jar546
Forum Coordinator
How about the definition of Detractor
-
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
Failed Footer Inspection, Not allowed to pour then found this
- Thread starter jar546
- Start date
rshuey
Registered User
You sound like half the cracker jack box engineers I know. Their daddy started the business years ago, and now sonny boy uses daddy's stamp. LOLGHRoberts said:
rshuey
Registered User
That was not to be disrespectful, btw.
Thanks to all here for an entertaining thread, and I don't mean the video. (I have little patience for most Utubeism)
I actually don't think Jeff is asking us how he should proceed, but did think we would enjoy a vignette from his corner of the inspectors' woods.
As far as my opinion, it is case by case, job by job, builder by builder etc. So many diffs, so many stiffs, so many miffs.
I actually don't think Jeff is asking us how he should proceed, but did think we would enjoy a vignette from his corner of the inspectors' woods.
As far as my opinion, it is case by case, job by job, builder by builder etc. So many diffs, so many stiffs, so many miffs.
Yankee
Registered User
FWIW, we also need to act as babysitters. If an inspection fails we gotta be there with a "teaching moment" and a follow up. Otherwise, this is the result (happens to all of us I wager) and UB is right, then it is a question of, "is this the hill you want to die on"?
TimNY
Platinum Member
I have spent a fair amount of time in Court. If not before the Judge, then waiting for my cases to be called.
It would seem to me that the people who cry, "lawsuit" the most are those that have never seen the inside of a courthouse. None of the statements make any sense.
I would also say that using the expense of litigation as a tool to win a case is the act of a desperate person. Municipalities are likely insured for such litigation. The insurance company hires a firm commonly engaged in defending against these types of things. If they feel it is cheaper to settle than to litigate, they will settle. It does not make you right. On the other hand, I have yet to see them settle anything.
Expert testimony grows on trees. For every "expert" that testifies the sky is blue, there is another one that will testify it is orange.
A loss in court does not mean a loss of your job either. I missed the section of law where the Judge orders the termination of an employee.
peach had it right!
It would seem to me that the people who cry, "lawsuit" the most are those that have never seen the inside of a courthouse. None of the statements make any sense.
I would also say that using the expense of litigation as a tool to win a case is the act of a desperate person. Municipalities are likely insured for such litigation. The insurance company hires a firm commonly engaged in defending against these types of things. If they feel it is cheaper to settle than to litigate, they will settle. It does not make you right. On the other hand, I have yet to see them settle anything.
Expert testimony grows on trees. For every "expert" that testifies the sky is blue, there is another one that will testify it is orange.
A loss in court does not mean a loss of your job either. I missed the section of law where the Judge orders the termination of an employee.
peach had it right!
jar546
Forum Coordinator
I am not actually asking how to proceed. That was determined while I was at the jobsite. This is something that I wanted to share to see how others would handle the same situation.
In this case, the jobsite has a Stop Work Order issued under the PA-UCC. We are still awaiting a response so we know where to take it from here. Next stop a citation and a magistrate's hearing.
In this case, the jobsite has a Stop Work Order issued under the PA-UCC. We are still awaiting a response so we know where to take it from here. Next stop a citation and a magistrate's hearing.
The jurisdiction is not practicing engineering without a license. The building code and or the permit documents requires the reinforcing. The regulations require the building official to perform the inspection and prohibit the construction to proceed without the inspection. The building official can only be forced to issue a certificate of occupancy when the code has been complied with. If the permit has not been complied with the default position is to deny a certificate of occupancy.
What I totally do not understand is why an engineer would take it upon himself to bring action against the building department in such a case. This does not make sense professionally nor economically. I would expect such activities from project owner and possibly the contractor but not the engineer.
Ultimately a consultant to the contractor has very little to say about what gets done. The contractor will quickly decide that it is cheaper to conform to the permit documents. In fact a consultant that causes problems for his clients, like I expect such threatened behavior to do, will not have any clients.
If I understand the logic put forward by GHRoberts it is irrelevant what was actually built because he trusts his clients and in any case it is a non issue in spite of what the building code says. I think that the jurisdictions attorney will have fun with that logic. It may also put the engineer making such a statement at risk for losing his license.
The threat of litigation made on this forum if traced back to the person making it could be used against the person making that threat.
The reality is that an engineer with a different attitude could solve the problem much cheaper. Attorney fees are typically more expensive than addressing the legitimate concerns of the building official.
What I totally do not understand is why an engineer would take it upon himself to bring action against the building department in such a case. This does not make sense professionally nor economically. I would expect such activities from project owner and possibly the contractor but not the engineer.
Ultimately a consultant to the contractor has very little to say about what gets done. The contractor will quickly decide that it is cheaper to conform to the permit documents. In fact a consultant that causes problems for his clients, like I expect such threatened behavior to do, will not have any clients.
If I understand the logic put forward by GHRoberts it is irrelevant what was actually built because he trusts his clients and in any case it is a non issue in spite of what the building code says. I think that the jurisdictions attorney will have fun with that logic. It may also put the engineer making such a statement at risk for losing his license.
The threat of litigation made on this forum if traced back to the person making it could be used against the person making that threat.
The reality is that an engineer with a different attitude could solve the problem much cheaper. Attorney fees are typically more expensive than addressing the legitimate concerns of the building official.
beach
Gold Member
That's not all you said.....
jar546
Forum Coordinator
Guys, remember that GHRoberts more than likely does not have a current P.E. license or may have never had one. George like to detract and stir the pot and we have to take that into consideration when posting. In essence, you are battling someone who quite possibly may not even be qualified to understand a floor plan. So don't get your panties in a bunch. Just my personal thoughts and opinions. 
If you read what I said, it includes "the exact details would depend on the specific details of the situation."beach said:
---
I guess you object to me asking my legislator and the Attorney General for help in getting AHJs and inspectors out of "practicing" engineering. They can chose the venue they wish - prosecution or law change.
Architect1281
Gold Member
Jar agree or disagree its not personal its the code !
I am now an inspector for state owned and consrtructed projects and have the finance department to back us up and they do
so its right or its unpaid for.
In previous carear as an agent for financial institutions certifying payment and construction I had issues similar to yours.
Contractor Owner Developer for lease property, wants payment for structure shell and roof membrane. (ballasted)
Roof membrane looks like a wave between what is more like drainage stone rather than smooth river wased stone so I reject payment for roof
bank reduces payment to reflect my report.
Ballistically inclined contractor (owner) calls my boss wants my *** on line.
I ask owner contractor if he has seen the construction he submitted for payment. (of course not )
I tell him to look and if thats the kind of work hes willing to put his name on I'll change my report.
Contractor later apologizes to me and boss with a thank-you
It's not just municipal inspectors who are bullies don't ya know
I am now an inspector for state owned and consrtructed projects and have the finance department to back us up and they do
so its right or its unpaid for.
In previous carear as an agent for financial institutions certifying payment and construction I had issues similar to yours.
Contractor Owner Developer for lease property, wants payment for structure shell and roof membrane. (ballasted)
Roof membrane looks like a wave between what is more like drainage stone rather than smooth river wased stone so I reject payment for roof
bank reduces payment to reflect my report.
Ballistically inclined contractor (owner) calls my boss wants my *** on line.
I ask owner contractor if he has seen the construction he submitted for payment. (of course not )
I tell him to look and if thats the kind of work hes willing to put his name on I'll change my report.
Contractor later apologizes to me and boss with a thank-you
It's not just municipal inspectors who are bullies don't ya know
I try very hard to stay out of contractor/inspector fights.
I have been drawn into this one by "inspectors" asking if an "engineer" would write a letter approving of the construction.
I would never write a letter or draw plans where a AHJ who claims he is "not practicing engineering" has final say in if the letter or plans are acceptable.
If the AHJ wants a letter from me, his office can pay me for my letter. I would only write a letter if the letter was legally binding on the AHJ's office.
My rates for people I like are $200/hr. For people I don't like $400/hour. And for court appearances $1000/hr. I prefer to not work for people I don't like. I really hate going to court, but when I do I bring a bunch of professionals who independently agree with my conclusions.
I have been drawn into this one by "inspectors" asking if an "engineer" would write a letter approving of the construction.
I would never write a letter or draw plans where a AHJ who claims he is "not practicing engineering" has final say in if the letter or plans are acceptable.
If the AHJ wants a letter from me, his office can pay me for my letter. I would only write a letter if the letter was legally binding on the AHJ's office.
My rates for people I like are $200/hr. For people I don't like $400/hour. And for court appearances $1000/hr. I prefer to not work for people I don't like. I really hate going to court, but when I do I bring a bunch of professionals who independently agree with my conclusions.
jar546
Forum Coordinator
No, I am a fact finder. A search of just about every state in the union that has PE licensing verification online is coming up empty with your name. The only names that match yours are the ones that have been inactive. Call it personal but don't represent yourself as something you may not be. That is misleading.GHRoberts said:
If a moderator feels I am out of line, they can moderate me.
rshuey
Registered User
Haha/ That made my day. Thanks jar! Happy Thanksgiving.
George,
I almost always do not agree with you; but, I am so glad you are here. You provide balance to many threads. Keep up the good work. If Jeff was a bully; both of us would most likely not be able to post here.
Hope you are well,
Uncle Bob
I almost always do not agree with you; but, I am so glad you are here. You provide balance to many threads. Keep up the good work. If Jeff was a bully; both of us would most likely not be able to post here.
Hope you are well,
Uncle Bob
Sandman
Bronze Member
I believe what Uncle Bob and GHRoberts are trying to say here is that the days of the Govt (federal, state or local) forcing compliance with rules and regulations interpreted and enforced by people who may or may not have the necessary education, training or experience to make these decisions are quickly coming to an end. Some moderation and intelligent compromise is the new philosophy. This is not to be interpreted as "lacking integrity" or ignoring the law. It is a matter of deliberate and thoughtful discretion. What is the worse that could happen to the building discussed in this thread? Probably nothing. This building will more than likely out live us and our children. What does the Govt or homeowner gain by demanding the builder to tear out and re-work this foundation? Probably nothing. Recently I moved from a 140 mph hurricane region where we strictly enforced the applicable codes (a lesson from Katrina) to the mountains of Colorado where there are no building codes. Some of the building practices I see here are almost obscene, yet, the buildings prove to be sufficiently durable, habitable, and most importantly in this very poor county in a recession, affordable. Will the next hurricane destroy the units I helped build despite the strict code compliance? Maybe, maybe not. Will these non compliant houses I see in my new home state endure? Probably. Thoughful discretion, Code Warriors, thoughtful discretion.
There is a move towards requiring higher qualifications for building officials. California has realized that some aspects of building enforcement involves the practice of engineering and has required that future holders of these positions be registered design professionals. But the qualifications of the building official is not the problem with the building under discussion.
What apparently is being proposed is that the building official should pass the work that was constructed in violation of the requirements that it be inspected. This is problematic for several reasons. First and foremost is that if there is not consistent compliance with the regulations, code enforcement will be a hollow shell. Second the building official’s job is to enforce the code and not to design buildings or evaluate defects and design fixes.
If you are concerned about government interference you do not want the building department trying to design your house.
It is easy for some third party to say that the building will perform adequately if nothing is done to resolve the problem but they do not have to live with the consequences. While there are no guarantees, strict enforcement does greatly improve building performance. While there are many questionable buildings that last for a long time there are also many of these buildings that do have problems. I would hope that discretion is not a code word for letting obvious defects pass.
For this particular building I believe that the responsible approach needs to be pragmatic and needs to involve due diligence. By pragmatic I mean that the Contractor needs to recognize that he screwed up and look at the quickest and cheapest way to satisfy the building department. Delays cost money and create an unhappy Owner. Before spending a lot of effort resisting doing anything ask at what point is it cheaper to tear out the offending work and do it right. I have seen projects where this would have been a lot cheaper.
I am assuming that the Owner did not have an engineer design the building.
If the Contractor wants to save the existing work he should hire an engineer and develop a strategy to resolve the concerns or develop a fix if necessary. This could involve some simple calculations to verify that the performance will not be impacted if the building does not comply. The plan may also involve some testing to provide evidence of what was constructed. Modern tools such as ground penetrating radar can provide evidence of what was constructed. Some local demolition can be effective also.
Based on the results of the investigation develop a solution that resolves the problem, satisfies the building officials concerns, and ensures that the owner will not have problems. Given evidence of what was actually constructed and the recommendations of an engineer the building official will typically be happy to sign off on any reasonable solution.
On the other hand the Contractor can delay and complain while he loses money due to the delays, runs the risk of litigation by the Owner, and ends up hoping that there are no future problems due to a lack of compliance. This is the difference between a sophisticated contractor and somebody who doesn’t know what they are doing.
What apparently is being proposed is that the building official should pass the work that was constructed in violation of the requirements that it be inspected. This is problematic for several reasons. First and foremost is that if there is not consistent compliance with the regulations, code enforcement will be a hollow shell. Second the building official’s job is to enforce the code and not to design buildings or evaluate defects and design fixes.
If you are concerned about government interference you do not want the building department trying to design your house.
It is easy for some third party to say that the building will perform adequately if nothing is done to resolve the problem but they do not have to live with the consequences. While there are no guarantees, strict enforcement does greatly improve building performance. While there are many questionable buildings that last for a long time there are also many of these buildings that do have problems. I would hope that discretion is not a code word for letting obvious defects pass.
For this particular building I believe that the responsible approach needs to be pragmatic and needs to involve due diligence. By pragmatic I mean that the Contractor needs to recognize that he screwed up and look at the quickest and cheapest way to satisfy the building department. Delays cost money and create an unhappy Owner. Before spending a lot of effort resisting doing anything ask at what point is it cheaper to tear out the offending work and do it right. I have seen projects where this would have been a lot cheaper.
I am assuming that the Owner did not have an engineer design the building.
If the Contractor wants to save the existing work he should hire an engineer and develop a strategy to resolve the concerns or develop a fix if necessary. This could involve some simple calculations to verify that the performance will not be impacted if the building does not comply. The plan may also involve some testing to provide evidence of what was constructed. Modern tools such as ground penetrating radar can provide evidence of what was constructed. Some local demolition can be effective also.
Based on the results of the investigation develop a solution that resolves the problem, satisfies the building officials concerns, and ensures that the owner will not have problems. Given evidence of what was actually constructed and the recommendations of an engineer the building official will typically be happy to sign off on any reasonable solution.
On the other hand the Contractor can delay and complain while he loses money due to the delays, runs the risk of litigation by the Owner, and ends up hoping that there are no future problems due to a lack of compliance. This is the difference between a sophisticated contractor and somebody who doesn’t know what they are doing.
righter101
Gold Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 604
3rd option
GH you give 2 options for the AG "prosecution or law change". There is a 3rd option, and that is to review and dismiss your complaint as being without merit.....GHRoberts said: