Multiple Sill Plates??

[Jim Baird]

"...why they did that..."

Those places where they stacked plates are often where layout mistakes were made on setting elevations, either of frame walls or forms. Stacks of 2X's show they used what they had laying around to make up the height they needed. Sometimes, as on a top plate, there could be some tendency for the plate to roll if there is lateral loading there, but it is usually loading down.

[Phillip]

Man, it would be nice if all of those older codes where in TIJ down load area.[:-eyebrow

[Marc]

Well, everyone is different. Me, I don't give a hoot about any codes except the current ones when I'm doing a home inspection, because as a home inspector, I don't answer to any code book. I have several in my library and I read the current ones but there's not a tight and rigid correlation between codes and my report. They just influence my findings just like lots of other non-code sources of information that I also use along with my own contracting experience and whatever I've learned in schools and trainings.

I have but two standards for home inspections. One is for mobile homes, the other is for everything else.

Of course, everyone is different.

Marc

[charlieb]

Like Marc,

I reference today's standard. What can the impact in someone's life be. $$, safety or resale.

[Phillip]

I guess that I would like to know more about how they where suppose to have been built back then. To know more about the way the building standard has changed

[Rocon]

As a follow up to the question about where this requirement originaly came from. We there is no specific answer I have found however the general consensus is that it originates in the HUD Minimum Property Standards and the corresponding Manual of Acceptable Practices dating from the 1950s.

As for applying current code to an older building, I have dealt with this many times over the last several years. It has always resulted in the person making the asserion being wrong. Since it does not hold water.

As an example any assertion to be logical can be extrapolated to the extreme and still be accurate. My question to you is should the pyramids be torn down since they do not meet standards of current code?

[charlieb]

As a follow up to the question about where this requirement originaly came from. We there is no specific answer I have found however the general consensus is that it originates in the HUD Minimum Property Standards and the corresponding Manual of Acceptable Practices dating from the 1950s.

As for applying current code to an older building, I have dealt with this many times over the last several years. It has always resulted in the person making the asserion being wrong. Since it does not hold water.

As an example any assertion to be logical can be extrapolated to the extreme and still be accurate. My question to you is should the pyramids be torn down since they do not meet standards of current code?

Wow, I've never inspected one of those!

I do however, inspect homes built before 1990. To follow your logic, I should not tell them that current safety standards (codes), require new homes to have GFCI protection. I would have to keep my mouth shut, or close my laptop, and tell them the house has everything it should to provide a safe a possible living environment.

If you thing I'm wrong to tell people what THEY can do to make their home safer...............hold it, that's not what your saying is it? And, I've never said a seller must bring a home up to current standard. Give me more credit that that. Like most men I don't like being wrong.

[charlieb]

Now that the chest pounding is over. IMHO it's a disservice to not educate a home buyer about the limitations in a home. Our job is simple. Educate home buyers (and others), so they have the knowledge to keep their family as safe as possible. Physically and financially.

One of my favorite excerpts from the IRC:

"R101.3Purpose.

The purpose of this code is to provide minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare, through affordability, structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment."

[Marc]

As a follow up to the question about where this requirement originaly came from. We there is no specific answer I have found however the general consensus is that it originates in the HUD Minimum Property Standards and the corresponding Manual of Acceptable Practices dating from the 1950s.

As for applying current code to an older building, I have dealt with this many times over the last several years. It has always resulted in the person making the asserion being wrong. Since it does not hold water.

As an example any assertion to be logical can be extrapolated to the extreme and still be accurate. My question to you is should the pyramids be torn down since they do not meet standards of current code?

Could you translate this language down to the post graduate level pls?

Marc

[Rocon]

Now that the chest pounding is over. IMHO it's a disservice to not educate a home buyer about the limitations in a home. Our job is simple. Educate home buyers (and others), so they have the knowledge to keep their family as safe as possible. Physically and financially.

One of my favorite excerpts from the IRC:

"R101.3Purpose.

The purpose of this code is to provide minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare, through affordability, structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment."

In response to both of your posts, I agree to educate the client is good but the balance is not to cause fear in them (I am sure I do not have to pontificate on that). Recomended maintenance or upgrades are a good thing. Some of my favorite homes to be in are older homes that have been remodeled and updated to current technology.

[charlieb]

Now that the chest pounding is over. IMHO it's a disservice to not educate a home buyer about the limitations in a home. Our job is simple. Educate home buyers (and others), so they have the knowledge to keep their family as safe as possible. Physically and financially.

One of my favorite excerpts from the IRC:

"R101.3Purpose.

The purpose of this code is to provide minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare, through affordability, structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment."

In response to both of your posts, I agree to educate the client is good but the balance is not to cause fear in them (I am sure I do not have to pontificate on that). Recomended maintenance or upgrades are a good thing. Some of my favorite homes to be in are older homes that have been remodeled and updated to current technology.

I wrote: "I reference today's standard. What can the impact in someone's life be. $$, safety or resale."

You responded: "As for applying current code to an older building, I have dealt with this many times over the last several years. It has always resulted in the person making the asserion being wrong. Since it does not hold water.

As an example any assertion to be logical can be extrapolated to the extreme and still be accurate. My question to you is should the pyramids be torn down since they do not meet standards of current code?"

So.......Where is the fear you now refer to? Forgive my plain words but I follow the KISS philosophy.

[Phillip]

I do inform my clients about the changes in the building standards over the years and tell tell that they might want to make some of these changes for their safety and this is a upgrade that they more than likely will have to do for their self since the house was built on the standard being used at the time the house was built.

[hausdok]

Man, it would be nice if all of those older codes where in TIJ down load area.[:-eyebrow

Jeez Phillip,

And here I thought you were my friend. You guys have no idea how much time it takes to upload some of this stuff. The more I do it, the more tired I get of doing it. I've got mountains of crap to upload and no time or energy left to do it.

However, it you're feeling frisky and bushy-tailed, go for it. The brethren will be everlastingly grateful.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Phillip]

Man, it would be nice if all of those older codes where in TIJ down load area.[:-eyebrow

Jeez Phillip,

And here I thought you were my friend. You guys have no idea how much time it takes to upload some of this stuff. The more I do it, the more tired I get of doing it. I've got mountains of crap to upload and no time or energy left to do it.

However, it you're feeling frisky and bushy-tailed, go for it. The brethren will be everlastingly grateful.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Mike,

I am your friend. And I appreciate on the hard work that you do to keep us informed. I don't know how you find the time to do all you do.

I don't have the code to up load even if I was feeling frisky and bushy-tailed, which I am not.

[Rocon]

So.......Where is the fear you now refer to? Forgive my plain words but I follow the KISS philosophy.

The fear I mentioned (that does not need to be discussed) is the Inspector that "educates" his client to a level of fear or concern that it breaks deals. Other threads have discussed this completely, and we have drifted away from the original question.

[charlieb]

You continue to make exaggerated assumptions. As to you discussion style, you seem to like to direct/control where the discussion should or should not go. In that spirit, this is my last post in this discussion. Go ahead, I would not want for you to not have the last word.

[Rocon]

You continue to make exaggerated assumptions. As to you discussion style, you seem to like to direct/control where the discussion should or should not go. In that spirit, this is my last post in this discussion. Go ahead, I would not want for you to not have the last word.

?? OK

[Tom Raymond]

You continue to make exaggerated assumptions. As to you discussion style, you seem to like to direct/control where the discussion should or should not go. In that spirit, this is my last post in this discussion. Go ahead, I would not want for you to not have the last word.

?? OK

I'm sorry, but that's really funny[:-monkeyd

Tom