Richard_Morrison Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 This whole argument about some extra holdowns or framing hardware, and extra sheetrock, being expensive "over-regulation" sounds very much like a yacht owner complaining about the Coast Guard mandates to carry life preservers (PDFs), flares, and horns, as "over-regulation." You can claim that boat owners (and their passengers) have the god-given American right to die on the water (and many do) if they don't want to purchase minimal safety equipment, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for this line of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay_on_Cape Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 Wow.........I thought I lived in a very liberal state but even here I don't know anyone all for over regulation. I guess on the west coast the more the merrier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNestor Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Nice debate guys...fairly civil. Let's not forget the "hidden" cost that has been regulated upon the land we build on by our wonderful EPA...and others. The tyrants at the EPA haven't been asleep at the wheel. Where I live we are now compelled to protect every stream from silt created by disturbing the earth during construction. We must now install hundreds of LF of silt fence on every lot. Typically these lots are not near any stream or river...but yes, the silt can travel down the storm sewer pipe to a pond...and then out of the pond to a stream...and then on to the Ohio river...then on to New Orleans...where it becomes a delta. Yes...the silt fence works. The silt does stay on the lot...so, it's hard to argue the benefit...but, there is a cost. And...of course the silt fence get's trashed. Nor does it not add one penny of value to anyones new house. We also have to place straw bags around storm inlets...and design and build ponds large enough to allow the silt to enter one end...and then have time to settle before reaching the discharge end. It all costs money. Just a note for those of you who don't live in a flat prairie like we do in Indiana. Every subdivision...no matter how large...shall have a sediment pond sized to collect storm water and then release the water down stream at the same rate it did before the land was developed. We have thousands of ponds now in central Indiana and of course...millions of Canadian geese who never fly south. Lovely... The regulations never stop...people in government must continually justify their existence. Yes...some regulations do benefit the masses...but these are rare. Less...is more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Morrison Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Regulation is "over-regulation" when it produces very little benefit at very high cost. Requiring improvements in structural design (primarily relating to load path continuity) and fire-safety does not fall into this category. I'm not sure how many people have to die before some of you decide that this isn't "over-regulation." Since seat belt laws were instituted, it's been estimated that well over 250,000 deaths have been prevented. I remember how this was viewed as government "nannyism" at the time, and many of my friends refused to wear them. Including one who was killed in an auto accident where he probably would have lived if he'd worn his seat belt. Home fires cause around 3000 deaths annually. Sprinklers and smoke detectors cut the death rate by over 80%. $5K-$10K for a sprinkler installation costs maybe an extra $25-40/mo. in a mortgage, which is then reduced by lower insurance premiums. This "over-regulation" has negligible costs and potentially huge benefits. I doubt that $20/mo is going to prevent a family from building their dream house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay_on_Cape Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 Richard, as Steve pointed out thanks for keeping it civil. Believe it or not we're much closer on this issue than you think. I just believe at some point you just have to slow down with the regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis_Gavin Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 When does the homeowner/taxpayer get to decide what to spend THEIR money on? Maybe they feel a sprinkler system is worth it. Great, buy one. IF things make sense most people will do it and not have to be forced into it. Low e windows entered the market years ago and were embraced and soon became standard sooner than the manufacturers anticipated. They seemed to make sense and the price increase was not that much. Heat lamps put on one side of both a low e and non-low e unit demonstrated how effective they were. No regulation was needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcaffee Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Certain jurisdictions are wising up to the ICC cradle-to-grave-absolute-control philosophy of code development. I pity the folks who live under the tyranny of the IPMC. ICC uses language which prompts localities to criminalize code violations. I can't begin to count how often the word "Prosecute" is used in the base IPMC template to describe penalties. C'mon, failing to cut your grass needn't be a crime, but that is exactly what the ICC is pushing--and sadly, what many localities are adopting. My vote is to rein in the bureaucracy and hold elected officials accountable for blind implementation of codes without merit; serving the insurance industry more than the citizenry. And, if you're real estate deals are costing 6% commissions, then you need to work on those negotiating skills. jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryceEngstrom Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Nice debate guys...fairly civil. Let's not forget the "hidden" cost that has been regulated upon the land we build on by our wonderful EPA...and others. There are also "hidden" costs to the old school way of dealing with water runoff from a building site. Loose dirt and silt from a building site runs off to concrete patios that run off to concrete gutters and run down through concrete culverts down to a concrete "river" like they still have in Los Angeles and so many other urban areas and fowls the ocean with all the pollutants that the water has efficiently carried with it from multiple sources. Meanwhile much of the water that used to soak into the non-concreted-over areas and recharge the groundwater table doesn't and we wonder why our wells are running dry. And the riparian vegetation that used to be in the "river" would not only filter the runoff but slow down the velocity and prevent excessive flooding. These are tangible costs as well. The problem with letting each individual make up their own minds about whether to use silt fencing and straw waddles on a building project is that they simply won't because inevitably people tend very largely to think of their own, short-term self interest and don't consider the long range and broader reaching impacts of their decisions. If this weren't the case and basic human nature, why would we need any laws at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleChief Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 As everyone has pointed out regulation is a 2 edged sword. I rail against too much regulation but I also know that without it we'd have a huge mess on our hands. I used to go to Mexico quite a bit where regulation just doesn't exist and we'd surf with raw sewage spewing from the resort hotels along the beach. Trash everywhere. Buildings ready to fall down with the slightest breeze. Block walls that did fall down with the slightest breeze. No regulations other than who got paid what to get the job done and every consequence long or short term, ignored. During earthquakes buildings literally jump off their foundations. Hold downs are good. Shear walls are good. But these days the engineers are so conservative I keep waiting for a spec that requires a thru bolt to China with a lock nut to secure a 2 x 4 wall that MIGHT be vulnerable in someone's paranoid delusion of a 9.0 earthquake, which if it occurs I don't care how many hold downs you spec, that building is history.. When developing large tracts of land I know that certain developers would crap all over the lakes and streams to make an extra dollar, causing genuine damage. But how much caution can/should we exert. Not an easy question, and I think, as Bryce pointed out, if we as a species would control ourselves and consider the long and short term consequences of our actions we wouldn't need any regulations but that's not the species I'm familiar with. I always think that if we can live above any moral imperative to obey certain laws and regulations then we don't need regulating, and that's how I try and live my life. I don't need laws against stealing, I just don't steal. If I'm building in earthquake country I will build as safe a house as possible. I don't need an environmental law to keep me from polluting a stream, if I can see my actions are polluting that stream I'll take action to stop. Of course that's not the world we live in and any regulation, designed to control people who won't control themselves is, unfortunately, going to be here for a very long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikesmith Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 just had to take some of my continuing education for Mass Construction Supervisor License... they discussed the I-joist problem Weyerhauser and Boise-Cascade ( and I imagine all the other suppliers ) have a flame proof coating that meets the code.. Weyerhauser calls it "Flak-Jacket" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now