Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are a lot of things about the way a home is constructed that are not visible once it's completed. Things such as how it is framed, how was the plumbing and electrical done, and so forth. As a home buyer it's good to have the assurance that the home was built to a recognized standard of construction. As a builder it may help you obtain more value from the home when it comes time to sell the home.
I have very much of a small government/libertarian perspective on the world, but this is one area where I think there is significant benefit to builders, buyers and sellers from reasonable building construction standards.
There are a lot of things about the way a home is constructed that are not visible once it's completed. Things such as how it is framed, how was the plumbing and electrical done, and so forth. As a home buyer it's good to have the assurance that the home was built to a recognized standard of construction. As a builder it may help you obtain more value from the home when it comes time to sell the home.
I have very much of a small government/libertarian perspective on the world, but this is one area where I think there is significant benefit to builders, buyers and sellers from reasonable building construction standards.
Dave
Yup. A home built with no permits has no record of how it was built.
Simple things, like ventilating the foundation and attic, or even constructing the foundation so it is permanent and sound are things that aren't easily seen by a home-buyer, and back in Idaho's past, were things that a lot of folks who built houses never knew about.
But when such a house, and they still exist, go through the titling process, an owner may find the house they are trying to sell is un-insurable. And no mortgage will be given to such a home.
There are many things that only permits assure, but safety is one of the most important. An old house that was wired by the homeowner, or even a contractor, for example, may have very unsafe wiring that could cause a fire at any time, even if the wiring was considered safe 80 or more years ago.
An acquaintance's house had an attic fire a couple of years ago from this. The house was saved, but it could have burned down if he had not been home when it started.
That's a reason why houses for sale often are required to have new inspections. Even inspectors don't catch everything, but they're trained, so if something happens, the house can be covered by the insurance. Personally, I would never consider buying a house that had no permit record, even if it was a one-room shack.
Inspectors and permits are a good thing. Building codes are good laws. They assure our safety and security in all our public and private buildings.
I can see some Codes + Enforcement on large public buildings, but on smaller, private, single-family dwellings, I think that private sector, registries, light permitting, etc would be more efficient.
Necessity for Codes on single-family dwellings can probably be done via filings from a registered Design professional (Architect, Engineer, etc). State does license these guys anyways, and they have to renew licenses every so often.
So I think a Certification from these professionals should be enough. I would also mandate that these guys only work for the Owner, and get paid by the Owner, not Builders, etc.
I would also require that Owner hires inspectors directly, as 3rd party and inspects Builders work. Inspectors cannot work for builders either.
I would also require that Owner uploads these docs to some sort of registry. We do it this with cars, so I can see it for Buildings too.
At time completion, as a town, I would require that Inspectors have signed off on certain inspections, and Owner have filed the records with the registry.
I could see a Zoning review on small, single-family dwellings to insure that no one is building a paper factory next door to single-family homes.
In case of buying a pre-owned home the only meaningful measure of assessing home condition is the Inspection by a professional Inspector.
The real push I have seen local authorities make is by fire departments. That one is a loaded subject.
And I dont want to even get into -- no homes built based upon new codes will last 100-200 years. Meanwhile, many homes built before modern codes are still standing.
I think in current Construction govt is overreaching with over-regulation.
I can see some Codes + Enforcement on large public buildings, but on smaller, private, single-family dwellings, I think that private sector, registries, light permitting, etc would be more efficient.
Necessity for Codes on single-family dwellings can probably be done via filings from a registered Design professional (Architect, Engineer, etc). State does license these guys anyways, and they have to renew licenses every so often.
So I think a Certification from these professionals should be enough. I would also mandate that these guys only work for the Owner, and get paid by the Owner, not Builders, etc.
I would also require that Owner hires inspectors directly, as 3rd party and inspects Builders work. Inspectors cannot work for builders either.
I would also require that Owner uploads these docs to some sort of registry. We do it this with cars, so I can see it for Buildings too.
At time completion, as a town, I would require that Inspectors have signed off on certain inspections, and Owner have filed the records with the registry.
I could see a Zoning review on small, single-family dwellings to insure that no one is building a paper factory next door to single-family homes.
I agree that I can imagine more efficient solutions being implemented in the private sector - you could think about a building standards and inspection service that was performed by a trade association or even some independent group (think of Underwriters Laboratory as an analogous example).
But the way the original question was posed wasn't about whether there is a good alternative to local government based building codes, it was about whether there is a place in ID where one can build without codes or any other standards being imposed. I don't think that's a great idea for the builder or a prospective buyer.
I agree that I can imagine more efficient solutions being implemented in the private sector - you could think about a building standards and inspection service that was performed by a trade association or even some independent group (think of Underwriters Laboratory as an analogous example).
But the way the original question was posed wasn't about whether there is a good alternative to local government based building codes, it was about whether there is a place in ID where one can build without codes or any other standards being imposed. I don't think that's a great idea for the builder or a prospective buyer.
Dave
Got it. A friend of mine is also in a pickle. Just like OP he wants to use some alternative technology of heating/cooling in Boise, mainly some new types of heat pumps, which are super-efficient, and use very little energy. This is recent tech, not even 10 years old.
Local code (which defers to another code, which defers to another code) calls for an economizer, which is 1970s tech. This device would kill this type of heat pump. Guess what, Bldg Dept doesnt allow this new HP without an economizer. It's like not allowing a Tesla because it doesnt have a gas engine.
In this day and age, our litiguous society has a silver lining -- there are very strong deterrents for private inspectors and architects to play games for $ 300. Not only they can lose their license, but they can go to jail for malpractice, negligence, wrecklessness etc.
The people that do not want building codes fall into 3 categories.
1. They built something substandard or even dangerous and the building department made them rebuild it.
2. They have never built anything and it is a "theoretical opinion".
3. They are hell bent on hay bales, yurts, rammed earth, earth filled tires, tree house etc. You get the idea. Oh wait, I forgot my favorite one - shipping container. When your done sipping on your Kombucha and want to join in the real world, the world will have you.
........ They are hell bent on hay bales, yurts, rammed earth, earth filled tires, tree house etc. You get the idea. Oh wait, I forgot my favorite one - shipping container. ............
You can often get building permits for straw bale, rammed earth, earth ship, and shipping container. Maybe permits for tree house. Yurts, not so much, except for in Hawaii.
Those alternate building methods can be correctly engineered, built safely, and inspected. You can't just buy a book on how to build one and put one anywhere you want to without getting properly engineered plans draw up and approved, but those type of dwellings have been built legally in many different regions of the USA.
I've seen stuff built without permits by amateur builders and a lot of it is scary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
