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

Re: Aase ruling

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
There seems to be a shortage in housing. In ten years the homeless will be much
more of a problem than now. Dense housing is not being built as fast as it
could. It is costing too much. Reducing litigation seems to be the court's
objective. A compromise to "no damage no claim" would be to allow a 15% to 25%
allowance in existing building conditions. Existing, in that the the contractor
has been paid, and the the inspectors have signed off. Further lack of
compliance would then be easily justified as needing attention. Buildings within
an allowance for existing buildings could then be deemed as complying, and not
be an economical loss to a seller as a nuisance disclosure issue.

The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings uses a 33% allowance
or a minimum of 66% compliance to be deemed dangerous. This percent is applied
to any quantity sited in the code for a new building including structural
elements.

San Francisco allows existing buildings to be renovated to a 75% earthquake
force level (25% allowance).

The code is the law and there is no recognition of some elements being more or
less critical to safety and comfort.

Varying allowances could be made to issues that have more or less impact on
safety and comfort.
Example for a larger allowance (not so dangerous)
***The seismic omega factor.
***The length of extra wire required in a residential outlet box. More of a
rewiring convenience than safety.
Example for a lessor allowance
**The width for a fire truck access. 25% allowance may block all access for a
fire truck.

David Merrick, SE