3 ms·
Well, yeah, isn't that just enforcing the codes? If you didn't have to go back and fix it, you could build as many sloppy houses as you want and the codes would
by HomeDeLaPot 4y ago
Well, yeah, isn't that just enforcing the codes? If you didn't have to go back and fix it, you could build as many sloppy houses as you want and the codes would be meaningless.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- notch656c 4y agoI would only apply such standard if it passes the symmetry principle with currently legal houses which is the context in which above mentioned about the not being worth bulldozing/fixing if they met the old codes. I.e. if the problem was legal for the construction of a currently inhabited house then the same logic about not being worth it to start over applies to the new house as the old house. Therefore it couldn't possibly devolve into codes being meaningless but rather worst case devolve into creating a baseline of allowing older codes which apparently are safe enough we haven't kicked their owners out. In effect it would create equality in home ownership rather than a standard where you can build a house and then vote to make it harder for the next guy to artificially raise your property values. If something is truly too unsafe to exist the rules should be applied uniformly rather than giving privileged immunities to early entrants.
- eropple 4y agoYour argument collapses to "forget improvement, let me externalize", and we as a society have strong reasons to provide a glide path towards reducing those externalities for old construction (which we do through updates during renovations, rebates, etc.) while disallowing them for new.
- notch656c 4y agoThe argument of existing homeowners is "forget improving my own house, let me externalize costs to others to raise my own property values." We as a society have strong reasons to provide a glide path towards reducing that moral hazard created by old entrants.