that attorneys have created their own profession centuries ago and it has only expanded since.

BS


----------



## peach

RJJ, the only ones who can vote are jurisdictional code officials; (I don't believe that has changed). The industry advocates show up in big number, have big pockets and make sometimes very compelling presentations. If they only have to win over 2/3 of 10 voting members present, they only have to convince 7 that they have "the real deal".

Building departments don't have the budgets they used to have for travel and conferences.


----------



## Mark K

Because the building code covers so much ground many building officials do not have the background to evaluate the proposals and thus are inclined to support a proposal if they see the proponent as knowledgeable.  The problem is that many of these  experts have an ax to grind.

Some of the most effective industry experts really do a lot to improve the code.  This credibility is then used on those few items that are very important to their employer.


----------



## fatboy

At the end of the day, building officials have the final say at the public comment hearings (final action). The e-vote will definitely help get a broader base of votes, down side, the lag time to tally the votes........


----------



## RJJ

Peach: I agree! I was referring to governmental officials. However, in Baltimore there were more than a few Pipe fitters there just to vote. Someone paid their way and membership. This should never happen again. We need to assure not only by remote or on the floor that this does not happen again.


----------



## Uncle Bob

If the codes are decided by building officials; then that is where the problem lies.  Who is the building official?  Usually the Mayor, City Manager, Assitant City Manager, City Planner, or some other municipal employee who has little or no knowledge and code training.  We have several building officials on this site; and they are very knowledgeable; however, they are in the minority of building officials in the United States.  So the codes are decided on (voted on) by people who don't know much about them?  I hope this is not considered a badge of honor.  Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ

Bob: Very true! I currently work in 4 AHJ's. Listed to vote in only one. Now if I wanted I could have 15 other people at a hearing to vote. Not that I would! That being said, those listed on the membership have no idea about codes. Some are board members, some secretaries or managers. Go figure.


----------



## ewenme

RJJ: I am shocked to hear that 'most' of the voting members are NOT true code-type people. I thought that being a 'code official' [i.e., acutally a person who knows and uses the codes] was the criteria to be a voting member. In our jurisdiction, we have four votes, and they all go to the people who know and use the code: building official, plans examiner, building/plumbing/HVAC inspector, and fire marshall. As a team we work very well together; which is an anomally as I understand it from other jurisdictions within 150 miles of here. I guess I've had rose colored glasses on. I thought the Minnesota Debacle was the exception, not the rule. Looking for change in Idaho.


----------



## joetheinspector

RJJ said:
			
		

> ewenme: I don't believe that would be possible. ICC has become well entrenched and the codes are being used just about everyplace.I one time member gene B. told me once when frustrated with ICC that  I needed to learn how to work the system. That was sound advise. As members we need to improve the organization we have that take effort and being involved. Over the last several years ICC has begun to listen and now in some ways we have a voice through Jim Brown. We need to continue to fix what needs improvement.


There is some very good discussion in this thread.

RJJ well said


----------



## Architect1281

My take on the volume size of the IRC is this - rather than have qualified tradesman who can understand things like - Spans in accordance with NFPna and fasteners per AITC the code hase bee and is heading to a volume of the AS Built for Dummies collection, steel studs and pretty pictures - 200 ways not to secure a ledger board, ICF lego block foundations and buildings, and page after page of "Name That TOWN in Alaska"  There is very little in the code that was not always there, Load Path, wind, Quake, etc; that apprenticeship and education did not already address, what is next; what is a birdsmouth and why do we call it that with pictures for cut 1, cut 2, cut 3?


----------



## Codegeek

When I was the building official, I had money in my budget to go to the code hearings, enough for myself and one other staff member.  Our department head felt it best that we only attend one annual event every other year.  I only had two of my five staff interested in attending, so it made it difficult for us to use the every other year policy.  No matter what we did or said, we couldn't convince our department head or those above him that it was important that we be involved.  Until those in the position of "power" understand the importance of sending code officials to code hearings, it won't happen.

Now, on the private sector side perspective.  I work for an architectural firm that does work in all 50 states.  I can tell you that all 50 states have a different take on their codes, even if it's the IBC they're enforcing.  Many of them have state codes which are based on the I codes, but are still greatly modified.  From a designer's perspective, it's very challenging.  We do some work where NFPA 101 gets involved and trumps a few things over the IBC, but for the most part, we like having at least one model code for which the state codes and local modifications are based, even if we get 50 different versions/interpretations.


----------



## tmurray

... you could all just adopt the National Building Code of Canada...lol


----------



## High Desert

Voting members during the committee hearings are all ICC members, not just governmental members. However, the only time non-governmental members can vote is during an assembly action. That's when someone makes a motion to reverse the action of the committee. This then automatically goes on the agenda of the final action hearings. What part of the problem is that not a lot of governmental members review the committee hearing results and don't submit public comments on some of the changes that occur at the committee hearings. If no one challenges the code changes they go into the codes. The only ones who can vote at the final action hearings are governmental members. That's why it's important that if we want to reduce the size of the codes we need to not only go to the final action hearings, we need to know what happens at the committee hearings as well and submit public comments to counter some of these. Just MHO.


----------



## RJJ

Carol: The twin City was a mess. Baltimore was second to that and I would not say the majority of voter were not code officials. But the floor was full for the sprinkler vote and most had been bussed in. There are some on this BB that were there. The Last two hearings I did not witness those actions.


----------



## Mark K

With regards to the bussing in of individuals for a specific vote I would suggest that all read Allied Tube & Conduit Corp v. Indian Head, Inc. 486 U.S. 492 (1988)

Google Scholar

This Supreme Court ruling had to do with a similar situation at an NFPA meeting.  ICC's lawyers should be very familiar with this case, if they are not they should be fired.


----------



## High Desert

You are absolutely right Mark. The sprinkler vote wasn't the first fiasco. I remember that one.


----------



## jar546

Mark K said:
			
		

> With regards to the bussing in of individuals for a specific vote I would suggest that all read Allied Tube & Conduit Corp v. Indian Head, Inc. 486 U.S. 492 (1988)Google Scholar
> 
> This Supreme Court ruling had to do with a similar situation at an NFPA meeting.  ICC's lawyers should be very familiar with this case, if they are not they should be fired.


I quickly read through parts of it but still need a synopsis in commoner/layperson English.


----------



## conarb

Here is a synopsis:



			
				New York Times said:
			
		

> *Antitrust Liability Set In Company's Lobbying*The  Supreme Court ruled today, 7 to 2, that companies could be held liable  under Federal antitrust laws for lobbying private organizations to draft  model safety standards for governmental bodies in ways that  unreasonably restrain competition .
> 
> The decision upheld an $11.4  million jury award against a producer of steel tubing conduit for  electrical wires. The company, the Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation,  was accused of conspiring with others to block approval of a competing  plastic of the influential National Fire Protection Association.
> 
> The  Court has held since 1961 that companies cannot be held liable under  the antitrust laws for their actions in lobbying governmental officials,  even if the purpose or effect is to restrain or monopolize trade or  injure competitors. Today, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote for the  Court that this immunity did not extend to lobbying of private  standard-setting organizations. Largest Maker of Steel Conduit
> 
> The  suit was brought by Indian Head Inc., which began to offer plastic  conduit made of polyvinyl chlroide in 1980 in competition with the steel  conduit that had long been used as a raceway to carry electrical wires  through the walls and floors of buildings. The defendant was Allied  Tube, the nation's largest producer of steel conduit.


----------



## jpranch

RJJ said:
			
		

> Carol: The twin City was a mess. Baltimore was second to that and I would not say the majority of voter were not code officials. But the floor was full for the sprinkler vote and most had been bussed in. There are some on this BB that were there. The Last two hearings I did not witness those actions.


I was there in Baltimore. Not many years ago we had an "administrative assistant" that was a voting ICC member. We are a jurisdiction <50,000. Therefore we had 4 votes. That person was a designated ICC voter no more qualified than my horse. Once I was in a position to change that I did but it took time. All four votes are now in qualified hands. Perhaps it's just me but if we only had two that were qualified they would be the only ones registered.


----------



## incognito

Those who vote at the final action hearings are responsible for what the code is and what it will be in the future. I do not blame "special interests" for lobbying for what they perceive as important, but at the same time I expect them to have some semblance of ethics, which was completely and absolutely absent from the sprinkler cartel in Minneapolis and Baltimore. I for one will never trust anyone representing the fire service again. We have brought this mess on ourselves and have no one else to blame. To assume that ICC will be the only code writer in the future would be shortsighted. Whenever a market opportunity arises someone or group WILL act to fulfill that need. I would not be surprised if NAHB is toying with the idea.


----------



## Mark K

The sort summary is:

A manufacturer of steel electrical conduit did not want the electrical code to allow plastic conduit so they paid for a number of people to join NFPA so they could vote against the proposal to allow plastic conduit.  The plastic conduit manufacturer filed suit and the steel conduit manufacture was found guilty of antitrust violations.

While NFPA appears to have been a passive participant I suggest that organizations such as ICC who develop model codes should be sensitive to these issues.  Even when these transgressions do not result in findings of antitrust violations they can tarnish the image of the model code developer.


----------



## RJJ

incognito: I agree in part. We the code officials have allowed this to happen in the past. As far a trusting Fire officials there are quite a number of them I would trust and I respect them as well. We need to be better organized, informed and present.


----------



## High Desert

There is a difference between the steel conduit vs pvc conduit. That was purely industry backed. The IRC Sprinkler Coalition was back by numerous organizations. Click below to see who supported it.

International Residential Code Fire Sprinkler Coalition | Supporting Entities


----------



## globe trekker

The idea and actions of "special interests" by a few isn't new (see Matthew

21:12, 13, NIV). IMO, Building Officials are hamstrung from the "get go" by

lack of funding, and the ability to actually make a difference by attending &

voting on change proposals (i.e. - no control of their own funding).

As I have been told in the past, a majority of the Fire Service finally got tired

of being the sacrificial lambs (so-to-speak), and organized to vote en masse'

on a code topic that directly affects them (i.e.- residential sprinklers).

The Building Official community can like it or not, but the Fire Service

community got tired of dying and being expected to be sacrificed in

structures where they knew it was a gamble at best to enter, in a fire event.

Special interest groups / manufacturer's / the fire service all have valid interests

in code proposals and changes, because they either can make a profit ($$$$),

or as in the case with the fire service community, ..they have "skin in the game!"

Other than seeking a reduction in the size of the overall codes, ..having some

common sense code sections rather than some emotionally based sections, and

having an actual voting voice (equality) in the process, does a building official

have an interest valid enough to get involved? In other words, what is it going

to take to get the Building Official community motivated enough to be actively

involved, ..typically without the support from above them?

.


----------



## Mark K

Consider that building officials and  fire officials are both special interests with different agenda.


----------



## mjesse

High Desert said:
			
		

> There is a difference between the steel conduit vs pvc conduit. That was purely industry backed. The IRC Sprinkler Coalition was back by numerous organizations. Click below to see who supported it. International Residential Code Fire Sprinkler Coalition | Supporting Entities


Every name on the list provided is fire chiefs assn., fire marshal assn, fire coalition, fire prevention...et.al.

Hardly an unbiased group:devil


----------



## ewenme

Shouldn't fire and building officials have similar 'public' interests: life safety?  Why should they have separate agendas? A house is not built by one profession: it takes carpenters, plumbers, HVAC contractors, electricians, design professionals, materials suppliers, inspectors, bankers, etc., and those are only the main players. How about the loggers, truckers, materials engineers, and other segments of manufacturing? If we pare down the agenda to life safety, then why can't we pare down the codes to life safety? Of special interest are the things that kill us: carbon monoxide, fire, electrical shorts, sewer gases, mould, off-gassing of toxic chemicals, and the list could go on; but I digress. Where have all the reasonable people gone?


----------



## fatboy

I think fire and building folks have the overall same interests, life safety, safer buildings, but different ideas on how to get there, the end game. The fire folks showed up in force in Minneapolis, but in the end, virtually every jurisdation has amended out RFS's.

Perhaps if they could have got the lightweight framing protection in there first , then the go for the whole house sprinklers, it might have been more easily accepted. I haver had little push back in the lightweight framing protection, by way of sprinklers.

JMHO


----------



## mjesse

ewenme said:
			
		

> Shouldn't fire and building officials have similar 'public' interests: life safety?  Why should they have separate agendas? A house is not built by one profession: it takes carpenters, plumbers, HVAC contractors, electricians, design professionals, materials suppliers, inspectors, bankers, etc., and those are only the main players. How about the loggers, truckers, materials engineers, and other segments of manufacturing? If we pare down the agenda to life safety, then why can't we pare down the codes to life safety? Of special interest are the things that kill us: carbon monoxide, fire, electrical shorts, sewer gases, mold, off-gassing of toxic chemicals, and the list could go on; but I digress. Where have all the reasonable people gone?


We SHOULD have the same interests, and ideologically we probably do. Take a look at [_insert political hot topic here_], there are excellent arguments on both sides. The sides understand that majority rules, and will do whatever it takes to gain the majority for themselves.

The reasonable people you seek are stuck in the middle and/or choose a "side" based on whichever they most closely associate whether they completely agree or not.

It's the great dichotomy of our times. US vs. THEM

mj


----------



## BSSTG

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> If the codes are decided by building officials; then that is where the problem lies.  Who is the building official?  Usually the Mayor, City Manager, Assitant City Manager, City Planner, or some other municipal employee who has little or no knowledge and code training.  We have several building officials on this site; and they are very knowledgeable; however, they are in the minority of building officials in the United States.  So the codes are decided on (voted on) by people who don't know much about them?  I hope this is not considered a badge of honor.  Uncle Bob


Amen!

BSSTG


----------

