Code Attorney

My husband and I had a wonderful time in Japan but I couldn’t ignore some interesting differences.  We stayed at a Japanese inn that was part of a Buddhist Temple up in the mountains one night.  It was a typical Japanese accomodation with tatami mats, futons to sleep on and a low table.  Our host showed us how to stay warm with the space heaters and a futon around the table.  I’m posting a picture to see how it looked.  Kerosene heaters are widespread as very few homes have central heating.  There is also a heater under the table so you can wrap yourself in the futon and stay warm.  This is quite common but one of the fire inspectors I showed the picture to was taken aback.

Japanese inn

We also visited many temples and shrines.  Our guides told us that many of them are replicas of what had been there before.  Apparently many of them burn down periodically and then are rebuilt. Some temples have been replaced numerous times over the centuries (they are wooden structures).  The biggest danger of fire comes from lightning. If you look closely on the left of the picture of the temple, you can see lightning rods.

The Japanese were very advanced in earthquake technology.  We saw temples built almost 800 years ago that had withstood earthquakes because of how the foundation was built.  I was told that when a temple burns down and is rebuilt, the foundation is built to withstand earthquakes even though modern fire prevention methods e.g. sprinklers are not part of the replacement temple.

Buddhist temple

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Code Enforcement, Fire Prevention Tag(s):

The blog has been silent for awhile because I was on a wonderful vacation in Japan (more on that later).  But, while I was away, I had an interesting comment from Mark Gilligan regarding alternative materials.  He’s given me permission to post his remarks because he’d really like to bring this issue up for discussion.  Here it is:

I would appreciate comment on what I see as problems associated with the use of products that are not addressed in the building code that are used in building projects.  Many of these products are ubiquitous in that they are regularly used on projects.  In many cases product evaluation reports are accepted as de facto code provisions by both design professionals and building officials.  While this issue is most blatant in California my understanding is that the troublesome practices also occur in the rest of the country.

These products are considered as alternate materials and means of construction and are addressed by Section 104.11 of the 2009 IBC which requires that the building official approve their use.  I believe that there are a number of legal difficulties related to common practices that could result in much mischief.  Some of the problems include:

·         In, I would suggest, almost all cases when the building official is aware of the products and accepts their use on projects the building official does not formally indicate his approval of the use as required by the building official.  Without this formal approval the use of the product would be considered a deviance from the building code.  Thus if at any time there is a problem associated with the use of these alternate materials or means of construction the design would be considered to be in violation of the code.

·         Many building officials have adopted a policy that they will automatically accept ICC-ES evaluation reports as evidence of code compliance for alternate methods of construction.  Besides abrogating their non-delegable duty to approve the use of the products to a private entity, this policy effectively amends the building code.  While “Legal Aspects of Code Administration” page 20 talks about a minimal distinction between granting approval of an alternate product and amending the code, I believe that such practices totally ignore any such distinction.

·         The insistence by many building officials that they will only accept ICC-ES evaluation reports as evidence of code compliance creates a situation where the building official is in effect creating an unfair advantage in favor of evaluation reports produced by ICC-ES.

Because these practices are so widespread sorting these problems out will be messy.  The problems are made more difficult because the use of alternate products is so widespread.  Complying with the regulations would make more work for the building officials.  Many product manufacturers have a lot invested in the de facto code status of evaluation reports.  In addition the inability to rely on evaluation reports as proof of code compliance could create difficulties for the Owner and his consultants.

I believe that long term solution is to develop consensus standards for these products that focus on performance characteristics and not proprietary details.  These standards would then be adopted into the IBC thus removing the need for the building official to approve the use of the products.

I would suggest that this is a classic situation where the standard practices that have been adopted by a segment of society are in conflict with the laws and regulations.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Building Codes Tag(s):

It seems that whenever I travel to conduct trainings, I find interesting items in the local press for this blog.  My trip to Troy, Michigan last week for SEMBOIA was no exception.  The Detroit Free Press had a very good article about using demolition wisely to target high crime areas.  http://www.freep.com/article/20100421/NEWS05/4210312/Vacant-Detroit-homes-where-crime-thrives-the-first-to-go It seems the local agencies worked to determine which vacant buildings were located in areas with the highest concentration of homicides, assaults, rapes, robberies and arsons.  Instead of tearing down vacant buildings here and there throughout the city, this approach recognizes that vacant buildings breed crime and that targeting specific areas is a better use of the funds available.  At a time when funds for demolition quickly run out, it’s an approach that is very smart.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Code Enforcement, Fire Prevention, Foreclosure, Law Enforcement and Codes Tag(s):

There is a very disturbing report, The Multifamily Housing Market  and Value-at-Risk Implications for Multifamily Lending, just released by DePaul University’s Institute for Housing Studies regarding the impact of recent property price declines and foreclosure on multi-family housing mortgages in Cook County, Illinois.  The study found that 42% of small rental buildings (2 to 6 units) are in danger of default because they are upside down on their mortgage debt.  The study said that if the trend is similar across the nation, it would be on par with the subprime mortgage meltdown.  In Cook County, the property value of small rental buildings have fallen to 46%.  Few lenders want to provide financing for these types of buildings leaving only Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as lenders of last resort. For many owners, the income from their buildings are less than the operating expenses.  Here’s what’s of concern for local jurisdictions:

The point, in any case, is that a significant amount of disinvestment could occur in this environment, particularly in
those markets where the housing inventory has been vastly overbuilt. The usual argument is that negative equity
and declining rents will fuel foreclosures, which in turn will force down multifamily property prices, setting off a
downward spiral, particularly if credit is tight and lenders (including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are unwilling
to make loans. A side implication, of course, is that, other things equal, as rents decline, the quantity of space
demanded should increase. But where there are requirements that multifamily units meet some minimum building
standards, investors will generally find operating these units financially infeasible when rents fall below this
operating cost threshold level. Thus, at or below this point the property will generally be vacated or abandoned.

You can download the entire report at http://ihs.depaul.edu/ihs/

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Foreclosure, property maintenance Tag(s):

There are 2 interesting trends in the foreclosure crisis.  One involves people walking away from properties even though they can pay the mortgage.  Their homes are no longer worth what they were and they’ve decided it’s no longer financially wise to continue to pay off their debt.  http://rismedia.com/2010-03-30/fed-up-homeowners-who-can-pay-the-mortgage-dont/

The other group of people are hiring attorneys who specialize in delaying foreclosure judgments.  Terry Savage, a financial reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times reported yesterday that many buyers have sought to renegotiate their mortgages only to run into an maze of difficulties with their lenders. They are turning to attorneys who know the tricks of the trade in slowing down the process such as demanding to see the original note.  Because of the convoluted ways the mortgages have been packaged, it’s often difficult for the lender to produce it.  http://m.suntimes.com/suntimes/db_10085/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=10E297B0365455E3B8572667CA7882FA?contentguid=8Vu8eLDC&detailindex=16&pn=0&ps=20&full=true

Both groups feel morally justified in taking the route they have because of the actions by the lenders in creating this crisis.  Some borrowers feel that lenders are still going about their business making money and receiving help from the government to stay in business. People who feel they were duped by predatory lending, feel justified in fighting back.

The result of this type of behavior remains to be seen for those of us involved in preserving neighborhoods.

Posted by Linda Pieczynski Category(ies): Foreclosure Tag(s):