Builder Bob
SAWHORSE
tmurray said:
-
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???
- Thread starter cda
- Start date
Francis Vineyard
REGISTERED
Au contraire tmurray, better benefits is what was attractive when I took a government job after 25 years on commission.
You don't have people running for office because of the media bias.
While millions of Americans saw their incomes decrease, their job opportunities dissipate and their home values drop as the economy dipped, the 535 men and women they elected to represent them in the U.S. Congress were not only shielded from the economic downturn but gained during it.
The average American’s net worth has dropped 8 percent during the past six years, while members of Congress got, on average, 15 percent richer, according to a New York Times analysis of financial disclosure. The median net worth of members of Congress is about $913,000, compared with about $100,000 for the country at large, the Times’ analysis found.
This wealth disparity between lawmakers and the people they represent seems to be continually growing. Nearly half of Congress — 249 members — are millionaires, while only 5 percent of American households can make the same claim.
Even among the super rich, members of Congress fare better than other wealthy Americans. While the net worth of the richest 10 percent of Americans has remained stagnant since 2004, lawmakers’ net worth has seen double-digit growth, the Times reports.
Members of the House have fared especially well. From 1984 to 2009, the average net worth of the 435 House reps more than doubled, from $280,000 to $725,000, not including home equity, according to a Washington Post analysis of financial disclosures.
And while lawmakers in the “people’s house” grew significantly richer, the people they represent became slightly poorer, with the average wealth of an American household dropping from $20,600 to $20,500 over the same time period, the Post reports.
This growing disparity may be due, in part, to the rising cost of campaigning, which may deter less-affluent citizens from seeking public office.
To win a House seat, candidates spent an average of $1.4 million in 2010, four times as much as was spent in 1976, according to the Federal Election Commission. Winning a Senate seat is nearly 10 times as expensive, with the average successful Senate campaign shelling out nearly $10 million in 2010.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/as-americans-get-poorer-members-of-congress-get-richer/
Francis
You don't have people running for office because of the media bias.
While millions of Americans saw their incomes decrease, their job opportunities dissipate and their home values drop as the economy dipped, the 535 men and women they elected to represent them in the U.S. Congress were not only shielded from the economic downturn but gained during it.
The average American’s net worth has dropped 8 percent during the past six years, while members of Congress got, on average, 15 percent richer, according to a New York Times analysis of financial disclosure. The median net worth of members of Congress is about $913,000, compared with about $100,000 for the country at large, the Times’ analysis found.
This wealth disparity between lawmakers and the people they represent seems to be continually growing. Nearly half of Congress — 249 members — are millionaires, while only 5 percent of American households can make the same claim.
Even among the super rich, members of Congress fare better than other wealthy Americans. While the net worth of the richest 10 percent of Americans has remained stagnant since 2004, lawmakers’ net worth has seen double-digit growth, the Times reports.
Members of the House have fared especially well. From 1984 to 2009, the average net worth of the 435 House reps more than doubled, from $280,000 to $725,000, not including home equity, according to a Washington Post analysis of financial disclosures.
And while lawmakers in the “people’s house” grew significantly richer, the people they represent became slightly poorer, with the average wealth of an American household dropping from $20,600 to $20,500 over the same time period, the Post reports.
This growing disparity may be due, in part, to the rising cost of campaigning, which may deter less-affluent citizens from seeking public office.
To win a House seat, candidates spent an average of $1.4 million in 2010, four times as much as was spent in 1976, according to the Federal Election Commission. Winning a Senate seat is nearly 10 times as expensive, with the average successful Senate campaign shelling out nearly $10 million in 2010.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/as-americans-get-poorer-members-of-congress-get-richer/
Francis
Keystone
SAWHORSE
Charley Reese's final column
A very interesting column.. Be sure to Read the Poem at the end.
Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel...He has been a journalist for 49 years.
He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.
Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.
This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!
545 vs. 300,000,000 People -By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it... is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ***.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!
A very interesting column.. Be sure to Read the Poem at the end.
Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel...He has been a journalist for 49 years.
He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.
Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.
This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!
545 vs. 300,000,000 People -By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it... is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ***.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!
Francis Vineyard
REGISTERED
Yup, taxing our way to prosperity
Francis
Francis
steveray
SAWHORSE
No building permit tax here.....we gave the town back at least as much as we spent...(1/2 of what we took in)
tmurray
SAWHORSE
That's kind of what I'm talking about. If that job had a low wage (assuming benefits included in wage) you would not have applied for the position. You current employer would have ended up with someone who has no experience and likely little to no education. Lets look at the net value of 725,000$. In the private sector someone with the same level of responsibility would make that as an annual salary, so why would they consider taking that much of a pay cut? The only reason would be because they wanted to "give something back" or "contribute to society". Maybe I'm just too jaded, but these people are too few and far between to rely on them.Francis Vineyard said:
tmurray
SAWHORSE
Here it is actually illegal for fees to contribute to the general fund because of the definitions of tax and fee. Basically all fees must be used in the department that they were collected by.steveray said:
pwood
REGISTERED
mark k covered some of the basics. I am glad that I can drive to work on a interstate highway every day. I had two horses but they didn't care for the 100 mile commute every day. I like knowing that the country is safe from the nut job, religious wackos of the world thanks to those in uniforms. social security, medicare, and soon national healthcare for all are good things. Have you ever needed life threatening surgery but were too poor to afford surgery? Trust me, it is a bietch! sure the system has flaws but if you think it is that bad move yourself to loredo,mexico or syria,or afghanistan and whine about their shortcomings to their leaders. You will have a lot of raw material.righter101 said:
The federal gov. is not alone in low performance status. Look how well private industry is doing! we're not perfect, but there is no place i'd rather be than here.
Francis Vineyard
REGISTERED
I'm generally not a good example to reference since I'm with little or no experience - 3 yrs. home inspections on the side. No related formal education when hired; Associate Automotive Technology. I did a better job at selling myself.tmurray said:
I Think an issue in this discussion is not responsibility but accountability and the Feds have built themselves a wall of immunity whereas the private sector would be prosecuted for the same kind of performance or financially ruined by media misinformation.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2012-04FedBenefitsWP_0.pdf
Francis
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
All US congressmen and senators are elected by the residents of their state. Therefore they should be considered state employees and their wages and benefits would be set by their individual states.
Might be a small reminder of who they work for and who they are suppose to represent.
Might be a small reminder of who they work for and who they are suppose to represent.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
I have to completely agree with this statement. The issue with a representative democracy is that the general populace isn't intelligent enough to use it to their advantage. People line up to put themselves in the "Liberal" or "Conservative" boxes while most of the populations are moderates. Members of political parties will never serve their constituents because their members exist to further the goal of the party as a whole.Francis Vineyard said:
As for the posted stats on earnings based on education level; I'm certainly not an advocate of paying someone based on their level of education, but the duties as it relates to their job function...Let's be honest, there are people who didn't even finish college running some extremely profitable companies.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Funy thing about the states with the least amount of collage graduates in elected positions they all have a balanced budget or a surplus
http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/states-see-budget-surpluses
About one in four of the nearly 7,400 elected representatives across the country do not possess a four-year college degree, according to a report released Sunday evening by The Chronicle of Higher Education in Washington. That compares with 6 percent of members of Congress, and 72 percent of adults nationwide, said the report, which is based primarily on the officials’ self-reported biographical information. Arkansas has the least formally educated Statehouse, with 25 percent of its 135 legislators not having any college experience at all, compared with 8.7 percent of lawmakers nationwide. It was followed by state legislatures in Montana (20 percent), Kansas (16 percent), South Dakota (16 percent) and Arizona (16 percent).
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/education/13legis.html
Your degree may help you get a job but your pay and continued employment should be based on you doing your the job you where hired to do.
The only job a politician does consistantly and to the best of his or her abilities is work towards getting re-elected.
http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/states-see-budget-surpluses
About one in four of the nearly 7,400 elected representatives across the country do not possess a four-year college degree, according to a report released Sunday evening by The Chronicle of Higher Education in Washington. That compares with 6 percent of members of Congress, and 72 percent of adults nationwide, said the report, which is based primarily on the officials’ self-reported biographical information. Arkansas has the least formally educated Statehouse, with 25 percent of its 135 legislators not having any college experience at all, compared with 8.7 percent of lawmakers nationwide. It was followed by state legislatures in Montana (20 percent), Kansas (16 percent), South Dakota (16 percent) and Arizona (16 percent).
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/education/13legis.html
Your degree may help you get a job but your pay and continued employment should be based on you doing your the job you where hired to do.
The only job a politician does consistantly and to the best of his or her abilities is work towards getting re-elected.
steveray
SAWHORSE
I wish!.....I know it gets gray here but that is the way I believe most of this state runs......
tmurray said:
Alias
REGISTERED
None here either. City pays at least 50% of my expenses from the General Fund. For my department to be self-supporting, I'd need two things:steveray said:
1. To raise the permit fees at least 50%, and
2. A building surge
Sue
GBrackins
REGISTERED
I'm all for a uniform building code that is administered and enforced fairly and equally based upon the needs and safeguards of the citizens of that particular state. Because of my occupation I've always lived in states with a uniform building code since the 70's.
What I am against is the Feds using our tax dollars as an incentive for change. If people have a disaster they should help equally, not say "oh well you don't have a building code so you get 4% less, better come around to OUR way of thinking." The Feds are excellent at "getting" people to think their way by dangling a carrot out for them to try and get a nibble."
If people are happy paying higher insurance premiums or not being able to get insurance, and having less government control on their lives I'm all for that. After all that is what this country was founded on, I thought ....
What I am against is the Feds using our tax dollars as an incentive for change. If people have a disaster they should help equally, not say "oh well you don't have a building code so you get 4% less, better come around to OUR way of thinking." The Feds are excellent at "getting" people to think their way by dangling a carrot out for them to try and get a nibble."
If people are happy paying higher insurance premiums or not being able to get insurance, and having less government control on their lives I'm all for that. After all that is what this country was founded on, I thought ....
According to the no incentive for change logic when the Misissippi River floods the feds should pay on the the floor insurance policy to rebuild the house that was washed away at least two times before.
I believe that the proposed incentives are a way to reduce the longterm costs of disaster aid.
Having less government sounds fine but the more people you get in a concentrated area the more government you need. If you want little government then move to Alaska or Northern Canada where there is nobody around. Interesting California has a statute that effectively says that if you have an isolated residence in a remote rural location that they are not going to hassel you for most building code requirements.
On the other hand the more people who move to Alaska the more government they will need.
I believe that the proposed incentives are a way to reduce the longterm costs of disaster aid.
Having less government sounds fine but the more people you get in a concentrated area the more government you need. If you want little government then move to Alaska or Northern Canada where there is nobody around. Interesting California has a statute that effectively says that if you have an isolated residence in a remote rural location that they are not going to hassel you for most building code requirements.
On the other hand the more people who move to Alaska the more government they will need.
GBrackins
REGISTERED
actually my understanding is FEMA will pay out, and then tell you you'll have to rebuild to the current standards or you won't be covered .... FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program is not aid, its an insurance policy that you pay for
GBrackins
REGISTERED
I understand what you are saying Mark, something needs to be done to entice states without a building code to adopt one. insurance companies can increase rates, or refuse to cover as in the example of FEMA National Flood Insurance Program. But we are talking about people (who pay taxes) after a disaster being told that because their state does not have a building code you're worth 4% less .... leaves a sour taste in my mouth
my understanding in Massachusetts is that the insurance industry put pressure on the Commonwealth to adopt the Icodes a few years back. Prior to that Massachusetts wrote and published their own Uniform Building Code that could not be modified by communities. Now we have the ICodes with amendments. insurance companies have the power to make requirements for people to be insured .....
my understanding in Massachusetts is that the insurance industry put pressure on the Commonwealth to adopt the Icodes a few years back. Prior to that Massachusetts wrote and published their own Uniform Building Code that could not be modified by communities. Now we have the ICodes with amendments. insurance companies have the power to make requirements for people to be insured .....
Last edited by a moderator:
Alias
REGISTERED
You are correct Gary. And anyone can purchase flood insurance if they so desire, or earthquake insurance for that matter.GBrackins said:
We had FEMA remap our area a couple of years ago and they reclassified the south of town as Zone A.
I had someone put a manufactured home in prior to the official maps taking effect and they were warned of the rezoning. Earlier this year they tried to come back on the city because we 'allowed' them to build there. Couldn't do it because we had warned them in writing of the FEMA remap.
Sue