Building code changes

[TrevorKane]

Any news on the Safe Room and other proposals?

I have lived in Florida since the '60s, and in Florida these kinds of requirements are often driven by a simple "anti small-scale development" sentiment. The costs associated are small for big development projects, and relatively enormous for individual property owners. We own some land on the Peace River and any development there requires a $30,000 flood study. A 400 square foot cabin on 10 acres still requires the same study, at the same cost, that a 230 unit condominium development on a hundred acres does. So, most small scale development is un-permitted, and when a permitted project does get done, it tends to be an enormous monster.

By the way, that river land is under contract for sale and we are planning to move the family to the Puna area in 2011 if the sale goes through (scheduled to close Dec. 15th). I have sketched up plans for a ~1500sf stick-built post-on-pier home, and am very interested in how these new requirements are going to impact our plans. Is the insulation requirement still coming? I had planned on insulating the bedrooms, but leaving the large central living space un-insulated with just a high ceiling and end-to-end flow through ventilation. One of the bathrooms could maybe be "converted" to a safe room, although if they are requiring 80sf, the bathroom is only 8'x6'...

[Rob Tucker]

Hi Treavor,

The flooding studies you describe are not required here. For the most part the permitting process is about as cheap and easy as I have known in any state I have worked in. The new codes have not yet been adopted. It is very likely that the safe room requirements will be applied. After Katrina there is logic in having families somewhat more self sufficient.

Energy wise the roof design as a barrier to tropical sun is practical. Metal roofs are common here and they can get very hot resulting in too many ceiling fans burning money to push hot air around. Much more cost effective to keep the heat build up out of the building.

I have been studying the safe room language and it is not as clear as I would like... but I have been involved in building safe houses for the past twenty years and find concerns about safe rooms a little naive. From my understanding of the proposed codes I have been taking a look at the design and cost aspects and I think that safe rooms can be designed to have material costs of about $65 per square foot. Perhaps less. I am trying to be conservative.

A safe closet is stupid to me as is a detached structure. I think that at least a bedroom should be built to safe room standards and that once the costs are understood it would be practical to consider the whole house. But that is me. This is what I do. I am a former master carpenter who found on close study that wood frame buildings provide the least value for the money - but old habits are hard for people to change. The good news is that the technology is here to build better houses and it really doesn't cost more, it just requires different design, techniques and materials.

[YurtGirl]

I don't see the safe rooms passing, I certainly hope not anyway. No new news so far.

It's not even the safety of it that is the point. It's about yet another invasion of a government agency telling us what to do and how to do it, based on faulty and incomplete research and then having the agency tell us that they're doing it for our own good because we don't know what's best for ourselves and our needs. It's strong bull manure.

It's great for people who will profit from building them, great for some politician to be able to puff up their chest and claim they 'protected the public', not great for homeowners or even most homeowner's safety. Mandating a safe room is excessive and not a little lame brained for an island that is on several active volcanoes. Kind of like the insulation idea, which did not end up passing, thank goodness!

[Rob Tucker]

As you wish....

[Rob Tucker]

While I can understand that the safe room proposals can be construed as government intrusion I think it is also practical to consider the opposite. There is an underlying message from FEMA in the code proposals. That message is based on the realities of Katrina in that it is not practical to depend on the government alone to protect you in a natural disaster and some responsibility needs to be accepted by the public.

The U.S. has some of the most adverse weather and earthquake conditions on the planet. From firestorms to earthquakes to floods to hurricanes the ability of the Feds to save everyone is obviously not there. So safe rooms are a step in expecting people to take some responsibility for their own well being. The proposal is not expecting everyone to completely change the way they build homes - though as a practical matter the opportunity to do so is there - but to have a small ability to shelter at home during and after a hurricane or major earthquake is a reasonable expectation.

Hawaii County currently has civil defense shelter capability for only about 20% of the population. In the event of an Iniki level hurricane we will lose, and I mean lose, a lot of our housing stock. A lot of our existing housing is extremely substandard and compromised by age, rot and termites. The newer homes are only designed to meet a minimum hurricane (80 mph wind load).

Considering that the costs of a safe room do not appear to be extreme I think the proposal in the code has merit.

I can see of course how people who prefer yurts or tents will be more than annoyed. I suspect that in the event of a major natural disaster they will also be the first in line seeking government assistance... assistance which may or may not be there.

New Orleans had the benefit of major ports, rail and interstate highways and still was, and in many ways five years later, a ongoing disaster. Hawaii is isolated in the extreme and really needs to be more active in self sufficiency. Safe rooms are an investment in self sufficiency.

Self sufficiency and sustainability are more than buzz words.

[MarkP]

I recall hearing on the radio about conditions in the Superdome and in the NO convention center. In the superdome, there was human feces everywhere because there was no power and no sanitation. No surprise there. In the convention center it was much worse. People were getting raped and assaulted. I remember thinking that if those people had known what was in store for them they would gladly have camped on their roof come what may. Ever since, all the designs I have considered include some kind of solid concrete or stone core with a wrap around lanai and a really big catchment tank preferably in the foundation. Also the lanai is one level above ground and the ground floor would have relatively few and relatively strong doors and windows. Laundry, storage, etc can go down there. Not that I want or realistically think I could achieve an impregnable tower, but if you are starting from scratch, why not build in as many security features as possible?

I keep thinking about those people who left their homes to go to somewhere else to sit in sh*t and get abused by strangers. I am not suggesting that there is any easy fix for a situation like Katrina but I would rather die at home than under the conditions described above. If time could be turned back, apart from leaving early, every one of those people would have been building survival spaces in attics and trees or stockpiling rafts or the like. Well that's New Orleans. Their big threat was flooding. Ours is earthquakes and hurricanes. Instead of survival rooms "above flood level" we should build spaces that won't collapse.

I think the idea of a safe room is good. I agree that the vast majority of Puna housing is substandard and much of it is unpermitted anyway. Are there any changes likely to affect enforcement of permits? If not then it is business as usual.

[YurtGirl]

Where does this mentality end though, Rob? It's a saying that's going around these days, but it needs to be heard a lot these days it seems. "Those who are willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson said that. We can read many of their warnings from the early days of our country and we can see them coming back to haunt us today.

Safe rooms are potentially safe. They're a sensible idea to consider for anyone building a home. But should it be mandatory? That's a big question and in my mind, it has a loud and resounding answer. NO. I don't believe government should dictate how we build our houses outside of making sure they're built to be safe and habitable. That's what I'm perturbed about. It's setting a dangerous precedent. What's so hard about basing codes that are geared for our current and actual climate, not based on what-ifs? Codes that hold builders to worthy standards, great! Those codes should serve us just fine for many years to come unless something changes drastically. There should be room for people to be creative, live outside the box and build sustainably without being penalized for that.

I don't see how making a safe room mandatory equates with the government expecting people to protect themselves. Obviously we all learned about how the government protects w/ Katrina: They won't. Simple as that. They didn't. So why take further measures to put it back on the people even though there's nothing indicating that we would need these measures in the future?? I see it as forcing people to protect themselves in a way the government deems worthy, which in the end doesn't make fiscal sense either. Expecting people to protect themselves and forcing people to do that one certain way across the board are two very different things. Even with the safe rooms, people would expect the government to help bail them out, dig them out, feed them, rebuild their homes... And people should be able to appreciate that help in a country as wealthy and equipped as ours. If I understand correctly, Katrina caused FLOODING because THE GOVERNMENT didn't do proper checking and safety measures on their levvies. What has that got to do with mandatory residential safe rooms on the Big Island? It wasn't the hurricane that caused the massive disaster. It was the bad levvy. If they all had safe rooms, they'd all have drowned in them.

As for people who want to live in tents and yurts or any other membrane covered structure being annoyed and the first to seek assistance if things went south... First, yurts do not equate with tents. They are designed to withstand higher winds than 90% of the kit homes I've seen peddled around here. Obviously brick homes or monolithic domes are going to be the strongest, longest lasting. But that isn't what everyone wants or can afford. Second, a yurt could have a safe room in it just as easily as any post and pier house. Third, people with yurts would be some of the first ones back on their feet because they can take the yurt down and put it back up after the storm or make inexpensive repairs without waiting for their rescue checks. But the question isn't about yurts, and my ire doesn't stem from any threat this poses to yurts, it would be easy to make them comply. But COSTLY, in any post and pier structure. It's a costly burden that the state and county are trying to add and there's no reasonable cause for it here. This is not Haiti. It is not Florida. It is not even Maui. It is the Big Island. Where is the evidence that this is a logical and critical mandate here?

[Rob Tucker]

I am not saying that they should be mandatory. What I am seeing though is that they are going to be mandatory.

You will likely have an opportunity to state your position on the county level. But I suspect that the code changes will be mandatory to the county if the county expects to be receiving federal money for civil defense.

[YurtGirl]

There's the other whole creepy side of it. Having to call the county civil defense and tell them your tmk# and where your safe room is located... I've got nothing to hide, and I'm not a huge conspiracy theorist (just a little one), but nor do I want every detail about my house and life to be mandatorily shared w/ government agencies.

But Rob, is there someplace in particular you're seeing where funds might be with held from the county unless they pass this? I'd be interested to check that out...

And glad to hear that you aren't supporting them being mandatory. See you at that council meeting~

[Bob Orts]

YurtGirl, after years of helping citizens wade through government bureaucracy, what Rob and Mark are saying (and they can correct me if I misunderstood) is that it works like this:

People are going along their merry way with nothing upsetting their lives. A disaster happens and property and lives are lost. Those people call on government to do something to deal with the tragedy. Government acts and years or decades later they come up with a solution. The memory of the people has long faded and suddenly government action is an intrusion on their life. Yelling and screaming, complaining and whining goes on and in a compromise, government enacts some of what is needed.

Years later, the same thing happens and a disaster takes the lives of people and causes millions in property damages. Again, the people turn to government and condemns them for not having tougher laws and regulations that could have prevented the lost of lives and property. It doesn’t matter that those same people were against the tougher regulations when it was proposed.

Throw in a healthy dose of political posturing and government is made to be the enemy of inaction. Government’s natural response is to appease the public by starting down the path of stricter and tougher regulations.

As you can guess, by the time those tougher regulations are ready for implementation; memory of the last disaster has faded again. The complaining and questioning starts all over. It’s an intrusion, does nothing, designed to line the pockets of businesses, etc., etc., etc. Those same politicians now start their posturing, also talking government intrusion and Gestapo regulations.

The whole cycle starts over again.

What do you think the reaction of the people and some politicians would be if government decided against the proposed changes and right afterwards a devastating earthquake or hurricane hit the island? You would not be hearing anyone defending government anymore for not imposing the tougher regulations; all you will hear is how wrong and negligent government was for not forcing the tougher changes.