. As a result of that meeting, and other meetings like it, and all the local discussions that went on, we saw some real results. On at least some issues, if enough people get angry enough and involved enough, they can make a difference. The Housing Code and Dangerous Building Code were not re-adopted. A new administrator was hired for the county Building Departme.nt, and the behavior of the Building Department changed in many respects. Jhe new building official invited groups from all parts of the county to send tl;i.eir . chosen representatives to a county-wide committe_e which would meet monthly to work.together with the Building Department and advise it on matters of policy and practice. The Owner-Builder Proposal Our committee dealt with many subjects. It worked on developing a county policy for agricultural buildings, and one for seasonal dwellings. New departmental policies were developed regarding the behavior of building inspectors-they were required to send notice by mail before making inspections, and to leave someone's property if asked to do so. , • One of the major issues of concern, for many of the people in the county, was that of owner-built housing. We felt that someone who is building her own home which she intends to live in should be free to build to suit her own tastes and needs. Owner-built housing can cost much less than standard housing. Owner-builders can experiment with innovative methods that c·ould not be used on the mass_market. And many owner-builders plan to build a house they January 1980 RAIN Page 5 will live in for the rest of their lives-why shouldn't they build· exactly as they please? The situation is different when a contractor is building a·home for a purchaser who is not present and able'to look out for her own interests-in that case there is an argument that_ can be made for the building codes as a form of consumer protection. - Thi~ was not an issue that co{ild be dealt with by a local policy. We would have to go to the state legislature. We would have to deal with all the objections that are raised when you suggest exempting owner-built dwellings from the building codes. What about safety-suppose someone builds a fire trap? What if the neighbors object to the way the building looks? What if the owner-builder eventually wants to move and sell his house? Suppose an unscrupulous contractor uses this as a way to build substandard housing to sell to unwary customers? We didn't ask for a la~ that would exempt all owner-built dwellings in the state from the state building code-we asked only for a law that would give each county the power to exempt ownerbuilders if it wished. Each county could choose in which part of the county the law would apply, and it was intended mainly for rural areas, where houses aren't that dose together and people don't care that much what their neighbor's house looks like. Under the proposed law, owner-built dwellings could not be exempted from the entire building code. They would still have to meet all standards for fire egress, fire retardant and sinoke detectors. All structural members would have to meet maximum bending stress standards as set by the structural code. All energy conservation and insulation requirements _would have to be met. Any plumbing and electrical work that was done woul.f! have to meet their respective code standards. So what do you get? Undet this proposal an owner-builder /L------t\'r-"'"-ttiwould be exempted from all the many tiny detailed standards that are specified in the structural code. For.example, she would be free of the stal}dards that set the exact minimum width for a staircase and the distance a handrail must be from the wall. She could decide for herself how far apart the shakes will be set on her shake roof. °'=='"'-~::l-------1==ltfl She would have the right to use recycled building materials for everything except the structural members. C(Nlt.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz