• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

congress building code, good idea bad idea???

cda

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
20,962
Location
Basement
A bi-partisan bill seeking support from public safety aims to reduce loss of life and damages after disasters.

A hearing for the Safe Building Codes Incentive Act is set for this Tuesday, July 24 at 10:00 a.m. and will be webcast live.

The Safe Building Code Incentive Act would create a financial incentive for states that have adopted and are currently enforcing statewide building codes for residential and commercial structures. Under the proposed law, states that do so would qualify for an additional 4-percent in post-disaster funding.

The program would be administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Congressman Jeff Denham (CA-19), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, spoke to fire service media about the pending legislation.

The bill, HR 2069, was introduced by Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-21) and was referred to Chairman Denham’s subcommittee.

"We can cut the cost and amount of damage done with stronger building codes; we did it in California," Denham said.

Denham explained that the goal is for nationally recognized codes to be selected and enhanced at the state level to address local perils, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, fire, ice storms and other natural catastrophes.

"We want to make sure we're empowering states to put in the types of safeguards they need," Denham said.

In addition, standardized building codes would create a consistent playing field for design professionals, suppliers, and builders, and create a minimum standard that consumers could rely upon.

However, "Most importantly," Denham said, " it's about saving lives."

The witness list for the hearing includes Chief Hank C. Clemmensen, First Vice President of the International Association of Fire Chiefs; Mr. Chad Berginnis, CFM, Executive Director, Association of State Floodplain Managers; Mr. Jim Mullen, President National Emergency Management Assoc; and Mr. Jimmy Gianato, Director of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, State of West Virginia.

Thirty-one states currently qualify or could qualify with minor legislative changes to state laws and regulations, including: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10745818/building-code-legislation-aims-to-save-lives-funding
 
The Feds provide money to Illinois (and other States I'm sure) for adopting the latest ICC Energy Code. The State has mandated its enforcement, yet provides little to no funding or education for municipalities imposed to upheld these mandates.

The State easily approved the mandate to collect the funds, then does not pass it on to those who need it to do their job.

There may be good ways to put nationwide Codes into practice, but waving money at Illinois State government is NOT it.
 
What a wonderful use of our unlimited taxing resources to create more federal control over local issues. It has work so well for the schools, highway departments, immigration and a host of others that it is a slam dunk certainty that it will be sucessful in the code enforcement environment. After all, it is all about saving lives and the children.
 
More tax dollars from states that do not or experience less natural disasters and sounds like re-distribution and adds to the bureauracy. Let alone requires to adopt an "approved" statewide building code which Virginia and still FEMA denied disaster assistance to earthquake victims.

Francis
 
The Safe Building Code Incentive Act would create a financial incentive for states that have adopted and are currently enforcing statewide building codes for residential and commercial structures
How about the states that do not have statewide enforcement? Would it not be money better spent to get them on board?

We do not have state wide enforcement of residential codes. I think Colorado is the same.

Now to contradict myself the elected Federal reps have a bigger job to do and that is how do they cut spending not increase it with more programs.
 
Great, another unfunded mandate.

Let's give the feds control over the building codes.

Unfunded mandates. More regulation. This is insane.

I support the building codes entirely, but we need to have a serious disucssion on a national level on what services and entire agencies we are going to cut.

The train is headed over the cliff soon if we keep doing what we are doing.
 
The program would be administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
This is already happening here in California, a year ago my structural engineer and a plan checker (also a SE) were fighting over column to beam connections, I was meeting with the engineer to discuss what could be done to satisfy her and he said: "I don't know why she's objecting, I've desighned to FEMA standards", he reached up into a shelf and pulled down a book written by FEMA, opening it to show me the FEMA details he had used.
 
Conarb

Your SE and the plan checker should not be talking about FEMA reports. They should be dealing with the requirements in the CBC. After the Northridge earthquake FEMA sponsored research to address some of the problems. Initially engineers followed the recommendations in these reports as good practice. Over time the recommendations have been refined and incorporated in the building code. Thus strict adherence to the FEMA reports could reflect dated thinking.

FEMA's role was limited to sponsoring research that resulted in recommendations and making the information available to engineers. FEMA is not involved in publishing formal standards.
 
The discussion about unfunded mandates is misplaced. The article says that the states that have good codes will be availible to additional post disaster funding. This suggests you have to have a disaster before you can get that money.

The legislation is an attempt to incentivise good practices while leaving the exact nature of the resulations and their implementation in the hands of the state.

Seperate from this legislation we have a situation where a number of states make an effort to implement effective building codes throughout the state while in a number of states the codes are dated and enforcement is poor to non-existant.
 
Sorry Mark, those are the same agruments used when the US Department of Educaton was founded in the late 1970's. We're here to help and only those poor districts who really need our help will be impacted. Good school districts will have no impact. I was there, I remember. You can see where that got us.
 
Coug Dad said:
Sorry Mark, those are the same agruments used when the US Department of Educaton was founded in the late 1970's. We're here to help and only those poor districts who really need our help will be impacted. Good school districts will have no impact. I was there, I remember. You can see where that got us.
Excellent point. Excellent starting point for eliminating entire government agencies. Department of Education can go.

We do not need a new agency, committee, vision, or action by an existing agency. Let the states take care of it. Period.

Name one thing that the Federal Government does well.......

Now interject that in to an already bureacratic process (I-Codes). Honestly, will this improve things?
 
My first choice would be to get rid of the department of agriculture and the payments to farmers for not growing crops. Get rid of price support for milk.

Get rid of food stamps. Let the poore starve.

No more inspection of food. Firms that produce contaminated food will lose customers.

No more controls on testing of drugs. Let the drug manufacturers experiment on the general public.

Get rid of the FBI.

Get rid of Medicaid. Let the poor die off.

Cut Social Security. Encorage the elderly to get a job.

No more FEMA aid after disasters. It is God's will that all the heathens die off.

No more Army Core of Engineers flood control efforts.

Get rid of the Federal Highway Administration. No more aid for highway projects. Business will take up the slack.
 
pwood said:
righter101;87481Name one thing that the Federal Government does well.......you are kidding said:
No, I am looking for examples of things that the Federal Government does well. What programs have they run that are a resounding success, models of efficency and delivery of promised services, free (largely) from fraud, waste and corruption.
 
Mark K said:
My first choice would be to get rid of the department of agriculture and the payments to farmers for not growing crops. Get rid of price support for milk.Get rid of food stamps. Let the poore starve.

No more inspection of food. Firms that produce contaminated food will lose customers.

No more controls on testing of drugs. Let the drug manufacturers experiment on the general public.

Get rid of the FBI.

Get rid of Medicaid. Let the poor die off.

Cut Social Security. Encorage the elderly to get a job.

No more FEMA aid after disasters. It is God's will that all the heathens die off.

No more Army Core of Engineers flood control efforts.

Get rid of the Federal Highway Administration. No more aid for highway projects. Business will take up the slack.
I am not advocating elimination of all government services. Your sarcasm is noted however.
 
Maybe the bright side is we will all become """ FEDERALES """"" building/fire inspectors, and be set for life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
What sarcasm?? Do you mean to tell me that the Tea Party and the GOP do not believe what they have been telling us?

We still need tax collectors so we can double the size of the army, increase the sizes of prisons, and subsidize the rich?
 
Seriously . . .

  • Guaranteed Health Care: ban all HMO's and medical insurance. Outlaw the American Medical Association. Change the medical deductions on the 1040 to 100%. Result: People will shop for their medical needs, thereby reducing inflated prices of pharmaceuticals, laboratories, doctors, and hospitals. After all, medical insurance is designed to guarantee that the medical industry be paid, not that people receive adequate treatment.
  • Social Security: Since when?
  • Education: The Government should stay out of it. Government interference only perpetuates existing stupidity.
  • Welfare: Get a job.
  • National Security: Who would be stupid enough to invade the U.S.? And what would they do with us if they won? Would it be any worse than what we have now?
  • Congress: Cut salaries to what these idiots are worth. Minium wage for entry level.
  • Protecting the public from itself: The government has no business interfering in people's lives or protecting us from our own stupidity.
  • Lobbyists and Special Interests: Tax all cash flow at 50%. Tax all religious institutions that engage in politics. (separation of church and state works both ways)
  • Equal Rights: Get over it.
  • Personal Income Tax: Dump it. Flat tax corporations 50% of gross with no deductions
On Reforming the Government



  • Merge the Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, DIA, and ATF. Move them all to a compound in Area 51 and post National Guard or Reservist MP's as sentries.
  • Disband the IRS, lay off all employees and relocate them to their own "retirement" community in Area 51.
Francis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Francis Vineyard said:
Seriously . . .[*]Congress: Cut salaries to what these idiots are worth. Minium{sic} wage for entry level.
I always think it would be interesting to see the results that would occur if you cut back on politician's pay. The reason why you don't have educated professionals taking these jobs is because the private sector pays so much more, so you end up with career politicians who have no idea how the private sector works yet is making laws and regulations for it. You get what you pay for. If you pay the same wage as McDonald's you're going to get the same people and I'd really hate to see the guy who can't even get my burger order right try to run a country...
 
Back
Top