|
| hey
imad
don't
worry
|
|
 |
|
 |
hey imad don't worry about it with all the added costs (A/E training, ineasrced A/E fees, ineasrced jurisdiction training and plancheck/inspection fees, ineasrced costs for third party involvement, ineasrced costs from materials manufacturers, ineasrced costs by builders that have to deal with procurement changes, ineasrced costs of litigation that will come along with new/untested requirements/programs, etc etc etc), and the current/projected state of the housing market for the next few years, we won't be doing much small residential building, just doctoring up and putting lipstick on older housing stock oh, and did I forget how are jurisdictions going to pay for their new training, plancheck, verification and inspection burdens since our deficit condition means no more money from the state, probably no money from any currently-contemplated tax increases, and it will take a while to implement any increases in application and permit fees to cover the as-yet unknown magnitude of costs and stupid me throw in some money for ineasrced A/E insurance costs, since while everyone is trying to figure out what all this really means, plans are being cranked out and implemented and you can bet they will be second-guessed down the line, resulting in ineasrced claims for professional negligence wouldn't it be nice if just once California let some other state lead the way and work out the bugs? While energy savings and greenhouse gas reduction is great, the bottom line effects of this code are still anyone's guess might improve the situation or might not, because nobody has yet been able to demonstrate how this will play out when the entire life cycle of buildings is evaluated that is part of the basis of the class action suit v. LEEDS let's all keep our fingers crossed that this particular new code cycle pain will be worth it
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Prem
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
21 december 2014, 07:58:32
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
112.18.165.161
|
|
|
|
