Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: IBC 2000[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: RE: IBC 2000
- From: "Haan Scott M DPW CIVIL ENGR(n)" <scott.haan(--nospam--at)richardson.army.mil>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:59:20 -0000
Title: RE: IBC 2000
Public Works, Engineering Department
Fort Richardson, Alaska
From: Caldwell, Stan [mailto:scaldwell(--nospam--at)halff.com]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: IBC 2000
Viewing the past 200(+/-) posts from the perspective of a foreigner (i.e., in Texas), I don't quite understand why so many of you in California continue to agonize over UBC-97 and blast away at IBC-2000(+). The former is dead, and will never be updated. Let's bury it and move on. The latter is of great interest to those of us who live and work where it is being adopted, but that apparently doesn't include California.
It is my understanding that California is about to adopt NFPA-5000. I have been told that NFPA requires union construction labor, whereas IBC allows open-shop labor. Y'all made the mistake of electing a liberal Democrat for your governor, and many more for your legislature. They are funded by and listen to the labor unions, not the professional societies.
I have also been told that NFPA places much more responsibility on design engineers with respect to jobsite safety. I'm sure that you and your insurers are all looking forward to that!
Of course, I could be wrong about some of the above ... it has happened before.
Stan R. Caldwell, P.E.
Fearless Prediction: Badgers 27, Nittany Lions 17
Charlie or Harold: What exactly is a Nittany Lion?
- Prev by Subject: RE: IBC 2000
- Next by Subject: RE: IBC and Rho factor
- Previous by thread: RE: IBC 2000
- Next by thread: steel retro fits (also, Multiple Yield Stresses)