• 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.

NC Law Strips Authority Away From Building Council

If the builder is building to code as required by law, this makes no difference whatsoever in the buildings safety....Unless NC has upped their wind or something else in a newer code....
 
The investigating I have done to shows the the Home Builder's association's estimates of cost are far more accurate than anything put out by green advocacy groups or the federal government. If you go point by point down the list in their reports of the cost of, say, adding more insulation, they have very reasonable numbers in each of those categories. I don't know where the other groups get their data, but it is clear that they have no idea what material and labor actually costs. $15,000 to $20,000 increase in cost is completely reasonable if you are jumping from the 2009 Energy Code to the 2021 Energy Code.

Not to say that there is no benefit to building houses that meet modern energy standards - we are still on the 2009 code here, and I could see a benefit to moving to the 2018 code - by the NAHB's own numbers I calculate only a 10.64 year payback period for an approximately $7,000 cost increase per home over the 2009 version.

Halting the building code and eliminating the braced wall panel inspection, on the other hand, was totally a dumb thing to do.
 
Beniah Naylor said:
The investigating I have done to shows the the Home Builder's association's estimates of cost are far more accurate than anything put out by green advocacy groups or the federal government. If you go point by point down the list in their reports of the cost of, say, adding more insulation, they have very reasonable numbers in each of those categories. I don't know where the other groups get their data, but it is clear that they have no idea what material and labor actually costs. $15,000 to $20,000 increase in cost is completely reasonable if you are jumping from the 2009 Energy Code to the 2021 Energy Code.

Not to say that there is no benefit to building houses that meet modern energy standards - we are still on the 2009 code here, and I could see a benefit to moving to the 2018 code - by the NAHB's own numbers I calculate only a 10.64 year payback period for an approximately $7,000 cost increase per home over the 2009 version.

Halting the building code and eliminating the braced wall panel inspection, on the other hand, was totally a dumb thing to do.
Click to expand...
Correct...knee jerk reaction...But that is what happens when we are getting "bad codes" jammed down our throats. We lose that respect and support of those we regulate, and they go over the top against regulation....
 
Oh boy, I try to stay away from this topic on here but I can't help myself. I have been watching this and I think most of this pushback is energy based, and IMHO a pause in the seemingly endless wave of new and very confusing codes is a good thing. I believe we need less, not more. Code should be simple to understand, simple to administer. I have said many times that the more difficult you make this stuff, the more forced non-compliance (and non-enforcement) you will end up with. One of the articles I read in opposition to the NC move said the codes shouldn't be political (meaning the legislators should stay out of it), but I think the energy code is entirely political, so it was a little hypocritical. Personally, I think the code has gone too far away from the original intent...life-safety. I get that the green agenda equates planet-safety with life-safety, and they are convinced the planet is going to die, but for me it has just gone too far. I see cheating and forced non-compliance more and more, and a lot more fatigue in enforcement and it will only get worse. I think we will see more pushback on a bigger scale going forward. There has to be some checks and balances and maybe we are starting to see it.

I will never forget and always go back to a statement at one of the code hearings from a green advocate pushing an IECC code change (new code) that went something like this.....(I can't quote it) I know this code isn't perfect, and it needs some work, but lets get it in the book, then we will fix it. I was dumbfounded when I heard that. In my opinion that is not the way it should work, but it seems like ideas are formed and then just thrown up to see if they will stick, and with the IECC it seems everything is sticking.

The sheathing issue is different, not sure where that comes from and I do not agree with it, but it could be just a state of mind now, I think people are just getting so beat down they are inclined to resist at every turn.

JMHO.
 
Yes, being the public face of all these politically driven code changes is not always pleasant.

We are now enforcing the BC Energy Step Code, which is a progressively more aggressive energy efficiency code.

Coming down the pipe is the Zero Carbon Code, which limits GHG emissions from new construction, and will functionally make gas furnaces and heaters non compliant.

Also coming is the Retrofit Code, which will enforce energy efficiency upgrades for renovations.

I am not making a judgement of these code changes by their actual merit, but there is a large segment of the industry that does not agree with the politics of it all, and the building official loses credibility as the enforcer.
 
Until the building codes are put under a State insurance agency they will always be sidestep by local municipalities due to political reasons. Insurance companies have to be concerned about money and losses due to bad construction.
 
chief-inspector said:
Until the building codes are put under a State insurance agency they will always be sidestep by local municipalities due to political reasons. Insurance companies have to be concerned about money and losses due to bad construction.
Click to expand...
NC is under the state department of insurance.
 
steveray said:
If the builder is building to code as required by law, this makes no difference whatsoever in the buildings safety....Unless NC has upped their wind or something else in a newer code....
Click to expand...
I don't think municipality should have building inspectors. I believe the insurance companies should have the inspectors since they are concerned about the bottom dollar. They're not going to play politics if it cost them a billion dollars.
 
chief-inspector said:
I don't think municipality should have building inspectors. I believe the insurance companies should have the inspectors since they are concerned about the bottom dollar. They're not going to play politics if it cost them a billion dollars.
Click to expand...
It used to be that way, the insurance companies basically invented the building code, but the insurance companies all had different rules, so you couldn't swap your coverage to another company without remodeling your building. You couldn't really appeal a ruling if the inspector was being a jerk for no reason, because you were stuck with them unless you wanted to remodel your building. They are also notoriously hard to deal with - just try to get them to pay out for something... It would be like letting the utility companies do all of the inspecting, they come up with wacky rules on the spur of the moment, and you are stuck because they are the monopoly. Obviously some are better than others.

I guess my point is that market forces originally pushed code enforcement to municipalities because it was easier to deal with the city than the insurance company.

You are absolutely right that the insurance companies getting fed up with a problem is what causes codes to be tightened up.

I will not deny that some cities are certainly bad enough that insurance companies would be a vast improvement.
 
Beniah Naylor said:
It used to be that way, the insurance companies basically invented the building code, but the insurance companies all had different rules, so you couldn't swap your coverage to another company without remodeling your building. You couldn't really appeal a ruling if the inspector was being a jerk for no reason, because you were stuck with them unless you wanted to remodel your building. They are also notoriously hard to deal with - just try to get them to pay out for something... It would be like letting the utility companies do all of the inspecting, they come up with wacky rules on the spur of the moment, and you are stuck because they are the monopoly. Obviously some are better than others.

I guess my point is that market forces originally pushed code enforcement to municipalities because it was easier to deal with the city than the insurance company.

You are absolutely right that the insurance companies getting fed up with a problem is what causes codes to be tightened up.

I will not deny that some cities are certainly bad enough that insurance companies would be a vast improvement.
Click to expand...
Interesting information. Well how about this. Anybody with any brains hires private approved inspectors and they work for lawyers and the lawyers take care of the problems. Let's see how many bad contractors would stay in business...
 
After having been in the field for over 20 years the most logical answer is to have contractors that care about the codes. In my state they allow private inspectors and plan reviewers to work for contractors as I do right now. But I do not recommend that setup. I recommend special inspectors that are approved by the state to work for insurance companies or mortgage companies. The insurance company and lawyers come in because the insurance companies care about the product not getting damaged or paying claims on it. This has to be taken out of the politicians hands even at the local level.
 
chief-inspector said:
After having been in the field for over 20 years the most logical answer is to have contractors that care about the codes. In my state they allow private inspectors and plan reviewers to work for contractors as I do right now. But I do not recommend that setup. I recommend special inspectors that are approved by the state to work for insurance companies or mortgage companies. The insurance company and lawyers come in because the insurance companies care about the product not getting damaged or paying claims on it. This has to be taken out of the politicians hands even at the local level.
Click to expand...
So if I have no mortgage and no insurance I don't need inspectors?
 
steveray said:
So if I have no mortgage and no insurance I don't need inspectors?
Click to expand...
That is up to you to hire your own inspector that answers to you and not hire someone in government that has sovereign immunity against incompetence.
Government inspectors are not there to protect you against the builder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top