Re:'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010)
by pdonis on Saturday December 31, 2016 @08:10PM
(#13294145)
> You have evidence he built one house correctly :) That tells you literally nothing about the previous performance of his houses.
Only if you believe that his performance on the one house has no correlation whatever with his performance on other houses. That seems highly implausible to me.
> he could have fixed it all
Fixed what? The problem wasn't that the house was actually built wrong. The problem was that the inspector wasn't competent enough to make an actual engineering judgment, so all he could look for was some particular label on the lumber instead of assessing its actual structural strength. An independent inspector, who did have the competence to make an actual engineering judgment, said the house was fine (in fact he said it exceeded the building code standards).
1. You have evidence he built one house correctly :) That tells you literally nothing about the previous performance of his houses.
2. This happened after the city had already red flagged a bunch of stuff. Again, he could have fixed it all and then hired his inspector to say it was great. I've even seen this happen with some of the flippers around here :)
Now, do i believe he probably knows how to build houses? Yes. But the original comment is that "looks like he knew how to take lumber and build a house", and the story as we have it doesn't provide this data.
It basically provides "he knew how to take lumber, do something, have the city complain about it, maybe fix it all or maybe it was already good, hire an inspector, inspector says it is now all good".
That isn't quite the same as proving "guy knew how to build houses", it's closer to "guy maybe knows how to build houses, or knows how to fix mistakes once they are pointed out".