3 ms·

this blog entry claims that: 1) the decrease in condo building is due to high construction liability insurance costs 2) the high construction liability insura

this blog entry claims that: 1) the decrease in condo building is due to high construction liability insurance costs 2) the high construction liability insurance costs are due to lots of construction defect litigation 3) the lots of construction defect litigation is due to... the analysis stops there, without examining why, other than "because the state made us responsible for our construction defects" one would think they would look inward and wonder why they were constructing buildings with so many defects instead, they just say the state should find ways to indemnify condo developers for constructing buildings with defects

Animats 3y ago
The problem seems to be that the Denver area has unusual soil situations that cause foundation problems. Here's the view from a firm that defends builders.[1] Many of the problems involve building motion long after construction. Hence litigation. Denver seems to have an unusually large number of foundation repair contractors. [1] https://www.hhmrlaw.com/publications/CD%20Overview%20(2013%20edition).pdf https://www.hhmrlaw.com/publications/CD%20Overview%20(2013%2...
- olliej 3y ago
  If you know the soil is unusual, you should be designing for that soil. The fact that failing to account for that leads to damage warranting legal action is indicative of poor design and construction, exactly what should place liability on the designers and constructors. In what world does it make sense not to?
olliej 3y ago
Eg offload the full cost of construction onto taxpayers. If you are a private business that can only operate at a profit with tax payers footing a chunk of the bill you aren’t profitable. Any “profit” being made is simply theft from tax payers. End of story. That said I couldn’t read the actual content of the article on my phone because every thing kept trying to force me to log in with an ms account?
- eru 3y ago
  > If you are a private business that can only operate at a profit with tax payers footing a chunk of the bill you aren’t profitable. Any “profit” being made is simply theft from tax payers. End of story. I'm not sure that's as much of an argument as you think it is. Many military contractors are run for-profit, but the tax payer is footing the bill.

Animats 3y ago

The problem seems to be that the Denver area has unusual soil situations that cause foundation problems. Here's the view from a firm that defends builders.[1] Many of the problems involve building motion long after construction. Hence litigation. Denver seems to have an unusually large number of foundation repair contractors. [1] https://www.hhmrlaw.com/publications/CD%20Overview%20(2013%20edition).pdf https://www.hhmrlaw.com/publications/CD%20Overview%20(2013%2...

olliej 3y ago
If you know the soil is unusual, you should be designing for that soil. The fact that failing to account for that leads to damage warranting legal action is indicative of poor design and construction, exactly what should place liability on the designers and constructors. In what world does it make sense not to?

olliej 3y ago

Eg offload the full cost of construction onto taxpayers. If you are a private business that can only operate at a profit with tax payers footing a chunk of the bill you aren’t profitable. Any “profit” being made is simply theft from tax payers. End of story. That said I couldn’t read the actual content of the article on my phone because every thing kept trying to force me to log in with an ms account?

eru 3y ago
> If you are a private business that can only operate at a profit with tax payers footing a chunk of the bill you aren’t profitable. Any “profit” being made is simply theft from tax payers. End of story. I'm not sure that's as much of an argument as you think it is. Many military contractors are run for-profit, but the tax payer is footing the bill.