conarb
Registered User
Carol:Carol said:
Let's come right out and say it, did it appear that these "blocks of building officials" had been bought off by the political/commercial interests?
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Anyone tried to view the ICC hearings?
- Thread starter RJJ
- Start date
Let's come right out and say it, did it appear that these "blocks of building officials" had been bought off by the political/commercial interests?
If you can't form an organization from this website; then it's a lost cause. I don't believe there is a more vocal group anywhere. Other than getting a paid vacation; by attend the hearings; there is really no reason to purse changing or effecting the ICC system. Just go to the hearings if that's your thing; and have a good time.
Uncle Bob
Uncle Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not think anyone in attendance was 'bought-off' but I do think that the groups were passionate about their point of view and unwilling to listen to reason or opposition. The lobbyists did their jobs very well: make their point of view fit. There were some good points made by many of the lobbyists, however, if you step back from the swaying information/hype, then you are left with one decision: does this make sense for the code? In voting items down, which I did participate in voting things down, it was because it was not a good idea, not enforceable, and certainly not the job of the building inspectors. Case in point: putting the methods and recommendations for lead paint abatement in the IPMC. Another case in point: limiting the number of occupants in a dwelling based on square footage in the bedroom. I am not going to be the one to go into someone's bedroom and count heads. Code should be enforceable.
Also, from my first-time attendance at the hearings, it is very apparent that 'one-size' does not fit all. Climate and exposure vary so widely that it is difficult to pare down the written code to fit every circumstance. That's why SBCCI, ICBO and BOCA codes were different. They were specifically addressing regional variations. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to bring about code changes that are applicable in a common sense manner: California earthquake requirements don't belong in non-seismic zones; hurricane requirements in the desert don't make a lot of sense either.
IMHO
Also, from my first-time attendance at the hearings, it is very apparent that 'one-size' does not fit all. Climate and exposure vary so widely that it is difficult to pare down the written code to fit every circumstance. That's why SBCCI, ICBO and BOCA codes were different. They were specifically addressing regional variations. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to bring about code changes that are applicable in a common sense manner: California earthquake requirements don't belong in non-seismic zones; hurricane requirements in the desert don't make a lot of sense either.
IMHO
RJJ
Co-Founder
UB: I detect frustration! This will take time and diligence. If it was easy everyone would do it. It probably will not happen until we have another Minnesota mess.
Ewenme,
I'd love to adopt the 1997 SBCCI codes; and, throw all this ICC crap into the dumpster. Didn't even have to adopt the watered down CABO; because the SBCCI codes included residential requirements. This theory that you have to meet more strengient requirements for a commercial buildings; and screw the home your family lives in; just doesn't hold water. Sorry, I forgot; now, that we have to seal up the home; it will hold water. Instead of a blower test; one day, they will require us to fill the home with water and do a water test, like for the sanitary drainage system.
I have the required CEUs for renewing my ICC certs; and, I'm suppose to renew this month; but, in this State, all I need is my State unlimited Inspector's license; and I've got that and don't need ICC certs anymore. Screw the ICC, I'm keeping my money.
I just re-read this post. I am, a cantakerous old man; lmao.
Uncle Bob
I'd love to adopt the 1997 SBCCI codes; and, throw all this ICC crap into the dumpster. Didn't even have to adopt the watered down CABO; because the SBCCI codes included residential requirements. This theory that you have to meet more strengient requirements for a commercial buildings; and screw the home your family lives in; just doesn't hold water. Sorry, I forgot; now, that we have to seal up the home; it will hold water. Instead of a blower test; one day, they will require us to fill the home with water and do a water test, like for the sanitary drainage system.
I have the required CEUs for renewing my ICC certs; and, I'm suppose to renew this month; but, in this State, all I need is my State unlimited Inspector's license; and I've got that and don't need ICC certs anymore. Screw the ICC, I'm keeping my money.
I just re-read this post. I am, a cantakerous old man; lmao.
Uncle Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Jobsaver
Registered User
With the new sprinkler requirements, it won't be long before many homes will get a water test!
Add a couple more; Steel Institute, Insurance industry (big time), and of course fire sprinkler industry. Energy and green lobbying is a snowball that is big and will continue to get bigger until our codes have been f----d up beyond all recognition.
ewenme said:ConArb:AAMA [American Architectural Manufacturer's Association]; Concrete and Masonry Institute; Fenestration organizations [loosely coordinated]; CDC [yes, Centers for Disease Control]; Healthy Homes; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL); DOE; Fairfax County Virginia; Quality Buildings; New York City Buildings Department; Energy Efficiency organizations [several individual, not necessarily a coordinated block/group]; Green Building groups; and a few building officials who had proposed code changes: VABOA, Massachusetts BOs, Nevada. The list could go on.
Yes, indeed, it was very political. Watching a block of building officials vote for a specific industry proposal had me wondering. And the same not voting for a common sense proposal from a building official. Amazing. Fearsome. Strange.
I was glad to finally get to see the workings at that level; and more importantly, I'd go back with some code proposals if I had support! Without some support, my jaws would just be flapping in the wind.
UB: I'd go back to the ICBO Uniform Building Code [1997] in an instant! Unfortunately, ICC probably owns the rights to it.
After today's work on two code enforcement issues with the same players, I'm feeling a whole lot cantankerous! I had the city attorney call me and tell me I'm the spindle on which the City wheel turns. I said, oh please, not me. It's been a long week. I'm tired of people who flaunt the laws and the codes. Our electrical inspector was shocked when the had his hand on one panel and touched a sub-panel with the other hand. Can anyone say, 'shoddy work?' That was not the only code violation where five young ladies were renting. Fun times at work. :-(
After today's work on two code enforcement issues with the same players, I'm feeling a whole lot cantankerous! I had the city attorney call me and tell me I'm the spindle on which the City wheel turns. I said, oh please, not me. It's been a long week. I'm tired of people who flaunt the laws and the codes. Our electrical inspector was shocked when the had his hand on one panel and touched a sub-panel with the other hand. Can anyone say, 'shoddy work?' That was not the only code violation where five young ladies were renting. Fun times at work. :-(
incognito
Silver Member
Random thoughts;
Ratification--Did not know which way to vote--until all the fire guys started yapping about how bad it was. Unfortunately the building officials were not smart enough to vote FOR ratification. Wake up guys---always vote in opposition to what fire service wants!!
When a fire sevice guy is running for a board position against a building official---always vote for the building official!!
Energy code BS--What the he-- are you people thinking??!! All you have to do is pay attention to who is advocating this "stuff" to know you should vote against each and every proposal.
Money to get there---It does not make a dam- bit of difference who pays your way to the code hearings. NAHB payed my way in the past but would have been very disappointed in the overall result. My vote corresponded with their desires at times and not so much at other times. Maybe some of you haven't noticed but your name and ID number is not recorded with each vote to track how you vote!!
Who votes--Each jurisdiction should get one vote--regardless of jurisdiction size. Yeah thats right New York City and LA get one vote just like Albert Lea, MN and Sedona, AZ get one. And if you are not a building official you do not get to vote--no more special interests buying memberships in order to influence the outcome of a vote.
Ratification--Did not know which way to vote--until all the fire guys started yapping about how bad it was. Unfortunately the building officials were not smart enough to vote FOR ratification. Wake up guys---always vote in opposition to what fire service wants!!
When a fire sevice guy is running for a board position against a building official---always vote for the building official!!
Energy code BS--What the he-- are you people thinking??!! All you have to do is pay attention to who is advocating this "stuff" to know you should vote against each and every proposal.
Money to get there---It does not make a dam- bit of difference who pays your way to the code hearings. NAHB payed my way in the past but would have been very disappointed in the overall result. My vote corresponded with their desires at times and not so much at other times. Maybe some of you haven't noticed but your name and ID number is not recorded with each vote to track how you vote!!
Who votes--Each jurisdiction should get one vote--regardless of jurisdiction size. Yeah thats right New York City and LA get one vote just like Albert Lea, MN and Sedona, AZ get one. And if you are not a building official you do not get to vote--no more special interests buying memberships in order to influence the outcome of a vote.