Your piece on “Broken Building Codes” is shear (Sic) genius!

I don’t have the time (translation: economic woes) to research such a writing, but if I could, I would.

Your writing hits the nail on the head and countersinks it. As a competent engineering and building contractor building to code daily, I see first hand the discrepancy in current code continuously. To try to keep up with them is ludicrous. What I have chosen to do is keep up with a smaller section of the code, and be competent at it: concrete and structures. That in itself is a menagerie of confusion, and I find few who have close to real competency in them – thus, I make a living.

In our world, the building department and reality are our two checkpoints. The first, are usually a group of well meaning government employees who cannot possibly keep up the the myriad of changes, and vast knowledge required to know all code, so they rely on either outside plan check companies (that cash in on the amount of minutiae in the building code, so they can charge hourly to review and make comments on drawings), or two, the same format of review with a few exceptions from the previous 20 years or so. The second is less cunning, and more direct – mother nature herself. That’s where the rubber meets the road. We don’t get call backs on previous work for code violations, but we do get call backs on water leaks, wind damage, and my favorite topic “doughnut construction modifications”. The first category usually are related to poor existing materials, ie bad substrate, corroded or weak surfaces to apply membranes, sealers and hardware to etc. The second is the weekend warrior that invites his buddies over to help him “remodel”, and pays them in Schlitz Malt Liquor, or worse yet, the low bidder, who does slipshod work, blames the previous company, charges extensively and splits the scene never to be seen again. The honest tax paying contractor that did work two years ago, and still has his phone number, is the obvious candidate for blame for repair.

The overhaul you recommend will be instantaneously fixed, by having the ICC code folks attempt to competitively design a structure or two, and realize that it (Code) needs “mayor suryery”. Then develop a team consisting of the aforementioned groups of active design professionals, builders and architects, and offer them a royalty based on a percentage of their volumes and copies downloaded or purchased, and liable for any failures inherent in their design criteria.

At any rate, it’s refreshing reading your well thought out information, but the likely hood of getting any change without championing a campaign is nil. However, I will be the first in line to be a staunch supporter and leader in the effort!

If you don’t mind, I think I’ll retire, and pull down a Schlitz myself.

Reg

Mark Garrison MG Constructors & Engineers Inc. 15650 Vineyard Blvd. , Suite A, #232 Morgan Hill , CA 95037 (408)842-5599 Office (408)590-7737 Cell (888)234-8057 Fax

As you may know, the International Code Council uses the governmental consensus process to develop its building safety and fire prevention codes. It is an open, inclusive process that allows input from all individuals and groups. Committees hear all code change proposals. Final decisions are made by International Code Council voting members—code enforcement and fire officials who, with no vested interests beyond public safety, represent the public’s best interest. An appeals process allows anyone to appeal an action or inaction relating to a code change.

For more information about the Council’s Code Development Process and how you can be a part of it, visit http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes.

Steve Daggers
VP Communications
International Code Council