Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Redundancy Factor

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Lynn:
Why would the building official put him or herself out on a limb?  I don't
think we really want our law enforcers deciding which laws are "good" or
"bad".  The separation between the legislators and enforcers is an important
part of maintaining our freedom.  I am extremely uncomfortable with the
"police" (and that is who the buiding department really is) making it up as
they go along.

To resolve this issue, the SEAOC Board of Directors should petition the Cal
HCD to repeal thier adoption of the 1997 UBC and replace it with the 1994
edition if that is what it will take to resolve the concerns be raised.

Bob Bossi

Lynn wrote:

> Robert-
> I am sure about all the legal issues.  The building official could
> simply choose not to enforce certain sections of the Code because those
> sections are obviously flawed.
>
> I would assume that if any new law of any kind were put into effect, and
> it became obvious to those who wrote the law that an error was made, the
> law enforcing official would at least be obligated not to enforce a law
> that contained known errors.
>
> Lynn
>
> "Robert J Bossi, PE" wrote:
> >
> > Lynn:
> > A great idea but there imay be no legal way to do what you
> > suggest. California law prohibits local jurisdictions from
> > making "less restrictive" ammendments to the UBC and there is
> > no state agency that can amend the code on a state wide basis
> > for low rise wood frame.  The only possible action would be to
> > convince the state Department of Housing and Community
> > Development to repeal their adoption of 1997 UBC Chapter 16 (or
> > 16 - 23) and readopt the the 1994 code in its place but this
> > would effect only residential occupancies.
> >
>