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.
Oh please. Come on. If we are talking about self-sufficiency "knowhow," he's one of the few posters who has anything useful to offer as far as practical skills and knowledge. I think he'd make about 95% of us here (iow, all but a very few) look sick as a goat when it comes to knowledge, practical experience, and "having done it" with this sufficiency stuff. I don't see anything incoherent about that... unless I were looking at the matter through a jealousy-green lens, that is.
I agree completely, but with no disrespect to MT I must point out that pygmies in the Kalahari desert routinely use eighty-three different wild plants. If there are crop failures they hardly notice because there are always others that are thriving.
I'm not even remotely jealous, but I agree. there are some posters in this thread who dont seem to understand the terms they are using and it is leading to confusion...
The OP did state "building codes and regulations." A building code is a regulation and a zoning law is a regulation. From the perspective of the person wanting to build a home at a given site, it makes little difference what you call them; they are all rules that must be followed and hoops that must be jumped through and money that must go into government pockets.
Granted, a given zoning law can be sidestepped in many cases by relocating. But again, for somebody that has slapped down big money for a piece of property and expects to live his/her dream, that isn't much comfort or help. I'm all for safety; but these regulations go way, way beyond anything to do with safety. Strip away about 95% of it and we'd be dealing with safety again.
The OP did state "building codes and regulations." A building code is a regulation and a zoning law is a regulation.
Actually, no. And this is part of the confusion.
The various codes are the prescription for a process. The enforcement of codes is a regulation (many areas only enforce parts of "the code", btw). And zoning is definitely a regulation.
But the code is nothing more than a guide book. Ie, if you're a wiring a house of ___ number of square feet/floors/etc. you must do X,Y&Z.
Personaly, I don't live in an area with code-enforcement for residential wiring as an example, so following the code is completely up to me (but frankly, since MOST of it is safety-related, I am following it for the most part!)
OTOH, if I don't even have wiring in my structure, there's no purpose for code. Much like if I don't have a full basement, there's no reason to pay attention to that part of the code, either...even though it's there.
Also, just because something is allowed by code doesn't mean it's ideal for a situation. There's a reason there are often a dozen different ways builders can accomplish the same task; and all be code-approved. And just because a minimum is established under code, doesn't mean someone isn't code-compliant if they exceed that minimum.
If you're gonna build something even if you don't have building codes use the current building codes to build your house. I've seen a lot of homespun get 'er done son "construction" work that not only was unsafe it was actually hazardous.
There is a reason we build houses to code.
Thank you.
There's also the pesky problem of insurance. If you build a POS shack and then you have a fire, you have just lost everything, as the insurance company is going to investigate to determine its cause. If they see that you use the thinnest wiring for electrical and galvanized for gas piping, you might be looking at a denied claim and then months of court battle to get them to pay.
And if you don't have insurance…well you are now broke and homeless.
Building codes were enacted after people were killed. While some are abused (looking at you New York City) most are reasonable and rational and add only a little extra to the cost of a structure. They also add peace of mind which many people to be worth it as well.
In every real estate transaction there are buyers, sellers, insurance companies and banks (well, OK, MOST transactions).
The codes are adopted and enforced because it makes it easy to streamline the process of real-estate changing hands - code acts as a minimum guarantee for the bank and the insurance company and for the buyer that the house is in some kind of a minimum working order.
Most people do not know how a house should be wired or what kind of a support the roof needs, how deep the foundation should be or whether the A/C is connected to the grid properly or it is a hazard. This is the point of the codes.
America is a mobile place, homes change hands every day. There are counties in the country that do not enforce any building codes on owner-builder folks (this is the county I live in). However, if you are in the market to buy a house - good luck. Any idiot with a hammer has built one and I can guarantee you that about 80% of these "houses" are fire or worse hazards. Not many people know how to build a house to last. Quite a few have been known to buy a place, put whatever on it and advertise it as a house. You pay good money, move in and it is raining inside two weeks later.
Can you explain why a home under 1200 square feet is considered hazardous? It's against "code" in many areas. In my view, the only thing it's hazardous to is the building materials industry. I can build a safe 200 square foot home, can I not? And I can build an unsafe 12000 square foot home, can I not?
It's not the size if the house tap hats hazardous in itself. A badly built house can collapse on top of you if its 20x20 cabin or 3500 sq ft monstrosity. If it's slapped together willie niliy with no thought to correctly have everything nailed and screwed in correctly it can fall apart.
Hey they built the Tacoma Narrows bridge and it fell apart in high winds. So when they build those type of bridges now they are built differently.
Houseps can last a long time even with bad build construction, but you'll have rotten frames, bad roofs and water intrusion. Not to mention houses that burn up due to faulty or incorrectly installed electrical.
It's not the size if the house tap hats hazardous in itself. A badly built house can collapse on top of you if its 20x20 cabin or 3500 sq ft monstrosity. If it's slapped together willie niliy with no thought to correctly have everything nailed and screwed in correctly it can fall apart.
Hey they built the Tacoma Narrows bridge and it fell apart in high winds. So when they build those type of bridges now they are built differently.
Houseps can last a long time even with bad build construction, but you'll have rotten frames, bad roofs and water intrusion. Not to mention houses that burn up due to faulty or incorrectly installed electrical.
In every real estate transaction there are buyers, sellers, insurance companies and banks (well, OK, MOST transactions).
I am very glad that we did not have any: realtors, banks or insurance companies in our last real estate purchase.
On the other hand, our in-laws bought a house 2 years ago [Bank mortgage, realtors, insurance, blah blah]. Then last fall the basement flooded and the house sank into the basement. As it turns out there was NEVER a foundation under the house. Nobody ever noticed that there is no foundation.
I agree completely, but with no disrespect to MT I must point out that pygmies in the Kalahari desert routinely use eighty-three different wild plants. If there are crop failures they hardly notice because there are always others that are thriving.
Pigmies don't live in the Kalahari, Khoisan do, so you're wrong right off the bat and second they are hunter gatherers who's population has declined over 90% in the last century because their lifestyle doesn't produce much in the way of storable food and they're always losing territory to more civilized and productive people who actually have farming or animal husbandry. Just FYI, champ.
Pigmies don't live in the Kalahari, Khoisan do, so you're wrong right off the bat and second they are hunter gatherers who's population has declined over 90% in the last century because their lifestyle doesn't produce much in the way of storable food and they're always losing territory to more civilized and productive people who actually have farming or animal husbandry. Just FYI, champ.
This is my citation. I believe that a lecture from a Yale course should be adequate. Do you have a citation?
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.
