CDR: building codes, property rights (follow up)
I asked a lawyer who does real estate development:
I'm having a prolonged flame with someone, and I'm afraid they're right. I'm claiming there are regulations about what you must have *in your house (single-family dwelling) right now* vs. when you sell it. But I may be wrong. I've searched online law resources for regs about houses, but they all seem to be enforced only when you sell. Know any rules about equiptment you must have in modern houses?
The rules are generally construction rules set forth in the state and local building codes; they are regulations, not statutes for the most. They cover everything from structure (foundation thickness, earthquake requirements in CA, wind load engineering standards in FL. As far as equipment, I don't believe that the codes are too detailed. They all require smoke detectors. Then there are equipment specific regulations, such as the 3.5 gal toilets, the safety garage door openers. There are also separate electrical codes
He replied: that
mandate wall outlets every so many feet, what kind of wiring can be used. There are plumbing codes that will require a bathroom with a toilet, tub, lavatory, etc. in each house. Some building codes go so far as to require minimum kitchens, but many don't. Most building codes are applied only to new construction, but also kick in when there is major reconstruction of an old home, or if the home is rented to others. There are some requirements on sale; in NY you would have to install a smoke detector in an old home in order to sell it, and must give an affidavit to the buyer that it is in working condition.
So Tim is right --there are no constraints on his property, unless he wants to improve or sell it. Or the government needs it for a freeway...
At 11:09 AM 11/9/00 -0500, David Honig wrote:
So Tim is right --there are no constraints on his property, unless he wants to improve or sell it.
Or the government needs it for a freeway...
Heh. Having seen Tim's property, at the edge of a fairly high hill, that'd be a pretty entertaining freeway.... More to the point, if Tim wanted to rent his spare bedroom to somebody, there'd be a whole raft of constraints and requirements. I have one friend whose agreement with his housemate was that she wasn't a tenant paying rent, because then he'd be a landlord being regulated and paying income taxes - instead she was a housemate paying her (large) fair share of the utilities, maid service, maintenance, swimming pool cleaning, etc. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
At 5:11 PM -0500 11/9/00, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 11:09 AM 11/9/00 -0500, David Honig wrote:
So Tim is right --there are no constraints on his property, unless he wants to improve or sell it.
Or the government needs it for a freeway...
Heh. Having seen Tim's property, at the edge of a fairly high hill, that'd be a pretty entertaining freeway....
More to the point, if Tim wanted to rent his spare bedroom to somebody, there'd be a whole raft of constraints and requirements.
Remember, I was very careful in what I said. I didn't say there were no constraints/encumberments on renting, or selling, or adding on, whatever. I said, quite carefully, that "there is nothing I am required to have in my house." To his credit, David Honig checked with a legalgrub acquaintance of his and confirmed what I said.
I have one friend whose agreement with his housemate was that she wasn't a tenant paying rent, because then he'd be a landlord being regulated and paying income taxes - instead she was a housemate paying her (large) fair share of the utilities, maid service, maintenance, swimming pool cleaning, etc.
I have a house sitting empty in Aptos, over near the coast. I have not rented it out, nor have I ever planned to. The legal hassles are too great. Including, on another subject, renters deciding they won't pay rent and then having social welfare agencies paid for by tax dollars fighting "for the rights of the renter." (Legal Aid Society, for example.) I know a woman here in Santa Cruz County who had some Mexicans renting from her. They trashed the house, didn't pay their rent, and it took her six months of court battles to have the Mexicans finally expelled. And of course she never saw a dime of the rent that was owed to her. The legal fees of her renters were paid for out from public funds. And people wonder why some of us are in favor of rounding up these miscreants and their government associates, holding quick but fair trials, and then executing the whole lot. From what I have seen, several hundred thousand Americans and foreigners living in America need to be tried and then liquidated. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
participants (3)
-
Bill Stewart -
David Honig -
Tim May