Regarding building permits and insurance requirements (and licensing where it applies), most savvy jurisdictions will waive the insurance and licensing requirements in the case of an owner who will perform the work himself.
I say savvy jurisdictions, because mine ain’t.
A couple years ago, our town’s building department decided to put some new regs into effect, requiring that the permit puller produce certs for WC, GL, and disability, as a prerequisite.
Trouble is, they didn’t recognize the fact of owner-performed work, and neglected to put in place the kind of affadavit form all savvy jurisdictions use.
With a heavy hand, they just say, “no certs, no permit,” and force owners to cheat, by going around and begging an insured contractor to front for them.
Or just not get a permit at all. Ours is not the kind of place where inspectors (we have one) drive around looking for unpermitted work happening. Nor does anyone feel inclined to drop a dime on his neighbor who is building a new garage or workshop shed. Too small a community. No anonymity. Everybody knows everybody.
What goes on in your jurisdiction?
Replies
>Ours is not the kind of place where inspectors (we have one) drive around looking for unpermitted work happening.
They don't have to anymore. Building departments have started using mapping applications, akin to Google Earth but more current, to spot new construction. Might not apply to this particular Mayberry, but there's no doubt that technology will get more and more into these areas, and not less and less.
I live in a very small city, about 1000, within a large metro area.
There are no state trade liciences, of any sort, or state building codes. So everything is up to the community.
And as far as I know now of the larger cities in the area have contractors liciencing. But they do have it for plumbers and electricans.
Now this is a private lake developement and until a few years ago building was controlled by the development company (owned by the home owners), but now by the city. The city has 2 employees, a parttime administrator and someone that maintaince the water and sewer systems.
Over the years building "permits" where mainly a verification of setbacks, materials (C&R's no tarpaper and a few other things), and if bulding over the old sewer that it was upgraded.
Inspections where done by the local PFD. Then they got out of the business and we used another, then a part time inspector from a neighboring city. The FPD is again doing it.
However, my neighboor just did a major kitchen remodel which included some structural changes and electrical upgrade. Don't know what intermideate inspections that where done, but the final was basically talking about the history of the house. The inspector was a nephew of a privious owner.
About 4 years ago, shortly after the city took over building permits, a loud mouth jerk bougth the house on the other side and was doing major remodeling including removing what had been an external wall before an enclosed porch was built years earlier and replacing it with some lvl's. Happened to see the mayor and mentioned it to him. He said that the noticed it, but did not think that they could go inside the house.
Now they want to know who is doing work so they have impliment a contractors registration fee of $35. Saw a note in news letter about a see if a ready mix company had paid or not. They are not contractors, but just deliver materials.
And, again I have not see the ordinance, but the news letter indicates that they have updated the codes the newest versions and then list the UBC, plumbing, fire, etc. Now the wording implied that it ment the it was automatically whatever the lasted published and not the the latest at that time. If they did them the screwed themselves. As an elected body can't give up their responsibility to a 3rd party.
Do it like we do in Texas and formerly when I was in Tennessee. Do not pull the permit, and hire the bigget dude in the county to sit on the front porch and "talk" to the inspector if he shows.
My cousin may be avaliable. He is a professional painter, but for fun (truthfully) he is a 6'4 / 285 lbs bounty hunter. When on duty he wears black leather pants, black cowboy boot, carries a shoulder holster pistol, ankle strapped firearm on one leg and an ankle strapped knife on the other. He ain't scared of anything, except his 5'2" wife.
He will probably do it for a daily bottle of Jack, which may also help if the inspector shows.
The inspector may become famous, with his pic displayed on milk cartons all over the country.
Edited 4/14/2006 11:46 am ET by txlandlord
Edited 4/14/2006 1:41 pm ET by txlandlord
I dont know Gene about "savy" districts.
First of all part of it is mandated by the state .
Secondly a building permit is for one money for that district to operate . You will hope you can tie to their water , electric ,and sewer. That carries state regs.
Third once the city for example adopts a building code and fire codes , then all of it becomes law.
Fourth, once a local ordinace is adopted it is also law.
With that said , homeowners are a night mare. They really are . They require 50 percent of the time and there are only 10 percent of them for example . Our state law says they can build their own home "if they are capable of passing inspections". . Other wise we would not let them. They are a jungle of mistakes . Every time I inspected a job for a home owner I was forced to put on a class so to speak. With 12 inspections and 8 hours to do it I simply didnt have time to teach and it certainly wasnt my job. Turn it down or pass it and leave was my job . Not to tell them what was code and what will pass and what will not pass . That responsiblity is theirs. Of course I did it , but I hated it . All their trying to do is skimp on the work force and Im included in that even as an inspector. So cities can make it hard for them to operate. from a legal standpoint if they are required the same regs a builder has to pass. Its fair uinder the law.
Lets turn the hat around for a minute. If you were the homeowner hiring the work done you would he happy about what you are complaining about . You are a minority.
Tim
>>"With that said , homeowners are a night mare.
Tim, I agree that HO can be a nightmare in a lot of ways. Let's not forget though that you work for them -- they pay your salary. They are the reason gov't employees like you have jobs.
Just a cranky taxpayer this am. ;-)
"Let's get crack-a-lackin" --- Adam Carolla
Let's not forget though that you work for them -- they pay your salary.
Actually they dont and actually they do.
Building permits are normally sold to lisensed individuals that are provided rights to practice their trade in that state. . Most are professionally trained to do their job. They pay for the permits, but in turn they bill the homeowner in this case. I wont write you one because you dont have a lisense. I could be liable . The public must be protected. You can sell that house and probably will. A lot of people simply state its my house , I should be able to do what I want to. Trouble with that is that it will last 100 years plus and you wont at this time . Someone else will own that house .
I got paid from permits and plan reviews. In the codes it says my job is to inspect , then pass or fail and write it up to keep records. My job ends there . Although it doesnt say it I think when I fail an inspection I should state why ,but not offer solutions. That could get me into trouble in a court of law.
With that said the people building will pay for inspections not the general public. It cost you your permit fees on your home and you are done supporting me on all others unless they are yours. So the misconception Im a public official. I wasnt. In fact I was a sub contractor that got part of the fee. A policeman is a public official. I got 20 dollars per inspection of the 40 charged . My job was clear . It didnt include baby sitting . I simply said you will need to pass inspections and if you cant you cant do the work. If you cannot provide the data I need you may not do the job. I would help them some but if they were clueless I would simply tell them to hire a lisensed tradesman or else fail.
I was there to protect the tradesman as well . If a man paid his dues then he deserved to be treated fair and I did not permit unlisensed work except by homeowners and some of them were rejected. Some people tried to get Joe Blow unlisensed , un insured , to do his work and say they were doing it . At that time I would tell them they needed to come down and take the Homeowner Code test which had a 100 page study booklet. The lisensed tradesmen was once again protected along with the homeowner or the future ones.
Tim
Can't agree with you there, Tim. Homeowners may be a pain in your tuckus, but I think their property rights are far more important than the inspector's convenience or any tradesman's career. If you would impose restrictions on my property rights, you should be prepared to take as much time as is needed to help me conform.
In fact, I'd be in favor of no codes, no enforcement except where my (or your) property directly affects others. That would be water, sewer, driveway, and setbacks. Otherwise, what I do isn't your concern. That's not to say that the power company and homeowner's insurance companies shouldn't have a say, but that's a matter of contractual law.
Now I know that some will say that's not fair to the next buyer. Caveat emptor. Most people put more research into the cup holders in their next vehicle than into the biggest investment they'll ever make. Sometimes there's a price to pay for that sort of laziness.
How ever did we manage to find shelter before government got involved?Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
I really riled you up considering its you . haha
" Homeowners may be a pain in your tuckus, but I think their property rights are far more important than the inspector's convenience or any tradesman's career. If you would impose restrictions on my property rights, you should be prepared to take as much time as is needed to help me conform. "
I dont see a problem, just pay me and Ill put on classes . If you dont pay me then you got no gripe . A dollar per minute per inspection would work for me . I got paid contract of 20 dollars per inspection. How much of that would you want with no benifits?
You picked the wrong dog here .
"In fact, I'd be in favor of no codes"
me too , I didnt write them or pass them into law.
" Otherwise, what I do isn't your concern. "
Our laws disagree with you .
"Now I know that some will say that's not fair to the next buyer."
That is what they say. Its even said it saves lifes as thats what the codes are inteneded to do mostly over fire. Also to protect a buyers investment. Andy if we didnt have codes Mr Slick could slide in town and build a house with out a footing and with out insulation for example and sell it to your grand mother . If we didnt have codes a lot of us would be working for what pay we could get for everyone would be a builder if they wanted to be.
"How ever did we manage to find shelter before government got involved?"
My family almost starved to death during that time . My fathers, not mine now. There wasnt any work back then. There sure wasnt Fine Homebuilding . Speed up 20 years to 1960. My dad was making 3.00 per hour as a master carpenter running a big crew building commercial buildings. Churches . The lumber mill was paying 1.50 per hour.
Im surprized at your post .
Tim
What you don't understand about me is that I'm all about individual rights ballanced with individual responsibility. Being against codes isn't being against quality construction. That's been my life's work. And I've seem some incredibly shoddy work that was code approved. In fact, getting that green sticker is taken as license to do the utter minimum and call it great.
Whether our laws agree with me or not is not important. I obey them, but I'll say what I like about them. Understand that when it comes to government, on the level needed to get the job done, I do what's legal. On an idealistic level, I think we could fire at least every other government worker, and put Congress in session about once a decade, and no one would notice.
I've got no objection to paying you for your time. If you lack the time to explain codes to homeowners, then the town government you work for has forgotten who their constituents are. In fact, the more expensive building permits become to pay for your time, the more people will get fed up with them. Generally, if people understood the true cost of government, there'd be less of it. But my main point stands. If you (meaning as a representitive of the state) are going to restrict the use of my property, you should be willing to spend as much time as is needed to explain the ground rules. Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
"What you don't understand about me is that I'm all about individual rights ballanced with individual responsibility."
Andy that doesnt work in the field. At least it didnt for me inspecting . Everyone doing the work is supposed to have a code book of their respective trade. At least in my mind. Codes are all for purpose of public saftety and what you are getting for your investment , the public homeowner. Thats two parts but still protecting the public since they own the buildings.
If we take one from the mix which is the lending institutions they want a CO which is not only a final inspection but they require a list of all inspections even in the country. There are very good reasons there for me to understand it . The homeowner is asking for them to finance the money for their home with them having a very small investment themselves. That alone makes it bigger than individual responsibility to make it right , they want proof.
Insurance companies also want to know they are insuring a safe building . After all the homeowner is once again asking someone else to cover their investment with a small amount of money compared to the value. That is once again bigger than individual responsibility.
When a homeowner buys a preowned home or a family rents a home from a landlord , they the general public need to feel safe to sleep in them. To put their greatest interrest in them known as a family. As I tried to explain its just not the self owners business because most of the time he doesnt stay there alone. The unknowing wife for example or the defensless children must be protected under the law for their own saftey. For the same reasons as child seats in vehicles save lifes.
"On an idealistic level, I think we could fire at least every other government worker,"
Judgeing from this statement and some of the others , I regret some of your experiences you must have had as well as others with inspectors not being competent . Codes are simply not written that way but we have to have people inforcing them.
"I've got no objection to paying you for your time. "
You would be a minority.
" If you lack the time to explain codes to homeowners, then the town government you work for has forgotten who their constituents are. "
When I inspected jobs , I only saw a small part of it just like a mechanic to tell you whats wrong with your car looking at the out side of it . I cant see everything and what I dont makes me worry when I leave that it will cost the building or a life. Im very serious about that and very strict. In this state you can do your own mechanicals if you can pass inspections. If its plain to see you cant then you are no longer qualified to do the work under the code. Im not their to teach , Im there to inspect competent work. I would not budge on that principle. Either show me competent work or get a professional on the job thats passed his or her credentials in training that can. I suppose we can disagree because that is personal to me and with in the law for me to impose you get someone competent to finish the work. I would not comprimize that principle. Just because you own the building doesnt mean sqaut to me in others saftey.
" If you (meaning as a representitive of the state) are going to restrict the use of my property, you should be willing to spend as much time as is needed to explain the ground rules. "
Now for the statement "you stand " on.
I think you have an inspector mixed up with a vocational teacher . We can disagee on this one too since my views are also personal . But lets take a look at it ;
If you want to make me a public official and paid by the people providing a tax base salary then you bet , itll work as long as the higher ups will hire enough inspectors to teach. Makes no differnce to me . Just pay me for what I do.
Inspections however are averaged out to the ones doing the building. 8 inspections per day is considered a full load for one inspector. Keep in mind that there are travel times involved , phone times that an inspector answers questions ,meetings in office, paper work, etc. Time inspecting was generally half or less of that averaged. 14 inspections was one very long day. I recieved 8 to 16 inspections per day and the call for help was denied. The average time per inspection was averaged for the cost of them. Most of the inspections were done inspecting professionals work that had few questions.
Tim
Tim,
Sorry, but I have been eavesdropping on your discussion with Andy. I am still on Andy’s side of the fence although I can see some valid points from your side. The main one being that you should not be required to be a teacher. I believe there is enough information available from a how-to perspective and code book perspective to be self-educated enough to have your work pass an inspection. Personally, I tend to “over-engineer†things so my own repairs tend to go beyond what the code requires.Although, a short explanation of why something failed is, I believe, polite and professional (i.e. wrong gauge wire used for bathroom re-wire or incorrect venting on plumbing in kitchen), but a “how-to†course is way over the line of what should be expected. If you are feeling generous as an inspector you could even mention which code section applies so the self motivated HO’s among us could have a head start on looking it up ourselves to correct the problem. A couple of random thoughts from the other side of the fence on your comments ….
“Insurance companies also want to know they are insuring a safe building. After all the homeowner is once again asking someone else to cover their investment with a small amount of money compared to the value. That is once again bigger than individual responsibility.â€
I will admit up front that I am not sympathetic to the multi-billion dollar insurance or mortgage industries. Although some insurance companies may be different, I believe if you read through the pages and pages of exclusions in your own homeowners policy you will find CYA language that if the cause of a fire is found to be …say for example…faulty electrical work and the HO did the electrical work, they will not pay. By the way, I can see the value of this in case Mr. & Mrs. Fraud buy a property and wire in a problem to cause a fire so they can collect. (similar to the suicide clause in a Life policy). Also, in the area where I live and where I worked previously, insurance companies send out inspectors to decide whether they want to insure a property or not. They don’t have a gun to their head to underwrite the property. Of course the domino effect of this ties in to your concern over the mortgage company financing a property. It won’t be financed without an insurance policy naming the mortgage company as the first payee. After they do write the policies, the insurance companies are more in the business of finding reasons not to pay out than to pay and their shareholders are ecstatic about this. I used to work in the insurance industry so I know this first hand.“Judgeing from this statement and some of the others , I regret some of your experiences you must have had as well as others with inspectors not being competent . Codes are simply not written that way but we have to have people inforcing them. “
If I am reading this correctly you seem to be saying that codes are written sensibly, it’s just the people enforcing them that aren’t. While that may be true in general, from personal experience, I have a couple of code examples that I would say are incompetent or at least semi-humorous, although you may disagree. The area we live in is concerned with runoff into the Chesapeake Bay. OK, I can see the benefit, now let’s be sensible about how it is legislated!
The code says that if you have a certain amount of roof area you need to have a drywell installed which consists of a hole in the ground filled with gravel. By the way, the main industry in the county we live in is gravel pits (besides government workers ; ) ). So I got to pay for a contractor digging a hole in the back and loading up gravel into his dump truck so I could pay to have another load of gravel brought in from the gravel pit ½ mi away and dumped into the hole. All the while the inspector is nodding his head saying this doesn’t make a lot of sense, but the code requires it! I often wondered if the dump truck of my gravel went back to the pit, drove in a circle and returned with the same gravel on it!!! I later thought that I should have tossed a couple of golf balls into the truck to see if they came back! The other example involved a perc. test that I had to have done on my existing home when I moved the septic tank from one location in the yard to another. I did nothing to the drain field itself and did not increase the size of the tank (we weren’t adding bedrooms or baths), just moved the tank 40’. I asked the inspector what would happen if it didn’t perc. and he didn’t know. We dug three holes before one perc’ed to his satisfaction and he didn’t seem thrilled with that rate either. By the way, the two holes that failed were within 50’ of the current drain filed and the hole he liked was about 2 acres away from the current drain field. But that is what the code required although it didn’t make any sense to me.Anyway, just my $.02 (or in the case of the perc test permit…$295) I’ll go back to eavesdropping.
Oh boy , lol.
You should be reading that considering the problems of others here we could be lead to believe some inspectors" they" have ran into are incompetent.
First I have a high respect for Andy as well as some of the others stating their opinions while still there are others keeping their mouths shut . <G> Which Im wondering if I should have as well. <G> To no avail.
Its hard to reply when I wasnt there but you make it sound pretty dumb about your two cases. I remember one perk test that was on a steep hill side and did not perk. Even I said , oh come on now. So as to customer complaint I drove out there and what did I find? Water standing in the hole from a test that was ran more than 48 hrs ago!! It sounded really dumb until you looked at the water that had sat over the weekend. It was supposed to be expelled in 2 hours.
Homeowners are not safe period unless they have been trained. If I advised them Im sure it would come back to bite me in the butt. Until youve been there ,.... They give me the hebee jebees. They could say in a court of law , he told us to do it !!! Nope not me .
Another misconception people have including tradesmen is that Im a walking encyclopedia of the codes. Well , there are 15 volumes 3 inches thick of the codes . This doesnt mention the smaller books of about 7. It would be easiar to memorize the bible and quote every verse so its only one book . Not to mention the codes make about as much sense as Revalation to me at first glance. With all the code reading Ive done , I spend 3/4rths my time thinking now is this what they meant ? Which comes the phrase "the inspectors interpation of the codes." So they want me to to quote codes with my decisions and so when they ask I whup a code book out on my hood. Many times Ive wanted to say well if you disagree , whup YOUR code book out and proove it ! But I didnt . Every time I went back to the office and researched a code to COPY , then drove back to hand it to them , they had no response . Sorry I took took hours of your time for nothing and I dont have an arguement I never heard. Hence the attitude inspectors get sometimes.
Tim
Tim: given your invitation I'll jump back in the water. ;-)
Here goes. Codes that restrict work to licensed trades only are out of control. Don't do it for pay is one thing -- get the license if you want to be a sparky for a living. But if Joe Homeowner can do it to code and pass inspection, I say God bless him.
In terms of the BI spending whatever time it takes to educate, at first I was on solid on Andy's side, but then it occurred to me that why should all permit fess go up to pay someone to teach. That's not fair either. There's no excuse for a hostile BI that leaves a rad tag without barely a word spoken. But burning up an hour to explain it all isn't cost effective either. I don't think that's what Andy meant. I think he's talking about the BIs who leave the red tag with the cryptic message. No excuse for that from the BI or from the gov't. He's right, if you're going to make me do something, fine, but at least tell me what it is in full sentences.
Then I thought, how about charging by the hour for inspection so if Joe Homeowner wants a crash course, he pays for it. Trouble there is in my town the BI's would fail everyone to pick up the extra cash even from the licensed for the "education time." They have people who can educate Joe Homeowner on the codes. They call them archys and engineers.
Where I am each inspection has an additional fee, so if you have to go back twenty times to inspect Joe Homeowner's work, he pays for it. Don't bother me in the least.
For your take on the code books, got no problem with that. Mine are always handy. One big problem is BIs who get all defensive and if you beat 'em on one code issue, the microscope comes out on all the others. Human nature but it still does nothing to protect the public. Just becomes a big pizzing contest. Not saying you're like that but plenty who are.
Finally, you keep mentioning your fears about courts of law, negligence, etc. Where I am, the building dept. can be sued only for gross negligence or intentional misconduct (like signing off on an inspection but not actually doing it or taking a bribe to sign off). A c/o is not a guarantee of safety or quality to any one individual, it is a system designed to protect the public at large. Similarly, where I am you cannot assert estopel or waiver against the government unless whatever it is you assert is in writing, signed by someone with apparent authority to say whatever it is. Translation, you can tell them whatever you want and they can lie till the cows return to their abodes -- you are protected. Maybe different where you are, but check into it and don't be motivated by that.
"Let's get crack-a-lackin" --- Adam Carolla
One big problem is BIs who get all defensive and if you beat 'em on one code issue, the microscope comes out on all the others.
I've never thought that this is a problem and I refuse to accept it as a threat. I've had the building inspectors threaten this and I immediately tell them that they should be using that microscope on EVERY JOB, ALL THE TIME!
BRING IT ON...I WANT TO DO A PERFECT JOB!
blue
Tim, there's a big difference between how I behave on a day to day basis, and what I believe a perfect world would be. In reality, I get along very well with inspectors. I'm one of those guys who when the inspector gets to know me, often gets told to go ahead and pour or close it up if he can't get there.
It just irks me to have to ask and pay for permission to work on my own house, which I've beaten my brains out to own free and clear. Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
t just irks me to have to ask and pay for permission to work on my own house, which I've beaten my brains out to own free and clear.
Well I have a quirk too and no one agrees with me . Its about school taxes levied as property taxes. Every year they seem to get more money and its never enough so the result is to raise property taxes. Well, as a lanlord Ive been getting the same amount of rent for several years .[ 7or 8 I think] This year we got a raise in property thats actually substantial. I get to looking and Im drawing .06 percent of rent compared to the new property values that should be at least 1 percent value per month. I find that they have taken the new figgure to base the new properry rate from while Im still in a hole. Thats good news! LOL.
They run ad campaigns using our KIDS to pass the taxes but dont mention its over inflated.
Meanwhile Im less than a common citizen to complain about it after all Im taking money from their kid.
I mention that income taxes or really sales taxes would be more fair since we have a rate of 30 percent illegal attending our shcool system. But they are quick to realize that would cost them .
Tim
>>"Well I have a quirk too and no one agrees with me
Uh, if you're talking about out of control property taxes, I think a few more than no one agrees with you. ;-)
When it comes to the building codes, requiring a license to work on your own house is a load of crap, as long as the HO gets a permit and passes inspection just like everybody else.
Codes that enforce convinience items instead of just true safety are a load of crap. I should be able to live in whatever kind of house I want as long as its safe.
Here's one for you -- exterior outlets. Should everyone who owns a house have to pay for one? How about low income people? Keep them from affording a house 'cause they can't plug in their Christmas lights (and every other thing like that that's been piled into the codes that adds to cost).
I want all that stuff in my house, sure. Do I need the government making me have it?
"Let's get crack-a-lackin" --- Adam Carolla
I wasnt aware an out side recepticle was manatory. The type of one is however if you choose to have one . They are expensive.
Tim
>>"I wasnt aware an out side recepticle was manatory.
Makes me scratch my head too, but yup, sometimes more than one. NEC section 210.52(E).
How the heck does stuff like that get in a mandatory code? LOL
(I know why it's in there so please no trolls write to 'splain it to me, OK)
"Let's get crack-a-lackin" --- Adam Carolla
Ill sure be glad when this one is over. But then again it makes me remember how glad Im not one any more and why.
Tim
Tim, you do realize this isn't personal, don't you? For the record, I've enjoyed your posts and your expertise. I may disagree sometimes, but you have my respect.Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
Thank you , same here as I stated earliar.
Tim
If there were no legislated building codes, there would still be standards that builders & homeowners would have to live up to.
If you plan to finance a home & live in an area that does not have building codes or inspections, the financer will likely appoint a 3rd party inspector at your expense before giving you your disbursement.
I imagine that insurance companies would likely a) require proof that homes were built to some standard before they issued coverage.
I'm building my own home (my Township allows this if you own the home & are living in it). I don't understand why this would be a problem. It's being inspected like any other job & I don't expect the guy to hold my hand if there is a problem. Since it's my project, I'm the one responsible to find out how to fix what failed. I'm fine with this.
On the side, I don't know why a person shouldn't be allowed to build an unsafe house to live in. Periodic inspections would be required during construction (just as if a GC were building it) & it if the structure didn't conform to code, it would be noted in the construction office & if the HO ever tride to sell it, the buyer would have full knowledge that they were purchasing a substandard house. Such a homeowner would be taking a huge risk, not to mention the fact that the "house" would likely be uninsurable, but that's his business.
I'm not necessarily pushing for that type of system, but I don't know why from a libertarian standpoint why that shouldn't be the case.
>>"I'm not necessarily pushing for that type of system, but I don't know why from a libertarian standpoint why that shouldn't be the case.
Well maybe you are striking at the heart of at least part of the issue.
The gov't sees an interest in the productive use of land (generates lots of taxes in many ways -- property, business, income, probly more). Put an unsalable house on that land, and sooner or later you have unproductive land, at least for a time. Gov't doesn't like that. Too bad what you like, it's only your land.
"Let's get crack-a-lackin" --- Adam Carolla
I think I explained that .
Once again in short ;
If the guy that built his own house was the only one to ever live in it you would have a point , but we protect his chiildren and wife and parents and grandparents or your little girl that may spend the night there , etc. In general for all the public that uses it.
When ever you walk into a commercial building take notice . The restrooms , the ample parking , emergency exits and lights, drinking fountains , handicap access , on and on are demanded through codes to make it safe and useable for you the public . Not to mention the roof was inspected to hold it off you in a high wind and the fire extiguishers. There have been many that have died in such a unsafe building for several code violations . Remember the night clubs and the fire shows?
Tim
Commercial vs Residential is a whole different ball of wax. Regardless, I wasn't necessarily advocating such a system - just sort of musing.
Anyway, I still don't understand the logic of municipalities that don't allow DIY homeowners to pull a permit for their personal residence. They have to follow the same codes & get the same inspections. Yes there is the risk the inspector could miss something, but that is the case when you hire a contractor with a license. Even the pros posting here have to admit that a piece of paper doesn't prevent hacks from getting through the system.
The first home I purchased was a condo built by a large developer (initials are K.H)with licensed contractors & everything. After we had been there for a couple of months, we came home & our stove & water heater didn't work. Turns out the people that rented the unit above us had moved out & the owner had his gas turned off & the gas lines supplying our water heater & stove were switched with that unit. Tell me that wasn't a hazard. Cost us a pretty penny to have it fixed since the buildings warranty had expired. Turns out that wasn't the only building that had that issue. I'm never buying any home with their sign on it again - that's for sure.
How can you be sure that the house you are purchasing was built by someone who did due diligence when hiring their contractors?
Again, I'm all for having safety standards, I just don't understand why DIY'ers shouldn't be allowed pull their own permits if they live up to those standards? The main reason I can think of is that it's a form of protectionism put in places with heavy handed union control.
The commercial was an example of whast we do for the safety of the public . That same scheme crosses the bridge to residential.
There are areas [states] that dont allow a homeowner to pull a permit but this state is not one of them. [Arkansas}
This I know this is an unpopular subject . Im not blessing it , only explaining the system. With that said let me explain your questions;
This is a lisensed state . In order for me to carry a state lisense I must be bonded and insured. That is for the publics saftey as well as their financial interrest . There is also what is called a 2/10 builder that gives warranties extended. State law on a building or a mechanical contractor is three years against faulty workmanship. If you call me the inspector about a problem you are having I can call the contractor and "tell" him to fix it otherwise one of two things happen. His insurance will be tested or his bond if with in a year . If he doesnt respond and the situation does not get solved his lisense can be pulled so his right to practice in this state can be revoked. He stands to lose his business if he doesnt back his or her work. An inspector can find a violation after the fact of inspecting the job and write it up so hes not off the hook when the job is done . Thats a ton of responsebility.
We also take into account hes been trained to practice his trade, works for money on a regular basis so we call him a professional. He is also tooled and that requires a truck worthy of running a business which gives proof of finacial responsebility in the trade in which he is practiceing . So then we assume with all credits to his favor he should be qualified.
The homeowner brings none of this to the table unless he does it for a living . Here a bank will not lend a homeowner money to build their own home with out a state contractors lisense number. Why should they ? After all they could go after the contractor or help the homeowner do it . There are organizations out there to sign up with that let you use their contractors lisense and let you build your own home for a fee.
So the answer is , you cant be sure but the odds are stacked in your favor hiring a contractor to build your home.
Tim
I get what you are saying - however RE: mortgage companies, I completely understand why they'd want to stay away from owner builds & don't hold it against them.
My wife & I are working on our house sans mortgage. It's taking us a while (we're in our 2nd year now & are looking to finish up ~ Dec. '07.
BTW, insurance companies are the same way - the only policy we could get for such an extended project was via Lloyds.
Part of the frustration I would have if I lived in a state that wouldn't permit Owner Builds would be the inability to experience a project like this.
Sure I get frustrated from time to time, it takes far longer than if I hired out, & even though I've saved some $$, it's not tons. I've had to do a a couple of things 2 or three times, but I'm enjoying the heck out of this experience & learning process.
Then Ive helped.
My nephew became an electrician and green at that . He wanted to build his own house and asked me what I thought . I told him the time factor would eat his lunch . I went on with the rest of it . He did it anyway because he felt the way you do. I have to respect that.
Tim
BTW, insurance companies are the same way - the only policy we could get for such an extended project was via Lloyds.
Only insurance problem I encountered as owner/builder was building a house with no (apparent) heating system. Got turned down by 4 companies before Allstate came through. Turned out they were all worried about frozen pipes and subsequent damage. I asked if a waiver was available. Nope.
None had any difficulty with no GC involvement. Took me longer than you anticipate. Different companies had different requirements to issue home owners' insurance. Allstate only required the footers completed. Liability was my major concern. The underwriter had difficulty understanding what I was building and came out. When he saw it couldn't burn, policy was written.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
I was referring to the builder's risk policy to provide liability & insure the building during construction. My agent said I'll have no trouble getting a regular home owners policy once I get my CO. My agent spent tons of time calling around, but all the available BR policies wanted completion w/i 6-9 months - which I couldn't guarantee since were going pay as we go.
Man, once again, interesting where the "conversation" goes - for the record, I'm a paid firefighter (currently assigned to a ladder company) and an assistant deputy state fire marshal (means I have to know the fire code, answer to the state fire marshal but don't get paid for that certification) not sure where I should go with this discussion, however, as I already said, there has to be rules (aka codes) and people need to follow them (sometimes forced to follow them) since pretty much everything you do/build effects others health/safety and well beingthere was a mention of club fires - 100 people got killed because someone decided that he could do what he wanted, since it was his club, or the guy with the pyros decided he could light off the fireworks since they were his fireworks (or he got permission from the owners - all of this is currently in court) my quick point is while "you" (Andy, not trying to pick on you but just taking advantage of you and your name) may do things safely and well, there's a whole population of people who don't and won't do things well and properly - and the bottom line is (unfortunately) that the government has to do something to oversee the work that is done - and when they don't down it well, there has to be a consequence (aka fine, lack of CO, etc)okay - that's it from me - only other thing is if the homeowner doesn't do things properly, they may get to meet me "professionally" and if they really messed things up, I might not get to go home
pretty harsh, but....
I understand.
Why didn't you just get a HO policy from a co. that didn't require a CO to issue one? Far as I could see, I got the insurance I wanted- cheaply. Once the footings were poured, the policy was in effect. Completion? Whenever. And it covered my outbuildings and non-licensed vehicles (tractors). Amazing amount of coverage for a little money.
One thing I have learned is that there can be a large difference between agents, even within the same company. On another matter, I got better service than a friend did. Allstate again, but I've since gone on to a cheaper policy(ies) with a different company- same agent.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
"Why didn't you just get a HO policy from a co. that didn't require a CO to issue one?"
Interesting - I didn't know there was such an animal. I'm surprised that none of the insurance people I talked to mentioned it. Guess it could be that I asked for a builder's risk policy & that's what they dug up for me... Definitely something I should look in to.
RE: mortgage companies, I completely understand why they'd want to stay away from owner builds & don't hold it against them
Some mortgage companys avoid homeowners. Other mortgage companies target homeowners!
There's a mortgage company for every mortgagor today.
blue
Soultrain: YOu posted "On the side, I don't know why a person shouldn't be allowed to build an unsafe house to live in. Periodic inspections would be required during construction (just as if a GC were building it) & it if the structure didn't conform to code, it would be noted in the construction office & if the HO ever tride to sell it, the buyer would have full knowledge that they were purchasing a substandard house. Such a homeowner would be taking a huge risk, not to mention the fact that the "house" would likely be uninsurable, but that's his business."
Exactly, but go further, skip the inspectors if the owner builder wished!! That would be his risk, as most buyers would be afraid to buy his house ever. Who is harmed, but he buiilder owner? Do we have to have Stalin look over our shoulders to protect us from ourselves. I guess most people wish to live in the Soviet Union. And we usually get what we want ....so . . . .
"If we take one from the mix which is the lending institutions they want a CO which is not only a final inspection but they require a list of all inspections even in the country. There are very good reasons there for me to understand it . The homeowner is asking for them to finance the money for their home with them having a very small investment themselves. That alone makes it bigger than individual responsibility to make it right , they want proof.Insurance companies also want to know they are insuring a safe building . After all the homeowner is once again asking someone else to cover their investment with a small amount of money compared to the value. That is once again bigger than individual responsibility.When a homeowner buys a preowned home or a family rents a home from a landlord , they the general public need to feel safe to sleep in them. To put their greatest interrest in them known as a family. As I tried to explain its just not the self owners business because most of the time he doesnt stay there alone. The unknowing wife for example or the defensless children must be protected under the law for their own saftey. For the same reasons as child seats in vehicles save lifes. "All good reason why someone MIGHT want a house inspected. But none of them are good reasons for it to be mandatory or for it to be done by the govnerment.In fact the current systme the BI does absolutley nothing for some of those people anyway.They don't inspect rentals (altough some cities do it is not really a "building insection") or preowned houses.What confidence does a CO give to some one that is buying a house when the BI issued it 50 years ago? Or what good is the BI to a buyer of 100 yo house before there where even codes, much less inspections?But lets use your line of reasoning in other areas.For example the front end and brakes are critical items in your car and if not repaired properly. And since you might not know the amount of play allowed in the ball joints (and even if you did they probably would not allow you do watch them do it) should you only have the work done by a government licensed mechanic and then have a government employee inspect the work before you are allowed to drive it?But that is not done now. But if you want you could have it affectively done without the government. For example only use a certified (my an independent group ASE?) mechanic and also hire another mechanic to inspect it afterwards. So if you think that it is that important then you can accomplish the same end without the government. If you don't thing that it is that importatn then the governament is not making you do it anyway.Or another example. While you had a government licensed doctor, I assume, for you hear operation did you also ask for a government insepector to be there and check the plumbing connections before the "wall" was closed up?
Oh Ill be happy when this one is done , lol.
Would you feel more comfortable if a certified tech did your breaks or Bubba that always wanted to do a break job on a car your daughter is driving ?
If it was built in the city it was inspected even 50 yrs ago and because of that Bubba probably didnt do it .
The CO should come with the papers on the house .
Knowing you like I do I would have loved to had you with me just one week . Puke .
Tim
--- For example the front end and brakes are critical items in your car and if not repaired properly. And since you might not know the amount of play allowed in the ball joints (and even if you did they probably would not allow you do watch them do it) should you only have the work done by a government licensed mechanic and then have a government employee inspect the work before you are allowed to drive it? ---In California, if your car is declared a "total loss" by the insurance company after an accident, you do indeed have to have a government authorized shop inspect your brakes and lights before you are allowed to drive it. Ok, they're not technically government *employees*, and the repair work can be done by anyone it just has to get inspected, and it's not every time the brakes or lights get fixed, only after a "total loss" accident (regardless of whether or not the brakes or lights were even damaged). But still.I actually think it's not unreasonable, although it is a bother. (What is unreasonable is a fender bender getting called a "total loss" because the insurance adjuster won't sign off on anything less than replacing all dented body parts on a 1993 subcompact car, but that's getting way off topic...)Rebeccah
Tim, in the larger municipalities, the chief building inspector is in the office all day, every day. He'll usually do a pretty good job of explaining the code to those that walk in.
I agree, the building inspector doesn't have to educate anyone. There are vocational schools all over America as well as apprenticeships available. There are libraries full of books and code books too.
The inspector should just inspect, use common sense and do his job.
blue
I don't believe in mandatory codes either. If I build a house, it is my house and my neck. If I sell it, let the buyer beware. We live in a gutless nanie state and it builds character, stupid-lazy-gutless-cry-baby-character that is. Just my opinion.
Now if you wnat to have building standards and if builders wish to conform to them and pay to have their work certified to that standard as a selling point fine.
That said, I would bet most builders would conform and pass such inspections, and most people would want to buy such houses. In that case, I might have trouble selling my house if I built it and did not conform. Free markets are wonderful things. Dictatorships . . . ?
>If I sell it, let the buyer beware.How would a buyer know if a foundation had a sufficient amount of rebar, or even any rebar? How would the buyer know if the sill was bolted to the foundation or just setting there? How would a buyer know if spliced wires were hidden in wall cavities and not in junction boxes? How would a buyer know if you used 2" waste pipe to save a few bucks?The buyers who would suffer would probably be those least able to afford problems...working poor, divorcees moving to a smaller place, etc.
How does anyone know if there are spliced wires in a wall? Not to mention thousands of homes build back east prior to building codes and people buy them all teh time. Is there steel in those footers?
My point, if you read my post, was that volunteer compliance is all you need. If someone did not get a certified inspection your "poor divorced woman" would get what she had coming if she bought a house that was not certified during construction. Therefore really the problme of a non-certified house ENDS wiht the builder chosing not to get it certified, since only an idiot would buy it from him or someone who really knew what he was doing.
"Not to mention thousands of homes build back east prior to building codes and people buy them all teh time."Not to mention the thousands of home being built RIGHT NOW in areas that don't have building codes. And yes there are a number.
I agree with that idea DoRight.
There are still localities in this country that don't require inspections. I suppose the free spirits could move there.
blue
It is just not that complicated. I just don't see how people come unglued with someone baselessly claiming someone might intercept an international phone call of theirs. But tell you when you can build, how you can build, who you are going to pay, if not flat out tell you that you can own that wetland and pay taxes on it BUT NEVER BE ABLE TO BUILD ON it, or force you to sell your land to a Home Depot or Walmart, or tell you that you can't buy Lawn Jarts, well THAT's OK!
Bizzare if you ask me.
I agree.
I'm all for requiring basic safety features, especially when it comes to the kinds of hidden hazards possible in electrical or gas systems, for example. I can even (reluctantly) agree that some of the energy efficiency requirements may make sense in light of the potential for energy shortages and the resulting social impacts.
However, when the codes get into "convenience" issues, I think they're going way too far. Stair rise/run specs, for example. If I'm willing to work a little harder to climb my stairs, who really has the right to tell me I can't? It would be perfectly obvious to a future buyer - no one would force them to buy a house with steep stairs.
Also - I noticed a line in the codes requiring a light over the door of a walkout basement. Now that's a logical thing to do, and I'm sure I would install one. But to REQUIRE it? That's going too far in my book.
I won't even start on zoning or the ridiculous things that can happen with homeowners associations.
Funny how we admire the resourcefulness and self-sufficiency of the early pioneers in this country, but then put so much effort into making sure it couldn't happen now.
Don
" I think they're going way too far. Stair rise/run specs, for example. If I'm willing to work a little harder to climb my stairs, who really has the right to tell me I can't? It would be perfectly obvious to a future buyer - no one would force them to buy a house with steep stairs."
Stairs huh? Ok , here we go;
Lets cover some ground on this one in a short method.
Theres often 4 in the famly. Sometimes more , but we need to address the residents .
It probably would not bother kids to much except in the event it killed your wife carring your new born comming down them. Howd that happen? She couldnt see down the stairs with the baby in her arms . 7 to 8 inches with a minimum tread figgured is suppoed to be comfortable to the human body. Most all steps are uniform for that reason. You felt you would buy the house and it was your decision. Thats where you got your self into trouble . Your wife has all her life walked 7 to 8 in rise steps . These are 12s. She wasnt used to them and the whole thing is awkward to her when shes looking . But lets get off of that .
The codes say every room must be conditioned. Your grandmother or your mother that came to stay didnt have a choice in the matter . Should I have used your motherinlaw? lol. This is not a personal post so lets leave that idea.
There would be some people that would put there motherinlaw downstairs in a basement under those conditions. Everyone knows old people need extra heat. They would have to climb those stairs or attend the fine sevices of a nursing home .
There are people that would do the same kinda things to their kids.
The owner buying the home or building it isnt the only person considered . You need to rethink some of the safety issues your self.
Tim
There are Building Inspectors who enforce the letter of the law, not the original intention. A knowledgeable Inspector will explain things like rise and run. There was this former football player who thought rise and run specs were ridiculous and wasn't going to rip out the thread/stringers. He bellowed to the Inspector stomping up the stairs saying nothing was wrong with them. So the Inspector said "Close your eyes and walk down them" so the Football player closed his eyes and confidently took one step and immediately knew what the Inspector was talking about. The Inspector said normally Homeowners get use to the steps, but their guest never do. Also, when increasing the run of the threads, there was going to be headroom problem too. This football player would bash his head if he ran too fast down the stairs. All this came about without the inspector taking out his measuring tape, walking up the stairs an experienced inspector knows right away.
Good Inspectors don't measure everything with his tape or carry his code book around. Lousy ones will never give you alternatives or solutions. A good one will give you a verbal correction notice so you can proceed, especially when he can verify it the next time he is there.
Edited 4/15/2006 1:19 am ET by Sungod
However, when the codes get into "convenience" issues, I think they're going way too far. Stair rise/run specs, for example. If I'm willing to work a little harder to climb my stairs, who really has the right to tell me I can't?
I do. If my child were to come over for a play date with your child and get hurt because you built a dangerous stairway, you would suffer much more harm, financial and otherwise, from me than any inspector or building department could inflict through regulation. Just kidding but you get the point. It's not convenience, it's safety.
DG/Builder
Edited 4/15/2006 2:12 am ET by dgbldr
Edited 4/15/2006 2:12 am ET by dgbldr
>>"It's not convenience, it's safety.
DG, I agree with your point but it really begs the question. What is safe versus what is comfortable and convenient. What is safe enough versus overkill.
The code already recognizes practicality in a lot of ways, including not being required to retrofit existing homes with today's standards (if you could see, or actually I'm sure you have, some existing winder staircases in older homes (ca. 1800), you might wonder how people ever got up and down those things day in / day out). If your kid fell on such a staircase, you'd lose. It is code compliant. Not reasonable to require the owner to rebuild an existing residential staircase to today's standards.
Build that same staircase today and you'd win, dangerous code violation.
Is one any safer / more dangerous than the other?
As a final shot at some of the stuff in the various codes, at some point homes become so well built and convenient that most people can't afford them. What good is that? Safe, decent shelter that people can actually afford to buy should be a factor when the code writing folks look at required versus best practice. Safe versus safer versus absolutely foolproof.
"Let's get crack-a-lackin" --- Adam Carolla
I think you guys are getting carried away with this self-righteous stuff.
If my kid goes to visit a prehistoric cave, I know how to deal with it. If he goes to visit a new home, I expect a certain level of safety.
Now as far as what's reasonable and what's excessive, be happy we live in a democratic society. In my town, there are frequent debates over building code/ordinances and we vote and changes are made from time to time to reflect the will of the majority. I'm happy with that. You can do that in your town also.
DG/Builder
always interesting to see where these things go - regarding "no codes", while that may work for some, you can't assume/impose your values and considerations on others - I had a situation where a woman was living in a basement apartment and the landlord felt that was fine, this is America and it's"HIS" house, now, this a is basement with one means of egress, no means of escape, inadequate lighting/ventilation (from what I know), near the heating system, and no smoke detectors/CO detectors -so, no codes okay in this situation? and homeowner exemption even though he doesn't live there and it's an investment property? He thought so, and he's a licensed electrician - willing to bet he would be upset if "the homeother thing is what code? fire/mechanical/electrical/housing/plumbing/building? lot of times "the code" is referenced but what code - building usually wants doors to swing in (don't knock down the person on the outside), fire will want the door swinging out (fall against the door and you have a chance to escape the hazardous condition as the door opens...) - who "wins" and who's "right" don't pretend to have any answers, just know there has to be some kind of rules and people need to understand and follow them (think about "code" for traffic signals - lights required to be particular colors)
just a few thoughts
Caveat emptor.
Sometimes there's a price to pay
Andy
What if your family perished in a fire caused by negligent construction practices performed and hidden from view by the previous homeowner ?
Do you want to pay this price ?
If you would impose restrictions on my property rights, you should be prepared to take as much time as is needed to help me conform.
While Tim's jurisdiction has mirrored ours in PA where the inspectors are now mostly subcontractors and not government employees, I don't think it makes a difference. Neither inspector is responsible for teaching the uneducated how to construct a building that meets code.
Do you feel that when an inexperienced individual chooses to represent him or herself in a court of law that the judge should be responsible to spend as much time as necessary with this person to be sure they properly represent themselves ?
carpenter in transition
--- Do you feel that when an inexperienced individual chooses to represent him or herself in a court of law that the judge should be responsible to spend as much time as necessary with this person to be sure they properly represent themselves ? ---This is an interesting, and I think apt, analogy. Judges in this situation generally *do* do a certain amount of teaching of the individual representing him/herself, and it's more than the instruction they give to lawyers in the courtroom; yet they have to, and do, draw a line somewhere.Rebeccah
"Judges in this situation generally *do* do a certain amount of teaching of the individual representing him/herself, and it's more than the instruction they give to lawyers in the courtroom; yet they have to, and do, draw a line somewhere."
Well described .
Tim
just re-reading my post - did it at work and guess I left some things out - bit about the electrician was he would be upset if a homeowner did all the electrical work and didn't have to worry about permits and licenses - might end up putting the electrician out of business quick note about fires and work not done to code - check out the Vendome Hotel fire in Boston- collapse as a result of cutting out supports
How about me hiring an electrician to inspect the wiring first? How about me hiring a chimney sweep to inspect the chimney? For the cost of a building permit for a house, say $5K, I can get some damned competent people to look things over. Or how about me being educated enough to spot the defects myself? Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
As to your second question, I think it's symptomatic of a broken legal system to be so complex as to exclude ordinary citizens from pleading in court. So, yes, I think it's incumbent on the state to provide judges who can guide citizens in dealing with the system.Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
I was wondering if the legal system or tax code is "broken" worse. Since it is 4/17 I would vote for the tax code with the legal system a close second!
"I'd be in favor of no codes, no enforcement except where my (or your) property directly affects others."
I used to think that, but not any longer.
We basically have no codes here. So any moron can build anything they want to and sell it to a customer who has no clue what they're buying.
For instance - I looked at a house recently that's ~3 years old. The guy who built it framed the roof with 2X6X20' rafters. then he nailed boards alongside them to hang the 2nd floor system from.
It looked great from the outside. Until the roof started sagging from the extra weight added to grossly undersized rafters.
The HO sued the guy who built it. But he has no insurance and few assets. So they're not likely to get anything.
Now the HO is looking at spending thousands of dollars to fix a problem they didn't know they had. Had their been some sort of building codes it would have most likely prevented this from happening.
I do think building codes go way to far at times. But in general - I think the only thing worse than building codes is NOT having building codes.
Beware of geeks bearing gifts.
Boss, your story failed to generate one iota of symphathy from me for you home buyer.
That homebuyer probably saved many thousands because the selling price probably reflected a reduced basis due to lower construction costs.
Even if he paid full price for a premium product, I still don't feel sympathy for him. He obviously didn't know enough about houses to make and informed decision, and he also decided to forego forking over a couple of hundred dollars to have someone more competent than him to inspect the house.
He tried to get off cheap, and now he's getting what he paid for.
I prefer the Libertarian point of view.
blue
You've condemned the whole deal without knowing anything about it. The house was built on spec. Everything was covered up with drywall before the HO ever saw it.
Before giving someone a piece of your mind, be sure you have enough to spare.
Boss, I didn't condemn the whole deal. I made a comment based on what you stated.
YOu stated that they hung joist off of rafters. Well, a good house inspector would poke his head in the attic and notice that. He would explain what it will take to fix it and the buyer will adjust his offer to reflect the newfound reality.
If you don't have home inspectors in your area, I'd suggest hanging out your shingle. Any area that is lax in municipal inspections is a prime area for private inspectors.
No matter how you explain it, I'm still going to be of the opinion that the buyer beware. No one is forcing him to buy the house, so if he plunks his money down without an adequate inspection, I'm not going to feel pity on him.
blue
Forget blue, somepeople just have no confidence in themselves and need Daddy to watch out for them. They just are more comfortable that way, Boss apparantly is one of those people.
Do right, I wouldn't be so hasty to tag Boss with a generalization like that. I think he was just vocalizing his thoughts from his perspective of a truss designer. I'm sure his truss company would be badgered to build substandard trusses if there were no design constraints placed on them by "normal building practices".
I'm a Libertarian at heart, but I don't mind that some municipalities create zoning laws either. I can choose to live in zoned communities ( I do), or only settle on unzoned communities (I know of a few in Michigan). It's a double edged sword if I choose to live in an unzoned community. I might build my house next door to a pristine meadow, only to find a pig farm on it next year.
Lets not get too caught up in badgering ol' Boss Hog. He's one of the good guys that offers a lot of very valuable, free information on this site.
Let's all kiss and make up.
blue
Well, perhaps but I think he tagged himself with a different tag, if you ask me. You didn't, so we can leave it at that.
I would say to each his own, but some appear to like to toss insults and names when their arguemnet runs out of steam. Some people are like that, I guess.
Kiss, kiss! Consider it done! LOL!
"We basically have no codes here. So any moron can build anything they want to and sell it to a customer who has no clue what they're buying."
Yes, that is the result of our nannie state! Makes teh buyers STUPID! The governmetn will protect me so I can just disengage my brain.
The problem you reference is stupidty, not lack of codes or inspections in my opinion.
I would say that the vast majority of people buying homes hire inspectors even in areas with insane levels or codes. If you don't know what to look for yourself, hire an inspector. If you don't . . . well . . . look in the mirror and stay away from IQ tests unless you like small numbers.
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen in a long time.
"I would say that the vast majority of people buying homes hire inspectors even in areas with insane levels or codes."
Maybe in your area. There aren't any home inspectors in the town I live in. Not everyone in the world does things the way they're done in your little world.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. [Albert Einstein]
Here's a proposal for how a building code could (should) work for residential construction:
Homeowners can work on their own homes, but have to get permits and pass inspection same a the pros. Homeowners don't have to get CGL insurance or WC (doesn't make sense for a homeowner), but do have to show a homeowner's policy that includes some liability coverage (don't want the inspector, for example, tripping on something and have How To Harry lose the place over it ;-).
Building codes include minimum standards for building SAFETY and hygine; not comfort; not nice to have features; not a set of stairs granny can dance down; strictly safety.
For the stairs example, I'd keep the requirements for make sure the rise is within a minimum difference, tread depth within minimum difference, but if someone wants to build an old fashioned trinity winder steep as an attic stair -- it was good enough for our great grandparents and enough of them have survived.
For electric -- you have to have some and whatever you put in has to meet code. That about covers it. I don't use a hairdryer and I don't use electric kitchen appliances. If the next buyer wants to add a bazzilion circuits -- he can knock himself out.
Plumbing -- must have a kitchen, toilet, shower, lav. Pretty much what the present code is.
Heat -- put in what you want as long as it's not a safety hazard. If you like being cold; your choice. Not hard for a subsequent buyer to inspect.
Bottom line -- I have no issues at all following the "safety" parts of the building code and almost all of the mechanical, plumbing and electrical codes. There are a couple things in each of them though that really pizz me off. The code politicos have gone too far in making a house "convenient." That's what architects are for. If I want stepp stairs, I should have them. The next buyer has eyes and can see they're steep. Same as in an existing house with steep stairs built before the code politicos protected us all from such killers.
"Let's get crack-a-lackin" --- Adam Carolla
Well, I dismiss your stupidity with the same brush you just used. YOur ridiculous!
You lose a discussion so you just label your opponent ridiculous. WOW, I am awed by your powers of debate. Typical.
Well, again Boss if you are a moron, you don't inspect your house. I suppose you don't inspect your purchases. Hmm?
It took you 2 whole posts to say that?Get over yourself already.
God must love stupid people - He made so many.
I have no problem with HO buiding inspectors if they can seperate the building inspection office from the property value office.. The only purpose of permits here is to raise your property tax
It's similar here to what you describe. Only thing I can't legally do here (on my own property) is plumbing or electrical on a commercial building.
We have usually had building inspectors who had little or no background in construction and got no training once they had the job. Now our County (out of town) inspector is a sharp and knowledgeable guy... finally! Our city inspector remains under the thumb of "special interests" (read INFLUENCIAL FAMILY TIES) and he is supposed to enforce zoning as well as building in a town of 4,500 while working only 20 hours a week. Town just hired a new guy who also seems devoid of the sort of background I'd hope a building inspector would have. As far as the permits/inspections go, I pick and choose whether to get one or not and when I do I view it as a donation to the town's finances since I get nothing in return.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." Voltaire
I'm getting ready to be a GC for my own new house, and while I will be hireing licenced people for stuff like roofing, elect, plumbing, etc.; I will also have a person or two part of the time for general dogsboy stuff.
I wouldn't dream of letting them work without having the WC,GL and disability you mentioned. It's protection for me as well as them. I don't want somebody falling after a wild night and then losing my whole
house because I wasn't covered.
TIgger
Google for "building permit homeowner exemption" to find out about what the topic is here.
Your situation is not what the exemption affadavits are about.
What you will find when you do your search is jurisdictions everywhere, from coast to coast, that allow a homeowner to be granted a building permit for work they will perform themselves without hiring anyone."
And that means anyone.
A family qualifies. It does not mean the work must be done singlehandedly.
A team of husband, wife, and a capable son or daughter can build most anything in housing today. Heck, given the time, one person can build most types of single-family houses.
When I was a teenager I helped my father, mother, and sisters build a house and a couple small barns over three summer "vacations." No one got hired, no one got paid.
Today, with the kind of gear available at our local rental yard, my dad could have built all that stuff working without any help at all.
My point in the thread initiation here was to criticize my own town's building department, which doesn't have the homeowner exemption thing in its vocabulary.
ahh quit yer belly aching.
You aren't a regular "home owner" anyways ...
You are building for profit.
Just price hiring a licensed sub into the equation. Probably saves you time and money in the end anyways.
If it's a small town like ya said ... maybe they're on to ya! They know U build and sell ... and U just ruined it for all the legit HO's!
Jeff
Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
In MA, if the homeowner pulls the permit, they assume all responsibility for problems, and the contractor they hired to work, is removed of any responsibility. If the contractor screws up, the homeowner is unable to file a claim against the states "guaranty" fund. Also, if the homeowner decides to pull the permit themselves, they have to sign off a Workman's compensation form.
Fron what I'm hearing from the local building inspector, and from newsletters and notices, MA is pushing for only licensed contractors to be allowed to pull permits, as contractors know what they are doing.
I lost 9 potential jobs last year due to clients who either will not agree to permits, or pull the permits themselves. One client forged my name to a permit and saw nothing wrong as she was "only trying to help". I bailed on that one, and spent a small fortune in legal fees to clear that up....
J
>MA is pushing for only licensed contractors to be allowed to pull permits, as contractors know what they are doing.Its a bit annoying in that respect. I get the safety angle and all, but I know in some towns in MA homeowners aren't allowed to do anything other than "ordinary repairs" which I think is not much more than painting, etc. Patching drywall and adding attic insulation require a permit, which I think an HO can get. A bit much though.Changing an outlet from 2 to 3 prongs and fixing a leaky faucet all require plumbers or electricians to pull a permit - a HO can't do it no matter how competent the individual or how simple the job.Seems a bit excessive to me.Also the town lets home depot/lowes move in, collects taxes from them while they sell whatever to homeowners (most of which would require a permit to install). Seems a bit hypocritical. If its so bad to let a homeowner change an outlet - the town should make homedepot ask for an electrican's license to buy one. Prescription plumbing fittings and electrical devices. Oh, I guess HD/lowes wouldn't go for that and the town would loose out on the taxes. Maybe safety isn't what the town is really interested in.
In Massachusetts I've seen some communities where the local building inspector states "licenced only can pull permits", and other towns where the application has a line to check off that says "By checking this, you understand the MA building Code and assume all responsibility for code issues", if the homeowner pulls the permit themselves.
Had a case where the "client" wanted to pull the permit themselves to do some structural repairs to a barn (leaning problem), and had the "I read a book, so I know what to do, I don't need your help" attitude.
Permit was pulled, homeowner started jacking up the barn, it fell over on it's side, total loss.
F
having not been following this lately but man, some of you guys have got to "chill" - I understand emotions get fired up but let's stay on pointsome people think there shouldn't be any codes
some think property owners/homeowners should be able to do what ever they want
some think the codes serve a purpose but maybe shouldn't be enforced too strongly for homeowners
some think the codes serve a purpose and should be both observed and enforced regardless, homeowner or contractordid I miss anyone????the codes serve a purpose but have to be followed by whoever is doing the work - the majority of building codes came out of fire codes and fire safety concerns - codes are strictly MINIMUM standards or guides for doing "things" - they serve to provide direction to have safe buildings, appliances, vehicles, pretty much anything that is used by the public (aka you, me, the contractor, the homeowner, .... your kids.wife, mother, father .... get the idea) - now, having said that, recognize that if someone decides to do something "outside" the code (not meeting those minimun requirements), that person is responsible if the public (see above) gets hurt - if the steps are too steep or shallow or uneven, yeah, maybe the buyer should notice it when they buy the house but when someone falls, it's first off not good about the fall, and ......if the fall is bad enough, someone gets hurt, maybe dies (know two people who died from falling down the stairs) and everything gets real bad (you want to see how bad - check out what happened when a guy decides to ignore pyrotechnic codes and lights them off in a small club) okay - enough soapbox - "can't we all just get along" - alright, I'd "talked " enough - like I said, let's try to stay on point and not waste time picking on each other, I spend enough time reading this site trying to learn things
that's it
did I miss anyoneYes me.. I think codes has a purpose and that they should be enforce but government is too stupid to read the code book to enforce.
you might be right but then there's the archy who showed up to do a plan review on a new school and didn't have the code books to reference - his question was along the line of " what new code? I don't have those, when did this come into effect enough blame to go around - can't answer for others - just try to do my best
lead, follow or get the H*** out of the way
>>"you might be right but then there's the archy who showed up to do a plan review on a new school and didn't have the code books to reference - his question was along the line of " what new code? I don't have those, when did this come into effect
To take this in a different direction, was the building at least aesthetically pleasing? Or was it a typical box with boxes on it? There should be a code section against that.
"Let's get crack-a-lackin" --- Adam Carolla
Edited 5/11/2006 9:29 am ET by philarenewal
it was a old factory building that was "donated" to the city - so, the looks were pretty much what you see is what you get - archy couldn't understand why he couldn't get a variance for having the K-1 classrooms in the basement (below grade) - figured when he was a kid a hundred years ago, he made it up the stairs okay, so why not - forget the common sense that legs that are only about a ft or so long might have a problem stepping up 7 inches, particularily when something's burning - and the kids have only been walking for a few years, maybe they're not so good as it sometimestoo much to do to get me going on this stuff - part of the reason I'm now in a ladder co.I do like the question/comment
i agree that having kids climb 7" stairs in a fire might potentially lead to trampling. and i appreciate the work you do to keep kids and others safe.
however, the whole business with fire codes has gone completely overboard. imagine if the fire marshall inspected cars....they'd all have a max speed of 5 mph and cost $150,000 minimum.
another good place for codes would be in restaurants. we'd have a lot less heart disease if there were codes on how much fat cooks were allowed to use and minimum salad requirements for all meals...
they're getting to that - at least in the public schools - maybe it's the thing to do looking at all the well-fed kids around today - personally I don't like the idea of too much government intervention but.... given that there's a whole population of "individuals" who think that as long as "they're" doing it, it must be okay, regardless of their qualifications, and then they'll wrap themselves in the flag with "I thought this was America", there will have to be codes and inspectors and enforcement and the rest of us who have to put up with it
I would hate that. When I go out, I'm looking for a treat. If I want health food, I'll eat at home.
I think codes has a purpose and that they should be enforce but government is too stupid to read the code book to enforce.
Well put. I see this around here every day.
A good example is a reroof going on 3 house down. garage was converted into living space and a wood stove was added in. They cut a rafter to put the stove pipe in and did not brace/head off the rafters/opening. Inspector caught this, but didn't even consider that this garage conversion was done without a permit. Or even the fact that the guy doing the tear off and reroof was a licensed contactor. Even though he is doing a good job up to code. All they9inspector) cares about is if he has a city business license.
Permit was pulled, homeowner started jacking up the barn, it fell over on it's side, total loss.
That's when I would have called him and said "I've heard you ran into a slight problem, is there anything I can help you with?"
:)