"just because something is to code does not make it good--"
Absolutely true----the Code prescribes minimums, generally safe but, most would be rather unhappy with many aspects of a home just built to the minimums. Many questions and answers on this forum relate dissatisfaction with them.
OlJarhead, so if your house or building collaspes and you get hurt and you use health insurance plus fire and rescue, which rates are spread over a large number of people causing all our rate to go up is that right or should you pay out of pocket for injuries and rescue. Being a libertarian are you going rescue yourself and fix your wounds without the help of society? What about your unsuspecting visitors. Unsafe buildings affect society as a whole rather it be directly or indirectly.
Either we are a free people, or we are not.
I think it will be valuable as we go through this exercise to keep in mind that codes are constantly evolving and lots of solid homes have been built 20, 30, 50 and 100 years ago. They would not meet current code.
Whether you choose to build your new house to code or beyond code, I can assure you that within a few years it too will not meet code. Does that mean it will suddenly be unsafe?
Unless you are driving a 2011 automobile you are not driving a code car. Does that mean you are in an unsafe vehicle?
Both building and automobile regulations are constantly evolving - generally, at least in the safety realm, in the direction of attempting to provide more and more protection from less and less likely events. Things such as driving into a lake (in your car) or getting hit by a tornado (in your house).
I think it is great that there are members of this forum who have studied building code regulations and can provide guidance to those who want to follow the path. It is not necessary that we all be of one religion, however. Those who might follow their own common sense or build using techniques of a few years ago are not going to burn in hell. Nor are they throwing their families to the wolves. They are just getting a head start on being out of compliance with current code. ;)
So, go easy on the non-believers guys. This is one of the few places left where people can feel free asking practical building questions and showing projects that might not be kosher with every building inspector that wanders by.
Keep it solid and keep it safe. Satisfying your county inspector is your option (but always suggested).
I always thought the main purpose of building codes, where to keep a professional house builder from cutting corners in areas that can not be seen by a unsuspecting house buyer.
It's highly likely they'll move out of the house at some point and future owners will have no way of knowing how the house was constructed or what risks they're assuming.
Alan
That is simply not true.
The governing body could simply change the "Certificate of Occupancy" to a "Certificate of Compliance" to the building codes. It would be a matter of public record.
If an owner builder chose not to obtain a "Certificate of Compliance" it would certainly affect the marketability of the house, and affect their insurance and financing costs, but if they choose to assume that responsibliity that should be their choice. Any future buyer of the property would have the choice to accept it or not.
just because something is to code does not make it good, or safe in all aspects. Engineered I beam lumber is perfectly to code and great for long spans, but kills firefighters as it has a much shorter burn through time then traditional floor joists.
Like them or not we do have building codes to deal with in most places around the country. If the location where we are building has lax enforcement that is another matter. I would like to think that all of us would like to build a strong, safe, long lived structure. Part of my reasoning behind starting this topic stems from my belief that some owner-builders make mistakes out of ignorance that even the most corner cutting pro would shy away from. Some 'errors' are made because someone saw pictures of 'it' posted someplace on the internet. "It worked over there, so...."
Thomas Jefferson with a proclamation regarding what would be one of the first American Building Codes. Yes, that Thomas Jefferson. I think his buddy George Washington was in on this too.
President Jefferson lays out the new building code for the District of Columbia proclaiming that all new houses should be built of brick or stone, and “….that the wall of no house shall be higher than 40 feet to the roof in any part of the City, nor shall any be lower than 35 feet on any of the Avenues.” Present day D.C. has changed little from this original code–there are no tall buildings in the city other than the Washington Monument. The President’s Proclamation appears on page one of the National Intelligencer, Washington’s premier newspaper.
Source: The Mitchell Archives (http://mitchellarchives.com/thomas-jefferson-announces-building-code-for-the-district-of-columbia.htm)
Click on image link, then click again to enlarge
(like forcing a cabin builder to build a 2x12 floor for an 8 foot span and stuffing R38 insulation in it for part time use -- seriously).
You may be surprised, but I place myself as being closer to a libertarian than either a democrat or a republican.The point was merely to point out that a great man like Jefferson has flaws and therefore could be wrong.
On the one hand I was having fun with the Jefferson article/proclamation. On the other I am deadly serious.
But first, whether or not Thomas Jefferson or George Washington had slaves has absolutely nothing to do with building codes. Nothing. Bringing that into the discussion is smoke and mirrors, nothing more, nothing less.
The document I quoted does show that Jefferson did believe that not all laws had to be directly spelled out in the Constitution. Does it not?
That seems quite clear to me. If I am wrong, show me how. (On the slavery thing, I believe it is generally now agreed that in general, the Founders thought slavery was wrong, but they believed that insisting on the abolition of slavery at that point in time would have made the Union effort fail. So they decided to overlook that and to “fix” things later. Separate matters, separate emotions, nothing at all to do with building codes.)
No one that I know of is stating that the codes are perfect. The latest iteration of the IRC, with the residential fire sprinkler requirements is a classic example of an idea that may have merit, but that was too hastily written with too little thought to all the implications. There have been previous problems that were corrected in subsequent versions of the IRC. So yes, the works of mankind are imperfect. We keep on trying to get it right.
If we did not have building codes, we, that is the average person who has zero knowledge of “how things work” would be at the mercy of the contractor/builder who builds the majority of the housing in this country. We would totally be relying on the integrity of the hired builder. Totally. 100%. Are you comfortable with that? (By “you” I mean the generic “you”; no one in particular, just the current reader.)
How do you balance "freedom" with protection from the scumbags, the robber barons.... ? ???
If we did not have building codes, we, that is the average person who has zero knowledge of “how things work” would be at the mercy of the contractor/builder who builds the majority of the housing in this country. We would totally be relying on the integrity of the hired builder. Totally. 100%. Are you comfortable with that? (By “you” I mean the generic “you”; no one in particular, just the current reader.)
How do you balance "freedom" with protection from the scumbags, the robber barons.... ?
My experience, I repeat, is that fighting bureaucrats is often a losing battle no matter how right you are. Therefore, in my Libertarian mind, the solution is simple: don't give them the power to enforce the codes and don't make the codes the law unless they are specifically there to protect someone elses right to life, liberty and property.
Fighting bureacrats is a losing battle?
In the end, my friend, I agree that if you can prove that anything I am doing is going to affect or restrict someones right to life, liberty or property then I'm all ears.
....or toothpaste in the bathroom....
pages of WA State approved composting toilets....
List of Registered On-site Treatment and Distribution Products (http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/ww/ww-register.pdf)
dated Jan/2012 so that doesn't necessarily mean the Sun-Mar series (page 25) were listed a few years ago, but I'd bet they were. They have a big ol' list of assorted manufacturers listed as approved.
"Sun-Mar Composting Toilet
Excel
Centrex 2000 A/F
Centrex 2000 A/F AC/DC
Centrex 3000 A/F
Centrex 3000 A/F AC/DC
Compact
Spacesaver
Sun-Mar Mobile
Excel NE"
If yours is in that list you are legal; how about that. :)
I do love your definition of Freedom Jarhead. c*
I would be FREE to enrich uranium on my own property. Until someone proves my radiation or activities has harmed someone off my property, they can't bother me.
I would be FREE to make as many explosives as I want as long as I am on my own property.
I would be FREE to build a skyscraper on my property and no one could say anything, unless it fell over on to someone else's property, and only then could they do something about it.
I would be FREE to drill for oil on my property. Only if it leaks and renders the property of thousands of people around me can I be prosecuted. While I am out the value of my one property, I have damaged or destroyed more than I will ever own.
I hope you take that as the tongue in cheek it was meant to be. My point is society doesn't have to risk the possibility of you contaminating their water before they take action to assure themselves you won't.