Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Question for East Coast Engineers[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
- Subject: RE: Question for East Coast Engineers
- From: "Dennis S. Wish" <wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 10:53:35 -0700
Rick, Thanks for posting this to the list. This needed to be stated for clarification that it may not be our profession at fault (as many of us believe) but the politics from outside that controls. I realize that we have a small vote, but we need to create a snowball and get it rolling downhill. It would seem to me that the Insurance industry can provide the financial stimulus that might be necessary to show that damage has as much an effect upon the public as structural failure. How many live in damaged homes because they can not afford the repair? How many walk away from their investment because they can not afford repair? How many file bankruptcy because they can not meet the added stress of repayment loans? How does this affect the values of properties in communities where homes are left to degrade. Rick, as the IBC comes closest to being an acceptable specification for Conventional Framing as far as I am concerned. Still, there is no way to enforce Developers or Contractors to display competency in this area. I have also stated that buyer is the one who suffers since there is no disclosure law as to the performance rating of one building over another. These facts, if supported by organizations such as SEAOC can help create new legislation to protect the homeowner and potential buyer. I don't seem to be able to get this off the ground and feel as though my efforts are swept under the rug. Furthermore, I feel that those who can change or at least help to initiate change consider me simply a loudmouth and trouble maker - or simply don't feel that this is a problem. The '97 UBC begins to define the intent of the code by adding, in addition to life safety, the intention to design without structural Failure. This is not enough. Simply put, the codes have been concerned with where we work, play and assemble, but not where we live (unless it is a high occupancy building). But a very large percentage of the population of this country are in Single Family Residences. Just because these are traditionally constructed structures does not mean they should be neglected. I think that most will agree that in the past when labor was affordable and material costs had not skyrocket to what the market will bear, builders constructed better quality homes. We have cut the fat from every part of our lives including our buildings and homes. This places the SFR on a performance line. One side heavy damage, the other much less. Engineers and homeowners need to define which side of the line to live on - not developers. How may developers are still around ten years after the fact? I could go on and on. You know I'm passionate on this subject. I spend my life building and repairing single family homes. I like this part of engineering more than commercial and industrial, retrofit or multi-family buildings. I feel that the homeowner needs to be represented by our community so that they don't think we are around to pick up the pieces after a disaster and line our pockets in the process. Help me to make this an issue that SEOAC and other engineering organizations will take seriously enough to publicly take a stand on. I'm sure that the Insurance industry would be happy to work with SEAOC in an effort to reduce their liability. Thanks for the support Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Richard_Ranous/OES(--nospam--at)oes.ca.gov [mailto:Richard_Ranous/OES(--nospam--at)oes.ca.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 7:58 AM To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Subject: RE: Question for East Coast Engineers Dennis, On the issue of professionals allowing the codes to be passed, you need to realize the we do not get to vote on the issues. We can address and discuss them before the voting members, but that is all. One of the main reasons that these provisions do not change, or change very little, is the fact that we cannot show examples of catastrophic failures. The closest we have come has been damage from Northridge. The National Association of Home Builders have been very successful in keeping significant changes from being approved on the basis of "show me examples," and the "unwarranted additional cost to homes." Keep on the bandwagon, eventually we will prevail and convince those who need to be convinced that we are saving money in the long run by reducing the potential for severely impacting a family when their home is badly damaged and not habitable.
- RE: Question for East Coast Engineers
- From: Richard_Ranous/OES
- RE: Question for East Coast Engineers
- Prev by Subject: RE: Question for East Coast Engineers
- Next by Subject: RE: Question for East Coast Engineers
- Previous by thread: RE: Question for East Coast Engineers
- Next by thread: RE: Question for East Coast Engineers