Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Raising Dander in Residential Construction

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: Message
The one thing that I learned when I left this list for a few months is that those in managment positions generally get there by recognizing how to dismiss those who they believe are inferior to them - less sucessful, less educated and less powerful. With that said, I discovered that the best defense against those who would dismiss me is to confront them publically and make sure those who are listening are aware of who I mean. Gerard is doing this now - he is fed up and throwing back the promises that were made by Ron Hamburger which he never delivered on as President of SEAOC.
Unlike discussions of politics or religion - this is our livelihood and we must speak out and work to change what has been taken away from us. Furthermore, we have an obligation - ethically and morally - to the public to insure that our profession seeks to bridge the gap in residential construction between the NAHB, the BIA and other organizations whose alternative codes are less than the minimum compliance required by engineered sections of the code.
Having Jay Crandell, PE tell Americans that their expectations of performance is too high and housing did very well during a moderate earthquake such as the Northridge earthquake or the effects of Hurricane Andrew is completely unacceptable to the insurance industry and to the home owner.
Using the excuse that Conventional Construction standards have been around since the first rotary saws were brought west on the new railroad and homes were now constructed by stacked lumber instead of logs is not enough. These homes that surpassed over 150-years of construction standards, were inclusive in the more than 30-billion dollars of damages after the Northridge earthquake and similarly after Hurricaine Andrew.
It's about time that we open some ears and hopefully obtain retribution - forcing code makers to institute changes and be responsible for their errors and ommissions.
I've noticed that I have been able to open a few new ears and many older ones who called me privately to endorse what I have been doing. Not everyone will agree, but this is the kind of discussions we need to have and we need to know that what we discuss will not fade off into obsurity but provide a pathway to produce change. That is the responsiblity of each and every one of us.
Dennis S. Wish, PE