Conference 7.286::home_work

-	mark

    re: .1
    How do I find out who the building inspector is?  Call city hall?
    

Yes, start by telephoning the lowest applicable level of
government: town / city hall or county commissioner if the
property is not within town / city limits. 

While you're on the phone, not only get the name of the building
inspector, plumbing inspector, and wiring inspector, but also get
the location(s) of their office(s), their office hours, and their
work and home telephone numbers.  Ask about each permit: form,
fee, and where to submit it. 

Maynard's building inspector only has office hours 7-9pm on
Tuesdays, but not Election Days, in the Town Hall basement. You
get the application form from him, and return it to him, with $2
per $1,000 estimated cost (and perhaps you might guess low!) and 
a copy of the plans.  

Ask him where to get the code book.  Or ask to review his copy,
right there in the office, and copy down the info on the title
page.  The Massachusetts STATE BuCo is available from the STATE
Bookstore, STATE House, STATE Street, Boston, telephone
617-727-2834, $25 (?) check payable to the COMMONWEALTH of
Massachusetts.  In 1984, they quickly sent the contents with an
apology about lack of plastic binder and a promise 'as soon as
available'; the binder arrived about six weeks later.  BTW, BuCo
contains only the carpentry, foundation, and capacity of
auditoriums info; the plumbing and electrical codes are
referenced, both in the BuCo and elsewhere in this HOME_WORK
Notes file. 

Maynard's wiring inspector doesn't have office hours, but is
retired and available upon appointment.  You get the application
form from the Fire Department, and return it to the Fire
Department, with $10.  Although it says 'application', it becomes
your permit -- pehaps it should be labelled 'notification of
electrical work which will later require inspection'.  The form 
requests info about numbers of circuits, outlets, switches, etc.:
a (very limited) electrical plan.

(No knowledge of plumbing or gas subroutine; need plumber's license.) 

Sally

    Yep, getting in touch with the building inspector is the best bet.
    He should also be able to tell you where to get code manuals.
    
    You might try some of the larget lumber supply places, I have heard
    that some carry various editions of the code manuals.
    
    I obtained the copies I have from the building inspector for Hudson,
    NH.  (They also have additional copies for sale.)  He also told
    me that they were available at the Nashua city hall.  (He used to
    be a building inspector for Nashua before comming to Hudson.)
    
    As was mentioned in an earlier reply, it would be a good idea to
    call first.
    
    - Mark

    .3 Indicated where in MASS to go fo the bldg codes; the same location
    is good for the PLUMBING AND GAS CODE (1 combined book), although
    as .3 indicates, MASS requires you have a plumber's license to do
    that work.
    
    The electrical code for all states is available from the NATIONAL
    FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC, in Boston.  The current code is 1987 (it
    comes out every 3 years).  Each state usually has some set of
    ammendments to it, usually minor (MASS has about 2 pages typewritten).
    You can get either the basic book (unreadable), or the expanded
    book (explains what they meant when they wrote it, as well as including
    the original text), or you can get the version from other publishers
    like Audel's which include the original text and the explanations.
    Sort of like taxes, you know?
    
    Now for NH I would imagine there is a state bookstore somewhere
    (NHites do read, don't they?).  The best idea is to find the inspector
    - he has to know 'cause he should have a copy!  As you have found
    out, though, they don't do the distribution, etc.
    
    I doubt if lumberyards etc will be of much help unless you run into
    a contractor there who can point you in the right direction.
    
    -reed
    

Just remember that local town codes may differ from state codes (I would assume
a sub- rather than super-set).  The reason I say this is that some towns will
NOT require you follow the state code to the letter of the law.  This = saved
$$$ but not necessarily loss of safety, since the codes get extremely picky
and in my humble opinion are overkill in many areas.

For example, when I built a tile stove platform, I checked the state code
which explicitly said at the time (5 years or so ago), that you had to use
fireproof materials in the base.  I called my building inspector and he told
me I could use Wonderboard (which is the same cement board used for lining
showers (earlier notes on this) and it what commercial stove platforms are made
of as well.  He also went on to tell me that in another town, someone made a 
platform out of 2" thick tiles (BIG $$$) which THAT inspector promptly made him
remove since they wasn't up to the STATE code. 

-mark

    Now that I have completed finishing off my first floor (I added
    2 bedrooms, a workshop, and a utility room) I come to the question
    of what to do on the walls that separte the living space from the
    existing area conatining the Furnace/Oil tank. I assume that I
    must hang 5/8"-Firecode sheetrock on all the adjoing common walls.
    (Yes?)
    
    DO I also have to use a Firecode door between this new hallway and
    the furnace room it connects to? Is any steel door considered
    'firecode'?
    
    On the same note, I also added a two-car attached garage last summer.
    I assume that I have to hang the same 5/8" sheetrock on the attaching
    wall.
    
    (YES?)
    
    Mark
    

    
    
    	Get a copy of the Town fire codes.  All your questions
    	should be answered there.  I would put a fire rated door
    	in for sanity reasons if nothing else.
    
    	5/8" firecoded sheetrock on adjoining common walls in the
    	garage is a good idea.  It is the code in my town

    Though may not be code, what about fire alarms?
    
    BTW, battery type alarms don't work when it's cold (as in Colorado
    Springs). I ended up installing a 110VAC unit. Seems battery units
    don't like it cold.
    
    /cal

    re: fire door
    
    Your furnace needs plenty of air to breath.  My furnace is in a
    small room in my finished basement - the door has a slatted area
    about 1 1/2' x 2'.
    
    I also have a heat triggered oil cutoff on the ceiling - this might
    be code required.
    
    __Rich
    
    I keep a 20 lb ABC fire extinguisher downstairs, that just _happens_
    to be near the furnace.

    Don't keep the fire extinguisher near the furnace. If the furnace
    is what's burning how to you expect to get near it to pick up the
    extinguisher and put out the fire.
    
    It would be much safer to mount the extinguisher near an entrance
    to the basement.
    
    Nick

    I have many questions for you all relating to firecode and enclosing a
    furnace. I thought this was the most appropriate place to add it.  I
    will attempt to explain the situation adequately, and any advice
    regarding our approach will also be appreciated. 

    Here goes.  Our downstairs level consists of a family room next to an
    unfinished utility room, next to the garage.  The utility room contains
    a small section, framed in only, that houses the furnace (FHW), the
    "on-demand" water heater, and our water conditioner. 

    We are planning to finish off the utility room, taking advantage of
    roughed in plumbing to build a bathroom, enclose the washer/dryer with
    folding doors, and add a utility sink.  Because of the fixed
    arrangement of the washer/dryer area and bathroom, and the location of
    miscellaneous plumbing obstructions, putting a door into the furnace
    nook from the utility room is undesirable. There will also be a folding
    door hiding the utility sink. 

    BUT we also need access to the furnace, so WE think our best
    alternative is to add a door into the furnace "closet" from the GARAGE
    and completely eliminate access from inside the house.  Secondly, we
    have to provide ventilation to the "closet" to provide for the
    furnace's air intake mechanism. 

    My question is, (as dumb as it sounds I have to ask it) I suppose there
    is no such thing as a ventilated fire door.  All I could think of is
    perhaps it could have vents and fire/resistant screening?  There is an
    additional problem. We would like to avoid putting a vent into the
    utility room, because we have a problem with the furnace intake
    creating reverse draw down the fireplace chimney in the next room
    (strong odor!).  Or, will enclosing the furnace and confining the
    furnace draw to a small area eliminate the power of the furnace to draw
    air down the fireplace chimney? 
                                         
    Also, is it possible to provide ventilation to the garage within
    firecodes, (We live in NH) and is this a desirable thing to do? Since
    the furnace is not on an outside wall, it would be a pain in the tail
    to provide an air duct to the outside.  However, we will be installing
    a drop ceiling, so this IS a possibility even though we'd have to cut
    through several joists to do so. 

    I am looking for any suggestions I can find concerning this project, so
    fire away! 

    Below is a diagram of the proposed construction.  The floor is poured
    concrete so relocation of plumbing is impossible.  Please note: no
    inside walls exist yet... only the frame for the wall around the
    furnace room. 

                           *GARAGE*
Entrance         |location of proposed door from furnace->garage
 | to house      V
 |      |--|-------|-----------------------------------------------|
 V  \   |                    |           roughed-in plumbing for:  |
     \  |                    |shower                               |
      \ |                    |              BATHROOM               |
   /\   |               MISC.|_________|                           |
   ||   | FURNACE      PLUMB-| utility |                           |
 fire   |               ING  |   sink  |                           |
proof   |        OBSTRUCTIONS|_________|                           |
 door   |__________          |    /\   |__          _______________|
        |         |          |    ||                   |           |
        | furnace |    WATER |   folding doors-------> |           |
        |  chimney|          |                         | WASHER and|
        |         |  CONDITIONER                       |    DRYER  |
        |_________|__________|                         |           |
        |                                              |           |
        |   <--- entrance to util. room                |           |
        |                                              |           |
        |                                              |           |
        |______________________________________________|___________|

                                                                    
Thanks for your suggestions!

Amy.
                 

    
    Has no one an answer to my question?  Boy, and I thought you'd all
    jump right in with help on such a big project! 
    
    Perhaps I should rephrase the questions.
    
    1) Is it a good idea to put access to the furnace from the garage
    in this case?
    
    2) How do I provide ventilation for the furnace and remain within
    firecodes?
    
    3) Are there any other considerations we should have when enclosing
    the furnace that way?
    
    Thanks in advance, if anyone can help!
    
    Amy

I guess people aren't answering because they aren't sure.  It sounds like a 
good idea to me, but I don't know the code.  The basic idea of getting the 
venting from the garage sounds good, particularly since you'll be using cold, 
unheated air for your combustion instead of air that you've already paid to 
heat.  The one thing I'd be careful of when enclosing the area is to make sure 
that there's access to all repair/adjustment areas for the furnace and anything 
else that's in there.  You (or a future owner) will be very bummed if you have 
to tear down a wall to fix the furnace.  Obvious, perhaps, but it's been done 
before.  From the code perspective, perhaps if you lined the new furnace room
with 5/8" firecode sheetrock, extending the 'firesafe' area to include the 
furnace room?  Probably a good idea in any case.

Paul

Re .5, .6:
    
    One reason no one jumped right in with an answer may be because
    fire codes vary from state to state, even town to town.  To repeat
    the advise given in .1 to the original question, get a copy of your
    town's fire code, or talk to the building inspector or fire chief.
    Speaking with a knowledge of local codes, they can probably give
    you better, more accurate advise than most HOME_WORK readers.  (I
    don't remember if you even mentioned where you live?)
    
    Jim

    A telephone call to the local fire department should get you an
    answer or at least a lead to a person that knows. You might want
    to check your local library for an NFPA Inspection manual which
    is the bible fire inspectors and insurance companies use. Mine is
    10 years old and not exactly current however the accepted code used
    to be that an attached garage must be seperated from the home by
    5/8" sheetrock and a door with a fire rating of at least 3 hours.
    Any breaks in the wall also required a 3 hr fire rating.
    From this I would assume that if the furnace were in a room accesssible
    only from the garage and the walls seperating it from the house
    were of 5/8" sheetrock that all would be fine as the fire resistance
    of the wall is intact. Of course ducting from the closet to the
    house would have to have fire stops in place.(tin sheeting with
    holes the same size as the ducting thru which the ducting enters
    the house) 
    I do suggest that you contact the fire dept first as the code book
    is exactly that, written in code 8^).    
    
    
    -j

    I am adding this note in response to quite a few other replies.
     Recently, there have been some questions about the building codes.
     In asking the questions, at times some have asked why we are always
    trying to get around "THE CODE".
    
    I would like to take this opportunity to offer a possible explanation.
     I would agree that a large portion of what is written in the various
    building codes makes quite a bit of sense.  This is proven even
    more so when the reasoning for the particular code is explained.
    
    However, where I sometimes have a problem is in 2 areas: 1) The
    large size of the code books and their constant changes, 2) A lack
    of understanding of the code determination process.  Let me address
    these problems individually:
    
    	1) Large size of the code books and their constant changes
    
    		I have only seen one or two code books, (specifically
    		an electrician's book) and it seems to be quite difficult
    		sometimes to decipher what is required and not required.
    		What may be needed is some better way to get an English
    		version of the code book.  This seems more and more
    		to be getting like the law books and legaleeze.
    
    		Also, short of buying a new code book each year, there
    		does not seem to be any good way of conveying the code
    		changes to the general public, as well as the reasoning
    		for the specified changes.
    
    	2) A lack of understanding of the code determination process.
    
    		Admittedly, this is mostly an individual problem.  I
   		can't say whether others also do not understand this
    		process.  I would like to have a better understanding
    		of who actually determines what the building codes
    		should be.  There are Federal, State, and Local building
    		codes, which do not always say the same things.  Some
    		are more strict than others.
    
    		I am not one to take things at face value without first
    		understanding why they should be considered good.  Some
    		things are just common sense - keep fingers away from
    		moving saw blades, etc.  But for me to blindly follow
    		"THE CODE", I have to understand where it came from.
    
    
    As I mentioned earlier, I am entering this note in the hopes of
    learning more about the codes and where they come from, who determines
    what they should be, etc.  For myself, I hope to gain more insight
    into how to interpret the codes.

    I wish there was some better way of conveying why some of the code
    changes are made, so that maybe any suspicion (which is human nature)
    would be minimized.
        
    
    Ed..
    

    The MA State Book Store sells copies of the state building code.  They
    even sell volumes that are stripped down to just talk about residential
    code.  I believe they also have annual updates available (though
    the cost does add up), and that they have a similar arrangement
    for the plumbing and electrical codes.
    
    I haven't looked at these, so I can't comment on their quality or
    completeness.  I don't know whether they are complete by themselves
    or make numerous references to the national codes.
    
       Gary

    As the man from Fram says quite eloquently,
    
    		"Pay me now, or pay me later."
    
    But in cases concerning safety of people and property, the pay back
    later may be very, very costly.  I'd save money, time and materials
    somewhere else.
    
    But as a friend of mine is prone to say,
    
    		"Looks good from my front porch!"

    I do may work following the first philosophy!!!

    Phil

    Aside:

    <FLAME ON>
    This reply was deleted from a previous note even though I entered it
    at the same time as the threat by the moderator to delete subsequent
    replies!  I must say, that was the first example of heavy handed
    moderation I have seen Paul (or whoever).  You could have at least
    moved it to the new note.  If discusions of where to buy furniture
    are allowed what's so bad about digressions concerning the validity
    of building codes.  Particularly since that's what the original author
    wanted to know about.  I guess this aside should have been included
    somewhere else too.  
    <flame off>
    

A personal concern of mine is not with the body of code, but with the fickle
enforcement of selected parts of it.  Many noters in this file have
mentioned how "my town inspector picked this nit, but let this glaring
loophole get by".  My own example is that in the small town where we're
building, the building inspector's pet peeve seems to be stairs.  We're
finishing up in dead winter and we don't want to add the mudroom we want
or the front steps we want until it's warmer.  So we have _temporary_ steps
to the back and front doors, two and three steps respectively.  He says
we MUST have a landing at the front door - back door doesn't need one.
It's not a major deal to fix, but I'll just have to rip it down in a couple
months.

When I hear something in the code, my first reaction is to understand WHY!  
Often times I find understanding the code gives one insight into areas not 
normally understood, but other times it leave me at a total loss.  I had never
really given a lot of thought into the number or size of nails with which one
nail exterior sheathing to the studs until I saw the code that required 
minimums.  Having read and realized how critical this really is, I exceeded the
code and put in lots more nails than I really needed.

However, once in awhile I'll see something that sounds outright dumb, (there are
a lot of strange electrical codes and even the electrical supplies think they
don't make sense) and I'll do the bare minimum to meet them.

-mark

It all boils down to intelligent interpretation vs. legislated regulation.

If you understand why the code exists for a particular task, you can then
make a reasonable judgment as to it applicability in your situation.

Case in point:   Two outlets on one 220v circuit...one in the garage, and
one in the cellar.  I have only one 220v tool.  I know if I buy another,
I can't run them both at the same time.  And when/if I move, I simply
remove one of the outlets so the circuit is idiot proofed for the next 
owner.

Against the code.  I know why it is against the code, and under what 
conditions it will be a problem.  I avoid those conditions.

Therefore, I am perfectly safe, and in direct violation of the code.

This makes much more sense that being perfectly in compliance with the
code simply because "its the Code!"

Bob

RE: heavy-handed moderation

>                           You could have at least
>    moved it to the new note.  

Paul may have spoiled us all.  I think it's unfair to suggest that he 
should spend his time moving notes around.  Even though you were caught 
in a race condition, I don't think there was anything wrong, 
heavy-handed or even immoderate (winky-face goes here) in his actions. 

His warning got in ahead of your reply; your reply had to go.  It's 
proper, above board and if you think about the position he was in, you'd 
probably do the same.  After all, you can't threaten to delete future 
replies and then not do it.
						>>>==>PStJTT

>Case in point:   Two outlets on one 220v circuit...one in the garage, and
>one in the cellar.  I have only one 220v tool.  I know if I buy another,
>I can't run them both at the same time.  And when/if I move, I simply
>remove one of the outlets so the circuit is idiot proofed for the next 
>owner.


Bob, I think if you re-read the 240v discussion, you'll find that your setup
meets code. However, this isn't the preferred setup. I'm also pretty sure
that you (you don't sound like an idiot) won't have a problem with this
circuit. AS far as the code making sense, 99.9% of the code makes perfect
sense and is good sound "common sense". (NEC anyways)

Ross

re:.6

So as to aviod a digression in this digression, could we move comments about 
the deleting of Phil's note to note 853, where I've responded to that and get 
back to the digression at hand here.

I'd say I'll delete further replies on the digression to the digression in this 
note, but then what if someone is replying to the digression of the digression 
even as I type? :^)

Paul

	Re: .5

>It all boils down to intelligent interpretation vs. legislated regulation.

	In the case of a homeowner making changes without the benefit (?) of
a building inspector to say "ayup, it passes", I think it more boils down to
the homeowner versus the insurance company.  Lets use the example of the
fireplace flue that got this all started -- heaven forbid, but lets say the
house burns down and the fire department determines that the fire was caused
by sparks blown into the room due to an incorrectly-vented home DIY project.
Would you like to take a guess as to how many $$$s the insurance company is
going to pay to rebuild the house?  How does zero sound?  If the code was
followed, however, the insurance company wouldn't have the automatic "out".
(And if the code isn't followed but it is actually inspected and passes,
the insurance company would have to pay.)

	And given our litigious society, even selling the house wouldn't get
you off the hook.  Unless you specify in writing that the flue was built out
of code and get the buyer to sign an acceptance letter, the buyer could sue
_you_ if his house burns down due to your non-code work being rejected by
the insurance company.  (The problem here is that the buyer has the reasonable
right to expect the house to have been built to commonly-accepted standards --
i.e., the code.  Unless you specifically point out the non-code flue, they
could sue you for misrepresentation of the property.  You might be able to
argue that a house-inspector should have noticed this, but why set yourself
up for the headache and possible big-time loss?)

	My bottom line, and the reason I inadvertently started this whole 
discussion in the chimney-flue note, is that for something as critical as
a fireplace flue, the code should be followed to protect yourself both today
and tomorrow.

								-craig

Which qualifies as an intelligent interpretation...!  8^)

Re: .0    
>    	1) Large size of the code books and their constant changes...

    For electrical there is Richter's(do not know the real name, but it 
    is in notes somewhere).  Richter's translates the NEC to something 
    closure to English, but it still is not perfect because it still
    includes a lot of the industrial information that is not necessary for
    the home electrician.  It does try to explain the reasoning behind the 
    codes.  

    DOES ANYONE KNOW OF EQUIVALENT BOOKS FOR THE UBC AND PLUMBING CODES?

    The "Architectual Graphic Standards" is a good general purpose book for 
    all kinds of construction information.  It does not include much explanation
    but does include references to all the standards sources.  The only problem 
    is that it is expensive.  

Re:  .1

>    The MA State Book Store sells copies of the state building code.  They

	Can you tell us more about this place.  Where are they and How do you 
	order from them?

    Re:  .-2   Yes the insurance aspect is of vital importance in this
    argument.  The worst the building inspector can do is fine you 
    (probably not much), and/or make you disassemble and/or fix the problem.
    
    Not being paid if the house burns down is potentially a much bigger
    disaster.   However, I've heard of no cases personally where an
    insurance company didn't pay because of a code violation.  All I've
    heard of is not paying in cases where the guy burnt down his own
    house, etc.  
    
    Does anyone have any better information on this?  Some of this could
    be pretty unenforcable by the insurance company given changing building
    codes, inspection anomalies, etc, etc.  
    
    One thing I'm pretty sure the (reputable) insurance companies DON'T
    do is try to not pay you if they find a code violation UNRELATED
    to the cause of damage.
    

    
    RE: .10
    
    But where does "intelligent interpretation" come into play when
    a code *explicitly* states that a flue must be so many feet above
    a particular surface.  It seems there is no gray area for
    interpretation there.  Which is as it should be.  Vague codes would
    be meaningless since one intelligent people could interpret them
    one way and another slightly (or very) different.
    
    I don't think we should mistake "over regulation" (seal belt laws??)
    with standard building codes whose purpose is to protect you and
    whoever may own the property in the future (as well as people connected
    to common utilities) .  I would always presume a code to be correct
    as opposed to visa a versa.    
    

    Phil

    RE .8  I am not saying that we should not follow the code.  Rather,
    I just would like some explanation at times for WHY the code says
    what it does.  When I was growing up, if I was told that something
    had to be "just because it does", I may have followed it, but all
    the while I was questioning until something made me believe what
    was stated.
    
    It is this which makes the codes seem more like guidelines.  This
    and the previously-stated arbitrariness (is that a word?) of the
    particular inspector.
    
    As an example of the inspection process.  I had my electric upgraded
    from 60amp to 200amp.  When the electrical inspector came by (a
    kindly older gentleman), he was nice and explained why he wanted
    a couple of changes made.  But on one item, the clearance in front
    of the breaker panel, he said the code required such and such but
    that I would be ok because he did not have that kind of clearance
    in front of his panel either.  Now, I can understand why the clearance
    would be needed, but the inspector let it go.  Thus, the code was
    just a guideline and not gospel.
    
    Ed..
    
    P.S. This was not started to be a rathole (as has been indicated
    in other notes).  Rather, I had hoped that this would be a place
    to explain why a particular code item is needed, or where to find
    the up-to-date code (which was indicated in an earlier reply), etc.
     This was prompted by the attitude of one of our members when someone
    questioned the validity of the code.  I still haven't heard whether
    the chimney code is for sparks or draft.  Is it 10 feet or 12? 
    

    One other question.  Who is the body that determines the code? 
    I have heard NEC mentioned.  Where do the members come from?  How
    are they appointed?  How long do they serve?  What are their
    qualifications?  I think this is a similar type of standards board
    as ASCII which affects us here at DEC.  Is this true?
    
    Ed..
    

Note 2929.0
>    		should be.  There are Federal, State, and Local building
>...    learning more about the codes and where they come from, who determines
>       what they should be, etc.  For myself, I hope to gain more insight

    A minor nit, there are not any federal codes, per se.  There are the so 
    called national and regional code(NEC, NFPA, UBC, SSBC...) that most 
    local and state codes are based on.  Code legislation and enforcement is 
    the responsibility of the state which may delegate all or part of that 
    authority to the lower governments.  The national codes are recommendations
    to help create consistent legislation.  Most states use them as a starting
    point, but some cities have there own codes(e.g. NYC, Chicago).

    At least two set of the national codes(NFPA, NEC) are written by the 
    National Fire Prevention Association, located in Braintree, Mass.  NFPA is 
    a non-profit corporation funded by the insurance companies to establish 
    common safety standards.  They establish codes based on testing, data from 
    manufactures, input from state regulatory agencies, fire reports...  They 
    have given tours for local trade groups and high schools in the past.  Maybe
    we could get a trip together.      


Note 2929.3

    I worked for three months in the ACO office for an Air Force Civil 
    Engineering Group, and spent 4 years as an Air Force Acquisition Officer
    (not construction related, but the same concept).  An inspector does not 
    have time to inspect 100% of the work, so he inspect 10% of the work, but 
    the contractor does not know which 10%, so the contractor must do a good job
    on everything.  The inspector usually picks some obscure nit that he is
    aware of, under the assumption that if the builder is aware of that nit 
    he probably has a good mastery of the codes and the common stuff should 
    take care of itself.  When working on a subdivision the inspector will 
    vary what he examines.(The Warm Fussy Principle)  

Note 2929.4   

>When I hear something in the code, my first reaction is to understand WHY!  

We had a saying in the Air Force, "You must know the Rules, before you 
break the Rules."

Corollary:  Bend all rules you know.

In general my attitude is to follow the code, unless I understand the reasoning
for it and can justify not following it.  NOT I don't understand this code 
therefore, I'll do it my way.

>In general my attitude is to follow the code, unless I understand the reasoning
>for it and can justify not following it.  NOT I don't understand this code 
>therefore, I'll do it my way.

        :== "intelligent interpretation"

Nicely said...  8-)

Bob

    Re .16
    
    Thanks for the information.
    
    And good point.  I had not looked at it in quite the light you did.
     I guess I kind of do follow the codes, but I have always wondered
    why they were the way the are.
    

When I added my two stoves at different times, I twice called METPAY to ask them
what the procedure was to notify them of the installation and subsequent 
inspection.  They said they didn't care.  This was about 7 years ago, so maybe
not they care more.

As for what to do if you house burns down, here's what I've thought of:

	o	since much of the original work violated the code - I've found
		several real BASIC ones such as no outlet in the basement,
		ungrounded switches, etc.  who can say what was done by the
		original owner vs. YOU!

	o	some code violations would be impossible to even identify in a
		pile of rubble

-mark

    re: many
    
    It is difficult to determine whether or not codes have been followed
    mainly because not all towns/cities follow the same codes at the
    same time.  For example, in Goffstown NH., the 1987 BOCA codes were
    recently adopted.  This means that "new construction" must meet
    the new code.  My particular home is a modified barn.  The barn
    itself was built in 1908 or so.  The house itself was constructed
    in 1975.  The main structure does not meet the code of 1975 let
    alone 1987.  This is not a problem because the structure was not
    changed.  The house inside the barn meets the code requirements
    of 1975.  Any modifications made to the home now must meet the 1987
    code.  Now to specifics...
    
    Two years ago I had a chimney fire in the top foot or so of the
    chimney.  Upon inspection after the fire, I found that the previous
    owner had had one too (only worse!!).  When the chimney area was
    inspected by the fire dept. for possible spreading into the home,
    I was informed that the chimney itself did not have the clearance
    required by law. It seems that any combustible material must be
    at least 2" away from the brick.  Since the code at the time of
    construction did not require this, there was no problem.  Upon
    replacing the chimney, I was told that I had to meet current code.
    Because of the location of the roof rafters and the walls within
    the house, this was impossible.  An exception was made to the code
    for this instance because the "new construction" was only replacement.
    The insurance company didn't have a problem with this.  Their only
    concern was that the completed project was inspected to insure correct
    construction.  They wanted to minimize risk of another fire.
    
    What this whole story boils down to is that code enforcement is
    not practical from an insurance point of view.  The insurance companies
    rely on the inspector and the fire officials.
    
    Dan
    

    Well I read two different homeowners policies last night from cover
    to cover.  And I can say that the previous assertion that the insurance
    company will pay "zero" if they find a code violation caused a loss
    is not clear at all from what I read.   First of all, it never
    explicitly says they won't pay in such a case.  The only thing I
    could find was a very vague paragraph about not paying in the case
    of faulty materials or construction.  But there are contradictory
    examples - they will pay if snow load collapses the roof, but most
    such cases are due to insufficient static loading strength (which
    is a code violation).   (There are other unrelated inconsistencies
    - they will pay for loss due to riot or civil unrest but not due
    to war.  I wonder what they would do in Northern Ireland?  :-)
    
    It seems clear by this and the previous replies noting indifference
    on the part of insurers to inspection status that insurance companies
    are probably not willing to get into the legal and investigatory
    overhead of figuring out that (a) a loss was directly caused by
    a code violation, and that (b) the code was indeed violated at the
    time the work was done and by the insuree.  I suspect their actuaries
    simply bundle such cases (gotta be relatively few) into the total
    expected loss and they simply pay off unless it's a really blatant
    case.
    
    Any opinions to the contrary.  I'll bet there are!
    

>        The only thing I
>    could find was a very vague paragraph about not paying in the case
>    of faulty materials or construction.  

    When I put an addition on my house I installed a second elec. panel
    in the basement.
    During the two electrical inspections, the wiring inspector never
    ventured down into the basement.
    If my house burns down due to "faulty construction" and MET-NO-PAY
    refuses to pay, I hope my town has insurance.
    

    When I bought my house in NH METPAY asked if I had a wood stove.
    When I answered yes they sent me a special question sheet that
    included what type, size, and SN the stove was, exact distances
    from walls, floor, closest furnature as well as if I had ever
    used a stove before and if I knew how to use it
    safely.  (There were other questions but I don't remember them
    all)  This form had to be signed and sent back to METPAY.
    
	This was October of 1987 and seems to be in conflict with
    	several of the last few responses about METPAY not caring
    	about woodstove installations.
    
    -JFK-    

    Metpay wanted to know about my stove too, and gave me the
    same form to fill out.  I also had to show them the permit
    from the inspector.
    

    While I have no problem following the code (especially on electrical
    work), I'm still annoyed at the fact that the plumbing code calls
    for a licensed plumber to do the work (or so it said, last I heard).
    I've redone my entire bathroom's plumbing and only had the electrical
    inspector check the wiring, nothing else.  Any views out there on
    this?
    
    Parenthetically, I recall that the plumbers' union had a running
    fight with Mayor Harold Washington of Chicago concerning the approval
    of PVC for the city's plumbing.  In this case, Washington wanted
    PVC to be approved and the union, of course, wanted cast iron to
    remain the pipe of choice.
    
    Alfonso

I see no reason to deal with a plumbing inspection unless it's part of a bigger
project.  For example, if you're putting on an addition (for which you've pulled
a permit) that requires plumbing and the building inspector doesn't see the
plumbing inspector's signature on the permit you could have a serious problem.

-mark

    The problem with building codes/unions is an old one, especially
    in large cities (NYC, Chicago, etc), where they hold a stranglehold.
    Mass law about licensed plumbers only is another case in point. Laws
    like these only serve the fatten the wallets of the unions at the
    expense of everyone else. If plumbing or electrical work must be
    inspected, fine as long as that inspection is fairly done (when
    the inspector is the local head of the plumber's union, this is
    doubtful). In Nashua, NH I've done a few projects, pulling the proper
    permits and getting inspections, and I found the Buildings Dept.
    fair, but in many areas, this isn't the case.
    
    Eric

    
    RE: last few
    
    Let's not confuse valid codes with the politics involved in enforcing
    them.  Most if not all of the codes I have heard, I would consider valid.
    It's only when you get to code enforcement that the strong odor of politics
    starts to cloud the real issues.

    Phil

    Here's the information on the MA State Bookstore, including info
    on building codes, etc.
    
    The MA State Bookstore is located at:
    
    	State Bookstore
    	State House
    	Room 116
    	Boston, MA 02133
    	(617) 727-2834
    
    This is also the address to use for ordering by mail.  People living
    in the western part of the state can also go to the
    
    	Western Office of the Secretary of State
    	21 Elm Street
    	Springfield, MA  01103
    	(413) 733-7876
    
    though I wouldn't use that address for mail orders.  Either way,
    you might want to call ahead, to determine their hours and whether
    or not the item of interest is in stock.  I haven't placed any orders
    yet, so I don't know how efficient they are.
    
    Obviously, the State Bookstore comes under the jurisdiction of the
    Office of the Secretary of State.  Contact Michael J. Connolly,
    Sec'y of State, with suggestions, criticisms, etc. about the Bookstore.
    
    Some of the items sold by the Bookstore are general interest
    publications and pamphlets, such as copies of the state constitution.
    Most items are excerpts from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations
    (CMR), and for that reason, their order numbers look like citation
    numbers from the CMR (e. g. XXX CMR yy.zz).  If you want to place an
    order, make sure you include both the title and the CMR citation
    number.  You can also buy the complete 25 volume set (at an unpublished
    price), along with various other periodicals produced by the state. 
    
    Here are the publications of interest to this notes file:
    
    BUILDING CODE (issued by the State Board of Building Regulations
    and Standards):
    
    780 CMR 1.00 - 22.00
    State Building Code, both commercial and residential provisions.
    Fourth Edition, Loose-leaf and binder.		$24.00
    
    780 CMR 1.00 & 21.00
    One and two family dwellings (Residential provisions of the State
    Building Code).  Loose-leaf and Binder.		$ 7.00
    
    There are also supplements for people who have older versions, so
    presumably if you buy the current version, you'll be able to buy
    supplements in the future.  There's also excerpts under the heading
    of Energy Conservation and the heading of Repair, alteration & change
    of use of existing buildings.
    
    ELECTRIC CODE (issued by the Board of Fire Prevention Regulations,
    not by the Electricians board, which deals with licensing of
    electricians)
    
    Apparently, they don't sell the complete code, just the following;
    
    527 CMR 12.00
    Massachusetts modifications to the 1987 National Electrical Code.
    							$ 0.75
    
    Also of interest may be
    
    527 CMR 4.00
    Oil burning equipment				$ 0.75
    
    527 CMR 23.00
    Fire extinguisher & extinguishing systems.		$ 0.25
    
    There are a number of other publications from this board, of varying
    relevance (but not really relevant to this conference).
    
    PLUMBING CODE:  (issued by the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers
    & Gas Fitters)
    
    248 CMR 1.00 - 7.00
    Uniform State Plumbing Code and Massachusetts Fuel Gas Code.
    Loose-leaf and binder.				$20.00
    
    Amendments for people with older versions are also available.  My
    remark above about future amendments to the building code also applies
    here.
    
    There are lots of other publications on various subjects.  The catalog
    is 47 pages long, plus an index and order forms.  The catalog is
    free, but if you want to get it by mail, send them $1.95 postage
    and handling.
    
    All orders must be prepaid.  There doesn't seem to be any sales
    tax, but shipping charges are extra, based on
    the cost of your order, and there's an additional insurance charge
    for orders over $100.  I'll give prices here, for your convenience,
    but remember that all of these numbers, including the prices above,
    are subject to change.  (This is from the fall/winter 1988/1989
    catalog.)
    
    	Order		First Class Mail 		UPS
       (Up to:)
    	 0.25			0.25
    	 0.75			0.50
    	 1.25			0.90
    	 1.75			1.15
    	 2.25			1.30
    	 3.10			1.45
    	 4.40			1.90
    	 5.60			2.05
    	 6.85			2.80			1.75
    	 8.10			 "			1.75 (looks wrong to me)
    	 9.40						2.05
    	13.75			2.80			2.05
    	20.00			3.95			2.05
    	24.00			4.70			2.55
    	50.00			6.45			3.65
    
    (No shipping charge is given for orders over $50, but I'm sure that
    doesn't mean it's free.)  For orders over $100, add $0.25 insurance,
    and an extra $0.25 insurance for each $100 thereafter.
    
    UPS requires a street address.
    
    Don't all order at once.  I haven't got my order in yet.
    
       Gary

    That's interesting, they sent my catalog to me recently for free...
    
    gjd

    More on the insurance angle:
    
    Had a talk with an ex-neighbor who spent make years in the insurance
    business.  He pretty much corroborated the opinion I came to earlier
    after reading my policies.   The worst thing to an insurance company
    is not paying off a claim - it's haggling over a claim (legal costs,
    administrative costs of an "open" case, etc).  The process of
    determining if codes were violated, by whom, when, how inspected
    etc, are not worth it to the insurance company.

    He said that the only thing they really go after is intent to defraud
    the insurance company, and this code stuff doesn't really qualify
    as that.
    
    I mentioned the cases cited in here where the insurance company
    wanted to know about the wood stove.  He thinks that was just a
    method of trying to minimize the chance of having a loss - they
    would probably pay anyway even if the stove was improperly installed.
    
    Now this is just one guy's opinion, and there are many other good
    reasons for sticking with the codes, but let's go easy on the insurance
    invalidation argument.

    
    
      I need to hear from anybody who has built a stickbuilt or modular
    house in Littleton.
    
    1) Does the town dictate to you who you have to go through for
    purchasing and installing the septic system?
    
    2) Does the town dictate to you who connects you to the town water?
    
    3) Do they have gas heat?
    
    4) Do they have cable?
                                                                       
    5) How is the building inspector in town?
    
    6) How much of a hassle is it to get all the necessary building
       permits?
    
    
    
    Regards,
    
    Rick

     I live in Littleton MA and took on the project of having my house
    moved and having a *real* foundation put under it last fall. So I
    guess I can answer most of what you the questions asked...
    	
    
>    1) Does the town dictate to you who you have to go through for
>    purchasing and installing the septic system?
    
      The "town" requires a minimum of 1k gallon septic system and an
     800 sq/ft leach field, 20ft from the house and 10ft (?) from the 
     road installed by a MA licensed septic system installer. During 
     the past 3 years the town has become very wary of construction,
     both new and remodeling, so expect to be scrutinized very closely
     in this area, especially if the property is *anywhere* near surface
     water.
    
      I haven't had install a new septic system (yet) so I can't give
     you any more specifics.
    
    
>    2) Does the town dictate to you who connects you to the town water?
    
      Kind of goofy here. If there is water running in front of your house
     (to be), you pay for the contractor to dig a hole from the house to
     the water service. Littleton water dept. uses black plastic pipe for
     it's service, you can buy your own or pay for theirs. You have to 
     provide *clean* sand for 1ft under the pipe and 2ft over it, the 
     *entire* length to your house. You also have to buy, from LWD, a
     strip of metallic tape that goes on top of the clean sand and is
     burried at least 1 ft below the surface. LWD has to inspect the entire
     situation *before* it is burried. The pipe has to be at least 4ft 
     below the surface.
    
      I had to re-install my water pipe, 80ft in length, the costs were...
    
    	4 hours for backhoe @ $50.00hr			$200
    	28 yards of screened sand (barely enough)	$298
    	Pipe and tape from LWD, 			$32
    
      If you are a new customer, you will be charged a one time connection
     fee, I'm not sure how much that is though.
    
     p.s. Since you use plactic pipe, your electrician will have to drive
          a ground rod for your electricity.
    
    
>    3) Do they have gas heat?
    
    	 Many parts of the town do have gas (hold the jokes), COM-GAS I
        think but could be wrong since I am not connected.
    
    
>    4) Do they have cable?
   
    	 Most parts of the town do have cable and the town, like most 
    	others, is constantly fighting about service and price with the
        cable company. Can't quote prices 'cause I'm too cheap to buy it.
    
                                                                       
>    5) How is the building inspector in town?
    
    	 The building inspector is Roland Bernier. He is "full time"
        35-40 years old and has been in Littleton for at least 3+ years
        now. He is a pretty nice guy and is willing to help you out, to
    	a point. He makes inspections Mon, Wed & Fri and is in the office
        on Tue and Thu. My impression of him is this; catch him on a good
        day (Friday afternoons ?) and he's cooperative, catch him on a 
        bad day and you may have trouble.
    
    	 I would strongly suggest that you stop by and talk to him before
        you start anything, just to get some basic info. Don't be surprised
        if he forgets who you are though, he is a *very* busy inspector.
    
        
>    6) How much of a hassle is it to get all the necessary building
>       permits?
    
    	 The state law says the building inspector has 30 days to review
    	your plans and give you an answer. This time of year may take
    	considerably less time. If your lot has not been perked then you
        will have to go through that process first. Perks can be a real
    	hassle in Littleton since the town has such a high water table.
    	There are certain areas, especially near the lakes, that the town
    	will discourge you from even trying a perk. If that's the case, I
        would tend to listen to them. If that is their attitude from the
        start, you're going to have a long uphill battle to convince them
        otherwise.
    
	 I had lived in Littleton for 3 years before starting my project
    	and still found most of the personell in town to be unreceptive
        to much of what I did, but as they say, your mileage may vary.
    
    
    	Glenn    

    My apologies to the moderator if this note doesn't belong here, I'll
    delete it without argument if it's deemed inappropriate...
    
    Having said that...
    
    This evening I learned that a hearing is being held next week to
    see if a variance can be granted in order to establish a target
    shooting club/lodge down the street from me. (WELL within hearing
    distance!) I learned this in a casual conversation with one of the
    abuttors to the property who seem to be the only ones who were notified
    of the hearing. Other neighbors I spoke with later were as surprised as
    I was.
    
    Have any others noters fought this type of issue? I'm very interested
    in knowing what to expect at the hearing.
    
    My main concern is for my property value. This is a residential area
    in Millbury with lots of woods...
    
    Thanks for sharing any experiences.
    
    Edd

>    see if a variance can be granted in order to establish a target
>    shooting club/lodge down the street from me. (WELL within hearing

i used to live about a 1/4 mile from a sportsman's club in auburn (right 
off rt20).  i really don't think it will hurt your property value unless 
it's visible or very close.  

but i can tell you this:  i found it disconcerting listening to fully 
automatic weapons being discharged every other day.  i wonder what the 
target looked like.

craig (i'm not the nra)

btw, you're probably right on the location disclaimer.  if you didn't put 
this in the wrong place...i've probably started world war iii.  -ced

I'll second the REAL_ESTATE reference.  But, for what it's worth, and even tho
it's not directly applicable ...

I was an abutter to some property someone wanted to build 11 condos on.
Fortunately for us:  1.  _all_ abutters were notified,  and  2. one of us
abutters was an attorney who quickly proposed (and all abutters just as quickly 
agreed) that we "sue" (I think that's the word) the guy for all sorts of
nit-picky objections to why his idea just wouldn't work.  It worked.  It's still
woods.

We _did_ have lots of legal weight/precedence on our side.
It _was_ multiple condos, not a target range.
So it doesn't exactly match, but legal counsel might be worth considering.

    I'ld be lessed concerned w/ the noise and more concerned w/ someone
    getting hurt. Kids just love to play in the woods and it is very
    easy to get lost or lose your direction in the woods. If I lived
    in the area this would be my main concern. You could also have a
    mishap w/ a stray bullet or 2. 
    /Jay

This note is stretching it a bit for being in this conference, but we have
other notes about various variances, so unless there are strenuous objections...

Paul

    Nit 1:  REAL_ESTATE is on TALLIS, not TURRIS.
    
    Nit 2:  My guess is that this is an application for a special permit,
    not a variance.  The rules and guidelines are slightly different, and
    unfortunately for you, slightly less stringent for special permits.  A
    variance is a request for an exception.  The requestor has to show
    hardship, and variances cannot be granted for prohibited uses; e. g., you
    cannot get a variance to run a car repair shop in a residential
    district.  Special permits are for things that are theoretically
    permissible, but need to be reviewed by the appropriate town boards
    before permission is granted.  The premise is that the concept is ok,
    but the specific instance must be reasonable and subject to conditions
    that are part of the permit.
    
    For Your Information 1:  Hearing notices must only go to abutters,
    which is defined as people who own property that borders on the
    property in question, or whose property is within a certain
    (unreasonably small) distance of the property.  It's no surprise that
    you weren't notified; learn to read the legal notices in your local
    town paper religiously.
    
    For Your Information 2:  The board members are most likely unpaid
    volunteers.  Cut them a break.  Be nice to them, and they'll be nice to
    you.  Respect them, and they'll respect you.  But remember, they just
    have to listen to you, they don't have to agree with you.  
    
    At the hearing:  The board will ask questions, and the petitioner will
    answer them, frequently by saying "Yes, we'll do that" or "We'll work
    out a solution to that problem."  Then (you hope) they'll ask for
    comments and questions from the audience.  That's where you come in. 
    You should expect and demand the opportunity to air your concerns.
    
    After the hearing:  If the way my town operates is any indication, the
    board won't decide immediately, but will continue to discuss the issue
    at subsequent meetings.  These meetings are not hearings; you have a
    right to be present (under the MA Open Meeting Law), but they have no
    obligation to advertise the meeting in the paper or to notify the
    abutters.  They must post notice of the meeting at the town hall in
    advance, but they don't need to post the agenda; you can wind up
    sitting through a lot irrelevant stuff if you try to go to every
    meeting.  If you build up a good working relationship with the board,
    they'll keep you informed as to their agenda, so that you'll only need
    to show up when appropriate.  Sometimes the local papers will cover
    these meetings, but that varies and can be quite inconsistent.
    
    Usually, if anyone shows up at these meetings, it's the petitioner. 
    Only truly dedicated abutters or concerned citizens continue to put in
    the hours, typically on emotional issues.  There's nothing underhanded
    about the meetings, but the process is such that the petitioner has
    plenty of opportunities to propose solutions to problems.  If you
    complain about potential accidents involving people wandering through
    the woods, they may wind up with a chain link fence and no-tresspassing
    notices, which may not be the solution you want.
    
    Playing your cards right:  I don't know.  It's a good idea to get many
    people involved, as long as they're polite, and to gather a list of as
    many different concerns as possible.  But that doesn't tell you how to
    present them.  If you present too many petty complaints, they may not
    take you seriously.  If you leave out something, you may not get
    another chance to present it.  Boards don't like it when new issues are
    raised after they thought they worked out everything.  But this can
    work both ways; a new last-minute issue might force a NO vote, but they
    might also say that it's not fair to impose a new requirement at such a
    late date.
    
       Gary

The other thing to do is go listen with an open mind.  Maybe they are
proposing something you'd approve of.  Or at least approve of more than
having condos go in....

Chances are, if they are an organized club, the subject of noise and saftey
has already occured to them.  Many shooting clubs have specific, voluntary
hours of operation.  To be accredited by the NRA or other shooting sports
organization, they'll have to meet saftey guidlines and will probably have
particular people identified to make community relations be smooth.  

You might even find that you'll want to join the fun.

						>>>==>PStJTT

    Agreed. I'm not "up in arms" (bad pun acknowledged) yet, but the
    concept doesn't sit well with me. 
    
    I've also learned that there are 4 houses to built on land that abutts
    the proposed site. I can only imagine how thrilled I'd be to buy my
    new house and find out that a special permit/variance was granted
    before I had a chance to say anything.
    
    > join in the fun...
    
    Not likely. I'm passively anti-gun.
    
    Edd

    If you are going to oppose the variance/permit, then gather all
    the people in the surrounding area which oppose and determine a
    spokesperson.  
    
    Recently the owners of the property across the street were attempting
    to get zoning for a weekly hotel.  The surrounding property owners got
    together, hired a lawyer to draw up a partition with a space for
    signatures and we passed it around the neighborhood.  We chose someone
    to present the partition with signatures at the next meeting.  That way
    that person could present all the ideas the group wanted to express and
    could be prepared to answer any questions. 

    We were lucky and the property owners withdrew their request for
    a variance.  I suggest you get together and decide what you really
    don't like about the idea, prioritize, and then present the objections
    at the next town meeting.
    
    Good Luck.

    Just a couple of points:
    
    1) I live next to a sportsman's club.  While I can hear the shooting,
       I don't especially notice it.  You tend to tune out things that
       you get used to.
    
    2) Sportsman's clubs are very careful when it comes to safety. 
       They design the ranges to have high and strong backstops.  They
       make every effort to not put them where people can just walk in
       and get hurt.  Also, I doubt they would be putting ranges at
       the edges of the property.  With that being the case, for someone
       to "accidently" walk onto the range would mean they have been
       trespassing for some time.
    
    3) Most ranges that are correctly designed have little, if any,
       chance of stray bullets.
    
    4) Many clubs do have voluntary limits on hours for shooting.  For
       example, our club does not allow shooting before 1:00pm on Sunday.
       This allows people the chance to sleep in on Sundays without
       the noise.
    
    5) I think I would much rather have a sportsman's club on the property
       beside me than any condos or additional houses.  There is probably
       a better chance of the woods staying that way than for almost
       all other situations.

    
    Maybe it would be helpful to speak with the people organizing the
    club before you become negative on the idea.  It is certainly possible
    that most of your concerns have already been addressed.  Or at least
    you would be able to have them heard in a non-adversarial manner.
    
    Ed..
    

>    > join in the fun...
>    
>    Not likely. I'm passively anti-gun.

So was my wife 'til I took her skeet shooting.  Neither of us shoot on a
regular basis, but now we're both passively in favor of shooting sports.
You never know....

>    5) I think I would much rather have a sportsman's club on the property
>       beside me than any condos or additional houses.  

We abut a fox hunting club.  They don't really chase foxes anymore, and 
nobody shoots, but on Sundays they're out there running their horses and
blowing horns over baying hounds and so forth.  They're a nice bunch of
people and it certainly beats all the guerilla warfare between neighbors
that I read about in this file.
 

>                                           It is certainly possible
>     that most of your concerns have already been addressed.  Or at least
>    you would be able to have them heard in a non-adversarial manner.
 
Almost anything can be worked out if both parties approach it in a relaxed
way.  Certainly a meeting before the official hearing would be beneficial
either in making you feel better if they turn out to be reasonable people
or giving you a chance to come up with cogent arguments against it if they 
turn out to be a bunch of yahoos.  
					>>>==>PStJTT

    All of the outdoor rifle ranges that I know of around here
    (Seattle area) are on large pieces of land, much of which is wooded.
    So, if you didn't know it was a range, it has more the look of
    a large greenbelt.  All of them also have definite hours of operation.
    
    For this reason, having a range in the neighborhood is a much less
    drastic change than building dwellings on the property.
    
       Jay (who'd love it if someone put in a range nearby)

    
    In defense of Edd, what hasn't been clarified is that there are already
    two sportsman's clubs/rifle ranges within a few miles from the
    neighborhood. Another question to be asked is why there needs to be
    another in the vicinity.
    
    CdH
    

    
    Re: .all of the above
    
    	Am I reading Home_Work or Firearms notesfile?  I thought it was
    Home_Work...  (and hope it is :-)
    
    							-craig

    As far as I can see, this belongs in HOME_WORK file.  It is a
    homeowner's concern about the placement of a seemingly duplicate
    operation near his house.  It probably should also be posted in
    the firearms notesfile also, but maybe the author of this one isn't
    interested in firearms, which may be why he/she is opposed to this
    one under consideration.
    
    As for me, I think that a rifle range practically in my backyard
    would be undesirable, as I am waiting a couple more months and I
    am going to be a daddy.  Rifle ranges and residential area just
    don't mix.
    
    Patrick
    

    As a past chairman of a zoning appeals board I must say that 
    .9 has described the procedures best up to this point. The immediate
    abutters are the only ones directly notified by the board. anyone else
    has to find out by reading the legal notices in the local paper or by
    word of mouth.  The board hearings work exactly as described. Listen to
    the petitioner - ask for dissenting comment - adjourn. Part of the
    off-line details may include visits to the site by the entire board or
    selected board members, or by the zoning enforcement officer if the
    town has one. 

    Some of the things looked at are - 

    Zoning- is the area zoned for what is proposed? A residential zone does 
    not necessarily include a rifle range, although the sportsman's club may 
    have been in existence before zoning laws became effective, IF, there 
    was never a firing range on the property they may not be allowed to start 
    one now. It must be determined if they are looking for a special permit
    for a one or two day event? Are they looking for a variance to the
    zoning laws. This will usually give them the right to place buildings closer
    to boundary lines or closer together, or allow a piece of property to
    be used as an access to some other piece of property. It may also allow
    someone to add an inlaw apartment in the garage in a single family
    zone but it will not allow apartment buildings or a true two family
    house. A variance generally will not allow a change to the basic operation 
    or conditions of a business. Are they looking for a change in zoning?
    That could be a problem for both them and you. Spot zoning - changing
    one specific lot or piece of property is illegal. If they manage to get
    a zoning change in whatever form then all they would need are the
    appropriate permits.

    By the way Most local ordinances and certain Mass state laws forbid 
    discharging weapons within city/town limits and within very specific
    distances from dwellings or structures. 

    NEED - Is it going to pose an economic hardship on the petitioner to not
    add whatever is being requested? Is there any other place within a 
    reasonable distance where the particular service can be obtained.?

    IMPACT - How will the change affect the neighborhood, area, town? Will
    there be extra traffic and can the roads handle it? will there be Noise
    and will it be heard or be a nuisance to the neighbors? will there be
    a safety issue? In this case stray bullets, lost munitions being found
    by people, people possibly straying into the path of the firing range?
    Will there be an environmental impact to water, sewage, fumes, odors,
    Does the DEQE have any jurisdiction? Will the change affect property
    value? 

    APPEARANCE - in blatant cases - like mixing a Chinese pagoda in with
    a bunch of split capes or a steel concrete and glass building in with a
    bunch of farm stands the answer would almost certainly be no, to the
    design.

     

    The reason it's not posted in ::FIREARMS is because it's not about
    guns. It's about establishing an entity in a neighborhood where
    it appears to be not wanted. The fact that the proposed special
    permit is for a rifle-range is moot, as I would be equally opposed
    to a ski-area. (I'm an avid skier.)
    
    This note *is* about what homeowners/neighbors can do to maintain
    the quality of life in that neighborhood to the standards they choose.
    
    My position on guns is of little or no consequence to the issue.
    
    Thanks in advance for keeping the note centered around the proper
    issue....
    
    Edd
    

  Thanks to the authors of .9 and .19 for very worthwhile information of
  vital importance to home-owners, and to all those who advocated
  fairness and open-mindedness. 

  We face a similar situation involving proposed modifications to a
  small airport nearby, and I believe that with the information in this
  note, we'll all be able to arrive at a solution which everyone is
  satisfied with. Had this discussion been moved to FIREARMS,
  REAL_ESTATE, or some other conference of very specific interest which
  I don't read, I would never have gotten this information. This
  conference was the perfect place to hold such a discussion.

  Thanks again.

    re: .19
    
    Thank you! That is exactly the type of things I'm looking for!
    
    Edd

    Surprise! When I got home last night there was an enlarged an
    photocopied announcement of the hearing in my mailbox, apparently
    placed there by someone more concerned with small town politics
    than postal law.
    
    The hearing is for a VARIANCE, not an exception as I said earlier.
    Mea culpa. Actually it is for 2 variances. One to establish a lodge
    and 1 to build a lodge and range.
    
    ...now at least everyone knows.
    
    Edd

    That's interesting.  As indicated earlier, you can't get a variance to
    use property in ways that aren't allowed by the zoning bylaws.  At this
    point, you may want to go down to town hall and get a copy of the
    zoning bylaws.  You'll also want to find out exactly which sections of
    the bylaws are in issue.  If it just boils down to something trivial,
    you may not have much hope.  If they just want to build two feet closer
    to the property line than allowed, then if the variance is denied,
    they'd just have to build a smaller lodge.
    
    I also should have pointed out earlier that by and large, most
    businesses and large organizations try very hard to keep the neighbors
    happy.  You may have better luck going directly to the group applying
    for the variance, expressing your concerns, and seeing if they can fix
    them.  They may be willing to bend over backwards for you.
    
    If I were in your situation, I think I'd have the same initial
    reaction.  But I'd also try to do my homework, to see if those fears
    about property values are real or just a figment of my imagination.
    
    Good luck, and keep us informed.
    
       Gary

    
    I couldn't get this posted last week...
    
    In the interim, the neighbors are contemplating forming a neighborhood
    association and hiring council.
    
    There are some other points I'll bring up later when I have time to 
    post them...
    
    Edd
    
    =======================================================================
    
    
    
              <<< TALLIS::S2:[NOTES$LIBRARY]REAL_ESTATE.NOTE;1 >>>
                       -< Real Estate - Put Ads in #19 >-
================================================================================
Note 35.18                      Zoning Variances                        18 of 24
WEFXEM::COTE "You opened your umbrella..."           32 lines   6-JUL-1989 08:41
                          -< Results of meeting.... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last night's meeting was an experience...
    
    The proponents aired their positions first. A spokesman for the club
    detailed the proposed site and explained why they felt it was needed;
    they are guests at a club close by and want a permanent home. An
    abuttor also supported the proposal stating that noise was something
    you get used to...
    
    The opponents were to speak next. Predictably, their objections were
    based around noise concerns (nobody could answer how loud the guns
    were), traffic, alcohol, hours of operation and otehr intended uses
    of the site. A 'straw poll' was taken amongst the attendees to gauge 
    sentiment; the proposal is opposed by over a 4:1 margin (47 to 11,
    including about a half dozen members of the club in the 'for'
    category.)
    
    I came away with the distinct impression the board is leaning towards
    granting the variance and permit, although they did not state their
    positions. Three members *seemed* (IMO) to actually be arguing in favor
    of the proposal.
    
    The spokesperson for the club was very non-committal in his answers,
    liberally sprinkling his sentences with 'maybe', 'possibly', 'probably'
    and 'most likely's... I asked him if they intended to host other clubs
    at this range. He replied, in effect, "We don't plan to do that,
    probably..." I felt most of the other answers were equally open-ended.
    
    Predictably, the hearing was continued until July 26th. I hope the
    47 neighbors opposed to the plan don't run out of steam....
    
    Edd
                                                                          

    The second and final part of the public hearing was held last night.
    
    Over 100 neighbors and other concerned citizens attended in addition 
    to about 20 members of the gun club and other supporters. 
    
    The gun club spoke first. Their president immediately requested the
    request for a special permit to construct a firing range be withdrawn.
    This was countered by those in opposition who requested that the
    request be denied and the issue acted upon.
    
    After hearing arguments from both sides the committee closed the
    meeting, and with little deliberation, voted 4-1 against granting
    the various variances and special permits sought.
    
    While I'm happy with the outcome, I'm concerned over the reasons stated
    by the board for their actions. Most of them said, in essense, that if
    the neighbors were so adamantly opposed, they (the board) would not grant 
    the requests. They did not address the 3 points in the town by-laws
    that state the conditions which must be met in order to grant a
    variance. (1. Hardship. 2. Hardship pertains to certain conditions
    relative to land. 3. No harm to public good). Although there is a
    possibility of making the case that they addressed point 3, I feel
    that regardless of the sentiments of the neighbors, the committee
    could NOT approve the variance (even if we embraced it whole-heartedly)
    because it did not meet the proper criteria for approval. This, I
    believe, could be used in an appeal...
    
    ...but for the time being, we are retaining out peace and quiet.
    
    Edd

    Edd,

    As a past zoning appeals board member and chairman, it appears that the
    intent of the by-laws was met by protecting the abutters from
    hardship. In this case the hardship would be:
    * the extra traffic generated by having a firing range at the site.
    * the noise of the weapons being fired.
    * the concern over accidental trespass by children. (unless the area
      were totally fenced in a lot of guns being shot could attract a lot of
      little kids trying to see what is going on.)
    * the loss of resale value of the abutting property. This land
      conceivably would now only be attractive for purchase by gun enthusiasts
      which would considerably reduce the market size or cash value if you
      ever decided to sell.

    I agree the board should have given a reasonable explanation but it
    seems like their heart was in the right place. They met the "intent" of
    protection even if they did not do it to the strictest "letter" of the
    law.

    Congratulations!

    Thanks...
    
    While I agree with you regarding intent, my concern is that the gun
    club will appeal after getting an attorney who will say that "neighbors
    not liking it isn't valid...". Then we start the run around...
    
    I'll be watching for an appeal within the allotted 20 days.
    
    BTW - You sent me some personal mail earlier in this string which I 
    never thank you for. Please accept my apology and my thanks....
    
    Edd

Periodically, one of the notes dealing with building codes erupts into a 
philosophical discussion about the appropriateness of building codes.  As soon 
as that subject is mentioned, many people jump in and we get a 20-reply 
digression.  Last time that happened I tried to squelch it and was - rightly,
in retrospect - brought to task for heavy-handedness.  But it is annoying if
you're trying to find out things about building codes to have to periodically 
wade through a long rathole.

So, since people really seem to want to talk about this, who am I to stop it?
I'll just redirect it (and any future digression attempts) to it's own little 
corner, where those who want to can solve the problems of the universe, (or, 
alternately, bludgeon each other into unconsciousness :^) and let those who
want to do some plumbing read their notes in peace. 

All rules of decorum are suspended for this note, but I advise from my own 
experience that the personal abuse be kept to a minimum.

Since I'm starting this note, I get to put in my opinion first.  :^)

I don't think building codes should exist at all, at least for detached 
buildings such as all single family homes.  If I'm dumb enough to build a 
structure that will collapse, burn down, and flood, that's MY problem.  You may 
say "But what about the poor person who buys the home?"  Well, there are other,
more civilized ways to protect yourself from a poorly built home than by having
the police force everyone who builds anything - at gunpoint - to build it to
your satisfaction.  

You don't think building permits are enforced at gunpoint? Try building a house
without getting a permit, ingoring the subsequent stop work order, and ignoring
the subsequent police requests to stop building or living in the house.  You
will eventually be escorted from the premises at gunpoint.  It never gets to
that point because everyone KNOWS that it eventually will, so they comply at an
earlier stage. 

There are many notes in this file about home inspectors, who check out a home 
from top to bottom when someone is contemplating buying it.  It can be argued 
that it is insane to spend as much money as a house costs without such an 
inspection.  If there were no building codes, this inspection would simply be a 
bit more thorough, including the structural aspects of the house.  You would be 
perfectly able to determine that the house you were buying was built correctly.

And besides, it wouldn't really get to that point.  After a few losses to 
obvious firetraps, the insurance companies would get wise.  They would have 
their own inspectors.  It would start by them giving you a break on your 
insurance if you had an inspector come and declare that your house was 'up to 
par'.  And an even bigger break if you had the inspector check the house while 
it was being built.  As more and more people took advantage of this insurance 
break, the cost of insuring an UNinspected home would skyrocket.  It would 
likely eventually get to the point where no insurance company would even insure 
an uninspected house.

So we'd get to basically exactly where we are now, with one big difference - no 
force was ever involved.  If I wanted to build a house with no inspections, I'd 
be perfectly free to do so.  No one would come around with a stop work order, 
no police would visit my door.  But I couldn't insure the house, and no one 
would ever want to buy it.

Every house - or nearly so - would be inspected, simply because it made good
economic sense to have it inspected.  I'd pay the inspector to come to my house
and give it his seal of approval, not because he had the power to stop me from
building, but because he was *adding value to the house*.  I'd be *buying*
insurability.  

The insurance inspector would probably be just as bureaucratic and stupid as 
the existing building inspectors, but because force - or the threat of it - has 
been removed from the relationship, that relationship is entirely different.  
To say nothing of being far more civilized.

Paul

    I don't really have a problem with minimum building codes as long as
    these codes don't end up generating a monopoly for the trade unions,
    like those that exist in Mass. Any homeowner should be allowed to do
    their own work, pull permits, etc. The inspection rules should be the
    same, regardless who did the work, and if the inspector won't pass the
    work, then he should have to quote chapter and verse what is wrong.
    Demanding licensed plumbers, electricians, or whatever is just a way to
    rip off homeowners. As long as the work is done correctly, it shouldn't
    matter who did it.
    
    Eric

	By it's very nature an inspection after a house is complete cannot
    be as efficient as inspections done while a house is under
    construction.  For example, no inspector would have been able to
    tell me that a few of my rafters are up to a quarter of an inch
    away from my ridge pole because they were cut wrong.  The roof was
    sheathed and the attic crawlspace is inaccessible.  An inspector
    can tell you if the connections at a box are correct but who knows
    how many splices are buried inside the wall because the piece of
    romex was too short.
    
    	There should be codes and permits but they should be affordable
    or free and they should be able to be pulled and the work done by
    any homeowner whether its plumbing, electrical, construction or
    whatever else we do.   How the quality of the people who do the
    inspections gets improved is another matter.  I mean, a permit was
    pulled for my house and I assume it was inspected.
    
    	Actually, I'm torn by this issue.  I do good work so I shouldn't
    have to get permits.  On the other hand, the bozo that owned my
    house before me didn't know s**t and he SHOULD have to get a permit.
    :-)
   
    George

    I think building codes should protect the community against
    the consequences of bad construction practices, but otherwise
    leave considerable more leeway.  Massachusetts, where I live,
    is rapidly making it impossible for people to do reasonable
    things to their homes by adopting regulations that are costly
    to obey.
    
    As examples of the community suffering from bad construction
    practices, the following come to mind:
    (1) Not having backflow prevention valves on plumbing, so that
    contaminated water could get sucked back into the water supply.
    (2) Putting in underground oil storage tanks in an aquifer.
    (3) Having underinsulated homes, with the result that fuel
    is wasted, leading to shortages, thereby leading to higher
    fuel prices for those less able to afford the higher prices.
    
    We're involved in an addition right now, and we had to spend
    an additional $1350 to replace our septic tank, just in case
    we, or some unknown future purchaser, decides to use the extra
    space to accommodate more people than the old tank could
    accommodate.  What an absolute !#@#@@#$^&"&^*^ rule.  This is,
    in my opinion, where the building code gets unreasonable.
    

    re .0:

    If the detached house next to mine catches fire because of faulty
    electrical work, it endangers my house.

    re codes in general:

    I think codes are good, but I think any homeowner should be allowed
    to do his own plumbing and electrical work, if it can pass inspection.
    Codes should keep fly-by-night contractors honest, provided permits
    are pulled and inspections are done.

    I had a contractor remodel my kitchen.  He said his son the licensed
    electrician would do the electrical work, and his son the licensed
    plumber would do the plumbing.  He said he wouldn't bother with
    a permit because he wasn't doing new construction, just replacing
    what was already there.  Later a plumber looked under the sink
    and said that no licensed plumber would have done it that way,
    it wasn't to code, and it would never pass inspection.  If I'd
    been smart enough to insist on all permits, my kitchen would be
    properly plumbed.  As it is, there's one trap for a triple sink,
    a disposal, and a dishwasher.  To plumb it properly, I'd have to
    take out the cabinets.  The contractor's out of business (heart
    attack), and I'm out of luck.

    Since this note was inspired by a tendency to digress, I will digress a
    tad.  I know I could digress under a "humor" note but I thought it
    would go well here.  I heard the following story once:
    
    A Nashua building inspector was known to inspect construction by
    walking into the structure and looking up at all of the joists to
    assure that the little pieces of wood used to keep the joists from
    twisting were all nailed with two nails on each end.  If not the
    house failed.  As contractors learned this, they would soon assign
    a carpenter the task of assuring that the proper quantity of nails were
    in place in all cases.  Inspections went faster and construction moved
    along at a quick pace as a result.
    
    (yes, in case you haven't drawn the conclusion, that inspector never
    looked at anything else, living under the assumption that if the
    builder has attended to this small detail he has obviously done
    everything else.)
    
    Then there was the story of the plumbing inspection at the Hilton
    in Merrimack.  The inspector was in the basement looking into an
    open pipe when 'someone' flushed.  He had to come back to reinspect.
    
    ed

    re .-1   One of the electrical inspectors in Nashua works the same way.
    Must be city policy!  He made sure that all the ground wires were
    attached by GREEN screws and looked at nothing else.
    
    re .0    I agree with Paul, and have working examples of that
    philosophy at work.   In the town of Westport, Maine (pop 500) where
    I built a vacation home 3 years ago, they have neither building nor
    electric inspections.   They do have a plumbing permit/inspection
    system, but it's very easy to deal with.   
    
    The philosphy is as Paul said - if you're dumb enough to kill yourself
    or not take precautions against buying a house that could kill you,
    then tough luck.   The only thing the plumbing inspector up there
    really cares about is the septic system because of the high probability
    of your own idiocy affecting others via pollution (in a way they can't
    protect themselves against).
    
    BTW, the tax rate is $4.30 per $1000.  That's what I call government
    out of my hair!
    
    One of the things that this philosophy forces is more technical
    knowledge of building on the part of all homeowners.  See the next
    note for more on this digression.

    One of the phenomena that has led to the current situation has been the
    ever-decreasing technical competence of the average homeowner.  Whether
    this is because people WANT the government to worry about their homes
    or not is something I won't get into (suffice to suggest that perhaps
    over-government is the result of under-responsibility by individuals).
    
    In municipalities with reduced government intervention in building
    (mainly rural areas), I find that people tend to know more about
    construction and codes, on average, then they do down here.  They have
    to bacause they can't rely on the government to assure them that the
    house they're buying won't fall down in two weeks. Consequently (and
    perhaps counter-intuitively) there are also fewer "Acme Home
    Inspection" type places.
    
    My point is simple - Is it too much to ask that people take more of an
    interest in what is the largest investment and otherwise one of the
    most important things in their lives?  The building trades are not
    rocket science. They change very slowly compared to other technology.
    If people didn't pass the buck and took responsibility for their own
    comfort and safety then maybe we wouldn't be where we are today.
    
    (Awaiting flames about the tired, the poor, the afflicted...  :-)

    To the moderator, I have done a dir/title=door, and looked at over a 
    hundred notes dealing w/ doors (installation, fixing,finishing etc..)
    None however deal w/ removing an exterior door and posible code
    violations. So here goes........
    
    We recently added an addition to our home, and added a new front 
    door. We now have 2 (main ?) entrances to our home. The plan was to 
    remove the older one (existing) at a latter date (soon). The question
    was recently raised as to weither or not it was a code violation.
    The front of the house is as follows:
    
    
    |            |    |              |                    |
    |            |    |               --                  |
    |           /     |                 |                 |
    |           |     |                 |                 |
    -------------+---+---------------+--+------------------
       ^           ^        ^         ^        ^
       |           |        |         |        |
    bedroom     door    diningroom   door    bedroom
    
    The older door is this one  ------^ , and the new one (on left)
    was designed to suit the needs of the house (traffic patterns etc..)
    So basically we have 3 rooms out front, and want to have one front
    door. Does this violate and codes. Do you need X amount of
    egress for X amount of rooms ???
    
    By the way we have a sliding door, as well as a regular door on the
    back of the house, as well as a walk out cellar. 5 Doors are a little
    much to check every time we walk out the house.
    
    Anybody see a problem w/ removing the front door in the diningroom ??
    
    thanks/bob
    

    well, i can't claim any expertise on the code...
    but when i put in my addition I was told I had to have
    the cellar door, one front and one back.  (i have a
    7 room cape-sort of house).  That's all I was told to
    be sure to have.  So, I would think you could
    remove the diningroom door with no problems...
    but...
    

                                                                      
    	Re: .7
    
    	So what are potential homebuyers supposed to do -- rip out all the
    sheetrock and insulation to inspect the quality of the work before making
    an offer to buy the place??!!??  I doubt that the current owner would
    approve of such a real estate "showing" practice.  (I can see it now,
    "here's the bathroom, and over here is the lovely fireplace, and yes,
    you can plug your SawsAll into this outlet..." :-)
    
    	(As an aside, change only several phrases in .7 and it sounds a lot
    like the "If the customer isn't technical, why are they buying our
    computers?" argument.  Didn't work for computers, won't work for
    homes.  I shouldn't have to know how to be an auto mechanic to own a
    car and presume its safe.)
    
    	I believe that the codes should exist and have a very good reason
    for existing.  At the same time, however, I am appalled that places
    like Taxachusetts have the nerve to mandate that only licensed people
    can do certain types of work.  Mandate the minimum quality of the work
    and require inspections?  Sure, but let Joe Homeowner who happens to know
    how to meet or exceed the minimum quality level do the work.
    
    	In short -- code?  Yes.  Inspections?  Yes.  Licensed people only? 
    No way!!!
    
    								-craig

    The permit 'game' and inspections here in my town (in NJ) is pretty
    tough - the excuse given is that there is no occupancy permit required
    to sell and move into a house, so they try to bring things up to
    snuff by keeping an eye on remodeling.
    
    My neighbor got caught finishing a basement - the town issued a
    cease and decist until he got a permit and inspected.

    	-Barry-
    

    Not trying to critize any DIY, I've been an electrician for quite
    a few years now and have spent a good 30% of my time repairing
    or replacing what homeowners have done themselves. Whether it was
    current homeowners or previous didn't really matter. Knowing how
    to install a piece of romex or a piece of copper pipe for that matter
    does not mean you know the hazards involved, and that's the key.
    Let me share my most recent experience with you, and you can draw
    your own conclusions. An aquaintance of mine called to tell me the
    light in his NEW BABY'S room wasn't working and neither was the
    outlet for the ELECTRIC HEATER. After some initial looking around
    I found in the crawl space attic 2 charred timbers above the babys
    room. Underneath was a splice box feeding the light in that room
    which was fed off the outlet via a piece of aluminum wire. Please
    note it was not the fault of the aluminum but rather the 2" long
    wire connections in the splice box. The box was a molten mass of
    medal, all wires in that area were charred or burned(still live).
    After some prying, I found that this light was installed less than
    2 mos. ago but the wifes father(who knew how to do wiring)(of course
    doesn't everybody?). The kicker to all this is the occupation of
    the installer was a fireman. (I will not mention the town) I'm sure
    this guy DIDN'T realize the hazards involved, after all it was his
    new grandsons room. What do you think? But this is a typical situation
    I've found, certainly not isolated in any manner. Codes? Definitely.
    Permits? Absolutely! Exceptions? Yes in some instances where an
    inspector is willing to let home owners do there own work. There
    are a lot of competent people who are not licensed and there are
    a lot of incompetent people who are. That's why we need inspectors.

    So basically it boils down to there are idiots on both sides of
    the fence, but probably more at the homeowner end.  Fine.  I
    still should be able to do ANY work on my own house as long as
    I pull the permits, get it inspected and it passes.  And the
    fees for the permits should be reasonable (covering the costs
    of the inspector's time).
    
    But, that's not the way it is here in Mass.  So what happens?
    Homeowners don't pull permits and as a consequence the work
    CAN be unsafe or downright hazardous.  But just because a
    homeowner did the work don't automatically assume the work is
    below "pro" standards; and vice versa for "pros".

    I fully agree... inspectors are a MUST in most/any instence of this
    kind. BUT I feel that the state (Mass in this case) causes people
    to do their own thing "under the table" because the states massive
    regulations have driven the costs of such "licensed work" out of
    sight for homeowners.
    
    I know... what is the cost of a life when someone makes a wiring
    mistake. 
    
    If the state would make people feel more at ease about pulling the
    permits and getting the inspections, they would comply with such
    things. If they continue to insist that a licensed contractor complete
    the work, and the cost is allowed to keep rising, then people will
    continue to sneak around doing the wrong thing.
    
    This is beginning to get very redundent, so I'll guit here..!!
    

    Re: -1. 
    
    Of course there are plenty of horror stories about people who think 
    they know how to do plumbing/electrical work.  Some people just don't
    know how to do the work, and either need to learn the basics or never
    touch a pipe/wire as long as they live.  
    
    The problem is the laws here in Massachusetts don't help the situation.  
    They only apply if/when you get caught.  In reality, the law basically
    forces you to hire a licensed contractor in any situation that requires
    an inspection.  It doesn't matter how well YOU could do the job.  And
    that's what's wrong with the law.  The goal is (or should be) that the
    state requires that quality work be done.  The result seems to be that 
    the state mandates that you pay a high price for home rennovation. 
    
    Presumably, bundled into the law is an assumption that if only licensed 
    contractors do the work, and the contractors want to keep their
    license, they will do quality work -- therefore the inspector doesn't
    have to inspect the work as closely, he just needs to check and record
    the contractor's license.  So the homeowner gets penalized for the
    convinence of the inspector and contractor.  
    
    I don't think anyone is advocating shoddy work, but anyone can can still 
    go to the local hardware purchase all the material you need to do a DIY
    plumbing/electrical job.  So the laws don't really prevent anything. 
    They just give the state the opportunity to fine you if you get caught 
    (which seems rather unlikely, unless building inspectors starting
    bashing down your door on Saturday afternoon in an attempt to catch you 
    with a piece of Romex in one hand and a pair of wire clippers in the
    other).  Sounds like one of the state's famous revenue generation 
    schemes to me.  If the real goal you should be allowed to call in the 
    local inspector to check/approve the work regardless of who did it.  
    

    Building codes (and some other regulations) exist for the protection
    of society, not the individual.  By assuring adequate design and
    workmanship, society can be reasonably assured that any individual
    will not create a condition (septic system, fire prevention) which
    will place unnecessary burdens upon public services (fire, police,
    health, medical).  Would anybody claim that strict building codes
    had no value, after seeing what happened to San Francisco?
    
    pbm
    

    Here in Mass we can only expect things to get worst with permits and 
    requirements to have "professionals" do the work. Why! you may ask? 
    Well the answer is very simple GREED by a state that spends and
    wastes money.
    
    Just think about it professionals must pay "large" fees every year to
    the state to be licensed we DIY's don't. Of course the fees are used to
    pay the expenses of the staff and consultants that oversee the issuing
    of the licenses. Also lets not forget the TAX MAN who is on the heels of 
    the building inspector. If you use a "PRO" the cost of a project is much 
    higher making your tax bill climb at a faster rate. (Every wonder about
    what safety rule requires that a building permit have the cost of the
    project listed?) 
    
    Yes inspections and codes do have some safety value, there are some real
    butchers out there both "pro" and DIY, however I really suspect that safety
    is becoming a secondary issue to raising revenue here in Mass.
    
    Just my .02 +.001 tax
    
    Don  (Who just got the tax bill with the new garage added)

    For the record, are any of you stating you cannot pull a homeowners
    Electrical permit? I know you can't pull a plumbing permit, but
    electrical has always been allowed. ( This I'm sure of.)
    

re                    <<< Note 3565.10 by BOXTOP::SIRIANOS >>>

>    note it was not the fault of the aluminum but rather the 2" long
>    wire connections in the splice box. The box was a molten mass of
>    medal, all wires in that area were charred or burned(still live).

         I don't get it--were the 2" wires used for connections bare?
         Please explain how this caused the "meltdown".

As I expected, everyone thinks I'm crazy.  Everyone assumes as a matter of
course that bringing the police into the matter of how I build my house is a
perfectly justifiable action.  EVERYONE is willing to trade their freedom of
action for a little security - even when it can be shown that the VERY SAME 
security can be provided without giving up anything.

--- sigh ---

As I've been proclaiming in my personal name for years now, I don't think - IN
THE LONG RUN - that we'll get to keep either.  

Paul

Paul, your personal name - catchy and self-reliant as it might be - strikes me
as facile, in the face of very difficult questions of where the good of society 
outweighs individual freedoms.

It's pretty universally agreed that your freedom to do what you want doesn't 
include the right, for example, to murder me (even for disputing a fellow 
moderator!) - my right to continued existence dominates.  That's a ridiculous 
example, of course; as the examples become less ridiculous they become more
contentious, until we reach ones that nearly everyone will agree are outside 
the legitimate interests of society and thus are clearly matters of personal 
freedom.

The very concept of ownership of property - which is necessary for your
philosophy of doing what you want with your own stuff - depends on a fairly
orderly social structure, especially when we consider things like land, trees,
and buildings, which are likely to outlast any given individual human.

Absolute personal freedom is anarchy.  People band together to achieve more than
any of them could achieve individually.  If they didn't band together at all,
the species would die out in one generation!

I don't think of it as trading freedom for security.  I think of it as trading
freedoms for society.  When we do so, we can still have both - since existence
in a social structure gives you new freedoms.


	DCL, who is more eloquent than this on home-repair topics

    If there is a requirement that all work, whether it be plumbing or
    electrical or both, be done by a licensed individual, I think you would
    find that that licensed individual's trade group was a driving force
    behind the creation of the requirement.
    
    That is, your plumbers pay to make sure there are laws requiring you to
    hire a plumber and they pay to make sure those laws stay on the books.
    
    DIY'ers by there very nature never band together to get those laws off
    the books.
    
    With regard to a few earlier notes, I think "2-nail" and
    "green-screw" are the same guy.
    
    ed

    I'm on your side, Paul.  (Maybe the only one who is!)
    
    Re:  Several back.  Issuing electrical permits is at town/city
    discretion.  There is no Mass STATE law against doing your own electrical
    work, as there is for plumbing, but many towns/cities will not issue
    electrical permits to homeowners.
    
      

  There are certainly some professions where the original motivation for
  licensing was to protect the consumer. I realize that there are
  problems with any licensing system, and that special-interest groups
  often get control of the legal process, with the result that things
  get very expensive, and the original good intentions are lost. But
  that doesn't mean that the original reasons weren't valid. 

  Would anyone here recommend that surgery should be performed by anyone
  who felt they were competent enough? If not, then what's the important
  difference between medicine and plumbing or electrical wiring? They
  all present threat to life if badly practised. I'm not saying that
  there are no differences. I just think that if we could pinpoint the
  differences which are critical, we might be able to come up with a
  proposed solution to the current mediocre situation. We still have the
  requirement that non-expert consumers be able to get some guarantee
  that work is or was done safely. And we have the requirement to
  preserve a free trade environment so that special interests don't run
  away with the show, driving prices out of control, and probably losing
  the guarantee of safety in the process.

  Can anyone tell me how surgery is significantly different from
  plumbing?

    Re .22	A major difference I see is that surgery is a dangerous
    		activity being performed by one person on another, with
    		potential to do harm to the other person, whereas
    		plumbing as done by a homeowner, is done on the home-
    		owner's own home.
    
    Re .19, "superficial" quote - Isn't "Trade freedom for security - lose
    		both" a quote (or paraphrase of a quote) by Benjamin
    		Franklin?
    
    
    - Debbie	- a Read-Only noter who agrees with Paul's personal name
    

    If I were to perform surgery without licence, there is no possible
    way for an "inspector" to inspect and suggest corrections to my
    work prior to the patient terminating.
    
    If however I install wiring or plumbing without licence, I am able
    (and should be directed) to request/require an inspection prior
    to turning on the electrical or plumbing service I just installed.
    The harm to life comes in only if I complete the job, and turn on
    the service without having a "expert/inspector" insure proper code
    complience.
    
    With surgery, there is no period of "checks and balance" you have
    inflicted possible harm to the patient merely by picking up the
    knife.
    

re:19

> as the examples become less ridiculous they become more contentious, until we
> reach ones that nearly everyone will agree are outside the legitimate interest
> of society and thus are clearly matters of personal freedom. 

The whole problem with this concept is that unless you have a VERY clearly
defined line of what rights "nearly everyone agrees are matters of personal
freedom" and which are "so clear as to be ridiculous", over time the 
"contentious" ones that are ..just.. over the line keep getting pulled over to 
the governmental control side, which moves the line, which makes other ones
close enough to the line to be reached, so they get pulled over, which moves
the line........ 

Case in point - EVERY SINGLE INHABITANT of the United States 200 years ago 
would be absolutely appalled at the control which towns have over YOUR land.
The regulations you must comply with; the permissions you must obtain; the 
zoning regulations over which you have no control; the amount of taxes you must
pay - ALL of these would be absolutely clear violations of personal freedom 200
years ago.  But at some point as the line has moved further and further from
freedom and closer and closer to governmental control, each of those rights
came within reach and were pulled over the line.  Now the line has moved so far 
past them that most people regard them in the "so clear as to be ridiculous" 
category. 

If this process showed any sign of stopping, of reaching a certain point of 
governmental control and then deciding that was enough - well then, maybe, as 
you say, that's the price of living in society.  But, on the contrary, it shows 
every sign of *accellerating*, so I periodically feel the need to play Paul 
Revere and go running through the streets (or the notesfiles :^) shouting a 
warning.

This is digressing a bit :^) from building codes, but the line has moved so far 
that it is not enough to simply say "I don't believe building codes should 
exist at all".  Background needs to be established; the concept of being able
to make my own decisions *and take my own responsibility* for my own land has
been so far lost that no one even knows what I'm talking about.  People seem to
regard a desire to live freely as some sort of immature, petulant self
interest, when it is one of the very few things worth fighting for on this 
earth.

Now do you all see why I didn't want to leave this digression in another note?
:^)  I knew that if an officially sanctioned discussion of this nature started, 
I wouldn't be able to keep out of it, and I also knew that my viewpoint would 
just throw gasoline on the fire.

Paul

    
    	Paul,
    
    	Fine, you do have the right to do silly things to yourself.  But
    how, short of ripping out half the house to check on the other half, is
    a potential buyer supposed to know that you did the right things?  Is
    this person supposed to just trust you or say "gee, it didn't burn down
    in the year since it was electrically upgraded, so it must be ok?" 
    
    
    Re: a few more back there (also Paul?)
    
    	200 years ago was a massively different story -- how many utilities
    and potentially lethal items were buried in the walls?  Sheeze, back
    then you just walked into the house, look at the beams, floor, roof and
    fireplace and say "ayup, they look fine" and go sign on the dotted line.
    Times and technologies do change.  There weren't cars 200 years ago either,
    so does that mean that the government shouldn't install traffic lights at
    intersections since they didn't have to 200 years ago? 
    
    								-craig

    I happen to agree with Paul.  I don't believe the the codes that we
    have are as necessary as some of the liberals in this note have been
    saying.  There is absolutely NO REASON why each town should be allowed
    to tell the homeowners what they can and cannot do with their homes. 
    There are design trade-offs which are being forced by these codes.  For
    example, the ONLY type of faucet that is allowed in a shower, as I
    understand it, is one of those no-scald types.  However, the only kind
    of no-scald faucets that I have seen are the ugly round single handle
    ones.  This now makes for an ugly design, required because the codes
    did not allow alternatives, such as running separate pipe to the
    shower.
    
    Here in Massachusetts, the plumbing unions have locked their grasp on
    the market ever tighter.  You cannot become a licensed plumber without
    being a member of the union.  You cannot become a member of the union
    without have connections.  Thus, the supply is kept low and by result
    the prices are kept high.  There is absolutely NO REASON why a
    homeowner cannot do their own work.
    
    This will continue to get worse, as long as we have people like Dukakis
    in office.  These kinds of people only believe that the average citizen
    is a complete a**hole and should not be allowed to do anything without
    prior approval from our wonderful big brother - the government.  This
    will then allow them to take ever more money from our pockets, and
    thus gain more control.  I feel we have gone entirely too far in this
    direction and it is about time we dumped some of these bleeding heart
    liberals in favor of more reasonable, property-rights, type of people.
    
    I do not like being told what I can/cannot do with MY OWN PROPERTY!
    
    ED..
    

    I fully agree with Ed (.27). I am presently in a battle concerning
    the same thing. I won't go into detail because the discussion is
    going on in the COLORADO and RV notesfiles. In short, I've been
    told that my RV must be moved from my property and parked in a public
    storage facility or face legal action.! Not on "building codes"
    but another example of "the line being crossed".
    
    I do not feel that ANYONE has the right to tell me what I can and
    can not do to or with my property as long as what I do does not
    harm someone LEGALLY on my property.
    
    If I need electrical and/or plumbing work done, I should be given
    the RIGHT to choose to complete the work myself (if I'm capable,
    my choice) or hire a contractor (at competative rates). The permit
    issue is yet another problem which would need to be addressed. As
    long as a permit and inspection is not linked to some deal for the
    trades, then I would agree to an honest permit/inspection system
    of checks/balance.
    
    I think it is about dam time we put the breaks on this "BIG BROTHER"
    government who feels every citizen is basic morons who can't do
    anything for themselved. We need to start the ball rolling back
    in the other direction OR WEs in BIG TROUBLE as a nation (on the
    whole).

    
    There are some other things you have to consider when doing the
    work in your house, "Will anyone else every own this house???"
    The reason for building codes is to get rid of shoddy work done
    by some self proclaimed experts in home repair. What's the next
    person who owns the house suppose to do rip out everything someone
    who dosn't know what the hell their doing just so they can live
    in a safe house.
    
    I'm not saying that you should be forced into hiring a someone to
    do it, but what you do, should be safe for now and in the future.
    
    Mike

>    	Fine, you do have the right to do silly things to yourself.  But
>    how, short of ripping out half the house to check on the other half, is
>    a potential buyer supposed to know that you did the right things?  Is
>    this person supposed to just trust you or say "gee, it didn't burn down
>    in the year since it was electrically upgraded, so it must be ok?" 

Re-read .0 - there are plenty of non-coercive ways to ensure that a house you 
purchase was built correctly.  And even if there weren't, the fact that you 
might want to buy my house some day is not sufficient reason for you to force
me to build it to your specifications.

I might want to buy your car someday.  Do I have the right to insist that you 
change the oil every 3000 miles?

You are correct in saying that there hazards in houses that were not there 200 
years ago.  You are also correct in saying that people want safe houses, and 
the assurance that they are safe.  But the voluntary methods of making sure
houses are safe have not even been *explored*, let alone discounted.

Paul

    Re: .28
    
    The government isn't them, it is us.  There are a lot of us who have
    learned from experience that there are a lot of citizens who are "basic
    morons who can't do anything [RIGHT] for themselves".  There is a long
    list of "why did they ever do that" notes.  I'm still puzzled by the
    fact that someone installed the pressure relief valve on my electric
    water heater ON THE COLD WATER SUPPLY LINE.  In Massachusetts,
    presumably by a licensed person, and presumably inspected before the
    original owners moved in.
    
    and it took seven years before anyone noticed.
    
    Common sense is not very common.
    
    Elaine
    

re .30
    
>And even if there weren't, the fact that you 
>might want to buy my house some day is not sufficient reason for you to force
>me to build it to your specifications.
    I don't buy that. The fact that other members of society have the
    potential to be affected adversely by the current homeowner, requires
    proof that the building is up to code.

>I might want to buy your car someday.  Do I have the right to insist that you 
>change the oil every 3000 miles?
    No. The frequency of oil changes does affect safety. However, you
    certainly have the right to insist that the car passes a safety
    inspection. 

>But the voluntary methods of making sure
>houses are safe have not even been *explored*, let alone discounted.
    It seems those methods heavily involve the insurance industry.
    What makes you think their regulations will be less constraining
    than the state or local ones? What is the real difference between
    the gov't interfering with private lives, and the insurance
    industry? If possession of an ins. policy (after the ins company
    has done the necessary inspections) becomes the single criteria
    a homebuyer or builder looks for, all you've really accomplished
    is a substitution from one institution for another.
    
    John

    The difference is (assuming you own the house outright and don't have
    a mortgage) you don't have to have insurance by law, but you do have to
    build to town codes by law.
    
    Eric

    Right, but how many houses are constructed/bought w/o some type
    of loan? Furthermore, based on Paul premise, a policy (stamp of
    approval by vitually a governing body) is what separates a good
    house from a bad house. No one is going to touch a bad house.
    Despite the fact that *technically* this scenario will let you
    build a house w/o permits and inspections, *practically* it would
    never happen. So... Would you rather be ruled by a private
    industry with whom you have no control, or a government where at
    least you can voice your opinion?!
    
    John

    If you don't like the law (code), get it changed.
    
    If you are right, in the concensus of voters in your community,
    it probably won't be hard.  If you are wrong in the concensus, you
    may fail, but you probably SHOULD fail, since so many other opinions
    disagree.
    
    There are lots of stupid laws on the books in all aspects of life.
    The whole judicial system would be better off if people would work
    to eliminate the parts that are senseless.  And leave alone the
    parts that are justified, particularly for health and safety reasons.
    (like requiring inspections by competent professionals who are required
    to REALLY thoroughly INSPECT!)
    
    I don't own my own house, yet, but a big reason I want to is to
    make it the way I want it.  On the other hand, I want to be sure
    that SOMEBODY assures me it's done in a way that is properly
    engineered, properly crafted, and that there will be no negative
    ramifications from the work.
    
    Sherry

>What's so sacrosant about safety?  People hold up "safety" as if it were the
>highest law of the land.
    Ok. Substitute safety for life and/or health. Plumbing and electrical
    work not done properly can cause fires, pollute drinking water, etc.
    That affects life and health.
>      If I can insist that you inspect your house because
>at some potential time in the future your lack of inspection might affect my
>safety, why can't I insist that you change your oil because it might affect my
>financial security?
    Current construction regulations are intended to protect life and
    health, not financial security. My statement "adversly affect" was
    to mean life and health.
    
>Some methods off the top of my head involve the insurance industry.  But since
>we've never explored what methods exist, there are almost certainly
>    others.
    Such as?

>>    What makes you think their regulations will be less constraining
>>   than the state or local ones? 

>I don't actually
    And the potential is far greater for the restrictions to be more
    constraining, given they are a private industry who should do as
    they please, correct?

>> What is the real difference between the gov't interfering with private lives, 
>> and the insurance industry? 

>About the biggest difference possible in human interaction.  The lack of force.
>The insurance industry would not be "interfering" in your life.  They would be
>simply offering a service.  They will offer the added value to your house of 
>the insurance inspection, if you desire it.  If you don't want it, that's fine 
>too.
    Be realistic. If the insurance company replaces uncle sam as the
    approver/disapprover (via granting a policy) of liveability, it
    will not be merely "added value". Banks will not grant mortgages
    w/o a policy, and a policy will not be given unless an inspection,
    or series of inspections was done during construction. The market
    for a house w/o a policy will be viturally non-existant. Therefore,
    we will all be dependent on our friendly insurance company who,
    free from government regulation *and* the democratic process, will
    require whatever they wish from the builders and buyers, since their
    stamp of approval is now the single qualifier of a good house. If this
    path were taken, the people would scream, and goverment would then
    regulate the industry (mandating *their* set of codes), or simply
    do what it's doing now. =
    
    John

Paul

P.S.  I'm sort of having fun getting on a roll - I haven't had a chance to 
      defend freedom for a while, and I do love to.

    This discussion is so complicated already, that I doubt we're going to
    resolve anything here.  But so what?  Let me throw in a new wrinkle.
    
    What about those portions of building codes that don't appear to have
    any obvious connection to public safety.  I'm thinking of the
    requirements on insulation.  Why do you care if I'm spending a fortune
    on heating my home, or vice versa?
    
    I believe an argument can be made to justify these requirements, but
    it's complex and subtle.  We get most of our energy from burning
    hydrocarbons; hydroelectric and nuclear power are, I'm guessing,
    relatively distant second and third place holders.  The burning of
    hydrocarbons (oil, gas, coal, wood) pollutes the air, and air pollution
    kills people (not all of it, not everyone, not everywhere, but there
    are documented deaths directly caused by severe pollution during
    temperature inversions).  Furthermore, electric companies frequently
    use rights of way on public property to transport their energy; they
    were granted those rights of way with the understanding that they would
    conform to laws that govern the energy business.
    
    So suppose you build your house with no insulation, and claim that
    because it's your property, you shouldn't be forced to insulate it.  Do
    you have an unlimited right to connect the wiring in that house to the
    electric company's wires?  I don't believe you can demand such a
    connection.  I think it's reasonable for us, acting through our
    government, to say "we'll allow this coal burning electric plant here
    to pollute our air, provided the people using the electricity from the
    plant make reasonable efforts not to squander it."  
    
    Or suppose you don't care about electricity, and you just want to heat
    your house with wood or oil.  Again, do you have the unlimited right to
    pollute the air?  I don't believe that you have the right to burn wood
    in such a manner that you generate carbon monoxide, which is then
    directed right into my living room window, so I don't believe you have
    such unlimited rights.  The question is, where do we draw the limit? 
    Is it really unreasonable to say that we'll allow you some pollution,
    as long as you take other steps (insulation) to help keep the pollution
    to a minimum?
    
       Gary

>>About the biggest difference possible in human interaction.  The lack of force.
>>The insurance industry would not be "interfering" in your life.  They would be
>>simply offering a service.  They will offer the added value to your house of 
>>the insurance inspection, if you desire it.  If you don't want it, that's fine 
>>too.
>    Be realistic. If the insurance company replaces uncle sam as the
>    approver/disapprover (via granting a policy) of liveability, it
>    will not be merely "added value". Banks will not grant mortgages
>    w/o a policy, and a policy will not be given unless an inspection,
>    or series of inspections was done during construction. The market
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^
>    for a house w/o a policy will be viturally non-existant.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     

No, the price for such a house will go down, maybe way down, or it will be
brought up to code by the owner before it's sold.

And if the price goes low enough, then maybe someone with who doesn't make
enough to pay for a mortgage, but has a large down payment for a house, could
possibly afford such a house outright, if he decides that the risk is worth
it.  And I bet that mortgages would become available that mortgage only the
land (which can't burn down), so one could essentially buy the house outright
and mortgage only the land.  The mortgage company could care less if the house
burns down, since they'll still have their land. A much larger down payment
would be needed, but this is partially offset by more affordable housing for
those willing to bring the home up to their own standards, if needed, at the
expense of not getting the "good" price when they sell.  Of course if the person
is willing to have a lot of work done (gut the house and bring it up to code)
he could make a killing, and there'd be another known safe house on the market.

-Mike

>>    for a house w/o a policy will be viturally non-existant.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     
>No, the price for such a house will go down, maybe way down, or it will be
>brought up to code by the owner before it's sold.
    I see your point. We'd have a new form of howeownership for the
    poor. The same people who rent the unsafe firetraps now, (because
    that's all they can afford) could buy the same thing! What a wonderful
    concept!

>And if the price goes low enough, then maybe someone with who doesn't make
>enough to pay for a mortgage, but has a large down payment for a house, could
>possibly afford such a house outright, if he decides that the risk is worth
>it.
    I'm sure there's *lots* of people in that catagory! A lot of cash
    in hand, but little monthly income? Please.
>      And I bet that mortgages would become available that mortgage only the
>land (which can't burn down), so one could essentially buy the house outright
>and mortgage only the land.
    Come back to reality. What same person, living in this scenario,
    will build a house w/o the insurance company's blessing, knowing
    the value will plummet? No one. I still contend we'd be in worse
    shape with the insurance industry calling the shots instead of the
    towns and state.
    John

    re: .-2
    
    As I said earlier, rather than continuing to bring up hypothetical or
    200-year old examples of this kind of ethic in action, all you need to
    do is look at what happens in those rural areas where government has
    not yet gotten as big as it has in urban areas.
    
    Yes, you do see trailers and other substandard housing in those areas. 
    But in almost every case those dwellings are owned rather than rented
    (or, worse, gov't subsidized).  What's wrong with the concept
    that eliminating a minimum housing standard allows the poor to enter
    the market?
    
    Most of these people at least have the pride of ownership of their own
    land, and over time if income permits, will bring the condition of the
    dwelling up to current standards.
    
    Are they taking a risk my moving into something which might kill them?
    Of course.  But that risk is powerful motivation to do something about
    it when you know that no one else (i.e. the govt) will help you.

re:.36

[ Changing the law via democracy ]

You say if I can get the consensus of the voters, then I can change things.    
But there's one flaw in this.  My desire to live on my own land my own way and 
your desire to have me live on my land according to your specifications are NOT 
desires of equal validity.  Democracy is great as far as it goes, but the 
majority can be just as bad a tyrant as any dictator.  If we didn't have the 
Bill of Rights, I have no doubt that our populace would have voted away many of 
the rights enumerated there.  Unfortunately, that document lists specific 
rights, rather than stating a general principle.  Many people at the time the 
Bill of rights was introduced argued against it, saying that by listing certain 
rights it would encourage some people to believe that everything else was up
for grabs.  The principle which they ALL agreed on, and of which the Bill of 
rights are simply specific instances, was that in so far as you do not directly
harm anyone else, each person has complete freedom of action.  Would that they
had written that down. 

re:37

Regarding the protection of life and health:

Of course the government does not need to wait until you actually kill or maim 
someone to stop you from doing something that is very dangerous, for example, 
discharging firearms within city limits or speeding 60 mph in a school zone.

But the danger must be a real and present danger.  The action the government is 
preventing must *in and of itself* present a direct danger - and a significant 
one.  Note that I started this all out by saying "detached house".  If you are 
in a row house, directly attached to the house next door, then you are directly 
endangering your neighbors by doing unsafe wiring.  Different situation.

It is simply way too nebulous to use as a justification that an action may, at
some unspecified time in the future, harm someone.  Particularly when that
person would knowingly enter into a situation where they knew that particular
harm was possible. 

And do you really believe that the current building code system is any more
responsive to the "democratic process" than insurance companies would be?  Be
realistic.  This whole bit with the requirement to have licenced plumbers and 
electricians argues against that.

re:38

regulating insulation

Certainly a legitimate function of government is the protection of non-ownable 
resources: air, water, etc.  So certainly the government is perfectly justified 
in doing things like, for example, limiting the emmissions of wood stoves.

But a mistake that the government frequently makes is to regulate some cause of 
the particular effect that is causing a problem, instead of the effect itself.

If the effect you desire to reduce is air polution, then aim regulations 
directly at air pollution, not at some thing which - in some cases - causes 
more air pollution.  For example, I think the government should have long, 
long, ago required extensive stack scrubbing and other pollution reducing 
devices on all electric plants.  That would considerably raise the cost of 
electricity - perhaps double it.  Which would in turn cause people to conserve 
electricity.

The problem with your reasoning is that by *exactly* the same train of thought, 
we can have the police fine people for leaving their lights on unnecessarily.
Ridiculous, no?  But the government is capable of that level of ridiculousness 
and more.

Back in the 1920's, various bars and speakeasies in New York City used to stay 
open late, and the noise became a problem for people living near the bars, 
particularly when the band was playing horns, since they are louder.  So NYC 
regulated the bars - which I agree is perfectly legitimate, BTW.  But they did 
not regulate the effect that was causing the problem - they regulated the 
cause.  The law is still on the books in NYC that you may not play a horn after
11:00.  This came to light a couple of years ago because NYC was *enforcing* 
this stupid law.  With the advent of amplifiers, the type of instrument is 
irrelevant to the noise level, it's perfectly legal to crank up an amplified 
sax to 110 db, or to play albums of horns at any volume, but you can't play a 
horn.

re:41

>>No, the price for such a house will go down, maybe way down, or it will be
>>brought up to code by the owner before it's sold.
>    I see your point. We'd have a new form of howeownership for the
>    poor. The same people who rent the unsafe firetraps now, (because
>    that's all they can afford) could buy the same thing! What a wonderful
>    concept!

I see your point.  Through regulation let's make it impossible to provide 
housing that poor people can afford at all, so we can then either let them go 
homeless or put them in housing projects.  What a wondeful concept!

Paul

    
    	Re: counter example of buying a car
    
    	This is a silly counter example.  The **MAJOR** difference between
    buying a car and a house is the ability to *non-destructively* verify
    the condition of the car.  You want to buy my car and have it checked
    over first?  No problem -- your mechanic can spend a few hours looking
    at the car, determine its condition and, unless the mechanic is really
    bad at his job and won't be doing it for much longer, can return the car
    to the condition in which it came into the shop.  (ie. brakes back on,
    spark plugs back in, etc.)  HOW DO YOU DO THIS WITH A HOUSE????  Tell me
    how you can non-destructively verify the condition of what is buried in
    the walls, don't just stand on the soap box of "defending freedom."
    
    							-craig

> Tell me how you can non-destructively verify the condition of what is buried
> in the walls
    
How has this been done with the thousands and thousands of houses that were 
built long before building codes existed?  It hasn't.  What horrible things 
have happened as a result?  Very few.  A couple of older homes have burned down 
due to faulty wiring.  This is part of the reason that older houses (unless they
have antique value) are less expensive than newer ones - the buyer has no
assurance of what is in the walls.  

My whole point in this note is that as people found that they wanted an 
assurance of the construction of a house, they made NO effort to discover a 
voluntary method of accomplishing that.  Given the more and more prevalent 
attitude of "See a problem - pass a law", they went straight to building codes.

Do you all really believe, given the number of people who want houses which are 
known to be safe, that there is no way to accomplish this except by means of 
laws?

Paul

    
    Re: .44
    
    	Care to give us some examples of how it could be done instead of
    just arguing that it has never been tried?  If you could describe a
    do-able method, I'm sure many of us who feel that the code should exist
    might change our mind.  Not giving us alternatives, however, provides
    no reason for us to change our position.
    
    								-craig

    re .45
    
    Good point.
    
    Mr Weiss,
    
    I have to disagree with you, but society does and should have a
    right to tell you how to build a house. Do you live alone??? If
    not then the decisions you make in building a house is going to
    effect not just you but the people/family you live with. I don't
    feel that you hve the right to put anyone in any kind of danger.
    By building a house that is of poor design with shody electrical
    can put peoples lives in danger. Also poorly designed or poorley
    installed plumbing can effect other people who arn't even with you,
    like your neighbors.
    
    If you live alone and want to build a house without any kind of
    safety inspection, then go ahead. However, there should be a clause
    someplace that says that noone can ever come live with you, without
    knowing the risks, and that you would never be able to put that
    house up for sale, because there are many safety features that go
    into the construction of a house that can't be verified after the
    house is completed. 
    
    The volunteer system you're talking about will never work. People
    are greedy (especially home contractors), and if they can get away
    with building a house for 20k less you can be that they will. And
    3 months later they'll fold the company so you won't be able to
    go after them for your house burning down. Then they'll start up
    another company under a differnt name and do it all over again.
    
    Mike	

  While we've identified the far extremes of this debate, I don't think
  that Paul ultimately advocates a totally unregulated system. Most
  people have said that an adequately thorough inspection would be an
  acceptable way to police DIY wiring and plumbing. 

  I agree with this, but just wonder where the money's going to come
  from for this quality of inspection. People don't want to pay it to
  the govt, so the govt establishes a self-policing system by requiring
  work to be done by licensed professionals. So we end up paying the
  licensed professionals instead of the govt. 

  I see no way to avoid paying SOME amount for a guarantee of adequate
  safety. What I'd like to know is what's the system under which we
  could pay the LEAST. Remember that "paying" involves ALL the costs:
  materials, inspections, fire/hazard insurance, hospitalization, life
  insurance, taxes, etc. Don't anybody kid yourself into thinking that
  you don't pay for anything except materials in a totally unregulated
  system.

re .42
>And do you really believe that the current building code system is any more
>responsive to the "democratic process" than insurance companies would be?  Be
>realistic.  This whole bit with the requirement to have licenced plumbers and 
>electricians argues against that.
	Perhaps the building code process as it is today is not, but how is
	is managed. By government. How is government managed. By the people.
	How are insurance companies managed?

>But a mistake that the government frequently makes is to regulate some cause of 
>the particular effect that is causing a problem, instead of the effect itself.
	How do you regulate the effect? (lung disease, for example)
	Naturally, you must go after the cause.

>If the effect you desire to reduce is air polution, then aim regulations 
>directly at air pollution, not at some thing which - in some cases - causes 
>more air pollution.
	At the pollutants themselves? At the particles of carbon monoxide that
	are released into the air?
>  For example, I think the government should have long, 
>long, ago required extensive stack scrubbing and other pollution reducing 
>devices on all electric plants.
	I think your idea is good. However what you are regulating is a
	cause.

>I see your point.  Through regulation let's make it impossible to provide 
>housing that poor people can afford at all, so we can then either let them go 
>homeless or put them in housing projects.  What a wondeful concept!
	Is owning a deathtrap better than a safe rental? I certainly hope
	not.
	Don't bring the homeless into this, btw. Removing code requirements 
	would do nothing in that respect. If anything, they would get the
	worst examples of substandard housing.

	John

>    	Care to give us some examples of how it could be done instead of
>    just arguing that it has never been tried?  

Well, how is it done now, for older houses?  Inspection companies come in and, 
although they cannot see everything within the walls, they can get a pretty 
good idea from the pieces they CAN see.

If the insurance companies did not come up with in-construction inspections, 
then perhaps independent companies would offer them.  Contractors would again
purchase the inspections so they could state that their house met such-and-such
a standard, which would increase the value of the house. 

Or just make sure that the person who built the house has a good reputation for 
building strong, safe houses.  See below.

Of course you would have to check out each house you looked at for what 
certification it had, but among all the other things you check when buying a 
house, that's not much extra.

re:.46  

>    [You don't ] have the right to put any [visitors or family] in any kind 
>    of danger, or ever sell the house.

You're right, I don't.  But everyone who comes to my house comes there
completely voluntarily.  If I have the freedom of choice (which you concede) to
build my house however I want if *I'm* the only one effected by it, then they
have the freedom of choice to come and visit me.  It's *their* choice to visit 
me.  And the people who might want to buy it have the same freedom of choice to
buy a house that they have no assurance of its construction.

>    Also poorly designed or poorly
>    installed plumbing can effect other people who arn't even with you,
>    like your neighbors.

As I already mentioned, the government has every right to protect non-ownable 
resources, such as groundwater, and as such to make sure that you have a septic 
system that can adequately deal with the waste you produce.

> People are greedy (especially home contractors), and if they can get away with
> building a house for 20k less you can bet that they will. And 3 months later
> they'll fold the company so you won't be able to go after them for your house
> burning down. Then they'll start up another company under a differnt name and
> do it all over again. 

I'm surprised it's taken so long to bring up the "greedy" contractors.  Yes, 
certainly there will be people who will try this sort of thing.  But not many.
The more free an economy, the bigger of an asset (or liability) reputation is.
There does exist a segment of the population who will try to live this way, but 
most people don't really want to keep declare bankruptcy every year and start
over.  There are some who do that now.  There will be PLENTY of contractors who 
want to start a business and have it last, and who will build houses right.

The building codes make reputation much less important, since you know that 
everyone has to build to code.  When a contractor can build a house any way he 
wishes, only a fool would have anything built by someone with a fly-by-night 
reputation.

re: 47

> I don't think that Paul ultimately advocates a totally unregulated system. 

Damn close, though.

re: 48

>>  For example, I think the government should have long, 
>>long, ago required extensive stack scrubbing and other pollution reducing 
>>devices on all electric plants.
>	I think your idea is good. However what you are regulating is a
>	cause.

Absolutely right, thank you.  The government should regulate the level of 
emmissions from the plants, not the method.

Out of time, till next week...

Paul

RE: .42

>But the danger must be a real and present danger.  The action the government is 
>preventing must *in and of itself* present a direct danger - and a significant 
>one.  Note that I started this all out by saying "detached house".  If you are 
>in a row house, directly attached to the house next door, then you are directly 
>endangering your neighbors by doing unsafe wiring.  Different situation.

What concept do you propose to define "detached"? Do you mean 1"?, 25'?

Should this be regulated by code?

Paul,

	You have stated several things like: Let me do it my way and
I don't care how you do it yours.

	Does that mean that I can erect a 5000' tower next door to you using
toopicks, with a lead ball on top. Then when it falls over and crushes your
house, I can say too bad, I didn't have insurance for this so you can sue me,
but, I don't have any money.

	Come on Paul get real.........


Bill

    
    Re: .49
    
    	So instead of having one univerally understood and accepted
    standard per area, you'd favor the insurance companies creating
    different levels of "certification" and have *their* in-construction
    inspections be done to certify the level?  And _that_ is your
    proposed improvement over the current system of having a standard and
    requiring inspections??!!??  Both positions have standards and
    inspections!  What about a homeowner adding an addition/changes?  They
    would have to get it inspected to keep the houses rating.  I don't see
    where the proposal does anything except for creating a confusing set of
    different levels of certifications.  (And quite possible different from
    insurance company to insurance company.)

    
    	And, incidently, you are very legally liable for things that happen
    to your guests.  (Lets not go down a rathole of whether this should be
    changed.)  Even if someone is _not_ invited and they injure themselves
    on your property, you could be liable.  Having guests get injured by
    something that you shortcutted is a very, very quick way of getting
    sued from here to Kalamazoo and back.
    
    							-c
                                            

re:.50
                       -< I love it - no regulations... >-

I love it, too.  And I'm not being sarcastic.  But it makes me [sad!angry!-
disillusioned!etc] that in the once "home of the free" the above statement can 
only be made in sarcasm by the majority of the populace.  

> What concept do you propose to define "detached"? Do you mean 1"?, 25'?

I mean, and this regards your toothpick tower also, that my actions pose a 
direct and significant risk to you or your property.  If my house is attached 
to yours, then you are very much at risk if I do nothing to guard against fire.
If you build your toothpick tower, my house is at risk.  If I just pour sewage 
out my basement, that poses a health risk to you even if I have a 10 acre lot.
But for the vast majority of single-family homes, none of the surrounding 
houses are in significant danger if the house catches fire (this may be less 
true in crowded neighborhoods), and certainly they're not in danger if one of 
the houses collapses.

At what distance from neighboring houses is a fire in your house not a risk to
the other houses?  A few experiments with radiant heat from burning and the
combustion temp of various materials should come up with some guideline. 

>	You have stated several things like: Let me do it my way and
> I don't care how you do it yours.

Let's be clear about what I'm saying.  I completely agree that you as a 
homeowner have no right to risk the health or safety of your neighbors.  As 
such I agree that the government should be able to control, for example, an 
adequate sewage disposal system, although I suppose that if you have a piece of 
land large enough even that is not necessary.  And I agree that if your house 
is within a certain distance of neighboring houses then it should be subject to 
fire control.

But what I'm rejecting completely is that the house should be built to some 
arbitrary standard so that someone who wants to come along some time in the 
future needn't bother taking the time to discover for himself the quality of 
the house.

re:.51

> I don't see where the proposal does anything except for creating a confusing
> set of different levels of certifications.  

How many times must I say that *convenience* is not the point?  Even if I could 
come up with no way for people who want safe houses to get them except by 
forced building codes, I would still reject it.  Just because you want a safe
house does not give you the right to tell me how to build mine, regardless of
how badly you want a safe house, or how many other people want safe houses.  If
you want a safe house so badly, you can build it yourself to your own 
specifications.

And don't just react to my saying you can't tell me how to build a safe house 
with a preprogrammed response that I'm being immaturely, petulantly self 
interested.  *Think* about it.  Where would the right to tell me how to build
my house come from? 

But anyway, you've asked me to come up with an alternative, voluntary way for
people who want safe houses to get them, and I have.  A way which involves no
guns, no police, no confiscating of rights, no conflict of interests.

And then you can stand there and say "I don't see where the proposal does 
anything"?  If our populace has gotten to the point where they no longer even 
*recognize* the difference between free action and government control, our 
country is in a lot more trouble than I thought.

Paul

>At what distance from neighboring houses is a fire in your house not a risk to
>the other houses?  A few experiments with radiant heat from burning and the
>combustion temp of various materials should come up with some guideline. 
                                                               ---------
    I love it!  Another regulation to add to the code!
    
    ed

    That should make for interesting looking neighborhoods!
    
    X  X  X  X                      X                    X  X  X  X
    (houses built              no code house          (houses built
     to code)                                          to code)

    
    Re: .52

    	I am not too blind to realize that your suggestion would get the
    government out of the picture.  All the suggestion does, however, is
    replace standards issued and enforced by group ABC with standards issued
    and enforced by group XYZ.  (Unless, of course, you don't want to
    insure your house or take out a mortgage with a prudent bank that would
    require insurance.)  In your haste to get the government out of the
    picture, you're not seeing that it would be replaced by a more complex
    bureaucracy establishing/managing the levels of certification than what
    we have now!  Getting regulators off your back is a wonderful goal, but
    don't add more complex rules/regulators to the situation _just_ to get
    the government out of the picture.  That is counterproductive to the
    stated goal of no regulations.
    
    	Besides, as was mentioned several notes ago, we all have a voice in
    the government.  (Ok, ok, so that does mean that a majority can tell
    you what to do.)  What is your, or our collective, input in the
    insurance company certificiation rules?  A libertarian view should
    oppose giving that much unbalanced power to that group.  ("Switch to
    another insurance company" would not be an option if they would try to
    eliminate the confusion by setting industry-wide standards.)
    
    								-craig

    
    Re: .54
    
    	As a chuckle, what would happen to the three houses in the group on
    the right if the middle owner decided to put on a non-code addition?
    
    								-c

    RE .55
    THAT'S what I've been trying to explain. Removing code requirements
    would not sit well with banks and insurance companies. Banks
    would not do business with builder and buyers unless someone
    (ins. companies, most likely) came in and blessed the whole
    thing. As such, everyone would be dependent on them. The percentage
    of those who don't need a mortage, and who don't care if their
    house was not blessed by an inspector is infinitely small.
    Add to the fact that private industry (banking and ins) are calling
    the shots regarding what's good and bad, and you have nothing short
    of a nightmare.
    Despite the fact that building code system is flawed and goes
    overboard in some areas, removing it entirely is not the same
    as saying "if a little less is good, a lot less must be better,
    and none at all has to be perfect".
    
    John

re: .55

Sigh.  You say that you are not too blind to realize that the government is out 
of the picture.  But I don't believe you see what that means.  Your statement, 
to me, is like someone saying "Of course I see the difference between World War
I and a nuclear war.  There were no nuclear weapons in World War I.  But so
what?  The people are still fighting." 

Part of the problem is that it's not just the building codes.  Once they exist,
they are used as a justification for further government controls.  I cannot
count the times that I have heard things to the effect of "Well, the government
has the right to regulate how you build your house, so it should have the right
to regulate XYZ."  And there's really no arguing against it - once the right of
the government to intrusively control the life of each individual for the
"common good" is established, there's no stopping it. 

>    What is your, or our collective, input in the
>    insurance company certificiation rules?  A libertarian view should
>    oppose giving that much unbalanced power to that group.  ("Switch to
>    another insurance company" would not be an option if they would try to
>    eliminate the confusion by setting industry-wide standards.)
    
A libertarian view does not view what the insurance companies have as real 
power.  They are offering a service - and listing the conditions under which 
they are offering it.  They should not automatically fall under governmental 
control just because it happens that after a time *everyone* wants that
service. 

And industry-wide standards will not hold if the people are really clamoring 
for something different.  It's like OPEC or any other cartel trying to hold 
together.  They may accomplish it for a while, but after a time the benefits of 
breaking out of the cartel become too great, and one of them will make a break
for it.  Once one goes, everyone does, or be left out. 

Paul

    My feeling is that we would be better off with a voluntary system
    rather than what we have now.  It is true that banks and insurance
    companies would mandate some form of inspection.  This would probably
    result in a more uniform code than the patchwork of state and local
    ordanances we have now.  Especially if the restrictions on the various
    companies getting together to form standards (Antitrust Laws) were
    relaxed in this area.
    
    The advantages I see under such a voluntary system include motivation
    of the inspection.  Insurance companies and banks would be motivated
    by a financial interest.  If the property had problems they would
    lose money. 
    
    Government agencies 'generally' don't have this direct financial
    interest.  They are generally insured by the doctrine of Soveriegn
    Immunity.  
    
    There are other advantages to getting this function out of the
    public sector.  It would be to reduce special interest laws  imposed
    more to satisfy voting cliques rather than safety.  (An example
    of this type of requirement is:  Scottsdale Arizona's privately
    contracted Fire Department that has pioneered much of the last twenty
    years progress in the state of the art, versus a Massachusetts
    regulation prohibiting similar contractual arrangements between
    local governments and private fire companies.  This was passed in
    Massachusetts at the request of the fire fighters unions after many
    towns started hiring private contracters to haul trash.  Ignoring
    the Scottsdale experience the union championed this restriction
    of choices in the name of public safety.)
                                                                
    I am more confident in the forces of enlightened self interest rather
    than government imposed standards that, because of the inertia of
    the system, often become government imposed medorcrity.
    
    -Joe 
    

    Re: .58
    
>Part of the problem is that it's not just the building codes.  Once they exist,
>they are used as a justification for further government controls.  I cannot

    	"They are used" is very strong and definitive language.  Can you 
    provide evidence to this effect other than just "I can't count the times
    that I've heard..."?

>                   And there's really no arguing against it - once the right of
>the government to intrusively control the life of each individual for the
>"common good" is established, there's no stopping it. 

	If there was really no arguing against it, then why are there
    around 60 replies to this topic?  I don't believe things are as neatly 
    cut-and-dry as you present.  And effectively saying "there is no arguing
    against what I just said" is telling me how open you are to discussing
    this topic as opposed to pontificating.  No thanks -- I'm a discussion
    partner (who is now leaving since this isn't a discussion), not an
    audience.

    
    Re: .59
    
    >My feeling is that we would be better off with a voluntary system
    >rather than what we have now.  It is true that banks and insurance
    >companies would mandate some form of inspection.
    
    Voluntary = nearly everyone would be mandated?  Interesting.
    
    								-c
    

    Building codes: Ok for guidelines (ie. Mr. Homeowner if you are to put
    electrical outlets on this wall they "should" be every 6 ft.) not (the
    outlets "will" be every 6 ft.)
    
    Inspections: Ok for guidelines (ie. Mr. Homeowner these outlets
    "should" be closer together.) and the inspections should be a voluntary
    choice of the person doing the work, just to double check himself. You
    could even have the guy back to check any rework you've done. Also
    these inspections should have a reasonable fee attached to them and not
    one that is geared to balance the state budget in one swoop.
    
    Permits: Should not be a requirement. They are only in place to give the
    State another source of income. They don't actually "pay" for anything.
    
    The State should NOT have the right to say that the work MUST be done
    by a licensed contractor or specialist. I've seen some of the work done
    by these "pros" and I know in some if not most cases I could have done
    just as good if not better. If I do work on my house I'm going to be a
    he** of a lot more careful than some contractor. Besides I hate the
    idea of anyone, especially the government, telling me what I can or
    can't do with something I have spent my hard earned money on. When they
    or anyone starts paying my mortgage for me then they can tell me what
    to do, until then BUTT OUT.
    
    
    just my $.02
    /cowboy\

    RE .60
    
    I used the word voluntarilly because no one will be forced to have
    the inspection.  If you choose to go to a bank or insurance company
    that 'forces' you to get an inspection, the inspection is a direct
    result of that voluntary choice.
    
    Today the inspection will be imposed by the state one way or the
    other.  The fact that I would voluntarily have my work inspected
    does not in any way reduce the offensive character of big government
    intervention into my home.
    
    -Joe
    

    RE .62
    
>    I used the word voluntarilly because no one will be forced to have
>    the inspection.  If you choose to go to a bank or insurance company
>    that 'forces' you to get an inspection, the inspection is a direct
>    result of that voluntary choice.
    Problems with this:
    A. A very, very large majority of home buyers obtain financing from a
       bank.
    B. A bank will not grant a loan on an uninspected/not_up_to_code
       house.
    C. As such, the system is not voluntary when we define voluntary
       in a much more *practical* sense.

>    Today the inspection will be imposed by the state one way or the
>    other.
    Here we would have the banking and insurance industry impose
    the codes. Since they have a heavy financial risk (as opposed to
    the states/towns), their requirements would be far more strigent.
    Complaints would pour from builders and buyers alike. Government
    would step in. We would be back to where we started.
    
>      The fact that I would voluntarily have my work inspected
>    does not in any way reduce the offensive character of big government
>    intervention into my home.
    
    Umm, I think that's what I've been saying. You would have your
    work "voluntarily" inspected, because you can't build, or buy
    or refinance, or tap equity, or do anything with a bank without
    that "voluntary" inspection! And when the those two big industries
    get together (since we've deregulated *all* industry, right?) and
    set their new rediculous standards, no one can do anything about
    it because the public does not have a say in industry as they do
    in government!
    
    John

Sorry Craig.  I'd forgotten how many other issues come into a simple defence 
of not having building codes.  This note has been taking more of my time than I 
can really afford, and I've occasionally resorted to definitive statements 
because I haven't had the time to come up with complete justifications.

>>                 And there's really no arguing against it - once the right of
>>the government to intrusively control the life of each individual for the
>>"common good" is established, there's no stopping it. 

Sorry about this misunderstanding.  You didn't parse this the way I meant it.  
In the phrase "and there's really no arguing against it", I meant "it" to refer
to the previous sentence, not to the statement that there's no stopping the
government.  The previous sentence was the one where people were using one 
intrusion of the government to justify another.

I'll give you one example, which I started to write before but stopped because 
I didn't want another rathole.  A number of years ago, the government began 
searching all passengers on airline flights.  Not much ruckus was made, since 
everyone wanted safe flights.  *I* want safe flights.  But the government had
just established the precedent that it can randomly detain and search citizens
who have shown no evidence of doing anything wrong. 

More recently, the government has started roadblocks to catch drunk drivers.  
They stop every car, and examine every driver for signs of being drunk.  Many 
times, when I have argued with people that this is an unreasonable way of 
catching drunk drivers, they have argued: "But we already do that for airline 
flights."

Now tell me, what is the essential difference between stopping every car on the 
road and testing the drivers for drunkenness, and rounding up 100 people in 
Harvard Square and searching them for illegal drugs?  There is a difference of 
degree, certainly - but what *essential* difference?  I can think of none.  In 
both cases the police are searching a random selection of people for possible 
lawbreaking.

THAT is what I meant when I said "You can't argue".  If airport searches are
valid, and unless you can come up with some essential difference between that
and a drug roundup, you can't argue against a drug roundup. 

Paul

    
    	Ok, Paul, I'm back.  I know the feeling about this discussion
    taking more time than it should...  And thanks for the tone of your
    reply, I do feel now like we're talking about this.  Enough of the
    nice comments, however!  :-)
    
    	I have a big problem with the style of position-defense that
    carries things to extreems (ie. "logical conclusions") as the main
    point of defense.  You haven't said why the code is bad other than to
    say where such government intrusion could lead to.  Let me turn the
    tables around to show how this debating style can work (and pretend
    that these phrases are included in a highly emotional message to make
    the comparison correct):
    
    	1)  Eliminating the code will result in X% of the buildings in
    America to be unsafe to the people in it.
    
    	2)  Some of these defective buildings will collapse/burn and will
    injure or kill some number of people each year.
    
    	3)  Since the general populace had to be behind the change for it
    to occur in a democracy, our society is explicitely agreeing that
    people have the right to threaten/take the life of others.
    
    	4)  DWI rules would be thrown out since people would be saying
    "since we allow homebuilders to threaten the life of others, why not
    drunk drivers?"
    
    	5)  In the spirit of fairness, everyone would be issued a machine
    gun so that no member of society can threaten anyone else's life more
    than can someone else.
    
    	6)  Responding to threats is a perfectly reasonable thing for
    someone to do, so it will become perfectly reasonable to walk down the
    street shooting at anyone who is carrying a gun.
    
    	7)  For fear of being shot, most people start to carry guns and
    open -- and legal! -- warfare breaks out everywhere.
    
    	8)  The fragments of society collapse, the free world is no more,
    the irradated cockroaches grow to be 100 feet long and take over the
    cities, etc., etc., etc...
    
    
    	Silly?  Of course.  But it does show how anything can be taken to
    the "logical conclusion" to derive something that is so horrible as to
    prevent the first step from occuring.  This isn't the way to discuss the
    merits/demerits of something *on its own basis*.  It just clouds the
    issue.
    
    	Lets now return to the regularly scheduled rathole.
    
    								-c
    

I've been tempted several times to reply to this, but felt that I would just
add to the rathole.

However, I thought that you folks might be interested in a recent article in
the Colorado Springs newspaper:

It seems that in El Paso county (which contains Colorado Springs), in the
eastern undeveloped half, if you own 35 or more acres, there are *no*
restrictions.  No zoning.  No covenants.

Meanwhile, developers have come up with a scheme called a land contract that
is described as halfway between renting and buying.  You get the deed if you
keep up your payments for 20 years, its yours if you keep up your payments
for the entire term.  One example was a man who was paying $175/month for 35
acres.

Mix thoroughly with time and poverty, and you get a scene that reminds me of
Alice's Restaurant (Alice lived on the second floor of a church and decided
that with all of the pews gone, she didn't need to take out the trash for an
extra-special long time): shacks and shanties for houses, abandoned
vehicles, mounds of trash, and raw sewage.  It's a bad enough problem that
the very independent land-owners in eastern El Paso county are asking the
county commissioners to do something.  It seems like even 35 acres isn't far
enough apart for this sort of anti-social behavior.

The first action is an anti-trash ordinance, that prohibits the storage of
trash or abandoned vehicles (one of the symptoms is 30+ ad-hoc tire dumps).
It's been in effect for just a couple of months, so it hasn't had time to
succeed or fail yet.

To give you an idea of how radical that is out here: El Paso county is the
last county in Colorado to have unzoned land.  It's not unheard of to have
ranches of 30,000 acres (a proposal for a private highway from Pueblo to
Fort Collins [past Colorado Springs and Denver] would only have involved
about 70 landowners for 250 miles of road).  Nobody tells those guys what to
do with their land or water.  They are *asking* for relief from the results
of the sort of anarchy that is being proposed in this note.

I'm sorry I'm letting my bias show; the anarchy has worked just fine until
folks started abusing it recently.  But the ad hoc anarchy has no means to
prevent the abuse, and that's the problem.

By the way, you should see the raging tirades in the Colorado notes
conference concerning convenants here in town.

re: 65

I don't think I'm so much taking things to extremes as putting building codes 
in their complete context.  I certainly AM going to extremes, but only because
I believe that's what reality does, eventually.  A discussion of building codes
just as building codes - outside the context of all its side effects - is
interesting, but in the end, pointless.  I have a big problem with a style of
position - defense that tries to prove a point by removing it from its complete
context. 

And, BTW, I have said why I believe the code is bad aside from its side 
effects.  I simply do not understand where the "right" to dictate how I build 
my house - not based on immediate danger to any neighbors, but based on the 
speculation that you might want to buy my house someday - comes from.

Regarding your example of arguing by going to the extreme.  If you could show in
your sequence of extremes how each one logically follows from the other - how,
if it is not a certainty, it is at least a high probability - then I would
consider it a very important argument against eliminating building codes. 

But we can stop at step 3:

>    	3)  Since the general populace had to be behind the change for it
>    to occur in a democracy, our society is explicitely agreeing that
>    people have the right to threaten/take the life of others.

We are not agreeing that people have the right to threaten the life of OTHERS.
We are agreeing that people may endanger their own life, and that other people 
may endanger *their* own lives by voluntarily associating with them.  

If we didn't agree that people have the right to endanger their own life, we 
could outlaw smoking, outlaw obesity, outlaw high-risk pursuits such as rock 
climbing, etc.  We had certainly BETTER agree that people have the right to 
endanger their own life.


Another example of the foot-in-the-door:  Back in about 1900, when they first 
passed the income tax bill, one of the senators (I *must* get his name and the 
exact quote) stood up and said "If we let this 1% foot in the door, at some 
future time the income tax may rise as high as 5% or even 10%."  The man was 
laughed off the floor for going to ridiculous extremes - of course the tax 
could never rise as high as 10%.  Or could it?

re: .66

> They are *asking* for relief from the results
> of the sort of anarchy that is being proposed in this note.

But of course.  Almost every piece of legislation is put into effect because
some people don't like how other people use their freedom.  The fact that
people are asking the government to stop certain uses of the land is not in any
way a justification for the government doing so. 

> But the ad hoc anarchy has no means to
> prevent the abuse, and that's the problem.

Sure they do.  Pool together and buy the land.  Clean it up, then put some
restrictions in the deed - like no open trash, etc., and re-sell it.  

Just because the prevailing attitude in this country is "See a problem - make a 
law" does not mean that voluntary methods to solve the same problems do not 
exist.

Paul

    I just couldn't resist the chance to add to this.  First, the Permit
    system.  This little device has nothing to do with safety or codes.  In
    my community in MASS. it is plainly a requirement for the homeowner to
    register property improvements and pay more taxes.  Personally our town
    would look better if we based taxes on land and not buildings, but that
    is another subject.
    
    Town inspectors can be good or bad.  The problem I see with government
    inspection is that there is no incentive to keep quality service levels
    high.  The previous stories about the inspectors bet objective is a
    case in point along with stories of bribes etc. to pass poor
    construction.  When I made an offer on a house here, I got a private
    inspection.  It was an experience.  This guy was good.  While he could
    not directly see behind the walls, it was amazing how much he could
    tell about the workmanship of the original electricians and plumbers by
    what he could see.  There is a trail that good people can see.  He
    identified a lot of potential problems and things that needed to be
    done.  I felt that because I was paying for this, I controlled the
    effort and got a better result.  I want any of my work to be inspected
    by a good inspector and I want contracted work to be checked.  My
    concerns are should I pay taxes to the Town and then pay for a private
    inspection?
    
    On the issue of Building Codes.  There are parts of the code that are
    more serious than others.  A burst water pipe is not life threatening,
    while an electrical short could be.  We do need some way of protecting
    neighbors from fire and damage from bad construction.  We do not need a
    lot of nuisance regulations that only affect the homeowner.  The one
    previous note about the showerhead controls is a case in point.  For
    years most people had gotten used to checking the temperature of the
    water before getting in a shower, but a child got burned or died
    because of extremely hot water in a shower and because of this
    incidence of not checking and possibly parental neglect, now we all
    have the privilege of using the legally mandated shower control.  The
    building codes would be more acceptable, for community protection.
    
    Another problem with codes is that they are rigid.  There are many
    cases where construction methods have been held back because the code
    has not been updated.  So the Building Code can prohibit the use of
    better and safer construction products and methods.  The codes can also
    keep a builder from exceeding the codes.  Who sets these standards and
    who changes them?  Usually the Plumbers and Electricians and
    Contractors.  Politically and economically we can see in MASS that this
    is often used not for our protection, but our enslavement by requiring
    the work to be done by the "professional".  The same "Professionals"
    who failed to open the chimney flue to my gas furnace, which passed
    Town inspection and was found later.  This was done in 3 houses.  
    
    Part of the problem with this subject is that we don't like the idea
    that we need to accept responsibility for checking out houses,
    determining good construction techniques, paying for private
    inspections, and living with our mistakes.  We look for government to
    do this, to guarantee quality.  What we often get is a government
    agency with people lacking incentives and manipulated by the people it
    was designed to regulate.  The final step is to then use the mechanism
    to raise taxes all in the name of safety.  
    
    As a side note to reply .65.  The argument about everyone carrying guns
    and that leading to anarchy is really kind of far fetched.  Today's
    drug society has a weak disarmed citizenry against a well armed
    criminal element where daily people are being shot in Boston,
    Washington, and New York.  Somewhere along the way the good citizens
    have accepted the premise that the police can provide protection from
    this element.  The ratio of policemen on patrol to the citizens tells
    us that in the event of an attack, we are on our own.  The police will
    not arrive for 10 to 15 minutes (because they are writing a speeding
    ticket).  The Wild West was tamed by good people learning how to defend
    their towns and lives.  Somehow we have to regain the ability to defend
    ourselves.  In MASS, there are strong laws about guns and shooting
    people, so arming oneself may not be a good answer.

	Re: .68

	Before we open the gun-control pro/con rathole, that was *purely*
    an example of the type of argument that is possible.  I was absolutely
    not presenting any judgements pro or con on the issue of guns nor is this
    an appropriate place to open such a discussion.  (I thought I had made it
    clear that this was purely hypothetical and, by ending it with the 100 foot
    cockroaches taking over the cities, I figured (hoped?) that noone would
    take it seriousely.)

	Re: .67

>I don't think I'm so much taking things to extremes as putting building codes 
>in their complete context.  I certainly AM going to extremes, but only because
>I believe that's what reality does, eventually.  A discussion of building codes
>just as building codes - outside the context of all its side effects - is
>interesting, but in the end, pointless.  I have a big problem with a style of
>position - defense that tries to prove a point by removing it from its complete
>context. 

	"Complete context" and "taking it to the extreem" are very similiar
   ideas.  Both say the same thing -- "you can't look at this without looking
   at the Ultimate Bad that can occur."  At least I'm glad that you admit to
   taking the position to extremes.


>And, BTW, I have said why I believe the code is bad aside from its side 
>effects.  I simply do not understand where the "right" to dictate how I build 
>my house - not based on immediate danger to any neighbors, but based on the 
>speculation that you might want to buy my house someday - comes from.

	I accept that and realize that we will not be able to convince you
   otherwise.

>Regarding your example of arguing by going to the extreme.  If you could show in
>your sequence of extremes how each one logically follows from the other - how,
>if it is not a certainty, it is at least a high probability - then I would
>consider it a very important argument against eliminating building codes. 

	But if I was proposing that as a legitimate counter argument, I'd
   be running counter to my own statements about the sillyness of taking
   things to such extreme.  Therefore, even if you would be convinced by me
   converting that silly argument into a "legitimate" argument, I wouldn't
   do it.  I value my self-consistancy more than whether you agree with me
   or not.

>But we can stop at step 3:
>
>>    	3)  Since the general populace had to be behind the change for it
>>    to occur in a democracy, our society is explicitely agreeing that
>>    people have the right to threaten/take the life of others.
>
>We are not agreeing that people have the right to threaten the life of OTHERS.
>We are agreeing that people may endanger their own life, and that other people 
>may endanger *their* own lives by voluntarily associating with them.  
>
>If we didn't agree that people have the right to endanger their own life, we 
>could outlaw smoking, outlaw obesity, outlaw high-risk pursuits such as rock 
>climbing, etc.  We had certainly BETTER agree that people have the right to 
>endanger their own life.

	Rathole alert!  Note the very last word that you cited from me:
   "others."  Lets not drag this down into the right of someone to endanger
   themselves when that is not the issue at hand.


>Another example of the foot-in-the-door:  Back in about 1900, when they first 
>passed the income tax bill, one of the senators (I *must* get his name and the 
>exact quote) stood up and said "If we let this 1% foot in the door, at some 
>future time the income tax may rise as high as 5% or even 10%."  The man was 
>laughed off the floor for going to ridiculous extremes - of course the tax 
>could never rise as high as 10%.  Or could it?

	Yeah, and another example of foot-in-the-door said that once we left
   Vietnam, the domino effect would soon have communists overrunning Australia.
   One example of foot-in-the-door where reality proved even worse than the
   extreme positions that were envisioned (the income tax scenario) does not
   justify the use of this style.  All that can legitimately be said is that
   due to the unpredictability of future events, some things might turn out
   worse than expected, some will turn out as expected and others will turn
   out better than expected.  Period.  I get scared when anyone claims to have
   THE crystal ball and _knows_ what will happen -- even if only to a "high
   probability."


   Re: your reply to .66

>> But the ad hoc anarchy has no means to
>> prevent the abuse, and that's the problem.
>
>Sure they do.  Pool together and buy the land.  Clean it up, then put some
>restrictions in the deed - like no open trash, etc., and re-sell it.  
>
>Just because the prevailing attitude in this country is "See a problem - make a 
>law" does not mean that voluntary methods to solve the same problems do not 
>exist.

	But aren't the people who pooled together, bought/cleaned the land
   and put on the deed restrictions making a rule for that property?  To be
   consistant, your position should be that once it is sold, the previous
   owners have no rights to impose their beliefs on the current owner.  Again,
   this sounds like a case of "lets eliminate the government no matter what
   is put in its place."

						       		-c

    Paul,
    
    Aren't you trying to argue both sides?  Earlier you said that it was ok
    for government to control sewage systems, at least for medium and small
    lots where improper installations could damage neighbors' water
    supplies.  Now you're saying that all building codes are bad on
    principle.
    
    It seems to me that if you accept the premise that it's all right to
    regulate some activities which have the potential of harming innocent
    bystanders, then the issue isn't whether building codes as a concept
    are ok, but rather whether the particular set of building codes and
    procedures in any given jurisdiction are justified by the legitimate
    interests of public safety.  
    
    Phrased that way, I think you may find much more agreement.  I don't
    have quite the apprehension concerning building codes that you have,
    but there are many, many specific regulations that I believe are out of
    line, unjustified, and should be revoked.  The most obvious is the
    prohibition against DIY plumbing in MA.
    
    Others:
    
    Zoning laws are a useful analogy in this discussion, but let's keep in
    mind that they really are a separate issue.  Building codes have a
    relatively firm foundation (pun intended) in safety issues, and have
    grown, in many cases unreasonably, from there.  Zoning laws are
    grounded (ditto) in issues relating to convenience, comfort, and
    preservation of property values, and address public safety issues to a
    much lesser extent.
    
       Gary

    RE: .70, lets not forget municipal services also. If a piece of land
    has 10 houses, it takes less services (i.e. schools, roads, water,
    sewer, etc) than the same piece with an apartment house on it. In any
    town, zoning often varies area to area, depending on usage (do you
    reawlly want a manufacturing plant in the middle of a residential
    area?). If an area is fed by a small, two lane country road and someone
    puts 300 people there, you will definitely have a traffic problem.
    
    Eric

Hey Craig, pretty soon one or the other of us is going to run out of time and 
this whole note will wind itself down.  ...And I can hear the whole noting
world chanting "Yeaaahhhh!!"  :^) 

>> And, BTW, I have said why I believe the code is bad aside from its side 
>> effects.  I simply do not understand where the "right" to dictate how I build
>> my house - not based on immediate danger to any neighbors, but based on the 
>> speculation that you might want to buy my house someday - comes from.
>
>	I accept that and realize that we will not be able to convince you
>   otherwise.

I'm open to being convinced, but I don't think anyone here has addressed the 
issue of where such a right comes from.  

People have tried to convince me of the utility of building codes, sure. People
have said "Unsafe buildings endanger the neighbors".  I've agreed that codes
against endangering neighbors are justified, but pointed out that the vast
majority of building codes are unrelated to this issue. People have said that
insurance company regulations would be cumbersome, but no one has come up with
a reason why convenience should be a basis for requiring other people to do
something.  People have said that unsafe building endangers other people who
might want to visit or buy the property, but I've pointed out that that is a
voluntary action on the part of each of those people.  I don't recall anything
anyone has said about a *right* to control the land.

> I value my self-consistancy more than whether you agree with me or not.

But at the beginning of your reply, you acknowledged that going to extremes and 
putting things in context are nearly the same thing.  And (I think) you agreed 
that putting things in context is a good thing.  So why are you so against
going to extremes?

>	Rathole alert!  Note the very last word that you cited from me:
>   "others."  Lets not drag this down into the right of someone to endanger
>   themselves when that is not the issue at hand.

I did note it.  I was attempting to point out that it is incorrect.  The issue 
at hand is *exactly* the right of people to endanger themselves.  The people 
who build and live in the building are endangering themselves.  The people who 
visit are endangering themselves - no one forced them to visit.  The people who
buy the house are endangering themselves - no one forced them to buy the house.

re: foot-in-the-door   Income tax vs. Communists

Yes, the communinsts have not overrun Australia.  Which does not mean that the 
entire concept of analyzing probable consequences of an action is invalid, it 
simply means that some of the inferences that were made in that case were
incorrect, just as in the "silly" example you gave.  If you can show me which
of my inferences is incorrect, I will gladly recant my "extreme" position. 

And could you be more specific about why you think deed restrictions are 
inconsistent, and what they are inconsistent with?  In a voluntary transaction,
either party should be able to set any terms or make any restrictions which 
both parties will agree to.  For example, music is sold with the restriction on 
its use that you may not copy it and give it to other people.

re:70

>    Aren't you trying to argue both sides?  Earlier you said that it was ok
>    for government to control sewage systems, at least for medium and small
>    lots where improper installations could damage neighbors' water
>    supplies.  Now you're saying that all building codes are bad on
>    principle.

No, I'm consistently saying that imminent danger to neighbors should be the 
*only* basis for building codes.

Paul

    
    	Yeah, I hear ya on the "Yeaaahhhh!!" point!  I haven't seen a
    deviation from "Home work" this major go on for this long since the air
    shredder discussion.  (Now, which one of these two big ratholes will be
    remembered years from now?  I suspect the air shredder one...)  Back to
    the matter at hand...
    
    	No, I didn't say that putting things into context (in the way we're
    using that phrase) is goodness.  Some context is good, but using
    context as a cover for taking things to extremes is not good.  However,
    deciding the line between reasonable context and extremes is nothing
    less than the basis for many longwinded discussions like this one.
    
    	I believe that the major philosophical difference between us is in
    the permissibility of knowingly creating a situation in which someone
    else may be injured.  I don't agree with you that anyone that comes
    onto your property -- for whatever reason -- has taken upon themselves
    the risk/liability for injuries.  Code or no code, the law is, and has
    been for a *long* time (anyone care to research old English law?) that
    the owner of something has to maintain it to a level of assurance that
    others won't be injured.  The bottom line sounds like your complaint
    isn't with the code itself, but with the notion deeply rooted in
    western civilization of liabilities and reasonable assurance of safety.
    If that is the case, even if the entire code book was thrown out you
    could *still* not do _anything_ you wanted to with your property.  If
    someone was on your property and got injured due to your premediated
    negligence, ( <- said in a friendly tone with legalese, I'm not yelling
    or hurling insults at you) you're in deep sneakers -- code or no code.
    Changes to the state and federal statutues might get you what you want,
    but this is obviously much more than a code issue.
    
    							-c

    Speaking of codes what does the almighty building code say about air
    shredders? I think an 180 hp model should the *minimum* allowed by code
    on any residental dwelling.
    
    Who said ya can't go back, humm?
    
    I code therefore I am,-j

    
    	180 hp *minimum* for the residential air shredders?  I thought the
    code specified a *maximum* of 180 hp sized air shredders.  Beyond that,
    the homeowner runs the significant risk of the air shredder creating
    such a vacuum that the fireplace would implode.
    
    	I've heard rumors of secret government 1 megahorsepower air
    shredders having been tested at Los Alamos.  Its a scary thought.
    
    								-c

  In 388.59, Charlie Hammond said he felt that I had implied that all
  DIY work should be considered incompetent until proven otherwise,
  while work by licensed professionals should be considered competent
  unless proven otherwise. While I don't feel quite that strongly, I do
  believe that if you compare the work of a typical sample of 100 DIYers
  to that of a typical 100 licensed professionals, a higher percentage
  of the amateur work will not meet code, and will be unsafe. I have
  enough personal experience with both amateurs and professionals to
  support this belief, and anyone who doesn't believe it is either not
  willing to accept ALL of the facts, or doesn't have much experience.
  The system we have is intended to handle the very real situation that
  there are more incompetent amateurs than professionals. It doesn't do
  it perfectly, and it probably isn't close to the best possible system,
  but it has some positive effects in the interest of safety.

  Incidentally, I do ALL of my own electrical work, including replacing
  the main service panel. In fact just yesterday morning, the electrical
  inspector signed off on the final inspection. My work (1) satisfied
  him, (2) was to code (I own two copies of the National Electrical
  Code, 1984 and 1987), and (3) was safe. It's exactly because I DO do
  my own electrical work, and because I know how complicated safe wiring
  really is, and because I've watched people who claim to know what
  they're doing put together things which would make your hair stand on
  end, that I'm glad there IS some regulation. I can't see how anyone
  who has any experience in this area would think that a totally
  unregulated system would be safer. "Cheaper", sure.

  If we agree on the need for some form of regulation whose SOLE purpose
  and result is to guarantee some minimum level of safety, then the
  question is what sort of system can do this for us at the minimum
  total cost and inconvenience. I'd much prefer that both plumbing and
  electrical work be fully open to DIYers, but it would require a much
  more thorough inspection system than we have today. If you think the
  level of inspection today, combined with a situation where suddenly
  everyone can do their own work wouldn't result in an increase in
  unsafe work, then you're choosing to ignore a critical fact, which is
  that a higher percentage of amateur work is unsafe than professional
  work. Not every amateur will do unsafe work, but some will, and not
  all of it will be caught, and it will be more prevalent than uncaught,
  unsafe professional work.

  I'm still waiting to hear who's going to pay for the higher quality of
  inspection which would ensure that ALL work is safe. I hear lots of
  moaning about how expensive and unfair it is today (which it is, no
  argument there), but everyone's interested in paying LESS taxes, not
  more. When people are willing to initially fork out a few extra
  dollars in exchange for a better inspection system, which, in the long
  run could make the total costs lower, then I'll be happy to lose the
  requirement for licensed professionals to do plumbing or anything
  else. I won't tolerate a period of unsafe DIY work because underpaid,
  undertrained inspectors don't catch all the problems, while we're
  waiting for prices to come down so that people are then willing to
  spend some of that saved money on better inspections, as if that would
  EVER happen.

    re: .-1 100DIYers vs 100 *licensed* professionals.
    
    Let's keep a couple of things straight here.  Plumbers and electricians
    are the only contractors of note that need licenses (requiring exams
    and years of apprentice/journeyman training).
    
    Regardless of what we all think of the system, the net affect of the
    above is that *in general* a random sampling of plumbers and
    electricians are likely to produce more competent work than a random
    sampling of people from the unlicensed trades.
    
    

  Well said. My point, exactly. I feel the need to reiterate it, though,
  because more than one person has actually stated in this conference,
  that it's just as likely or even more likely to find incompetent
  work from licensed professionals as from amateurs. For example, from
  388.59:

  "DIY work is just as likely to be safe and to meet code as
  professional work. DIY work is MORE LIKELY than professional work to 
  EXCEED code. This statement is based on my experience and the
  experience of others, and on comments attributed to various
  inspectors."

  This certainly doesn't agree with MY experience, or many others I've
  talked to (and I'm not referring to professionals). However, it IS
  just what one would expect to hear from a frustrated DIYer who is
  looking to justify eliminating the requirement for licensed
  professionals. I'm not saying that I'd like to keep the requirement
  for licensed professionals. Not at all. I'm just pointing out that
  statements like that are not true in my experience, highly improbable,
  and in any case reduce the credibility of the person making the
  statement, no matter how honorable their intentions or worthwhile
  their proposal. Even worse, if false, and if translated into law,
  could result in a transition period of poorer quality work, before
  more thorough inspections came into effect.

    
    One thing I'd like to bring up which I think some people seem not
    to know about. Most of the national codes for electrical,plumbing
    and fireplace which the government recommends (state or local) comes
    from the insurance companies. The insurance companies spent a few
    million dollars several years ago into the study of building a safe
    chimney and fireplace. They did this not really because they were
    so interested in saving lives, but because they realized that if
    the chimneys and firplaces were built right, they (the insurance
    companies) would be paying out a lot less of claims due to fire
    damage. They were also the driving force in getting the electrical
    codes changed years ago to meet some kind of safe standard, and
    are still very active in it. So all you people who would like to
    get the government out of building/safety codes and into the hands
    of insurance companies, understand that the insurance companies
    are already there.
    
    Mike

  In fact, the National Electrical Code was developed by the National
  Fire Prevention Association, which is an industry group consisting
  mainly of insurance companies and fire departments. It doesn't take
  much thought to figure out where the money to run the NFPA comes from.

    I think you might be slightly off there.  The NFPA is an independent,
    not an insurance industry affiliated group.
    
    In fact, anyone can join the NFPA and participate.

    My problem comes in when the gov't goes way past the national codes,
    and not for safety reasons, but political ones. The no DIY plumbing
    rule in Mass is but one of these. If there is a legitimate reason for a
    more stringent code than the national one (i.e. in California for
    earthquake protection), then that's OK, but when the odd pieces of the
    code exist just to favor the trades with no REAL safety reason, then
    something is radically wrong.
    
    Eric 

    I ran this note through my air shredder and now it's completely clogged!

 re -.1  you think you got it tough, my next unseen key has failed after an
         accelerated life test!  :)

  re .81, You're right, Jim. The NFPA is, indeed, an independent
  organization. Much of its money does come from the insurance industry,
  though (with some coming from government agencies), as do many of its
  active members. Its goals and activities are set by its membership, so
  it's not exactly a coincidence that it reflects, to some extent, the
  interests of the insurance industry. I don't know whether this is good
  or bad; it's just a matter of fact.

  Re .82, You're right, too. Some of the Mass laws appear to exist purely
  for political reasons, to benefit certain special-interest groups. Some
  of these laws have been disguised under the banner of "safety", while
  others are more blatantly political. If we take one specific example,
  (the Mass requirement that plumbing be done by a licensed plumber), we
  can try to figure out whether there's really a safety issue or not. It's
  obvious that the consequences of messing up a gas installation are much
  more serious and immediate than messing up water pipes. So it appears
  that maybe the requirement for a licensed professional to do gas fitting
  is safety-motivated. 

  But what about plumbing? You know that a licensed plumber is actually a
  "master plumber and gas fitter" (or "journeyman", or "apprentice", etc).
  These folks do both jobs, and they're the only people who can. As far as
  I know, there aren't any "master gas fitters" who don't do plumbing, or
  vice versa. So is it possible that in Mass, somebody figured they could
  make some money by setting up a requirement and making it look like it's
  in the interest of safety? I don't know, but the current situation is
  clearly not serving the interests of the public where it concerns water
  pipe. It's not making a critical contribution to public safety, and it's
  resulting in very high prices for materials and legally required
  services. It will be very hard to get this changed, because the
  interested parties have a lot more money and energy to devote to keeping
  it the way it is than we consumers have to change it.

    There actually could be a way, and that is to boot out the politicians
    that support this type of "legal extortion" come election day. Though
    the special interests have big bucks behind them, if enough people told
    the elected officials that their jobs were on the line, maybe they
    would listen for a change.
    
    Eric

  Eric, that IS the way to do it. The trouble is that to be able to do
  this, voters would need to find out the voting records of everyone on
  the ballot, and figure out whether they liked what they saw. As we
  know, the only info we get before we vote is the ad campaign, and we
  all know how much that's worth. 

  But since you brought up this topic, I'll tell you the procedure I
  personally use when it comes time to vote: 

  	NEVER VOTE FOR THE INCUMBENT

  Unless I have some very specific information about the candidates
  which would cause me to act otherwise, such as finding out that the
  incumbent has voted the way I would like on every issue, and sponsored
  the legislation I like, I simply vote for the challenger. It doesn't
  even matter which party the challenger is running under.

  If enough people would vote this way, and the candidates knew it, you
  might see politicians making a big effort to do things during their
  term of office which would impress voters enough to keep them in
  office. As it is today, most people either vote for the incumbent, or
  vote their party, which isn't likely to change the situation either,
  since that's probably what they did the last time.

  This algorithm doesn't require me to run out to find out what the
  candidates voted for or believe in, and it doesn't depend on their ad
  campaigns for information (which has the side benefit that I don't
  have to pay the least bit of attention to the nonsense leading up to
  the election). It's as easy as can be. And, as I said, if enough
  people voted this way, politicians would get the message, and would
  start to publicize their past performance when running for office.

  But the key to this is to really make very few exceptions to the rule
  of never voting for an incumbent. Even when the incumbent appears to
  agree with my personal preferences, I still don't vote for him/her.
  They have to have made some sort of major contribution to my pet
  causes to get my vote the second time around.

  Do you think this sounds crazy? What real bad effect could it possibly
  have? What GOOD effect might it have?

>  But the key to this is to really make very few exceptions to the rule
>  of never voting for an incumbent.
    
>  Do you think this sounds crazy? What real bad effect could it possibly
>  have?
    Yikes! What if the only challenger is a *Libertarian*?!
    
    John

    Here is a two fold question that I did not feel comfortable putting
    into one of the house plan notes:
    
    Is there a minimum square footage house size required by Massachusetts
    building codes?  If so could unfinished space be included in the
    calculation.
    
    The other part of my question deals with house plans for very small
    houses (under 1000 sq ft).  I looked at many house plans even those
    described as "small".  However these typically are between 1500 - 2500
    sq ft.  If anyone knows of a source for very small house plans, I would
    appreciate pointers.  
    
    Any other tips, opinions, cautions, flames, or whatever regarding very
    small new house construction would be consumed with enthusiasm.
    
    thanks.

    Why do you want a house that is less 1000 sq ft?  
    
    You might be better off looking at Mobile Homes/Trailers.  These would
    fall into your space requirement range and can be very space efficent.
    Also look for Jim Walter Homes ads.  They sell house plans for >1500 sq
    ft homes that are designed to be built by the owner.  Jim Walter can
    arrange for contractors to do some to all of the work for additional
    money.
    
    Try looking at plans designed to be vacation homes.  Vacation homes are
    often smaller than "regular" homes.

Check with your town - this is more likely to be regulated by the town than
the state.  Also, look at the deed for the land to see if there are
restrictions on minimum house sizes.  There is such a restriction for the
land my house is on.

				Steve

    >>>  Why do you want a house that is less 1000 sq ft?  
    
    simple answer --->  money.
    
    I would like to build a small house that is within a limited budget. 
    My intention is to "build the addition to the house, before the house".
    
    In other words, at some time in the future, I or the next owner of the
    house could add onto this small house.
    
    I'm planning to get a septic plan for a 3-4 bedroom house even though
    I'm planning to have only 1 or at most two bedroom at the beginning.
    
    My main goal is to build a somewhat simple house that is easy to frame
    on a small foundation (20'x20' is a size that comes to mind).  
    
    From reading through notes it seems that a modular or kit house is not
    necessarily the most economical way to go especially if you let the kit
    builder do the actual construction.
    
    re: trailers --> nope, not even in my worst dreams.
    

    I have property in Marlboro, VT, and the size of the building
    is governed by the town.  Marlboro's minimum is 400 sq ft.
    The used mobile home i purchased just makes it 35 x 12'
    420 sq'.
    mike.
    

    I used to know the Mass 1/2 family building code pretty good, but it is 
long out of date for me now. I don't recall a min size, but checking your 
local building inspector is the *only* way to be sure. He will understand 
your need for small now with expandable space later.....

    Be sure any plan you choose makes sense from a standpoint of 
expandability. Are you going up to a second floor? Then consider where the 
staircase will be if not included in the original plan. If going out with a 
wing, plan your cellar walls and window views, etc for that in mind. You 
needn't make it obvious that an extension is planned, but think about 
where/how it will be done. you might want it sooner than you think and can 
save yourself some problems if planning is done up front.

    My $.02 worth...

    Vic H

	While on vacation in Martha's Vineyard, we ended up on some sort of
historical tour. The tour guide pointer out to us these "unique homes".
Essentially they were small Cape's with the front door off to one side.
The idea was that owners would build half the house. Later on when they had
more money or as the family grew they would build the other half of the house
(a miror image of the first half, less the front door). 
	These homes had character, looked good, and made sense. I suppose you 
could also do this to garisons, ranches and most any kind of house.



	

    The 1/2 cape idea is good...also consider building what will eventually
    be the garage and living in that.  
    
    My grandfather's farmhouse was a huge old colonial: a total of 15
    or so rooms, two center chimneys, 8 or 9 fireplaces, the whole works.
    But, from the way it was built, one could see that it began as:
    1 room, which turned into:
    1 room with an ell, which turned into:
    2 rooms down and two rooms up, which turned into:
    4 rooms down, four rooms up, 3 finished rooms in the attic, a huge
      ell kitchen with a room over that, ...etc.  There is plenty of
    historical precedent for your approach!

    If I had the land, that would be the way I would go.  I agree that
    multiple additions can add alot of character.  As far as .0 goes,
    I know the feeling of wanting your dream home with not enough money
    to get it.  So by doing it this way you slowly build your dream
    house as the funds come available.  Thumbs up for the idea.
    
    My $.05, (inflation)
    
    Keivn
    

    It sounds like your land will cost as much (or more) than what you
    plan on building. Unless you already own the land outright, how
    about paying that off over a few years, then build a larger house
    using the equity you have in the land?
    If you're gonna go through all the trouble of building, I can't see
    doing it once knowing you'll be doing it again in a few years.
    
    John

Go to the library.  There's typically a whole shelf of homebuilding/carpentry/
construction/design books, and I remember a couple about building small houses 
with the specific idea of adding on later.  I can't remember titles or authors, 
but I know they're out there, and aren't all that uncommon.

Paul

    
    I've begun to explore the half a house approach.  If anybody knows of
    plans, pointers would be useful.  I have seen some capes that could be
    expanded.  I, currently :), like the idea of building a three room
    house that can be expanded upward into the attic.  I'll rough in the
    for a bath in the attic, and if I can afford it have a dormer with
    window included in the original plan.  Space for stairs would be
    designed for, and if money permitting, they could be built in the
    original effort.  Expansion off a side of the house would be phase III
    and would be considered when developing the site plan.
    
    re: .9 - double trouble of building twice and land cost:
    
    Land costs money.  Banks want mega-bucks down on undeveloped land. 
    Interest payments on land is not deductable.  You still need to live
    somewhere and that costs money.  All these things considered, I can't swing
    land paymentys alone.  They only way to make the land deal financially
    viable is to build a house on it.  An alternative approach is to buy
    less expensive land and build a larger house.  I prefer to buy land
    that I'll enjoy for a long time and to build a house that will grow as
    I age.
          
    

    Also make sure you figure out at what point during the construction you
    actually begin to save money by building a small house.  For example,
    you are going to have to hire a series of contractors (excavation, 
    foundation, framing, plumbing, electrical, etc). to build your house. 
    
    Some of them (I'm thinking specifically about excavation and foundation
    contractors) are going to charge you a fee upfront just to get the men,
    equipment and materials to your site.  So you might not really save
    that much by building small.  
    
    Maybe you should think about building a larger shell, and only
    finishing part of it.  Then you can do the finish carpentry over time. 
    If your plans call for finishing the dwelling over a fairly long time,
    you might actually save money by doing some of the more costly pieces
    today (excavation, foundation, roof, etc.) because the $/ft cost of
    these things will probably increase over time.     

>    I'm planning to get a septic plan for a 3-4 bedroom house even though
>    I'm planning to have only 1 or at most two bedroom at the beginning.
    
      This  might  be a problem.  Septic systems don't work well if they
      are greatly oversized.  It has to do with needing a  minimum  flow
      for  the  system  size.  From a practical standpoint, I think that
      what you suggest is very reasonable.  But the town or state health
      authorities may not approove it.
      
      I'm  not  an  expert so this could be all wet.  (Hopefully not wet
      with septic system effluent!)  I suggest you check this  carefully
      before you commit your dollars.

    re: /-1
    
    Oversizing the septic shouldn't be a problem.  The main issue around
    sizing is the size of the leach field.  Over 3 bedrooms a larger
    settling tank is usually required.  I currently have an oversized tank
    and leach bed. (The lot was originally designed and approved for a
    duplex - total of 6 bedrooms.  I have 4 bedrooms.)
    
    Dan

    Re: source for small house plans (under 1000sf)

    Lots of houses under 1000 sf.  Need an example come and visit my house!
    Ranch style house on 40 x 24 foundation = 960 sf.  Course I eventually
    want to add a second floor if Digitals stock ever gets out of the
    basement. 

    -JFK-

I can understand and appreciate your concerns of cost and size but I
think that 400 sf is TOO SMALL. I can't imagine a "house" and all of
the bare bones components (Kitchen, bath, 1 Bedroom and maybe a living
room/den) fiting well into that space. You might even have trouble
finding financing for something that small. 

Doubling your size requirement could put you into a small cape (32*26
= 832) or a small ranch (24*36 = 864) Both have excellent expansion
capabilites. I expanded a 24*44 (1056 sf) ranch into a "L" ranch of
1650 sf plus a 2 car garage and loft. 

The cost of the larger structure would not be significantly more than
what you are planing to build. Once you have the excavator, concrete
forms people, carpenters, etc. on site, the increment cost to build a
800-900 sf structure vs a 400 sf structure, is not going to be a lot. 

Good Luck, Charly

    I believe that most banks have certain requirements for a property 
    to qualify for a fixed rate mortgage. One of the requirements is 
    minimum size (650 sq ft i think), another is central heat. 
    
    It has something to do with the fact that some banks sell their 
    fixed rate mortg to the Federal agency called Fanny Mae (sp). 
    If the note on the property cannot be sold to the Fed's the 
    bank will not offer a fixed rate mortg. They may offer a variable 
    rate, (which they keep). Something to keep in mind if you are thinking
    of financing or if you ever have to sell before you get the rest of 
    the house built. 
     
    I ran into this looking at property on Cape Cod.
    
    Steve

    Here is an update.
    
    	Massachusetts (or possibly town) building codes do set square foot
    minimums for houses.  They are something like this:
    
    		700 sf for a one bedroom
    		800 sf for a two bedroom
    		900 sf for a three bedroom
    
    	(don't quote me on those figures ther are not exact).
    
    What I'm planning to do is build a 24' X 24', 1 1/2 story cape.
    
    Square building = minimum footing, framing, roofing costs.
    
    It seems that I'll have to finish the upstairs during the initial
    construction phase to meet the minimum square footage requirements.
    This is actually a relief, it will be nice to complete construction
    before actually moving into the place.  
     
    Later expansion will have to come in the form of an addition, as all
    possible living space above the original footprint will have been
    finished.
     

I bought a piece of land two years ago, and now want to build
a house on it. The property is located on a discontinued road,
about 1000 feet from the "end" of the original road. 
The 1000 feet of discontinued road leading to my property is
is in rough shape, four wheel drive type road.

The town planning board said I couldn't build a house since the
requirements for a house are; 1. at least two acres of land ( no problem ),
2. at least two hundred feet of road frontage on a TOWN ROAD.
( I have 550 feet frontage but on a discontinued road )

The building inspector said I might be able to get a 
"grandfathers clause". I didn't have time to talk to her, 
but the road was discontinued four years ago, 
so I have a feeling I may not qualify for that since I've 
only had it for 2 years.

Can anyone out there explain the grandfathers clause, or tell me
what other options are open? What is a variance?

Before I face the building inspector again I would like to be well 
informed of my options.

I have no problem assuming the maintenance of the road myself if
that's what it'll take.

Any suggestions?

thanks

Ken

  What state are you in?

  In NH, I believe abutting property owners have five years to object 
  to the closing of a road (the term is "subject to gates and bars" here).
  I don't know whether you have to be a property owner at the beginning
  of that five-year period.

  JP

    
    The land is located in western Mass near the Quabin Reservoir.
    
    Most of the roads there aren't paved, and the town road leading
    to the property is full of large pot holes. It takes about 
    15 - 20 minutes to drive 3 miles.

Lots of laws and regulations designed to stop something or other in the
future have a clause stating that existing circumstances that would be 
illegal are permitted to continue and the new law or regulation won't be 
applied.  This kind of exemption is called a "grandfather clause".

    Could I ask you what town? I live in Phillipston which has QUITE a few
    discontinued town roads. I also know someone on the Templeton planning
    board and I remember that someone approached them with the same idea as
    you.
    Basically, their philosophy was if the property owner was to bring the
    discontinued section of town road up to town specifications (at the
    owner's expense), the planning board would ok at least the property being 
    built on.
    
    They have various specs on how wide the dirt road must be based on how
    many homes are located on the road. This is due to private and town use
    (fire trucks etc. ).
    Maybe this is what you could suggest to the town boards. 
    
    Being fairly active in Phillipston, I realize how stretched the local
    towns are. It could be that the town is not willing to pay the cost of
    updating the road. However, if you offer to pay to update the road to
    handle one home, they may think differently.
    
    			Cindy
    

    
    The land is located in Wendell.
    
    I hope your right, I have access to a bull dozer and could probably
    have fun fixing the road.
    
    thanks
    
    Ken

    
    I'd give it a shot.  Billerica just passed a similar thing...as
    we too have many 'paper' roads, which the town can't afford to
    bring up to code.  In order to build on them the intended owner
    must bring the road (up to and including their frontage) to code.
    
    Ask the town, they may well agree.
    
    deb
    

    To be Grandfathered the owner, before the discontinuance, would have
    had to have the lot accepted as a builable lot, a site paln approval
    by the Planning Board. With a discontinued road there might have been
    a need for some additional application by owner at the time of
    discontinuance. 
              Get a copy of the Town Bylaws and the MA general laws(try
    any library). Your town may have subdivision and site plan regs. in
    addition to Bylaws. The local DPW should be able to give you an idea of
    the cost of upgrading the road and the standards should be in the
    rules and regs.
              I know in Maynard upgrading a road to Town standards can be
    pretty expensive(tens of thousands of dollars). In your neck of the
    woods the requirements could be a lot less, and depend on future use.
              Typically you own to the middle of the road abutting
    your property and the Town has an easement. If the town has discontiued
    the road I assume they have given up the easement. If the road goes
    thru someone elses property to yours I'd like to know what rights you
    have to use the road? Even if using the road to get to your property
    is not a problem you might still need the approval of 2/3 of the other
    abutters before you could do anything to the road. Are any of the other
    abutters interested in building? They might be interested in sharing
    the cost of improving the road. It would increase the value of their
    property.
             Was the property sold to you as a buildable lot? You probably
    need testing and a town accepted septic system first. Sounds like you
    should persue that at the same time you are feeling out your neighbors.
    Either one could be a show stopper. 
             You can probably work it all out, but starting with these two
    might save you some money.
             Paper road (note 3801.6) can refer to a road that never
    existed at all, just shown on a paper plan at some point in history.
    Private way is the term I'm familiar with. You might also run across
    "right to pass and repass" on a deed. I'm involved in a land court
    suit now that has to do with what that little phrase means. I'll
    let you know the outcome.(Does an individual abutter, with a deed
    stating "right to pass and repass" on a private way have a right to
    improve the private way to allow buliding on their property without
    the approval of 2/3 of the rest of the abutters to the private way?)
    It could very well apply to your situation.
    along the private way? 
    road without approval from 2/3 of the abutters if they don't have an
    easement

    After rereading origional note I thought to add:
          You can get names and address of your abutters from the town
    assesors maps and real estate records.

    
    I've met both abutters, the person on the opposite side of the
    road sold me the land, and offered to share in any costs in getting
    electricity run up the road. The person owning the 1000 feet leading
    to my property, said he would give me a "right of way". The property
    is L shaped and by cutting across 100 feet of his property, I could 
    access mine ( though I would still be over 1000 feet from where I 
    want to build, and no road to get there ).
    
    Thanks for the library idea, 
    
    Ken
    
    

    re .7
    
    I'd just mention to be wary that some towns will no longer allow 
    'pork chop' lots.
    
    Erick

I spoke with the building inspector, two years ago someone also
wanted to build on a discontinued road. The town lawyer stood by
the code of needing 200 feet of road frontage and did not approve
the building permit.

The building inspector said I could appeal to the Planning Board.
( Which meets twice a month. )

When I mentioned bringing the road up to spec, she said it might
help, and I should contact the highway department.

The only alternative after that would be to take the town lawyer
to court, which she said would cost big bucks.

I'm glad I'm not in a hurry to build and wonder if it's worth 
all the hassle. Perk testing ends May 31st so there's no way
I could start building this year.

later

Ken

    RE .11
    
    I can't help but wonder...when you purchased this property was it
    represented to you as buildable?  Have you spoken to a lawyer about
    any legal recourse you might have?
    
    ep

    I originally was buying it to start a tree farm ( it's 45 acres ),
    and knew I wasn't going to build for over 8 years.
    
    I was told the day of the closing I couldn't build on it,
    and I replied I wasn't going to for 8 - 10 years.
    
    I have started to plant Christmass trees, and will continue
    with the farm. It would be nice to put a house on it also,
    even if it does take 10 years.
    
    Ken

    Your problem can get complicated. In my years on our local
    Zoning Board of Appeals I've seen similar situations. Having
    conversations with the appropriate town officials and boards
    can be helpful, rather than just waltzing looking to appeal
    the matter. In some cases the town might be willing to compromise
    to avert legal expenses. However, if you do have to end up
    in court be prepared to pay mucho bucks and waste a LOT of time!
    
    Best advice: try to maintain a friendly atmosphere with the town,
    otherwise they might only want to "see you in court".
    

In note 275.50, I was incautious enough to state that it is essential to
make sure that buildings are built to basic safety rules, and was quickly
directly here to complete that thought.

I'll happily grant that in the particular case in hand (building an upper 
floor garage) it should definately be allowed -- it can be done safely.  
It's absurd, though, to say that there should be *no* building codes 
whatsoever, for at least three reasons:


1)  Once a building is complete, it is nearly impossible to tell if it
was constructed safely or not.  Most of the wiring and structural members
cannot be inspected without seriously damaging the building.  So the only
time a complete inspection can be done is during construction.  Sure, we
inspect houses after construction, but that is a necessarily incomplete
inspection, as many sad tales in this file attest.

2)  Amatures who build buildings for themselves may not *know* when they
are risking their own safety, or more to the point, the safety of the rest
of their neighborhood as well as future owners.  Professionals may not
*care*.  I expect most of us have experience to prove these two points.
Having *no* codes at all would subject *me* to risks that I do not care 
to assume -- I would far prefer to deal with annoying inspectors for my
construction than to know that I could be working in a firetrap -- or
buying one as my next house.

3)  More fundamentally, previous notes (such as .0) seem to be espousing
the anarchist's ideal of each person doing their own thing in their own
space.  It's a great idea when you don't live in a community with other
people, but it doesn't work otherwise.  Rather than go down an endless
rathole on this subject, I'll merely cite one case and request anyone who
argues the point to address it.  When a developer builds, the buildings
are in a community far longer than the initial owners/tennants.  Safety
problems, whether in the construction itself or in the effect of the
construction on local roads and services, stay around for a long time and
affect the community as a whole, not just the builder or initial owner.
It would be just as bad to allow developers to do anything they please, 
without regard for the community, as it would be to allow unrestricted 
dumping of toxic waste.  In fact, the two activities are very similar.


In conclusion, building codes are a lot like democracy itself.  They are
a terrible way to build buildings, they are just less terrible than all
the other ways.  Terrible things are done in the name of safety, such as
the requirement in Massachusetts that only licensed plumbers can do
plumbing.  My point is not that building codes are good.  My point is
that a total lack of building codes would be far worse.  If one agrees
to that (and I know not all of you do), the discussion then becomes just
what should be in the codes and what should not.  That would be a
more fruitful discussion than whether there should be codes at all,
since we'd all have a chance to learn the reasons (if any) behind codes.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

I've written about 20 replies in this note, addressing most of the points which
you bring up.  To reiterate them shortly (Ha! Me, reiterate shortly!):

> It's absurd to say that there should be *no* building codes whatsoever.

It might be a good idea to find out WHY people think that building codes are
unnecessary and in fact harmful instead of just classifying the position as
"absurd."

> 1)  Once a building is complete, it is nearly impossible to tell if it
> was constructed safely or not.  

So?  You grant down in your point #3 that people have the right to endanger
their OWN safety if they are foolish enough.  So how come it is OK for them
to endanger their own safety by building a less-than-code house, but not OK for
them to endanger their own safety by BUYING a less-than-code house?

> 2) Having *no* codes at all would subject *me* to risks that I do not care 
>    to assume 

I completely agree that it is a legitimate function of government to protect
the neighbors from your actions, and that as such sewage treatment, for 
example, should be regulated by the government.  Also fire safety if the house
is within a certain (close) proximity to neighboring structures.  I agree that
you should not be subjected to these risks by your neighbors.

But YOU are perfectly capable of eliminating the risk of purchasing a firetrap
yourself.  As discussed elsewhere in this note, independent agencies could 
provide safety certifications for structures, and most people would purchase
them because they add value to the house.  Or you could build your own.  But
just because you might want to purchase my house some day does not give you the
right to dictate the specifications to which I must build it.

> 3)It's (IT being, essentially, freedom of action) a great idea when you 
>   don't live in a community with other people, but it doesn't work otherwise.

On the contrary, in the long run I think it's the only thing that DOES work.

> Safety problems, whether in the construction itself or in the effect of the
> construction on local roads and services, stay around for a long time and
> affect the community as a whole, not just the builder or initial owner.

I don't know what you mean by "effect of the construction on local roads and
services".  How would the presence or lack of building codes affect this?
Nor do I know what you mean by "the community as a whole."  If a house falls
down, how is the "community as a whole" affected?  And why should this effect,
if it exists, empower the community to enforce building standards?

If a builder builds a shoddy house and someone lives in it, the person living
in it has voluntarily decided to live there.  Perhaps they don't care one way
or another about safety.  (You say this is stupid?  Over 50% of Americans don't
take the proven safety precaution of wearing seatbelts).  Perhaps they are
willing to trade some measure of safety for a bigger house - just as people now
trade off living in a less desirable location for a bigger house.  For whatever
reason, they are there by their own free will.

In the same way, every subsequent owner of the house is there by their own
choice.  Although a house inspector can't get in the walls, he can generally 
get a pretty good idea of the condition of what he CAN'T see by what he CAN 
see.  So the people buying have a pretty good idea.  Or perhaps they never 
bothered with an inspection, in which case they have made the choice to not 
care.  In any case, NO ONE who has not explicity chosen to be affected by the 
condition of this house will ever be exposed to it.  So what's the problem?

Paul

>As discussed elsewhere in this note, independent agencies could 
>provide safety certifications for structures, and most people would purchase
>them because they add value to the house.
    I don't buy this. In a no-building-code scenario, if you were to build
    a house that *was* safe, you are basically forced to provide this
    certificate to prove that fact. I think the discussion previous said
    that non-code houses would be much cheaper than code-compliant houses.
    So anyone who builds a good house is going to want this, and must pay
    someone for it. These "agencies" will make their own requirements to
    get a certificate. Now you're right back to where you started, except
    the codes are controlled by private industry - governed not by the
    people, but by themselves. You'd rather have it that way? You think the
    average homeowner could have any say in how codes could be modified?
    >  Or you could build your own.
    Build what? 
    >  But
>just because you might want to purchase my house some day does not give you the
>right to dictate the specifications to which I must build it.
    How did you come to that conclusion?

>> 3)It's (IT being, essentially, freedom of action) a great idea when you 
>>   don't live in a community with other people, but it doesn't work otherwise.

>On the contrary, in the long run I think it's the only thing that DOES work.
    Because....?

>take the proven safety precaution of wearing seatbelts).  Perhaps they are
>willing to trade some measure of safety for a bigger house - just as people now
>trade off living in a less desirable location for a bigger house.  For whatever
>reason, they are there by their own free will.
    Perhaps they live in a slum because the alternative is living in the
    street? The "free will" line is not always true. Some people are forced
    to live in substandard housing since that's all they can afford. If you
    feel building codes are not required, you should feel that fact is
    acceptable.

>In the same way, every subsequent owner of the house is there by their own
>choice.  Although a house inspector can't get in the walls, he can generally 
>get a pretty good idea of the condition of what he CAN'T see by what he CAN 
>see.
    Hardly. A shoddy builder can make the visible part look super, while
    saving money on the inside. Take away codes and you open the door to
    all kinds of deception.
    >Or perhaps they never 
>bothered with an inspection, in which case they have made the choice to not 
>care.  In any case, NO ONE who has not explicity chosen to be affected by the 
>condition of this house will ever be exposed to it.  So what's the problem?
    
    How about the children of the buyers? They're certainly exposed. Should
    children of home buyers who chose not to have their house inspected be
    taken away and placed in foster homes? Should buyers who have no
    children be forced to become sterile unless they prove they will
    inspect each residence they live in?
    
    John

re:  <<< Note 3565.91 by VMSDEV::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>

>I don't know what you mean by "effect of the construction on local roads and
>services".  How would the presence or lack of building codes affect this?

      Perhaps  this  is  more  a  matter of what we commonly think of as
      zoning -- i.e. the type  of  buildings  (residential,  commercial,
      industrial)   and   the   density  of  structures  (widely  spaced
      individual  homes  vs.  closely  spaced  appartments  or   condos)
      certainly do effect roads and all the rest of the infrastructure.

>Nor do I know what you mean by "the community as a whole."  If a house falls
>down, how is the "community as a whole" affected?  

      How  would the value of your property change if it were surrounded
      byt houses that had fallend down and were left to rot away? (Hint:
      my property value woudl go d
                                  o
                                   w
                                    n.      
      
>                         And why should this effect,
>if it exists, empower the community to enforce building standards?
      
      It  is  a  reasonble function of government to protect individuals
      from the effects of other individuals who abuse their freedoms.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------

      In  the final analysis, I question that many people are opposed to
      building codes on a theoretical basis.  What I, and I think others,
      often  object  to,  is  unreasonable, inflexible provisions in the
      code and in the enforcement thereof.
      
      For example, in my home there is a smoke detector installed at the
      second floor level in a  space  that  is  open  to  2-1/2  stories
      height.  It is clear that it should be higher for best effect. But
      the code says that there must be a detector on the same  level  as
      the bedrooms, so I had to lower it to a less effective location.
      
      (To answer your questions: (1) The above is my opinion based on my
      experience which includes having worked for  a  professional  fire
      and  burglar  alarm  installer.   (2)  Yeah, I could have added an
      additional detector, but there are already two in this space,  the
      other being on the first floor.  2 is an overkill; 3 would be more
      than I could bear.)

Sigh.

re:.92

I think you have a vastly exaggerated notion of how much control people have 
over the government, and a vastly underestimated notion of how much control
people have over purchased goods.  How many people in Massachusetts do you 
think really want all work to have to be done by a licensed plumber or
electrician?  Has it changed?  Is it likely to?

> Now you're right back to where you started,

It constantly amazes me that people are completely unable to see the difference
between a situation where people are simply declining to do business with you,
and a case where people with guns are coming to your door to make you stop 
doing something.

>>just because you might want to purchase my house some day does not give you 
>>the right to dictate the specifications to which I must build it.
>    How did you come to that conclusion?

It seems to me, that unless we want to pitch out rights altogether, that the
burden of showing why a right exists should rest upon the party that is trying
to intrude upon the lives of others.  I might want to buy your car someday.
Can I require you to install an airbag?  Why not?

>>On the contrary, in the long run I think it's the only thing that DOES work.
>    Because....?

Whew.  Long discussion here.  Let's just say that I don't think that you can
trade away just a piece of freedom.  Either you keep it, or you lose it.  You
don't lose it all at once, but you lose it nonetheless.

>> Some people are forced
>    to live in substandard housing since that's all they can afford. If you
>    feel building codes are not required, you should feel that fact is
>    acceptable.

So the solution is to outlaw "substandard" housing, making it impossible for
those people to afford any housing at all and dumping them on the streets as
homeless?  If you feel building codes ARE required, you should feel that fact
is acceptable.

> Should
>     children of home buyers who chose not to have their house inspected be
>     taken away and placed in foster homes? 

What a huge can of worms.  Should people who feed their kids too much have 
their children taken away?  They are encouraging obesity which could shorten
their children's lives.  Should people who drive too much have their children
taken away?  Even with proper restraints, driving is dangerous.  Should people
who do not give their children enough love and attention (proper levels to be
determined by state experts) have their children taken away?  They are at 
higher risk of suicide.

Do you really want to open that can?

re: .93

>      How  would the value of your property change if it were surrounded
>      byt houses that had fallend down and were left to rot away? 

Just because my actions may lower your property values, does not mean that you
have the right to prevent those actions.  In many areas of the country, 
property values will STILL go down in the area if you sell a house to a
non-white person.  Is that any justification to stop the sale?  If I own 100
acres of trees on the land next to yours, giving your land the appearance of
a house in the woods, can you prevent me from harvesting my own trees because
your property values will go down?  Of course not.

>      It  is  a  reasonble function of government to protect individuals
>      from the effects of other individuals who abuse their freedoms.

I agree completely.  However I don't think doing my own plumbing constitutes
abuse of my freedom.

Paul

    Boy I hate to jump into this but ...
    
    re the last couple by Paul on the bit about losing a bit of freedom at
    a time...
    
    The gut reaction I had to the first reply was that "It's OK to let
    everyone do their own thing when it comes to building codes, but you
    moderate the notes file. [and very nicely I might add.  Thanks]"
    
    Isn't that the same thing??
    
    In one case you're relying on people to obey rules and "do the right
    thing" in a community where what they do has an affect on a large body
    of people.  Yet, in the building code case, you say don't regulate it.
    I guess I'm confused.
    
    I see the same thing in software development.  We rely on all these
    reliable people to "do the right thing".  If people's views of what the
    right thing is, and there are many right choices a lot of times,
    differ, then we have many different environments.  These differences
    add up to costing the company lots of money.

>>I completely agree that it is a legitimate function of government to protect
>>the neighbors from your actions, and that as such sewage treatment, for 
>>example, should be regulated by the government.  Also fire safety if the house
>>is within a certain (close) proximity to neighboring structures.  I agree that
>>you should not be subjected to these risks by your neighbors.

   And how are people who build next to you suppose to know wether or not 
   your house is a firetrap and a possible danger to the new house???

>>But YOU are perfectly capable of eliminating the risk of purchasing a firetrap
>>yourself.  As discussed elsewhere in this note, independent agencies could 
>>provide safety certifications for structures, and most people would purchase
>>them because they add value to the house.  Or you could build your own.  But
>>just because you might want to purchase my house some day does not give you the
>>right to dictate the specifications to which I must build it.
   
   If you don't want to follow any safety code, then you must understand that
   your house should never be sold. There is no way a inspection of the house
   after it's built is going to discover major safety violations. The house
   wiring and plubming and structural inspections is done before the drywall
   is put up. So the only way to completely inspect the house is to rip down
   all the walls (very practical 8*)). 

>>If a builder builds a shoddy house and someone lives in it, the person living
>>in it has voluntarily decided to live there.  
  
   They may voluntarily live there, but how do they know the house is shoddly
   built. If the inspections work, then the house will never pass, and noone
   allowed to live there.

>>In the same way, every subsequent owner of the house is there by their own
>>choice.  Although a house inspector can't get in the walls, he can generally 
>>get a pretty good idea of the condition of what he CAN'T see by what he CAN 
>>see.  So the people buying have a pretty good idea.  Or perhaps they never 
>>bothered with an inspection, in which case they have made the choice to not 
>>care.  In any case, NO ONE who has not explicity chosen to be affected by the 
>>condition of this house will ever be exposed to it.  So what's the problem?

   This is only true because there are a lot of assumptions being made.
	. The house was inspected when it was built
	. Or the house was built by a reputable builder
   If a house wasn't inspected when built and you don't know who the builder
   is, then there is no way of knowing how safe that house is. It's absolutely
   impossible to tell.

   Mike

re:.94

>How many people in Massachusetts do you 
>think really want all work to have to be done by a licensed plumber or
>electrician?
    This is irrelevent. We're talking about whether building codes should
    exist or not, not who can do the work.

>It constantly amazes me that people are completely unable to see the difference
>between a situation where people are simply declining to do business with you,
>and a case where people with guns are coming to your door to make you stop 
>doing something.
    It's you who can't see the similarties.
    When you're the only game in town (those who grant "certificates of
    safety"), you might as well have a gun pointed to your head. This
    certificate is required if your house is to have any value, and
    no bank will lend money to build a house that does not have one.
    I think it's worse if that gun (in this case) is in the hands of
    a profit-driven private industry.
    
>Whew.  Long discussion here.  Let's just say that I don't think that you can
>trade away just a piece of freedom.  Either you keep it, or you lose it.  You
>don't lose it all at once, but you lose it nonetheless.
    Instead of getting into "next thing ya know" mode, let's assume the
    gummit won't start burning books just because they can say you have to
    use wirenuts, ok?
    
>So the solution is to outlaw "substandard" housing.
    Yes.
    > making it impossible for
>those people to afford any housing at all and dumping them on the streets as
>homeless?
    Not quite that simple.
    When a person's only housing option is substandard, you take away
    the "choice" (add this group who don't have a choice up there with
    children).
    Now instead of homeless, we have 'em all in unsafe dumps. Is this a
    better solution? I think not. The solution is to make affordable
    housing safe, not to make affordable housing period.
    
> Should
>     children of home buyers who chose not to have their house inspected be
>     taken away and placed in foster homes? 

>What a huge can of worms. 
    You're the one who opened it up. You said NO ONE was affected unless
    by choice. I pointed out you were wrong. You tell me what should be
    done for those affected without making that choice.
    
>Just because my actions may lower your property values, does not mean that you
>have the right to prevent those actions.
    So anyone who protests an incinerator plant in town should be thrown
    in jail?

>I agree completely.  However I don't think doing my own plumbing constitutes
>abuse of my freedom.
    Irrelevent again. Doing it yourself is not the issue.
    
    John

re: 95

No, notesfiles and building lots are not the same thing.  When I moderate a
notes file, I'm saying "Here is a notesfile, which you are free to participate
in or not participate as you choose.  If you choose to participate, these are
the rules."  No one owns the notesfile, no one has any inherent right to be
here.  It's an entirely voluntary association.

Building codes say "Here are the rules by which you must build your own house
on your own land."  You have no choice in the matter, your choice or volition
had nothing to do with it.  *IN ESSENCE*, armed police are coming to your door
to make you comply with a set of arbitrary and often capricious set of 
standards.

Those people who want more control over the property around them are perfectly
free to add restrictive covenants to the deeds of the property around them,
and many people do so now in addition to existing building codes.

re: .96

>   And how are people who build next to you suppose to know wether or not 
>   your house is a firetrap and a possible danger to the new house???

I already agreed that a structure built within a certain minimum distance of
property lines should be subject to some fire safety codes.  What more did you
want?

>   If you don't want to follow any safety code, then you must understand that
>   your house should never be sold. 

I'll ask again, as I did a couple of replies ago.  How come you think I should
be free to build my own unsafe house (which almost everyone here concedes), yet
you don't think I should be free to BUY an unsafe house?  I don't get it.

Paul

>>I'll ask again, as I did a couple of replies ago.  How come you think I should
>>be free to build my own unsafe house (which almost everyone here concedes), yet
>>you don't think I should be free to BUY an unsafe house?  I don't get it.

    You mean to tell me that if go sell your house you are going to be
    totally honest with every potential buyer about how the house was built
    and that the house was never inspected!!! Yeh right. Even if you do
    tell them, does that mean that they understand what you're saying. Do
    they honestly understand that this house was built with 2x4 at 24" on
    center. Do they understand what this means. You're basically taking the
    attitude, LET THE BUYER BEWARE. This is fine when dealing with diapers,
    but not with someones home where they are investing THOUSANDS of
    dollars into it. Building inspections were started so that this dosn't
    happen. What you are proposing is what building use to be like. The
    reason inspections are done, is because the system which your proposing
    DIDN'T WORK.
    
    Mike

re: .98

Of course, one could argue that when you choose to buy land in an area where
the government enforces building codes, that is also a voluntary association.
No one forced you to buy land there.

The philosophical issues involved here are too complicated for there to be
any resolution via notesfiles.  Rather than trying to convince the other person
that you're right, put effort into trying to understand why the other person
feels that way.  It's unlikely that many opinions will change, but at least we
can all learn.

   Gary

<<< Note 3565.94 by VMSDEV::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>

 .93
>      How  would the value of your property change if it were surrounded
>      byt houses that had fallend down and were left to rot away? 
 .94
>Just because my actions may lower your property values, does not mean that you
>have the right to prevent those actions. ...
 .93
>      It  is  a  reasonble function of government to protect individuals
>      from the effects of other individuals who abuse their freedoms.
 .94
>I agree completely.  However I don't think doing my own plumbing constitutes
>abuse of my freedom.

      There's  a thread of agreement (What!  In a notesfile?!)  here.  I
      think you SHOULD be allowed to do your  own  plumbing.   Your  not
      being  allowed  to  is  a  case  where  the code (or other law) is
      written and/or interpreted wrong.
      
      But I'm also comfortable in arguing that yuo should be required to
      do the plubming in a manner  that  does  not  unreasonably  affect
      other home owners in your area.
      
      My  view  of  a  "proper"  building code is one that balances your
      freedom to do what you want with my freedom not to be unreasonably
      affected  by  your  exercising your freedom.  Obviously, this is a
      difficult balance to achieve.  In my opinion the codes today,  and
      their  interpretations,  frequently  err  on  the  side  of overly
      restricting your freedom to a degree that  is  not  necessary  for
      protecting my freedom.  

  To change the subject, what would you suggest to someone building a 2 car 
 garage in a town that has no building inspector (or wiring or plumbing 
 inspector)?  The town has requirements for setback, distance from lot line,
 and so forth, and gives out building permits.

  This is in rural Vermont, where my folks have finally broken down and are
 putting in a garage.  They've checked other work done by their selected 
 contractor, and it seems good.

   Any suggestions?

   To tie to this topic, it seems there are no "building codes" in ths town.

   Steve

re: .102

>  To change the subject, what would you suggest to someone building a 2 car 
> garage in a town that has no building inspector...

>   To tie to this topic, it seems there are no "building codes" in ths town.

      I  can't  speak for Vermont, but in New Hampshire there is a state
      building code that applies in towns that don't have their own code.
      
      You say the town does issue permits, right? Perhaps you should put
      this question to the person who handles issuing the permits.

> >How many people in Massachusetts do you 
> >think really want all work to have to be done by a licensed plumber or
> >electrician?
>     This is irrelevent. 

I brought this up only as a counter-example to your contention that we as "the
people" can easily change what the government does. 

>    It's you who can't see the similarties.

Yes, I do see the similarities. I fully recognize that a private bureaucracy
would be similarly difficult to deal with.  We could argue about whether it
would be a little better or a little worse, but I don't think it's worth it -
we agree that it would be about the same.

So if it's about the same, then what is the value of establishing the
legitimacy of holding guns to people's heads?  That it would be a little
better?  A little more convenient?  It would be more convenient for me to
steal money than earn it.  It would make my life much easier.  Then why is it
wrong?

> When you're the only game in town you might as well have a gun pointed to 
> your head.

Suppose I want to buy some type of literature that is not generally accepted. 
No one anywhere near where I live has chosen to sell this literature, so I
can't buy it.  Is this the same as a situation where the government has passed
laws forbidding this literature?  Why or why not?

>    Instead of getting into "next thing ya know" mode, let's assume the
>    gummit won't start burning books just because they can say you have to
>    use wirenuts, ok?

Last time this "discussion" flared up there was another person who complained
about my "taking things to extremes".  But I object to a view of life which
does not care to consider consequences beyond the immediate moment.  Why is it
that any attempt to look at consequences beyond tomorrow it greeted with
derision? 

There's currently a company selling environmentally safe products called
"Seventh Generation," based on a precept of a Native American tribe that any
tribal decisions should be considered in the context of the consequences on the
seventh generation following.  I think that shows far more wisdom than I see in
our current populace.

>> What a huge can of worms. 
>    You're the one who opened it up. 

The can I'm referring to is the can of parent's choices affecting children. 
It's simply a fact of life, unless we want to take all children away from their
parents and raise them communally, that children will be affected by their
parent's choices - sometimes adversely.  I was pointing out that if you want to
justify building codes because of the effect on children, then to be consistent
you should also advocate the other things I mentioned.  If you don't want to
advocate those other things, then your point about children being affected by
lack of building codes is invalid.

re:.99

>    You mean to tell me that if go sell your house you are going to be
>    totally honest with every potential buyer about how the house was built
>    and that the house was never inspected!!! Yeh right. 

If you tell them that it was inspected when it was not, that is fraud and fraud
*should* be illegal.  If they don't bother to ask, then they are simply as
foolish as you were to build an unsafe house and deserve it as much as you did.
When someone is investing, as you say THOUSANDS of dollars, then one would hope
they would inspect the property first, and if they could not determine the 
condition inside the walls, offer enough less for the house to enable them to
economically make the necessary inspections and subsequent repairs.

You are right in saying that the existing system did not work, in so far that
people wanted some way to determine the safety of construction of houses they
wished to purchase.  All I'm saying is that there are far more civilized ways
to accomplish the goal of safe housing than resorting to brute force.

re: .100

> Of course, one could argue that when you choose to buy land in an area where
> the government enforces building codes, that is also a voluntary association.
> No one forced you to buy land there.

If you were willing to recognize that no one actually owns land anymore, that
it is all owned by the government and that we as citizens exchange not
ownership, but the privilege of leasing land from the government, then you
would be correct.  Otherwise claim is like saying that since you knew you were
buying property where organized crime demanded protection money, that the
protection racket was perfectly legitimate.  To make it more completely
accurate, there does not exist land anywhere which is NOT controlled by
organized crime.

Besides, building codes were established LOOOOONNG after ownership of the land,
and the people who owned that land for perhaps centuries had no such choice. 
They were simply told that they could no longer use their own land as they
wished.


I have to go do real work now.

Paul  

  In a system with no building codes, how could you be sure that a house
  that you're about to buy is safe? What private mechanism could replace
  government-regulated building codes and be similarly objective and
  reliable (at the very least)?

  Maybe we could have something similar to UL/CSA certification. The
  buyer (or a bank or insurer) could demand such certification (or not).
  Such certification would guarantee that a certified inspector
  conducted on-site inspections during and after construction. It's
  quite possible that such an agency would be more reliable than
  government officials for reasons most of us can think of.

  But you'd still have the problem that a house which is a firetrap is a
  hazard to an entire neighborhood. If it's far enough away from other
  structures not to set them ablaze, then it's probably in a wooded area
  where it could set the local trees on fire. A similar problem exists
  with regard to pollution and other environmental hazards, only worse,
  because environmental impact is a very long-term problem, and wouldn't
  motivate banks or insurers to demand any sort of compliance.

re .104

>Yes, I do see the similarities. I fully recognize that a private bureaucracy
>would be similarly difficult to deal with.  We could argue about whether it
>would be a little better or a little worse, but I don't think it's worth it -
>we agree that it would be about the same.

	I didn't say it would be about the same. I said it would be worse.

>So if it's about the same,
	It's not, I said, so the rest of your statement is irrelevent.

>Suppose I want to buy some type of literature that is not generally accepted. 
>No one anywhere near where I live has chosen to sell this literature, so I
>can't buy it.  Is this the same as a situation where the government has passed
>laws forbidding this literature?  Why or why not?
	I don't know what you're getting at, but "not generally accepted" and
	"outlawed" are obviously two different things.

>Why is it
>that any attempt to look at consequences beyond tomorrow it greeted with
>derision? 
	Because the presence of building codes is not a valid precedent to
	more extreme forms of government control (such as burning books, etc).
	On the other hand tho, what if we take away building codes, THE
	NEXT THING YOU KNOW all governmental bodies are dismantled, the armed
	forces are eliminated, schools are abolished, even trash pickup stops!
	COMPLETE AND TOTAL ANARCHY. Yup. That's what'll happen next if you
	take away building codes. I'm sure of it. Happy now?

>The can I'm referring to is the can of parent's choices affecting children. 
	That's not the can I referred to. This can was in reference to
	those affected by non-code-compliant housing without choosing so.
	That group includes not only children, but those that can't afford
	safe housing as well.

>It's simply a fact of life, unless we want to take all children away from their
>parents and raise them communally, that children will be affected by their
>parent's choices - sometimes adversely
	It's not an "all or nothing" argument, obviously. There are some
	parental choices that should be outlawed, and some that should not.
	If it were my choice to punish misbehavior by cutting off a finger,
	would you feel it was just? If I, as a parent, felt it was safe for
	my children to ride on the bumper of my car, should I be allowed to
	to do that?
	Even without children, your "only those that choose so are affected"
	statement is incorrect. How would that group be treated?

	John

Too many opinions and not enough facts.  Let's look at examples of what
the presence and absence of (enforced-by-gun) building codes has done
-- real examples, not abstract "one thing leads to another" arguments.

Note that the question here is not "do the building codes go too far" or
"should I be allowed to do my own plumbing".  The question is, "should 
there be building codes that are enforced by the government, instead of
having no codes at all, or having only codes that are enforced by
insurance companies, and only apply to those who buy insurance".
Without agreement on that question, there's no point in discussing
individual building codes.  


Picture a house out in the middle of the wilderness, occupied by its
builder.  Building codes seem irrelevant in this situation.

Picture the triangle shirtwaist factory.  It was (more or less) in
compliance with the codes of that day, and yet hundreds of young girls
burned to death or fell to their deaths because 1) the stairwell door
opened inward, and by the time they got it open, the stairwell was
burning, 2) the fire escape was blocked at the bottom, and wasn't stong
enough anway to support all those that tried to get onto it, 3) the 9th
floor was above the height of available fire ladders.  After this fire,
codes were strengthened so that workers will have a better chance of
escaping in case of fire.  I don't think anyone could reasonably claim
that the workers "chose" to work in this unsafe environment.

Now picture the Digital plant at Basingstoke, England, which burned
down last March.  From the accounts I read, a large part of the building
was a total loss.  And yet no one was hurt, much less killed.  When the
alarms went off, everyone left by the many readily accessibly exits,
and everyone was out in 2 minutes.  Probably very few of them have the
detailed technical knowledge needed to know whether their building was
safe in case of fire, but because of modern fire safety codes, it was.

Picture several rundown apartments in Worcester that burned down in the last
year.  One of them had no working smoke detectors, and an open flame gas
heater as the only heat.  An entire family burned to death.  Another had
a working smoke detector, and everybody escaped safely.  Why did that
family choose to be so stupid as to live in so unsafe a place?  They didn't.
They couldn't afford to move, but they complained to the licensing board
repeatedly, and the landlord repeatedly ignored orders to fix safety
violations.  Apparently the Worcestor licensing board actually cannot
force compliance with a gun -- all they could do was to keep giving the
landlord notice to appear in court and 3 months to fix the problems.

And finally, picture the kinds of tenements that immigrants lived in in
New York City (and other places) around the turn of the century.  A
common pattern provided perhaps one outside window and one opening into
an air well in the entire apartment -- you had to keep all of the doors 
open to get any cross ventilation.  This style of building was much cheaper
than building to modern codes, that require direct ventilation in all
sleeping rooms.  Does anyone care to claim that the elimination of this
type of housing has led to increased homelessnes?  Or has it simply led
to better housing and healthier living conditions among those who are too
poor to make demands of landlords?


Remember again, the question here is not whether existing building codes are 
too restrictive, the question is whether the entire concept of having building
codes is worse than having no required building codes at all.  

	Enjoy,
	Larry

I'm very interested by a point Paul Weiss made in note .104, to wit:

> There's currently a company selling environmentally safe products called
> "Seventh Generation," based on a precept of a Native American tribe that
> any tribal decisions should be considered in the context of the
> consequences on the seventh generation following.  I think that shows far
> more wisdom than I see in our current populace.

I've heard of that philosophy, and agree that it shows great wisdom.  But
I have a question.  Let's say one particular member of the tribe refused to
abide by the 7th generation decisions, but carried out his living or hunting
in a way that is clearly not sustainable for 7 generations.  Perhaps this
would be killing all of the beaver in an area, or killing animals and
leaving the bodies to rot, or some such environmentally damaging action.

My question is, what would the rest of the tribe do?  Would they say "well, 
he should do the right thing, but since we value freedom of action above 
everything else, we'll let him mess up the rest of the tribe and large 
sections of the wilderness?"  Somehow, I suspect the response would be
rather more drastic.  In particular, I can image the tribesman being forced
to either abide by the rules, or else leave and never come back.  

Now, it seems to me that even with modern american wood construction
techniques, we can (or should) expect houses we build to last for seven
generations, which is really just 150 years.  Some of us live in 150
year old houses.  I live in a 65 year old house, and perriodically curse
the earlier residents who tossed garbage, coal ash, and everything else
out their front door down the slope, for me to clean up.

Therefore, if we believe in the ideal of seven generations, if we accept
the idea that the things we do have consequences that *far* outlast our
own lives, should we not act on that?  Should we not force companies to
stop dumping toxic waste into the environment?  Should we not close our
so-convenient landfills when they endanger water supplies?  And should we 
not build our houses so that they will last 150 years with reasonable
safety?  Or should we take the attitude that we can do anything we please
within our own realms, that if we own land we can dump toxic waste on it,
dirty the water, and build unsafe buildings, in spite of knowing that
other people will have to deal with these problems when we are gone?

If we accept the ideal of acting responsibly toward future generations,
then we have to decide whether such actions will be voluntary or mandatory.
Will we all, as a group, bind ourselves to abide by the 7th generation
decisions, or will it be voluntary, on a strictly personal basis?

I submit that you will not, in the whole history of the world, find a
successful society that did not compell its members to act to some degree
in the interests of that society.  "Society" means, in this context, a
group of people living together, such that their usage of the environment
and each other have a long term effect on the group.  Fur trappers, who 
eliminated beavers from a large area of the american continent, did not 
form a society, since they went to where the beavers were, killed them all,
and then moved on.  A singularly selfish lifestyle, and one that insulated
those who practiced it from the consequences of their actions.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS -- One image that has been constantly invoked in this file is that of
a policeman pointing a gun at you and saying "you can't build that" (the
extreme result of government enforced codes) vs. the much more urbane
image of a banker or insurance agent saying "you can build it any way you
want, but if you don't please us you can't sell it, insure it, or mortgage
it".  Woody Guthry wrote a song praising an armed robber, with a line to 
the effect that some people rob you with a gun and some with a fountain pen
... he didn't see much difference between the two cases.


PPS -- Last year, someone tried to strike a blow for freedom by repealing
the "prevailing wage law", which forces all Massachusetts towns to pay the
prevailing Boston rates for construction, snow clearing, and so forth.  If
anyone wants to make a similar attempt to regain our freedom to do our own
plumbing, I'd be very happy to support them.  Changing our govermnent's
laws is very hard (the plumbers' union is powerful), but it isn't impossible.

I should really know better by now.

A defense of why building codes are not desirable is the defense of an entire
philosophy, it cannot be partitioned into a small segment like "just" the 
building codes.  Despite derogatory comments to the contrary, a MAJOR piece of
a freedom philosophy is the value - and danger - of precedent setting.  But I 
simply don't have the time to devote to a complete expansion of what 
consequences I believe will follow and why, particularly since I tend to be the
only advocate of freedom here against a plethora of people arguing the other 
side.  

Given that there's a lot of people on the other side, this discussion will 
continue as long as I keep replying - out there in note land there will always 
be someone who will want to reply to something I've said.  On the other hand, 
if I shut up, then this will die out because you folks all agree and will have 
nothing to argue about any more.

Well, I've got to do real work, so this will be my last note.  You folks can 
have the last word if you'd like.

Just a couple of points before I shut off:

Regarding such things as the Triangle Shirtwaist factory:  One thing that's
easy to forget is that progress exists.  Given our conditions now, we look at
the conditions then and deplore how bad they were.  But they were the 
prevailing conditions of the time EVERYWHERE.  The OWNERS of those factories
lived and worked in unhygenic firetraps with no fire escapes and poor 
ventilation.  That's all that existed at the time.

Through cases like the Triangle Shirtwaist factory, demands for improved 
conditions began to be heard.  And the result was legislation.  No avenues
of strikes or other voluntary means of improving conditions were reasonably
tried or given a chance to work.

The government does this all the time.  They can't do anything unless a large
segment of the population wants it anyway, so they don't START any crusades.
What they essentially do is wander about in a drum major's uniform with a baton
looking for a parade, and when they find one they march in front and pretend
that it was all their idea.

Safer working conditions was an idea whose time had come.  Can you say that it
would never have come without legislation?  I certainly can't.  And we'll 
never have a chance to find out.

>  Should we not force companies to
>  stop dumping toxic waste into the environment?  Should we not close our
>  so-convenient landfills when they endanger water supplies?  

Absolutely.  Resources which cannot be owned MUST be protected by the 
government - no one else can.  I've tried to consistently say that I agree that
no one should be able to forcibly or fraudlently directly infringe on anyone
else.  When you pollute the environment, you are in essence forcing people
around you to breathe/drink/live in your waste.

> And should we 
> not build our houses so that they will last 150 years with reasonable
> safety?  

Ideally, we should.  But again you are not forcibly or fradulently hurting
anyone.  If I believed the "seventh generation" affects of building poor 
quality houses were worse than the "seventh generation" affects of establishing
the precedent of forcible government intrusion, then I'd agree with you.  But
I don't, so I don't.  

And yes, there has been a lot of comparison between no one offering something
you want and someone forcing you to do something as being the same thing,
because the results are the same.  But I disagree completely.  This essentially
is the same as saying "the end justifies the means".  The "end" of safe housing
is good, so the "means" of guns is OK.

I tried to use book buying as an example, but the point was missed.  One last
attempt.  I come to your house, and offer to clean your windows for $50.  You
accept, I wash the windows, and you give me $50.  Or I come to your house,
wash your windows while you are at work, and then meet you at the door with a
gun and demand $50 for washing your windows.

The end results are the same - you have clean windows and are $50 poorer.  But
do you maintain that these two situations are essentially identical, even if in
the second case you WANTED your windows clean and would have paid me $50 if I
had asked?  Or even if you only demanded $25 at gunpoint, and thus were CHEAPER
than the voluntary solution?  I don't believe they are the same at all, and I
believe the second is dead wrong.  Yet I believe that is EXACTLY analogous to 
the situation of building codes vs. voluntary solutions.

I'm done.

Paul

  I was discussing this topic with my wife last night, and suggested
  that if somebody started up a certification service, they could make a
  lot of money. 

  You'd do on-site inspections during and after construction, and you
  could use some moderately sophisticated equipment to do a fair degree
  of looking into walls (infrared, ultrasound, arthroscopy, etc). This
  service would be of interest to (1) lenders and insurers, (2)
  prospective buyers, and (3) builders and sellers. I believe that even
  with the existing codes, regulations and inspections (which we all
  know fall far short of being perfect), such a service could make a
  pile of money, especially if it's franchised on a national level. My
  wife thought about it for a few seconds, and had this comment:
  
  "You'd be dead."

  It took me a half a second to realize that she's right.

  And that's why we'll continue to have building codes, licensed trades,
  and building inspectors. Not because any of this philosophical BS is
  right or wrong.

The frustrating thing to me, Paul, is that every time I cite an example
like "should you be allowed to dump toxic waste ON YOUR OWN LAND" just
because it's your land, you come back with a question like "should you
be allowed to force me to have clean windows".  GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
I **AGREE** that there are many examples of building codes that should 
not exist.  You are apparently arguing that that NO mandatory building 
codes should exist at all, so kindly respond to the tough questions if 
you are going to respond at all.

I'm also frustrated by your repeated insistence that nobody should have
safety unless they choose it.  That reduces in practice to no one getting 
safety unless they are smart enough and powerful enough to force others 
to give it to them.  Tell me how that family in Worcester could have 
avoided burning to death -- by moving out on the street?  Tell me how I
can get safe working conditions at work without codes?  After all, I'm
so dumb that I've never even checked to see if the sprinklers are
connected, or whether the emergency exits are not locked shut, or whether
the wire insulation is going to burn and spread a fire instantly to all
parts of the building.  Nor am I in a union, although if I was, and the
union shut down the plant in a strike for safe working conditions, that 
would be compulsion just like pointing a gun.  But I don't need a union
and I don't have to check those things myself -- I've got code enforcers 
who do it for me.  Do you think that I (and probably most of us) deserve 
no safety at work because we didn't check into safety for ourselves?  Again, 
answer the tough cases, don't talk about plumbing and windows.  

Here's a variant question:  should there be taxes?  Every tax is
an example of the government forcing you to give money that they will
spend on your behalf, like your window washer example.  Presumably you 
are self consistent and feel that there should be no taxes.  OK, that's a
fair opinion.  But should there be government at all?  Should there be
*any* governing body that can compell individuals to do things? I can't
quite see how your viewpoint is self consistent unless you are also
arguing that there should be no government with rights to compell
individuals.  Again, a fair opinion, although it's not mine.  If that
isn't what your views really are, I'm sorry, but I don't understand,
although it is not for lack of trying to see your viewpoint.

As you can tell, I am more than a little annoyed here.  I think it was
your claim that *YOU* are the defender of freedom and all the rest of
us want to take freedoms away (and like to insult you while we are at it)
that got me.  My personal freedom could be higher than it is by limiting
the building codes, but I am convinced that I would be far less free with
no building codes at all, and far less free with no government at all.
THAT is why I support limited building codes, NOT because I want to take
away your freedoms.  This is something we  agree on -- we both want to be
free.  I just think your way of seeking freedom would produce a far more
terrible tyranny than we have now, even in the People's State of
Massachusetts.  I've tried to explain why I feel that way, but since I
also have real work to do, I'll have to give up.  Let's agree that we both
seek freedom for ourselves and others, and leave it at that.

	Yours most sincerely,
	Larry Seiler

    re .-1
    Have you ever listened to a member of the libertarian party? What
    you're explaining is exactly how they operate. It's either all
    or nothing. The slightest hint of personal freedom infringement
    means we're hours away from Socialism.
    
    John

    What do the building codes give me?
    
    1. Reasonable assurance that your plumbing and everyone else's plumbing
       ensures a level of sanitation that will prevent cholera and other
       disease epidemics from killing me.
    
    2. Reasonable assurance that if I go into a public building I won't be
       trapped in a fire or otherwise put in danger.
    
    3. Reasonable assurance that if I or somebody else build according to
       the building code I'll have a safe building.
    
    We're all in this together.  All this strong individualistic hoo-ha
    makes great philosophical discussion, but we're a society.  There are
    plenty of scurrilous and reprehensible sons-of-bitches out there in
    the building trades who have forgotten more about cutting corners and
    building in an unsafe way than we can even conceive of.  I had the
    misfortune to run into one a couple of years ago.  The poor are at
    the mercy of just about everybody, and that especially includes builders 
    and landlords.  
    Larry mentions the abysmal working conditions of the past.  I'm with
    him; they got cleaned up only because of legislation, not because of
    progressive thinking by the management.  We happen to work for a
    remarkably enlightened gentleman.  Go work in a steel mill and see
    how enlightened your management is, or in a garment factory on the
    lower east side of New York.  Read about the coal and railroad barons.

    What a discussion ....  I can only ask then, why do we have a moderator
    and moderators rules that keep order in this file and result in locked
    notes and moved notes etc?  (Apart from the rules that are imposed 
    because the files belong to Digital)  Those moderators rules are like
    the building codes ...
    
    So, let's just have a free for all in here too ......
    
    Stuart

I know, I promised, but I don't want to leave Larry all annoyed.  Maybe I won't
be able to help it.  Oh well, one last try.

OK, Larry, I'll deal with the hard ones.  And BTW, I was not trying to avoid
hard questions.  I was trying to present what I consider to be - on principle -
the same issue in a simpler situation.  Plus I simply don't have the time to
spend hours answering every point, and the more difficult points tend to drag
in more *other* pieces.  I've spent more time than I can really afford on this
already, I don't have the time or space to derive the entire basis of the
philosophy of freedom.

You haven't been listening if you can maintain that I've been saying "that NO
mandatory building codes should exist at all."  I've said at least half a dozen
times in this note that I agree that building codes should exist, but that the
ONLY basis for such codes should be to protect people outside the confines of
your property from damage by you.  So - can you dump toxic waste on your land?
If you could in some way show that there was no way for the waste to get into
the groundwater and thus leave your land, yes you should be able to.  But since
groundwater travels for miles and miles, in practice, no, you can't dump toxic
waste on your land, unless you are willing to go to the expense of building a
permenent containment vessel of some sort.

For example, I agree that it should be completely illegal to dump used car oil
on your land - indiscriminate dumping of used oil is one of our largest
groundwater polluters.

> Tell me how that family in Worcester could have avoided burning to death

By going out and spending $5.99 on a smoke detector themselves, and sticking it
to the wall.  While I agree that the landlord should have provided a smoke
alarm, it was completely within that family's power and means to provide fire
detection themselves, and they chose not to.


You're very concerned about poor working conditions without regulations.  Steve
put it as: "the abysmal working conditions of the past... got cleaned up only
because of legislation, not because of progressive thinking by the management."

I'm saying that it's not either-or.  I don't think that conditions in general
have improved because of progressive thinking by management, although there are
notable exceptions such as Henry Ford.  But neither do I agree that legislation
was the only way to obtain safe working conditions.

You mentioned strikes - strikes work very well at getting companies to provide
services, and they are NOT the equivalent of gun-holding, or at least they
shouldn't be.  A strike is simply the employees together saying: "We will no
longer work for you under these conditions."

I believe that the drive for safety in the workplace took place because of the
progress of the general population, and that it took the form of regulation
because it was easily accessable and fast.  I believe that our workplaces would
be as safe today - or at least nearly so - without any regulations.  If
regulations were not available, then people - who have progressed to desire
more safety - would find another way to obtain them.  I don't believe that the
government is the engine of progress, they just like to think they are.


Bottom line, yes, I think you should be responsible to ensure your own safety,
with the caveat that this is only about 1% of my real answer.  Hard questions
have long answers, and I just don't have the time.

Regarding taxes and governments.

I believe that each of us as individuals have certain rights.  And I believe
that we can institute a government to which we delegate the protection of those
rights.  But I don't believe that the government thus created has any rights of
its own, or that it can excercise any right which did not belong to the people
who delegated their rights to it.

The primary right, from which all others is derived, is the right to our own 
life, and a correlary is the right to self defense.  We delegate the 
enforcement of our right to self defense to the government.  I'm not an
anarchist, I don't believe that anarchic schemes of competing protection
agencies will work.  So the government has the right to defend each of us from
aggression from any other member or group in society.  THAT'S ALL.

You, as an individual, do not have the right to compel me to build a house to
your specifications.  You do, however, have the right to compel me to not
contaminate your water or subject your home to excessive risk of fire. 
Therefore the government has the right to enforce these things.


The big problem is that laws are based on principles. and when you change the
principle on which laws are made, you - in the long run - have no coherent
argument against any other law which is based on the same principle.  Without
going into a lot of detail - I went into a bit more in some of my replies when
this discussion went on last year - history shows that again and again
governments will enact more and more restrictive laws based on any principle
that is once established.  This is why I and other libertarians annoy John to
the point that he feels the need to make repeated derogatory comments about
taking things to extremes.  When any law or policy is discussed, my first
thought is always "What is the principle on which this is based, and what other
laws or policies can be covered by the same principle?"  Even if the particular
policy in question is very innocuous, if it presents a new *PRINCIPLE* in
legislation, I'll fight it tooth and nail.

So long as building codes - and other laws - adhere to the principle of
protecting people from the aggression of others, then I'm all for them.  When
they start to establish the principle of protecting people from themselves,
or various other principles, then I'm completely against it.

Everyone is all concerned that we need government because other people are so
unscrupulous that they'll take advantage of us.  But what about the people in
government?  They're not better people than the rest of us, they're the same
unscrupulous people that we're worried about in business.  A case can be made
that because of the nature of government they're MORE unscrupulous, but I'll
leave that one be.  Doesn't anyone but me worry about giving the right to make
laws about our private lives to those unscrupulous people you're so worried 
about in business?

One of our most fundamental rights is the right to be stupid.  Freedom of
speech means that you can espouse any stupid idea you want.  Freedom of
religion means you can worship any stupid concept of God you want.  This all
started because I said you should be able to be stupid enough to build and live
in an unsafe house.

But if we establish the precedent that the government has the right to
determine what is right, good, and smart for us (It's smart to have a safe
house), what will we do when stupid people get control of the government? Their
right to establish what we can and cannot do has already been determined, and
we will have no defense against the stupid policies they will enact.

Taxation I view as a perhaps-necessary evil.  I think that if government were
properly limited, its budget would be small enough that we could probably come
up with ways to fund it without taxation.

And finally, I'm sorry Larry, I really mean no offense, but I'm not willing to
agree that we both seek freedom for ourselves and others.  Or at least if we do
then we have entirely different concepts of "freedom".  I completely recognize
that you believe life is BETTER with building codes, I'm not at all questioning
your desire for the best world possible.  But as I understand freedom, seeking
freedom by insisting that government has the right to tell private citizens how
to live is a contradiction in terms.  Your life might be less convenient
without building codes, perhaps, or less secure, although I argue that it would
be neither.  But less free?  I have to disagree.

Your also, most sincerely,

Paul

The problem with the "building codes should only protect people off the 
property" viewpoint is that it ignores (or seems to) the fact that homes are
very seldom owned by only one person or family over the lifetime of the 
property. If a home is not built to certain standards, hidden problems in the
property could endanger subsequent homeowners.

As such, I submit that you should extend the "harm to others" constraint to 
include "over time" as well. Suppose you could bury toxic waste without it
getting in the groundwater. If you sell the property sometime in the future,
someone else is endangered by the toxic waste. So you can't do it. If you build
a house with inadequate wiring, you may never plug a space heater into a 20 amp
circuit wired with 24 gauge floss. But the poor sod who buys your house 15 years
down the pike may. So if the wiring endangers him (over time), it's a reasonable
thing to be regulated by a building code.

>>                                   So - can you dump toxic waste on your land?
>>If you could in some way show that there was no way for the waste to get into
>>the groundwater and thus leave your land, yes you should be able to.  But since
>>groundwater travels for miles and miles, in practice, no, you can't dump toxic
>>waste on your land, unless you are willing to go to the expense of building a
>>permanent containment vessel of some sort.
   
    You are one sick individual if you think that just because the toxic waste
    doesn't leave your land that you aren't doing any harm. What is going to 
    happen to the land when you die???? Who's going to clean up the mess that
    you left???? Your mentality is that if I do something NOW and it doesn't
    hurt anyone NOW then it's OK. Well what about 20 years from NOW??? Can
    you say that what you do NOW will be safe to other people for years to
    come???? I didn't think so!!! In fact your attitude dictates that you don't
    even care.



>>You're very concerned about poor working conditions without regulations.  Steve
>>put it as: "the abysmal working conditions of the past... got cleaned up only
>>because of legislation, not because of progressive thinking by the management."

>>I'm saying that it's not either-or.  I don't think that conditions in general
>>have improved because of progressive thinking by management, although there are
>>notable exceptions such as Henry Ford.  But neither do I agree that legislation
>>was the only way to obtain safe working conditions.

>>You mentioned strikes - strikes work very well at getting companies to provide
>>services, and they are NOT the equivalent of gun-holding, or at least they
>>shouldn't be.  A strike is simply the employees together saying: "We will no
>>longer work for you under these conditions."

>>I believe that the drive for safety in the workplace took place because of the
>>progress of the general population, and that it took the form of regulation
>>because it was easily accessible and fast.  I believe that our workplaces would
>>be as safe today - or at least nearly so - without any regulations.  If
>>regulations were not available, then people - who have progressed to desire
>>more safety - would find another way to obtain them.  I don't believe that the
>>government is the engine of progress, they just like to think they are.

    Obviously you know very little about the labor movement in the US. Strikes
    in the US at the turn of the century were very unsucessfull until 
    they got support from the Legislature. Thousands of people were killed
    across this country at the first part of this century during the labor
    movement. Companies brought in gun carrying men to abort the strikes.
    Henry Ford was considered one of the worst offenders. During one strike
    his men carrying maching-guns killed aver 20 strikers who were demonstrating
    outside his company. The strikes were very successful in bringing about
    sympathy from the public, but without the passing of laws by the government
    they weren't very successful.

    Also, only the big companies ever had any strikes. Unless you worked for
    a large company with a lot of employees then you couldn't afford to 
    strike. So even if the strikes did work, then only the large companies
    would ever have passed any safe working conditions. So if you worked for
    a small company then the working conditions would still be unsafe.

>>So long as building codes - and other laws - adhere to the principle of
>>protecting people from the aggression of others, then I'm all for them.  When
>>they start to establish the principle of protecting people from themselves,
>>or various other principles, then I'm completely against it.
    
    But building codes were established to protect people from other people.
    Less then 1% of the homes in this country are built by individuals.
    So for 99% of the homes built the code is in place to protect people (the
    buyer) from other people (the builder). And for the other 1%, I'll agree
    with you if and only if you can guarantee that those homes can be ACCURATELY
    inspected or that no one will ever be allowed to buy that house. And you
    can't gurantte that, in fact no one can!!


Mike

  re: (.117)

  So what say we, who are building, or have built our own house, paint a
large scarlet W (for WARNING this house wasn't inspected) to protect you
from your ignorance? Will that appease your ravenous desire to legislate
my freedom? You know, you can always blast them to oblivion, once we enter
that Great-Grossman's-In-The-Sky.

  Patrick

  How many folks in this discussion live or have lived in a "socialist"
  country, and can tell us how horrible it is (or isn't)?

    Another basic question:
    If this Libertarian philosophy is so great, how come there aren't
    any societies practicing it? Could it be that it doesn't work?
    
    John

	Re: .118

	Would you perhaps prefer that a prospective buyer who isn't "ignorant"
arrive at the house showing and ask to rip out major chunks of your flooring,
sheetrock and siding to determine for themselves if they agree with your ideas
of safe building practices?  Building the house to code and having it inspected
makes *your* life easier when it comes time to sell, so why not do it for your
own convenience?

								-craig

>>  So what say we, who are building, or have built our own house, paint a
>>large scarlet W (for WARNING this house wasn't inspected) to protect you
>>from your ignorance? Will that appease your ravenous desire to legislate
>>my freedom? You know, you can always blast them to oblivion, once we enter
>>that Great-Grossman's-In-The-Sky.

    Hey you do what ever you want, but if you do sell that house that
    didn't meet codes, and the house burns down because of poor wiring and
    soneone gets killed are you going to take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for their
    death??? Would you even care???? I didn't think so!!!
    
    Could you please tell me that name of someone who is smart enough to
    tell if a finished house that was built without any inspection being
    done is safe???? I didn't think so. The people buying the house is just
    suppose to trust you.
    
    I'm all for Freedom as long as what you do dosn't affect anyone else.
    But building a house without any reguard to codes is going to affect
    other people, and you CAN'T prove otherwise. It may not be today or
    this year or the next, but it will. Freedom comes with a price. That
    price is responsibility. You people seem to want to do what you like
    but won't take responsiblity for you actions. I suppose that if you
    built a house that didn't meet codes and wasn't inspected and it burned
    down you wouldn't put a claim into the insurance company???? Yeh,
    right. That kind of a claim affects all of us.
    
    Mike

>    If this Libertarian philosophy is so great, how come there aren't
>    any societies practicing it? Could it be that it doesn't work?

  In fact, there are numerous countries where there are no enforced
  laws. A Libertarian's dream, or so one would think, though no
  Libertarian would ever agree that that's what they meant to happen
  (they'll find all sorts of excuses why those places aren't "really"
  what the Libertarian philosophy is all about). In these places, it's
  every person for him/herself. Those who can accumulate power enjoy a
  fabulous lifestyle -- exactly what the Libertarian philosophy wants to
  permit. In socialist countries, it's extremely difficult to acquire a
  similarly fabulous lifestyle.

>>                          -< can you say "selfish"? >-
    
    Can you say Yuppy.................
    
    Now the question is, do they wear power yellow ties.
    
    Mike

>    But building codes were established to protect people from other people.
      
      I wish this were so.
      
      Unfortunately,  I  find  myself  unable  to come to any conclusion
      other  than  that  much  of  what  makes  up  building  codes  was
      established to protect the interests of the building trade unions. 

      For  the  record,  I  know  that there are many fine people in the
      bulding trades.  There are also others.

    re .118
    
    >...once we enter that Great-Grossman's-in-the-Sky."
    
    So you admit that you will be going to hell, eh? 8-) 8-)
    
    Bob
    

  re: (.121)

>	Would you perhaps prefer that a prospective buyer who isn't "ignorant"
>arrive at the house showing and ask to rip out major chunks of your flooring,
>sheetrock and siding to determine for themselves if they agree with your ideas
>of safe building practices?

  As long as they restore it to its condition prior to their inspection, I
have no problems with this approach.

>  Building the house to code and having it inspected
>makes *your* life easier when it comes time to sell, so why not do it for your
>own convenience?

  You assume I might choose to sell, but there are other methods of ridding it.
Should I build it according to shoddy practices with the intent to one day
sell, then I alone would ultimately suffer the consequences.

  Patrick

  re: (.122)

  You just don't get it, do you? You're singing your same tired song. What's
the solution? Simple. Just say "NO" to a house (or anything, for that matter)
that doesn't satisfy *your* standards.

  Now, I'll blaspheme your sacrosanct building codes by offering my aunt's
two year old domicile as profanation. She purchased it new, and it was fully
inspected. All the gutters have fallen off, a torrential leak developed around
the chimney, the roof has two nails per shingle, and there was insufficient
shingle coverage at the ridge so that the f'n nails were exposed! I can only
wonder what unseen shortcomings remain. Where did the codes protect her?

  Why don't you also explain what assurance you have that your building
inspector is both proficient and honest.

  Furthermore, please explain to me how my house, situated on 95 acres, with
my nearest neighbor ~1200' away, is a threat to anyone but me.

  And finally, since you're preaching responsibility and insurance premiums,
I'm certain you posses no vices/habits that might affect actuarial tables,
now do you?

  Patrick

  re: (.123)

  So where do you draw the line of regulation? Would you be upset if
a hypothetical vinyl/aluminum siding lobby successfully convinced a
legislative body to prohibit the use of wood siding since it is
inflammable?

  Patrick

    To add fuel to the fire...
    
    Let's say I build a house in 1950 which meets the codes of the day.  40
    years later, I sell the house to someone else.  Does the house meet
    code?  No, the current codes have lots more to say about everything. 
    The 60 amp fuse box no longer is acceptable.  The kitchen and bath have
    14-2 circuits with no ground and are not GFIC protected.  
    
    The seller buys the house because they feel the house meets their needs
    at the time based on thier current situation.  Is it a safe place to
    live because we have building codes?  Not necessarily.  The codes only
    assure a minumum building standard at some point in time.  Once
    inspected, the house stagnates unless the owner sees fit to continually
    retrofit and update.
    
    If you go back and read the previous replies, those against building
    codes are not against building codes per se, just that they are
    *enforced by the government*.  They all say that building codes or
    minmum standards are needed, just not mandated via the government.
    
    The point they are making is not what is in the code, but who deciedes
    what is in the code, and how it is enforced.  Let's stop bickering
    about whether codes are needed, we are all in agreement.  Let's discuss
    the point we seem to disagree on, how to enforce those codes.

    
    re .129
    
>>  You just don't get it, do you? You're singing your same tired song. What's
>>the solution? Simple. Just say "NO" to a house (or anything, for that matter)
>>that doesn't satisfy *your* standards.

    It's not me who dosn't get it it's you who dosn't. Over 95% of the people
    in this country don't have the skills to inspect a house and tell if the
    house is safe (even if all the drywall and flooring was removed). So these
    people (the voting public) established this system of ensuring (at least
    trying to ensure) that a house when built will meet certain standards
    of safety. Now you want to eliminate this because it's an inconvenience 
    to you. In order to ensure that people feel safe in buying a safe house
    some kind of system has to be in place. You feel that no system has to
    be in place, thus forcing everyone of the buying public be experts in
    all aspects of home construction. If you think that kind of system is
    going to work, you're dreaming.

>>  Now, I'll blaspheme your sacrosanct building codes by offering my aunt's
>>two year old domicile as profanation. She purchased it new, and it was fully
>>inspected. All the gutters have fallen off, a torrential leak developed around
>>the chimney, the roof has two nails per shingle, and there was insufficient
>>shingle coverage at the ridge so that the f'n nails were exposed! I can only
>>wonder what unseen shortcomings remain. Where did the codes protect her?

    In many areas in this country there is protection for her. I had a cousin
    who's roof blew off in less then a year after construction. He sued the
    town for not inspecting it properly. He won the lawsuit. Also, dosn't your
    Aunt have insurance???

>>  Why don't you also explain what assurance you have that your building
>>inspector is both proficient and honest.

    Nothing is foolproof. But it's a hell of a lot better then what you're
    proposing. There will be a lot more deaths in the system (or lack there
    of system) you proposing.

>>  Furthermore, please explain to me how my house, situated on 95 acres, with
>>my nearest neighbor ~1200' away, is a threat to anyone but me.

    Oh, so you never invite anyone over to your house to visit. And of course
    your family knows all about home construction also, and their living there
    with you because they know that the house is safe.
   
>>  And finally, since you're preaching responsibility and insurance premiums,
>>I'm certain you posses no vices/habits that might affect actuarial tables,
>>now do you?

    That's right, I don't.
    I'm not saying it's not OK for you to make a claim to your insurance
    company if your house burns down, as long as they know about the house.
    First off you couldn't get insurance if the house wasn't inspected, unless
    you lied to them and said it was. Second, if you were able to get insurance
    then your premiums should reflect the unsafe house (ie: about 10 times
    what a inspected house would be). In some area's in this country people 
    are paying very high premiums for just having a inground pool.
    
    I suggest you go out and price life-insurance. In the questionaire you'll 
    see questions, like "Do you smoke??". People who smoke pay a higher premium
    on insurance then I do. Also people with heart problems or people who are
    diabetic or obease pay a higher premium. Vices and habits are reflected
    in ones premiums.

    But you want to build the house anyway you want (ie possibly unsafe) and
    still get insurance at the same price I do. BTW it was the insurance
    companies that brought about home inspections in this country. In fact
    most of the electrical codes and fire-place/stove codes came directly 
    from the insurance companies. The national code with most towns use is
    sponsered by the insurance companies. In fact they right a good part of
    it.

    The only way you're going to get insurance on a uninspected house is by
    being deceptfull. So YES, you should't be allowed to make a claim on your
    house if it burns down.

    Mike

>    If you go back and read the previous replies, those against building
>    codes are not against building codes per se, just that they are
>    *enforced by the government*.  They all say that building codes or
>    minmum standards are needed, just not mandated via the government.
    
    I don't think that's true. Those against are against codes period.
    For if a code or set of codes exist, those are now something to
    compare against. Without codes, people compare against their own
    set of standards, and that's how I gather the anti-coders want it.
    
    In the real world, however, we would never have a construction
    industry without mandated codes. I'm repeating myself, but given
    the vested interest banks, insurance companies, and other private
    industries have in how a house is constructed, there is no way,
    in all but rare instances, one could build a house without conforming
    to a defined set of codes. So let's get back to the real world, ok?
    
    John

>>    Let's say I build a house in 1950 which meets the codes of the day.  40
>>    years later, I sell the house to someone else.  Does the house meet
>>    code?  No, the current codes have lots more to say about everything. 
>>    The 60 amp fuse box no longer is acceptable.  The kitchen and bath have
>>    14-2 circuits with no ground and are not GFIC protected.  

    I grew up in a house that was built at the turn of the century. When my
    mom sold it 6 years ago the house had to be completely upgraded to todays
    standards. 
	. The chain lights had to removed in the closets
	. All rooms had to have a switch which activated either an outlet
	  or a light.
	. The house was upgraded to 100 amps a few years earlier, but if
	  it wasn't then that would have to be done.
	. Hand rails had to be installed.
    Many cities are now doing away with the Grandfather clause, especially
    on multi-dwelings.
    
>>    If you go back and read the previous replies, those against building
>>    codes are not against building codes per se, just that they are
>>    *enforced by the government*.  They all say that building codes or
>>    minmum standards are needed, just not mandated via the government.
    
>>    The point they are making is not what is in the code, but who deciedes
>>    what is in the code, and how it is enforced.  Let's stop bickering
>>    about whether codes are needed, we are all in agreement.  Let's discuss
>>    the point we seem to disagree on, how to enforce those codes.

    I'll agree with you on this point, but some people don't want any building
    codes at all. Is there a better system of inspecting homes then we have
    now??? I don't know. If we take it away from the goverment and put it in 
    the hands of the insurance people, do you think the inforcement of it
    will be any better???? Maybe!! But what if it isn't, what do we do then???
    As it is right now, if we have a problem we can always vote to get either
    the people out who are making the decision or vote in laws on building 
    codes. Personally I like to keep it in the hands of the people.

  MIKE

Well, now that Patrick has joined the fray, I'm not the only one keeping it
going, so I might as well continue....   :-)

One thing, speaking sort of as a moderator but mostly as a person who has
participated in notesfiles "discussions" of this type before: it would be best
if participants avoided taking a confrontational tone.  Up to this point, this
note has had WIDE disagreements, but they have been conducted civilly.  Even
when people have become annoyed with each other, we've all managed to maintain
a reasonable level of decorum.  A couple of recent replies have been written
with a tone which, while not blatantly hostile, manages to convey the message
that the author would really like to end each sentence with "you moron".  As
moderator, I will do nothing to stop this, but I'd like to just note that from
such beginnings many a "discussion" has gotten completely out of hand and
degenerated to namecalling and the like.


The problem we have here is that the two sides of this issue are working from a
different set of basic premises.  We can argue till the cows come home about
building codes specifically, but because our premises are different, the
arguments we use make no sense to the other side.  Some of the analogies that
I've used have been an attempt to simplify the situation and to get closer to
the basic premises.  I'm sorry if this simplification has frustrated people by
making them think I was avoiding issues.  But if I just answer the questions at
the top level, and you try to evaluate that answer in light of your premises,
you won't understand what I'm talking about.  

Due partly to this difference in premises and the subsequent difficulty in
understanding each other's positions, we're not hearing each other well at all.
For example, at least a dozen times in this note, someone has said "What about
the person who buys the house?"  And I have pointed out that everyone here
agrees that someone should be allowed to be stupid enough to build an unsafe
house, so long as they do not affect other people.  I've then asked if they
have the right to be stupid enough to build an unsafe house, why they don't
have the right to be stupid enough to buy a house when they cannot determine
it's safety?  To my knowledge, no one has answered or responded to that point,
but it doesn't stop someone else from saying 5 notes later "What about the
person who buys the house?"

I know that there are similar ways in which people on the other side of the
discussion feel that I haven't really heard or answered their points, although
I have tried.  We all need to work at listening a little better.


Anyway, rather than try to address building codes specifically, I'll try to get
at the more basic issues behind it.

What's your initial reaction to the phrase "The end justifies the means"? 
Nearly everyone agrees in theory that this principle is dead wrong, that just
because the end you have in mind is good, does not mean that any means are
justified in the accomplishment of that end.  It is easy to come up with
countless examples, ranging from the trivial to the horrible.

Yet that phrase, and that concept, is the founding principle upon which all
liberal thought is based.  In all this discussion about building codes, almost
all of the arguments in favor of the codes have been presentations of the ends,
I have seen no one attempt a justification of the means.  Those ends are
variations of "We want safe housing":  "I couldn't determine if a house was
safe before I bought it", "I could determine that the house was safe, through
insurance company inspections, but I think the insurance company might be more
unreasonable in their inspections", etc.

These ends have been used to justify the means of carrying guns into people's
homes and requiring them to build to a certain set of specifications.  I
imagine that you're all sick of my bringing up guns all the time, but I'm only
doing it because I don't think anyone recognizes any more what a LAW really is. 
A law is an edict which is enforced (note this word, generally used to denote
the application of a law) with naked brute force.  Generally, the mere threat
of force is all that is necessary, since people know that the force will come. 
If you refuse to get a building permit, and then refuse to recognize the
subsequent stop work order, eventually police - with guns - will come to stop
you.

A law is not an amicable way which we deal with each other in society.  Would
you consider it an amicable relationship if your neighbor came over to your
house with a shotgun and threatened you every time you did something he didn't
like, even if that thing were entirely private and did not affect him at all?
No?  Then why do you think it is an amicable way to run a society?

Laws are regretfully necessary because no matter how civilized we become, there 
will always be some among us who will resort to force on their neighbors.  And
in that context, it is justified to use force to stop them from their
aggression.  This use of force is justified in and of itself as a response to
THEIR use of force, not as a means to the end of self preservation.  If the end
of self preservation alone were sufficient justification for the use of force,
then I would be justified, for example, in forcing someone to donate a kidney
to save my life.

It is my position that this justification of force as a response to aggression
by another should be the ONLY basis for the creation of laws, that justifying
the force of law as a means to achieve any ends whatever is wrong, and in the
long run, totally destructive.  For once you have established that the end does
indeed justify the means, who is to determine what ends are sufficient
justification, and what means are acceptable?

In the context of building codes, this means I believe the government is
perfectly justified in using force to prevent one person from endangering the
property of his neighbors without their consent, despite persistent
misunderstanding that I want no codes at all.  This use of force is justified
by the first property owner's aggression, not by any desire of his neighbors,
nor by any end that his neighbors hope to reach.  Anyone purchasing the
property does so fully voluntarily, and so long as the original owner does not
lie about the condition of the land (another act of aggression which is
justifiably forbidden), the buyer accepts full responsibility for its safety or
lack of it.

This is why arguments attempting to justify building codes based on ends have
fallen on a deaf ear.  *I* want those ends too, but I'm not willing to use
those ends to justify means that I abhor.  I want safe housing, I want a safe
place to work, and I want other people to have them too.  I get very tired of
being accused by liberal thinkers of not desiring the ends which they propose,
just because I'm not willing to extort those ends at gunpoint.   

And further - this is the part that John hates - I don't think it's ever "Just
this one end by questionable means"  I believe that the day which a society
agrees that ends justify the means is the day it signs its own death warrant,
although it may be a long, drawn out process.  As I mentioned way back in reply
.25, there are always ends and means which are just a little bit more intrusive
than the ones currently accepted, and people who LIKE control will always be
working to get those ends accepted.  When they are accepted, then they move on
to the next step of intrusiveness.  I don't know of any way to stop the
process. 


Responding to another couple of points:

.120

>    If this Libertarian philosophy is so great, how come there aren't
>    any societies practicing it? Could it be that it doesn't work?

To my knowledge, there has never been a country which completely and
consistently practiced this.  However, there is a direct correlation between
how free any country's citizens are and how prosperous they are.  Could it be
that it's the only thing that does work, and that to the extent that societies
allow it they thrive?

The closest approach to this was the United States at its founding.  If there
were ever a society that you would less expect to change the course of the
world, this was it.  The castoffs and refuse of Europe was dumped here, in a
wilderness almost as far removed from the rest of civilization as the moon is
today.  This group only lightly felt the hand of any government.  It is often
thought that the colonists rebelled against oppressive government, but that's
not true, the government they had to deal with made only a small fraction of
the demands that our government make upon us today.  What they rebelled against
was the idea that people on the other side of the ocean had any right at all to
tell them how to live their lives.

They made the declaration that all people are free and soverign beings, and
that force was not the proper way for people to deal with each other.  And what
happened?  In 6000 years of written human history, people have progressed only
sporadically and slowly.  200 years ago, medicine was still extremely
primitive, horseback was the fastest means of travel, sail or paddle were the
only means of water travel.  Suddenly, on the edge of this wilderness, there
was an explosion of productive energy such as the world had never seen.  Within
a hundred years, these same castoffs were traveling 3000 miles across their
continent in 3 days, on rails.  Steamships plied their waterways.  Every other
field of knowledge made huge advances.  "Coming to America" was the dream of
most of the worlds population that knew of its existence.

As a reaction to this, Western Europe, which was the most closely connected
with this new experiment in human society, grew too, though not as quickly. In
addition, most of their oppressive governments were overthrown by people who
heard of this "freedom".

For a couple of remarkable generations, production was high enough and the hand
of government light enough that one member of most families was able to earn
enough that his wife and children did not have to go to work to produce enough
for them to survive.  Each generation was able to reach higher heights than the
one before.  Workers owned homes - that had never happened before.  Workers
send their kids through college - that had never happened before.

Yet from early on, the US passed some laws based on the principle of the end
justufying the means.  They were simple, at first.  But they've progressed, and
the government has grown.  That growth has accellerated alarmingly in recent
years.  We are no longer the world leader in many areas.  Generations now are
less likely to reach the level their parents reached - owning a home, for
example, has become much more difficult.  Due to both the tax burden and all
the wasted effort dealing with the government, in most cases one person is no
longer able to provide enough for an entire family.  In many families, both
parents HAVE to work, although surveys have shown that about 70% of working
mothers would rather stay home with their children if they could afford it. 
The federal tax burden was about 2% of family income in 1948, today it is about
28%.  The average working mother contributes between 25% and 30% of the family
income.  See any correlation?

And I see no evidence that this progression is going to stop, and evidence at
every turn that it is growing worse and worse.  You wonder why I'm a pessimist.
I also find it extremely ironic that at a time that the whole world is cheering
the demise of socialism and communism in many  eastern countries, many people
here are still bent on taking us down the same road.

.122 

> Freedom comes with a price. That price is responsibility. You people seem to
> want to do what you like but won't take responsiblity for you actions. 

I agree completely with your first two statements, but I'm completely unable to
follow on what basis you are using them against ME.  Those are MY lines :-).
In what way do you think I'm attempting to avoid any responsibility?
 
.123 

>In fact, there are numerous countries where there are no enforced laws. A
>Libertarian's dream, or so one would think, though no Libertarian would ever
>agree that that's what they meant to happen (they'll find all sorts of excuses
>why those places aren't "really" what the Libertarian philosophy is all about).

I have no idea what countries you are referring to, nor how they can be
construed to be free.  Well, actually, I do have some idea, I think you
misunderstand freedom enough to try to call some of these petty "right wing"
dictatorships examples of the results of freedom.  Would you consider it an
"excuse" if in response to your complaint that you could not drive to work in
your television set, I pointed out that your television was not a car? 

If I've misunderstood you, please correct me.


> In socialist countries, it's extremely difficult to acquire a
> similarly fabulous lifestyle.
   
Of course, as the world is now finding out, in socialist countries it's
extremely difficult to acquire simply an adequate lifestyle.  As Winston
Churchill said, "Capitalism is unequal distribution of wealth, and socialism is
equal distribution of poverty."

Paul

Paul,

I think you did a wonderful job explaining why people weren't understanding
each other.  I encourage people to put more effort into reading and
understanding, before writing.

Then you had to ruin the note with this:

> Yet that phrase, and that concept, is the founding principle upon which all
> liberal thought is based. 

which is a misstatement of a valid point that you're trying to make.  It ignores
(for example) that portion of liberal thought that has defended freedom of 
speech for the last fifty years or more, as well as the corresponding portions
of conservative thought that relies upon the end justifying the means, provided
it's a conservative end being served.  (Some would argue over whether the
labels liberal and conservative are appropriate in this context, but that's
yet another discussion.)

A better statement would be that the principle of the end justifying the means
has been a persistent flaw of political thought in this country for much of
this century, if not longer, with liberal thought exhibiting this failing to
a serious extent since the sixties.

We now return you (I hope) to our regularly scheduled discussion, which
I think needs to focus on building codes and not politics.  If you'll recall
my earlier note, my sole intended point is that this stuff is complex, perhaps
too complex to be discussed productively in this conference.

   Gary

Just a question of definitions.  I hate the labels liberal and conservative 
anyway.  Of course many people who wear the label "conservative" espouse end-
justified ideas, and many people labeled "liberal" defend some situations 
against this concept.  In general, though, most of the liberal platform is 
based on  end-justfied programs.  And in this context, I classified that 
portion as the part that makes it "liberal."  That's all I meant.  Substitute 
another label if that one carries other connotations which don't seem to fit.

Paul

	Good points Paul. Hopefully everyone can keep the tone to where
	it should be.
>And I have pointed out that everyone here
>agrees that someone should be allowed to be stupid enough to build an unsafe
>house, so long as they do not affect other people.
	I don't necessarily agree with this, since I feel it is impossible
	to fulfill the second part of your sentence.
>  I've then asked if they
>have the right to be stupid enough to build an unsafe house, why they don't
>have the right to be stupid enough to buy a house when they cannot determine
>it's safety?  To my knowledge, no one has answered or responded to that point,
	I'll try.
	The person who builds it knows it's unsafe. The person who buys it
	later MAY not. That person may be REALISTICALLY unable to know if
	every aspect of the house is safe.
	To save a reply, the retort is "well then they don't have to buy it".
	True, they don't, but they have to buy something. So they limit their
	houses that passed the National Federation of Insurers Code of
	House Building V1.3A, or something. Unfortunately, this band of
	insurers felt that in order to keep claims to a minimum, they made
	incredibly strigent standards, and any house built to those, costs
	too much for the average consumer. So Mr and Mrs Doe, and their
	4 kids either rent, or take a chance with a non-approved house.
	The former would still have the problems of above, and the later
	could lead to needless deaths. Is this an ideal scenario?

>And further - this is the part that John hates - I don't think it's ever "Just
>this one end by questionable means"  I believe that the day which a society
>agrees that ends justify the means is the day it signs its own death warrant,
>although it may be a long, drawn out process.
	You're right. I hate that philosphy. The reason why I hate it is
	because it implies our society does not have the ability nor the
	intelligence to know when enough is enough. It implies that because
	we compromise a little freedom here, perhaps for peace of mind
	or a more secure lifestyle, that we become sheep. One compromise
	means we're ready to become mindless servants of Big Brother, to
	have some Higher Power tell us when to eat, sleep and defecate.
	I personally have a little more faith in Americans and all
	humanity than that.

>To my knowledge, there has never been a country which completely and
>consistently practiced this.  However, there is a direct correlation between
>how free any country's citizens are and how prosperous they are.  Could it be
>that it's the only thing that does work, and that to the extent that societies
>allow it they thrive?
	My analogy to this is makeup on a woman. Just because a little
	is good, it doesn't mean a lot is better. You can take away so
	much control from the gov't and things are good. But take it all
	away, and suddenly things aren't good anymore. That I feel is our
	basic disagreement.
	
	John

>> > Freedom comes with a price. That price is responsibility. You people seem to
>> > want to do what you like but won't take responsibility for you actions. 

>>I agree completely with your first two statements, but I'm completely unable to
>>follow on what basis you are using them against ME.  Those are MY lines :-).
>>In what way do you think I'm attempting to avoid any responsibility?

   This was in reference to .117, not you. But however if you have the same
   philosophy as Patrick then it can fit you also, so I'll answer.

   You keep saying that you have the right to build YOUR house the way YOU
   want to, as long as it doesn't affect anyone. You don't build a house and
   then destroy it when you want to leave. The house will probably stay around
   several generations (if it's built right ie: according to code). So the
   minute it passes from your hands you're saying that it's no longer your
   responsibility. You willingly and knowingly built a house that is probably
   substandard, yet you want to sell this house to someone without telling
   him that the house is substandard, but yet get a full fair market value
   for the house.

   Also the substandard house could easily affect other peoples lives while
   you still live there. Suppose the house catches on fire because of faulty
   wiring. And while the firemen are putting out the fire one of them gets
   killed. Do you mean to tell me that you won't take any responsibility
   for that persons death???? Would you feel any kind of remorse at all knowing
   that it was your faulty wiring that caused the fire, which caused this
   persons death????


   In .134 you called me (not directly) a liberal. I am not a liberal. You
   justify this by claiming that I believe in the philosophy "The end 
   justifies the means". This is not true. In fact it's just the opposite.
   It is you who has taken the philosophy "The means justifies the end".
   You don't live in a vacuum. Things you do affect other people, only 
   you don't see it. The system we have of building safe houses has evolved
   over the past 200 years (really only the past 100 years). People in this
   country want safe housing. So the question is how do you get there.
   The end in this case is "Safe houses". If we take your approach we will
   never reach it. You want the "means" without the end. I'm all for your
   way of thinking, if it will get us to our goal. But it won't. It was
   proven that it won't. If all homes in this country were built without
   any governing body to regulate how they were to be built, then we wouldn't
   have any safe houses (or at lease a lot less then what we do know).

   Mike
    

Whoa there.  I have been reading this note up until now.  But when the previous
reply said the wrong thing, I had to reply.

In the previous reply, the comment was made that a house is built for several
generations.  And then he qualified it by saying "IF IT IS BUILT RIGHT.  THAT
IS IF IT IS BUILT TO CODE".  I would like to point out that the early builders
did not have building codes from which to work.  But, you may notice that some
of our best houses are those beautiful works of art that have been built 100
years ago.

Please do not fall into the trap of saying that if I don't follow the rules that
the government dictates to the letter, that I am building shoddy products.  I
would be willing to bet that we have had better craftsmen in the old days than
we will probably ever see today.

Some of todays houses don't even come close to matching the quality of the
older homes.  Just because we have the advantage of modern technology today
does not mean that it would not have been used in the old days, had it been
available.

I would like to believe that people would use the right materials and tools
where appropriate, and do not need the government breathing down their back.
Government is supposed to be small, not a monolith that controls our lives
whether we want it to or not.  Look at this state (Massachusetts).  We have
some of the most bureaucratic rules in the world.  There is no reason why I
should have to have a professional anything do the work for me if I am willing
to do it myself.  If I am not sure how to do it, I will ask for help.  But,
just because some idiot has gone and gotten a license does not mean he/she
is qualified to do the work.  They simply were able to get through the union
procedures.

Ed..

re: .138

I think I'll have to be a bit blunter than Paul was in .134.  Please go back
and reread the first few paragraphs of that note, and take them to heart.

In .138 you've made a number of inferences of Paul's position that simply
aren't true.  The you've made them (and here's where I'm being blunt; please
forgive me if they're offensive) is that you haven't done a good job of trying
to understand Paul's position.  Try harder.

Having seen Paul's contributions to this notes file, I, for one, would feel
more comfortable buying a house that he built than one that was built "to code"
by some professional trying to make a buck.  I believe he'd build an above
average house, and indeed would lose money, because it's difficult to 
convince people that any one house "built to code" is better than any other
house "built to code."

So let's try to understand his motivation, which is as honorable as all of the
contributors to this note.  It has nothing whatsoever with
trying to get away with anything, trying to build anything substandard, trying
to scrimp on materials to the point of endangering people, and so on.  He has
the same goal of quality housing that you do.  He just isn't willing to 
sacrifice as much freedom as you are (I'm not sure I'm willing to, either), and
he believes that the same quality can be achieved without government
interference (I don't, but I'm willing to listen and discuss the issue).

   Gary

Perhaps we get back on track with some concrete questions:

1. Aren't there still places in the US with no building codes?  I seem to 
remember a note in this sequence that said you could build whatever you
wanted in northern Maine.

2. Is it true that building codes are the result of a handful of catastrophes,
such as the Chicago fire and the fires resulting from the San Francisco 
earthquake?

3. In what other ways do building codes exceed what could reasonably be
justified by public safety?  We've already heard about the MA requirement that
only licensed plumbers can do plumbing; what others are there?

4. How do we decide when the connection with public safety is adequate enough
to justify regulation?  I'm sure there are those who would argue, with perfectly
straight faces, that the restriction to licensed plumbers is necessary for
public safety, to prevent water pollution.  While such arguments lack 
credibility, they're not totally devoid of logic.

   Gary

re .139

>>I would like to believe that people would use the right materials and tools
>>where appropriate, and do not need the government breathing down their back.

   So would I. But this isn't Alice in Wonderland. People in the construction
   business need to make a profit, and the larger the profit the better. So 
   if push comes to shove the construction people make a profit before they
   make the house as safe as possible. I took a Philosophy class once called
   Business Ethics. The lesson to learn from that class is that if you're
   in Business you're not ethical. It's not that people don't want to be,
   it's just that the bottom line is, they need to make a profit. And if
   they can't make a profit making it safe, then they'll make a profit making
   it unsafe. 

   I will agree with you that there are some beautiful homes built before the
   turn of the century. But tell me, will these same homes if built today the
   same way there built 90 years ago, be safe???? In many cases the answer is
   NO. Back then many homes didn't have 200 amps of electricity running through
   the house. And many didn't have gas stoves, or furnaces. Also go back to
   Americana and look at the average home for the poor built back then. The 
   house I grew up in (along with most of the homes that neighborhood) were
   built very shoddy. My Dad was a contractor, so he revamped the house to
   be safe. But many weren't.

re .140

>>In .138 you've made a number of inferences of Paul's position that simply
>>aren't true.  The you've made them (and here's where I'm being blunt; please
>>forgive me if they're offensive) is that you haven't done a good job of trying
>>to understand Paul's position.  Try harder.

   I suggest that you go back an re-read some of Paul's statements in earlier
   replys. I don't have the time right now to go back and look through 
   every note. But Paul did make statements to the fact that he has the right
   to build a UNSAFE house. He may not have said it in .134, but he said it
   earlier. He makes this statement saying that it won't affect other peoples
   lives, and I say it will.

>>Having seen Paul's contributions to this notes file, I, for one, would feel
>>more comfortable buying a house that he built than one that was built "to code"
>>by some professional trying to make a buck.  I believe he'd build an above
>>average house, and indeed would lose money, because it's difficult to 
>>convince people that any one house "built to code" is better than any other
>>house "built to code."

    I'm not trying to attack Paul personally. I apologize to Paul if he
    thinks I did. I am however attacking the philosophy he is trying to
    defend. Sometimes it looks like a personal attack by sighting "what-if's".
    But it's really the only way to get my point across.

>>to scrimp on materials to the point of endangering people, and so on.  He has
>>the same goal of quality housing that you do.  He just isn't willing to 
>>sacrifice as much freedom as you are (I'm not sure I'm willing to, either), and
>>he believes that the same quality can be achieved without government
>>interference (I don't, but I'm willing to listen and discuss the issue).

    Paul may have that goal, but does everyone who builds a house have the
    same goal???? I don't think so. There was an article in the Union Leader
    about 2-3 years ago about the sloppy construction going on in NH (this was
    at the end of the construction boom). Companies were trying to survive 
    any way they could, so quality slipped. A lot of the homes slipped through
    inspection, but many didn't. These companies were trying to survive no
    matter what. Would you please tell me what came first, "Profit or safety"??
    This same profit and safety attitude can also be applied to the homeowner
    building his own home/addition. He doesn't have the money right now to buy
    12 gauge wiring, so he buys 14 gauge wiring instead with the intent to
    replace it later.


    Mike 

    
>>I took a Philosophy class once called
>>Business Ethics. The lesson to learn from that class is that if you're
>>in Business you're not ethical. It's not that people don't want to be,
>>it's just that the bottom line is, they need to make a profit. And if
>>they can't make a profit making it safe, then they'll make a profit making
>>it unsafe. 
Are you saying that being in business makes you unethical? If so how does this
work?

  Re .134:

  >[...] if they have the right to be stupid enough to build an unsafe house,
  >why they don't have the right to be stupid enough to buy a house when
  >they cannot determine it's safety?  To my knowledge, no one has
  >answered or responded to that point [...]

  That's a handy way to phrase the question so that it's impossible to
  answer. The problem is more like this:

  Everyone should have the option of not being forced to bear the
  expense and inconvenience of adhering to code. At the same time,
  everyone should also have the option of getting a guarantee of safety
  if they so desire.

  The complaint about codes is that they burden *all* builders and
  buyers with expense and inconvenience in the name of providing the
  "safe" option to non-expert builders and buyers who want that choice.
  But what other mechanism would provide that option? It was suggested
  that in a minimum-code scenario, a non-expert buyer who wanted a
  guarantee that a house was safe, could hire experts. The experts
  would, if necessary, rip apart walls and floors and put it back
  together to determine that everything was done correctly. At today's
  prices that would have to cost $50,000 or more.

  How many people could or would spend the extra money for this
  guarantee? Practically no one. The result is that most houses would be
  purchased without any idea of their level of safety, and the result of
  that is that most houses would be built at a lower level of safety
  than they are today.

  If some people want the right to be stupid, how do *I* get the right
  to be safe? There's a conflict, and somebody is going to not have it
  their way.

  Nice entry Paul (.134). Everyone, I'm certain, has a breaking point when
they feel the oppression of their government is a threat to their freedom.
It's just that you and I feel that tyranny sooner than our opponents. I find
the accusation that we would willingly put someone at risk by cutting corners
laughable.

  They automatically assume that you and I will build inferiorly to those
who do it for a livelihood. But, the only interest our modern day builders
and carpenters have is to provide a product with the least labor and the
fewest standards so that they might maximize their profit. They have no
other interest. Simply finish the job and move on to the next.

  You and I, on the other hand, have an interest that transcends profit.
We not only want it safe (probably more so than those building it), but we
also want a design to our wants, aesthetics, and techniques. We alone must
answer to any oversights or problems that might develop. More important, we
take pride and find enjoyment in the work. The final product speaks volumes
about our capabilities. No one likes to hear how they did something wrong.

  There once was a time when housewrights shared the pride you and I feel
with their clients. Quality of workmanship was paramount. A workman's
reputation was his guarantee that the product would be sound. Unfortunately,
the "screw your neighbor, I got mine, it ain't my job, what's in it for me"
attitude has evolved to heights never before reached, and, thus, has sup-
planted the craftsman's ethics of yesteryear. 'Tis truly sad.

  Patrick

  Mike Diamond,

  Houses built before the advent of balloon/stick framing (ca. 1840) are
structurally superior in all regards to the stuff built later. Time will
tell whether the houses constructed today will last as long as, or even
outlast, those built traditionally (timber framed). My money is on that
it won't.

  This is not meant to be an insult, but apparently you just don't know
enough about this subject to comment. So enough of the old houses as
examples, OK?

  Patrick

>>  This is not meant to be an insult, but apparently you just don't know
>>enough about this subject to comment. So enough of the old houses as
>>examples, OK?

    Sorry, but I've renovated enough of these older homes to know that
    they're not superior in all aspects. A lot of these homes of this era
    didn't even have a proper foundation, let alone one that is below the
    frost line which has caused the house to upheave in one coner. Some are 
    superbly built, but others arn't. But there are lot of other things to
    consider besides structural integretity when building a home today.
    But unless you've done it, I guess you wouldn't know about those
    things.
    
    Mike
    

    re .145
>It's just that you and I feel that tyranny sooner than our opponents.
    Opponents? I thought this was a discussion, not a war.
    >I find
>the accusation that we would willingly put someone at risk by cutting corners
>laughable.
    Who accused you? Paul wants the right to build an unsafe house, I guess
    you do too. No one said you or he wanted this so you could dupe some
    unsuspecting buyer. We are saying that in this day and age, many
    people would try, and succeed in doing that. They do it already.

>  They automatically assume that you and I will build inferiorly to those
>who do it for a livelihood.
    Where are you getting these assumptions, and how does it relate?
    > But, the only interest our modern day builders
>and carpenters have is to provide a product with the least labor and the
>fewest standards so that they might maximize their profit. They have no
>other interest. Simply finish the job and move on to the next.
    Glad you see it that way. Another nail in the coffin (not more than
    8 inches from the previous one, tho :-)).

>  You and I, on the other hand, have an interest that transcends profit.
>We not only want it safe (probably more so than those building it), but we
>also want a design to our wants, aesthetics, and techniques. We alone must
>answer to any oversights or problems that might develop. More important, we
>take pride and find enjoyment in the work. The final product speaks volumes
>about our capabilities. No one likes to hear how they did something wrong.
    Well I'm real happy for you. But I'm sure you'll agree that there are
    many out there that don't feel the same way, or have the *vast*
    capabilities you possess. 

>  There once was a time when housewrights shared the pride you and I feel
>with their clients. Quality of workmanship was paramount. A workman's
>reputation was his guarantee that the product would be sound. Unfortunately,
>the "screw your neighbor, I got mine, it ain't my job, what's in it for me"
>attitude has evolved to heights never before reached, and, thus, has sup-
>planted the craftsman's ethics of yesteryear. 'Tis truly sad.
    Tis why we have building codes, Patrick! Are you sure you're not for
    them as well? Your note certainly says why.
    
    John

re .143
>>Are you saying that being in business makes you unethical? If so how does this
>>work?

   No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that if it's a choice between
   Ethics or profits; then Ethics looses. The course convered about 10 case 
   studies of businesses where companies knowingly and willingly built/designed
   products which endangered peoples lives. They did this because if they
   didn't they would have lost million's of dollars. 


re .146

>>  There once was a time when housewrights shared the pride you and I feel
>>with their clients. Quality of workmanship was paramount. A workman's
>>reputation was his guarantee that the product would be sound. Unfortunately,
>>the "screw your neighbor, I got mine, it ain't my job, what's in it for me"
>>attitude has evolved to heights never before reached, and, thus, has sup-
>>planted the craftsman's ethics of yesteryear. 'Tis truly sad.

   It's too bad the builders of today don't feel the same. And it's this 
   attitude that must be addressed in todays building.

   The basic problem here in this discussion is that some people here feel that
   if they build a house on their property, then they are only affecting their
   lives and no one elses. I don't feel this way. The way you build a house
   on your property can adversly affect other peoples lives. And as long as
   it does, then these people can/should have a say in how it is built. This
   is not a matter of Freedom. I'm all for a lot LESS Government intervention.
   The building code should be good enough to know if someone who's building
   a house that isn't according to code recognize that it may actually be
   better then what the code calls for. However I know from experience that
   it dosn't work that way. But that dosn't mean that we eliminate the building
   code. The building code is still very usefull.

   Mike

	Re: .136  Liberals vrs conservatives (or whatever labels)

	Paul, I find this polarization of the issue to be the crux of my
problem with the libertarian view of freedoms in general.  Several replies
before .136, your statements were effectively one of "one little rule and
we could spiral down the path to communism..."  I find that silly because it
effectivly catagorizes people as either:

	1) The Libertarians (to be said accompanied by trumpet heralds :-)
who will Protect Us From All Government Evils, or,

	2) The Liberals (boo, hiss, feed 'em to the lions :-) who love
government programs and are blindly leading us down the path of communism.

	I'm neither.  Really.  I had a discussion once with someone who was
trying to figure out my political views and he finally concluded that on some
things, I lean toward the liberal side and on others I lean towards the
conservative side.  I'm probably not the exception to this.  However, when
compared to the libertarian view, I'm probably seen as a flaming liberal since,
egads, I believe that building codes should exist.  To Kennedy-type liberals,
I'm probably viewed as a Reaganite conservative.  (Which I am not, by any
stretch of the imagination.)  Life is not black and white, but rather political
views are definitely one of gray-scale.  The big problem occurs, and this is
what I've seen in several of your notes, is when someone looks at the gray-scale
from near one end of it and turns it into a "if you don't agree with my views
then you are in the great "other" category that is leading us to ruination".
To suggest that building codes puts us on the path to communism suggests that
all pro-building-code people are mindless people that will accept any rule
simply because 2x4s should be 16' OC (or whatever).  That, conversely, suggests
that libertarians are the only people who actually look at laws to see what
their impact would be.  That's very position-centric (ie. "we have *The Truth*
and all others are blind").  Everyone has limits to what they'll accept from
the government.  Just because their limits are, perhaps, higher than yours does
not mean their limits are infinite and they will accept anything.

								-craig

    Please, "stick" framing is pejorative.  It's difficult to point to bad
    examples of post and beam construction since the "evidence" has either
    fallen or burned down!  What remains for us today are the strongest -
    survival of the fittest, the many, many poorly built are long gone. 
    There are examples of balloon framing that will be around long after
    I'm gone.  In either case, the method is sound, and still buildable
    under present code.  
    
    Carl

RE: John in .137: (Also Craig in .150)

> You're right. I hate that philosphy. The reason why I hate it is
> because it implies our society does not have the ability nor the
> intelligence to know when enough is enough. 

It is PRECISELY because we ARE intelligent, rational beings that we absolutely
cannot afford to accept false premises.  Once a premise is accepted, then
reason is on the side of whoever most consistently follows that premise.  In an
argument, so long as the participants use reason, that person will always win 
the argument.
                                                   
Suppose you can get someone to accept that it is morally OK to steal a gumball.
Not just get them to do it while knowing that it is wrong, but get them to
accept that it is morally acceptable.  By using reason, you can now convince
that person to steal cars and rob houses.  It may not be easy, but once that
premise (stealing gumballs) is accepted, reason is in YOUR side.

Some people will require little convincing, and will take to stealing like a
duck to water.  They will immediately make the logical leap that if it is
acceptable to steal gumballs, then it is OK to steal cars.

And of course other people will still have a basic internal conviction that
stealing is wrong, and will be difficult to convince.  Although they will not
have any logical base to stand on - since it is logically CORRECT that IF it is
acceptable to steal gumballs, THEN it is OK to steal cars - they will not agree
to stealing cars.  They will argue that it's just wrong to steal cars, despite
your logic. But they will always appear to be the weaker side of the argument -
as they are, in fact.

So you back off from trying to get them to steal cars - for now - and you try
to convince them to steal a candy bar.  They will again fight it, they'll say
it's wrong, but you will say "If it's all right to steal a gumball, why isn't
it OK to steal a candy bar?  A candy bar is only a little bit more expensive
than a gumball.  It's really just the same thing."  And once again, they won't
have a logical leg to stand on.  Because you are RIGHT.  And it seems much
harder to make a moral distinction between a gumball and a candy bar than it
was between a gumball and a car.  So reluctantly, against their better
judgement, they accept that it is OK to steal candy bars.

You wait for a while, for that acceptance to sink in, and then you work on the
next step.  You say "If it's all right to steal a candy bar, why isn't it OK to
steal a comic book?  A comic book is only a little bit more expensive than a
candy bar.  It's really just the same thing."  And so on and so on.  You can
drag them kicking and screaming the whole way, step by step, from gumballs to
cars.  At every step, so long as they never question the premise that it is OK
to steal, which they accepted when they accepted that it was OK to steal
gumballs, YOU are the one who is right.  They will feel continued bewilderment
the entire way, because what you are trying to convince them of always seems
wrong, but they can never come up with any convincing reason WHY it is wrong. 
In any argument using reason, they always lose.

You may never actually get them all the way to cars.  Perhaps their innate
sense of the wrongness of stealing will cause them to put their foot down at
some point - in the face of all logic.  But what about their children?  Suppose
the farthest you can convince them is that it is OK to steal a $50 radio. 
Their children now start from that point, with the premise that it is OK to
steal radios.  By the same progression that you led the parents, you can lead
the children further down the same road.  And you will ALWAYS have reason on
your side, you are ALWAYS the one who is right.

Does this sound familiar?  Does it sound like the futile, illogical protests of
conservatives against ever greater intrusion by government for the past 150
years?  Where do you think the label conservative came from?  It's because they
are always - against logic, which they gave to the liberals by granting the
liberal's basic moral premise - trying to hold the line against further
advances.  And they can't do it, because the liberals are RIGHT.

There was a letter in our town paper recently, from a person who was protesting
some new proposed program.  He said that this program was unjust, because it
took tax money from all the people of the town, whether they were indifferent
to the program or even if they were dead set against it, and used it for the
benefit of a only a few people.  And he's absolutely right, that is unjust. 

But unless he maintains that ALL such programs are unjust, he doesn't have a
logical leg to stand on.  People in favor of the program will easily be able to
point to multiple programs which he DOES accept, which take money from everyone
for the benefit of a few.  They will say "Well, you accept this other program,
how is this new program different?"  And what can he say?  They are RIGHT - if
those other programs are OK, then the new program is OK too.  He will make
vague excuses about it costing too much money, but in the end - so long as he
uses reason and does not question the basic premises - he will lose, and
another step will have been taken on the road to Socialism.

The ONLY way to truely fight this battle, the only way to get BACK the
advantage of reason, is to reject the initial premise.  No, it is not OK to
steal gumballs.  And once that premise is rejected, the whole rest of the
argument falls apart, because it was all resting on that premise.

No, I do not accept that the end justifies the means, in any manner whatever. 
No, I do not accept that anyone's needs or desires consitute an obligation on
my part.  This premise is the basis of Socialism, and once I've accepted it -
in the smallest degree - I've granted the RIGHTNESS of Socialism, I've granted
its basic moral premise.  It may take generations for advocates of Socialism 
to drag me or my children, kicking and screaming the whole way, to a fully 
Socialist society - but they can and they will, because they are RIGHT.

Paul

Most of the arguments that have been presented in the past several notes have
been further presentations of ends, so for the most part I'm going to ignore
them.  In many cases I could continue to argue that I don't think that the ends
you desire will be achieved the way you want by the means you are using, but
that's not the crux of my argument.  Even if your ends WERE accomplished by the
means you propose, I'd still reject them.  Tell me WHY your desire for a safe 
house gives you the right to use guns.

But I will respond to a couple of things:

Me, in .134:

> we're not hearing each other well at all.

> Anyone purchasing the
> property does so fully voluntarily, and ***so long as the original owner does 
> not lie about the condition of the land (another act of aggression which is
> justifiably forbidden)***, the buyer accepts full responsibility for its 
> safety or lack of it.   (Note section with ***)

Mike, in .138:

>   You willingly and knowingly built a house that is probably
>   substandard, ***yet you want to sell this house to someone without telling
>   him that the house is substandard***, but yet get a full fair market value
>   for the house.

See?  I specifically said that you can't lie about how you built the house, so 
that the buyer is making an informed decision to accept the responsibility for
the condition of the house, yet you are trying to portray something entirely
different.

re: .149

>   The basic problem here in this discussion is that some people here feel that
>   if they build a house on their property, then they are only affecting their
>   lives and no one elses. I don't feel this way. The way you build a house
>   on your property can adversly affect other peoples lives. 

Show me how any particular aspect of home building *COERCIVELY* affects other 
people, and I'll agree that that particular aspect should be governmentally
controlled.

re:.144

>  If some people want the right to be stupid, how do *I* get the right
>  to be safe? There's a conflict, and somebody is going to not have it
>  their way.

That somebody should always be the person who wants to use force to get the
other person to do what they want.  In this case, that's you.  There are many
ways for you to get safe housing which have been pointed out in this file. The
problem is that the type of "Guarantee of safety" that you want everyone to be
able to have requires someone ELSE's time, energy - LIFE - to implement it.

re: .142

> The lesson to learn from that class is that if you're
>    in Business you're not ethical. 

Pardon me, but that's ridiculous.  What is true is that many businesspeople are
exposed to situations where they must balance ethical considerations against
profits, and some of them choose profits.  What is true is that in business you
should not ASSUME the ethical stance of any other businessperson, particularly
until they have established a reputation.  But to go from there to "If you're
in business you're not ethical" is like saying all women are whores because
some are propositioned for money and some accept. 

>   People in this
>   country want safe housing. So the question is how do you get there.
>   The end in this case is "Safe houses". If we take your approach we will
>   never reach it. You want the "means" without the end. I'm all for your
>   way of thinking, if it will get us to our goal. 

If your only goal is to have safe housing, and you don't care what that means
in terms of any other contexts, then you are perfectly correct.  But that's not
my only goal, and I certainly hope it's not your only goal.

Re: me wanting to build a shoddy house.

Have you ever heard the quote "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll
fight to the death for your right to say it?"  Same thing.  

Re: old houses, code, standards, and reputation:

As was pointed out in .151, it's not that all old houses were built well, but
that only the ones that WERE built well have survived.  And many of those
houses are built much better than anything (or almost anything) today.  The
reason for that is that codes are the great leveller.

With no codes, reputation is paramount.  The only way people can get safe,
strong houses is to have them built by people with reputations for building
good houses.  Your reputation is gold, to be protected at all costs.

When building codes entered the picture, they were originally intended to be
MINIMUM standards.  It was determined that these were the LEAST you could do
and still be assured of a safe house.  But the rapid effect was that these
became MAXIMUM codes also, because they severely reduced the value of
reputation, and made it easier than ever for shoddy builders to sell their
homes.

As soon as you have codes, then people know that at least the homes they buy
from the fly-by-night builders won't actually fall down around their heads. 
They may leak like seives, be drafty and poorly finished, but at least they
won't kill them.  So the adverse effect of a poor reputation is diminished.
Likewise, the positive effect of a good reputation is diminished, and the
people with good reputations are not able to charge as much more than the
fly-by-nighters than they used to.  Soon, no buyers care if the building is
built "beyond code", and builders stop building beyond code.  Those "minimums"
become the standards.  The value of reputation will never vanish entirely, but
the more codes and standards are implemented, then the less valuable it will
be.

The building codes were instituted because SOME builders were NOT concerned
about their product or their reputation.  The effect - be severely devaluing a
builder's reputation - has been to make many, many more builders unconcerned
about their reputation or product.

Paul

    Can somebody write-lock this note and move the whole mess to SOAPBOX?
    

    I'm afraid that even if we accept Paul's argument against building
    codes, that we wouldn't actually get rid of most of the code.

    Paul argues,  and I agree, that codes that protect one's neighbors
    should  remain.  The nearest house to me is less than 50' away, so
    if  my  house burns their's almost certainly will too. So any code
    that  reduces  the  risk of fire should apply to me. That includes
    all  the rules about plumbing gas fixtures, most of the electrical
    code  (possibly  not the requirement for GFIs because they protect
    people  from  shock more than prevent fires), and the parts of the
    building  code that try to stop fire from spreading (minimum sheet
    rock thickness).

    I suppose my house could fall down without affecting my neighbors,
    but  that  might  break  a  gas  pipe, causing a fire, which would
    affect  them.  So I'm not sure we can argue against the structural
    requirements.

    This leaves  me  in  the  position  of being able to accept Paul's
    argument,  and  seeing almost no effect on what codes I must obey.
    (The  rules  about plumbing water would get easier, but that's the
    only change I expect.)

    To pick  up  a rathole from note .135 or so; The US has the lowest
    tax  burden  of  any democracy I know of, with substantially lower
    taxes  than  all  of  Western Europe, and slighly lower taxes than
    Japan.  Given  the  current economic situation, arguing that lower
    taxes  and  smaller  governments  always  lead  to more productive
    economies  is  at best difficult. The US with its lower taxes (and
    smaller government) is clearly not a productivity leader.

--David

    
    Reality is not black and white, it's grey.
    
    Society does not run by pure logic on top of fixed premises.  Not even
    the legal system runs this way, or makes any claim to running this way.
    If you try to carry ANY premise too far, people will just laugh at
    you.  It is universally common for people to adopt one premise for
    one situation and an entirely contradictory one for another situation.
    You, nor anyone else be it lawyer or king, will get nowhere trying to
    point out to them their logical mistake.  Nor will you be able to hold
    them to any particular premise if you try to use it to build a case
    they don't agree with.  
    
    Society runs on a set of rules from informal to codified.  These
    rules change daily.  In free societies, like ours, there are ways for
    the citizens to change these rules if enough of the citizens want to
    change the rules.  
    
    As a member of this society, Paul, I have looked at your arguments and
    decided that I don't agree with you and that I am basically in favor
    of enforced building codes.  And what's all this nonsense about guns?
    Unless you pull a gun on the sheriff evicting you, I doubt that he
    would draw a gun on you.  It might take six deputies to drag you away
    but...  If laws are not enforced then they would not be laws.  It is
    only human nature for each individual to want only those laws enforced 
    that that individual likes, but the society can't operate that way.
    
    I'll keep listening to you, and if you come up with what I consider a
    viable alternative to enforced building codes, I'll let you know.
    So far, everything I've heard seems to completely ignore human nature
    and could only lead to chaos.
    
    					- Vick
    
    

    >Can somebody write-lock this note and move the whole mess to SOAPBOX?
    
    Not while the moderator is enjoying it so much.  ;^)

I cannot agree that we have a smaller government.  I look at the huge system
that exists in Washington, and the states and towns.  We could probably cut
half the system, if we truly had the guts to do so.

Ed..

  I don't understand why the right to build without the encumbrance of
  codes does not conflict with the right to buy a house which is safe.

re: .159

>   I don't understand why the right to build without the encumbrance of
>   codes does not conflict with the right to buy a house which is safe.

How do you define "right"?  It's not the same as "desire."  You of course have
every right to obtain a safe house by any of many voluntary means.  But I don't
understand how you could have a "right" to a safe house which would require 
someone else to build it for you against their wishes.

A true "right" ought to be indivisible from a person.  In other words, true 
"rights" are as much a part of you as your arms or legs, and don't depend on 
society for their implementation.  As such, any right should to be able to be 
excersized on a desert island, totally apart from society.

On a desert island, you're perfectly able to excersize your right to build a
house however you'd like.  How will you excersize your right to buy a safe 
house?  Who will build it for you?

How can you possibly have a right which requires someone else to implement it 
for you?  Not just refrain from harming you, but actively provide that which 
is yours "by right".  What about the rights of the person who is thus enslaved
- if only for a short time in a limited context - to the providing of your
"rights"?

Paul

    OK, given that you want the right to build a house which is potentially
    unsafe on the proviso that it does not affect others, then I put it to
    you that you may not have a family (i.e. wife and children) and that
    you may not have visitors.  Because, you would have a responsibility to
    these people.  All these people have a right to know that your premises
    are safe for them.
    
    About 15 replies ago, I think somebody hit the nail on the head as to
    why codes can be so objectionable ... The codes are interpreted as
    "this is the only way to do x", where there are a large number of ways
    to safely do a given construction / electrical / plumbing operation.
    
    By way of example, Canada and the US have basically the same electrical 
    codes, however, grounding regulations differ in the way the boxes and
    fittings must be looped in.  We both declare that one is safer than the
    other, and to be honest, I think there are other alternatives that
    should be used instead.
    
    Some countries codes are undoubtedly safer than others, but others are
    just simply different and do not conform to the usual local codes they
    are rejected and make people who want a bit more freedom to do things
    in a way they would prefer angry and bitter towards them.
    
    I would put it that if codes were more open and accepting of other
    construction techniques that could be shown to meet minimum standards
    of strength and durability, and were ONLY minimum standards, then most
    of the objections to codes would go.
    
    It's all very well to have a philosophical discussion of freedoms, but
    we live in a practical world, and codes should be a practical solution
    to practical problems of safety and durability.  Regretably though,
    codes are set by two groups of people ... those seeking extremes of
    safety and durability and those thinking they are preserving their 
    livelihood.  The result is a compromise ...
    
    Anyway, there's my 2c for the day.
    
    Stuart
    
    

  Re .160, that's an interesting definition of a "right" in an ideal
  world, but it doesn't match the existing laws, and with good reason.
  For example, we have a right to purchase products that don't harm us
  and foods and drugs that don't poison us. How is this form of
  protection different from being able to buy a house that doesn't harm
  us? Or is your point that we don't need the CPSC or the FDA?

  At what point should *everyone* have to pay for the protection of
  *some* consumers' inability to judge product safety? The answer for
  each individual product and service depends on the number of people
  who would be victimized (and the nature of the consequences) if the
  protection weren't there. The number of people who would be victimized
  is directly related to the average level of education. If more people
  were sufficiently knowledgeable, there'd be no need to legislate
  protection. I'd personally rather pay for education than for
  protection, but apparently most people don't feel that way.

	Re: .152

	Well, Paul, your reply has convinced me that your position is one of
"one little rule and civilization comes to a complete halt".  Fine.  You can
believe that people are such automata's that pure logic dictates every move
and that stealing a gumball leads to the ultimate end of stealing cars.  Gee,
somehow I've never stolen a car but yet I've stolen a gumball or two in my
youth.  And no, I would not think it is "ok" for my children to steal a gumball
just because I did.  If anything, it would make me *more* willing to tell them
why it is wrong and save themselves the headaches I had rather than make me more
tolerant of it.  Your assurtions, therefore, of what the ultimate end of rules
are are now, at least for me, falling on deaf ears simply because my experiences
do not match how you believe people will react.  Either I'm radically different
in my philosophic or logical makeup from the rest of humanity (no comments from
the peanut gallaries :-) or else your assurtions are flat-out wrong.  But, of
course, you may believe them if you want.  Just like I can tune out of this
discussion now that I really understand the extremity of your position.

								-craig

Question, Craig.

Did you really believe that stealing the gumball (or whatever) was perfectly 
OK, or did you do it knowing that it was wrong?

No, stealing gumballs does not lead to stealing cars for most people, because
most people don't ever believe that it's right.  Consider the same scenario 
that I wrote in the previous reply, and consider that the person not only
thinks that it's OK to steal gumballs, he considers it a RIGHT.  A fundamental
right.  And consider that a large segment of society is constantly working to
get him to steal more.  And that segment only has to convince a fraction of
society (less than half) to pass laws which make everybody steal.

Paul

    Pardon an unrelated blissfully-ignorant question:

    Paul, Patrick, whoever,

    What does the philosophy of getting the government out of building
    codes do with the licensing of electricians, plumbers, etc? (if
    anything)

    Jon

>> >   You willingly and knowingly built a house that is probably
>> >   substandard, ***yet you want to sell this house to someone without telling
>> >   him that the house is substandard***, but yet get a full fair market value
>> >   for the house.

>>See?  I specifically said that you can't lie about how you built the house, so 
>>that the buyer is making an informed decision to accept the responsibility for
>>the condition of the house, yet you are trying to portray something entirely
>>different.

   This is very interesting. So you're basing this whole system of yours on
   trust?? That each person selling a home MUST BE HONEST otherwise this
   system of yours won't work. You have more faith in Human nature then
   Mother Teresa.

>>Pardon me, but that's ridiculous.  What is true is that many businesspeople are
>>exposed to situations where they must balance ethical considerations against
>>profits, and some of them choose profits.  What is true is that in business you
>>should not ASSUME the ethical stance of any other businessperson, particularly
>>until they have established a reputation.  But to go from there to "If you're
>>in business you're not ethical" is like saying all women are whores because
>>some are propositioned for money and some accept. 
   
   So if a person does choose Profits over Ethics, then they are still Ethical??
   You say SOME choose profits. Well according to many surveys, less then 1%
   choose Ethics. That's a lot more then some. I'm saying that business people
   are not ethical, I'm saying that the way business is it puts people in a
   situation (not all just some) that they have to make decisions between
   Ethics and Profits (sometimes even survival) and over 9 times out of 10
   they'll choose the later.


>>If your only goal is to have safe housing, and you don't care what that means
>>in terms of any other contexts, then you are perfectly correct.  But that's not
>>my only goal, and I certainly hope it's not your only goal.

   It's not my only goal, I do care. It's just that know one has shown me
   another way of getting there that will work.

>>As soon as you have codes, then people know that at least the homes they buy
>>from the fly-by-night builders won't actually fall down around their heads. 
>>They may leak like seives, be drafty and poorly finished, but at least they
>>won't kill them.  So the adverse effect of a poor reputation is diminished.
>>Likewise, the positive effect of a good reputation is diminished, and the
>>people with good reputations are not able to charge as much more than the
>>fly-by-nighters than they used to.  Soon, no buyers care if the building is
>>built "beyond code", and builders stop building beyond code.  Those "minimums"
>>become the standards.  The value of reputation will never vanish entirely, but
>>the more codes and standards are implemented, then the less valuable it will
>>be.

    And this is bad???? To have everyone who builds homes, be required to
    build a house that is safe!!!!!

>>The building codes were instituted because SOME builders were NOT concerned
>>about their product or their reputation.  The effect - be severely devaluing a
>>builder's reputation - has been to make many, many more builders unconcerned
>>about their reputation or product.

    Here you admit that there are shoddy builders out there, yet you base your
    whole system on the Builder/seller being Honest with the buyer. There seems
    to be a condridiction here.

Mike

	Re: .164

	Yes, I did know that stealing the gumball (or whatever) was wrong.

>No, stealing bumballs does not lead to stealing cars for most people, because
>most people don't ever believe that it's right.
	:
	:
>        And consider that a large segment of society is constantly working to
>get him to steal more.  And that segment only has to convince a fraction of
>society (less than half) to pass laws which make everybody steal.


	As long as your first statement is true (and I agree with this) that
most people don't ever believe that stealing is right, your second statement
concerning what would happen if enough of the society believed stealing to
be a fundamental right and tried to create a law demanding it is not something
I'll worry about.  As long as most people believe stealing to be wrong, as
you've admitted, a law will not be passed which makes everybody steal.

	Now lets go worry about something real, like how long the batteries
last in air shredders...

								-craig

That's an analogy, Craig.  Apply it to the fact that most people believe that
they have the RIGHT to impose the means of force on other people for ends which
they desire.

Paul

>  So you're basing this whole system of yours on
>    trust?? That each person selling a home MUST BE HONEST otherwise this
>    system of yours won't work.

No, I'm just saying that NOT being honest (being fraudulent) is a proper area
for the application of laws.  I'm not COUNTING on honesty, I'm saying that
fraud must be prohibited.

> Well according to many surveys, less then 1% choose Ethics.

Whose surveys?  Is this like the surveys which say "9 out of 10 dentists 
surveyed chose xyz toothpaste" where the dentists were chosen on the basis of
their likelyhood to like that toothpaste?  Would you lie and defraud people for
money?  Would your friends?  "Businesspeople" is not a separate sub-class of
humanity which is inherently corrupt, they are people just like you.  Where
does this "99%" come from?

Paul

    >No, I'm just saying that NOT being honest (being fraudulent) is a
    >proper area for the application of laws.
    
    One might argue that this is exactly the intent of building codes:
    check up on the honesty of the builder, with an implied definition of
    the word "builder" and "builder of safe houses". (I could build a
    house, but it wouldn't be a safe one).
    
    I don't dispute the fact that the current building codes are
    inefficient at accomplishing this.
    
    Margaret.
    (why am letting myself get sucked into this?)

>>No, I'm just saying that NOT being honest (being fraudulent) is a proper area
>>for the application of laws.  I'm not COUNTING on honesty, I'm saying that
>>fraud must be prohibited.

  Oh, so each time a house is sold fraudulently then they should be taken
  to court to correct this. Well there are many, many flaws here. First, how
  do you know wether or not there is fraud. If you buy a house that the seller
  said is built to code, and then the house burns down 5 years later because
  the builder used substandard wiring, are you going to then bring a lawsuit
  after this builder?? Get real!!!! This is almost laughable.

>>Whose surveys?  Is this like the surveys which say "9 out of 10 dentists 
>>surveyed chose xyz toothpaste" where the dentists were chosen on the basis of
>>their likelyhood to like that toothpaste?  Would you lie and defraud people for
>>money?  Would your friends?  "Businesspeople" is not a separate sub-class of
>>humanity which is inherently corrupt, they are people just like you.  Where
>>does this "99%" come from?

  The survey I'm talking about was done by the author of the text book we used.

  Here's a simple test for you. Lets see how Ethical YOU are.

  You own a company that sells building materials. The company is a small
  company, only you and about 5 employees. One day a man comes in to sell
  you this great deal on this new type of plywood. You think that it's such
  a great deal that you buy a hugh amount to get a lock on the market, 
  because you feel that everyone is going to want this stuff. After you pay
  for the wood and it's delivered into your warehouse you discover that this
  stuff is very dangerous to build with. It turns out that if a house is 
  built with this stuff and the house catches on fire, the fumes could 
  kill people, not just the people living there, but anyone who inhales the
  fumes. However you have a problem. Seems that you sunk a lot of money in
  this wood, and that if you don't sell it (at least 1/2 of it) you'll go
  bankrupt. And the company you bought the material from is no longer in 
  business.

  So the question is - "Do you still sell it and endanger peoples lives, or
                        do you go bankrupt????".

  This is very similar to the kind of question they used on their survey to
  get that 99% statistics of unethical businessmen. Oh by the way, this 
  actually happened, and the owner of the warehouse didn't go bankrupt. 
  However he did eventually go to jail. But only because he was caught.
  
  In all fairness, I really don't know how I would answer it. I would hope
  that I would never be put in a situation like that. I would never willingly
  want to hurt anyone. It is a tough question, and maybe even unfair.

  Mike

No, I don't think I'd just sell it as house plywood.  I wouldn't want to live
with that, although I would try to think of SOME safe useage for it, to recoup
some of my losses.  I do agree that a large number of people might try to sell
it as is, and I agree that they could be rightfully prosecuted for fradulently
selling a product that is supposed to be safe for residential construction and
isn't.

But suppose you are right.  Suppose that 99% of the people are dishonest,
unscrupulous, and will do anything for money or power.  Your solution to this
is to create a governmental system, establish the precedent that they may use
any means they deem necessary for any end they deem desirable, and then staff
that government with those same people of whom 99% are corrupt?  That's 
supposed to be better?  Actually, it is precisely because I AGREE with you that
a large percentage of humanity will sacrifice their honor for profit or power
that I don't want to grant the government any more power than it absoultely
needs to maintain order.

The more unscrupulous people are, the MORE necessary it is to limit the power
of the people to whom you grant the right to use force.

Paul

Yesterday's Globe reported on a house fire in a New Hampshire town that killed
several (all?) members of the family that lived there, including some children.
The article reported that the fire department thought the house was a fire
trap in several ways.  In particular, it had no smoke detectors.  The fire
department was powerless to change that, because there was no law requiring
smoke detectors.  The family was poor, so there was little they were able to
spend on their own.

Do you believe that government should have the right to protect the lives of 
children who are too young to protect themselves?  If so, then at a minimum
it is acceptable to prohibit people from using such substandard buildings as
homes for children, although that stretches reasonable pragmatism; it is more
sensible to say that the government has the right to require smoke detectors
in all homes.

If not, then where do you draw the line?  Should we allow cruel parents to force
their children to sleep in closets or unheated garages?  Do we allow all 
behaviors that put children at risk, perhaps great risk, so long as no harm 
actually occurs?  Or do you allow all behavior, even those that result in harm,
so long as the parent isn't the direct cause of the harm (i. e. the parent
doesn't strike the match that starts the fire)?

I believe that you cannot answer these questions in a two-valued logic system.

   Gary

>>But suppose you are right.  Suppose that 99% of the people are dishonest,
>>unscrupulous, and will do anything for money or power.  Your solution to this
>>is to create a governmental system, establish the precedent that they may use
>>any means they deem necessary for any end they deem desirable, and then staff
>>that government with those same people of whom 99% are corrupt?  That's 
>>supposed to be better?  Actually, it is precisely because I AGREE with you that
>>a large percentage of humanity will sacrifice their honor for profit or power
>>that I don't want to grant the government any more power than it absoultely
>>needs to maintain order.

  At least if it's in the hands of the Government, I have a way of controlling
  the unscrupulous people. With no system at all there is no way of controlling
  the unscrupulous people. It's far from perfect, but I've seen it work.
  But I'm sorry, I just can't see your system ever working. Human nature 
  just won't allow it.

  Mike

	Paul,

	This is getting silly.  You provide an example in several replies about
how one thing leads to another.  I refute it by example and show your own
inconsistancy of message.  You counter by saying "That's an analogy, Craig."
If you're going to provide an example/analogy, either provide one that you will
*back* and *support* when it is challenged, or else skip the red herrings.  I
am now truly 100% out of this discussion since we can't even pin you down to
specific examples of what you're espousing.  You can hand-wave all you want,
but it certainly doesn't contribute to a discussion of the matter at hand.

								-craig

  re: (.151)

  > Please, "stick" framing is pejorative.

  Since when? I've heard many an old-timer-construction-type refer to
conventional framing as "stick framing."

  > It's difficult to point to bad examples of post and beam construction
  > since the "evidence" has either fallen or burned down! What remains
  > for us today are the strongest - survival of the fittest, the many,
  > many poorly built are long gone. 

  I beg to differ that it was because they were structurally inferior that
they met their demise. Far more timber framed houses succumbed to neglect,
abuse, urbanization, intentional destruction, or conflagration, rather than
what you infer. As a matter of fact, there are ~150 frames still standing in
Essex, Suffolk, and Middlesex counties that were built during this continent's
first 100 years of settlement.

  Secure housing was the most important challenge facing these folks and they
could ill afford to cut corners. On the contrary, it can be argued that the
earliest houses are over built, with 20" summers and 18" posts quite common.
Just think of the labor required to dimension the materials. Do you think that
all the labor (to say nothing of the joinery, masonry, et cetera) was justified
for a design that was to last some 50 or so years? 

  As an aside, did you know that many of the settlers first found refuge in
cloth tents, sod houses, and Native American style wigwams until they could
both afford a permanent residence and wait their turn from the housewright?
Even though the housewright and his crew of carpenters were among the most
numerous tradesman, the demand far outweighed their supply, especially when
one also considers that building a house was not a 3 month effort, but usually
one of several years. Again, the time involved demanded shoddy practices 
intolerable.

  The fact that an apprentice to the art of house building served seven years
under his master to learn the trade speaks volumes on the pride and skill these
early laborers demanded. The trade regulated itself. This isn't to say that
there weren't any shirkers back then, because I've read accounts that confirm
there were. However, they were the exception rather than the rule, and, in my
estimation, are contrary to the way things are now. Perhaps we ought to address
why people have taken a lazy/greedy attitude to house construction and remedy
that, instead of enforcing questionable building codes.

  One must also remember that the trade had as its legacy structures from the
old country as witness to the successes and failures of the skill. By the
time the housewright arrived on these shores, the trade had satisfactorily
matured and later evolved into the regional peculiarities that one now sees
among different locales. Similarly, traditions previously practiced were
soon abandoned here, once they recognized any shortcommings peculiar to this
region's climate, e.g daub and wattle as an exterior covering.

  > There are examples of balloon framing that will be around long after
  > I'm gone.  In either case, the method is sound, and still buildable
  > under present code.

  What's your definition of balloon framing? I thought true balloon framing
(two story studs that run uninterrupted from sill to plate) was against code?
But never mind that, the real question is do you feel a frame that gets its
strength from its sheathing is better than one that doesn't?

  Patrick

  PS Did anyone catch the blurb on the evening news the other day where some
     decrepit concrete and steel bridges are being replaced with wooden ones
     and at a fraction of the cost and labor? Interesting how some things come
     full circle and new ain't always better, eh?

  Mike Diamond,

  Since you are the one who is always crying fire in this notesfile theater,
why aren't you demanding that code enforce every building material (read:
do away entirely with wood) be noncombustible? And furthermore, why don't 
you also lobby the insurance companies to require that before any occupancy
permit be issued, each person living/entering the building prove that he is
not a smoker? After all, it would be in both your and my best interest, right?

  Patrick

  PS Your little rebuttal to my old house theory (the one with fieldstone
     foundations) is further proof of your old house naivete. A dry field-
     stone foundation was a design feature, not a bug, here in New England.
     They were purposely designed that way so they *could* move as the seasons
     changed. It's just that we are now left with 150-300 years of movement
     that has gone askew. Let's wait and see how concrete fairs over the same
     time before we make such pronouncements, okee-doke?

No, Craig, I'm not being silly, I'm not being inconsistent, I'm not "Hand 
waving," and I'm not advocating a "shifting fluffy position."  And I'll refrain
from making derogatory comments about your part in this discussion.

However, you're simply not using this analogy as an analogy.  You mix parts of
the analogy with parts of the thing it's trying to portray with parts of a
real-life situation similar to the analogy, and then claim that mixed up 
conglomeration is contradictory.

The analogy of gumball stealing was not intended to prove that stealing a 
gumball inevitably leads to stealing cars.  You're right - experience shows
that this is false.  But the point of the analogy is: what if the premise were
different?  People don't believe that stealing gumballs is OK, but what if
they did, just as they believe it is OK to use force to achieve ends which
they find desirable? 

In .167, you claim to have refuted my position by pointing out that since I
agree that people think stealing is wrong, then I shouldn't worry about them
passing laws making stealing legal.  But don't you see that the whole point of
the analogy is to raise the question of what would happen if people DID believe
stealing was OK?  When I said "And consider that a large segment of society is
constantly working to get him to steal more" I was not trying to say that 
there is a large segment of society trying to get people to steal.  I was 
saying that IF people believed that it WAS ok to steal, there WOULD be a large
segment of society working to get him to steal more; just as SINCE people
believe it IS ok to use force to achieve their ends, there IS a large segment 
of society working to achieve more and more ends by means of force.
  
re: Gray

I agree that most people are not fully logical, otherwise they could not hold 
the contradictory ideas which they do, in fact, hold.  But I think that people
do try to use reason to some extent to determine what they believe - although
I will again agree that there are a large number of people who don't think 
about reasons at all, and just go for what they WANT, with no concern for any
possible consequences.

But politics is a huge gray area precisely because people have accepted a
premise in some areas which they are not willing to accept fully.  It is a big
gray mush, because there is no particular justification to take any point in 
the grayness, and no real reason to argue for your particular chosen shade of 
gray.  And yes, I am saying that it should be black and white.  Because of 
that, I've been denounced here as an "extremist", as if any extreme were wrong.
Would you call me an "extremist" if I said that I didn't want ANY poison in my 
food?

re: children

I agree that the question of children's rights is one of the most difficult
areas of ethics and politics to determine.  And it is difficult precisely
because there is no clear place to draw the line.  Clearly, parents should not
be able to abuse and torture their kids.  Just as clearly, parents ARE allowed
some actions toward their kids which would not be acceptable toward another
adult - parents must have some means of disciplining children, even if it's 
only sending them to their room.  Children are also going to be adversely
affected by the choices and actions of their parents.  Where do you draw the
line?  I don't know.  An unsafe house?  Possibly, but there are many other
ways in which parents can harm or risk their children which we wouldn't want
to prohibit. 

>  At least if it's in the hands of the Government, I have a way of controlling
>  the unscrupulous people. 

Do you?  Don't forget that those unscrupulous people are not only in government
positions, they are also the voting public.  If 99% of THOSE people will betray
any principle for money, aren't you the least worried that THEY will be 
unscrupulous?  You say "With no system at all there is no way of controlling
the unscrupulous people".  And I agree.  But given that there is a large
percentage of people who will be unscrupulous, the ONLY system that I think
will work is to forbid anyone, anywhere, from getting anything by force.  When
we grant ANY segment of people the right to use force to get what they want, 
then we REALLY have no way to control unscrupulous people.  To use your own
words "Human nature just won't allow it."

Paul

> why aren't you demanding that code enforce every building material (read:
> do away entirely with wood) be noncombustible? 

Hmmm...  Interesting point.  A friend of mine from India was shocked that all
our houses were built of wood.  "Don't they burn down easily?" she asked.  All
their houses are built of masonry or stone.  I would imagine that the 
incremental danger of fire between a stone house (which CAN'T burn) and a wood
house is much greater than the incremental danger of a person doing their own
uninspected wiring.  If the building department can outlaw uninspected wiring,
Why CAN'T they outlaw wood houses?  They are unsafe.

Paul

    RE .176
    
    I disagree.
    
    I meant to state that there is nothing inherently wrong with post and
    beam construction.  Or balloon framing.  Or current style framing.  A
    good building code will allow them all.  It's purpose is to make sure
    that the dimensions supply enough strength for a given purpose.  
    
    Housewrights no longer spend seven years apprentice in this country.
    
    Carl 

>>  Since you are the one who is always crying fire in this notesfile theater,
>>why aren't you demanding that code enforce every building material (read:
>>do away entirely with wood) be noncombustible? And furthermore, why don't 
>>you also lobby the insurance companies to require that before any occupancy
>>permit be issued, each person living/entering the building prove that he is
>>not a smoker? After all, it would be in both your and my best interest, right?

   Insurance companies are already giving breaks on peoples insurances for
   non smokers. I have one on my house from State Farm. It's OK if people
   build unsafe houses, I've never said otherwise. It's when people like you
   who want to sell this house to some unsuspecting person and make a hell
   of a profit. And of course you wouldn't want to tell the insurance
   company so your insurance rate would skyrocket!!!! 


   I suggest you go out and get some practical experience at 
   building/reconstruction. Then come back here and start preaching about
   home construction. First off I never made a comment about timberframe
   construction. If you read my notes carefully (which you obviously didn't)
   you'll notice I was complaining about construction from the turn of
   this century. Very few timber frames were built around 1900. This is
   the time that this country went through major building construction 
   (actually it was just winding down). And it is these homes that were
   built like sh*t (a good portion of them anyways). Go through Pennsylvania
   sometime. Stop at some of the old coal towns and take a look at some
   homes built prior to 1900 (if there are any still standing). Or any of
   the boom cities/towns back then. I suggest you study these homes. You 
   won't find them in any books. No one wanted to write about them. 


>>  PS Did anyone catch the blurb on the evening news the other day where some
>>     decrepit concrete and steel bridges are being replaced with wooden ones
>>     and at a fraction of the cost and labor? Interesting how some things come
>>     full circle and new ain't always better, eh?

   Yeh I caught it. There is this town in NH that needed a new bridge 
   across one of it's small rivers, so they had to raise the money to
   build the bridge. A standard steel bridge cost almost $400k. But the
   state would chip in $200k and the town and to come up with the rest.
   The town could however build a wooden/covered bridge for $150k, yet
   the state wouldn't put up a dime. The average life expectancy of the
   steel bridge was 50 years and the wooden bridge was 150 years. Something
   is definitely wrong here.


   Mike

I'll name names, this time.

Cool out, Mike.  Statements such as this:

>   It's when people like you
>   who want to sell this house to some unsuspecting person and make a hell
>   of a profit.

are first flat out wrong - you haven't the slightest shred of evidence to
suggest that either Patrick or I would want to do this, and ample evidence
that we would not.  Furthermore, I at least have agreed that even someone who
WOULD want to do this should be prevented from lieing about the construction 
of a house.

But second and more important, your attacking posture is not appreciated, and
it has been evident in other notes where it was not quite so blatant.  Make 
your points, but please refrain from groundlessly accusing people or making
ad hominem attacks.

Paul

>>are first flat out wrong - you haven't the slightest shred of evidence to
>>suggest that either Patrick or I would want to do this, and ample evidence
>>that we would not.  

>>
================================================================================
Note 3565.118      A philsophical discussion of building codes        118 of 182
RTL::LEACH                                           10 lines  16-OCT-1990 13:13
                          -< Another anti speaks... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  re: (.117)

  So what say we, who are building, or have built our own house, paint a
large scarlet W (for WARNING this house wasn't inspected) to protect you
from your ignorance? Will that appease your ravenous desire to legislate
my freedom? You know, you can always blast them to oblivion, once we enter
that Great-Grossman's-In-The-Sky.

  Patrick
>>

  Then please tell me what he meant by this. I get very clearly from what  
  he said here that he dosn't want to tell the person who's buying his house 
  that it wasn't inspected or meets code or is safe.

  If you are going to moderate, then moderate fairly. Just because Patrick is
  on your side dosn't mean you can ignore his personal attack in the reply
  previous to mine. I'm just defending myself.

  Mike

You're absolutely correct, Mike, in that Patrick's jab about "Old house 
naivete" was a bit inappropriate.  So have some other comments by other people,
probably including myself.  Your bit about "I suggest you learn more before 
preaching" was also uncalled for, but I didn't call it out specifically.

I felt that your other attack crossed the line from derogatory to attacking.
Perhaps I was wrong, but please take the point that we DO NOT want to get into
namecalling and other argumentative abuse here.

I guess what got me was your continued insistence in making it a personal
issue.  You've claimed several times that what we want is the ability to make
a sub-standard house and sell it for a big profit.  I've responded to this
several times pointing out that the claim is completely untrue, and why.  Yet
you continue to make this claim.  Most of Patrick's notes have been extolling
the quality and devotion of old housewrights.  Whether you agree with that or
not, to make the claim that he wants to defraud people when most of what he 
says is praising quality and integrity is one-sided at best.

In that context, the note which you quote says, in effect "I'm going to build
my house the best I know how.  But since you can't seem to feel secure about a
house unless you force inspections on the builder, how about if I put a big
red W on the house so you can just stay away and leave me alone?"  To state
that the only conclusion you can draw from that note is that he wants to
defraud people suggests that you had come to that conclusion before you ever
read his note.



Anyway, I'm tired of this.  (YEEAAAAHH!!! shout all the regular home_workers!)
I don't think we're getting anywhere constructive, and this is degenerating 
into repetition.  I'm not responding any more (to this flare up).  You can put 
in your last bit if you wish, which I will disagree with, but I'm done.

Paul

  I still don't understand why a person shouldn't have a right to buy a
  safe house, while the right to buy safe products, food, and drugs is
  mandated by government regulations.

>  I still don't understand why a person shouldn't have a right to buy a
>  safe house, while the right to buy safe products, food, and drugs is
>  mandated by government regulations.
    Because everyone has a line, and no one can agree on where to draw
    it. That's what this whole argument is about.

  I'm happy to accept that, and if that's all it is, I have nothing
  further to say. But that's not at all the impression I've gotten from
  this string of notes. It seems to me as though some people would claim
  that there's more to it than that -- some philosophical principles
  which under which regulation of food & drugs is acceptable, but not
  houses. Am I mistaken? I hope so.

    Some may say there's more to it than that. In my mind, most everyone
    would say that government regulations are ok when it comes to the
    examples you brought up. Whether that is so because those things
    don't hit home as much as building codes, or some "higher" reason,
    I don't know, or care at this point. To me, it's just a matter of
    where do you draw the line. Abolish all regulating bodies, or just
    some of them. If some, which ones. That point we can argue until
    the cows come home (USDA approved cows, that is).
    
    John

    Mike, most food and most pharmaceuticals are commodities;  so are
    automobiles, appliances, and several other broad categories of things
    you can buy.  All these, save the food, are mass-produced (hell, so
    are a fair amount of the edibles at the grocery store);  how difficult
    is it for the producer to do QA on their lines?
    
    In most neighborhoods, you'll see few identical houses (and even some
    with identical shells may well be different inside).  This is one
    difference between houses and most commodities;  another is the amount
    of hand work.  There's some difference between assembling an object,
    where you're starting with the correct number of parts, and the
    knowledge that each has its place, and committing a little carpentry, 
    where the first thing you're likely to do is measure your standard-
    sized chunks of wood, and cut it to fit your plans (and if you can't
    get a piece to fit right, you have to choose between retrying with
    another piece, or fudging...)
    
    Imagine what you'd go through if, to get some steaks, you had to go down
    to one of the local feedlots (or local cattlemen) and choose a cow, and
    bring it to a butcher... or if you were in the market for a car, and
    you had to go down to each of the local garages, and check out each
    car that looked like it would fit your needs...
    
    Speaking of bills, can you imagine what such a car would cost?
    
    Dick

  Hey Mike,

  First I have to say Wow, man! Did you read between the lines on my first
entry into this battle royale! It was no way meant to be an insult, and I'm
sorry that you took it that way. Believe me, when I want to insult, it's
there in full blown 3D technicolor, panavision, and sensurround, with a rating
of NC-17.

  Now, back to our regularly scheduled event - You're playing electronic
dodgeball with my question. If fire is the number one hazard (as you seem to
imply), why aren't you in favor with the plan I spelled out in .177?

  >   I suggest you go out and get some practical experience at 
  > building/reconstruction. Then come back here and start preaching about
  > home construction.

  Ah Mike, if you only knew, if you only knew. By the way, do you scarf or
butt your clapboards?

  > First off I never made a comment about timberframe
  > construction. If you read my notes carefully (which you obviously didn't)
  > you'll notice I was complaining about construction from the turn of
  > this century.

  I seem to recall that back in .138 you made mention of the evolution of
the building codes over 200 years that have now given us safe housing. This
implies, at least to me (and to at least one other reader who attempted to
counter your assertions), that anything built before 1790 was inferior. Since
standard operating procedure then was timber frame construction, I read it as
a defamation of the craft which I hold near and dear. When the craft is wrong-
fully criticized, it pushes my Duddly Do-Right (RCMP) to the rescue button.

  Patrick

  PS You appear to be Stickley savvy. Do you agree with his house building
     dogma?

  Re .189, it's perfectly fair to compare houses and food. You complain
  about what a pain it would be to verify the safety of a food product,
  yet you'd like the homebuyer to put up with similar inconvenience and
  expense: ripping out the walls and floors to inspect for safe
  construction, then restoring everything to livable conditions. It's
  unacceptable in either case.

    re .189
    I don't get the point of your note. What is the real difference between
    "putting QA on the line" of pharmaceutical, meat packing or Ritz
    cracker plants, and putting QA into the building industry? So what if
    one is considered "mass-produced", it's all a product sold to a
    consumer.
    
    John

>>  Ah Mike, if you only knew, if you only knew. By the way, do you scarf or
>>butt your clapboards?

    I don't use clapboards. 8*) 8*)
    
>>standard operating procedure then was timber frame construction, I read it as
>>a defamation of the craft which I hold near and dear. When the craft is wrong-
>>fully criticized, it pushes my Duddly Do-Right (RCMP) to the rescue button.

    As a matter of fact, my wife and I have designed a house which we hope
    we will be able to build in the next few years (if we can find the land
    we want at a decent price). And guess what.... I'ts a timber frame
    construction. I won't be doing the timber frame, I'll contract that
    out. I find timber framing to have many MAJOR advantages over todays
    construction. So I guess we both did a little mis-interupting.

  PS You appear to be Stickley savvy. Do you agree with his house building
     dogma?

    I've never seen any of his homes, and I'm not familiar with his
    construction. However if it's anything like his furniture, then I'm all
    for it. He really knew how to built quality.
    
    Mike

  Mike,

  Here is what Gustav himself had to say about house building -

  "As a nation we do not easily submit to coercion. We want a hand in the
government, national or local. We are pretty direct if we do not like a
senator or a governor, and express our opinion fully of our ministers and
college presidents. In more intimate matters of courtship and marriage we
regard ourselves as more independent than any other nation. We marry
usually whom we please, and live where we please, and work as we please--
but when it comes to that most vital matter-- building a home, individuality
and independence seem to vanish, and we are browbeaten alike by architect,
builder, contractor, interior decorator, picture dealer, and furniture
man. We live in any old house that anyone else has discarded, and we submit
to all manner of tyrannies as to the size, style, and finish of our houses,
impertinences that we would not permit in any other detail of life. We not
only imitate foreign ideals in our architecture, but we have become arti-
ficial and unreal in all the detail of the finish and fittings of our homes.
How many of us would dare to rise up and assert sufficient individuality
to plan and build a house that exactly suited our personal ideal of comfort
and beauty, and represented our station in life?"

  Craftsman Homes (1909), Gustav Stickley

  Kinda sorta sounds what Paul and I preach, doesn't it?

  Patrick

    .192:
    
    What is the real difference?
    
    Count the number of factories that make Ritz crackers (and competing
    brands) in this country -- and then count the number of builders who
    build houses.  (I'll understand if it takes a few weeks.)
    
    NABISCO may produce thousands of pounds of Ritz crackers, but they all
    come from one of a small number of factories.  The factory managers are
    all accountable to the NABISCO top management, who can define a
    corporate-wide policy.
    
    There may be more builders in some cities than Ritz cracker factories,
    and each builder is in business for himself;  "every man did what was
    right in his own eyes, for in those days there was no king..."
    
    Another question regarding QA is testing:  how would you go about
    testing a house, or component subsystems?  How do you make sure that
    one builder isn't using an apple for his QA standard, and another using
    an orange?
    
    
    .191:
    
    Ah, Mike, I get testy when people put words in my mouth:  you're likely
    to get your fingers bitten.  I haven't stated here what I support, in
    part because I haven't made my mind up.
    
    I will repeat myself, more or less, in words of one syllable or less:
    
    Mass-produced commodities adhere to a standard;  they are made to a
    given specification, and are checked to make sure that they fit that
    spec before shipping from the maker.
    
    With the exception of modular buildings, houses aren't shipped from a
    central factory to the place of usage;  they are built at that place of
    usage.  The number of individual components that are assembled into a
    house exceeds that of automobile components by probably a couple of
    orders of magnitude;  one can expect that the inspections needed for
    some sort of QA would be similarly larger.
    
    Unlike automobiles, appliances, and other machinery, much of a house
    doesn't perform activity which can be observed and compared to a
    standard.  Instead, the performance you're attempting to observe is
    resistance to ephemera (rain on the roof, wind against the walls and
    windows), and to very slow processes (soil shifting against foundations
    and footings, tension and compression applied to bearing walls and
    floors, gravity pulling against things).
    
    I'm not certain that the current state of affairs are the best we can
    do.  I haven't yet thought of a better arrangement.  It does occur to
    me that one possibility might be to simply have inspection signoffs (or
    their lack) incorporated into the deed, which is a matter of public
    record, and also as a legal document would make false statements about
    the property a matter of fraud;  a prospective buyer could then
    discover whether the place had been inspected at various stages of its
    construction (and by whom, which might be useful to know), and use that
    information to help decide whether or not to buy the house.
    
    I might add that I bought a house last year, from the fellow who built
    it.  Besides having my father over to poke around, I ponied up to have
    a home inspector look at it, thinking that he might notice things I had
    missed (and also test for radon).  The realtor seemed to think that
    doing this was unusual, but if it was going to help make the sale...
    
    Dick

    Pox!  I forgot to add this to .195:
    
    Most commodities are designed (and the designs refined for performance,
    production, and QA factors) and then stamped out by the thousands.  If
    a problem is found in production this week, changes can be made to the
    design, and next week or next month thousands of the "new, improved"
    version will be coming off the line.
    
    The timescale of house-building is such that even a big developer in
    such a situation may well not have the opportunity to try the "new, 
    improved" design this year (hm, better make d--ned sure it works!).
    
    
    Additionally, consider that a prospective homebuyer has a major choice
    to make (or let it be made for him/her):  to look at pre-existing
    houses, or to contract with a builder to build one to the buyer's
    specs.  A buyer going the latter route might simply ask the builder
    to take such-and-such a plan, and move a couple of non-bearing walls to
    enlarge the bedroom closets (oh, and don't forget to use the expensive
    carpet in there);  the buyer might sit down with a builder and an
    architect to design and build something that has never quite been done
    before.
    
    I submit that QA in this case, and to a lesser degree in the other
    case, will differ in some ways from QA on the widget line.  While I
    don't know enough about the topic to make suggestions, I do suspect
    that checking out the very first thing of its kind would require much
    more careful inspection, and more thought in comparing the details with
    the design, than checking widget #12,455,909.
    
    Dick

>>  Craftsman Homes (1909), Gustav Stickley

>>  Kinda sorta sounds what Paul and I preach, doesn't it?

    It does, and I do agree with a good part off it. But how many builders
    adhere to that philosophy.?? I've seen too many that don't. I'm not
    against anyone bulding a house on their property anyway they want to.
    That is very private. But when they try to sell it, then it becomes
    public. The minute that house comes up for sale, it is a public matter.
    It may be the best built house in the world, but how is the public
    going to know it. It can't be completely opened up for public
    inspection. The only time it can be fully inspected is when it is
    being built. Your private house also can become public matter if it
    somehow catches on fire and the fire department (which is public; ie..
    payed for by taxpayers) is called to put it out. I for one wouldn't
    want my firedepartment going out to a house fire and endangering their
    lives because someone built a firetrap and it catches on fire. I'm not
    saying you would, but belive me there are those that would... all too
    many unfortunatly. Your house may be private to you most off the time,
    but will it stay private for as long as the house is standing????
    
    I don't think we'll ever agree on this!!!
    
    Mike

    .195, .196
    
>    Count the number of factories that make Ritz crackers (and competing
>    brands) in this country -- and then count the number of builders who
>    build houses.  (I'll understand if it takes a few weeks.)
    
    If you don't mind, to summarize your two notes, it seems the difference
    you point out is that QA in a production line is easy, and QA in the
    house building is difficult. I'm sorry, but I don't find that a
    ligitimate excuse to throw out the code system (or at least to stop
    trying to enforce "quality"). Preventing child abuse is difficult, but
    that's doesn't mean we should stop trying that.
    
>How do you make sure that
>    one builder isn't using an apple for his QA standard, and another using
>    an orange?
    By using exactly what we have - codes!
    
>    Unlike automobiles, appliances, and other machinery, much of a house
>    doesn't perform activity which can be observed and compared to a
>    standard.  Instead, the performance you're attempting to observe is
>    resistance to ephemera (rain on the roof, wind against the walls and
>    windows), and to very slow processes (soil shifting against foundations
>    and footings, tension and compression applied to bearing walls and
>    floors, gravity pulling against things).
    
    All the more reason to have a minimum set of requirements.
    Time, field tests, experience, etc, have shown that a roof made of
    2x3's 24" oc will fail after a heavy snowstorm. That's why the *code*
    say you can't do that. Just because you don't see it happen minutes
    after building it, doesn't mean it can't be predicted.
    
    John

>  Here is what Gustav himself had to say about house building -

>to all manner of tyrannies as to the size, style, and finish of our houses,
    
>  Craftsman Homes (1909), Gustav Stickley

>  Kinda sorta sounds what Paul and I preach, doesn't it?

    This comment of Stickley's does not seem to have anything to do with 
    building codes (did they exist in 1909?) nor even to be applicable to
    building codes, but rather with "size, style, and finish".  These are 
    all matters of taste.  
    
    	size   =  how big it is, how many rooms, how many floors, how much
    		  floor space.
    	style  =  Victorian, cape cod, colonial, ranch, log, modern.
    	finish =  Paint colors, decoration, type of flooring, light
    		  fixtures, furnishings.
    
    There is little in the building codes that would limit your
    self-expression in these matters of personal taste.  In fact, at the
    time he wrote the article, I think people were much more into trends,
    and less into personal expression.  I don't think Stickley would say 
    the same thing about people today.  I don't know which side of the
    building code issue Stickley would take, but his comments posted here
    do not seem to give us much of a clue.
    
    						- Vick

I have been reading this note every now and then and got as far as reply 173
(pant...pant).

(BTW I looked up rat (black)hole in the dictionary and it said something about
"pointless discussion with constant digressions; example: see note 3565 of
HOME_WORK")

This is an anecdote from my college days in the early 1970's.  It is NOT meant
to support either side of this (heated) discussion.  (I (almost) refuse to get
sucked into this)

We had a guest lecturer in one of our Civil Engineering classes.  He was a
Brazilian Civil Engineer and made a statement (and I paraphrase due to moderate
memory loss over the last 17 years or so) something like:


	"We in Brazil have a different view of construction and safety than
	you in the U.S.  If we construct 100 apartment houses and 3 collapse
	we will still have 97 apartment houses."


His point was that they needed the housing in Brazil.

Stan

For those interested in this discussion (I'll admit I lost most interest many
replies ago), there is an interesting article on this topic in the September 90
issue of Fine Homebuilding, page 102.

It is about a couple in Washington state who built their own home, in violation,
of several codes, and what they did about it.

								Mark

    .198:
    
    We seem to be making similar arguments about the utility of building
    codes.  Where we diverge, I think, is that I wonder if there might be
    better ways of handling them than using the law as a hammer to bang
    them into place.
    
    Dick

Back again after a long absence.

Lots of interesting comments in the last hundred or so messages, plus one
or two people who seem unable to write without personal attack and insult.  
Ah, well, I'll just ignore those people.

Paul Weiss uses the tag line "Trade freedom for security - lose both", and
it can certainly happen that way.  Not in all cases, I claim, and this is
one of the fundamental differences between his and my viewpoints.  In this
message, I'll cite some examples that show why I think that way.

First, what is freedom?  If we don't agree on that, there's no point in
arguing.  By "freedom", I mean the ability to act as one pleases without
hindrance -- the ability to live ones life the way one chooses, without
interference.

Under that definition, a person who is drowning has no freedom -- unless
that person really wants to be drowning, which happens but is rare.
Similarly, a person who is starving to death has no freedom.  People who 
are unable to find reasonable housing (by their own personal definitions) 
also have their freedom limited.

To get to more traditional examples, people who cannot say what they want,
who cannot buy the firearms they want, who live subject to arbitrary
arrest or seizure, who cannot live in the area they chose, or who cannot
steal money when they want to, all have their freedom restricted.


Now, my freedom is not limited by laws against bank robbery, since I don't
choose to engage in that activity, but my freedom is limited by the traffic
laws.  If I drive above the speed limit, I might get stopped.  For that
matter, the very existence of a police force limits my freedom, since the
police can stop me whether or not I think I am breaking the law, and under
certain circumstances, they can legally arrest me and put me in jail, even
if I have done nothing wrong.  (I have a friend this happened to.  He was
thrown in jail and charged with rape, all because he was running across a
parking lot at 2am near where a rape had occurred.  Later acquitted.)

So, the existence of a police force limits my freedoms.  In some ways.  But
let's look at the other side.  I'm not a strong person, nor do I have much
taste for (or ability at) combat.  If there were no police force, I would
not have been able to accumulate the wealth I have, since someone stronger
would have taken it away from me.  I would not be able to travel about with
anywhere near the safety I now enjoy, so my freedom of movement would be
severely limited.  And I'm sure you can see many other ways in which the
lack of an enforced-with-guns social order would limit the freedoms I now
enjoy.

Therefore, my situation is this.  I willingly surrender some of my freedoms
to allow a police force to make arrests of those who they think have broken
the law, including myself.  In return for giving up this freedom, my net
level of freedom is *dramatically* higher.  This wouldn't be the case if
what I wanted to do was to rob banks, but for me it definately is the case.


Or to take another example, consider flying on airplanes.  These days in the
US, you cannot board an airplane without submitting to personal search.
Sure, a metal detector is a very convenient kind of search, but if the metal
detectors are not working, they will search you by *hand* or not let you on
the plane -- I found that out one day.  As a passenger, you are free to
either submit to the search or to not fly -- and they have guns with which
to enforce this law (coercive force, as Paul is fond of noting).

So does this make me more free or less free?  Answer:  less free than I was
in the days before hijackings, but these days, far *more* free than I would
be if the searches were not performed.  A single hijacking is a pretty
major attack on your personal freedom.


So, I think there are lots of cases where it is a matter of trading some
of one kind of freedom to get more of another kind.  Are there cases where
one is really trading freedom for security (and therefore losing both)?

Sure.  Here's one example.  Back before world war II, apparently some 
people in England really said "What this country needs is a Mussolini
or a Hitler to straighten out the mess and make the trains run on time".
These people were recognizing that by giving up vast tracts of their
freedoms to a strong ruler, they could (at least in the short term) gain
a lot of security.  They didn't realize that a Mussolini or a Hitler
would have complete arbitrary power, and thus they would have lost their
freedom entirely in the search for security.

To put it in more general terms, one is giving up freedom to get freedom
when one gives up freedom of action *under certain proscribed circumstances*
in order to gain specific other freedoms.  There are very careful limits
on what the police can do.  If the police have too little power, they cannot
carry out their mandate of increasing ordinary people's freedom of action
by keeping down crime.  If they have too much power, they can do a better
job at keeping down crime, but they infringe too much on ordinary people's
freedom (and have too much scope to commit crimes of their own).  So it's
a  matter of balance, not a black-and-white question of any loss of
freedom being a net decrease in freedom.  


Now, I won't muddy the waters by ranging widely over points raised since
Paul responded (in note .115) to my last message.  But Paul rejected my
statement that I believe that building codes enhance my own freedom and the
freedom of people in general (if not of Paul).  So responding to the last
paragraph of .115, it is not simply that I think life is *BETTER* because of
building codes, nor even that I think that the end of safe hosing justifies
the means of building codes.  It is that, just as a police force (armed with
guns) enhances my total personal freedom in their efforts to ensure that
everyone meets certain standards of behavior, the building inspectors
enhance *my* total personal freedom in their efforts to ensure that all
buildings are built to certain *minimum* standards.  

This is the key point, and one on which I will be commenting in later
messages.  Please no one get so hot under the collar at my claim that
building codes can be good that you miss my real point.  What I am saying is
that one can give up freedoms in one area to *gain* much more freedom in
another, and that I see the concept of building codes in that light,
rather than as a (dubious) means to a (good) end or as a way of surrendering
freedom for convenience.  But more on that later.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

> By "freedom", I mean the ability to act as one pleases without
> hindrance -- the ability to live ones life the way one chooses, without
> interference.

I basically agree with that definition, but with the important addition that
the "without hindrance" and "without interference" refer to hindrance or 
interference by other people.  Case in point, I disagree with your application
of the word freedom in your first three examples.   I don't agree that people
whose desires are thwarted by nature or by simple lack aren't free, I think
that dilutes the word far too much.  If it can be used in that sense, then you
can say that I'm not free because I don't have the money to buy my own South
Pacific Island, that I'm not free to play in the NBA because I don't have the
talent, and that I'm not free to jump off cliffs and float because of this
nasty law of gravity.  

If freedom means the ability to fulfil any desire at any time without any 
context, then NO ONE is free, NO ONE ever has been, NO ONE ever will be, and 
we can just not bother talking about it any more.  If freedom, instead, means 
the ability to live as you choose without hindrance or interference from other
people, then it is the linch-pin of political discussion.

I am reminded of a part of Orwell's 1984. Not that I'm comparing you to that,
but I am reminded nonetheless.  Part of Winston's job was the removal of 
meaning from the language, and "free" was a word that was specifically 
discussed.  They were gradually diluting the meaning of the word "free", until
it eventually meant nothing more than absent, as in "The dog is free from 
lice."  I even remember it discussing that it would then be meaningless to say
"All men are free" - people would ask "Free from what?"  The point was that if
they removed the concept from the language, it would then become impossible 
for people to even understand it.

I see that happening here; to a far lesser extent, of course.  The insertion of
"Freedom from want" back in the New Deal days diluted the meaning of "Free",
and it's never been the same since.


Again I agree, that to protect the freedom of all people, it is necessary 
to restrict everyone's freedom - in one respect.  Your freedom to take away 
other people's freedom, by hindering or interfering with them, is taken away.
It must be, to procure any freedom at all for everyone else - if you were free
to do anything you want to them, then they would have no freedom.  You say: 
"There are very careful limits on what the police can do," and I agree - the
limit is that that police can stop people from hindering or interfering with
other people; the police are not allowed to do anything else.

You talk of Hitler and Mussolini, and about the people giving their freedoms
up wholesale.  But don't you believe that it is even possible for us to give
up every bit as much freedom - or more - a bit at a time?  To take your example
of the airline searches (I expounded on this way back in here somewhere).  In 
the case of the airline searches, the government established the precedent that
it could search people without any cause or suspicion of wrongdoing.  The
airline searches have been used to justify the drunk driving roadblocks.  And
last summer, the police in Dorchester tried to use those two cases to justify
randomly grabbing people on the streets and searching them for drugs.  Yes -
that's true, you can look it up in last summer's papers.  They were basically
detaining and searching ANY young, black male who they saw, with absolutely no
basis for suspicion.  Luckily, the courts struck that down - this time.

Also recently, the House and the Senate passed a bill which completely did away
with the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."  The civil rights bill
which they passed put the burden of proof on every employer to PROVE that they
did not discriminate when not giving a job to a minority person.  They were 
guilty of discriminatory hiring practices unless they could prove otherwise.
Luckily, Bush vetoed it - this time.  What about next time?  And you can be 
sure there WILL be a next time.

Finally, by your own definition, freedom is "the ability to act as one pleases
without hindrance -- the ability to live ones life the way one chooses, 
without interference."  Clearly, by that definition, you are hindering and
interfering with another person - and limiting THEIR freedom - when you force
them to build to your standards.  In what way are they hindering or interfering
with you by building their own house to their own standards?  

As I pointed out in the beginning, I don't think your FREEDOM is increased at
all by building codes.  Your options, maybe.  Your freedom, no.  But suppose
your freedom WAS increased by building codes.  Unless you can come up with 
some way by which people building houses to their own standards actively 
hinders or interferes with your life, then how do you justify maximizing YOUR 
freedom at the expense of theirs?

Paul

re: .204

I dislike nitpicking on tangents, but sometimes it's necessary to correct
opinions presented as fact.  Suffice it to say, that my understanding of
the effects of the civil rights bill is different from yours, but there's no
way to prove which one of us is right without first passing the law and then
observing how it is interpreted by courts and juries.  There were plenty of
legal opinions on both sides of this issue, but few of them could be considered
free of hidden motives.

   Gary

re:205

True or false:  Under the bill, if a person sued an employer for discriminatory
hiring practices, the employer must prove to the court that he did NOT
discriminate on the basis of race.

Paul

As far as I know, that's false.  The plaintiff would still have to prove that
discriminatory hiring practices took place, but would not have the burden of 
proving that the intent of those practices was to discriminate.  Compare this,
for example, to industrial pollution: if you unintentionally pollute, you still 
have some liability, even though you may have had good intentions about not
polluting.  

   Gary

    re: .206 : True. I have been involved, not directly as either plaintiff
    nor defendant, but closely nonetheless, and all that has to happen is
    that the plaintiff says that it happened. The defendant has to do all
    the work proving that it didn't. It's one way to really tie up a
    defendant's resources with little or no effort from the plaintiff.
    
    Sometimes you really have to wonder...

I started to write a reply taking us further down the rathole of this bill, 
when I realized that it is really irrelevant.  I'll retract my example of that
bill, it was only a sidelight to my argument anyway.

Can we please let this one drop?  This note is convoluted enough without a
protracted 20-note rathole on this bill.

Paul 

A brief note.  Thanks, Paul, for your definition of freedom.  I'm willing
to accept it.  It sounds like we agree that both police and bandits roaming 
the streets hinder our freedom of action -- and that we both prefer giving 
up some of our freedom of action to allow police to keep down the bandits.  
I call this trading freedom for both freedom and security.  But note that
police are allowed to do *FAR* more than stop people from interfereing
with other people.  If I run a stop light when no one else is around,
I can still be given a ticket.  My friend wasn't hindering or interfering 
with anyone, but he was still arrested and charged with rape.

Can we lose our freedom a bit at a time?  Of course!  Consider police
powers.  Oops, that case doesn't hold up, does it?  While it is possible
to give up so much of our freedom to the police that we have none left
(plenty of examples around the world), that hasn't happened here.  In fact,
I suspect that we have better protection from arbitrary police actions today 
than we did 100 years ago, on the whole.  Minority members certainly do.

All I'll say about searches in airports is two things.  First, if someone 
carries a bomb onto a plane, that takes away my freedom by either of our 
definitions.  Second, the premis behind a law requiring a search before
entering an airplane is not at all the same as the premis behind a law
that would permit random stop and search on the streets.  Giving police
increased power in one area does not cause us to slide down a slippery slope
toward police being able to randomly search people in the streets -- as
this case illustrates.  The fact the police tried shows they are human.

My main point, therefore, is that freedom really isn't a step function.
There is a balance.  People's rights and freedoms must be balanced.  Going 
to either extreme (anarchy or absolutely rigid laws) doesn't achieve this.
A philosophy in which *any* motion from one extreme is assumed to be 
tantamount to going to the other extreme also doesn't achieve it.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS -- I'll answer Paul's question on how I think this relates to building
codes in a later message.

Hi. I have to believe this has been discussed but DIR/TIT and 1111.16 didn't
find anything.

I think I know enough about plumbing/wiring/carpentry to do this kind of work
without creating any safety hazzards, etc.

What I'm not well versed in is all the specific requirements of the national
electric code, typical plumbing and building codes, etc. I'm particularly
concerned about the rules that aren't intuitively obvious (like the way they
call for certain things to be no more than X inches higher than other
things, etc).

Can anyone suggest a _tutorial_ reference (book, video, whatever) on the
electrical, plumbing, and building codes? I am aware of the references
available that publish the actual code, but is there a better way than
laboriously reading the codes front to back?

Thanks

Erik

There's nothing that I could find asking for any sort of tutorial book.  But you
might find some interesting info referenced in note 1111.73 (keyword directory
for PERMITS_CODE&INSPECTORS).

Paul

    
    
    	Erik,
    
    	My brother has written a book on the building codes in Mass.  It's
    	called 'Reading the Building Codes:  A Short Hermeneutic', by
    	Joe McEvoy.  It's available at the North Eastern University Bookstore
    	and the Tatnuk Bookseller in Worcester, ISBN #o 89801-020-9.  He
    	has years of inspection and code background.
    	
    	I started reading it myself, and found it understandable even 
    	though I didn't know the first thing about codes!
    
    	I have a number of someone to call if you want the book and can't
    	find it.
    
    	Justine McEvoy Snow
    

    The late H.P. Richter authored two books on electrical wiring.
    One is a massive volume of several hundred (500+!) pages which
    gives clear English explanations of NEC requirements and such.
    I'm not 100% of the title of this book - "Practical Wiring" or
    something similar.
    
    He also authored a "condensed" version of this book which is
    MUCH shorter titled "Wiring Simplified"; he again gives you the
    practical details of the NEC in clear English, but skips the
    commercial, industrial, etc., information in the larger book.
    
    Even though Richter died several years ago, both books are
    updated frequently and are up-to-date with the latest NEC.
    
    I've also seen a book at some local (Nashua, NH) bookstores
    which "translates" the NEC into English; I looked at it very
    quickly but it seemed to lack some of the practical organization
    Richter's book has (i.e., it is organized around the layout of
    the NEC rather than organization around how you would do your
    wiring projects).