- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaI still ask the thread the question, should we do away with building codes, and leave it to tort law? Let's see who chickens out, besides you.
So your original question is redundant and I wont waste any further time with you, no worries.
14 Aug 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou're claiming they offer this building inspection service free? That is not the case in NZ or Australia, so I guess you're claiming the fee charged by the state is less than the fee charged by private individuals and companies.
I never said it was not interested for clearly it needs taxes to function, here in the UK, when a project is complete at every stage a government appointed 'clerk of works', must inspect the project and certify that it meets building regulations, in your lunacy you suggested to privatise this service increasing cost for everyone.
How about wait times? This is an extra cost, would private competing inspection companies put you on a waiting list, do you think?
14 Aug 13
Originally posted by Wajomaand why would a private company be able to issue a building certificate more efficiently than a local authority? you have not said? why would privatisation of the service make it any better for construction companies and builders? you have not said. In fact the idea that privatisation drives down prices through competition is a nonsense, one only needs to look at the privatisation of the postal service, or the rail service or British Telecom industry in the UK to realise that.
You're claiming they offer this building inspection service free? That is not the case in NZ or Australia, so I guess you're claiming the fee charged by the state is less than the fee charged by private individuals and companies.
How about wait times? This is an extra cost, would private competing inspection companies put you on a waiting list, do you think?
14 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by bill718If you read the article, then you see where this guy is coming from. He has used the materials from the surrounding area to construct the structures, which are not big at all. However, all around him corporate entities clear out huge sections of forest and bring in materials foreign to the environment and construct much larger dwellings. From the perspective of the mountain man, these corporate entities are the ones in violation of the environmentalist code of nature. However, without these corporate entities it is unlikely he could ever meet code. For example, code says that his kitchen needs to be vented. Well that is a problem considering his kitchen has no walls. So to meet code, he would have to build walls around his kitchen and enclose it and then manufacture some way to vent it, which more than likely requires foreign materials that he would need corporate entities to provide.
Interesting article, I would have to say spending a little effort and money to bring his buildings up to minimum building code does not constitute a massive government invasion of this man's rights, and it may just prevent some bad injuries down the road. Even Henry David Thoreau at Waldon Pond acknowleged the need to obey at least the outer trappings of society, since he sometimes had to live in it. 😏
So what if this man wanted to live in a cave? Do you think that the cave would meet code?
One of the things I used to like about the left is that the at one time attacked corporate America. However, now that they have all the power they are seen for what they really are, corporate stooges. So tell me, what carbon emissions is this man producing without air conditioning and natural gas to try to heat and cool 3,000 plus square feet of home? I thought that you lefties were so concerned about the environment, but the truth is I guess you are more concerned about this man's safety, which looking at him and reviewing his history, I hardly think he needs your help surviving in the mountains. My guess is that if you spent so much as a couple of days with him you would be crying like a school girl to come home to your corporate built structure and comforts of home.
14 Aug 13
If this man is building structures for himself that are not accessible for the public, I don't see what business government has in telling him how to build them. And I'm sure there are plenty of people living in such a manner who are not bothered by the government.
However, in this case he seems to have paying campers visiting, so it seems rather obvious the structures should comply with safety standards to ensure their safety.
14 Aug 13
Originally posted by JS357Why would he have to make such a disclaimer? He knows what it is, he built it. You live in a world governed by paper pushers who make this world too expensive.
"I hereby declare that I am of legal age to consent, and do consent to live in this building while aware that the wiring was installed without conduit throughout, ...[the list going on to cover all defects and hazards.]"
How practical is your world?
Why add to the costs? So that you can make the government bigger and suck even more money out of the hands of the individual. You are the problem.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Aug 13
Originally posted by WajomaGovernment inspectors are subject to corruption, private sector inspectors would only be moreso, because being in competition for business is hard if you don't do a lot of approvals.
You're claiming they offer this building inspection service free? That is not the case in NZ or Australia, so I guess you're claiming the fee charged by the state is less than the fee charged by private individuals and companies.
How about wait times? This is an extra cost, would private competing inspection companies put you on a waiting list, do you think?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Aug 13
Originally posted by EladarTHe person who built the house may be ignorant of the defects and hazards he is building into it, and otherwise may not disclose it to the others.
Why would he have to make such a disclaimer? He knows what it is, he built it. You live in a world governed by paper pushers who make this world too expensive.
Why add to the costs? So that you can make the government bigger and suck even more money out of the hands of the individual. You are the problem.
What say you about the buildings that have burned or collapsed on workers?
14 Aug 13
5 edits
Originally posted by whodeyWell Mr. Whodey, I'm afraid you're only showing your ignorance here. If this man had done a minimal amount of planning before throwing these structures up, he could have used the resources on his land about 80% of the time AND met the building code. I would also suggest this has little to do with corporate entities, or political persuasion, but rather with this man's wish to disobey the laws of his state and county by claiming he can do whatever he wishes with his property. This is not true. As a Realtor, I can tell you ALL landowner's rights are limited, and all landowners must obey zoning and building codes weather they like it or not. No amount of wailing against me, corporate entities, or my political preferences will change that. Zoning and building codes exist for the homeowners safety, and for the safety of those who visit the property. Deal with it!
If you read the article, then you see where this guy is coming from. He has used the materials from the surrounding area to construct the structures, which are not big at all. However, all around him corporate entities clear out huge sections of forest and bring in materials foreign to the environment and construct much larger dwellings. From the perspecti crying like a school girl to come home to your corporate built structure and comforts of home.
14 Aug 13
Originally posted by JS357I would say that it would suck to be caught in a burning or collapsed house. I also say that people should be free to build at their own risk. I also say that there is no guarantee that a building won't burn or collapse if all codes are met.
THe person who built the house may be ignorant of the defects and hazards he is building into it, and otherwise may not disclose it to the others.
What say you about the buildings that have burned or collapsed on workers?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Aug 13
Originally posted by EladarYou are grasping at straws. There is a mountain of history of the improvement of building codes after disasters, successfully preventing future instances. The insurance industry is dependent on it. Private insurance companies make their policies and their rates contingent on adherence to such codes, and those companies are private sector, not your enemy the government.
I would say that it would suck to be caught in a burning or collapsed house. I also say that people should be free to build at their own risk. I also say that there is no guarantee that a building won't burn or collapse if all codes are met.
14 Aug 13
Originally posted by Eladarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
I would say that it would suck to be caught in a burning or collapsed house. I also say that people should be free to build at their own risk. I also say that there is no guarantee that a building won't burn or collapse if all codes are met.
14 Aug 13
Originally posted by JS357I'm not grasping at straws at all. I'm just stating a fact. The fact is that people should be free and if they want to endanger their lives by building not up to code, then they should be free to do so.
You are grasping at straws. There is a mountain of history of the improvement of building codes after disasters, successfully preventing future instances. The insurance industry is dependent on it. Private insurance companies make their policies and their rates contingent on adherence to such codes, and those companies are private sector, not your enemy the government.
If private insurance companies don't want to insure the structure, so be it.
I can see that you have no problem mixing government and business. It's a bad combination.
14 Aug 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is difficult, if not impossible to say how much is saved by privatization. Why? Inflation. If you take the last year of government operation, sure the private company costs more a few years hence, but what would the government cost have been?
and why would a private company be able to issue a building certificate more efficiently than a local authority? you have not said? why would privatisation of the service make it any better for construction companies and builders? you have not said. In fact the idea that privatisation drives down prices through competition is a nonsense, one only ...[text shortened]... f the postal service, or the rail service or British Telecom industry in the UK to realise that.
Two things improve with private services. First the service usually improves, because the provider has to worry about being renewed. Second, the provider usually increases costs only as needed.
If neither of these thing is true, then the providers should be changed.
14 Aug 13
Originally posted by JS357I was on the stoop of a building in the South End of Boston, the very day before it collapsed without warning, and I recall when a ten or twelve block square in South Boston (Southie) of three deckers burned to the ground.
THe person who built the house may be ignorant of the defects and hazards he is building into it, and otherwise may not disclose it to the others.
What say you about the buildings that have burned or collapsed on workers?
Zoning laws do not make for perfect safety, and are more to satisfy the needs and wants of builders, than for the safety of the eventual residents.
There have been some examples of very public and very expensive structures that have collapsed shortly after opening, the one I'm remembering was a multilevel mall, in which a pedestrian walkway collapsed on shoppers in the first week of operation.