6 ms·

I solved this problem by finding a place with no fire/building code inspections and built a shack for 40k. People build whatever here and all the stuff paranoi

I solved this problem by finding a place with no fire/building code inspections and built a shack for 40k. People build whatever here and all the stuff paranoid people claim would happen, didn't. Code inspections eliminated 20 years ago. I imagine the code scam and it's costs result in untold deaths and exposure, or money lost that could have been spent on healthcare, education, or healthy foods .

bitcharmer 2y ago
It's a bit like advocating not wearing a seatbelt because You've never been in an accident. Pretty short sighted
bitxbitxbitcoin 2y ago
Is this a county level jurisdiction in the United States?
- beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
  Yes. Most counties experiencing booms since the 70s, developers swooped in and coopted the county boards to make a guy and his truck weak competition.
  - jameshart 2y ago
    To be fair, many towns don’t actually want to only attract guys with trucks. They also want families, professionals, schoolteachers, etc. It’s not evil for a town to prefer that developers come in and build housing in volume to enable the growth the town desires versus individuals coming in and building one offs.
- sixothree 2y ago
  Yeah. Not sure this is an answer for anyone except people in that one specific region.
loandbehold 2y ago
Where is it?
- beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
  Somewhere in Arizona
- luzojeda 2y ago
  Don't think anyone in his position would be too keen on telling since it'd probably spoil the place.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Where is it? Generally speaking, any unincorporated land.
willcipriano 2y ago
How do you find such a magical place? This is what I'm looking for.
throwaway22032 2y ago
Congratulations. I've been saying for years that regulation is written for the wealthy. Someone who will never be able to afford a home doesn't give a fuck if their wiring has an 0.1% chance of going wrong or if their bedroom has a window or whatever. It's better than a tent or a shitty landlord, and it's how most people lived only a couple of generations ago.
- dangus 2y ago
  This sort of thinking really brushes aside a lot of building disasters that definitely didn’t just affect the wealthy. The Iroquois Theater Fire…The Chicago Fire…the list goes on and on.
  - gottorf 2y ago
    The OP addressed it: > result in untold deaths and exposure, or money lost that could have been spent on healthcare, education, or healthy foods This type of policy often get so entrenched precised because its benefits are visible and wildly publicized in such cases of disaster, whereas its downsides are hidden (by all the people who lose out on having a home of any kind because they cannot afford the higher costs of code-burdened construction). It's the political equivalent of "privatize the profits, socialize the losses". The real minimum standard of housing is not what is mandated by code; it's sleeping on the street.
    - dangus 2y ago
      Perhaps I should have brought up the Kowloon Walled City then. We have real world case studies of situations where building code didn't exist and the outcome wasn't a magical utopia for lower income housing. There are plenty of ways to increase housing supply and lower costs that don't compromise on building code, safety, livability, etc. The government as a whole has many levers it can, should, and does pull: zoning and planning reform, tax breaks for affordable developments, supporting/subsidizing more people getting into trade jobs, etc. But those levers should not include letting people build sketchy shacks piled up on top of each other.
jameshart 2y ago
Do you really think the fact you found this solution to work means it would work just as well if everyone did it? A self selecting group of people willing to build their own places taking on their own risks is not a good model for ‘what would happen if we got rid of building and fire codes?’ People who aren’t willing or able to figure out how to build their own house to an adequate safety standard are going to need to rely on being able to do things like buying a house someone else built. Inspection codes protect those people. And when you factor in people wanting to live in denser groupings like in a town or city… well, how many times did San Francisco burn down before they figured out fire codes?
- idontpost 2y ago
  > Inspection codes protect those people Inspection codes are supposed to protect those people. As currently implemented, they often don't because they force people into ... alternate living arrangements due to strangled housing supply. It's not even the code per se that's the problem. It's the weaponized bureaucratic incompetence around its enforcement.
jancsika 2y ago
How much is insurance for a shack not built to code?
- hedora 2y ago
  Why not just self-insure with the money saved in construction? The max damages are $40K + hauling the old one to the dump.
  - dingnuts 2y ago
    this doesn't take liability into account when the shack falls over on a visitor LMAO
    - vundercind 2y ago
      It’s really easy to build a shack that isn’t gonna just fall over one day, with no warning. Especially in a dry, warm area.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        Even in a wet area, wood has the nice property that it usually (but not always) starts to feel unsafe long before it falls over and hurts someone. Unless there is a storm - tornado resistance is very hard and needs the best engineering (which code enforces)
      - dingnuts 2y ago
        I was being a little facetious with my example; the point is that home insurance includes more than loss insurance for the cost of the actual structure This forum can't take a joke or read intent at ALL -- bunch of fucking stiffs "self insuring" a house that's not built to code is like driving a car without insurance because you finished paying it off. If someone is harmed by your property and you don't have accidental death and dismemberment liability insurance you are f. u. c. k. e. d. fucked.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
hedora 2y ago
I've been in places of the country like that, and it's even odds if houses from > 50 years ago are falling over due to poor framing, etc. Having said that, we built a house in California, where the NIMBYs have weaponized code enforcement, and we could have built the same house (to higher quality and lower environmental impact) for about half the price and in half the time if it weren't for the planning commission. The time mattered a lot, since that meant we paid rent + mortgage interest for an extra year. To add insult to injury, the building inspectors missed all sorts of obvious problems, and the planning commission approved plans with gaping issues. I don't think they found anything that improved the house itself, but they definitely repeatedly rejected permit applications, and failed inspections for nonsense reasons. So, in true Monty Python style, we'd have been better off financially if we'd built a house or two that fell over, sank into the swamp, etc.
- jobs_throwaway 2y ago
  Weaponized bureaucracy may be the #1 thing holding this country back, and I don't see a good path forward. Entrenched interests are just that, entrenched. Outside of an extreme strongman gaining political power, how do you get past the plague of a thousand little fiefdoms all demanding their toll?
  - bluGill 2y ago
    For starters, the city council and state legislator should set rules so that most things don't get a public hearing. You can't NIMBY if you are not even invited stick your nose in someone else's business.
    - jobs_throwaway 2y ago
      100%. Issues with planing/zoning should be addressed legislatively and not on a case-by-case basis in a room full of geriatrics with nothing better to do than pull the ladder out from behind them
      - drdaeman 2y ago
drdaeman 2y ago
Are US fire/building codes tend to require some costly processes and/or materials that can be argued to be sort of a diminishing return, or are they're more of a sanity thing, like using GFCI outlets in wet rooms or using fire-retardant materials? Some time ago, outside of the US, I rewired my grandpa's old shack once, which was gradually built from whatever he had at hand back then (totally not to any code, like literal twists of copper and aluminium wires, idk how that shit held up for over 60 years), and the local code was mostly a bunch of "do things the right way please, don't do stupid shit"-grade standards that totally made sense to me. Plus some local opinionated defaults (so anyone looking at something wouldn't be caught by surprise). Although, I haven't went through any formal inspections (only unofficial LGTM nod from a friendly certified electrician), just replaced obvious "to scared to live here" hazards with less obvious ones. But I have no idea about the US codes and how complicated those are.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > are they're more of a sanity thing, like using GFCI outlets in wet rooms or using fire-retardant materials? Column A, Column B. They often require reasonable things. But the actual approval process is sort of a crap shoot.
  - drdaeman 2y ago
    So it's not the codes that are the actual issue, but the bureaucracy?
    - bombcar 2y ago
      The codes can be a bit of a problem but it's usually minor (like requiring sprinklers where they didn't before, adds $10k, etc - though enough of these and it adds up). In most places its the bureaucracy - sometimes two cities with identical rules on the books will be completely different, because one is using permits and permit re-application fees as a major budget item, the other has one inspector who is always gone fishing.
- bluGill 2y ago
xnx 2y ago
> finding a place with no fire/building code inspection How does one find these areas?
- bombcar 2y ago
  Wyoming has been reported as such. Note that many places only have plumbing and electrical inspections, and some have that and roofing/framing, nothing else. It takes time to search, and can vary from county to county and even as few as a few blocks apart.

bitcharmer 2y ago

It's a bit like advocating not wearing a seatbelt because You've never been in an accident. Pretty short sighted

bitxbitxbitcoin 2y ago

Is this a county level jurisdiction in the United States?

beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
Yes. Most counties experiencing booms since the 70s, developers swooped in and coopted the county boards to make a guy and his truck weak competition.
- jameshart 2y ago
  To be fair, many towns don’t actually want to only attract guys with trucks. They also want families, professionals, schoolteachers, etc. It’s not evil for a town to prefer that developers come in and build housing in volume to enable the growth the town desires versus individuals coming in and building one offs.
sixothree 2y ago
Yeah. Not sure this is an answer for anyone except people in that one specific region.

loandbehold 2y ago

Where is it?

beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
Somewhere in Arizona
luzojeda 2y ago
Don't think anyone in his position would be too keen on telling since it'd probably spoil the place.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Where is it? Generally speaking, any unincorporated land.

willcipriano 2y ago

How do you find such a magical place? This is what I'm looking for.

throwaway22032 2y ago

Congratulations. I've been saying for years that regulation is written for the wealthy. Someone who will never be able to afford a home doesn't give a fuck if their wiring has an 0.1% chance of going wrong or if their bedroom has a window or whatever. It's better than a tent or a shitty landlord, and it's how most people lived only a couple of generations ago.

dangus 2y ago
This sort of thinking really brushes aside a lot of building disasters that definitely didn’t just affect the wealthy. The Iroquois Theater Fire…The Chicago Fire…the list goes on and on.
- gottorf 2y ago
  The OP addressed it: > result in untold deaths and exposure, or money lost that could have been spent on healthcare, education, or healthy foods This type of policy often get so entrenched precised because its benefits are visible and wildly publicized in such cases of disaster, whereas its downsides are hidden (by all the people who lose out on having a home of any kind because they cannot afford the higher costs of code-burdened construction). It's the political equivalent of "privatize the profits, socialize the losses". The real minimum standard of housing is not what is mandated by code; it's sleeping on the street.
  - dangus 2y ago
    Perhaps I should have brought up the Kowloon Walled City then. We have real world case studies of situations where building code didn't exist and the outcome wasn't a magical utopia for lower income housing. There are plenty of ways to increase housing supply and lower costs that don't compromise on building code, safety, livability, etc. The government as a whole has many levers it can, should, and does pull: zoning and planning reform, tax breaks for affordable developments, supporting/subsidizing more people getting into trade jobs, etc. But those levers should not include letting people build sketchy shacks piled up on top of each other.

jameshart 2y ago

Do you really think the fact you found this solution to work means it would work just as well if everyone did it? A self selecting group of people willing to build their own places taking on their own risks is not a good model for ‘what would happen if we got rid of building and fire codes?’ People who aren’t willing or able to figure out how to build their own house to an adequate safety standard are going to need to rely on being able to do things like buying a house someone else built. Inspection codes protect those people. And when you factor in people wanting to live in denser groupings like in a town or city… well, how many times did San Francisco burn down before they figured out fire codes?

idontpost 2y ago
> Inspection codes protect those people Inspection codes are supposed to protect those people. As currently implemented, they often don't because they force people into ... alternate living arrangements due to strangled housing supply. It's not even the code per se that's the problem. It's the weaponized bureaucratic incompetence around its enforcement.

jancsika 2y ago

How much is insurance for a shack not built to code?

hedora 2y ago
Why not just self-insure with the money saved in construction? The max damages are $40K + hauling the old one to the dump.
- dingnuts 2y ago
  this doesn't take liability into account when the shack falls over on a visitor LMAO
  - vundercind 2y ago
    It’s really easy to build a shack that isn’t gonna just fall over one day, with no warning. Especially in a dry, warm area.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Even in a wet area, wood has the nice property that it usually (but not always) starts to feel unsafe long before it falls over and hurts someone. Unless there is a storm - tornado resistance is very hard and needs the best engineering (which code enforces)
    - dingnuts 2y ago
      I was being a little facetious with my example; the point is that home insurance includes more than loss insurance for the cost of the actual structure This forum can't take a joke or read intent at ALL -- bunch of fucking stiffs "self insuring" a house that's not built to code is like driving a car without insurance because you finished paying it off. If someone is harmed by your property and you don't have accidental death and dismemberment liability insurance you are f. u. c. k. e. d. fucked.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

hedora 2y ago

I've been in places of the country like that, and it's even odds if houses from > 50 years ago are falling over due to poor framing, etc. Having said that, we built a house in California, where the NIMBYs have weaponized code enforcement, and we could have built the same house (to higher quality and lower environmental impact) for about half the price and in half the time if it weren't for the planning commission. The time mattered a lot, since that meant we paid rent + mortgage interest for an extra year. To add insult to injury, the building inspectors missed all sorts of obvious problems, and the planning commission approved plans with gaping issues. I don't think they found anything that improved the house itself, but they definitely repeatedly rejected permit applications, and failed inspections for nonsense reasons. So, in true Monty Python style, we'd have been better off financially if we'd built a house or two that fell over, sank into the swamp, etc.

jobs_throwaway 2y ago
Weaponized bureaucracy may be the #1 thing holding this country back, and I don't see a good path forward. Entrenched interests are just that, entrenched. Outside of an extreme strongman gaining political power, how do you get past the plague of a thousand little fiefdoms all demanding their toll?
- bluGill 2y ago
  For starters, the city council and state legislator should set rules so that most things don't get a public hearing. You can't NIMBY if you are not even invited stick your nose in someone else's business.
  - jobs_throwaway 2y ago
    100%. Issues with planing/zoning should be addressed legislatively and not on a case-by-case basis in a room full of geriatrics with nothing better to do than pull the ladder out from behind them
    - drdaeman 2y ago

drdaeman 2y ago

Are US fire/building codes tend to require some costly processes and/or materials that can be argued to be sort of a diminishing return, or are they're more of a sanity thing, like using GFCI outlets in wet rooms or using fire-retardant materials? Some time ago, outside of the US, I rewired my grandpa's old shack once, which was gradually built from whatever he had at hand back then (totally not to any code, like literal twists of copper and aluminium wires, idk how that shit held up for over 60 years), and the local code was mostly a bunch of "do things the right way please, don't do stupid shit"-grade standards that totally made sense to me. Plus some local opinionated defaults (so anyone looking at something wouldn't be caught by surprise). Although, I haven't went through any formal inspections (only unofficial LGTM nod from a friendly certified electrician), just replaced obvious "to scared to live here" hazards with less obvious ones. But I have no idea about the US codes and how complicated those are.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> are they're more of a sanity thing, like using GFCI outlets in wet rooms or using fire-retardant materials? Column A, Column B. They often require reasonable things. But the actual approval process is sort of a crap shoot.
- drdaeman 2y ago
  So it's not the codes that are the actual issue, but the bureaucracy?
  - bombcar 2y ago
    The codes can be a bit of a problem but it's usually minor (like requiring sprinklers where they didn't before, adds $10k, etc - though enough of these and it adds up). In most places its the bureaucracy - sometimes two cities with identical rules on the books will be completely different, because one is using permits and permit re-application fees as a major budget item, the other has one inspector who is always gone fishing.
bluGill 2y ago

xnx 2y ago

> finding a place with no fire/building code inspection How does one find these areas?

bombcar 2y ago
Wyoming has been reported as such. Note that many places only have plumbing and electrical inspections, and some have that and roofing/framing, nothing else. It takes time to search, and can vary from county to county and even as few as a few blocks apart.