Today I received my copy of the First Draft of the Florida Building Code
for review. I get one chance to have my comments considered, a 4 hour
meeting on May 27. And a portion of that hour will be taken up by NFPA
Life Safety Code considerations.
Am I wasting time voicing my concerns? Can I expect the paternal/maternal
instincts of the Code Committee to be so strong that the "child" must be
protected from all parties, whether he's delinquent or not?
BTW, I just weighed the "baby" on my bathroom scales... 9 1/2 pounds.
Fountain E. Conner, P.E.
Gulf Breeze, Fl. 32561
Warning!!! "severely snipped"
> From: Charles Greenlaw <cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)speedlink.com>
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Seismic Upgrade ..... Appeal to those who created the code
> Date: Thursday, May 06, 1999 3:33 PM
> CG: The topic at hand is one of
> challenging the mechanisms by which excesses of regulations come to
> us. ...that challenging can come across as unpleasant, divisive,
> scathing, etc., especially to those who enjoy being regulation mongers.
> audra ranous continues:
> >Those who believe that their opinions and efforts matter--can make
> a difference; those who believe that nothing they do matters are also
> correct. It's a question of what a person believes is important--for
> themselves; for their profession; for their community, et al., and what
> are willing to contribute of their knowledge and efforts toward the
> CG: Yes. Particularly for those who altruistically volunteer their
> efforts to their profession and community, it can be very dismaying to
> suffer criticism over their work product, or to have it rejected
> That kind of rejection is happening now in connection with the 1997 UBC
> seismic provisions. Sure it hurts. But the fact that it hurts cannot be
> accepted as a weapon to quash criticism or rejection. In other words,
> volunteerism does not entitle the volunteer regulator to special
> compared to those being regulated beyond their willingness.
> Charles O. Greenlaw, SE Sacramento CA