Re: Not always joking, it seems

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <rkshullat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Jette <bosslady@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Not applicable in the UK.  We don't have "zoning laws" and ALL
>>> houses have to be built to "code".
> 
> We have "code" in the US too, but it's pretty minimal -- just basic
> standards that ensure that the house won't fall down, the wiring won't
> set it on fire, and the gas furnace won't asphyxiate the tenants.

It depends on where you are, since the code is not centrally mandated
but generally left up to various localities. For example, the "city" we
live in (population 5100) requires compliance with:
    * 2003 IBC (International Building Code)
    * 2003 IRC (International Residential Code)
    * 2003 IECC (International Energy Conservation Code)
    * 2003 IMC (International Mechanical Code)
    * 2003 IPC (International Plumbing Code)
    * 2003 IFGC (International Fuel Gas Code)
    * 2002 NEC (National Electric Code)
    * 2003 IFC (International Fire Code)
The requirements in these are fairly extensive, or at least appeared so
to me that last time I looked. This is not to say that a crooked
contractor
can't build something that doesn't meet code. Even if the inspectors are
100% honest, they're neither omniscient nor omnipresent.

>> If I read Wikipedia correctly, US zoning laws = UK town and country
>> planning. It's the legal framework that stops someone from, for
>> instance, putting a factory in the middle of a neighborhood or
>> converting a house to a nightclub without getting permission from
>> some official agency.  For new residential construction (at least
>> in this area) cities typically set the type (multi- or single-unit)
>> and density (units per acre) and (for single-unit construction) the
>> developer sets a minimum and (maybe) maximum size for each unit via
>> contract on the sale of the lot.
> 
> Right.  It's mostly the minimum lot sizes that keeps houses
> unaffordable.  There seem to be two main reasons for minimum lot
> sizes:
> 
> * Keeping out the riff-raff.  In other words, "I've got mine, so
>  screw you."
> 
> * Keeping traffic from becoming even more of a nightmare than it
>  already is.  (Maybe they could allow exemptions for houses whose
>  owners pledge not to drive?)

Some of this, but also revenue concerns, at least in this area. City
funding here is primarily from property tax and high-density housing
typically has lower value per household than low-density housing. This
leads to lower revenue per household without an offsetting decrease in
cost to the city in services. The only ways to compensate are to raise
the overall tax rate or cut city services, neither of which are popular
moves. The magic terms that get nods from the city planners are "luxury
apartments" and "luxury condos". This is code for "expensive enough that
you don't lose tax revenue".

	Robert
-- 
Robert K. Shull                           Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot
com