Gas logs

[Papio Bldg Dept]

So, which is the worse offense? Enforcing made up codes or not enforcing hte real ones?

Not sure why one has to be worse than the other, but rather shouldn't you be asking which is worse as an isolated incident of either, or a continued and consistent behaviour?

 

[gbhammer]

GBHammer wrote: "Even if the state had not nixed sprinklers in one and two family dwellings we would not require them for a house that had been moved. The footings and foundations and any other new construction would need to meet the the IRC." Fatboy wrote: "Ditto to GBH, even if we had not amended them out, I would not have required them. JMHO"

So, which is the worse offense? Enforcing made up codes or not enforcing hte real ones?

Sorry but what is the made up code in this. The house just because you moved it is not being altered, so why is a sprinkler required? The only thing altered is the footing foundation and location / soil / seismic.

Now if the seismic classification for the site was more restrictive than where the house had been constructed, we would require an engineer to analyze the structure to see if it needed braced wall panels or any further alterations to make it work at that site. If it exceeded 50% then we would think about a sprinkler if the state let us enforce that code. Have you read chapter 12 of the IEBC it specifically says what is required for a moved structure and sprinkler is not in there. It does say under conformance that you need to meet the requirements of this code if you do work inside, not you must redo the whole house because you picked it up and set it down.

 

[Mac]

From the IRC:

R101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement....... of detached one- and two family.......

I don't see "movement" in the EBC scope.

 

[gbhammer]

From the IRC: R101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement....... of detached one- and two family.......

I don't see "movement" in the EBC scope.

IEBC 309.1 MOVED STRUCTURES

IEBC chapter 12 RELOCATED OR MOVED BUILDINGS

 

[Mac]

Yipes! My New York EBC doesn't have a 309.1 - it stops at 308! Ch.12 is there plain as day. Still, if an application came in to relocate a house, I believe NY State would want the Res Code used, which does not include sprinklers yet. I hear they might be in the next revision...

I realize everybody has somewhat altered codes, as is appropriate to regional needs, and thier own approach. Doesn't mean my way is the only way. I just read the codes and apply the rules.

 

[texasbo]

Not sure why one has to be worse than the other, but rather shouldn't you be asking which is worse as an isolated incident of either, or a continued and consistent behaviour?

Do you mean continued and consistent bad behaviour when your supervisor has specifically told you that you are interpreting it wrong, and you intentionally ignore his direction, or some other kind of continued and consistent behaviour?

 

[brudgers]

it became more of a profession.

The day you retire, it will become even more of one.

 

[texasbo]

The day you retire, it will become even more of one.

Gosh, did I hurt your feelings a little earlier in the thread? So much so that you feel the need, like a little child, to start playing the internet forum equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I"? Surely you can do better than that.

And make no mistake, long after I retire, I'll still be around slapping down idiots like you.

 

[brudgers]

Do you mean continued and consistent bad behaviour when your supervisor has specifically told you that you are interpreting it wrong, and you intentionally ignore his direction, or some other kind of continued and consistent behaviour?

Time to invoke Godwin's law. "Just following orders" isn't an excuse.

However, given your character, I can see why you might demand obedience rather than encourage ethical behavior.

 

[texasbo]

Time to invoke Godwin's law. "Just following orders" isn't an excuse.

However, given your character, I can see why you might demand obedience rather than encourage ethical behavior.

And by ethical behavior, you of course mean making up your own rules, despite what the code says.

A perfect example of why you'll still be dealing with me long after I retire....

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Do you mean continued and consistent bad behaviour when your supervisor has specifically told you that you are interpreting it wrong, and you intentionally ignore his direction, or some other kind of continued and consistent behaviour?

Isn't that what is really being discussed here. It doesn't matter if you are enforcing too much code, or not enough, it is more a discussion of what the ramifications are if you continually and consistently continue that behavior. I don't see the point in polarizing the issue into rights and wrongs, or which is worse, rather why don't we ask ourselves, what happens when this action is continued and consistent. I have seen it move from one AHJ to another, for no other reason than a "that's what everybody else is doing (or not doing)" excuse. Take the conversation somewhere meaningful texas-bo, and turn this into a thread that actually addresses the why, rather than the what. Mac brings up a good point, and a direction that is relative to this thread:

Is too much code enforcement or too little code enforcement worse? I didn't think either was worse than the other, but asked rather if the why and how is worse than the what in this case.

 

[texasbo]

I think that trying to determine what is right and wrong is infinitely more meaningful than taking the lazy way out and hiding behind "I'm covered because I'm consistent". So please don't tell me to take the conversation somewhere meaningful.

Also, please don't tell me that you too, along with a dangerous and irresponsible architect and a megalomaniac inspector, think that you're going to do it your way, simply because you know you can get away with it because you're consistent, whether it's right or wrong, or for God's sake, that you're in a union.

The whole premise of "I want this because of what somebody may do down the road" is reckless and actionable, especially when your supervisor has told you, correctly, to stop. This is no different than requiring an EER window in a media room because you "just know" somebody's going to go to sleep in there some day.

Isn't that what is really being discussed here. It doesn't matter if you are enforcing too much code, or not enough, it is more a discussion of what the ramifications are if you continually and consistently continue that behavior. I don't see the point in polarizing the issue into rights and wrongs, or which is worse, rather why don't we ask ourselves, what happens when this action is continued and consistent. I have seen it move from one AHJ to another, for no other reason than a "that's what everybody else is doing (or not doing)" excuse. Take the conversation somewhere meaningful texas-bo, and turn this into a thread that actually addresses the why, rather than the what. Mac brings up a good point, and a direction that is relative to this thread:Is too much code enforcement or too little code enforcement worse? I didn't think either was worse than the other, but asked rather if the why and how is worse than the what in this case.

 

[brudgers]

A perfect example of why you'll still be dealing with me long after I retire....

The longer I'm dealing with them after you retire, the better.

 

[brudgers]

I think that trying to determine what is right and wrong is infinitely more meaningful than taking the lazy way out and hiding behind "I'm covered because I'm consistent". So please don't tell me to take the conversation somewhere meaningful. Also, please don't tell me that you too, along with a dangerous and irresponsible architect and a megalomaniac inspector, think that you're going to do it your way, simply because you know you can get away with it because you're consistent, whether it's right or wrong, or for God's sake, that you're in a union. The whole premise of "I want this because of what somebody may do down the road" is reckless and actionable, especially when your supervisor has told you, correctly, to stop. This is no different than requiring an EER window in a media room because you "just know" somebody's going to go to sleep in there some day.

Instead, rely on your famous "BO."

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

I think that trying to determine what is right and wrong is infinitely more meaningful than taking the lazy way out and hiding behind "I'm covered because I'm consistent". So please don't tell me to take the conversation somewhere meaningful.

All I asked was instead of only addressing what is right and wrong, address the why and how, which is at the root of the problem. It's like addressing a person's action or behavior in the moment it happened, and never giving any consideration to where it stems from. I gave you window to make a complete point on this subject and in turn you came back and made a cowardly half claim that I, in the least support such behavior, or at the most might actually actively participate. As brudgers said, don't address the end result or the excuses that follow, but address the underlying assumption that has already been purchased.

 

[ICE]

turn this into a thread that actually addresses the why, rather than the what.

Some things just need to be done. A couple of weeks ago I had an inspection that included a 120volt receptacle in a planter that is small with no drainage. I told them to remove it because it is obvious that the planter will flood in a hard rain and the receptacle will be submerged. I posted a picture here. Well there is no code for that and boy did I get the "Who the Hell do you think you are B/S". One guy went so far as to tell me I think I am God. What a bunch of weak sisters you are. Open the lid on your box and recognize that now and then you need to step out in front.

 

[texasbo]

All I asked was instead of only addressing what is right and wrong, address the why and how, which is at the root of the problem. It's like addressing a person's action or behavior in the moment it happened, and never giving any consideration to where it stems from. I gave you window to make a complete point on this subject and in turn you came back and made a cowardly half claim that I, in the least support such behavior, or at the most might actually actively participate. As brudgers said, don't address the end result or the excuses that follow, but address the underlying assumption that has already been purchased.

You're reading what you want to read. I am addressing the "assumption of what has already been purchased", and that is that it's OK to require someone to do something based on your perception of their future actions. I, and many others here reject that.

The second purchase in this perverted market, is that "well, whether it's wrong or not, it's ok because I'm consistent". Sorry, but I want a refund on that one too. I refuse to settle for, "I'm covered by a technicality, whether I'm right or wrong". Brudgers and ICE, with their lack of both values and integrity, are ok with that. I am not.

 

[High Desert]

The way the city attorney explained it to me; if you are consistent, you are protected. Even if you are consistently wrong.

So if you're consistently inept and terrible in performing your job, it's all good?

 

[brudgers]

So if you're consistently inept and terrible in performing your job, it's all good?

You'll have to ask Texbo for a quality of life answer based on experience. As far as legal protection, however, that is my understanding.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

try forgetting ICE and brudgers for a moment, and playing devil's advocate, is there any circumstance or reason where it would be okay to require something based upon your perception of someone's future actions? When we red tag a house for work without a permit and there are only bundles of shingles sitting on the roof, but no work has actually been performed, are we over stepping our bounds (remember I am not comparing this to ICE's example), or should we have tagged them for illegal out-door storage, and then when work starts come back and tag for work without a permit?

...that it's OK to require someone to do something based on your perception of their future actions.

To stay consistently within the boundaries of the code, and adhere to the strictest interpretation or sense of the code is the other end of the spectrum, and yet it is still covered by such technicalities. Your refusal to settle can be admirable, and yet it remains a personal conviction which is not required by the code, and can be overturned by the BO, or SBO, or SOB if there personal conviction does not agree with yours.

...that "well, whether it's wrong or not, it's ok because I'm consistent". Sorry, but I want a refund on that one too. I refuse to settle for, "I'm covered by a technicality, whether I'm right or wrong".

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

So if you're consistently inept and terrible in performing your job, it's all good?

I also believe those are legitimate legal grounds for termination of employment as well...it isn't a perfect system either.

 

[KZQuixote]

...and playing devil's advocate, is there any circumstance or reason where it would be okay to require something based upon your perception of someone's future actions? When we red tag a house for work without a permit and there are only bundles of shingles sitting on the roof, but no work has actually been performed, are we over stepping our bounds (remember I am not comparing this to ICE's example), or should we have tagged them for illegal out-door storage, and then when work starts come back and tag for work without a permit?

I believe a stop order for a stocked roof is over kill. How about a business card with a note asking them to call in? If they do, Great. If they ignore you then a follow up would be required.

Bill

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

I believe a stop order for a stocked roof is over kill. How about a business card with a note asking them to call in? If they do, Great. If they ignore you then a follow up would be required.Bill

Thanks. We tried that...didn't work so well, and hard to document. Our first step is always a soft and fuzzy approach. Even harder to document when we card them on Friday and work is completed by Monday, with a denial from the soon to be ex-home-owner. New home-owner calls the next February complaining about water issues from ice-damning. No ice-protection. Not a perfect system by any means, no guarantees. We could just let them go I suppose, but I bleieve it is a valid tangent to this thread.

 

[tmurray]

I believe a stop order for a stocked roof is over kill. How about a business card with a note asking them to call in? If they do, Great. If they ignore you then a follow up would be required.Bill

we leave a permit application and business card when we see minor work requiring a permit. I was amazed that almost everyone gets a permit after they find that application.