4 ms·

This is a good list. 2) Unfuck building codes. I think it could be greatly simplified by holding the building owner/manager criminally liable for defects that

This is a good list. 2) Unfuck building codes. I think it could be greatly simplified by holding the building owner/manager criminally liable for defects that lead to major injury or death, and civilly liable for smaller defects. There's no reason for the government to have an opinion about what type of concrete you're using or how many feet of wire you're using. They should be policing outcomes, not hiring and sending inspectors all over. If a building collapses, the people who own it and the people who built it should go to jail. And insurance companies can come after the owners for the smaller problems.

spiderice 5y ago
This makes absolutely no sense. How is "let the building collapse then send the owner to jail" an improvement over "don't let the building collapse"? Why would we get rid of building codes, but then still jail people who don't follow the old building codes that we just got rid of. All this would accomplish is sending well-meaning people to jail, just because they didn't know their house had a serious problem, because we got rid of the building codes. I am so confused by your rational.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  The argument is probably something along the lines of "most building codes are costly but not necessary for safety" aka "it can be somehow done significantly cheaper but just as safely, a way that doesn't follow the building codes". Not sure such a way exists...
  - notch656a 5y ago
    Are you in favor of bulldozing favelas in places like Brazil if the inhabitants can't afford to fix their shanty to meet up to code?
    - HPsquared 5y ago
      I guess it comes down to comparing the risk of poor quality housing vs the risks of homelessness. Kind of like that saying "the real minimum wage is zero"
      - notch656a 5y ago
        For many of those people, it's not a risk of homelessness but rather that they would have to rent someplace outside the favela at a much higher price, one they may be able to barely afford. Sort of like in the US, where zoning/building don't generally make people homeless but instead put a person into the situation of the favela dweller who has the option to rent while paying a large portion of their income, except without the option to build their own sub-code housing.
ThunderSizzle 5y ago
No one wants liability. Builders wants to build and be gone ASAP. They'll build a $350k home using the cheapest parts and labor they can find and do their best to run away with the profit. 5 years time, after any sort of warranty, their workmanship (or rather, their lack of it) starts showing. I think your idea would be great, but there would be turmoil while the liability hot potato is thrown around until the industry figures out where that lands (probably some form of "malpractice insurance" on builders would become a thing, with higher premiums on those who suck more, eventually forcing them to be better or quit entirely).

spiderice 5y ago

This makes absolutely no sense. How is "let the building collapse then send the owner to jail" an improvement over "don't let the building collapse"? Why would we get rid of building codes, but then still jail people who don't follow the old building codes that we just got rid of. All this would accomplish is sending well-meaning people to jail, just because they didn't know their house had a serious problem, because we got rid of the building codes. I am so confused by your rational.

HPsquared 5y ago
The argument is probably something along the lines of "most building codes are costly but not necessary for safety" aka "it can be somehow done significantly cheaper but just as safely, a way that doesn't follow the building codes". Not sure such a way exists...
- notch656a 5y ago
  Are you in favor of bulldozing favelas in places like Brazil if the inhabitants can't afford to fix their shanty to meet up to code?
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    I guess it comes down to comparing the risk of poor quality housing vs the risks of homelessness. Kind of like that saying "the real minimum wage is zero"
    - notch656a 5y ago
      For many of those people, it's not a risk of homelessness but rather that they would have to rent someplace outside the favela at a much higher price, one they may be able to barely afford. Sort of like in the US, where zoning/building don't generally make people homeless but instead put a person into the situation of the favela dweller who has the option to rent while paying a large portion of their income, except without the option to build their own sub-code housing.

ThunderSizzle 5y ago

No one wants liability. Builders wants to build and be gone ASAP. They'll build a $350k home using the cheapest parts and labor they can find and do their best to run away with the profit. 5 years time, after any sort of warranty, their workmanship (or rather, their lack of it) starts showing. I think your idea would be great, but there would be turmoil while the liability hot potato is thrown around until the industry figures out where that lands (probably some form of "malpractice insurance" on builders would become a thing, with higher premiums on those who suck more, eventually forcing them to be better or quit entirely).