Are Building Codes Adequate in Coastal NC and Affected Areas?

[jar546]

I found this article interesting because as usual, the cost factor came into play and questioned. Should we put people and property at risk and leave inadequate building codes in place or should we require stricter codes and pass the increase costs on to the property owners as they build and remodel?

My personal opinion is of safety-first. In many instances, the difference in insurance premium (such as I see in Florida) will be more expensive over-time than the initial costs of building adequately to the area in which you decided to live.

I don't want to hear you whining about what FEMA did not do for you IF you underbuilt in an affected area where you knew better but took the cheaper way out.

Here is the article attached.

 

[Sifu]

I don't want to hear you whining about what FEMA did not do for you IF you underbuilt in an affected area where you knew better but took the cheaper way out.

Agree. What also tends to be ignored is the danger to responders and the long term impacts from destroyed buildings and the associated infrastructure. I am not sure it as much a building code issue as a planning issue. My take has always been that planning and zoning will tell you IF you can build it, then codes will tell you HOW you can (or can't) build it. One of the videos I saw of Florence was a new building, at framing stage, dropping into the sea. My first thought was about them knowing the risks.
I think a more careful balance between development and safety should be in place. That goes way beyond a house.......think about the hog and chicken farms and the coal ash dumps and other equally disturbing installations you don't want flooding and floating by. They continue to be breached and then rebuilt. Bad enough that it continues, worse that they cry the blues.