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

RE: Aase ruling

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Scott,
When I worked for the buiding department, the City Manager always cried for
funding and it was always, no budget.  I think much to the credit of
building inspectors, most of the ones I know, do an excellent job, however,
any time you assign the inspector more than 20 inspections a day, you are
asking for trouble.  Drive by inspections as it was the case when I
defended the City of Las Vegas on a claim.  The inspectors testified that
they had as much as 60 inspections a day and no roll overs.  If you count
driving time between sites and the time it takes to perform the
inspections, that would calc. out to little over 4 minutes an inspection
including travel time.  I think the Cities are in love with their planning
departments, they would entertain a ratio of 11 planners to one engineer if
the City Manager had a good day.  I think that goes back to what you said
in an earlier post that some jurisdictions would approve the plans if it is
sealed by a professional practicioner.  There you have it.  No Budget or
the Boss has other priorities, Like new fire truck or good hefty raise to
the City Manager because he kept up a good clean budget for the year.
Samir y. Ghosn, P.E.
Harris & Associates
At 11:10 AM 4/4/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Maybe if there were building departments are doing adequate inspections then
>the "builders" would have to build in accordance with plans or the
>"builders" could not get a "certificate of occupancy".  
>
>You have all convinced me not to go back to law school and get rich by going
>after disreputable residential contractors.
>
>
>Scott M Haan  P.E.
>Plan Review Engineer
>Building Safety Division http://www.muni.org/building, 
>Development Services Department,
>Municipality of Anchorage
>phone: 907-343-8183   fax: 907-249-7399
>mailto:haansm(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	Bill Polhemus [SMTP:bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc]
>> Sent:	Wednesday, April 04, 2001 10:30 AM
>> To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>> Subject:	RE: Aase ruling
>> 
>> I should think this has more to do with the permissible standards codified
>> in the building codes.
>> 
>> While you might be able to argue whether those standards are adequate for
>> a
>> given application, the fact remains that people with a stake in the design
>> and construction of buildings have put much time and effort into framing
>> these codes, making them acceptable for adoption as legally binding
>> documents, and improving them over time.
>> 
>> You can just as well argue that you are not working in your clients' best
>> interest if you unilaterally exceed the buidling code design standards,
>> than
>> if you adhere to them where they might be "less stringent" than you would
>> like.
>> 
>> I think you as the structural engineer of record have that option, but
>> your
>> clients have options too.
>> 
>> Remember the article that made the rounds awhile back from some local L.A.
>> newsmagazine, that talked about how the REAL opponents to a comprehensive
>> program of inspection of structural beam-to-column welds in existing
>> buildings were the OWNERS of the buildings themselves. You'd think they
>> wouldn't want to take the risk of future damage or loss from these
>> problems,
>> but the fact is they WERE willing to take the risk far more than they were
>> willing to pay money out of pocket to have the inspections and possible
>> repairs done.
>> 
>> It really is all about dollars and cents. You can purse your lips all you
>> want, but that's ALWAYS the bottom line.
>> 
>> William L. Polhemus, Jr., P.E.
>> Polhemus Engineering Company
>> Katy, Texas
>> Phone 281-492-2251
>> Fax 281-492-8203
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dan Goodrich [mailto:dang(--nospam--at)karren.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 11:19 AM
>> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>> Subject: Re: Aase ruling
>> 
>> 
>> This brings up an interesting point.  There is a perception
>> out there that commercial projects should be built to a
>> higher standard than residential.  Shouldn't they be the
>> same?  I've designed homes that are significantly larger
>> than some of the commercial projects I've worked on.
>> I realize that there will be differences based on
>> occupancy and other related matters.
>> 
>> Are we as an engineering community holding commercial
>> jobs to a higher standard than homes?  One example I
>> can think of would be the amount of reinforcing required
>> in foundation walls.
>> 
>> Dan Goodrich, P.E.
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Neil Moore" <nmoore(--nospam--at)innercite.com>
>> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:33 PM
>> Subject: RE: Aase ruling
>> 
>> 
>> > Jason and Dennis:
>> >
>> > On the other hand,  I had a take-over project with 46 townhouses.  23
>> > uphill and 23 downhill, basically two plans, each alike.  The
>> foundation,
>> > framing and exterior stucco completed.  Although every one of the  plans
>> > were the same, it appeared to be a different crew on each one.
>> >
>> > Took us three years to complete the project, including putting a
>> structural
>> > designer on the site to straightened out all of the glitches.  The
>> > superintendent,  who was from a central California mountain area,
>> accussed
>> > us of "commercially" engineering the buildings.  Of course the project
>> was
>> > a 1000 feet from the San Andreas fault and was on a high bluff facing
>> the
>> > ocean.
>> >
>> > The sherriff came in one day and took him off the project.  This was
>> > sometime after he had threatened one of my engineers.
>> >
>> > Neil Moore,  S.E.
>> > neil moore and associates
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>