*Mandatory Home Inspections Under Climate Bill*
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Yup.
If you didn't know the House just passed a fucking bullshit comprehensive climate bill, and that it is going to the Senate on monday for approval there, you may want to rethink your news sources.
Bureaucrats Will Carry Mandatory Home Inspections Under Climate Bill
I know.
I know EXACTLY what you are thinking.
How could you, Drifting?
What, are you anti-environment?
Is it really so bad to let strangers in to your house once a year to save the world?
C'mon man. Good god. Have a heart.
Who doesn't want electricity prices to go up 90%?
Gas up 75%?
Oooh. oooh. Sign me up!
I want to save the environment!
Or at least, save Wall Street's pocket books!
pffft.
:roll:
This country is headed straight out the door.
Minority Leader John Boehner On The Clean Energy & Climate Change Bill
Rep Frank Lucas Smacks Down HR 2454
Rep. McClintock disapproves
"Electricity Rates will Skyrocket"
Rep Ryan Argues Against Bill
Rep Nunes: Largest Tax Increase in American History
6/25/09 Peter Schiff Discusses Disastrous Climate Change Bill with Glenn Beck
Rep. Congressman: Climate Bill Will Create "Global Warming Gestapo"
Hey.
FUN TIMES!
If you didn't know the House just passed a fucking bullshit comprehensive climate bill, and that it is going to the Senate on monday for approval there, you may want to rethink your news sources.
Bureaucrats Will Carry Mandatory Home Inspections Under Climate Bill
I know.
I know EXACTLY what you are thinking.
How could you, Drifting?
What, are you anti-environment?
Is it really so bad to let strangers in to your house once a year to save the world?
C'mon man. Good god. Have a heart.
Who doesn't want electricity prices to go up 90%?
Gas up 75%?
Oooh. oooh. Sign me up!
I want to save the environment!
Or at least, save Wall Street's pocket books!
pffft.
:roll:
This country is headed straight out the door.
Minority Leader John Boehner On The Clean Energy & Climate Change Bill
Rep Frank Lucas Smacks Down HR 2454
Rep. McClintock disapproves
"Electricity Rates will Skyrocket"
Rep Ryan Argues Against Bill
Rep Nunes: Largest Tax Increase in American History
6/25/09 Peter Schiff Discusses Disastrous Climate Change Bill with Glenn Beck
Rep. Congressman: Climate Bill Will Create "Global Warming Gestapo"
Hey.
FUN TIMES!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Good question.
Perhaps it is because he is "on the other side of the aisle" on this issue?
You know, we do still have a democratically elected congress.
Despite our senate races being a dog and pony show, the lower house of congress is still somewhat accessible to people of moderate means (as it was originally intended, to be clear: congress for the masses, senate for the rich).
The fact that our congress is democratically elected (as opposed to the presidency, the elections for which are essentially staged for the people) leads me to believe that it is the last place in our government where you would expect to see honest differences of opinion.
Maybe Boehner is in the pocket to mid-level local corporate america on this bill, thus pitting him against it. Whereas, perhaps he is also a strong federalist or was bought off by the banks on the Fed Res stuff.
I don't know.
And i don't really care, to be honest.
This post wasn't about agreeing with Boehner or not.
He happened to make some points that fitted with the jist of my post so i included it here.
Along with MANY other links.
You know,
i generally agree that John Adams was an outstanding moral soul who gave his life in spirit and devotion to the founding of what he hoped would be a just and liberated country.
That doesn't mean i agree with his Alien & Sedition act, or with his ideas that America should in truth be a limited Monarchical Republic.
It's okay to pick and choose what you like and don't like about someone.
I'm sure people do it here with me all the time.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
You know, they never ONCE cite to the actual bill in its language in this article. It's sentence after sentence of alarmist ranting about government people storm troopering private homes with not a shred of supporting citation. When they do "list" actual provisions, it's with THEIR spin on the actual bill provision, not the provision itself. And if you try to search for the provisions they "list," you will find about 10 articles from a ring of extreme fringe "news sources" all with the EXACT same headline.
So something tells me the bill actually doesn't say anything like this.
Here is one of over a dozen different places in this thousand+ page bill where the word "inspection" is used. Notice from the first part of the section, that this clearly applies to residential construction. In fact, this bill proposes sweeping changes to building codes at the local level, to adopt federal guidelines, enforceable by the federal government upon the municipality, including fines!
I have scanned up and down from this section (mostly up) to see if this portion of the bill (like others that mention "inspection" but seem much more limited in scope) referes merely to voluntary labeling programs (energy efficiency labeling) or only to publicly funded buildings or some such. I COULD FIND NO SUCH CLAUSE. This appears (to my non-lawyer eyes) as though IT APPLIES TO ALL NEW AND "SIGNIFICANTLY RENOVATED" CONSTRUCTION. AT LEAST.
One can deduce that it applies to AT LEAST all new and significantly renovated structures by the following language:
The structure of the bill makes it very hard for a layman to determine which sub sections go with which top level sections, and which definitions are defining which portions of the bill. IT IS A HUGE BILL.
One thing IS made VERY plain, however. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OVER THE LOCAL BUILDING CODES. The language says outright: states may adopt their own codes, provided they are APPROVED BY THE FEDS, if no such APPROVED code is adopted, THE FEDERAL CODE WILL BE ENFORCED.
Here is the bill at opencongress.org
Feel free to search "inspection", find the relevant sections, and tell me I'm way off the mark.
I did my best to make my way through those sections, and best i can tell they apply very broadly in some sections (ie. include ALL new construction, and "substantially renovated" construction).
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You've already made it clear to me that you're way off the mark. Despite the alarmist headline and your heated rhetoric... you admit here that government is NOT going to be walking into your house to inspect it and poke through your underwear drawer. What's happening is that new and renovated building must meet certain energy standards. That's very different from what you were implying at first. I can understand why this still bothers people (personally, I'm relatively ok with it). I'm just trying to keep you all honest.
1. new buildings under construction or major renovation must meet new energy efficiency requirements.
2. If the state/local government fails to ensure this by proper inspections, then inspectors will be appointed, and the bill sent to the state/local goverment.
A huge thumbs up from me on these counts. Building codes should demand a lot more energy efficiency now than before. Only way to get somewhere with it.
The headline and spin here is frankly ridiculous.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
actually thats not true at all.
the language of the bill clearly states that INSPECTORS will be appointed to INSPECT NEW AND RENOVATED CONSTRUCTION.
I just bought a house.
I just redid the bathroom, and did a bunch of grading work.
I plan to remodel the kitchen and put in new appliances.
AM I UP FOR INSPECTION based on this criteria?
I dunno. I can't find the definition for "significantly renovated".
Maybe you and Outofbreath like the new America where what you can do to your home, and how you live is DETERMINED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, but i personally think it is a steaming pile of poo ... and this is coming from someone who considers themselves somewhat of a REAL environmentalist.
If you want to get in to the real lunacy of this bill (at least the building code portion) we can talk about artificial price floors and how building codes KEEP PEOPLE HOMELESS.
Yes its true.
These new "energy efficiency standards" are a cruel joke to TRUE SUSTAINABILITY.
I'm not against technology, but FORCING CONSUMERISM THROUGH FEDERAL LEGISLATION WILL NOT SAVE THE WORLD.
Many of the products which make a home "energy efficient" require large energy inputs to create, deliver, and install.
On the other hand, a TRULY "sustainable" home probably looks something a lot more like a traditional hut or locally produced timber home that uses locally made candles for light, wood for fuel, and has a well for water.
But this bill would probably label the forest that wood came from as environmentally protected land, call you an eco-terrorist for chopping it down, fine you for your "illegal" wood stove that is killing the world, say your well needs a meter and fine you for illegal water "stealing", and then demolish your home for not meeting code.
Building codes, under the guise of fire and health safety regulations, have artificially driven up the floor for housing costs in the "civilized" world, and put affordable, self-built homes out of the reach of EVERYONE.
Now that is just my little diatribe on building codes in general.
I think it is far more sinister to say that i can no longer pay someone in what was ONCE a FREE COUNTRY to build me a home to the standards that I CHOOSE.
Nope. Now i have Uncle Fed telling me, "cant use that. better install this. can't do that. better get a permit for this. Oh wait. TIME TO INSPECT YOUR NEW CONSTRUCTION."
Pfft.
I'm WAY OFF THE MARK, right?
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Any redecoration like you describe won't be hassled with at all.
If they do, then feel free to scream bloody murder
I have little problem with regulations ensuring that builders have to build safe, sturdy, and now, energy efficient housing, That ensures us having safe, sturdy and energy-efficient houses. Buying houses, you usually have no clue how it's built and possible corners the builders cut that won't surface for a couple of years. With firm regulations, you can at least have a certain degree of certainty that certain standards are met. The rules may be a bit of a hassle in a self-built cabin in a field in the middle of nowhere, but absolutely crucial and essential in any urban area.
I'm generally in favour of such regulations, with, of course, enough flexibility so that smaller peripheral buildings dont have quite that amount of requirements. I am as little troubled by such regulations as I am with hygienic rules in food production. (no matter how many "entrepeneurs" have to close shop because of it)
What keeps people "homeless" is not having an income, or working jobs that barely pays for food. To lay that blame on building codes is pretty hysterical and off the mark.
(In a marketeering view, wont the inability for some people to buy houses foster a market for low-cost housing for these people? There are money to be made there, for sure. And must all people own houses anyway?)
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I almost hate to pursue this fight, because it is small in the scope of things.
However, it is relevant to a passion of mine (alternative building \ permaculture, &c.) and really gets me hot.
While i certainly can be at times, i hardly consider my point of view hysterical.
You, good sir, are thinking with first world 20th century blinders on.
The current state of housing is hardly a long term human norm.
It is a funny anomaly.
I don't want to skip credit or kill a good quote, so i'll just get the old manual out and let it have a go. I'll let him get warmed up on the general topic of human independence first, and then give you the meat of the "building codes" argument:
You may not understand that, or understand the practical application of this quotation, but i can tell you how i've related to it.
Have you ever seen a 12'x12' house?
Yeah, they're illegal "homes" here in America.
They're awesome!
Why 12'x12' ?
Because in many jurisdictions (in America most places promote the "uniform building code") 12 feet by 12 feet is the largest NON-CODED Structure you can build.
That means the largest NON-LIVING structure you can build without needing to FOLLOW the building codes!
Notice i say NON-living, because the second you try to actually use a building for something like ... oh say ... LIVING ... in it, you incur the IMMEDIATE wraith of the system! Bad monkey! No shelter for you!
Of COURSE this is all dressed up as concern for YOU and they are looking out for YOUR safety and blah blah blah. And NOW its not just for you, its for MOTHER EARTH.
Oh poor fucking mother earth is dying, so you don't get a house!
Its sick, stupid, and twisted.
I know a great man who donates a lot of his time to Habitat for Humanity as a both an environmental planner, and site engineer. He helps with site feasibility studies for projects in our area, where the local HH has gotten much more "sustainable" than other local chapters. He tells me he can't build an average 3bed 2 bath home for less than $160,000.
THIS IS CHARITY WORK, FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD HOUSES!
And in what is supposed to be "the greatest country" in the world. :roll:
And we can't get a goddamn stupid fucking BASIC SHELTER constructed for LESS THAN O.N.E H.U.N.D.R.E.D A.N.D S.I.X.T.Y T.H.O.U.S.A.N.D DOLLARS.
I know. You don't get it.
You think i'm off the hinge, off the mark, and off the wall.
But you don't realize how ABSURD that is in the grand scheme of the cosmos.
We are talking about a FUNDAMENTAL NEED OF MAN.
SHELTER.
And it can NOT be constructed THROUGH CHARITY for less than hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Why?
No dan. Don't cop out. It's not because of the market value of labor or materials.
It is BECAUSE OF BUILDING CODES.
THEY DEMAND IT.
If HH could do the house with less materials, or different materials, or DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION METHODS, they would. BUT THE CODES INSIST!
$160,000 please.
$160,000 please.
$160,000 please.
ad naseum.
Back to the 12'x12'.
You can construct one, kitchen, stove, toilet, table, bedroom, bookshelves, windows, and all for between $7,000 and $15,000. And one with a 3rd world POV may even consider that to be extravagant.
These homes are great. Fully functional. No more or less likely to kill you than any other home.
They look no better or no worse, they all have a unique charm, they are all what their owners wanted, and they are ALL 100% ILLEGAL.
If the municipality wanted to be a dick, if the neighbors complained, or god forbid if the Federal Government ever became full on gestapo, your home could be torn down and you could be fined.
Thanks building codes.
And this new bill just adds to the pile under absurd faux-environmentally conscious hoccus poccus authoritarian bullshit.
so now some government dick sucker gets to tell me what will and won't save the world, and what i can and can't build to help save or kill mother earth.
yeah right.
what a joke.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
At a cost of $40 or so each compared to $5 for a normal breaker this adds up fast, not to mention now whatever circuit it is on must be dedicated so that means more wire and copper is still pretty expensive. I can see how costs to build add up fast when the government gets their mitts involved.