[d3ad1ysp0rk]

If you know anything about building a house you'll know that; 1) not everything shitty is visible, and 2) not everything shitty can be understood by homeowners, otherwise we'd need no codes/minimums (we'd all be perfect architects/building scientists/craftspeople).

I could get behind removing almost all zoning, but code is just sensible.

[tastyfreeze]

Code is an accumulation of things we have learned to make a house last longer and be generally safer. That doesn't mean a house that isn't built to code is less effective as a house. Infact most houses older that 20 years old will no longer be up to the current code.

I have built a house. If somebody is building a house for their self they will make it as safe and sturdy as they are able. Somebody building a house to sell will cut cost wherever possible to make more profit.

I would be fine if building code was administered more like Underwriters Laboratory. Let people build however they want but give the option to certify it is up to the code at the time it was built. Not all homes would be certified but there would be more homes. Over the long run the majority of homes would be certified due to the higher value certification would carry.

Penalizing undesired behavior is much less effective than incentiving the desired behavior.