• 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

NAHB's Influence on the IRC

Why do we need "affordable housing"? We have an oversupply of housing caused by the government propping up prices by tax benefits and guaranteeing/subsidizing mortgages.

I follow an appraisers forum on a daily basis, in addressing the oversupply of houses a guy came up with an idea to create the economic benefits of war without killing people by destroying part of the housing stock in this country, I don't agree with this, but throw it out for food for thought.

\ said:
IMO, much of deflation is that people don't WANT to buy, over and above that the income levels are not high enough to sustain prices. Why buy a new home if you think it's going to lose value? Buying a new car? Wait or buy a used one. Don't buy that new couch or bed. Get multiple bids for any work and watch the bids drop, with the contractors knowing that price is a major issue now, and can/will put off the work if it's too much, subjectively.
Click to expand...
\ said:
Deflation the result of Too much supply.Think of WWII - how much in goods did we ship 3,000 / 5,000 / 10,000 miles,

and then deliberately destroy, or use to destroy other goods and people.

The war created shortages -- meat, grease, steel, leather, sugar, rubber, etc., etc.

.... not to mention a shortage of manpower - women went to work for the war machine, many for the 1st time.

Maybe this time we could just destroy 15-25% of all non-inner-city houses, and say 80% of cars over 10 years old - not declared antique by owners. ((If declared antique, can only drive between 10am and 3pm))

.. instead if going to war??¹
Click to expand...
Are they nuts?

¹ http://appraisersforum.com/showthread.php?p=2027854#post2027854
 
Some really great posts! Here are a few things from the NAR's sine we have them in the mix.

from the 3rd quarter of 09 affordable housing: 178k Income level for a house hold 61,324.00

2nd quarter 2010 177K ..................................... 60.498.00

From a purely economic sense affordability is nothing more then the cost relative to the amount that the purchaser is able to pay.

So how does this term have anything to do with building codes? Why should it be considered? Is it purely a fall back to you are costing me to much. IS that a real argument to be considered?
 
When the ability of the populus to purchase housing is decreased, then the cost of housing also must decrease. Affordability.

Wages are decreasing, which is part of the overall economic stymulus plan (to stymie). The NAHB has always focused on the difference between cost and profit. Anything that deters the profit margin is bad. But that is the business of builders is to make profit. NAHB is not an advocate of government housing.

The NAHB has a financial stake in the ICC. There is a direct link between the ICC and profit.

Code Officials do not have a direct link between the ICC and financial well being. AND I mean ALL Code Officials.

We have gone through many years of Code Officials attacking each other over who is most interested in the safety of the public. So for every time a Code Official says that one group is in bed with some outside organization with a profit motive, there is another opportunity for a like kind response.

So, UB is right to be concerned about the NAHB. I have personnally watched the NAHB get more than one Fire Marshal dismissed from a job, because the Fire Marshal tried to enforce the code adopted. I have watched as more than one Code Official sat next to and supported the NAHB. They will try to divide and concur. They have the financial resources to do that in any municipality or state organization.

Code Officials can talk about them, but without the financial ability to take on the NAHB, talk is all you get.
 
Not only does the NAHB have a base for control of the IRC, by having guaranteed seats on the committee; it is a "partner" of the ICC in designing the IRC code requirements through the new ICGG;

"The Consensus Committee is made up of more than forty groups representing a broad spectrum of the industry.

(Note: not including Code Officials)

Its purpose is to review the working draft of the national standard based on NAHB's Model Green Home Building Guidelines and to develop ICC/NAHB National Green Building Standard.

Unlike the Guidelines, which are intended to be used in the construction of one- and two-family homes, the new standard will be applicable to all new home construction, including multifamily units.

http://www.buildingonline.com/news/viewnews.pl?id=5970

In other words; the NAHB will be writing the codes!

On their website they often refer to "educating code officials".

As with other "alternative methods and materials" you will see in upcoming IRC's the statement;

"Building in accordance with the ICGG shall be approved by the Building Official."

In other words the IRC requirements will not control construction methods and materials. The NAHB is writing it's own codes and requiring the building officials, plan reviewers, and inspectors to learn the NAHB's standards for construction.

The next step is for local government code inspectors to be required to become a NAHB verifier;

http://www.nahbgreen.org/Resources/Verifiers/becomeverifier.aspx

It's the fox building the hen house,

Uncle Bob
 
UB, I am not sure it will be any worse than what we have today. The IRC has become nothing more than conglomoration of useless requirements as marketed by Simpson Strong Tie and other marketing companies. And lets not forget who had to vote all this in before it became code required. All anyone has to do to sell it to us(code officials) is claim it is necessary to provide for health, safety and welfare of the public.
 
The picture that is being painted is ugly: special interest groups formulate the 'best code' ideas, and submit them for review to a committee, which then makes a recommendation to the ICC body membership, which then reviews them and decides whether to vote yea or nay. Then along comes other special interest groups with fire in the belly and swords on high to point out to the code officials which is the right way to vote; and voila, we have new code, more code, better code. Pardon me whilst I put on the chest waders. Swim for your life, it's not safe in these waters any more.

While I overly simplified my rendition of how codes are promulgated, I don't think it's much better in real life. Simpson, Gypsum, Engineered lumber, steel, insulation, etc., each industry has its own goals and products to promote. Some are tried and true, and some are new and undergoing testing to see if they can make the grade. Who is pushing for new anything? Owners? I doubt it, they just want the finished product as cheap as they can get it, but as high class as it can get [nothing cheap but the price?]. Contractors? I think they want to be able to build quickly, down and dirty, and be outta the picture ASAP, so the owners are left holding the bag. Architects? I doubt it here too; although they like to try new stuff, it's not the new stuff that makes the money, usually, it's the appearance, the neighborhood, the 'name' or the size.

So, what role does code play in the whole picture. I think a smaller and smaller role. If you look back to the times when codes were new they played a huge role, but they were focused on the important matters. Now, the codes are all over the board, and a big/long code seems to be the result. If we can't make houses better by good construction practices, then let's make them worse by applying too many words that don't say much. Meaning is lost and/or confusing in code language. Where is the Engrish teacher when he/she is needed?

OK, I'm getting off the soapbox again. I am still trying to imagine a 'Uniform Building Code' that makes sense. A Common Code for Construction? A Good Sense Code for Construction?
 
"Affordable housing is when you live with your mother in-law and when you run out of beer she picks up a six pack of buck horn!

Can't help my self. Sorry

pc1
 
I am always hearing that all of the changes are brought on by companies that have a stake in the outcome in order to sell more products. I do not think that is true. The changes in the 09 for wall bracing for example actually hurts Simpson from selling their braced wall panel units because there are now more options for wall bracing that previously did not exist in the 06 code.

Does anyone think that the electrical suppliers like Leviton and others caused the tamper-proof receptacles to be passed?
 
ewenme: I have to agree! We have a watered down code with the important issues being lost in mix of special interest. Affordability should not be a fall back for position for poor building. Should it be left out? I say no! Somehow we need to find the balance.

In a general statement, I would say that the majority of code people on this BB have a sense of balance between good code compliant construction and cheap trash that someone wants to install. I do not get the sense that many enforce made up codes or take the attitude of because I said so. Yet, every three years we are hand new junk to understand, enforce and justify.

Can someone explain how 200 pages got added to a code in one 3 year period? Was there that much wrong with the prior code? Was the public left unprotected? I guess we could say they are now 200 pages safer.
 
Lobbyists do that.. lobby for their special interests. The voting members get the codes changed.. not the committees. The committee makes a recommendation for the membership to vote on...
 
Many additions to the code book are for products that are new, but in many cases the "old fashioned" way of building may still be used. For instance the use of dimensional lumber hasn't been removed as a choice. But if one wants to use trusses or engineered lumber then there are requirements to go along with that choice.
 
It is the unnecessary "stuff" that is added to the code under the guise of health, safety and welfare that drives many crazy. Green building, fire sprinklers, 90% of Simpson product line and the list goes on. Well built and affordable are both possible and contractors that are NAHB members do a better job than most at putting the package together.
 
incognito said:
It is the unnecessary "stuff" that is added to the code under the guise of health, safety and welfare that drives many crazy. Green building, fire sprinklers, 90% of Simpson product line and the list goes on. Well built and affordable are both possible and contractors that are NAHB members do a better job than most at putting the package together.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that there is a lot of "stuff" included, but my point being (for instance) the Simpson line of items is not required to be used. But if a builder CHOOSES to use a product then it has requirements that go along with it. These choices in many cases have been added because SOME builders think they can build less expensively using new products than using conventional methods and materials. SO we can argue all day as to what should and shouldn't be in the code, and that is exactly what happens (with a bit of political/economic pressure here and there).
 
Jeff: On The leviton issue probably not! But they will make a larger profit as a result of a need to comply. Businessmen just don't take it on the chip. They find a way to profit. If the regulations become to intensive they move to other areas for profit. I have not looked closely at Simpson and the impact of wall bracing but my gut feeling is they stand to profit from these changes. They are not going to give up a market share.

We all know that the stake-holders are present and will remain so. It is not a bad thing for them to have a stake. The size of the stake is what is important. We could raise issues of who is going to profit and how much, but these things just muddy the water. More importantly is the effect produced by them on the built environment and what it adds or detracts from the code.

Another issue is all that take part in the hearings. From my position many are just trying to hear themselves speak. I may be wrong and others may have a different view. NAHB is included in this along with code officials. ICC loves it cause the end result is more code and ink to sell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top