• 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

The Erosion of Freedom Through Green Laws

packsaddle

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
237
Did you know that businesses in New York City are fined if they leave their doors open in the summer?

Inspectors go around and write citations to business owners who don't comply.

$200 for the first offense, $400 for the second offense.
 
Great Start, Time to obey the law, no different than speeding or seatbelts

July 8, 2010

9 Stores Fined for Propping Doors Open

By ANDREW BORYGA

Nine stores in Manhattan and the Bronx have been hit with $200 fines for leaving their doors open on hot days in the hope that the escaping cool air will lure sweaty customers. They are the first fined as part of a new law passed in 2008.

Last year, only warnings were given out. So far this year, the city’s Department of Consumer Affairs has inspected 105 stores. Seventy were in compliance, 26 were issued warnings and nine that had been warned last year were hit with fines, said Kay Sarlin, a spokeswoman for the department.

Fines start at $200, and go up to $400 for any further infractions in an 18-month period. The legislation states that any business larger than 4,000 square feet or part of a chain with five or more stores in the city must keep doors closed when using an air-conditioning system.

Ms. Sarlin said the stores are:

In the Bronx:

- Jeans Plus, 62 East 170th Street

- Bronx Kidstown, 4100 East 170 Street

- Jimmy Jazz, 101 East 170 Street

- V.I.M., 540 Bergen Avenue

In Manhattan:

- Filene’s Basement, 4 Union Square South

- Forever 21, 40 East 14 Street

- Armani Exchange, 129 Fifth Avenue

- Brooklyn Industries, 161 Eighth Avenue

- DSW, 4 Union Square South

Ms. Sarlin said inspectors respond to complaints and keep an eye out for offenders throughout the summer. Last year, the department reported an 81 percent compliance rate, and amid heavy media coverage of the law, it seemed businesses were getting the message.

During the heat wave of recent days, however, plenty of stores seemed to be in violation, as City Room made its own inspection.

A digital thermometer read a refreshing 79 degrees 10 feet away from a Zara’s on 17th Street and Fifth Avenue, despite it being a muggy 97 degrees two blocks away. A street jewelry vendor named Jamaal stood near the doors, enjoying the breeze — “Whenever I need a break I stand near the door for some fresh air,” he said. “It’s always nice and cool.”

Jamaal was disappointed five minutes later when, after a brief conversation with Zara’s manager, who was unaware of the law, the doors were shut. “Guess it’s back to work for me,” Jamaal said.

Filene’s Basement and DSW at 4 Union Square had their doors wide open — and both, indeed, received fines. Ten feet from the doors, a small group stood around talking on cellphones, smoking cigarettes and killing time.

Malik Boyd, 28, one of them, stood in the cool 78 degrees near the doors while waiting for a group of friends. “I appreciate the arctic breeze, especially on days like these,” he said.

Mr. Boyd says he works in retail and understands the law and the argument for energy conservation, but ultimately doesn’t blame shop owners for doing what they do.

“The reason why the retail stores do it is to attract the tourists,” he said. “The people who live in the city know the ploy already. The stores do it to catch that tourist taking his one and only stroll down Fifth Avenue because he’ll be easy to lure with the breeze.”

He added, “It’s business; sometimes you got to do what you got to do.”
 
So now all energy conservation codes are "green codes"

"....Let no man break the laws of the land...."

"The Erosion of Freedom Through Green Laws" You can say the same thig with all sections of the building code, Isn't that what homeowners say when you bust them for illegal additions, Erosion of Freedom, its my house.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since you obviously support this draconian legislation, perhaps you could explain to us, in detail, where exactly the line of demarcation is between green laws and personal freedom.

You can start with something like "I, Mark Handler, believe it is okay for the government to fine homeowners who leave their front porch light on because ________."

Thanks, in advance.
 
Draconian legislation

According to you.

Is obeying the speed limit in a school zone, Draconian?

Is obeying the building codes, Draconian?

Is it your choice which codes to enforce, If it is, that is not a democracy? It will lead to Anarchy (from Greek: "without rule")

You tout the United States Constitution, but it starts “We the People” not, "I the Packsaddle".

If you don't like the code, have it changed, Good luck.

Draconian legislation

•Water consumption reduction

•Diverting 50% of construction waste from landfills

•Separating water meters for commercial buildings’ indoor and outdoor water use

•Moisture-sensitive irrigation systems for large landscape projects
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Albert Einstein did believe that society was evolving into Socialism for the good, but he also warned:

\ said:
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?¹
I think both "A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual" and " bureaucracy ..... becoming all-powerful and overweening" are inevitable consequences, our codes are evolving into the laws of bureaucracy that is becoming all-powerful and overweening, and Inspectors are becoming the "enforcers".

¹ http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
 
Each state and local jurisdiction has controls over which codes, and how those codes, are enforced.

If you don’t like so called energy or green codes, change them locally or move.

If New Yorkers don’t like the energy conservation code, they will change it. Your ideas and thoughts on the subject, will change nothing.
 
Mark:

My understanding is that the Governor of Washington has successfully blocked their energy code, we in California will be given the opportunity ion November to block our infamous global warming law, AB32, by initiative. We should all get together and vote to block it, if we can do that maybe we can get an initiative on the ballot to ban all green and energy codes, I'm sure we can count on your support. Inspectors enforcing these misguided laws is tantamount to the inspectors in Oakland and San Francisco enforcing their 1950s redevelopment laws, destroying acres of homes, including grand Victorian homes, in Oakland's West Oakland and San Francisco's Western Addition, the real intent of those redevelopment laws was to get rid of the black residents. Many other laws have been found to be unconstitutional, like racial quotas, should they ever have been enforced in the first place? A good friend was Oakland's only black inspector in the 50s, he was just sick when he had to go around red-tagging old homes for building code violations, knowing that he was selected to do the dirty work becasue of the color of his skin. He should have refused but he wanted to keep his job, inspectors today should stand up ad refuse to enforce these misguided laws that are political and have nothing to do with the public health and safety, but everything to do with political agenda.
 
You didn't answer the question.

So, here it is again in case you missed it the first time:

Where exactly is the line of demarcation between green laws and personal freedom?

All you have to do is fill in the blank:

"I, Mark Handler, believe the line of demarcation separating green legislation and personal freedom is _______________."

If you continue to avoid the question, then stay out of this thread.....it was not created for you anyway.
 
packsaddle said:
stay out of this thread.....it was not created for you anyway.
Do I really care what you think, No.

Draconian thoughts, More like childish, wanting to take you ball and go home?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While laws and regulations can be opressive the voters have the power, if they wish, to change them.

What is threatening to my freedoms are public servants, including rogue building officials, plan checkers, or inspectors, who take it upon themselves to subvert the laws and impose their own version of the building code. If these public servants cannot in conscience enforce the legaly adopted laws and regulations they should either quit their job or formally notify their employer that they cannot do their job.

Enforce what you understand are the building codes not what you think they should be.
 
\ said:
What is threatening to my freedoms are public servants, including rogue building officials, plan checkers, or inspectors, who take it upon themselves to subvert the laws and impose their own version of the building code.
Hypothetical: Pack's a CBO, I bring him plans and specs after January 1st to permit a single family home, there are no fire sprinklers, as a matter of fact neither Pack nor I believe in fire sprinklers for a host of reasons published here in the past, Pack issues the permit. How does that threaten your freedoms? Both he and I and my customer have exercised our freedom to build what we want the way we want, not to a code bought and paid for by a corrupt industry.
 
If he does not enforce the Law, he is in violation of that law and it could have both financial and criminal repercussions.

If you do not like the law change it.

"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." --Thomas Jefferson 1781.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would you exercise this rule against Harriet Tubman (1820-1913), who violated the federal Fugitive Slave Laws by participating in the Underground Railroad for escaped slaves, or against Rosa Parks (1913-2005), who was arrested in 1955 for violating the segregation laws in Montgomery, Alabama, by refusing to move to the back of the bus when the bus driver told her to give up her seat to a white passenger? Blind obedience was not accepted as a defense during the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg, when many Nazis claimed that they were just "following orders." Wouldn't inspectors just "following orders" be just as guilty as the Nazi war criminals?

"An unjust law is no law at all" - Martin Luther King, Jr, quoting St. Augustine

We have a tradition at law in this country called "Jury Nullification", where jurors can refuse to impose unjust laws.

 
The situation I was thinking of was where I want to comply with the code but the building official or inspector requires that I comply with other requirements.

When a public servant is acting in his official role he is constrained with respect to how he can act. The official is limited to interpreting and enforcing the applicable regulations. He has his full freedoms when not performing his official duties and he can, and I will suggest morally should, lobby for changes to the regulations.

A building official can allow alternates in accordance with Section 104.11 of the IBC as long as he can make a good faith statement that the reasons for allowing the alternate are consistent with the criteria of Section 104.11. If the building official attempts to use this provision on a regular basis to effect a code change then he has crossed a line and has modified the building code without due process and has acted illegally.

While the first situation impacts my rights I argue that the other situations can have consequences some of which include:

• Regulations are not limited to protecting the applicant but are some times implemented to protect other members of society. Changing the regulations without due process impacts the rights of other members of society.

• When there is great diversity in how the code is interpreted and enforced in different jurisdictions many design professionals and contractors do not pay a lot of attention to what the code says but wait to see what the building official will require. This can have a negative impact on the quality of the applications and on the construction. It also leads to a loss of respect for the building department.

• When the building official has illegally modified the building code he may place the owner of the property at risk when the conflicts with the code are later identified.

• I believe that there is a correlation between the belief that the building official or inspector can do whatever they want and the perception of corruption.

Further the hypothetical situation put forth is based on the assumption that the applicant is an informed consumer and understands the arguments for and against the code change. I will suggest that in many instances this understanding may be lacking. The situation gets murky when a developer is building the house on speculation and the development company will go out of business shortly after the project is sold.

Sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We need to be careful of rationalizations since they may have unintended consequences.

The arguments about unjust laws are on shaky ground.

Harriet Tubman was not a civil servant.

In the case of Rosa Parks she was participating in an act of civil disobedience and working to change the law. As I have stated previously the building official or inspector has the option of being civil disobedient but with this comes two conditions. First the individual is up front and public in his or her civil disobedience and two he or she recognizes and accepts the consequences of his or her actions. I suggest more reading on the issues related to civil disobedience and on the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi.

I believe that you will find that soldiers in the military are told that they can refuse an illegal order but they are given some ground rules on how this is done. I believe that they must formally state their objection.

Martin Luther King Jr. confronted the unjust laws and participated in civil disobedience. I do not see this in building officials who make unofficial changes in the building code.

Jury nullification does not apply to building officials since he is not a jury member.

Civil disobedience recognizes the legal structure and confronts it. I have respect for individuals who participate in an act of civil disobedience. I do not have the same respect for civil servants who subvert the laws and regulations and are not up front about it.
 
\ said:
Jury nullification does not apply to building officials since he is not a jury member.
It would if Pack refuses to enforce the Green Code, he is fired and sues his employer for wrongful termination, the jury could believe that Pack's reasons for not enforcing the code were valid, sealing up buildings built with toxic products, and find in Pack's favor because the law was ill conceived. There are now ample instances of people getting sick in sealed up homes, Pack also knows that people disconnect the mechanical ventilation systems because of the expense of operation, Pack can testify that he refuses to enforce the Green Code because it is a threat to the health and safety of the building occupants.
 
Has anyone considered the possibility that due to the incredibly high electrcity useage in NYC (and the Eastern Seaboard as a whole) the amount being used to cool off the outdoors puts an incrediuble strain on an always overworked power grid subjecting parts of the northeast to rolling blackouts on high demand days even when these businesses keep their doors closed?

The line of demarcation is, was and always will be when personal freedom interferes with the greater good.
 
Well I guess you don't want your green to be LEED then, it was in New York that it was proven that LEED buildings consume 29% more energy than comparable non-LEED buildings.

You are also positing the premise that we are all utilitarians then with 'The greatest good for the greatest number". Bentham was pretty much disposed of by Wittgenstein.

\ said:
Contemporary philosophers such as Matthew Ostrow have critiqued utilitarianism from a distinctly Wittgensteinian perspective. According to these philosophers, utilitarians have expanded the very meaning of pleasure to the point of linguistic incoherence. The utilitarian groundlessly places pleasure as his or her first principle, and in doing so subordinates the value of asceticism, self-sacrifice or any other "secondary" desire. Of course, the utilitarian will deny this contention altogether, claiming that ascetics also seek pleasure, but have merely chosen an alternative path in which to achieve it.

Yet such an argument is implicitly tautological ("What is it that people want? Pleasure. But what is pleasure? What people want."). The utilitarian therefore has no ultimate justification for primarily valuing pleasure, other than to say that "this is the way it should be." In this critique, utilitarianism is thus ultimately reduced to a form of dishonest ethical intuitionism, unable to recognize or acknowledge its own groundlessness.¹
This philosophy ties in well with asceticism posed by Bentham, we all sacrifice, live in 1,200 square foot soviet-style apartment blocks on train lines so we don't need to drive cars, if we do drive cars we have to drive little ugly Prisuses as we wear our hair shirts. Each generation sacrifices it's life for the succeeding generation, instead of a meritocracy we plunge into egalitarianism, no grades in schools, no scores in games, everybody is the same, we become like colonies of ants and work for the benefit of the government, the value of people is the tax they generate for the government. I can't imagine a more miserable existence.

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
 
Where exactly is the line of demarcation between green laws and personal freedom?

Pack, You are the thread starter, entitled "Erosion of Freedom Through Green Laws".

You are the one that needs that, "line of demarcation".
 
So Dick

you are equating an energy code to civil rights law.

You really have lost it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
\ said:
you are equating an energy code to civil rights law.
Yes, I'll sit in the back of the bus any day before paying the several hundreds of thousands more to build a home that it's costing my customer and the added liability and hassle it's adding on me. Those I really hate are the profiteers and those who want to "save the earth" putting people's lives and health at risk, our freedom is being taken away more so than Rosa Parks' ever was.
 
Their version of what is Green, and the Energy Code will control the codes from now on.

It's a done deal; and has nothing to do with internal U. S. politics (Democrats & Republicans). The real powers that be; have already signed agreements to combine Mexico, Canada and the United States into one goverment; following the blueprint of the European Nations (The European Union).

Every State in this country has a WTO office (World Trade Centers). Trade and commerce in the U. S. is already being controlled by the WTO; and Trade with other countries is already controled by the WTO (World Trade Organization). Our laws are subordinate and subject to WTO International Regulations. Sub-orgainzations are in place; two of which are SPP and CFR;

http://www.spp.gov/

and,

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/building_a_north_american_community.html

And, there is nothing we can do about it; but, adapt. There will be no political borders between Canada, Mexico and the U. S.. Yes, we will still have subordinate governements; just like in Europe (Germany, France, Spain, etc.). We have grown fat and weak; not unlike the Roman Empire.

Energy is one of the keys; and we will reduce our consumption. The new "Smart Meters" are being installed to regulate our use of electricity; which by the way, are being produced for water service, natural gas and other forms of energy.

Just like the proles; in George Orwell's "1984"; you do have a certain amount of freedom, in that as long as you don't challenge the new world order, you won't be as closely watched as persons of higher status. You will be permitted to engage in gambling, sensuality, and various other vices; your football games and parades. As long as you continue to work and consume, your other activities are without importance."

Oh, by the way; those cell towers that you see when you travel around the country, are not just cell towers. I'd tell you what they are really for, but you wouldn't believe me.

I didn't agree with a lot of the codes when I first started Inspecting; but, I inspected in accordance with the codes as written; and, will in the future. My personal opinion is not relevant.

If you want to stay in the Codes Business; whether as a Builder, Engineer, Architect, Building Offical, or Inspector; learn the Energy/Green Codes and apply them. As for me, I have spent too much money and time to quit now; just because there are some more code changes I don't agree with.

Don't hunt in the King's forest,

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top