4 ms·

It seems pretty ridiculous for a government official to say "I am giving you permission to bypass these rules" and then arrest them for breaking those rules. S

It seems pretty ridiculous for a government official to say "I am giving you permission to bypass these rules" and then arrest them for breaking those rules. Sure, requesting an exemption may be an act of greed, but the role of responsible government is to say "No, those rules are there for a reason". If developers legally bypassed regulations due to the government saying it's okay, the buck should absolutely stop with the government, and the question should be why they allowed those exemptions.

munk-a 4y ago
I don't disagree with you but I think there is a sort of difference that makes the comparison to software developers[1] a bit false. The cost for software developers[1] to fix things after the fact is generally lower than the cost of developing it again from scratch - the cost for contractors to fix an existing fully constructed building that didn't have rebar put in is... tear it all down (expensive), dispose of all that waste (expensive), probably double check the site to make sure things in the ground didn't shift during the construction and destruction (expensive) and rebuild the building from scratch. Personally I'm against amnesty for contractors - if a building was poorly constructed the people responsible for that decision should be treated harshly... but I think there is a reasonable discussion to have around amnesty for the buildings themselves. 1. (Was originally just "developers" edited to "software developers" for clarity)
- valarauko 4y ago
  > The cost for developers to fix things after the fact is generally lower than the cost of developing it again from scratch I don't follow - could you expand on why this would be the case? What's the distinction here between the developer and the contractor when it comes to costs?
  - munk-a 4y ago
    Sorry, the terminology is kind of terrible here - by developer I meant software developer. That's pretty egregiously confusing so I've edited the comment. I'm actually uncertain now if the parent I was replying to was talking about software or real estate developers so my response might be a bit of a miss.
    - valarauko 4y ago
      Ah, I suspected that might be the case. My reading of the parent did suggest "real estate developer" to me, for what it's worth.
- gameman144 4y ago
  Yeah, based on my understanding, I think I agree with you across the board. Saying "this building already exists, so we'll let it slide" and doing retrofits as able seems like a reasonable compromise. If you allow new construction to bypass safety regulations though, it's unreasonable to then punish contractors for bypassing safety regulations. Regulators should never have granted exemptions for such projects, and it should be their feet to the fire on this one.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    Which is basically how building codes work in the US. You gotta meet the ones in force at time of building, but modifications have to be built up to code.
imiric 4y ago
> It seems pretty ridiculous for a government official to say "I am giving you permission to bypass these rules" and then arrest them for breaking those rules. You seem surprised that an autocratic government would act illogically or immorally, and play according to rules that benefit them. They're just covering their asses so it can look like they're acting on behalf of the people. As soon as this blows over, it will be business as usual. The only thing they need to worry about is to not screw over someone powerful, which might backfire, but otherwise this is not unexpected.

munk-a 4y ago

I don't disagree with you but I think there is a sort of difference that makes the comparison to software developers[1] a bit false. The cost for software developers[1] to fix things after the fact is generally lower than the cost of developing it again from scratch - the cost for contractors to fix an existing fully constructed building that didn't have rebar put in is... tear it all down (expensive), dispose of all that waste (expensive), probably double check the site to make sure things in the ground didn't shift during the construction and destruction (expensive) and rebuild the building from scratch. Personally I'm against amnesty for contractors - if a building was poorly constructed the people responsible for that decision should be treated harshly... but I think there is a reasonable discussion to have around amnesty for the buildings themselves. 1. (Was originally just "developers" edited to "software developers" for clarity)

valarauko 4y ago
> The cost for developers to fix things after the fact is generally lower than the cost of developing it again from scratch I don't follow - could you expand on why this would be the case? What's the distinction here between the developer and the contractor when it comes to costs?
- munk-a 4y ago
  Sorry, the terminology is kind of terrible here - by developer I meant software developer. That's pretty egregiously confusing so I've edited the comment. I'm actually uncertain now if the parent I was replying to was talking about software or real estate developers so my response might be a bit of a miss.
  - valarauko 4y ago
    Ah, I suspected that might be the case. My reading of the parent did suggest "real estate developer" to me, for what it's worth.
gameman144 4y ago
Yeah, based on my understanding, I think I agree with you across the board. Saying "this building already exists, so we'll let it slide" and doing retrofits as able seems like a reasonable compromise. If you allow new construction to bypass safety regulations though, it's unreasonable to then punish contractors for bypassing safety regulations. Regulators should never have granted exemptions for such projects, and it should be their feet to the fire on this one.
- TylerE 4y ago
  Which is basically how building codes work in the US. You gotta meet the ones in force at time of building, but modifications have to be built up to code.

imiric 4y ago

> It seems pretty ridiculous for a government official to say "I am giving you permission to bypass these rules" and then arrest them for breaking those rules. You seem surprised that an autocratic government would act illogically or immorally, and play according to rules that benefit them. They're just covering their asses so it can look like they're acting on behalf of the people. As soon as this blows over, it will be business as usual. The only thing they need to worry about is to not screw over someone powerful, which might backfire, but otherwise this is not unexpected.