I need someone to interview

[Virginia Gent]

So, part of my required course curriculum to graduate with a degree in Fire Science is to take a class in public speaking. My last speech is next week and it is a "persuasive" speech. My instructor wants 5 sources to cite as "reasons" why you should be persuaded to my arguement, and one has to be an interview with someone who has experience/knowledge in your area.

Well my goal is to persuade the class towards the opinion that some building/fire codes enforced on home owners do more harm that good. One example I plan to give is the minimum sq. ft. allowance for something to be considered a domicile. I also plan to include all the red tape and costs that other building/fire code compliance can force on a person with limited means.

So I would like someone to interview who has built their own home (I think I'm in the right place) who can talk about their issues they may have had with the system. Ideally I would like someone who, at least, holds sympathy towards my argument. Anyone interested, please let me know!

[glenn kangiser]

Warning:  This discussion may get into a view of the codes, reasons for them that some do not agree with -- Some  may want to look the other way...  

Does the interview require one person or can it be the forum?

hmm I don't know if we can say, more harm than good, but maybe that safety is not always the agenda ... the primary agenda is taxation and fee generation to support the 1/2? of the population that lives off of those who generate a product ie: parasitic jobs per Anatomy of the State by Murry N. Rothbard

http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

"This parasitic process of "catching up" has been almost openly proclaimed by Karl Marx, who conceded that socialism must be established through seizure of capital previously accumulated under capitalism."

A major part of the codes is seizing money made by the working class through fees, permits, and cronyism ie: seeing to it that as many other agencies get a cut of the workers money as possible, therefore the near impossibility for most of our children to be able to afford shelter for their families.


The "legalized" theft of a God given right under color of law.

If it's only for safety, then why is it not near free?  An example of safety interests is the driving laws.  The DMV code book is  or was $3.00 in California.

[glenn kangiser]

With a view toward Fire Science, we have an example taking place here.

Local fire officials on a power trip twisting the burning codes to generate revenue for the state.

Last year after the fire a neighbor saved enough money to clear about half of his land.  I traded and donated time to do more.  A 100 foot clearance is required by Cal Fire.  That is not enough in his location at the top of a hill.

Burning the piles of brush legally on a burn day with proper clearances a spark went up and came down in duff that subsequently caught fire in an area that was not cleared completely but had clear lines completely surrounding it.

When they saw it was getting away they called the fire department - who is already on payroll and the officials at the scene said he had done everything right and would not be fined, but after the budget crunch (3 months later) they decided to lie about the circumstances and charge him $2300 cost recovery.

About 3000 square feet was burned but the officials stretched that to 1/2 acre.  They lied about his intent - made him into an arsonist and threatened him with a misdemeanor for doing exactly as their laws required.

So officials on a power trip are a hazard of codes also (not limiting it to the building portion - but you could include them in some cases).

[Virginia Gent]

It can be the whole forum I suppose. She said she needed at least one person "interviewed", she never said it could be only one person. And you said it better than I did. I didn't mean the codes do actual harm or anything, but may have hidden agendas like you stated, in, perhaps, collecting revenue.

The ultimate goal of my speech is to show that SOME building/fire codes are unnecessary for that reason alone; they do nothing about safety and seem more as a way to flex political muscle or collect revenue. Thus, they make it harder for someone on a limited budget to have the dream of owning their own home.

[ScottA]

While a great many codes are based on past experience to insure a reasonably safe structure that can be expected to function, many other codes are designed to increase cost. Bankers want homes to be expensive so they can collect more intrest on loans. Insurance companies want their risk minimized. Archatects and engineers want high paying work mandated by laws. Lumber companies want more materials used etc... And last but not least property owners and tax collecting entities want high property values. Add all this up and you get the BS we have today.

In the area where we live the population is low and there is little development so no one cares. Building anything is better than nothing to the county because they can get more taxes from a shack than from a vacant lot.

[MountainDon]

Virginia Gent, why don't you post some questions. If you were doing a face to face interview would you not be asking a specific set of questions you had arrived at before hand? Naturally the interview would evolve from that. At least any interview I've ever had, be it as the interviewer or the interviewee, was more or less set up that way.

[Don_P]

Or is this an oral presentation meant to be given to a group to sway opinion? If so can you video your presentation and then take response as to whether it swayed opinion, and why or why not?

One thing that may be worth checking, look at the maximum size for an exempt structure and the minimum size that is considered a permittable home.

I suspect researching that will lead you back to the earliest tenement codes aimed at preventing overcrowding and poor living conditions at the time.

One aim of this might be a convincing argument that could be used to sway lewmakers in adopting or changing different code provisions such as this that have been accepted by long use as a common standard without deeper thought given to them. I've bumped into them a time or 2 and have found that although there are some  bureacrats that operate out of the methods suspected above, as often as not they operate out of simple ignorance of how their laws affect people in all situations, a lack of being calmly and clearly educated on the ramifications of their broad actions. Don't automatically attribute malice where ignorance is more likely.

This works both ways, one example that comes to mind is the oversizing of timbers in some situations for fire safety.  In heavy timber mill type construction the timbers were often sized so that during a fire they would form a protective char layer and inside of that would remain a good beam capable of supporting the building and its occupants until they could reach safety. When we started building stick frame, with the advent of large sawmills, balloon framing became the first method used. It took awhile but the consequences of building hollow multifloor chases into wall and floor assemblies led to some very bad fires. With the inclusion of fireblocking or platform framing, protected by rated sheathings, that era was largely put behind us.

One that is currently coming in is the sprinkler requirement for residential homes. I suspect these systems will be unmaintained and many will not operate as intended when needed. Mine would be on my well, will the power or the pressure switch be the first thing disabled in the fire? Will the well deliver enough when called upon? I don't know. Will the sense of safety lead to fewer fire stations spaced further apart? I don't know.

[Virginia Gent]

Don_P, you raised some good points about ignorance, as well as the residential sprinklers, and in my speech I will address them.

Sorry I didn't post my questions sooner, it's been a busy week so far and each time I posted, I forgot to post my questions as well. These are for all who want to answer them:

Q) Have you found, in your experiences building your home(s), that some codes you are forced to comply with seem to serve little value in the way of safety?

Q) Have you experienced some codes that are vigorously enforced while others aren't? Why do you think that is?

Q) In your opinion, why are some codes in existence (in your area) while others aren't? Example: the allowance of flammable siding on houses in close (usually urban/city settings) proximity which would pose a greater hazard than the size of a door/window.

Q) In your professional opinion, do you think that getting rid of certain codes would help towards creating greater home ownership by allowing those on more limited means, the ability to afford/build housing more suitable towards their financial status?

Q) How do you think this would affect the homeless? Some cities have had some success, like Portland, Oregon and allowing the homeless city of "Dignity Village". What are your professional opinions? URL: http://www.dignityvillage.org/content/

[glenn kangiser]

I have time for just one now.

Q) Have you experienced some codes that are vigorously enforced while others aren't? Why do you think that is?

I see variation from area to area and some inspectors may be anal toward one particular thing while glossing over the rest.  Possibly the inspector has a pet peeve with a certain aspect of the code.  I find that I soon learn the inspectors likes and dislikes and find how to make it easy to get along with him.

Much of it seems to be individual inspector specific.

I generally try to make all of my work (when working on code /inspected jobs) pass inspection first time and therefore do not usually have issues.  I find that if work is done well the inspector may feel comfortable with me, as a contractor , and his inspections will be more of a quick cursory overview and a sign off.

Why do I think that is?   hmm  - mostly because the code is a book and inspectors are people.  They evaluate some of the rules for what they are - just nit picky crap, but other rules may seem like a genuine problem to them and more worth a close inspection.  Some things may have affected them personally and cause them to look closer.  Most are afraid to shy far from the book - ie: they do not want to use their own judgment even if the book allows them latitude to decide something is equal to or better than code, because use of their common sense opens them to liability.  They usually will be very stubborn when it comes to taking risk.

[Don_P]

Q) Have you found, in your experiences building your home(s), that some codes you are forced to comply with seem to serve little value in the way of safety?

Energy codes spring to mind right off the bat, no pretense of being about safety. If we were serious about energy savings there would be a limit on the number of square feet per occupant, ain't gonna happen. The premise that it will conserve energy while leaving out the biggest variable is a bit absurd. Legislating maximum house size would be interesting to watch though.

Q) Have you experienced some codes that are vigorously enforced while others aren't? Why do you think that is?

Ignorance generally, It's often easy to tell what the last training session was about.

Q) In your professional opinion, do you think that getting rid of certain codes would help towards creating greater home ownership by allowing those on more limited means, the ability to afford/build housing more suitable towards their financial status?

Yes

Q) In your opinion, why are some codes in existence (in your area) while others aren't? Example: the allowance of flammable siding on houses in close (usually urban/city settings) proximity which would pose a greater hazard than the size of a door/window.

Travelling down that path, which we are, leads to more and more conservative codes as each interest plays "catch up".

Q) How do you think this would affect the homeless? Some cities have had some success, like Portland, Oregon and allowing the homeless city of "Dignity Village". What are your professional opinions?

I wonder what will happen the first time a fire rolls through one of those and there is inadequate access and too much congestion to prevent major loss of life... I don't know.