From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:28:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.174409.28165@ornl.gov>,
de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.110504.28326@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>* A caller asked Marrou how he would tackle the homeless problem.
>>  Marrou said the problem was caused by zoning, restrictive
>>  electric/plumbing codes, and other regulations that are designed for
>>  the middle class and drive up the cost of housing beyond what the poor
>>  can afford.  If home builders were free from regulation, they
>>  could build affordable housing and homelessness would be greatly
>>  reduced.
>
>Sounds like snake oil, to me.  Those pesky codes aren't designed to drive up
>the cost of housing, they're there to ensure safety.  Should people be allowed
>to live in unsafe housing just because they can't afford safety features?  The
>homeless problem isn't lack of affordable housing, it's an excess of jobless,
>poor, addicted, and mentally or physically ill people.  Shaving 10, 20, or even
>30% off the cost of construction won't solve the homeless problem.

Actually it's only part of the equation; the other is improving the
economy so more people have jobs and can afford the cheaper housing.
As to the purpose of building code being to improve safety, all I
can say is that it makes a good excuse.  Where I live the county
board of Supervisors refused to allow plastic plumbing which is much
cheaper and can more easily used by non-professionals.  They mouthed
some pious remarks about the potential safety hazards which where
prompted loudly by the local plumbers union and ignored all of the
citizens who said they didn't feel there was any reason to worry.

Another example from when I built a deck a few years ago.  I
designed the stairs to use a 2x6 top rail as the handrail.  The
inspector came out and said I had to have a separate hand rail. He
never really explained why.  So despite the fact that I didn't
really want one because it made the steps narrower for purposes of
carting furniture up and down them I put one in.  Next he complained
that it wasn't satisfactory because I didn't have the top and bottom
ends running back to the side of the stairs.  This requirement was
apparently put in some time back in the seventies when one careless
woman with bell sleeves didn't pay attention to what she was doing,
caught her sleeve on the end of the rail and toppled to her death.
It cost the inspector yet another visit out to observe my correction
and the cost of that extra visit had to be covered by the permit
fees.

Multiply that by all the other trivial little corrections that the
inspectors have to come out and make sure you're changed and you're
starting to talk significant money.  In other words, the doesn't
seem to be much of a cost/benefit analysis going into a lot of the
codes.  The guiding principle seems to be to try for absolute safety
from any conceivable danger regardless of the cost.  Some people
just can't afford that much safety and would be willing to do
without it if it meant the difference between being able to afford a
home and not.

/June


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush