[Cob] RE: codes and laws

[Paul Salas]

Kindra,

Since you mention a few states  allow for alternative materials, I have 
posted a
few at http://www.sanco-bg.com/Building_Codes.htm.  This is still a work in
progress to help individuals locate specific items within the various codes
that will allow them to build with alternative materials


SANCO Business Group
Paul Salas, Gen Mgr
PO Box 45741
Rio Rancho, NM  87174
(505) 238-0426
visit us at www.sanco-bg.com


Quoting claysandstraw <kindra at claysandstraw.com>:

> I agree with Copper.  The key to managing codes is to create flexibility for
> homeowners to build as they see fit.  "Cob" is not the only building
> material out there.  Ultimately the real purpose of codes is to assign
> liability when things go wrong.  A few states provide for homeowner building
> permits that allow owner-builders to accept responsibility for the house
> they create.  That solution makes sense to me becuase it advocates for many
> materials in one sweep.
>
> I also notice that no matter what material you are building with a negative
> attitude will instantly set any inspector on the defensive.  Natural
> builders should stop doing this to themselves and each other.
>
> A final thought.  My inspector told me last week that he is required to
> perform inspections for a master builder nearby who has been building more
> than twice as many years as my inspector has been an adult.  There is no
> way, he says, that he could criticize this builder, every visit to his site
> is an opportunity for a lesson.
> Cobbers, you and I need to become those master builders.
>
> Kindra
>
>
>
> ****original message (some portions
> ommitted)**************************************
> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Copper Harding <copperharding at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Cob] codes and laws
>
>
> I've been watching the strawbale, earthbag, cob etc.
> the "natural building" people try their hardest to get
> the UBC or local building codes changed to allow
> "their" type of building.  Usually the type of
> building that they are totally in love with.  That
> isn't to say that any of them are bad options - but
> sometimes that taints the process of interaction with
> building officials.
>
> Or, on some level, makes many avoid any interaction
> with them to avoid having to comply with the code.
>
> So I was wondering, why do we have the UBC in the
> first place.  Well, to protect people.  That's a good
> thing in my book.  Why do we, as a natural building
> community, have a problem with the UBC - in short  -
> it's lack of flexibility.  Or even shorter - it denies
> us something that seems to be a pretty basic and
> intrinsict human drive - the drive for shelter.
>
> So if it's that basic - why are we not talking, as a
> community, about changing the law that governs our
> rights from the get go?  I would recommend maybe
> changing it on a state by state level (easier to
> uphold as much of the building regulatory power is at
> the state or even the county/city level)
>
> I would think that many states might just be open to
> changing their state constitution to protect the right
> to provide one's own shelter.
> *******
>
> From: otherfish <otherfish at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Cob] codes and laws
>
> Copper,
> Good idea, but the political arena is not where it's going to be solved.....
> what's needed is a concerted program make cob available in ALL building
> codes....
>
> I've been proposing this since 1995
> but finding financial support has been the barrier to doing it....
> it's a huge undertaking
> a major commitment and the bucks to do it are what's needed
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coblist mailing list
> Coblist at deatech.com
> http://www.deatech.com/mailman/listinfo/coblist
>