# Laws require enforcement



## ADAguy (Feb 24, 2014)

My apologies for not being able to respond to the recently close thread.

Yes, laws are often political in origin, their orgins often being driven by selfserving interests.

Our disabled population did not ask for but does appreciate the access provided by the ADA, this in spite of the lack of adequate research by which initial ADAAG was drafted.

ANSI 117.1 was even more minimal when it began and has still not risen to a DOJ level of acceptance as a minimal safe harbor.

The present ADAS has greatly clarified some but not all of the inconsistences of ADDAG but is and will remaing a living document and this forum can assist with that process

However once a law, whether Federal, State or local, their implementions require enforcement guidelines, hence inclusion in codes and regulations.

It is often the lack of langauge clarity of them that is what we are attempting to discuss on this forum.

Access is intended for all of us to accommodate each as necessary.

You can accept it for what it is, or not; but it is the law of the land.

It remains for individual state AG's to agree that enforcement, based on a code that has been certified, is the duty of AHJ's/BO's.

Now, does that clarify and reduce the closed issue to one of greater clarity?

No emotions, no jargon, just the law.


----------



## conarb (Feb 25, 2014)

There is a bigger issue here that I referred to above, that is the right  of the DOJ to write regulations in excess of the legislation passed by Congress, our President has gone around Congress instructing that the EPA to write regulations that Congress refuses to write, the matter was argued today .  The hearing in the Supreme Court was held today and of course  the decision hasn't come down yet, the issue is the Obama  administration has gone around congress ordering the EPA to write  regulations governing greenhouse gasses when Congress has refused to  regulate, the same thing applies here, does the DOJ have the right to  write regulations governing lead when those regulations were not laws  passed by Congress? Neither the DOJ nor the EPA are supposed to write laws, they are  supposed to write regulations interpreting laws.

  I just Googled it to see how Supreme  Court watchers have read the justices' reactions, it looks like a 5 to 4  decision with Kennedy as the swing vote, maybe clipping the wings of the  EPA (and DOJ) since Kennedy appeared critical of the administration at points but  did not indicate his support for either position.  Kennedy was a  freshman when I was a senior in college, I didn't know him but sure wish  I had!  Here are some takes on today's hearings:



			
				The Street said:
			
		

> A surprise to no one, news reports Monday afternoon indicate the court  was divided during the 90-minute argument. Justice Antonin Scalia was a  leading critic of the EPA's arguments, backed by Justice Samuel Alito  and to a lesser extent Chief Justice John Roberts. Four liberal judges  on the other hand, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan  and Sonia Sotomayor appeared supportive of the administration. Assuming  Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas (who maintained his usual silence  during the arguments) side with Scalia and Alito, the deciding vote will  likely be cast by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy appeared critical of  the administration at points but did not indicate his support for  either position.Siding with the EPA are environmental groups and state regulators,  including New York, California and Illinois. The American Thoracic  Society, a group representing 15,000 members from the medical community,  filed a brief on the health costs of climate change caused by  greenhouse gas emissions. ¹


And the left wing Daily Kos:



			
				Daily Kos said:
			
		

> Predictions of Court rulings based on questioning in oral arguments from  the justices is always risky. But after winning the previous cases, the  government could lose this one. That would give the anti-EPA forces  some ammunition with which to attack the agency, hurting its Prevention  of Significant Deterioration program. Justice Kennedy, as so often the  case, is the wild card. ²


And The New York Times:



			
				New York Times said:
			
		

> Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who may hold the decisive vote, made a point that did not bode well for the agency.“I couldn’t find a single precedent that strongly supports your  position,” he told the agency’s lawyer, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the  United States solicitor general.³


Obviously I'd like to see the court severely regulate all the regulatory  agencies that are writing the laws that govern us, I have no idea how,  short of making them submit all regulations to Congress prior to their  becoming law, of course with Nancy Pelosi saying about the ACA: “we have to pass it so  you can find out what’s in it” I doubt that our legislators are  interested and intelligent enough to actually read what becomes  our laws, this applies not only to the EPA but the ADA and every other  alphabet soup agency.

I think that even the most ardent ADA supporters have to agree that a lot of the regulations are unreasonable, our freedoms are at stake, including the First Amendment Freedom of Association.  As I've said before, were I a member of Congress at the time the law was passed I would have supported the ADA law including the private right of action as opposed to having civil servants enforcing the law, the problems are the absurd tyrannical regulations, had I supported the law I would have been sadly disappointed that it was being used for extortion and would move to rewrite the law writing the private right of action out of it.

Laws and regulations can be found unconstitutional on the basis of "Void for Vagueness", Thursday I reported the yellow matts with the bumps on them in Berkeley, today in Walnut Creek all the matts with bumps are gray,  and above where the gray matts were glued down the concrete was cut with groves, I guess the prior standard, at least the regulations are so vague that major cities don't understand them. On the issue of Civil Rights for Blacks the Court said they had to end by 2023, maybe the Court could make the ADA constitutional by putting a termination date on it.

The title of this thread is "Laws require enforcement", I'd say no, discriminatory unconstitutional laws should not be enforced, like Jim Crow laws should never have been enforced.

¹ http://www.thestreet.com/story/12441581/1/supreme-court-weighs-epa-power-in-greenhouse-gases-case.html

² http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/24/1280029/-Divided-Supreme-Court-hears-oral-arguments-in-third-EPA-case-on-regulating-greenhouse-gases

³ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/us/justices-weigh-conundrum-on-epa-authority.html


----------



## Frank (Feb 25, 2014)

I will disagree with the headline premise that laws require enforcement.

The tangled code of laws and regulations now on the books are impossible to enforce or fully comply with.

No one, including the IRS, knows what the tax code means.

The laws regarding intimate behaviour are so convoluted that almost all have violated one or more at some time in their life.  Relations outside of marriage are illegal in most states.  Firearms regulations are similarly convoluted.

Many of these examples are of questionable constitutionality.

I have heard from many sources that an officer could follow any motorist for a mile and come up with some violations.

Most times these issues of excessive law is papered over through prosecutorial discretion--The car running 74 in a 70 zone is not pulled over and given a ticket, even though it is illegal.

The ADA and accessibility regulations are similarly difficult and expensive to comply with exactly.  They also have an ex post facto character when applied to existing buildings that were legal when constructed or when complied with the older ADA guidlines but no longer comply with the new 2010 ones or changing state ones.

A bathroom was constructed under an older accessibility code with 2 horizontal grab bars turning space etc.--the sink is in what the current code requires as clear space beside the toilet, how fair is it to require that the bathroom be torn out and widened at considerable expense when it met the accessiblity regulations at the time?

In some ways these are like requiring that your 20 year old car be upgraded to meet all new emissions, anti-lock brake, traction control and airbag requirements--possible but not economical.

The big difference with the ADA and some state regulations is that there is a financial incentive for private individuals to prosecute minor and major violations--What if private individuals could enforce traffic laws and pocket half the fines?  There would be a whole lot of complaints about people running 72 in the 70 mph zone.

Note that there are many basic justice arguments for eliminating many laws and simplifying others, but there is no profit to the lobbiests and lawyers in the legislatures for so doing--even for those that have been struck down by the courts.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 25, 2014)

Ultimately what is going on is the oppression of one group of people or another. You can oppress those with disabilities, or people who own businesses. The only real way to fix this is to take out the current legal action from this law (no cereal lawsuits) and allow local AHJs to enforce it. Allow them to be reasonable so that businesses aren't run into the ground to make upgrades outside the scope of work. There are some buildings that may never become accessible, but most will be accessible enough to be frequented by the majority of the population.

For instance, the Supreme Court of Canada recently struck down a couple of anti-prostitution laws because they violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (basically the Canadian version of your constitution). The court delayed the active date of their decision for a year, so we can still prosecute prostitutes under an illegal law. Two provinces have decided that they are no longer prosecuting for these offenses, while they are still technically illegal it is obviously immoral to enforce these laws. I see the ADA law much the same way, an excellent intent, but poor delivery. It should be similar to the building codes in that nothing is needed to be changed until work is undertaken. At that time the local AHJ can enforce the installation of accessible construction. The AHJ can look at things reasonably and determine how accessible a building needs to be based on reality, not the ideal scenario that the laws were written around.

You might think that this won't work, but this is how it works ion Canada and we have some projects that making an old building more accessible is the scope of the work. They are not doing anything else. Business owners get it. If I make my building nice and easy to get into, get around in and use the facilities, people are more likely to shop here. They will drive by the places that are closer. They will drive by the places that are cheaper. They will come to shop here because it is more comfortable.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 25, 2014)

To each of you who has responded, I thank you for your logical (without animosity) comments.

Let us continue in this vane as it appears we are achieving a level of consenus with this thread.

The task at hand is how can we bring clarity to the regs? Can it be done at the local agency level or does it require a state initive to bring forth clarity?

California revisions to its 2013 code are attempting to do so. It enjoyed statewide participation of most stakeholders.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 25, 2014)

One of the biggest issues is that over the years as businesses did renovations, they did nothing to update or upgrade within reason and within the letter of the law what was required.  Whether they did so out of ignorance to the law or by choice, the fact is that they did not comply.  If they did and had good enforcement with paperwork then it is my belief that is completely defendable in court as they can show the timeline, cost and inspections, CofO, etc.  But instead, they fold because the know they are wrong and have no proof that they at least attempted.

Unfortunately, in areas that don't have their own accessibility, enforcement is reactive so ignorance has a lot to do with the problems.

The resistance to ADA compliance is also found in new construction and renovation work where they ARE aware of accessibility requirements.  We see and deal with it all of the time.  There has been much better enforcement of electrical and building requirements over the years than accessibility and they should be no different.

I think the amount of frivolous litigation is giving accessibility a bad name and I am not a fan of frivolous litigation.  I don't agree with the tactics but I also clearly see that it is one of the most effective ways towards compliance.

So you can spend all of your time complaining about it or do something about it.  Spending time here telling us how bad it is is not going to help your cause unless your cause is the ability to whine.


----------



## north star (Feb 25, 2014)

*= ~ = ~ =*





> "The only real way to fix this is to take out the current legal action from this law (no cereal lawsuits)*and allow local AHJs to enforce it*........Allow them to be reasonable so that businesses aren't run into the
> 
> ground to make upgrades outside the scope of work."


I respectfully disagree with this statement...........History is alreadyfull of regular instances where the local AHJ's will not enforce anything

consistent or fairly.

I've said it before and I will say it again, ...as a business owner you have to

know the costs of doing business in your locale......Be that in the U.S., or in

other countries.....Part of those costs [ in the U.S. of A.  ] are compliance

with the laws........In some parts of this country today, Civil Rights are still

being violated by some business owners........Until they are prosecuted and

made to comply, [ some ] businesses roll right along without doing anything.

Heck, in most corporations, ...it's part of their business models to resist

compliance with the adopted laws until they are actually prosecuted.......The

Boards and officers of the corporations won't remain in their positions

long if they willingly spend [ potential ] profits without being made to comply

by prosecutorial action first !

Also, by being a business owner,  ...you simply have to be aware of the laws

of the land in which you reside or do business.........Turning a "blind eye"

wreaks of underhanded, unequal advantages for you, while others are

complying [  i.e. - read "corruption"  ].



*~ = ~ = ~*


----------



## Paul Sweet (Feb 25, 2014)

ANSI A117.1 and ADASAD are very similar.  I believe the reason ANSI A117.1 hasn't "risen to a DOJ level of acceptance as a minimal safe harbor" is because ADASAD includes items such as ATMs, phones, etc. that are outside of the scope of a building code.  IBC Appendix E includes those items if the jurisdiction wants to adopt and enforce them.

ADA Title III section 306.4.2(b) says:

(b) Alteration. For the purposes of this part, an alteration is a change to a place of public accommodation or a commercial facility that affects or could affect the usability of the building or facility or any part thereof.

(1) Alterations include, but are not limited to, remodeling, renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, historic restoration, changes or rearrangement in structural parts or elements, and changes or rearrangement in the plan configuration of walls and full-height partitions. Normal maintenance, reroofing, painting or wallpapering, asbestos removal, or changes to mechanical and electrical systems are not alterations unless they affect the usability of the building or facility.

A lot of work done at the change of tenants wouldn't fall under this definition.  New finishes don't require the anything to be made accessible.  New millwork and furnishings such as sales counters, tables, shelving, aisles, etc. would have to be accessible themselves, but they wouldn't trigger redoing the restrooms, parking spaces, or entrances.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 25, 2014)

ANSI A117.1 also does not have full scoping docs. ANSI A117.1 is intended as a standard not a stand alone code.


----------



## Frank (Feb 25, 2014)

jar546 said:
			
		

> One of the biggest issues is that over the years as businesses did renovations, they did nothing to update or upgrade within reason and within the letter of the law what was required.  Whether they did so out of ignorance to the law or by choice, the fact is that they did not comply.  If they did and had good enforcement with paperwork then it is my belief that is completely defendable in court as they can show the timeline, cost and inspections, CofO, etc.  But instead, they fold because the know they are wrong and have no proof that they at least attempted.  I think the amount of frivolous litigation is giving accessibility a bad name and I am not a fan of frivolous litigation.  I don't agree with the tactics but I also clearly see that it is one of the most effective ways towards compliance.


Yes thre are some egregious cases but many of the cases are defensible in court, however the cost of defense through trial is hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the potential loss goes from buying off the plaintiff for 10-20 thousand or risk if you lose hundreds of thousands of dollars for their attorney fees as well as paying for your own.  If you win you are still on the hook for your own hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense costs.  The plaintiffs have no incentive not to bring any case that has the least color of merit, even if it is trivial or frivolous.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 25, 2014)

Frank said:
			
		

> Yes thre are some egregious cases but many of the cases are defensible in court, however the cost of defense through trial is hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the potential loss goes from buying off the plaintiff for 10-20 thousand or risk if you lose hundreds of thousands of dollars for their attorney fees as well as paying for your own.  If you win you are still on the hook for your own hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense costs.  The plaintiffs have no incentive not to bring any case that has the least color of merit, even if it is trivial or frivolous.


Thank you attorneys for exposing the underbelly of a good law


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 25, 2014)

They thrive on determing the minute differences of words such as standards, prescriptive, proscriptive, required, performance, maximum extent feasible, reasonable, functionally equivilent and visitability; words lacking clarity of definition by the ADA and left to the courts to determine vwith varying degrees of sucess.

In the Sorenson case the USSC has held that where a term is ambiguous (too whom, a reasonable person?), interpretation shall be left up to the controlling agency so long as the interpretation is "reasonable"

Without clear and succint language this can go on forever.


----------



## nitramnaed (Feb 26, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> On the issue of Civil Rights for Blacks the Court said they had to end by 2023


Besides the unfortunate tone of this statement are you saying the Supreme Court has ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation is terminated in 2023?

I assume you don't mean that civil rights will end only for African Americans while the rest of us enjoy our civil rights?


----------



## conarb (Feb 26, 2014)

nitramnaed said:
			
		

> Besides the unfortunate tone of this statement are you saying the Supreme Court has ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation is terminated in 2023?I assume you don't mean that civil rights will end only for African Americans while the rest of us enjoy our civil rights?


The whole concept of LBJ's 1964 act was to obtain votes for the Democratic Party as is evidenced by Johnson's famous quote that I posted before.  The concept of preferential treatment for any group is unconstitutional on it's face, these special privileges were set to expire by Justice O'Connor in the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences  will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." The  phrase "25 years from now" was echoed by Justice Thomas in his dissent.  Justice Thomas, writing that the system was "illegal now", concurred  with the majority only on the point that he agreed the system would  still be illegal 25 years hence.¹


Whenever you give certain groups preferential treatment you limit the civil rights of other groups, BTW, they are supposed to expire in 2028, not 2023.

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger


----------



## nitramnaed (Feb 26, 2014)

Fair enough.  You're talking about Affirmative Action…..Debatable.  Civil Rights……Not debatable.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 26, 2014)

As for accessibility, big bad government rules, As building officials, it's helpful to know the tactics of the other side.

 Stand your ground in the face of opposition, sometimes they're just playing with you......

 People deciding which Laws/rules they want to enforce, Yep.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 26, 2014)

Yep,

but as to the 25 year window, this is a wrinkle I was not aware of. "ticking" time bomb?


----------



## Frank (Feb 26, 2014)

Attorney General Eric Holder has opined that some laws should not be enforced or defended.

Civil rights are debatable, through debate the understanding is strengthed.

These is also room for debate on where to draw the line between conflicting rights.  My right to freedom of religion ends some where short of your young daughter's right to life when my religion calls for sacrificing a young virgin to the volcano.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 26, 2014)

Frank said:
			
		

> sacrificing a young .... to the volcano.


----------



## conarb (Feb 26, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> As for accessibility, big bad government rules, As building officials, it's helpful to know the tactics of the other side.  Stand your ground in the face of opposition, sometimes they're just playing with you......
> 
> People deciding which Laws/rules they want to enforce, Yep.


Mark:

So those of us who want to preserve what's left of our freedoms are the "other side"?   Is this war, the public servants on one side and free enterprise on the other?"

As to "People deciding which Laws/rules they want to enforce" Frank is correct, every school child is taught that we have three arms of government, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, and no one of the three can take the functions of the other, they are the heart of our system of checks and balances, the judicial has long been criticized for legislating from the bench, now we have a President who is abdicating his responsibly to enforce drug laws that he doesn't like, refusing to enforce portions of his signature health care law because they could cost his party elections, and now legislating environmental laws that are now in front of the Supreme Court.  The President is the chief executive in this nation, all building department personnel are lower level executives, if the President can arbitrarily decide not to enforce laws that he doesn't like so can every building inspector in the land.

Since ADA law and EPA law seem to be doctrine advocated by the radical left in this country, both using activist techniques, and both wanting to destroy our freedoms and redistribute our wealth, some quotes from David Brower, the father of the environmental movement:



			
				Activist said:
			
		

> When you believe that “all technology should be assumed guilty until  proven innocent,” as Brower does, it makes perfect sense to strive for  an ever-shifting landscape of what positions are “reasonable.” According to the left-leaning “CounterPunch” online journal: “The  fiery stance of today’s green militants owes everything to Brower.”  Brower certainly didn’t shy away from extremist imagery. He told the _Christian Science Monitor_:  “I’d like to declare open season on developers. Not kill them, just  tranquilize them.” That’s a line Brower regularly repeated in his  lectures.
> 
> In her books _Trashing the Planet and Environmental Overkill_,  Dixy Lee Ray captured how Brower happily placed his environmental credo  over the well-being of his fellow human beings. Three Brower quotables  stand out:
> 
> ...


So Mark and ADAGuy, where do you draw the line, if you were AG Holder would you enforce the drug laws?  If you were President Obama would you refuse to enforce your own signature health law? If you were a guard at Dachau would you refuse to put people in the ovens?  At what point does the executive draw the line at reasonableness?

¹ http://www.activistcash.com/person/3507-david-brower/


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 26, 2014)

I have a hotel ADA remodel as part of a DOJ national settlement against the hotel chain. They cannot meet ANSI 607.2 without disrupting existing fire and structural walls. ADA has an exception so they are meeting the DOJ requirements in their design. The more stringent is suppose to be applied.

As the BO I have certain latitude to accept the ADA as an alternative means to ANSI even though it is a lesser requirement than the ANSI. Should I do this simply because ADA has determined no "civil rights" have been violated by placing a lavatory sink next to the bathtub. Won't the sink interfere with swinging the legs over the tub?

Thankfully the "codes" where never about "rights" they where about understanding the "intent" of the code language as it applied to a particular project. "Civil Rights" are not a code consideration. I realize building codes will and should incorporate the "intent" of the accessibility laws into the body of the code and this has happened to a very large degree. However, the ADA "rules" have moved beyond building codes with the regulation of what I refer to as "furniture and fixture" such as ATM's, vending machines, placement of exercise equipment within a room, pool lifts and a number of other items. I do not believe they should be within the "scope" of the building codes.



> However once a law, whether Federal, State or local, their implementions require enforcement guidelines, hence inclusion in codes and regulations


 I disagree with the last part of your statement. Enforcement does not have to be by inclusion in the codes. Enforcement will be spelled out within the law as adopted. In fact the codes do not have an enforcement mechanism within them. They refer you to local legal counsel. IBC 114.3   ANSI

 607.2 Clearance. A clearance in front of bathtubs extending the length of the bathtub and 30 inches (760 mm) minimum in depth shall be provided. Where a permanent seat is provided at the head end of the bathtub, the clearance shall extend 12 inches (305 mm) minimum beyond the wall at the head end of the bathtub.

ADA

*607.2 Clearance.* Clearance in front of          bathtubs shall extend the length of the bathtub and shall be 30 inches          (760 mm) wide minimum. *A lavatory complying with 606 shall be permitted          at the control end of the clearance.* Where a permanent seat is provided          at the head end of the bathtub, the clearance shall extend 12 inches          (305 mm) minimum beyond the wall at the head end of the bathtub.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 26, 2014)

George Bush SR and George Bush Jr signed the law and reaffirmed the law passed by congress. that law gave the Access Board and the DOJ the mandate and authority to set up and enforce the Law. The congress, in the infinite wisdom, allocated those powers. If you want to modify the you need to talk to your congressman and senators.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 26, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> "Civil Rights" are not a code consideration. I realize building codes will and should incorporate the "intent" of the accessibility laws into the body of the code and this has happened to a very large degree. However, the ADA "rules" have moved beyond building codes with the regulation of what I refer to as "furniture and fixture" such as ATM's, vending machines, placement of exercise equipment within a room, pool lifts and a number of other items. I do not believe they should be within the "scope" of the building codes.  .


Which is the distinction I keep trying to make, don't blame the ADA for some standards you do not agree with.

ADA is not a building code, educated building officials and professional understand that.


----------



## conarb (Feb 26, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> George Bush SR and George Bush Jr signed the law and reaffirmed the law passed by congress. that law gave the Access Board and the DOJ the mandate and authority to set up and enforce the Law. The congress, in the infinite wisdom, allocated those powers. If you want to modify the you need to talk to your congressman and senators.


Mark:

This is not a R vs. D thing, I've repeatedly said Johnson passed  the Civil rights law to buy votes for the Democrats, the Republicans added ADA to the civil rights law to buy votes.  All laws are usually interpreted with a reasonableness standard, ADA has has no reasonableness standard, it is no wonder that businesses able to pay hundreds of thousands in legal fees win ADA lawsuits win over 90% of the time, it's just that most can't afford to defend themselves against these extortionists.

 You didn't answer my question, where would you draw the line in the instances above, I'm sure you would draw the line before pushing people into the oven, but what about the others?  On the other hand maybe ADAGuy would push people into the ovens, he has stated laws must be enforced.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 26, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Which is the distinction I keep trying to make, don't blame the ADA for some standards you do not agree with.ADA is not a building code, educated building officials and professional understand that.


You are correct and I am guilty as others when I lump ADA into a discussion about CA chosen method of enforcing their accessibility laws or the building codes. However, don't blame building official when you have buildings 23 years later still out of compliance with ADA laws since we are not charged to enforce them.


----------



## nitramnaed (Feb 27, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> we have a President who is abdicating his responsibly to enforce drug laws that he doesn't like, refusing to enforce portions of his signature health care law because they could cost his party elections, and now legislating environmental laws that are now in front of the Supreme Court.


You mean like Bush II who signed hundreds of signing statements and refused to enforce his own share of laws, e.g. Immigration, torture.  Sure but Bush refused to enforce the laws because they were unconstitutional but Obama's are policy based (snark).  Right or wrong I'm guessing this has been going on since……..Well maybe Jefferson?


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 27, 2014)

nitramnaed said:
			
		

> You mean like Bush II who signed hundreds of signing statements and refused to enforce his own share of laws, e.g. Immigration, torture.  Sure but Bush refused to enforce the laws because they were unconstitutional but Obama's are policy based (snark).  Right or wrong I'm guessing this has been going on since……..Well maybe Jefferson?


They are of the same ruling class of elitists.

It is very much us against them.

Brent


----------



## conarb (Feb 27, 2014)

nitramnaed said:
			
		

> You mean like Bush II who signed hundreds of signing statements and refused to enforce his own share of laws, e.g. Immigration, torture.  Sure but Bush refused to enforce the laws because they were unconstitutional but Obama's are policy based (snark).  Right or wrong I'm guessing this has been going on since……..Well maybe Jefferson?


As I said before this is not a R vs. D problem they are both doing it, I haven't researched who started it or when it was started (being more interested in Judicial activism) but it is unconstitutional, now we have to see if the court has the guts to stop it, and as I said the court watchers are rating it as 5 to 4 with Kennedy as the swing vote.  The fact is that Obama has carried it to an extreme, and sometimes it takes an extreme case to bring it to the courts.

My son has a business partner who was one of the original leaders of the Free Speech movement at Cal Berkeley (jailed and kicked out of school), these people today are basically apolitical seeing one party as bad as the other, they also think that freedoms in this country are all over (in their words) with the revelations of the NAS spying on all Americans, along with spying on people all over the world.  They are a lot more paranoid than I, I don't care if they have access to my phone calls, my E-mails, or whether they read this post or not, I just hate paying the taxes so support political agenda, especially lining the pockets of the whores who are exploiting the law to line their own pockets.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 27, 2014)

I draw the line on moral issues,  what is too much in providing access?  I as a building official deal with the 20 percent issue all the time.

I do not require full access but I do make them provide the code required access,  not more.

I encourage all the naysayers to read the existing access requirements and what is required  before trashing all the codes.

Read the provisions in

CBC 202.4


----------



## conarb (Feb 27, 2014)

Mark said:
			
		

> I encourage all the naysayers to read the existing access requirements and what is required  before trashing all the codes.


That's the real danger to you guys with ever more absurd code requirements, in my cost breakdowns I lump all fees required to obtain a permit into one "Government Fees" line item, right below that I have another line item for "Special Inspections - Paid directly by owner", I want to make damn sure that all my customers know what their government is costing them.

  The last home I built (the owner was an engineer) I budgeted $100,000 for Special Inspections, one day he came by and I had the soils engineer, the structural engineer, and two Special Inspectors on site (along with me and 17 tradesmen), after surveying the situation he asked me: "Why do I have to pay for all these layers of inspections, why don't the County inspectors inspect this after you have paid around $100,000 for your permit?"  I told him:  "Your permit fees just support the County and their Affordable Housing program for the poor, besides inspectors in the United States aren't even required to have welding certifications and many don't even have college degrees" (in our seismic zones there is lots of steel).   In fact, the first time I called the field inspector and showed him my 125 page set of plans and shop drawings, he told me: "I am not empowered to inspect anything here, you have to go through the Structural Engineers in Plan Check", I said: "Fine, I'll call you at every inspection point and provide you with copies of Special Inspection Reports, Structural Observations, and all relevant ES Reports along with UL Reports as necessary."

So why do we even need building inspection anymore?  I think code minimums are good and we shouldn't trash all the codes, but inspection is unnecessary, make the architects, engineers, and contractors liable if something goes wrong.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 27, 2014)

And lumping all reglitory "fees" together is a problem.

Some fees are justified,  some are not.

Since prop 13 most jurisdiction s have been forced into so called user fees to provide services and amenities the taxes use to provide including water service.  Now new builders are forced to add/extend the service.


----------



## conarb (Feb 27, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> And lumping all reglitory "fees" together is a problem. Some fees are justified,  some are not.
> 
> Since prop 13 most jurisdiction s have been forced into so called user fees to provide services and amenities the taxes use to provide including water service.  Now new builders are forced to add/extend the service.


Mark:

Here in the Bay Area our water districts are not government agencies, I have had to extend mains all my life if they needed extension, the same with sewer districts and electric and gas utilities.  You can only charge fees for the actual cost of delivery of services, otherwise it's a tax requiring a vote of 2/3 of the electorate.  That's why cities and counties have been incorporating the unfunded affordable housing mandate within the building departments, that way they can lump the costs of providing access to affordable housing along with administration of the program, that's also why I have to stand in line behind the poor when they are getting something for nothing when I am paying huge amounts of money to fund their housing, people building expensive housing paying for people getting free or low cost housing, again redistribution of wealth, *wealth is a function of intelligence*, and with a dramatic fall in intelligence in this country the problem is only going to get worse. From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.  Didn't we fight wars to prevent this from ever happening here?


----------



## JBI (Feb 27, 2014)

Wealth is not a function of intelligence and hasn't been in my lifetime.


----------



## mjesse (Feb 27, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> So why do we even need building inspection anymore?  I think code minimums are good and we shouldn't trash all the codes, but inspection is unnecessary, make the architects, engineers, and contractors liable if something goes wrong.


FWIW, I don't completely disagree with you, but...

When things inevitably "go wrong", the architects engineers, and contractors that _*should*_ be held liable, just file for bankruptcy and dissolve their corporations. {POOF} That is, if their corporation or LLC has even survived after the final C of O was issued.

Municipalities will usually outlive the "responsible parties" as well as the property owners. Therefor, the oversight and involvement of said municipality can be beneficial in assuring projects are completed to the minimum requirements.


----------



## mjesse (Feb 27, 2014)

JBI said:
			
		

> Wealth is not a function of intelligence and hasn't been in my lifetime.


One needs only to look at the entertainment industry for proof of this.


----------



## steveray (Feb 27, 2014)

The EOR and special inspector missed this broken truss......Do we need inspectors?





Apparently the EOR and SI think this is OK....Do we need inspectors?





And I have hundreds of pics from the same project and others...Maybe the inspectors are that much better here? Maybe the other professionals are that much worse?


----------



## JBI (Feb 27, 2014)

mjesse said:
			
		

> One needs only to look at the entertainment industry for proof of this.


Or the financial industry, corporate management or political industry?


----------



## jar546 (Feb 27, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> That's the real danger to you guys with ever more absurd code requirements, in my cost breakdowns I lump all fees required to obtain a permit into one "Government Fees" line item, right below that I have another line item for "Special Inspections - Paid directly by owner", I want to make damn sure that all my customers know what their government is costing them.  The last *home I built* (the owner was an engineer) I budgeted $100,000 for Special Inspections, one day he came by and I had the soils engineer, the structural engineer, and two Special Inspectors on site (along with me and 17 tradesmen), after surveying the situation he asked me: "Why do I have to pay for all these layers of inspections, why don't the County inspectors inspect this after you have paid around $100,000 for your permit?"  I told him:  "Your permit fees just support the County and their Affordable Housing program for the poor, besides inspectors in the United States aren't even required to have welding certifications and many don't even have college degrees" (in our seismic zones there is lots of steel).   In fact, the first time I called the field inspector and showed him my 125 page set of plans and shop drawings, he told me: "I am not empowered to inspect anything here, you have to go through the Structural Engineers in Plan Check", I said: "Fine, I'll call you at every inspection point and provide you with copies of Special Inspection Reports, Structural Observations, and all relevant ES Reports along with UL Reports as necessary."
> 
> *So why do we even need building inspection anymore?  I think code minimums are good and we shouldn't trash all the codes, but inspection is unnecessary, make the architects, engineers, and contractors liable if something goes wrong.*


"…home I built…" I assume it is impossible in that jurisdiction to build a home prescriptively without the need for special inspections?  Or did the owner ELECT to build a complicated, expensive home outside of the prescriptive methods?

In regards to the statement about the need for building inspections.  Simply an absurd question.  I can base this on the high percentage of failed inspections and litigation over construction defects, not to mention injuries.


----------



## ICE (Feb 27, 2014)

JBI said:
			
		

> Or the financial industry, corporate management or political industry?


Let's not forget professional sports.  You can be dumb as a stump and make millions if you can hit a baseball.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 27, 2014)

> I draw the line on moral issues


Who determines what is moral?



> In regards to the statement about the need for building inspections. Simply an absurd question. I can base this on the high percentage of failed inspections and litigation over construction defects, not to mention injuries.


I remember your post and pictures before you crossed over to the dark side that showed a lot of "approved" installations by the local AHJ's that where definitely non-compliant.

The truth is we need to always be learning and improving our knowledge and skills as plan reviewers and inspectors and continually passing that on to the tradesman in the field.


----------



## conarb (Feb 27, 2014)

Everybody competes in this world, that's the basis of evolution, survival of the fittest, our universities compete for the best and the brightest because they compete for the highest endowments, smarter people make more money and donate more to their _alma maters_, Stanford has been competing with Harvard since Harvard has a 255 year head start in getting wealthy legacies, Stanford has used the Stanford Binet to find the brightest and last year tripled Harvard in donations.  In fact Harvard has slipped so far *they give everybody straight A-s*, in my day every school, even the lower class state schools, graded on the curve flunking out 33%, now we have kids graduating from high school with 4.0+ GPAs, the ETS has lowered the bar so far that both Stanford and Harvard had more 2,400 SATs than admission slots, yet Stanford only admitted 69% with perfect SATs in order to meet their diversity goals.

As to intelligence and income *read the December issue of Psychology Today*


----------



## Codegeek (Feb 27, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> They are a lot more paranoid than I, I don't care if they have access to my phone calls, my E-mails, or whether they read this post or not, I just hate paying the taxes so support political agenda, especially lining the pockets of the whores who are exploiting the law to line their own pockets.


Amen to that! Why is it we have a career politicians? What happened to serving our country to truly represent the American public rather than someone's personal agenda or the agenda of the ones lining their pocketbook? Don't get me started...


----------



## mark handler (Feb 27, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Who determines what is moral?


And that is a major problem with the world today. We no longer teach our children that.

Many cross the "what is right"-line, all the time.

That's why we, in CA, have a business and professions code, and fair political practices act. Both of which cause me to fill out conflict of interest documents.

It is just a reminder....


----------



## conarb (Feb 27, 2014)

Jeff said:
			
		

> "…home I built…" I assume it is impossible in that jurisdiction to build  a home prescriptively without the need for special inspections?  Or did  the owner ELECT to build a complicated, expensive home outside of the  prescriptive methods?


With our seismic codes it's impossible to build to the prescriptive code, the structural engineers have been trying for years to require engineering on everything built, the date was supposed to be 2011 to coincide with the 200th anniversary of the New Madrid Quake, in my opinion it got derailed by all of the money in the environmental industry pushing the Energy and Green codes, my understanding is that the tough seismic codes should be nationwide within the next few code cycles.  A former carpenter of mine does an excellent job of documenting his work, *here is what started out as a simple addition and ended up looking like a simple addition*, here is a *new home*, framing inspection lasted 7 days on that home, he asked me to be there one of those days and the inspector made him pull nails all over the place to measure and mic the nails, actually the inspectors are challenging the structural engineers more than us contractors now.  I suggest you guys look through those files and see what's coming to even the most backward of communities that don't even have codes now (or recently adopted them).

I was having problems with a plan checker and she said she was busy on the *Bing Concert Hall*, I told here that Peter Bing was a classmate of mine, she asked how he made all of his money, I told here that his father and uncle came over from Hungary as penniless Jews after the First World War, they build large complexes in New York City before there were any codes, those buildings are still standing, her comment was: "They don't need codes in New York City, they don't have earthquakes there".  Later she told me that the house I was permitting should have been all steel, she asked: "Do you know how many trees are going to die for you to build this house?"

Frankly I think if we are going to have to build to the cold country energy standards they should have to build to our seismic standards.


----------



## Frank (Feb 27, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> A former carpenter of mine does an excellent job of documenting his work, *here is what started out as a simple addition and ended up looking like a simple addition*, here is a *new home*, framing inspection lasted 7 days on that home, he asked me to be there one of those days and the inspector made him pull nails all over the place to measure and mic the nails, actually the inspectors are challenging the structural engineers more than us contractors now.Later she told me that the house I was permitting should have been all steel, she asked: "Do you know how many trees are going to die for you to build this house?"


Those resemble a simple addition and basic new home about as much as a Ferrari resembles a go cart--they both have 4 wheels and an engine.  Both are monuments to designers seeing how complicated they can make  things and still get the client to pay for them.  Or like the Ferrari they are works of art that also provide some practical use.

With respect to building out of steel vs wood--I think she misses the mark as wood is a renewable and steel is not.  She is also missing the energy inputs into the steel.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 27, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I remember your post and pictures before you crossed over to the dark side that showed a lot of "approved" installations by the local AHJ's that where definitely non-compliant.
> 
> The truth is we need to always be learning and improving our knowledge and skills as plan reviewers and inspectors and continually passing that on to the tradesman in the field.


It is absolutely true that there are many things overlooked by inspectors intentionally and unintentionally.  That is no basis to say that inspectors are not needed whatsoever.  Neither contractors nor RDP's are perfect and neither are we but we are another level to ensure compliance.  Read my statement again. I am talking about all of the failed inspections out there that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 27, 2014)

Jar

I meant it as a compliment to you and as a response to conarbs statement about is it neccessary to have different inspectors. Yes, because knowledge, training and pride in your work produces good results. Those you are just there to "inspect" and collect the paycheck are a detriment to the profession whether private or government employed.


----------



## conarb (Feb 27, 2014)

Frank said:
			
		

> Those resemble a simple addition and basic new home about as much as a Ferrari resembles a go cart--they both have 4 wheels and an engine.  Both are monuments to designers seeing how complicated they can make  things and still get the client to pay for them.  Or like the Ferrari they are works of art that also provide some practical use.With respect to building out of steel vs wood--I think she misses the mark as wood is a renewable and steel is not.  She is also missing the energy inputs into the steel.


Frank:

That is what is required here, the new home required $30,000 worth of Simpson metal and still had $30,000 worth or red iron moment frames, I'd speculate that the $30,000 worth of Simpson cost double that (at our rates) to install, that's why I went to all steel structures, that also gave me walls of glass since there was no need to diaphragm, and eliminate sealing up walls causing dryrot.   Nobody wanted all that structure other than the AHJ, the structural engineers had to design to the cities' approvals, and as it is the city inspectors keep challenging the structural engineers.  In my case I had the house designed with a German engineering program, the plan checker didn't have that program and made me bring my engineer down and animate the forces on his laptop, she made him apply seismic loads from 4 directions when he had only done two, she then made him apply wind loads from 4 directions when he had only done 2, then she made him animate seismic and wind loads concurrently from all four directions requiring 16 modelings.  Very interesting to watch the animated loads to failure.  BTW, all designs here are to FEMA standards, during arguments between the County SE and my SE he was constantly opening up his FEMA book to justify his designs.

We had a case here in Atherton, the house was supposed to cost $6 million and with all the city's requirements it cost $13 million, the owner sued the architect, several engineers, the contractor, and the city, the basis of the action against the city is that the city inspector drove the cost sky high and he didn't even have a college degree, he had enrolled in a junior college but there was no evidence of his ever graduating.  I don't know how it turned out which means it settled with everybody kicking in some money, so the $7 million in over costs were probably split between all defendants.


----------



## conarb (Feb 27, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> JarI meant it as a compliment to you and as a response to conarbs statement about is it neccessary to have different inspectors. Yes, because knowledge, training and pride in your work produces good results. Those you are just there to "inspect" and collect the paycheck are a detriment to the profession whether private or government employed.


Guys:

Even the IRC references the IBC for Chapter 17 Special Inspections, I do all AHJs a favor by getting Structural Observations telling them that I am taking them off the hook for liability. Bottom line that's all they want, collect the fees and be exposed to no liability.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 27, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> ... that's all they want....


You know what "they all want".....


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 27, 2014)

Conarb, after attending a LACSI training and product show last night, if you think Simpson products added to the cost, check out the impacts of the CALGreen code on building envelopes: (CMAS calcs, increased insulation requirements) .

They are requiring an additional level of obervation/verification as to "operational" completeness of mechanical systems by ATT's (a new certification, not commissioning);

also limitations on electrical lighting types used and switching required, and daylighting requirements are significantly increased.

By 2020 "all" new housing will have to be self-sufficient as to energy (does this imply "off the grid?).

SF Remodels and alterations costs can be expected to increase too. Window changeout companies will have to significantly alter their product offerings as will roofing contractors (cool roofs).


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 27, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Guys:Even the IRC references the IBC for Chapter 17 Special Inspections, I do all AHJs a favor by getting Structural Observations telling them that I am taking them off the hook for liability. Bottom line that's all they want, collect the fees and be exposed to no liability.


Even in my small jurisdiction we have found "special inspectors" who did not know what they where looking at. I am not concerned about "liability" I am concerned about having a safe and structurally sound building when it is final-ed. I am not as old school as you but I believe life-safety and structurally safe take precedent over all the other regulations and if I have to make a decision to not enforce an energy, green, accessibility or any other non-life safety code to achieve a safe building I will


----------



## steveray (Feb 27, 2014)

He is already aware of Calgreen.....and not a fan.....Made very clear on numerous posts...


----------



## Frank (Feb 27, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Frank:That is what is required here, the new home required $30,000 worth of Simpson metal and still had $30,000 worth or red iron moment frames, I'd speculate that the $30,000 worth of Simpson cost double that (at our rates) to install, that's why I went to all steel structures, that also gave me walls of glass since there was no need to diaphragm, and eliminate sealing up walls causing dryrot.   Nobody wanted all that structure other than the AHJ, the structural engineers had to design to the cities' approvals, and as it is the city inspectors keep challenging the structural engineers.  In my case I had the house designed with a German engineering program, the plan checker didn't have that program and made me bring my engineer down and animate the forces on his laptop, she made him apply seismic loads from 4 directions when he had only done two, she then made him apply wind loads from 4 directions when he had only done 2, then she made him animate seismic and wind loads concurrently from all four directions requiring 16 modelings.  Very interesting to watch the animated loads to failure.  BTW, all designs here are to FEMA standards, during arguments between the County SE and my SE he was constantly opening up his FEMA book to justify his designs.
> 
> We had a case here in Atherton, the house was supposed to cost $6 million and with all the city's requirements it cost $13 million, the owner sued the architect, several engineers, the contractor, and the city, the basis of the action against the city is that the city inspector drove the cost sky high and he didn't even have a college degree, he had enrolled in a junior college but there was no evidence of his ever graduating.  I don't know how it turned out which means it settled with everybody kicking in some money, so the $7 million in over costs were probably split between all defendants.


Conarb

Generally our plan reviewers, most degreed engineers or similar including a couple PEs in the office, only require detailed calculations from an engineer when we see something that is likely not to work--often due to a missing input(s).  There is no way we would require an engineer to come in and animate the forces on the structure--we would question specific elements or details that looked suspect.

Atherton, CA was a small town in over its head with inadequate supervision of untrained personel--per the grand jury report.  In part the city relied on the soils and other reports submitted by design professionals.  Also the department is too small and does not have enough volumn of permits to support a critical mass of competent people in the Buildnig Department.  Alot of the extra expense was to completely redo the foundations on deep unsuitable soils.

I was looking at the complex architectural design as opposed to 4 walls and a pitched roof with straight rafters or simple trusses.   Multimillion dollar house vs $150,000 homes-- hence the Ferrari vs go cart analogy.

For highly complex structures like you build in seismic areas, steel is a good chouice of material.  My criticism was from the green perspective that she was missaplying with the comment about how many trees killed.  In the green world, properly certified sustainable wood is better than steel in that it is renewable and uses less energy to produce.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 27, 2014)

A normal day for my inspectors is about 20 inspections/each per inspector.

One problem with most contractors is they think the inspectors know all the issues with each buildings "critical building components".

Special inspector’s reports are a double check on those "critical building components".

Building departments do not know the plans as well as the design professional that prepared them.

Who better than the design professional to observe deficiencies?


----------



## conarb (Feb 27, 2014)

ADAGuy:

As a contractor I'm well aware of these increased green costs, for a quality home here it's costing $1,000 a square foot and up, even the cheap affordable housing stuff is over $500 a foot in costs.  There are so many toxics in building materials today that 62.2 IAQ is tripling, this is going to be counterproductive as we are sealing up and then pumping in air, my carpenters built two spec homes in the industrial city of South San Francisco, after the architect went through 7 years of permitting they built the 2,500 square foot homes and sold them for $1.25 million, that's $500 a foot, they lost money, they tried to include their land costs in construction costs and they didn't charge for their labor, so they worked for free and lost money at $500 a foot, these are efficient good carpenters who are Mexican American. In the end they had to get blower door tests to prove 62.2 compliance before the tripling, the blower door guy had them cut 2'x2' holes in the laundry rooms to pass, then they sealed them back up.  Now blower door tests are going to be required before completion to make sure they are sealed up. This is crazy.

I'm well aware of the window requirements, for 14 years I've been installing U-0.18 triple pane windows, that's about R-5.6, the DOE wants the R-5 window now so all windows are going to have to be triple pane, the DOE is going for the R-10 window and nobody knows how they are going to achieve that (Cardinal has a coating that they claim *will deliver R-5 in a dual pane*, but that's a COG rating and the DOE wants full frame NFRC ratings, not even close).  My Title 24 consultant has long told me that anything below R-5 (U-0.20) is a waste of money, replacement windows have always been a fraud, in most cases they do more harm than good.   BTW, Cardinal will no longer deliver to me in California because of our tax and liability decisions, they will deliver to their fabricators, I have ongoing seal failures and since I warrant my products for life I'm having problems replacing failed units.  An attorney friend told me he had a 20 year home and was paying about $3,000 to $4,000 a year in IG unit replacements, he asked if he was saving any money over just single pane windows when you factor in IG unit replacement? I told him of course not, you are not saving money you are saving the planet, it is costing a lot of money to save the planet.  Why do we keep doing this, the planet has been cooling for 16 years, the fraud is over.

The cool roof thing can be confusing, Steven Chu (Obama's former Secretary of Energy and Nobel laureate in physics) has long campaigned for every roof in America to be painted white to reflect sunlight back into space to save the planet, the problem with that is in colder climates (like the city of San Francisco) you want dark roofs to absorb the heat, not reflect it.  Cool roofs now code-wise have come to mean radiant barriers on the bottom of roof sheathing to reflect heat back into the home.  This too is crazy, differing climates require differing approaches.  This reminds me of the time the State License Board sent me to a home in San Francisco, the lady had changed her windows from the original good quality aluminum casements (that sealed well) to cheap dual pane vinyl, she was sitting in her living room covered with a blanket shivering, I asked her why she did this, she said: "I just wanted to be toasty warm."  My heart went out to her so I called a guy who had just written the AAMA Manual and told him the wind was blowing right through these cheap windows, his response was: "Of course she is colder she lives in San Francisco, that is a cold city and she's blocked out her solar heat gain."  I asked: "Shouldn't people in San Francisco be told that?"  He said: "Of course not, we can't go dividing this state into micro-climates, on average if everyone in the state installs dual pane windows we will save 2% in our average energy consumption."  So people in cold and hot climates suffer, but on average the statewide energy consumption lowers by 2%, welcome to communitarian socialism, or fascism.


----------



## conarb (Feb 27, 2014)

Guys:

Don't get me wrong, inspectors have always been my best friends on jobsites, the City of San Leandro CBO asked me to bid on and get the remodel of their building department in the late 60s, the one inspector in Piedmont asked me to apply for and get on the Design Review Commission.  If anything it's some people inside the building departments who have their own agenda, like the killing trees comment.  I do see engineers under attack more than builders today.  When I'm going through the process I can see the politics and find several on my side but there are always a few against any new homes, there is a huge environmental movement to kill all new homes and put everyone in mixed use developments, just look at Steve Jobs, 30 years trying to get a permit to tear an old home down and build a new modern steel and glass home, as soon as he'd get one approval another environmental group would sue and get an injunction blocking him.  In the end he got a demolition permit one night, he had trucks and tractors lined up ready and actually got the old home torn down but died prior to building the new home.

I recently had a case with a head plan checker who was a great guy nearing retirement, he told me I had to get through before his retirement or I'd never make it, a few there didn't want to see me make it and he was constantly coming out ordering them to put more stamps all over my plans, in the end when I pulled the permit I think they all thought both he and I were old and they'd be done with us and then get on with their agenda.  He sent me to an older gal for my Environmental approval, she noted that a deck was near a leach line, I suggested that when I dug my foundation that I continue to dig until I exposed it and call her, she said fine and signed me off with the condition I would call for an inspection.  When I did call I got another young gal, she demanded another $640 up front, came out and proceeded to write up several pages of additional requirements that could cost me somewhere between $40,000 and $90,000 more.  I called the original gal back and she said: "Oh no, you didn't get her, she's a Greenie from Sonoma State, I'll tear up her stuff and come out myself", she agreed to what we had originally agreed upon and all that cost me was $640.

BTW, there are so many people getting sick and suing in these Green homes that the word green has gotten a bad name, I see builders changing from green construction to "sustainable construction", I retain an industrial hygienist on every job to do repeated chemical testing, this last home was a challenge, not only the usual no caulking, no treated lumber, no plastics of any kind, but this guy wanted no paint.  I had everything figured out but finishing the doors, cabinets, and walnut floors was making me lay awake nights, finally I talked to a friend who builds cabinets in yachts, he recommended a German product called Osmo Polyx oil, it is pushed down into the wood by the painter and wiped off, it is expensive to buy and apply but looks great and everyone including the owner is happy.  California has eliminated much of the formaldehyde in it's products and the units of plywood, OSB etc. have been shipped to you guys in other states, but now we are getting mold growing  in the formaldehyde-free products, the plywood is fine we can sand it off, but the OSB is a disaster, it doesn't even have to get wet, it can pick up mold spores in the air.


----------



## Frank (Feb 27, 2014)

In that the green code has not been adopted in most areas, the greens are pushing to get many of the provisions duplicated in the base building, plumbing, mechanical and energy codes.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 27, 2014)

Frank said:
			
		

> In that the green code has not been adopted in most areas, the greens are pushing to get many of the provisions duplicated in the base building, plumbing, mechanical and energy codes.


Required in California.  Mandated statewide. Not an option.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 28, 2014)

Bleach wash from a Hudson sprayer after installation has cured the mold prob for me.

Your mileage may vary.

Brent


----------



## conarb (Feb 28, 2014)

The night after the Court hearing I published court watchers' opinions from the right, left, and center, yesterday I read a much more comprehensive opinion piece from Dana Millbank, Millbank started out far left, and is now I'd say center left:



			
				Dana Millbank said:
			
		

> It has the makings of a royal mess for "King Barack."Monday's Supreme Court hearing about the Environmental Protection  Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases went badly for the Obama  administration -- so much so that the real question before the justices  seemed to be how severe the EPA's loss would be.
> 
> The administration's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, pleaded with  the justices to recognize the "urgent problem" of climate change.
> 
> ...


The highlighting is mine, but note the most liberal justice *Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, said the EPA's solution "seems to give  it complete discretion to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants" --  which she found "problematic."*

The relevance here is Kagen's statement that giving a government regulatory agency complete discretion to do whatever it wants whenever it wants is highly "problematic".  If wording like that ends up in the decision a case could be brought, using this case as precedent, challenging the DOJ's regulatory "interpretation" of the ADA.

I'm glad Justice Breyer made his tongue-in-cheek comments about taxing people for breathing, taxing breathing would be one Hell of a lot fairer than taxing a person's income from working, it would spread taxation equally across the entire spectrum of humanity instead of using taxation as a form of wealth redistribution, it would also tax everyone here equally and we wouldn't be having these disagreements. Karl Marx has to be turning over in his grave.

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_25232895/dana-milbank-justices-skeptical-carbon-rules


----------



## mark handler (Feb 28, 2014)

So, instead we have Congress right ALL regulations, we all know how well congress works..... Building code and standards written by congress...

Ya.


----------



## conarb (Feb 28, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> So, instead we have Congress right ALL regulations, we all know how well congress works..... Building code and standards written by congress...Ya.


Mark:

The current situation of having unelected bureaucrats write our regulations is "unsustainable" (using a favorite word of the left).  Nobody sees this more than us, we all saw the coalition of the fire sprinkler industry push through the sprinkler mandate using illegal tactics, bribes that went unpunished, remember on the old bulletin board several received FOIA subpoena but nobody was punished (or at least has not admitted to being punished).  Having government building department employees enacting codes that become laws is as bad as low-level Justice Department employees writing absurd regulations that have the full force of laws.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 28, 2014)

"...building department employees enacting codes.... "

No longer legal in CA


----------



## fatboy (Feb 28, 2014)

I've had stayed out of this till now, but in my opinion CA, you have it totally reversed, at least when it comes to the building codes. The folks that have the boots on the street are the ones that know best what needs to be done, or undone, not some fatcat politician in DC who wouldn't know jack. No thanks...........


----------



## conarb (Feb 28, 2014)

fatboy said:
			
		

> I've had stayed out of this till now, but in my opinion CA, you have it totally reversed, at least when it comes to the building codes. The folks that have the boots on the street are the ones that know best what needs to be done, or undone, not some fatcat politician in DC who wouldn't know jack. No thanks...........


Fatboy:

I hate to see government employees enacting law, I think codes should be written by a combination of architects and engineers, all professionals, notice that I leave builders out since they will always vote the cheapest way, and by the way builders, are not professionals (unless they are also architects, engineers, or lawyers).


----------



## fatboy (Feb 28, 2014)

Architects and Engineers do not necessarily (and most likely) do not know or understand codes. They know how to structuraly design and build a building, but all to often, thats as far as it goes. If it were different, why would I need to continue buying red pens for my plan reviewers?

And please, the obvious acception to this statement are the dedicated RDP's that frequent this forum, they go above and beyond, so no offense intended to you all.


----------



## conarb (Feb 28, 2014)

Fatboy:

What is your proposal to the problem of industry and environmental groups "buying" codes that mandate or allow their products or agenda?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 28, 2014)

There is a mentality across the country that we can regulate ourselves into a utopian society where no one will never experience harm. We mandate sprinklers every where, locking caps on freon lines, minimum window sill heights, door alarms that access a pool from a residence, and a number of other items.

Code officials are voting based on emotions in lieu of "does this really need to be regulated". We are becoming reactionary to statistics in lieu of accepting reality that people/children will drown, huffers will huff, unattended children will climb out windows and fall, and people will always be dying in fires.

conarb

I  could not deal with the attitude that you describe in your dealing with government.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 28, 2014)

Industry has no vote in the approval process. As to wheter they "buy" it? If you figure out the solution to buying the votes then maybe you can clean up federal government. It's not a perfect process, but I am more comfortable with the folks actually out in the field, looking at plans, analyzing codes, be the ones that propose, discuss and further the codes. Whether that includes "professionals" or not, the enforcers of the codes need to have a say in them.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 28, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> So, instead we have Congress right ALL regulations, we all know how well congress works..... Building code and standards written by congress...Ya.


Or we could just stop.

What's wrong with where we are right now?

I understand needing to address new technologies, but constant interference is a burden on everybody.

When we start building carbon fiber structures we may to set some codes. For now, for damn near everything, we really could just stop. It is not furthering our civilization.

Brent


----------



## nitramnaed (Feb 28, 2014)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Architects and Engineers do not necessarily (and most likely) do not know or understand codes. They know how to structuraly design and build a building, but all to often, thats as far as it goes. If it were different, why would I need to continue buying red pens for my plan reviewers? And please, the obvious acception to this statement are the dedicated RDP's that frequent this forum, they go above and beyond, so no offense intended to you all.


In defense of us RDP's I find in far to many instances the red pens are brought out for the way the reviewer wants it presented on paper even though the intent at code compliance is there.  When I say shaft wall to meet UL design U417 I don't feel it necessary to draw sections and details of the whole system. Drives me nuts…...Just sayin'.


----------



## north star (Feb 28, 2014)

*& ~ ~ ~ &*







> "Or we could just stop........What's wrong with where we are right now?"


Special interests groups guarantee that there will be no stopping [ i.e. - remember the Arc Fault Breaker "requirements" ?  ]

*& ~ ~ ~ &*


----------



## steveray (Feb 28, 2014)

Sooooo....When I write on your plan review that specs and listings are to be on site for inspection and they are not, because they are not part of the plans, and the job stops for a week until I can reinspect.....Who gets fired?  I do agree that it is not ALL the DP's responsibility...but we just know that is our best shot at getting good information.



			
				nitramnaed said:
			
		

> In defense of us RDP's I find in far to many instances the red pens are brought out for the way the reviewer wants it presented on paper even though the intent at code compliance is there.  When I say shaft wall to meet UL design U417 I don't feel it necessary to draw sections and details of the whole system. Drives me nuts…...Just sayin'.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 28, 2014)

> When I say shaft wall to meet UL design U417 I don't feel it necessary to draw sections and details of the whole system.


So you assume the guy in the field constructing that wall magically knows what it consist of or do you assume he carries a UL book in his truck or app on his I-Phone to research what you are calling for?


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 1, 2014)

mt, you have hit on the "why" most everything should be "detailed", what with CM mutiple prime and no or very few supers, who is to direct the interface between subs?

Code books you ask, isn't the contractor "suppose" to own codes or only the architects and engineers?

As to A&E's not under standing codes! Give me a break, my shelves are groaning with 100 years of codes that are my bibles when explaining to "newbie" B.O.'s and their staffs (many who don't retain the old codes) (this due to space limitations!) existing construction that was compliant in its day.


----------



## nitramnaed (Mar 1, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> So you assume the guy in the field constructing that wall magically knows what it consist of or do you assume he carries a UL book in his truck or app on his I-Phone to research what you are calling for?


Yes…………...


----------



## nitramnaed (Mar 1, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> Sooooo....When I write on your plan review that specs and listings are to be on site for inspection and they are not, because they are not part of the plans, and the job stops for a week until I can reinspect.....Who gets fired?  I do agree that it is not ALL the DP's responsibility...but we just know that is our best shot at getting good information.


I should have been more clear.  Something like U417 is proprietary.  There is only one way it can be built.  Why provide all the detailing.


----------



## nitramnaed (Mar 1, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> mt, you have hit on the "why" most everything should be "detailed", what with CM mutiple prime and no or very few supers, who is to direct the interface between subs? Code books you ask, isn't the contractor "suppose" to own codes or only the architects and engineers?
> 
> As to A&E's not under standing codes! Give me a break, my shelves are groaning with 100 years of codes that are my bibles when explaining to "newbie" B.O.'s and their staffs (many who don't retain the old codes) (this due to space limitations!) existing construction that was compliant in its day.


I have code books in dead storage going back to 1978.  My age sometimes dictates that when a intern comes and ask me about exiting I still find myself telling them to look in chapter 33.  ops


----------



## Min&Max (Mar 1, 2014)

Just a couple thoughts;

I would be very content to hit the reset button and return to the 2000 International codes.

The codes are the mess they are because of building officials. We are the only ones voting. Ultimately we are responsible, with residential fire sprinklers being a glaring exception.

The last people I want voting on code requirements are engineers and architects. You wouldn't be able to build a doghouse without a full set of stamped plans.

Builders/contractors are every bit as professional as engineers and architects and I value their insight as much as any engineers or architects.

The day is done and I am going home. Have a good weekend everybody. It looks like I will be moving snow.


----------



## conarb (Mar 1, 2014)

ADAGuy started this thread with this statement:



			
				ADAGuy said:
			
		

> *Laws require enforcement*                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    My apologies for not being able to respond to the recently close thread.
> 
> Yes, laws are often political in origin, their orgins often being driven by selfserving interests.
> 
> Our disabled population did not ask for but does appreciate the access  provided by the ADA, this in spite of the lack of adequate research by  which initial ADAAG was drafted.


These laws are totally left-wing driven political activism, a time bomb in ADA is the mentally ill inclusion including the drug addicted are also protected by ADA.  Our city of Albany is required to clear the homeless out of it's shoreline for a park, they have been fighting them for years, the homeless and the drug addicted are now using ADA activist groups and their lawyers to stay in the shoreline called the Albany Bulb (a former landfill).



			
				Contra Costa Times said:
			
		

> Outside agitators raise false hopes.It's  time to drop the charade concerning Albany's obligation to evict  squatters from the Albany Bulb to make way for a state park.
> 
> Some 60 "campers" won't be allowed to block plans for a park serving all the people, no matter how much ruckus is raised.
> 
> ...


These "outside agitators" are disability activist groups exploiting the homeless and mentally ill to line their own pockets with lawsuit settlements just like the Sierra Club does with environmental litigation.



			
				contra Costa Times said:
			
		

> There were an estimated 60  people living on the Bulb last spring, when the City Council voted to  begin enforcing the city's anti-camping ordinance and also set up the  transition program. Enforcement was supposed to begin in October, with  the idea of clearing the Bulb before the rainy winter began. That was  delayed until December because of slow progress in transitioning Bulb  residents to housing.A lawsuit was also filed by Bulb residents  and their advocates. A temporary restraining order was denied, but the  suit continues and a hearing date has not been set. *One of the issues in  the lawsuit concerns questions about whether the temporary shelter  complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The city announced in  December that it was processing the requests of 32 campers seeking  accommodations for their disabilities*.
> 
> Albany police are currently  citing campers for violating park rules and some Bulb residents have  been arrested for drug possession and outstanding warrants. But  according to City Clerk Nicole Almaguer, Albany has not cleared any  campsites beyond ones removed two months ago that the city said were  camps of people who had been housed. ²


So if there are any left here who really believe that ADA is to help the truly handicapped, you should know that you are in bed with activist groups working to line their own pockets with settlement monies.  How did I see through this scam:

1) Activist language, like changing Handicapped to Disabled, what difference does it make?

2) The video Mark posted with the Disabled refusing to obey the chairman of the congressional committee on the temporary swimming pool lift issue, it had Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals written all over it.

3) Asking questions of handicapped friends in wheelchairs, they want nothing to do with it and prefer being labeled "handicapped" as opposed to the radical terminology "disabled".

I think the activists and others who are exploiting the handicapped for their own pecuniary gain are reprehensible, getting in bed with these activists is the same as getting in bed with Occupy activists.

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/letters/ci_25241194/feb-28-letters-editor

² http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_25182397


----------



## ICE (Mar 1, 2014)

nitramnaed said:
			
		

> I should have been more clear.  Something like U417 is proprietary.  There is only one way it can be built.  *Why provide all the detailing*.


So that somebody besides you knows what the wall is supposed to look like.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Mar 1, 2014)

I prefer the details.

I also prefer them to be right, but that never happens.

Boilerplate is a terrible thing.

It would also be nice if we could the designers and architects to poke their heads in the attic or crawlspace and see what's _actually_ there, rather than what they think _might_ be there.

But yea, pay the man for good design and details, then you don't have to pay me to scratch my a55 trying to figure out what he meant.

Brent.


----------



## jhperez (Mar 1, 2014)

nitramnaed said:
			
		

> I should have been more clear.  Something like U417 is proprietary.  There is only one way it can be built.  Why provide all the detailing.


I respectfully disagree.  According to UL, it can be built in 10 different ways with 3 different fire ratings and still meet the listing.  Other walls are similar.  You should provide the details to make sure it is built and complies with the rating you specified.

http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/showpage.html?name=BXUV.U417&ccnshorttitle=Fire-resistance+Ratings+-+ANSI/UL+263&objid=1074563257&cfgid=1073741824&version=versionless&parent_id=1073984818&sequence=1


----------



## jar546 (Mar 1, 2014)

jhperez said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree.  According to UL, it can be built in 10 different ways with 3 different fire ratings and still meet the listing.  Other walls are similar.  You should provide the details to make sure it is built and complies with the rating you specified.http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/showpage.html?name=BXUV.U417&ccnshorttitle=Fire-resistance+Ratings+-+ANSI/UL+263&objid=1074563257&cfgid=1073741824&version=versionless&parent_id=1073984818&sequence=1


Excellent point which is why we normally receive both and ask for both when we only get 1


----------

