To the Candidates, What will you do to fix the new

[niele]

Oh: I am sorry. I was talking of the other seven who voted FOR bill 270. Silly me to be suspicious and suspect collusion from our august elected officials. Damn consiracy theories, they just creep up on you.
I now believe they each had an individual mystical epiphany and returned moments later to vote in unison. Yes, that's it, that is an entirely plausable explaination of what occured.

Unicorns? Anyone.

[james weatherford]

My clarification was just to be factual (a persistent habit I have).

The 'why' of the 7 'aye' votes is an entirely different matter.

Of the two Council members I mentioned above, one voted for Bill 270 and one (that I spoke to) voted against.

IMHO, Bill 270 was the County Council at its lowest point for the entire 2010-2012 term.

[Rob Tucker]

"Bill 270 was the County Council at its lowest point for the entire 2010-2012 term."

Then it looks to me like the term went fairly well if that was the low point.

[Seeb]

Rob, the new code does kind of benefits you. The concrete panel and ifc industries had seats on the ICC

[Rob Tucker]

The new code doesn't affect my work at all really. I've been operating beyond the minimal codes for the last twenty years or so... but I appreciate the thought...


Mexico just had a 7.6 earthquake.... serious. A 7.6 would make a real mess here.

[kjlpahoa]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker

The new code doesn't affect my work at all really. I've been operating beyond the minimal codes for the last twenty years or so... but I appreciate the thought...


Mexico just had a 7.6 earthquake.... serious. A 7.6 would make a real mess here.

---

Rob, are you trying to say that Mexico has better building construction and building codes than we do? Also, the passing of the new Building Code was a very low point in the Council's history. They closed there eyes to all the public comments and passed a totally flawed code that does not follow State mandate. If you think the new code is fine, you had better take your business else where or maybe you just don't care to follow mandated codes.

[Seeb]

this has gotten a little twirled around,
the code the state passed is basically the International Building Code which is created by the International Codes Council which is a group of municipal building code officials and industry representatives - Ok here is the rub, the industry reps that are trying to get whatever it is their selling ether approved by the code or required by the code. they usually get there way. that is why any sections on alternative building materials are unusable because the above reps are not making any money on it.
I dont know if any one knows what the county council passed because it was never printed in one place and cross referenced with all the reference standards

[james weatherford]

As indicated by others above, and by Dominic Yagong when he voted 'no' on Bill 270, the community's viewpoint was not welcome in the process. Seldom have I witnessed such a broad diversity of people in the community agree on an issue as was the case with opposition to Bill 270 while the support came narrowly from a few with much to gain from it.

To be fair, regarding Rob's business, I do not know much about it. I do know I have seen at least one person I respect posting here who has used that product and indicated they are very well pleased with it.
Also, to be fair, anytime the options in any market are restricted, and that is very much what Bill 270 did for building options in this county, then the 'acceptable' options in that market, such as Rob's product, are helped.

[Rob Tucker]

@ Seeb, You are basically correct. The entrenched building material industries lobby hard to protect their interests and have been successful over the last century. This fact has made it more difficult for “alternative” building systems, such as I deal with, to penetrate the market place... but industry opposition is not the only obstacle. Public ignorance and a perception that “cheaper” means better value or a misperception that alternatives are more expensive have also been obstacles.

LEED, as promoted by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) , has established itself as another obstacle to alternative building system development. USGBC & LEED have positioned themselves, amazingly, as a new expensive hurdle. USGBC appears to me to be a corporate front with an underlying goal of keeping the big players in control of the game.

Now despite all that the building codes are under revision for very valid reasons....the fact that the revisions are influenced by industry does not remove the validity of the need for improved codes. The international standards coming into place are a recognition by the world at large and our federal government of the impacts of climate change. Our codes have been a very low standard and have not been meeting the needs of society when tested by hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and other forces of nature.

People think that the codes are focused on protecting them from themselves. Its not really that way. The codes are intended to protect the home buying public from incompetent or unethical builders be they owner/builders (which Puna has a lot of) or professional builders. It is assumed that every home built will be sold to another party someday. There is a proven history of people trying to make the most profit from the least effort and ultimately the codes protect the buyer of your owner/build home from you and gives the buyer some small assurance that the structure WILL NOT KILL THEM.

[Rob Tucker]

@ kjlpahoa & James Weatherford,

I have no knowledge of the codes in Mexico. Never worked there. I have spent half of my career pioneering alternative building materials and methods. It has not been particularly easy. Lots of entrenched opposition. I have found that from all the building departments I have dealt with over forty years the CoH has been the most open and supportive of alternative materials and methods.

You are free to disagree.

We have a detach here in our opinions because I have a different understanding of “alternatives” than you do. In my world an acceptable alternative must be structurally dependable. This is different than thinking that anyone should be entitled to produce a structure by any method that appeals to them.

Bamboo might seem real attractive. Guess what? The CoH has allowed bamboo structures.

Building out of recycled (used) lumber or ungraded material is.... Guess what? It is allowed in the code if your architect or engineer certifies the integrity of the material. [Good luck though finding an architect or engineer who will do that].

I get the impression that some residents of Puna want to simply be exempt from the standards and requirements of living in the USA. Guess what? In Puna you are, for the most part, exempt. The codes in place here are and have been minimally enforced.

But a big and mostly ignored fact seems missing from the dialogue. That is that Hawaii has the highest standard of living of any island group in the Pacific. That is because it is a state of the United States..... like it or not. Being a part of the U.S. has it’s benefits and burdens. A benefit has been that Hawaii receives more than it gives in the form of taxes. That subsidizes many things including financial assistance to the poor. A burden is that it has to conform at times if it wants to enjoy the benefits.

I believe that the yin/yang of burdens and benefits tilt heavily to the state and county not wanting to lose the federal benefits. This is especially true if the vocal opposition has relatively unresearched opinions and are from a district with a history of not voting (real or imagined).

The new codes have no real affect on me. I’ve been swimming against the current so long and am so close to retirement that the new codes have no effect on my day to day or my business future.

Could the new codes (or any code or regulation) be improved? Certainly. Guess what? There is a process for that... but it takes time.

I think the CoH Council did what it had to do. Not perhaps what they might have wanted to do in a perfect world. The council didn't have a lot of choice. The Feds carry a big stick. While you are pissed off you can't easily build however you want, whenever you want, where ever you want... at risk (as a likely example) is housing assistance to the elderly and single moms and children. So the potential is that a "win" in localizing building codes might actually result in more homelessness among the most vulnerable.

The phrase "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind. If you have a grudge on the subject I think the grudge should be with the Feds, not our local council.