News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on 'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010).

Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by foota on Sunday December 25, 2016 @05:20PM (#13255688)
It seems to me like there should be exceptions in building codes if a building will never be sold and does not put others in danger (e.g., a shack in the forest)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by crooked-v on Sunday December 25, 2016 @05:42PM (#13255785)
People doing random things in the middle of the forest where they were sure they couldn't hurt anybody else had led to any number of major wildfires over the past century.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by adamryman on Sunday December 25, 2016 @05:48PM (#13255816)
citation needed
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by gens on Sunday December 25, 2016 @07:04PM (#13256129)
(Drunk?) Campers starting fires in forests ? Yep, same as (adult) people building homes to live in.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by crooked-v on Sunday December 25, 2016 @08:00PM (#13256319)
Yes, and I'm totally sure they'll always have all their wiring up to spec and definitely won't ever risk any gas leaks or wood stove accidents.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by maxxxxx on Sunday December 25, 2016 @05:55PM (#13255842)
How do you enforce this? Are there people who blow up the house immediately after the builder dies or moves out?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by foota on Sunday December 25, 2016 @06:19PM (#13255959)
This is a fair point. In honesty I think the intention behind building codes is to prevent builders from building buildings that endanger others (e.g., fire hazard) or selling buildings where the buyer is not aware of the risks. The former I think we can all agree is necessary and fairly straightforward. I think the latter is more complicated. Perhaps people can't effectively judge the risk they take on by living in a potentially less safe environment and so are not willing to pay for improvements that would improve their utility?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by alexandercrohde on Sunday December 25, 2016 @06:15PM (#13255933)
Selling houses is a very formalized process, this should be easy to enforce. First of all, there is a deed of sale that gets signed over, the unsuitability for resale could be listed on the deed. Remember selling a house usually is a super involved process that costs 10s of thousands of dollars.

It almost sounds to me like you don't WANT to find a better solution.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by maxxxxx on Sunday December 25, 2016 @06:27PM (#13256002)
It's true. I don't think it's a good idea to have a class of houses that conforms with code and another that doesn't.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) by BronSteeDiam on Sunday December 25, 2016 @05:47PM (#13255811)
I 100% agree, but there are reasonable arguments against too. Unfortunately in this case the house was sold on after the couples death. Guests, like new owners, also have a right to be save from structural issues.
[ Parent | on HN ]