6 ms·

Sad that this is necessary. I hope he succeeds in the end; democracy lives and breathes transparency, and it's sorely lacking it at the moment.

rayiner 10y ago
It's not "sad." If you place a very high value on transparency, you may wish to see a different model. But the current model isn't unreasonable. The standards incorporated into codes are industry consensus standards developed by non-profit expert organizations. It's reasonable for governments to rely on them. And under the current model, it's the entities (builders) that directly profit from construction that pay for the development of building codes. It's a very different situation form the public availability of laws and judicial opinions generally, which are within the core expertise of public bodies and are entirely publicly funded to begin with.
- kbenson 10y ago
  What's the difference between a (building) code and a law? (Asking genuinely, since you are in a position to possibly answer authoritatively). I understand the system works currently, but I can't help but feel that my rights have been curtailed be hiding information from me that is required to exercise those rights in some cases. If SDOs provide an essential service, then I think we need to find a way to fund them that is not based on hiding knowledge of the law. Maybe that's a percentage of inspection fees, or some something else.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    > What's the difference between a (building) code and a law? (Asking genuinely, since you are in a position to possibly answer authoritatively). Building codes are laws, but they may reference external standards which are not laws. Say Congress passed a law requiring all medical device software to meet certain requirements, with one of those requirements being that it is written in conforming C99. You can't follow the law without following the standard, but the standard is not itself a law. I actually agree with you that we should find a way to fund development of building codes that allows for them to be freely-accessible. I think the ABA proposal, which requires a readable copy of the standard to be posted publicly, is not a bad approach. My point is that the existing system isn't some "sad" subversion of democracy. It's not the solution you'd pick if you value transparency above all else, but it's also not the product of some shady cabal.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      The reference creates the law.
  - morninj 10y ago
    The article explains this well. Building codes are laws because they are incorporated by reference in statutes.
- __jal 10y ago
  Assuming one believes that only those professionally engaged in a given pursuit should be allowed into that pursuit at all, I suppose one can be OK with it. (Although that model still leaves citizen-units unable to review work contractors do for them - how are they supposed to know if work was done to code if they can't read the code?) If, however, you believe it is acceptable for home owners to repair their own homes or understand the laws that govern the buildings in which they live or lease to others, then you start leaning towards the notion that those governed by laws should be allowed to read them without private actors extracting a rent. There is a big difference between transparency of operations (the right to know what your government is up to) and transparency of law. Both are important, but confusing the two doesn't do anyone any good. I do think a "minimum viable democracy" needs the laws to be publicly reviewable without precondition. There can't be equal protection before the law when the law is only accessible for payment. That only a subset of humans are involved in the trades doesn't change the fact that the laws effect me, even if I'm not building my own house.
- mindslight 10y ago
  It is sad. The current model has always been a contradiction, and thus is unreasonable. A law must be public. To do otherwise is to erode the very concept of the rule of law. If a state adopting a code puts it in the public domain, then the code bodies should be suing the state for copyright infringement (unauthorized derivative work), and demanding that states pay to license the code for such use. If a state adopting a code does not put the code into the public domain, then it should lack all legal force. This isn't a fantastic outcome with regards to building codes, so the state will need to fix the situation. But instead of forcing a decision one way or another, both the code bodies and slimeballs in government have been content to just let it slide. They both benefit in their own way by corrupting the rule of law, while only the citizens suffer.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    That's a very ideological take on the issue. The law regularly references standards that often aren't even reducible to writing. E.g. a doctor may be liable to a patient for not conforming to accepted standards of medical practice. But no writing exists that completely defines what those standards are! As a practical matter, the folks charged with following the laws in question are builders. Builders are also members of the standards bodies that create these standards. And they're the ones who pay for the standardization process by purchasing copies of the standards. I actually agree with you that these standards should be publicly available, by the way.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      But no writing exists that completely defines what those standards are! So what? Being public is not the same as being in writing; you could have doctors responsible for answering questions from the citizenry, for example. And they're the ones who pay for the standardization process by purchasing copies of the standards. And why couldn't it just be an extra fee added to the license required to do construction work?
    - mindslight 10y ago
      The justification for the rule of law is inherently ideological. If the law is just another pragmatic tool for the powerful to oppress the weak, then why should the masses respect the concept? > a doctor may be liable to a patient for not conforming to accepted standards of medical practice. But no writing exists that completely defines what those standards are! It seems like an "accepted standard of medical practice" is therefore a matter of opinion, meaning you could find two professional witnesses who reasonably disagreed. But much of the building codes are hard requirements - you're never going to be able to find a professional opinion that running a 20A residential circuit on 14AWG Romex is acceptable, even if say it's only in an uninsulated wall and is therefore likely safe. So the two are completely different. Likely in the medical field, ambiguously policing those who stray too far from the herd is the best that can be done. But in disciplines with hard engineering rules, we can do better. > As a practical matter, the folks charged with following the laws in question are builders Erm, what? That's somewhat like saying the only people tasked with following traffic laws are drivers. Well sure, but in that sense we're basically all drivers. Or if you mean that imply that only professional commercial builders are bound by those laws, that is definitively incorrect. People doing their own work are still bound by the law, even in the ridiculous nanny states that attempt to criminalize people working on their own home.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  But the current model isn't unreasonable. Yes it is, unless you believe you can "have your cake and eat it" at the same time. Laws should be public; I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that. And if codes are "incorporated by law" then they simply must be public as well. It's reasonable for governments to rely on them. And under the current model, it's the entities (builders) that directly profit from construction that pay for the development of building codes. Those two things may be true in isolation, but it's not the case that "It's reasonable for governments to rely on them" if they can't be made public when incorporated as part of the law.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  As others have pointed out, everyone is required to comply with these laws, not just for-profit "builders". This would be like having laws regarding the allowable ways to fix your car or your washing machine, and having those laws referencing documents you have to pay for.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Those organizations are entitled to payment, but the people are entitled to know the law they are subject to. Also, the trade organizations, not the builders write the standards. They have a vested interest to protect the craft, which isn't in-line with the builders interest. Look at PEX pipe and shark bite fittings, which are still illegal in California for an example. In my city, the government has basically criminalized many classes of home improvements to provide artificial scarcity to prop up Union tradesmen and a small number of locally licenses tradesmen. You need a $75 permit, and a licensed plumber working for a master plumber to seat a toilet. So a legal toilet requires about $500 in labor. Outside of the city limits, that job is 40-60% less.

rayiner 10y ago

It's not "sad." If you place a very high value on transparency, you may wish to see a different model. But the current model isn't unreasonable. The standards incorporated into codes are industry consensus standards developed by non-profit expert organizations. It's reasonable for governments to rely on them. And under the current model, it's the entities (builders) that directly profit from construction that pay for the development of building codes. It's a very different situation form the public availability of laws and judicial opinions generally, which are within the core expertise of public bodies and are entirely publicly funded to begin with.

kbenson 10y ago
What's the difference between a (building) code and a law? (Asking genuinely, since you are in a position to possibly answer authoritatively). I understand the system works currently, but I can't help but feel that my rights have been curtailed be hiding information from me that is required to exercise those rights in some cases. If SDOs provide an essential service, then I think we need to find a way to fund them that is not based on hiding knowledge of the law. Maybe that's a percentage of inspection fees, or some something else.
- rayiner 10y ago
  > What's the difference between a (building) code and a law? (Asking genuinely, since you are in a position to possibly answer authoritatively). Building codes are laws, but they may reference external standards which are not laws. Say Congress passed a law requiring all medical device software to meet certain requirements, with one of those requirements being that it is written in conforming C99. You can't follow the law without following the standard, but the standard is not itself a law. I actually agree with you that we should find a way to fund development of building codes that allows for them to be freely-accessible. I think the ABA proposal, which requires a readable copy of the standard to be posted publicly, is not a bad approach. My point is that the existing system isn't some "sad" subversion of democracy. It's not the solution you'd pick if you value transparency above all else, but it's also not the product of some shady cabal.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    The reference creates the law.
- morninj 10y ago
  The article explains this well. Building codes are laws because they are incorporated by reference in statutes.
__jal 10y ago
Assuming one believes that only those professionally engaged in a given pursuit should be allowed into that pursuit at all, I suppose one can be OK with it. (Although that model still leaves citizen-units unable to review work contractors do for them - how are they supposed to know if work was done to code if they can't read the code?) If, however, you believe it is acceptable for home owners to repair their own homes or understand the laws that govern the buildings in which they live or lease to others, then you start leaning towards the notion that those governed by laws should be allowed to read them without private actors extracting a rent. There is a big difference between transparency of operations (the right to know what your government is up to) and transparency of law. Both are important, but confusing the two doesn't do anyone any good. I do think a "minimum viable democracy" needs the laws to be publicly reviewable without precondition. There can't be equal protection before the law when the law is only accessible for payment. That only a subset of humans are involved in the trades doesn't change the fact that the laws effect me, even if I'm not building my own house.
mindslight 10y ago
It is sad. The current model has always been a contradiction, and thus is unreasonable. A law must be public. To do otherwise is to erode the very concept of the rule of law. If a state adopting a code puts it in the public domain, then the code bodies should be suing the state for copyright infringement (unauthorized derivative work), and demanding that states pay to license the code for such use. If a state adopting a code does not put the code into the public domain, then it should lack all legal force. This isn't a fantastic outcome with regards to building codes, so the state will need to fix the situation. But instead of forcing a decision one way or another, both the code bodies and slimeballs in government have been content to just let it slide. They both benefit in their own way by corrupting the rule of law, while only the citizens suffer.
- rayiner 10y ago
  That's a very ideological take on the issue. The law regularly references standards that often aren't even reducible to writing. E.g. a doctor may be liable to a patient for not conforming to accepted standards of medical practice. But no writing exists that completely defines what those standards are! As a practical matter, the folks charged with following the laws in question are builders. Builders are also members of the standards bodies that create these standards. And they're the ones who pay for the standardization process by purchasing copies of the standards. I actually agree with you that these standards should be publicly available, by the way.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    But no writing exists that completely defines what those standards are! So what? Being public is not the same as being in writing; you could have doctors responsible for answering questions from the citizenry, for example. And they're the ones who pay for the standardization process by purchasing copies of the standards. And why couldn't it just be an extra fee added to the license required to do construction work?
  - mindslight 10y ago
    The justification for the rule of law is inherently ideological. If the law is just another pragmatic tool for the powerful to oppress the weak, then why should the masses respect the concept? > a doctor may be liable to a patient for not conforming to accepted standards of medical practice. But no writing exists that completely defines what those standards are! It seems like an "accepted standard of medical practice" is therefore a matter of opinion, meaning you could find two professional witnesses who reasonably disagreed. But much of the building codes are hard requirements - you're never going to be able to find a professional opinion that running a 20A residential circuit on 14AWG Romex is acceptable, even if say it's only in an uninsulated wall and is therefore likely safe. So the two are completely different. Likely in the medical field, ambiguously policing those who stray too far from the herd is the best that can be done. But in disciplines with hard engineering rules, we can do better. > As a practical matter, the folks charged with following the laws in question are builders Erm, what? That's somewhat like saying the only people tasked with following traffic laws are drivers. Well sure, but in that sense we're basically all drivers. Or if you mean that imply that only professional commercial builders are bound by those laws, that is definitively incorrect. People doing their own work are still bound by the law, even in the ridiculous nanny states that attempt to criminalize people working on their own home.
mindcrime 10y ago
But the current model isn't unreasonable. Yes it is, unless you believe you can "have your cake and eat it" at the same time. Laws should be public; I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that. And if codes are "incorporated by law" then they simply must be public as well. It's reasonable for governments to rely on them. And under the current model, it's the entities (builders) that directly profit from construction that pay for the development of building codes. Those two things may be true in isolation, but it's not the case that "It's reasonable for governments to rely on them" if they can't be made public when incorporated as part of the law.
ryandrake 10y ago
As others have pointed out, everyone is required to comply with these laws, not just for-profit "builders". This would be like having laws regarding the allowable ways to fix your car or your washing machine, and having those laws referencing documents you have to pay for.
Spooky23 10y ago
Those organizations are entitled to payment, but the people are entitled to know the law they are subject to. Also, the trade organizations, not the builders write the standards. They have a vested interest to protect the craft, which isn't in-line with the builders interest. Look at PEX pipe and shark bite fittings, which are still illegal in California for an example. In my city, the government has basically criminalized many classes of home improvements to provide artificial scarcity to prop up Union tradesmen and a small number of locally licenses tradesmen. You need a $75 permit, and a licensed plumber working for a master plumber to seat a toilet. So a legal toilet requires about $500 in labor. Outside of the city limits, that job is 40-60% less.