Comments about ‘Utah building codes likely to be revised’

What is the reason for excluding the energy savings provisions? This sounds backward. How can we ignore energy conservation in this day and age?

This is an example of the legislature meddlingwith something they know little about, and have no business micromanaging.

The purpose of a national building code is to standardize construction in America. What they are doing is stripping safety and costs from these codes to benefit developers and land speculators which Utah is now deeply involved with as an unlicensed and illegal business competing with the private sector.

The state should not be allowed to mess with these codes and eliminate the purpose of them. The state can add to national codes but they should not be allowed to alter the purpose or intent of these codes.

Legislators and lobbyist who are builders are doing this with criminal intent to deceive and minimize safe homes for the Utah market. Their meddling in building codes is why home builders in Utah never get prosecuted for willful endangerment of families living in poorly constructed homes.

All codes are self explanatory when they are required or not so this legislation has no purpose but self preservation of criminal construction in Utah by our legislators who are also in the building industry.

Taking away from these codes is criminal legislation that will build in loopholes for builders.

They have every right to stop some of the expensive requirements in the code. It should be left to the consumer to decide if they want to pay thousands more for a house.

Are you truly serious that you believe every new home now has to have a sprinkler system because those representing sprinkler manufacturers bought influence in the national code-setting process? I, for one, am grateful for a state legislature that's willing to seriously look at issues like that rather than just blindly adopt a national code subject to a highly questionable process.

Especially "professional", please (try to) defend why the market process isn't sufficient in this case. If the market demands it (i.e., if people think the benefit's really worth the cost), why won't the market take care of this?

Right, the Feds allways know what is best for Utah. Can you say Energy Solutions?

CB is a great example of why you need national standards . And why you need them for Yutah. The idea that some stake president ops legislator knows better than a panel of engineers is insane. And lets see insanity is doing the same dumb thing over and over expecting a different result. cb probable was happy that the party of NO voted down taking away health insurance companies exemption from anti trust laws 2 weeks ago .. ..

I am a member of the International Code Council, but will not say that the code development process is perfect. I do not have strong opintion about sprinklers in single homes because I deal with commercial projects. For years I have recommended that all commercial projects be sprinkled even if not required by code. They save lives and property in the event of a fire and the cost saving in insurance premiums often pays for the increased construction costs. I will also say that the State has the right to modify the national code as it sees fit, but that should happen with the state building board, not the legislature serving special interests.

Professional is a voice of reason that legislators should heed. He points out that it can actually pay to make homes and buildings safe. If only more legislators could control their greed, reduce their ignorance and become more concerned about the safety of their constituents and the future of their children and planet Earth. I urge voters to pay attention and vote accordingly.

Why is it that people seem unwilling to confront the tradeoffs that exist with government mandates? Sure, having government mandate everything in our lives may reduce risk from certain dangers. For example, if government simply set the speed limit at 5 MPH, that would save lives from automobile accidents. Of course, it creates other risks that aren't mentioned.

Similarly, government could require all buildings to have sprinklers. That may save lives in event of a fire. But that comes with other costs, in construction, maintenance, and repair. That money comes from somewhere. For a small business, those cost increases may mean that the business can't offer health insurance any more or can't stay in business (or doesn't start in the first place).

If cost increases really are clearly offset by other cost reductions, why is it necessary for government to mandate it? Won't the market take care of that? More safe (from certain risks) at lower cost.

So either we have some lousy salespeople out there that can't convince people to save money when it's so easy to do. Or the cost savings really don't cover the cost increases.

Mortgage licenses are being taken to a national level, building codes will next, then drivers licenses. What then? The Feds will know everything about our lives. We were doing fine for decades, whey play with the building codes? This is the first of many nationalized licenses, codes, and restrictions. I agree with Texas; leave the union and let the Feds (and some state representatives) create all the foolish regulations they want to.

The ISO who sets insurance rates for insurance companies has already opined that removing the fire sprinkler requirements from the national model codes will cause a one class less favorable adjustment - even existing homes would pay more for insurance. The Building Code Effectiveness Grading System that ISO uses for insurance rates is also used by FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program to determine disaster funding rates - failure to adopt fire sprinklers required in the national model codes means at least 5% less money received to mitigate a disaster. And why should taxpayers pay for installing and maintaining a 12-inch water main providing service to a community when an 8-inch is all that could be needed if the national construction standard is met. The Legislature MUST respond to the issue by analyizing the TRUE facts instead of reacting to missrepresentations eminating from the self-serving homebuilders.