| << . 1 . 2 . |
| Author |
Message |
Rossman
|
# Posted: 24 Mar 2013 11:30am
Reply
Quoting: ICC Exactly and thank you for saying that. Too many take the view that it is theirs and they can do whatever they want.
Too many take the view they can dictate what others can and can't do! 
Bottom line is if someone wants to build a substandard structure to live in, on their own land, I say go for it. Just know that if your shit falls down and injures or kills you, you're on your own. Fact is, no-one is affected by this but the property owner.
If the property is later sold there is nothing obliging the next owner to do anything with the structure, they do not have to use it.
I'm not advocating building without a permit of anything of the sort I just things have gotten a little out of hand in terms of regulation.
|
|
Anonymous
|
# Posted: 24 Mar 2013 02:09pm
Reply
I agree that things have gotten out of hand with respect to regulation, but that's no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. All buildings built by whoever will be used by others, and most of those others have no idea what they are walking into when they walk in the door. Poorly built buildings can and do injure and kill.
It comes down to fundamental philosophy of social responsibility, I suppose. No one would allow anyone to enter any building that they knew for certain was going to fall or burn in the next 5 minutes obviously. On the other end of the scale is a building inspector who won't final your permit and let you move in cause the stairs are off 1/4". Where do you draw the line in between? The fact that we have building codes and inspectors shows that the voters want this or at least allow it to exist. They are your neighbors, and what obligation do you have to do what they say? A lot of people don't like being told what to do, until, that is, they see a dead 3 year old, then they realize it's about more than their personal independence.
|
|
oldgringo
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Mar 2013 02:16pm
Reply
There are cabins, and then, there are cabins. I don't object to permitting/inspection on what are, in effect, small homes. In the long run, one's investment is protected by this. It is beneficial, in the sense that you get something for your money.
I see red, however, when local governments hold fund-raisers in my wallet. I'm perfectly capable of building a small shelter in the woods, without government oversight.
|
|
Anonymous
|
# Posted: 24 Mar 2013 04:24pm
Reply
Where do you draw the line between a small home, that is regulated, and a small shelter in the woods, which is not? Will everyone agree on where to draw that line? What's the difference between living in a shelter and living in a home? They both present the same dangers.
The cost is a separate issue from the safety issue. I knew a guy who tried to put an addition on his house for his growing family, but after he paid all the permit fees he was broke and never built the addition. Tilt. On the other hand, my permit fees for my cabin were a little over $400 which I can afford, and it buys me peace of mind.
It's an imperfect world
|
|
oldgringo
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Mar 2013 04:45pm
Reply
Good questions, and I don't have answers. We'll have to cut the baby in half.
My home was built 10 years ago by a local builder, without permits or inspectors, and hasn't collapsed, burned, tilted, or cracked yet. This is representative experience, so there's been no rush to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
I confess to a personal irony: on most things, I lean a little left, but when it comes to the nanny state telling me what to do on my rural land with my money, I'm out on the other end of things.
I'll shut up, now.
|
|
Rossman
|
# Posted: 24 Mar 2013 09:47pm
Reply
Quoting: Anonymous All buildings built by whoever will be used by others
My problem is I guess that this isn't true though. If some dude wants to go off and be a hermit and live in a shack on his own land and never interact with the world I am ok with that.
Anyone that ends up with legal title to that land, perhaps after Mr. Hermit dies, can readily determine if said structure was built to code or not by going through the municipality. Nothing would ever obligate a person to enter that structure.
I see where you guys are coming from is that you don't want some whackjob building a shack that's going to collapse and housing his family / children in it. It all sounds good when you think about this reasonable use case but it's when you get to the periphery (Mr. Hermit) that the impacts are most evident.
Personally I'll be pulling permits and building to code because it's just good sense. But I don't see how I have the moral authority to tell another person what they can or can't do with their own person on their own land (as long as they aren't poisoning everyones water or some stupid shit like that)
|
|
Rossman
|
# Posted: 24 Mar 2013 09:51pm
Reply
Quoting: oldgringo My home was built 10 years ago by a local builder, without permits or inspectors, and hasn't collapsed, burned, tilted, or cracked yet. This is representative experience, so there's been no rush to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Exactly - all the cottages in our area in Quebec (there are seven total belonging to family and friends of family) were built before I was born (40+ years ago) the same way, ain't nothing wrong with them. Some have been updated and some have not and they are all still around and well loved/used.
|
|
Anonymous
|
# Posted: 24 Mar 2013 10:31pm
Reply
When someone buys a house they can't tell if it is up to code because the concrete hides the rebar and the sheetrock hides the plumbing, elec, structural, venting, etc. So they can't possibly tell what they are getting without ripping the building to shreds.
No person has the moral authority to tell someone what to do, but the law does because we live in a nation of laws, passed by elected officials.
When the people pass a law that says hermits don't have to follow the codes, then someone who claims to be a hermit but isnt will build a building and then turn around and sell it to some unsuspecting person who has no way of verifying the safety of construction inside the concrete and the walls.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
# Posted: 25 Mar 2013 12:05am
Reply
true dat. but this is a forum for small cabins, and small cabins should be exempt. in many places there is a minimum size where they are exempt under a certain size. Where there is a minimum size I take that to mean if you build below that size they don't have any "provisions". Which is good, we don't want any provisions, is everyone happy now?
|
|
Rossman
|
# Posted: 25 Mar 2013 09:24am
Reply
Quoting: Anonymous When someone buys a house they can't tell if it is up to code because the concrete hides the rebar and the sheetrock hides the plumbing, elec, structural, venting, etc. So they can't possibly tell what they are getting without ripping the building to shreds.
This is true is ALL cases even where permits were pulled!
I have seen no end of house buying shows where ppl buy a city house that's been inspected and sold "with updated wiring" only to find out later a dodgey f***er sometime in the past just replaced the part of the wiring you can see and there is still knob-and-tube throughout!!
Same with mold, water damage, leaks, etc. You never really find out until you have been there awhile. No inspector can tell you everything is fine from the cursory inspections they do. They would have to disassemble large parts of a building to make that determination.
Bottom line is you can never know for CERTAIN unless you built the place.
Also this whole argument is a bit of a joke because normally when someone has built a not-to-code shack / cottage it is IMMEDIATELY obvious that its not up to code. Every one of the aforementioned cottages, it's plain as day.
So, yeah, I see where you are coming from buy I don't buy it as a genuine angle. Sounds completely unrealistic to me.
|
|
oldgringo
Member
|
# Posted: 25 Mar 2013 10:26am
Reply
Ultimately, it's about control. And taxes.
And yes, I'm a cynical old fart. Mea culpa.
|
|
bldginsp
Member
|
# Posted: 25 Mar 2013 02:32pm
Reply
The reason you have inspections while it's being built is so that the details can be confirmed before it gets closed up. A house that was permitted and inspected isn't expected to be perfect, just inspected to meet minimum code requirements to the best of the jurisdictions ability.
When you buy a house that was permitted you know it was inspected to the codes in place at the time, and inspected before it was closed up.
Building inspectors don't dissassemble large parts of the building to determine if it meets code because they see it before it gets closed up, when it's easy to see and confirm. Building departments never permit or approve work that is already complete and closed up, which you can't see. If you want to try to permit a building that is already built, they'll make you take it apart enough to confirm what's there.
Yes, it's partly about control and taxes, but it's mostly about the people who will live in the structure in the future, and their safety. It's society telling you that you can't make something that could harm others without a third party set of eyes confirming the safety of the building, even if it's on your land, even if you claim that you will be the only person ever entering the building. It's society telling you what to do, like the speed limit, like contractual law, like lots of other laws. It's a pain in the ass, costs too much money often, and it's really irritating to have to invite someone else to your property to criticize your work.
But when you look at the statistics, it makes at least some sense. One person a week dies from electrocution in residences in the US, and usually it's someone monkeying with electrical that doesn't know what they are doing. So, if they want to kill themselves, that's fine, but a lot of those electrocutions are other people who got zapped because of the owner's bad work. Same with gas fires, bad plumbing, etc.
May cocky American independence live on forever! But the framers of the constitution were setting up a nation of laws, not a nation without laws. Maybe some day the Libertarians will get us all to vote to remove all building codes, and buyer beware, and visitor beware, too. If you visit your friends house and you get killed by his funky electrical that's your fault. Sorry Charley.
But, it's kind of hard to blame a 3 year old that gets killed by someone's funky electrical, or other 'creative' solution (that costs less).
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 25 Mar 2013 02:59pm
Reply
Nicely said. and a great closing point for all to remember.
|
|
Rossman
Member
|
# Posted: 26 Mar 2013 12:22pm
Reply
"It's hard to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it"
|
|
bldginsp
Member
|
# Posted: 26 Mar 2013 03:09pm
Reply
That is a true statement, such as the attitude taken by fossil fuel executives toward global warming, despite 99% agreement among scientists.
I really doubt, however, that the issue of permitting small cabins presents the slightest threat to my livelihood. I work in a city where there are a lot of stressed contractors and profit motivated developers who would build total garbage if not somehow regulated.
I think how they do it in Europe is better than here. They have no building inspectors, just plan checkers, and then the architect/engineer of record is responsible to be on the job and verify that the work is done correctly. It's a more efficient way to verify safe construction, but I don't see the US going that direction very soon. As Churchill said, the Americans try every wrong way before they figure out the right way. Meanwhile I collect a salary by spanking errant contractors on the butt for not doing what they knew they should have done to begin with.
What this thread really points out, though, is a need in the codes for accomodation for small temporary use buildings. You can roll a trailer onto your property and live in that. It's obviously not a permanent residence (though sometimes they are). Building departments will argue that 'temporary becomes permanent', so if you allow temporary use buildings, some of them will become permanent residences. But, should you and I be punished or limited because of what someone else in the future might do, or is likely to do? I don't think so.
The codes don't have any provision for 'temporary use' buildings, such as a small cabin that gets used just a few weeks a year. But some counties allow you to live on your property without a full residence and approved water source (well) so long as you have a septic system and you don't stay more than a certain length of time. These kinds of 'camping' provisions are meant to accomodate vacationers who just want to stay a few weeks or months, not the whole year.
The code writers are responsive to citizen input, but I don't know how interested parties could get organized enough to approach them with suggestions. Organizing builders of small cabins across the country makes me think of herding cats.
|
|
| << . 1 . 2 . |
