4 ms·

I suppose I didn't make it explicit, but my point is that these regulations can be costly and/or stifling for a future benefit that may never come. Costly in t

by fiter 10y ago

I suppose I didn't make it explicit, but my point is that these regulations can be costly and/or stifling for a future benefit that may never come. Costly in the original example would be that waterless urinals are installed for the life of the building. Stifling in your example would be because much land will never be used because it's infeasible to bring power, water, and septic. Someone could have a home, but nothing will happen instead due to the regulation. Just to meet your last point: - Is today's weirdo tomorrow's visionary? - Is a weirdo not allowed to create what he wants if he's not hurting anyone?

rtpg 10y ago
There aren't that many building regulations in the middle of the countryside. Building busted stuff in the middle of NYC hurts everyone, because there's limited space. Visionaries can build where other people don't want to be, or convince the people around them that what they want to do is a good idea.
- fiter 10y ago
  You'd be surprised at the prevalence of regulations! ("You have one flush toilet. U.S. regulations require every legally habitable dwelling to have at least one flush toilet connected to an approved sewer or septic system." -- So a composting-toilet-only house seems to be illegal everywhere in the US.) Someone could buy an incredibly valuable vacant lot and fence it and never use it. As far as I know, that's not illegal but would cause the same problem you've pointed out. I don't think the utility hookup regulations are based on such "waste of space" reasoning.
gregmac 10y ago
> these regulations can be costly and/or stifling for a future benefit that may never come. You could say the same thing about much of the building code. A lot of code is there to ensure that the floor doesn't collapse if you fill the tub up with water, have a room full of people jumping up and down, or buy a piano. There's more on ensuring the roof doesn't collapse if there's lot of snow on it, and making sure the house is solid enough to safely sustain reasonably high winds or an earthquake. If there are no earthquakes, wind or snow storms, you never buy a piano or have a party and only ever use the shower, is the effort put in satisfying these codes wasted?
- fiter 10y ago
  I think it's important to consider the difference between "possible benefit" and "avoiding injury/death". When it comes to safety--because we understandably put such a large value on human life--small risks are something we consider. I believe all of your examples fall into the safety category. Even worse about your examples is that the situations are unsafe and misleading. I think our regulations surrounding the safety issues that you listed are reasonable. (Additionally, building codes do consider expected usage and alters allowances. No one expects a piano in an attic and the floor load per square foot requirements reflect that.)

by fiter 10y ago

rtpg 10y ago

There aren't that many building regulations in the middle of the countryside. Building busted stuff in the middle of NYC hurts everyone, because there's limited space. Visionaries can build where other people don't want to be, or convince the people around them that what they want to do is a good idea.

fiter 10y ago
You'd be surprised at the prevalence of regulations! ("You have one flush toilet. U.S. regulations require every legally habitable dwelling to have at least one flush toilet connected to an approved sewer or septic system." -- So a composting-toilet-only house seems to be illegal everywhere in the US.) Someone could buy an incredibly valuable vacant lot and fence it and never use it. As far as I know, that's not illegal but would cause the same problem you've pointed out. I don't think the utility hookup regulations are based on such "waste of space" reasoning.

gregmac 10y ago

> these regulations can be costly and/or stifling for a future benefit that may never come. You could say the same thing about much of the building code. A lot of code is there to ensure that the floor doesn't collapse if you fill the tub up with water, have a room full of people jumping up and down, or buy a piano. There's more on ensuring the roof doesn't collapse if there's lot of snow on it, and making sure the house is solid enough to safely sustain reasonably high winds or an earthquake. If there are no earthquakes, wind or snow storms, you never buy a piano or have a party and only ever use the shower, is the effort put in satisfying these codes wasted?

fiter 10y ago
I think it's important to consider the difference between "possible benefit" and "avoiding injury/death". When it comes to safety--because we understandably put such a large value on human life--small risks are something we consider. I believe all of your examples fall into the safety category. Even worse about your examples is that the situations are unsafe and misleading. I think our regulations surrounding the safety issues that you listed are reasonable. (Additionally, building codes do consider expected usage and alters allowances. No one expects a piano in an attic and the floor load per square foot requirements reflect that.)