4 ms·

If I understand this, he built it to the building codes he knew in the 60s and couldn't understand why the building inspectors kept finding violations in what h

If I understand this, he built it to the building codes he knew in the 60s and couldn't understand why the building inspectors kept finding violations in what he built.

Super_Jambo 10y ago
I mean obviously the story told from his point of view is going to be one sided. That said if the complaint was simply that the materials used had not been through expensive certification _and there was no cost effective alternative for individuals_. Then it starts to sound a lot like regulation as barrier to entry.
alexandercrohde 10y ago
That's a strawman summary, and destructive to the discussion. The state argued that bulldozing his house was the right thing to do, more on process than any evidence as it seems his house was structurally superior to standard houses, plus he couldn't afford any other house... Whether he didn't know the regulations, or was performing civil disobedience isn't relevant to whether these regulations are too rigidly enforced.
dvtv75 10y ago
There's a bit in there (paragraph 8) about how he met or exceeded modern building codes, as determined by an independent third party, yet was getting hit for not meeting modern building code. Whether that's the whole story or not seems to be left to the imagination.
- paxy 10y ago
  > "They were built the old-fashioned way," said Mr. Debly, himself 80, "the way we did it in the '60s." Not exactly the "independent third party" you are describing.
- verbify 10y ago
  It seems odd that the 'independent third party' volunteered to do it: > ...At one point, a professional home builder, Raymond Debly, volunteered to do an independent inspection... This guy is a 'professional home builder' which I believe is not a licensed professional, and 'volunteers' (read: do it for free) to do an inspection. In fact, when you read further: > And the trusses were fine. ("They were built the old-fashioned way," said Mr. Debly, himself 80, "the way we did it in the '60s.") This hardly inspires me with confidence. Someone who has been retired for 15 years volunteered to do an 'inspection' for what I presume is his friend. This is not an independent firm doing a paid-for inspection on behalf of both parties. The building may have been fine, but the independent inspection does not sound like a verification that the building is up to modern verification codes.
  - scaryspooky 10y ago
    Professional home builders are typically required to be tested before being licensed. A license is typically required in order to build homes for other people.
    - verbify 10y ago
      This guy hasn't built a home for about 20 years. Regulations change.
      - scaryspooky 10y ago
        Which is the part I disagree with. Existing homes built under those outdated regulations are somehow magically safe but building the same home 20 years later makes it a death trap?
        verbify 10y ago
        Existing homes aren't magically safe. Safe isn't a binary, it's a continuum, and we're constantly improving our building techniques. We don't have the resources to knock down all the older houses and rebuild them. The least we can do is when building new houses is to make sure that they are safer so that over time buildings get safer and safer.
  - Amezarak 10y ago
    > This hardly inspires me with confidence. Maybe it depends on location, but here, saying something was built 'the old-fashioned way' generally does mean massively over-engineered and structurally solid. I can only assume wood and concrete were a lot cheaper in the past. It's all good until you go to do some major renovations and discover that the concrete footers you need to remove are ridiculously deep...

If I understand this, he built it to the building codes he knew in the 60s and couldn't understand why the building inspectors kept finding violations in what he built.

Super_Jambo 10y ago

I mean obviously the story told from his point of view is going to be one sided. That said if the complaint was simply that the materials used had not been through expensive certification _and there was no cost effective alternative for individuals_. Then it starts to sound a lot like regulation as barrier to entry.

alexandercrohde 10y ago

That's a strawman summary, and destructive to the discussion. The state argued that bulldozing his house was the right thing to do, more on process than any evidence as it seems his house was structurally superior to standard houses, plus he couldn't afford any other house... Whether he didn't know the regulations, or was performing civil disobedience isn't relevant to whether these regulations are too rigidly enforced.

dvtv75 10y ago

There's a bit in there (paragraph 8) about how he met or exceeded modern building codes, as determined by an independent third party, yet was getting hit for not meeting modern building code. Whether that's the whole story or not seems to be left to the imagination.

paxy 10y ago
> "They were built the old-fashioned way," said Mr. Debly, himself 80, "the way we did it in the '60s." Not exactly the "independent third party" you are describing.
verbify 10y ago
It seems odd that the 'independent third party' volunteered to do it: > ...At one point, a professional home builder, Raymond Debly, volunteered to do an independent inspection... This guy is a 'professional home builder' which I believe is not a licensed professional, and 'volunteers' (read: do it for free) to do an inspection. In fact, when you read further: > And the trusses were fine. ("They were built the old-fashioned way," said Mr. Debly, himself 80, "the way we did it in the '60s.") This hardly inspires me with confidence. Someone who has been retired for 15 years volunteered to do an 'inspection' for what I presume is his friend. This is not an independent firm doing a paid-for inspection on behalf of both parties. The building may have been fine, but the independent inspection does not sound like a verification that the building is up to modern verification codes.
- scaryspooky 10y ago
  Professional home builders are typically required to be tested before being licensed. A license is typically required in order to build homes for other people.
  - verbify 10y ago
    This guy hasn't built a home for about 20 years. Regulations change.
    - scaryspooky 10y ago
      Which is the part I disagree with. Existing homes built under those outdated regulations are somehow magically safe but building the same home 20 years later makes it a death trap?
      - verbify 10y ago
        Existing homes aren't magically safe. Safe isn't a binary, it's a continuum, and we're constantly improving our building techniques. We don't have the resources to knock down all the older houses and rebuild them. The least we can do is when building new houses is to make sure that they are safer so that over time buildings get safer and safer.
- Amezarak 10y ago
  > This hardly inspires me with confidence. Maybe it depends on location, but here, saying something was built 'the old-fashioned way' generally does mean massively over-engineered and structurally solid. I can only assume wood and concrete were a lot cheaper in the past. It's all good until you go to do some major renovations and discover that the concrete footers you need to remove are ridiculously deep...