FROM THE TAILGATE
Sage advice from the trenches
By Ron Jones
The Affordability Trap
As the old saying goes, “when you are in a hole, stop digging.”
Apparently, the message has still not gotten through to many in the housing industry, as witnessed during the fall board and committee meetings of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) in Milwaukee.
Desperately reeling from the effects of the housing market collapse, and hungry for any target on which they could vent their institutional and individual frustrations, a variety of association members seized the chance to blast regulations as a major source of their woes, especially building codes.
They enjoyed an unusual opportunity in the form of a visit from officials of the International Code Council (ICC), including the organization’s board president, its CEO and its COO, in addition to their regular liaison to NAHB’s standing code committee.
While the exchanges were civil, many in attendance voiced irate opinions that served to indict the code body and its offi cials for alleged improprieties in their development and review process, and in ICC’s execution of its own procedures and rules.
Still clinging to the dubious claim that they represent and protect the interests of homeowners, many NAHB members lapsed into their familiar mantra of the need for “affordability,” demanding the ICC not approve any code proposals that are not demonstrated to be “cost effective,” though no further explanation of exactly what that means was given.
NAHB spokesmen outlined possible strategies to combat the continual ratcheting of energy performance requirements, including the formal suggestion from some that the organization should develop its own set of residential codes, abandon participation in the current code development process, and withdraw support of the “I” codes.
The ICC representatives, primarily through their board president, were sympathetic, almost conciliatory at times, and referred to the relationship as a kind of “marriage,” citing the long-standing cooperation between the two organizations, and referring to the memorandum of understanding the two parties have in place—a document neither organization is apparently eager to make public.
At the end of the day, everyone thanked one another for the constructive and informative exchange. All that was left were the echoes of calls for “affordability,” voiced by people who have not yet realized that first cost is not full cost, and that opening the spread-sheet on real costs could prove to be the last thing they really want.
10.2011
64
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68