1. ATTENTION returning members. If you are coming here from the old forum for the first time, you will need to reset you password. However, we had an email problem getting password reset links set out to a lot of the email addresses. That problem is temporarily rectified but IF you still have an issue, email me direct at info@thebuildingcodeforum.com and I will give you a temporary password.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by clicking here: Upgrades
    Dismiss Notice

Cutting codes to cut costs of construction

Discussion in 'Residential Energy Codes' started by Coder, Jan 10, 2019.

  1. conarb

    conarb Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,356
    Likes Received:
    241
    Kill all permit fees, permits have become nothing but taxes, if cities want inspections let them pay for them out of the general fund, for too many years cities have been illegally robbing the permit fees for other purposes anyway/
     
  2. mtlogcabin

    mtlogcabin Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,058
    Likes Received:
    720
    We don't but they are popular in rural areas (no electric) and eastern MT where the wind is more reliable
     
  3. tmurray

    tmurray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,496
    Likes Received:
    371
    I'm wondering if photovoltaic wouldn't be a better option. We have areas that have been running solar panels for about 40 years with little drop in efficiency. In lower latitudes they get a lot more wattage, but it really hurts the lifespan of the units. Montana has a latitude relatively similar to where I am.
     
  4. conarb

    conarb Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,356
    Likes Received:
    241
    This on the front page of today's paper:


    ¹ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/02/11/illegal-adus-in-bay-area-when-in-law-units-become-outlaws/
     
  5. conarb

    conarb Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,356
    Likes Received:
    241
    San Francisco is going to try to do something about the enormous fees:


    ¹ https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Breed-prepares-bill-to-make-affordable-housing-13605351.php
     
  6. tmurray

    tmurray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,496
    Likes Received:
    371
    Here, we have 6 months from the date we should have know about a violation for any corrective action. After that date, we can no longer pursue enforcement. In this situation, if she has been taxed for two dwelling units for more than 6 months, we would not be able to force her to do anything. The property would be labeled a legal non-conforming use and can continue with that use.
     
    steveray likes this.
  7. steveray

    steveray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    771
    Interesting approach, I kind of like it but worry about the "next" buyer and their safety....
     
  8. JCraver

    JCraver Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    216
    Man I hope her lawyer rubs the County's nose in that. A judge around here would smack us down hard if the 2 issues in that paragraph are true.
     
  9. JCraver

    JCraver Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    216

    So then you're ok with writing code based on best guesses? That's my issue here. Prove it saves a life, or leave it out of the code.
     
    linnrg likes this.
  10. mtlogcabin

    mtlogcabin Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,058
    Likes Received:
    720
    "The ordinance would prevent the city from moving money from one pocket to another. In San Francisco, the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development is the main source of funding for affordable housing projects."

    Conarb
    You can't have it both ways. You are against using building permit fees to subsidize other agencies yet you think waiving building permit fees for a department that probably receives a majority of its construction funding through federal grants is okay.

    If a building department operates as a special revenue fund and all fees stay within that department to cover operating cost then no permit fees are ever waived. Why should those who pay a fee for a specific service subsidize the cost to provide that same service to others.
     
    my250r11 and tmurray like this.
  11. mark handler

    mark handler Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,909
    Likes Received:
    634
    Not the way Laws work
    Cannot prove that, nor can they prove Seat belts save lives.
    Cannot prove that drinking and driving will end in an accident.
    Do you want those "vehicular codes" changed?

    Cannot prove anything.
    It's all a best guess.

    Cannot prove that Smoke or CM Detectors, save lives.
    Cannot Prove that framing anchors will keep the building intact during an earthquake or wind event.

    So it should be a free for all, no society, Build what you want, where you want and sell it to any poor slob, because nothing is provable.

    So Joe, you enforce No codes, because you cant prove it? You as a code enforcement officer collect money for not enforcing the state codes?
     
    #211 mark handler, Feb 12, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  12. conarb

    conarb Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,356
    Likes Received:
    241
    I agree and also see lots of constitutional issues here, the point is that the city makes lots of money with it's building department, now that it's building policies have put people on the streets something has to be done, so they want to reduce fees for the poor but not the rest of us, more good old communism, take from the rich and give to the poor.

    Government has always used building departments to achieve political goals, there was an article in the paper the other day about Urban Renewal in San Francisco:

    San Francisco demolished it's entire Western Addition, Oakland it's entire West Oakland, both almost 100% black areas that the cities wanted to clear out.

    In Oakland a good friend was Oakland's only black building inspector, he was a licensed engineer and drew/engineered my plans and even got my permits in some cities, back when builders and inspectors were friends. Because he was black the city assigned him the chore of condemning West Oakland, after all why go through the courts, get property through eminent domain, pay for it, when you can send a building inspector out and condemn it? He asked that I ride with him one day, he didn't even bother to go in, he had seen so many that he could write up a list of violations at the curb and hang them on the doors, those old Victorians were only worth $5,000 to $10,000 at the time, they all had brick foundations and foundations alone would cost more than that. A demolition contractor got the entire area, he bought a war surplus army tank, started at one end of a block and ran right through all the homes that collapsed on top of his tank. meanwhile he had excavators picking up the debris and dropping it into lines of semi trucks.

    Is there any difference between the building departments of the 50s clearing blacks out of town and those of today enforcing green and energy codes? All are political, just look at Alexandria Occasio Cortez's "Green New Deal".

    ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_renewal

    ² https://www.sfchronicle.com/chronicle_vault/article/Vertigo-mansion-s-fate-was-a-San-13601725.php
     
  13. JCraver

    JCraver Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    216

    No, Mark, I enforce what they pay me to enforce. All of the codes we have adopted or are obliged to enforce by the State, even the ones I don't agree with. The difference is, when we're adopting new codes, updating existing one's, or my crazy State tries to pass any, I opine against those that overreach. Like those we've talked about in this thread - energy, sfd sprinklers, etc.

    And seatbelts? That's a whole other topic, but forcing me to wear a device while operating a vehicle I own and where only I may be injured as a result of "disobedience", is protecting me from myself and a giant overreach of law. But the insurance lobby sure is happy..
     
  14. ADAguy

    ADAguy Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    261
    Bad idea, thats all you need to do, give the "Sharkskins" another treasure chest to open.
     
  15. Keystone

    Keystone Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    102
    Since the I Codes existence, how many wallboard inspections have you had to fail for incorrect installation? This doesn't include firewalls and core walls.
     

Share This Page