Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Homesteading Questions' started by FarmerKat, Nov 10, 2017.
Code isn't to build a better house it's a minimum not a limit.
It is becoming so bad, homesteading is dying out. A homeowner builder has to jump through hoops here. Heck, young folks cannot even buy a starter home, because no contractor will build them (no money in it). And as altruistic as Habitat for Humanity is, they are building crap on crap land. Sure, it meets code, but as AmericanStand noted, they are minimum codes.
I call them glorified cardboard boxes.
Folks are not looking for a handout...at least I am not. I had to pay thousands in paperwork to build exactly what I wanted. Plus, I lost a year filing said paperwork.
I wish someone would take our gov to court over the state of affairs. I believe one would have a strong case.
Code is the minimum level of acceptability.
Some don't seem to get if you arnt building to code the building isn't minimally safe for anyone.
And I think that's your right for yourself.
But not for anyone else.
Not for your kids
Not for your neighbors
Not for your friends
Not for tradesmen that must come to your place.
If you are building to code passing a code inspection is a given. No sweat no problem.
"Code" will also be what banks/underswriters use when determining whether to approve a loan. Hard to get around that.
But I'll say, as one who was at one time a city and county inspector and later for HUD, that "code" isn't an all knowing omnipotent entity. There are regs written to benefit unions over homeowners, insurance companies over lifestyle and politics over common sense. I've seen specific components of construction way overbuilt yet failed over needless minutia. I've watched as a 30k a year failed ex carpenter with a personality disorder lecture a multi millionaire developer on how to build a staircase.
Sorry, but building regs are not always written for your benefit and when someone has been determined to know better than you do what is good for you and your family then there is a problem. This may all be an exception to the rule; the issue for me is who is writing all the rules.
Yeah it's hard to take the people factor out of government
It is a racket to raise money. Read the relevant statutes or ordinances to find the penalty for non compliance.
I agree with farminghandyman although I think he puts it too mildly. Think about the thousands of people in the seventeen century who got on boats to cross the Atlantic ocean and who formed this country for freedom. They cared ZERO for safety; FREEDOM was paramount. They had no guarantee that they would survive the journey across the ocean. They did not have a hotel reservation or a house or job waiting for them when they arrived. They didn't know what they would face or how they would survive but it was worth it to them for the opportunity to have freedom. They risked everything for freedom. And then there were the thousands of people who gave their lives in the Revolutionary War so that others could be free from an oppressive government. And now here we are, only 241 years later, with our tails between our legs, submitting to all forms of city, county, state, and federal regulations that tell us exactly how to build our houses and will not allow us to live in our own houses on our own land until they say we can. Is it your dream to live like in the 1800s without electricity or running hot water? In my county that is illegal. It is required to have both hot and cold running water. They even specify the size of bedrooms, windows, and pantry space. How much more oppression will people live with? "Safety" has become an idol for America, for which freedom is sacrificed. Safety and freedom are mutually exclusive. Choose which one you want but don't be deceived to think that you can have both.
For myself, I stand behind what the Supreme Court ruled in Marbury v. Madison: "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Therefore, as long as I do not infringe on the rights of others, I will do what I want to do on my own land and do not recognize any government who claims to have authority to violate my Constitutional rights. And if law enforcement is willing to try to enforce an unconstitutional law, then they have abdicated their authority and have become armed thugs, against whom it is my right to defend myself.
If this sounds too radical for you, then the Founding Fathers were too radical for you and you might be better suited in a socialist country. Think about it: People really did pick up guns and shoot and kill other people to form this country. It really happened, it is not a fairy tale. If you are offended or shocked by this kind of talk, then ask yourself what happened to you and honestly look at how vastly different you are than the great men and women who formed this country.
Here is a more complete text:
"16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Good luck with that. That boat sailed a long time ago.
I suspect the first thing those freedom loving forefathers did when they got here was make rules.
Code isn't always even about minimum. Code is about what folks want it to be about. In some places, code requires concrete septic systems. You cannot install plastic ones in these places. Pex is not allowed for plumbing in some building codes. So pex is unsafe? Energy conservation - something that has nothing at all to do with safe structures - is not written into building codes. This has nothing to do with making a safe house but rather to tinker with socioeconomics and assumptions about "the greater good."
"...minimum building codes are the most effective, least expensive way to protect public health and safety; reduce building energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and costs; and improve the building industry. In short, they argue, codes are "more valuable now than ever before." as provided by the International Code Council.
This council recommends updating every three years. That means we will constantly be chasing the white rabbit in code compliance, and anything built a decade ago is already no longer in code. If the house is no longer in code, then what of our children then? Have a house from the 1970's? Sorry, it isn't built to code anymore. Shall we invest tens of thousands of dollars to reach the constantly-moving mark?
Are there good building code requirements? Should codes exist? There are strong justifications for times when they should. Have many gone too far? In my opinion, most certainly yes.