NAHB's Influence on the IRC

[Uncle Bob]

The ICC (International Code Council) would not be where it is today without the deal it made with the NAHB (National Association of Home Builders). The deal gave the NAHB eight (8) guaranteed seats on the IRC Technical committees; four (4) on the IRC Mechanical/Plumbing Code Committee, and four (4) on the IRC Building and Energy Code Committee.

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode%20Committee%20Rosters/roster_IRC-MP.pdf

and,

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode%20Committee%20Rosters/roster_IRC-BE.pdf

In return; the NAHB; with it's powerful financial and political ally the NAR (National Association of Realtors); lobbied State and local governments to adopt the ICC - IRC.

Since then, the NAHB has been able to dilute the IRC with numerous code changes and amendments; in an effort to make the IRC ineffectual; and they are succeeding.

While everyone is concentrating on one big issue; like Residential Fire Sprinklers; the NAHB is pushing through numerous other code changes that weaken the effectiveness of other requirements of the IRC; or eliminate them entirely.

Just one example of this is the addition of the term "affordability" to R101.3 Purpose; added in the 2003 IRC.

The purpose of this thread is not to attack the NAHB; who are protecting the interests of their members; but, to show how the influence of stake-holders is weaking the effectiveness of the codes.

The proposed codes and code changes, should be written by structrual, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical Engineers; and the committees should be comprised of, members who are knowledgeable professionals in that specific area of expertise; and, not stake-holders whose primary objective is financial gain.

If the ICC truely believes that I-Code Certification represents a special knowledge of that particular code; then perhaps only those with that certification should be admitted to the that particular code committee.

The codes that were originally designed to protect the public; have become political tools, that protect and promote the financial interests of stake-holders.

Ya'll have a nice day,

Uncle Bob

 

[RJJ]

Boy BOB! You really want to get me fired up!

 

[conarb]

Well said Uncle Bob:

But we have to go back further to the settlement of the lawsuit made between the code groups and the NFPA giving the fire people dominance in building codes, building codes and fire codes should be separate.

The codes that were originally designed to protect the public; have become political tools, that protect and promote the financial interests of stake-holders.

To that I'd add "... that protect and promote the financial interests of stake-holders, and advance the interests of those groups with various political and social agenda".

I agree, all stakeholders should be removed from the process, the word "affordability" is the refuge of scoundrels wanting to cut corners and should be removed from all codes. The codes should not be used to promote the sale of any products, or as a vehicle to promote religious, political, or social beliefs.

 

[Yankee]

To that I'd add "... that protect and promote the financial interests of stake-holders, and advance the interests of those groups with various political and social agenda".

Sorry, but there is no such thing as someone(s) that have no agenda(s) including every single person on this board.

 

[RJJ]

When the ICC was formed, my feeling was that at long last we will have one code. Finally an end to searching through all the different codes to find answers. Boy I must be as dumb as dirt! Also, my belief was that all the little click's like BOCO would end. I guess I was double dumb on that one! My first real venture, with ICC was Minnesota to see what it was all about. Oh the hearing room was humming with the RFS debate about to come up. The night before was a firemen pep rally! The vote past everyone left and I suppose all important business had been taken care of for that year. The NHAB proceeded to push through the little codes and corrections they could. It was a disgrace the whole hearing. As I sat on the plane, I had a thousand different thoughts and a usual I wrote a letter to ICC. The return was lip service. Others across the country raise the same issues. With no result.

Baltimore was a repeat with pipe fitters voting on code issue to keep a job. The hearing was shut down for fire code violations. Well done ICC. The hearing rooms had to be separate and one almost needed to pack a lunch to get from one to the other. We voted in a new President, but nothing has changed. I left those hearings with the same disappointment. However, unlike the Twin City mess, I was now seasoned and had no expectation for a move in the right direction.

UB: you raise an old question with regard to stake holders? Do you all realize that just about 2/3 of the members of ICC are not even code officials! We have two Board members that are not even employed by a governing body. They have retired! Check the Bylaws.

Here is an issue raise by Gary Schenk from SEA TEC Washington. I had the pleasure to meet Gary and we Sat in on the Baltimore Fire side chat.

From Gary!

"I engaged in another exercise to further prove this point a few months ago. There are two ICC board members that have retired but remain in office. If you read the bylaws, it is quite clear that board members must be designated representatives of a governmental authority, etc. and we questioned how it was that these individuals were still holding their seats. After receiving a letter from the president of ICC which stated that our interpretation was incorrect and that all was on the up and up, we respectfully disagreed and asked that the issue be brought before the whole board for discussion at their next meeting. Every board member was also asked individually to discuss the matter in an open forum and account for what comments that they made.

To make a long story short, the president stated to the rest at their meeting that he had addressed our issues and that was the end of that. There was not a discussion and nobody spoke for this member organization, and I mean nobody. No credence was given to this request from WABO, a member chapter, and not a single reply was sent back to us. But still, we are told that it is our association and our money. Sometimes actions speak louder than words and WABO has several examples of where this has happened."

UB: The stakeholders are only the tip of the iceberg! Soon I will write on ICC and the trickle up effect! Not to hijack your thread,but if you do the math the code official is not represented in ICC. If we start with 2/3 not being code officials and through in a code teacher and a state organization the actual number of code officials on the floor or as members is small. We have been left in the dust. Why? Well it is because we don't have a national organization for code officials. ICC is not ours! The money you pay as a member, services the will of ICC. Don't be fooled! It's time for the Building Official to take off the blinders! Oh ya, we get little card that says member and certs at the cost of 2 to 3 hundred each that say we are cast in stone ICC A number 1. END of rant!

 

[incognito]

The influence of NAHB is at best minimal. They have no votes when it comes to voting for code adoptions. If we, the ones doing the actual voting, are convinced by the arguments they make on a code issue we have no one to blame but ourselves. I am more deeply concerned by the fact that we have turned our organization over to the fire service by giving them voting rights and they have no qualms about buying whatever best suits NFPA and NFSA. We have lost our organization and there does not appear to be any way to gain it back.

 

[Uncle Bob]

The subject of this thread is; NAHB's influence on the IRC .

NAHB's Influence on the IRC

The ICC (International Code Council) would not be where it is today without the deal it made with the NAHB (National Association of Home Builders). The deal gave the NAHB

eight (8)

guaranteed seats

on the IRC Technical committees; four (4) on the IRC Mechanical/Plumbing Code Committee, and four (4) on the IRC Building and Energy Code Committee.



http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode Committee Rosters/roster_IRC-MP.pdfhttp://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode%20Co...ter_IRC-MP.pdf

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode Committee Rosters/roster_IRC-MP.pdfand,



http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode Committee Rosters/roster_IRC-BE.pdfhttp://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode%20Co...ter_IRC-BE.pdf

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ICode%20Committee%20Rosters/roster_IRC-BE.pdf' rel="external nofollow">

In return; the NAHB; with it's powerful financial and political ally the NAR (National Association of Realtors); lobbied State and local governments to adopt the ICC - IRC.



Since then, the NAHB has been able to dilute the IRC with numerous code changes and amendments; in an effort to make the IRC ineffectual; and they are succeeding.



While everyone is concentrating on one big issue; like Residential Fire Sprinklers; the NAHB is pushing through numerous other code changes that weaken the effectiveness of other requirements of the IRC; or eliminate them entirely.



Just one example of this is the addition of the term "affordability" to R101.3 Purpose; added in the 2003 IRC.



The purpose of this thread is not to attack the NAHB; who are protecting the interests of their members; but, to show how the influence of stake-holders is weaking the effectiveness of the codes.



The proposed codes and code changes, should be written by structrual, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical Engineers; and the committees should be comprised of, members who are knowledgeable professionals in that specific area of expertise; a

nd, not stake-holders whose primary objective is financial gain.



If the ICC truely believes that I-Code Certification represents a special knowledge of that particular code; then perhaps only those with that certification should be admitted to the that particular code committee.



The codes that were originally designed to protect the public; have become political tools, that protect and promote the financial interests of stake-holders.



Ya'll have a nice day, :grin:



Uncle Bob

 

[Uncle Bob]

Incognito said;

"The influence of NAHB is at best minimal. They have no votes when it comes to voting for code adoptions."

How many code additions and/or code changes have been voted on; that didn't first go through the code committee.

You vote on what the code committee presents to you.

Doesn't that make the NAHB'S influence significant?

Uncle Bob

 

[RJJ]

UB: I know you are trying to bring the thread back to center and I am sorry I started to Hijack it. The problem does not fall just on the NAHB or and other individual group. I agree that too many seats on a committee by any one group is not in the best interest of the code. The term affordability is a wonderful word plugged in to create the maze for fall back position when face with a more restrictive and cost consuming means of construction. Perhaps a definition is in order for that term. "Just what is affordable?" Who applies this magic to come up with affordability? Is there a graph or chart that allows us to understand this rational? How many members voted on this term was it 40 or 50? Maybe it is a none issue? The latest issue of the IRC has some 200 new pages. Lots of ink and soon to go to a two volume set. Before long inspector will need a hand truck just to pull around the code. 20 some pages just on wall bracing! Do you think Simpson was behind the curtain with fingers crossed? What was NAHB's position on all this. How!!! I will stop now!

 

[Min&Max]

Regardless of NAHBs' position it is up to us to either vote yes or no. Blaming NAHB for our own stupidity is ridiculous.

 

[CowboyRR]

Do you really think that this thread would be allowed on an ICC message forum?

I have no problem with NAHB being on committees in limited numbers. They can bring a good balance to the discussions. The root cause of the problems with the code book lies in the totally messed up code development process as a whole. The process is a shambles - a topic for a different thread.

I agree with RJJ's posts. Current ICC leadership is not in touch with the organization's roots. They have pushed the ICC far away from the basic mission. This is an issue of greed coupled with an elevated sense of self-importance amongst ICC leaders. The second big move that needs to be made - relocate the ICC headquarters out of DC and put it in an "affordable" MidWest location. The ICC has become way too "political" - lobbying on behalf of ICC leaders interests.

 

[north star]

* * *

To all:

There are some good suggestions from CowboyRR [ and others ] regarding

the current position of ICC and some suggested ideas as to what ICC could

do to "right the ship".

I for one, do not believe that ICC WILL "right the ship". They are going

to continue down the dillusional, self serving path they have chosen /

created until they are bankrupt. It's still all about the money and their

self interests [ Side Note: Does anyone remember the Enron,

Worldcom, and other implosions? All together now, ...can we say

"greed!" ]

As interested code officials, realistically, what do you see happening

in the near and long term future? NOT what we want, but what is

going to happen? And not just with ICC! What about some

other type of unified codes for everyone? Is it going to return

to some type of "amended codes per state", ...or "per jurisdiction" in

the future? I think that ICC is just a stepping stone. They

simply cannot continue to sell memberships and code related

literature and expect to survive.

Rant paused...

* * *

 

[RJJ]

I will address the implosion issue under the trickle up effect. There are things we can do and should do. Stake-holders is only one spoke in the wheel. I don't believe we need a new code writing organization. Even with ICC the States adopt what they want. So the bar hasn't been raise much higher then the state level. God forbid, we have the Fed in this cause nothing they do works without 2 czars and 40 thousand clerks.

The question is still out on what does affordability mean?

 

[conarb]

The question is still out on what does affordability mean?

It means "cheap" so you can produce a product and sell it to more people. It also means "disposable", so you can continually sell it to the same people, I'll never forget a speech from a NAHB executive when I was a member in the early 70s, the gist was that we built homes too well, they lasted almost forever, that we should take a page from the auto manufacturers' book and build homes that are disposable so we could continue to sell homes to people. The NAHB has achieved their dream of a disposable home through the Energy and Green Codes.

 

[Uncle Bob]

RJJ,

The backbone of the NAHB's goals is "affordability". From the NAHB website (which they are cutting me off of more and more areas that I can access without being a member);

Building Codes

• Support a single coordinated set of national model building codes for jurisdictions choosing to adopt a building code that provides for:
  
  ​
  
  
  
  Responsible code development procedures as reflected by the current procedures of the International Code Council.
  
  ​
  
  
• Appropriate levels of voting representation by NAHB nominees on code development committees.
  
  ​
  
  
• A user-friendly, stand-alone residential building code that includes housing affordability as a major determinant in its development, as currently represented by the International Residential Code.
  
  ​
  
  

[*]

Continue to support the adoption of state-enabling legislation that:

​

[*]

• Calls for the creation of state-wide codes based on a coordinated set of national model building codes developed in accordance with the criteria stated above.
  
  ​
  
  
• Allows state-wide amendments to the model codes to account for jurisdictional differences or to enhance housing affordability by providing cost-effective requirements to provide for the health and safety of the occupants of homes.
  
  ​
  
  
• Creates statewide minimum-maximum code requirements by recommending that there be no local amendments, which make the code more restrictive or housing less affordable.
  
  ​
  
  

[*]

Continue to oppose any building code or building code provision that is detrimental to the goal of providing decent, safe, and affordable housing and that does not include jurisdictional flexibility.

​

[*]

Ask HUD to withhold federal grants and loans to those states that use building codes that exceed the national model building codes and to apply the same restriction to any other stand-alone law that deals with a building code.

​

Affordability to the NAHB is the builder's cost of construction; not affordable homes.

​

Uncle Bob

​

 

[RJJ]

So how do we find this magic affordable home and who decides what code should be applied? We all know that the I codes are a minimum over all. I suppose there is no rational to what is affordable!

 

[CowboyRR]

I will address the implosion issue under the trickle up effect. There are things we can do and should do. Stake-holders is only one spoke in the wheel. I don't believe we need a new code writing organization. Even with ICC the States adopt what they want. So the bar hasn't been raise much higher then the state level. God forbid, we have the Fed in this cause nothing they do works without 2 czars and 40 thousand clerks.The question is still out on what does affordability mean?

"Affordability" is what the market will pay for a home within a given set of specifications - and it varies by location. What makes you think that the ICC CEO isn't already pushing the org. toward a Federal regime with his eye on being that czar? I think it is more likely than you might imagine.

 

[mtlogcabin]

So how do we find this magic affordable home

Limit the contractors profit to a maximum 10%, and limit the size of the home to 1400 sq ft maximum with no garages and that is an "affordable" home.

Don't count the lot price when determining affordability as the owner can always choose a cheaper lot it just might not be the neighborhood where he wants to live

 

[RJJ]

MT: What happened to capitalism? 10% ?

CowboyRR: I believe the Cash Cow is on the Train and ready to hand over the Keys to the kingdom for the right price.

This is why I raise the questions? The HAHB has and will be a problem, but as I state before they are only one piece of the puzzle.

We code enforcement, BO, fire guys and gals are even on the chess board.

 

[Uncle Bob]

RJJ,

"We code enforcement, BO, fire guys and gals are even on the chess board. "

That, I can help you with; they are called "Pawns"; the most expendable pieces on the board.

Uncle Bob

 

[ewenme]

Affordable is the difference between granite and formica; it's the difference between plush and bare-bones; it's the difference between usability and show. Affordable doesn't have to be 'throw away' any more than an over-priced home. Ever notice that many a 'trailer court' was built in the flood plain? Ever wonder why? It was cheap, and the insurance was paid by the inhabitants, not the court owner. In a flood, the 'affordable homes' are washed away to make room for the newer ones.

The problems arise from the facts that people: no longer believe in sweat-equity; no longer have the skills in trades; no longer have a desire to learn; and no longer think that they need to live within their means. Codes started out to save lives, addressing fire and life-safety issues which was a good thing. Now codes are about other things, like which kind of fasteners to use, how to brace a wall to survive level 7 earthquake, how to include many products not known a few short years ago. A house can still be built under the older codes and be quite a nice place to live. The codes are the new way to 'take care of people who are too stupid to think and act for themselves.' The word quality has taken on new meaning: I can get a three bedroom three bath home on a 12,000 sq ft lot for $XXXXXXXX. Quality should be: I bought a house in 2010 and expect to live there into my old age and pass it on to my grandchildren.

OK, I'll get off the soapbox. The NAHB is made up of people just like us: they are doing a job and trying to get ahead. It's too bad that all the trades organizations don't get together in an effort to bring quality up across the board. A house is not just carpentry, or wiring, or plumbing, or HVAC: it's all them with the crowning touch of quality of workmanship and pride. Affordable can have that too. It just takes skill.

 

[mtlogcabin]

RJJ

MT: What happened to capitalism? 10% ?

Nothing happened to it I was just wondering how many of their members would agree to it to advance their call for "affordable" housing

The other limit is realtors with exclusive listings

They get a 6% fee on the sale of the raw land

Another 6% on the sale of the lot to the builder

and another 6% on the sale of the final home

$70,000 lot = $4,200

$230,000 home = $13,800

Total $18,000 or 22% of the cost of the home

Most of the time around here the realtor is the developer and maybe even the contractor on a small subdivison (50 lots or less).

UB

Sorry about the rant but you did mention the NAHB and Realtors being in bed together and it got me thinking

 

[RJJ]

UB: I did not proof the post. I should have said are not! SO WE AIN'T EVEN PAWNS!

Now we are getting someplace. It seems that afforable is starting to take shape or is it!

 

[incognito]

Ewenme is on the right track. Stainless steel sink, no dishwasher but a place for one in the future, no finished basement(screw the energy code), small two stall garage(20 x 20), vinyl windows and siding, one full bathroom with rough-in for additional in basement, 2-3 bedrooms and any interior color you want as long as its white. Lot size 70 x 120. Home sq.ft.--1000 to 1200. And no sprinkler system on the property---lawn or fire.