Some interspersed comments in response to manhattan42:


Doug Wrote:



Humm,
Another case where the codes seem to be regulating blindly.
Why must everything be so rigidly standardized?

I've seem several open stringer and open tread staircases that were
architecturally designed and quite safe.
They often were fabricated of ornamental steel or engineered lumber.

I also installed a 28" wide tread spiral staircase in one of my
houses. It only makes a 180 degree turn so that furniture can still be
lifted up. It is supported by a 6" steel center post and has perfectly
adequate hand rails. No other solution was possible to reach a new
upper level, aside from building a side addition on the house.

Yep, it violated codes - it's my house and my choice.
If the building inspector had made a real issue over it, I wouldn't
have backed down - take me to court is my viewpoint.

It seems like too many folks have been willing to cede their rights in
exchange for "perfect" safety that can never be truly achieved.

Doug

Fortunately, however, the codes are not drafted 'blindly' and are
offered in well thought out response to scientific research or
statistical analysis to actual tragedies and only with the best
interest of public safety in mind.

That in itself is debateable.

Have the code committies truly considered the cost of compliance?
It is also demonstrable that increased code requirements in many areas
have driven up the cost of housing, thus reducing affordable housing
for the poor. It is not feasable in many areas for developers to
construct new affordable housing.
As a result many folks are living in increasingly substandard older
housing, especially within inner cities. Perhaps you live in an ivory
tower suburb where that is not readily apparent but it does exist.

Also, if an apartment building owner, in many jurisdictions, wants to
upgrade something like the electrical service, he is required to
update ALL the mechanicals of the building to conform to current
codes. At least that's how it is here in my state.
As a result, many perform NO upgrades since they can not afford the
cost of a general upgrade of the entire building.

During one of my state's legislative sessions, a bill was introduced
to allow for "smart" codes.
It would have allowed for individual upgrades of a specific thing
without the forced requirement of having the entire building upgraded.
I've heard that such a bill passed in the State of New Jersey.
In my state, the office of the State Building Inspector lobbied
against it, saying that it was not needed since local building
officials allowed for individual variations.. Thus the bill was
defeated. The reality is that most local officials DO NOT allow
individual variations in enforcement.


Architecturally designed stairs might indeed be 'safe', but according
to who's standard and who's liability?

Well, since it's my house, it is subject to my standards and of course
to my liability, which I accept and assume.


The fact that you have no concern for the codes or the law really only
serves to illustrate that there are those in this world who have no
concern for anyone else but themselves and their wallet.


You have extrapolated a gross conclusion out of my one objection. I do
not object to all codes and to all laws . I mainly object to those
that are arbitrary, reduce property rights and are inforced rigidly
with no variances possible.

And it is a shortsighted concern, because it fails to consider what may
be considered 'safe' for an adult may not be 'safe' for an infant or
child or elderly person...and does not take into account the fact in
all likelihood someone else is going to buy and own your mistakes and
the hazzards that lie within one day.

Then they assume the liability with full knowledge, or should have the
full knowledge as an informed consumer. The price they offer me for
that house should reflect their concerns, if any, over the
non-compliance aspects of that house.


Ignoring building codes also passes the cost of non-compliance onto
those of us who do comply.

How?

By the innocent and law abiding having to pay in the form of increased
insurance premiums and taxes the settlement of lawsuits and medical
expenses and government intrusions because of those who have maimed
and killed by the irresponsible ownership and maintenance of their
private properties.

That arguement can be used to justify government tyranny in all
aspects.

If we carry that to its logical extension, we should tear down or
remodel every non-code compliant building in the country.

Also, can you document ANY study that shows if the vast majority of
insurance claim payouts are due to code violations?
I suspect not....


Your 'rights' end when they infringe on another's rights.

Of course they do.
So far you have not proved your case as to why my actions infringed
upon anyone else's rights.


And others have a 'right' to be safe and kept free from bodily injury
even if it is in your private home...and the building codes ensure
other's health and well being even if it is in your private home..

Humm, with that logic, it would be illegal for me to smoke in my own
home (I'm not a smoker - just an illustration) since my smoking might
threaten the safety of a visitor. With that logic you would deprive
us of the freedoms within our homestead - guaranteed by common law for
centuries.


I welcome the building codes who protect us from people who completely
ignore them and who want to take away our reasonable expectation of and
right to be safe.

I agree until you define the "right" to be safe so broadly that it
restricts too many of our liberties.

I believe it was Jefferson who said "those who sacrifice liberty for
safety do not deserve one and will not achieve the other".

Doug