Why building codes should be abolished

[NolanVoyd]

Nah. Your instant retreat under your partisan blanket likely signals the conversation would be unproductive.

Huh?

 

[RF667799]

Huh?

Sorry. Don't feel like explaining it half a dozen times.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Sorry. Don't feel like explaining it half a dozen times.

Your post makes no sense.

 

[rahl]

Those who advocate banning guns do so in the name of safety.

This is a non sequitur.

 

[Chock Full o Nuts]

Prove it

Many of the hottest properties in town here are those 100 year old houses. They are not up to 'present code'.
They are desired. And people will move right in.

 

[RF667799]

Your post makes no sense.

You already told us you didn't understand it.

 

[rahl]

Many of the hottest properties in town here are those 100 year old houses. They are not up to 'present code'.
They are desired. And people will move right in.

This is anecdotal and doesn’t prove his claim.

 

[RF667799]

This is a non sequitur.

If safety is a good enough reason to ban an electrical outlet in the side of an island, why isn't it a good enough reason to ban a gun in your gun cabinet?

 

[rahl]

If safety is a good enough reason to ban an electrical outlet in the side of an island, why isn't it a good enough reason to ban a gun in your gun cabinet?

Guns are constitutionally protected. Electrical outlets aren’t.

 

[Chock Full o Nuts]

This is anecdotal and doesn’t prove his claim.

Any home that has an outlet in the side of the kitchen island doesn't meet present NEC code.

Extend that across framing and all, millions of older homes don't meet 'present code', but grandfathered, and sold everyday.

 

[Lord of Planar]

For years I've been putting 1500 worth of breakers in a 200 dollar panel to find bad breakers or its a 'nuisance trip. Rare though.
All on the circuit checks out..
Only takes a milliamp imbalance to cause a trip.

In my view, that makes you a "arts cannon" instead of someone who knows how to troubleshoot.

You cost your clients too much money. The "nuisance trips" are showing there is some other problem that needs fixed.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Literally millions of homes are sold each year that wouldn't even come close to meeting the latest building codes.

True, but a buyer expects them to meet the code for the time they were built.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's more than the difference between the cost of a 2x6 and a 2x8 though. It's all the admin costs that go along with regulating and enforcing those things.

And the contractor's percentage on top of that.

Codes vary state to state on top of federal codes. If a 2x8 is being used where a 2x4 once was, that would be due to insulation needs and energy conservation, right? Doesn't the reduced cost of heating or cooling factor in for you?

 

[rahl]

Any home that has an outlet in the side of the kitchen island doesn't meet present NEC code.

Ok

Extend that across framing and all, millions of older homes don't meet 'present code', but grandfathered, and sold everyday.

You can not prove this claim.

 

[RF667799]

Codes vary state to state on top of federal codes. If a 2x8 is being used where a 2x4 once was, that would be due to insulation needs and energy conservation, right? Doesn't the reduced cost of heating or cooling factor in for you?

Sure. But not infinitely.

 

[RF667799]

Guns are constitutionally protected. Electrical outlets aren’t.

I don't think that is relevant. The criteria was "safety", not constitutionality.

But fine. Is safety a good enough reason to ban dogs?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Sure. But not infinitely.

I think that depends of the situation. For example, if I wanted to rent a house under section 8 provisions, I would expect it would have to meet all current codes. I believe there are only some codes that must be brought to modern standards for individual sales to other individuals.

A rental can be required to be updated. Owner occupies, rather rare I would think.

 

[RF667799]

I think that depends of the situation. For example, if I wanted to rent a house under section 8 provisions, I would expect it would have to meet all current codes. I believe there are only some codes that must be brought to modern standards for individual sales to other individuals.

A rental can be required to be updated. Owner occupies, rather rare I would think.

What I was trying to get at, was your question about how the reduced cost of heating and cooling should be factored in. I believe that should be up to the purchaser/owner.

I recently replaced the HVAC system here. I had choices from less efficient to state of the art maximum efficiency. The most efficient were categorically more expensive. I had decisions to make about how much I wanted to spend now to gain some savings down the road.

 

[SavannahMann]

Building codes represent nothing but the personal preferences of the people who write them, based on subjective values rather than objective principles. There is no one right answer, it's all about trade-offs.

For example, suppose the building code in your climate mandates R20 for wall insulation. This number is not based on any objective scientific principle. Generally, the more you spend now on insulation and air-sealing, the lower your fuel bills will be later. But allocating more upfront for insulation means sacrificing resources that could have been used elsewhere. There are no free lunches, only trade-offs. Ultimately, the decision comes down to the values of the person making it.

You say, "But R20 is reasonable." No it isn't. Reasonable means based on reason, and there is no reason why R20 would be the ideal standard for millions of different homeowners, all with unique preferences and circumstances. Homeowners who would naturally choose R20 on their own are no better off for being forced to comply. Meanwhile, those who would prefer a different approach are made worse off. What justifies the state overriding their choices? The argument that it’s for the "common good" doesn't work when the primary beneficiaries of such mandates are insulation manufacturers—not homeowners.

Although this example focuses on insulation, the same reasoning applies to every aspect of home construction. Since building codes make no homeowners better off, and make millions of homeowners worse off, they should be abolished.

Yeah. Republicans get so upset when they find that the law prohibits them from ripping off unsuspecting consumers.

 

[Lursa]

Very good. Here's the argument: If I wish to hire a bum lying in the gutter to inspect my home, how is that any of your business?

The state is not your mommy, so stop acting like it is.

If my child goes to your home with your kid to do homework...and it collapses.

How do I verify the safety of your home? How do we verify the safety of the school building?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Forcing people to pay for things they don't want does not make them better off.

No one is forced to pay for anything they don't want. If someone doesn't want something, they can just not buy that thing.

Maybe you wish the supermarket would sell you rancid meat instead of just tossing it out. But there are more of us who prefer that our selection be curated to exclude items that don't meet the standards of the supermarket, instead of having to sift through garbage in search of something edible.

 

[CLAX1911]

Building codes represent nothing but the personal preferences of the people who write them, based on subjective values rather than objective principles. There is no one right answer, it's all about trade-offs.

For example, suppose the building code in your climate mandates R20 for wall insulation. This number is not based on any objective scientific principle. Generally, the more you spend now on insulation and air-sealing, the lower your fuel bills will be later. But allocating more upfront for insulation means sacrificing resources that could have been used elsewhere. There are no free lunches, only trade-offs. Ultimately, the decision comes down to the values of the person making it.

You say, "But R20 is reasonable." No it isn't. Reasonable means based on reason, and there is no reason why R20 would be the ideal standard for millions of different homeowners, all with unique preferences and circumstances. Homeowners who would naturally choose R20 on their own are no better off for being forced to comply. Meanwhile, those who would prefer a different approach are made worse off. What justifies the state overriding their choices? The argument that it’s for the "common good" doesn't work when the primary beneficiaries of such mandates are insulation manufacturers—not homeowners.

Although this example focuses on insulation, the same reasoning applies to every aspect of home construction. Since building codes make no homeowners better off, and make millions of homeowners worse off, they should be abolished.

I do think to a certain degree building codes are necessary but they absolutely can be abused.

 

[holbritter]

Most building codes are necessary. That said, they are not consistent. Countys next to one another can have different codes. They tend to be just money grabbers or codes to correct previous codes.
Like everything else, it grows larger than necessary because it becomes about $$ and political power. Our local code enforcer and county board love to come up with shit 'cause they can' under the guise of homeowner safety.

 

[rahl]

I don't think that is relevant. The criteria was "safety", not constitutionality.

The constitutionality is why guns can’t be more regulated in the name of safety.

But fine. Is safety a good enough reason to ban dogs?

Yes. I work in the insurance industry. Specific dog breeds are ineligible to be covered by most home insurance carriers.

 

[mike2810]

That's irrelevant, because the main argument in this thread against getting rid of building codes is that the homes would be "unsafe", and people should not be allowed to live in an "unsafe" home.

that is your opinion.

Yes, now explain to me who benefits from forcing the homeowner to bring his home up to current standards. Be specific.

Who is forcing. One can choose not to remodel.

who benefits. The homeowner. The neighborhood, public safety personnel.
Depending on the remodel / upgrade can increase home value, lower insurance, lower energy costs. etc.
The neighborhood by not having a rundown building in the area
public safety personnel by reducing risk of fires.

Now, explain again why removing all building codes is a good thing?
What is your take on eliminating driving rules?
or health codes for the food industry?

After all you seem to support the concept of buyer beware.