Senseless Regulation of Construction

[Shaun @ Tru6]

If people buy a house with substandard construction, it's their fault for not checking it out themselves. Government regulation on construction has all but killed the industry, and I still see houses fall down mudslides, burn down, get flooded, and be destroyed by hurricanes and tornados.

Government regulation does nothing to ensure safe housing and only hurts contractors.

[rusnak]

Tabsy, as in he drinks Tab diet soda and traipses through the curtain store?

ok try this law on for size: on a construction site, everything, and I mean all dirt, water, concrete is hazzardous material and must be filtered through straw bales, not any straw bales, but approved straw bales in burlap bags. Or sand filter bags.

As if that is going to filter anything from the ground water recharge basins. Never mind the fact that when it rains, all of the oil, gas, trash, and everything else gets washed right down into the storm drains. Construction industry is a target with a huge bullseye in it's back, and every new homowner pays extra through the nose because of it. Sensible regulation? That is a worthy ambition, but sadly one that is extinct.

[URY914]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

If people buy a house with substandard construction, it's their fault for not checking it out themselves. Government regulation on construction has all but killed the industry, and I still see houses fall down mudslides, burn down, get flooded, and be destroyed by hurricanes and tornados.

Government regulation does nothing to ensure safe housing and only hurts contractors.

....all but killed the industry? What?

You have fallen for the trap.

[looneybin]

The building codes are just a MINIMUM standard & are there to protect the health & safety of the bulding occupants.
You can build to exceed the requirements of the codes, but the inspectors sometimes have a hissey fit if it's not to the letter of the code.
I do see the need for codes, thay can also be over restrictive at times

[Shaun @ Tru6]

it used to be that you stayed in your home for 20, 30, maybe 50 years, so they had to be built well, and government made that happen, at the expense of contractors.

people only stay in their homes for 3 maybe 5 years these days, so they really don't need to be built as well.

Get government out of our lives!

[berettafan]

???????

[Porsche-O-Phile]

What MRM said.

Life-safety is a critical issue that shouldn't be compromised. Even going back to the Code of Hammurabi there have been building codes that directly dealt with life-safety (in Hammurabi's code, the law was simply that if one designed/built a house for another and the house collapsed and killed someone, the designer/builder was to be similarly put to death!)

The problem arises when government (predictably) uses legitimate life-safety issues as an excuse to justify giving it an endless reach. Government is NOTORIOUS for over-reaching like this. "Please think of the children" is used to justify practically anything. "Motorist safety" is used to rationalize draconian traffic enforcement that is clearly about revenue and nothing more. Similarly, "public safety" in buildings can be (and is, sometimes) used to WAY over-reach into areas that have very little to do with directly protecting the general public.

Not to mention professionals like architects and engineers are on the hook for anything that goes wrong - ESPECIALLY a life safety issue. Even if there were NO building codes or government regulation at all, I'd bet dollars to donuts that most buildings would still be overbuilt and safe because of everyone's fear of getting sued these days. Not to mention the inherent professionalism and responsible attitudes that exist on the parts of most professional designers.

So the simple question/answer set is:

"Do we need building codes?"
"Well, yes and no. . . Yes, when properly used they can help us have a built environment that is safer for the public-at-large but they ultimately might not be absolutely NECESSARY to accomplish that objective either. . ."

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

it used to be that you staying in your home for 20, 30, maybe 50 years, so they had to be built well, and government made that happen, at the expense of contractors.

people only stay in their homes for 3 maybe 5 years these days, so they really don't need to be built as well.

Get government out of our lives!

Kinda like cars, I do see where Shaun is going with this.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

. Even if there were NO building codes or government regulation at all, I'd bet dollars to donuts that most buildings would still be overbuilt and safe because of everyone's fear of getting sued these days.

Strongly disagree.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Kinda like cars, I do see where Shaun is going with this.

Yup, he must be doing the 'sarcasm' thing as well!

He forgot to add '....and when the first owners move out the house vanishes into magical construction dust and the lot is ready for the next person to build on'

'Cause THAT is where he was going with his comment. Well, actually he's THERE. No need to think his argument through for long to figure it out.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by rusnak

superman, I was convinced that you were a friggin lib, and then you post this, so I'm confused now.

Don't be confused, he is still liberal as the day is long, he just posted something that is totally opposite what he truly thinks to get a reaction

[rusnak]

I think too many people post tongue in cheek, including myself, and it's challenging to gauge the tone on a BB. In any case, to each his own, it's all good.

[Superman]

Nice try Shaun. I appreciate the vicious dispute you offered at my request but I was hoping for something more.......sincere. I notice POP has posted, so I won't be needing the belt-high fastballs you offered.

[Superman]

disappointed. Not much there except this:

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Even if there were NO building codes or government regulation at all, I'd bet dollars to donuts that most buildings would still be overbuilt and safe because of everyone's fear of getting sued these days. Not to mention the inherent professionalism and responsible attitudes that exist on the parts of most professional designers.

You'd be wrong about that. Anyone in the construction industry can tell you that construction contractors very frequently do the cheapest job they can possibly get away with, including work that falls short of existing code. Very frequently. In the absence of codes, there would be great consternation. Wailing and gnashing of teeth. And MRM would need to double his hourly rate.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

At risk of offending the contractors here, I'll reword my statement above to read ". . . even if there were NO building codes or government regulation at all, I'd bet dollars to donuts that most buildings would still be over-DESIGNED [formerly: "overbuilt"] because of everyone's fear of getting sued these days."

I can say with absolute certainty that in the design field right now, fear of being sued is FAR greater than fear of busting a particular code item. In general most guys get the codes right, but occasionally miss an obscure one. The operative word is "intent". I don't know of a single design professional who would INTENTIONALLY omit or sidestep a code requirement. Bend rules? Sure. Avail onesself of loopholes to benefit a client? Absolutely. Break rules? No way. WAY too much liability.

Consider the following scenarios and decide which is worse:

A) You design a building 100% to code, but it still experiences a failure and partial collapse, killing someone.

B) You inadvertently omit a code item but otherwise design a good, stable, safe and beautiful building.

You seriously think getting busted for missing a code item is worse than the threat of a personal injury (or death) lawsuit? Not a chance.

[Superman]

I work with engineers and construction management people. These are the folks who design projects and then administer the contract. They work for the "owner," not the contractor. And yeah, they go by the book. I get zero impression that any of them would even be tempted to suggest a design that fails to meet code. Ain't gonna happen. But then, these are not guys whose earnings are inversely proportional to actual construction costs.

Contractors on the other hand........

[Porsche-O-Phile]

True dat.

I imagine it's worse on government jobs where one is virtually obligated to take the low bid, even if it's clear that so-and-so is deliberately underbidding the job and will (1) be looking to cut corners where/when ever possible and (2) be looking to slam you on change orders for every little thing possible. In the private sector, one typically has the discretion to take a different bid (although usually there has to be some kind of justification in case the shareholders or execs ever ask about it).

I think we agree more than disagree here although to cut to the heart of the difference (and to specifically address what was probably the original post's intent), I'll say that there's a HUGE difference between government regulation/code compliance and designing/executing a good, quality, safe structure. One does not lead to the other in all cases.

Are code-compliant buildings safer? Probably in most cases. But there's more than one way to fry an egg. I don't think hammering EVERY issue with "more laws, more government, more regulation" is a solution. In this case it helps some, but frankly I think the threat of lawsuits FAR outweighs the effectiveness of the voluminous tomes that sit on my desk with respect to forcing good, quality and safe end products. . .

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by Superman

And yes, there are those here who are 100% serious about eliminating all gubmit offices other than military.

Who?

I know of nobody that stupid. Wanting limits on government (as provided for by our founding fathers) is not the same as "hating government", something you seem to assume about all conservatives.

You question anybody who questions govenment growth. Equating that with wanting to eliminate government is the equivalent of the toddler who, when he doesn't get his way, says he's going to hold his breath untill passing out, just to teach mommy a lesson. What's the point? The adults simply laugh at the silliness.

Government, and private enterprise, are both run by PEOPLE. Mostly well-meaning people, but both government and free enterprise have a few kooks. Both need to have someone looking over their shoulder to keep the kooks out of control.

Super, you're my favorite lib here, because you truely want to disculss ideas, rather than the standard name calling. But this one really stretches the "give an inch, take a mile" to absurdity.

If you can find a quote of anybody here wanting to eliminate the government outside of the military, I will join you in mocking them.

[The Gaijin]

If the government did not require inspections, then the E&O insurance policy of the general contractors would, or the bank lending the money would.

But quality control inspections would get done - and they would be done better and cheaper and faster.

[Superman]

Dan. Dan. Relax. The guy who posted above you.........P-O-P........has suggested cutting government's budget by 80% as a start. Seriously. And he has defended that position with vigor and a straight face.

Not only do I support increasing government efficiency and spending less tax dollars, I think the method of accomplishing that is exciting. We can do better.....with less money. I think.

And as always, if you still disagree with me, I'll have to punch you in the nose next time we meet.