Since leaning of the initial details of the Oakland, CA fire, the story seems to be unfolding in a predictable way. It seems to me that both the owner (or proprietor by leasing) of the building and the City authorities are responsible for the disaster. The owner is already blaming the party he bought or leased the building from because he claims he was told that the building was up to code.
It may have been up to code for its use as a warehouse, but there appear to be many violations related to the conversion to a mulit-family residence. Furthermore, the city officials were well aware of these safety violations and did nothing to enforce them for a considerable amount of time leading up to the fire.
I would like to see the Today Show interview someone from the City codes division. It seems to me that they belong on the hot seat along with the building proprietor.
The current blaming of the disaster on the a lack of affordable housing is not going to fly. This latest news has quite an interesting interview with the building proprietor:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oakland-warehouse-owner-refuses-questions-interview-fire-article-1.2900279
Another issue that was brought up is that nobody was going to report the various violations to the authorities. Building inspectors may not be able to enter a building to conduct an inspection without a complaint.
CSSHEGEWISCH Another issue that was brought up is that nobody was going to report the various violations to the authorities. Building inspectors may not be able to enter a building to conduct an inspection without a complaint.
According to this article, there had been several complaints, and inspectors knew about an incredible list of safety violations for 2-1/2 years prior to the fire.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-oakland-inspections-fire-20161205-story.html
News reports are the cause was likely electrical. The building was not zoned for residential, yet there was a rabbits' warren of dwellings on 1st floor, constructed of wood. Electrical was open wires, not meeting code. Owner or some agency is guilty of gross negligence.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Well, it just so happens I have some expertise on this topic. By trade and training I am a construction design professional in the following areas:
Historic restoration consultant
Residential designer (one step below architect, doing only residential work)
Master historic restoration carpenter
Semi retired journeyman electrician/electrical design draftsman (the guy who designs the wiring for the building)
And have experiance in HVAC design and plumbing.
I restore stuff like this for a living:
So it is fun to listen to you all talk about zoning and building codes.......
First off, zoning, and the exact details of building codes are local laws that vary in every local jurisdiction.
Second, when people lease buildings, sometimes there are limitations beyond law as to how they can use the property. But generally speaking, in most places, the owner of a commercial property can build a code compliant residence within it and live there. They may or maynot be allowed by local law to create rental units, that is a separate issue. Did I mention I am a landlord as well?
So to somehow imply that the fire in Oakland, or zoning laws somehow have anything to do with the earlier conversation about telling people where to live is total nonsense, a strawman......
Clearly good common sense laws were broken and ignored by authorities, that has nothing to do with the earlier conversation.
It is interesting to see the narrow scope in which so many of you think, assuming that anyone wanting to live in a commercial building would be leasing it, or that it is automaticly located in an urban area.
We have commercial zoning out in the "country" too. In fact, the zoning for my own home, pictured above, is a special residential zoning which protects historic integrity, while allowing low inpact commercial use. I leagally run my design and construction business from my home.
Other properties in our village have a commercial version of that zoning which would not prevent a store owner from living above or adjacent to his business.
There was a comment earlier about here in Maryland being liberal like the left coast - yes much of it is. I live in the county that produced the current Republican Governor of Maryland, yes Maryland has a Republican Governor.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well, it just so happens I have some expertise on this topic. By trade and training I am a construction design professional in the following areas: Historic restoration consultant Residential designer (one step below architect, doing only residential work) Master historic restoration carpenter Semi retired journeyman electrician/electrical design draftsman (the guy who designs the wiring for the building) And have experiance in HVAC design and plumbing. I restore stuff like this for a living: So it is fun to listen to you all talk about zoning and building codes....... First off, zoning, and the exact details of building codes are local laws that vary in every local jurisdiction. Second, when people lease buildings, sometimes there are limitations beyond law as to how they can use the property. But generally speaking, in most places, the owner of a commercial property can build a code compliant residence within it and live there. They may or maynot be allowed by local law to create rental units, that is a separate issue. Did I mention I am a landlord as well? So to somehow imply that the fire in Oakland, or zoning laws somehow have anything to do with the earlier conversation about telling people where to live is total nonsense, a strawman...... Clearly good common sense laws were broken and ignored by authorities, that has nothing to do with the earlier conversation. It is interesting to see the narrow scope in which so many of you think, assuming that anyone wanting to live in a commercial building would be leasing it, or that it is automaticly located in an urban area. We have commercial zoning out in the "country" too. In fact, the zoning for my own home, pictured above, is a special residential zoning which protects historic integrity, while allowing low inpact commercial use. I leagally run my design and construction business from my home. Other properties in our village have a commercial version of that zoning which would not prevent a store owner from living above or adjacent to his business. There was a comment earlier about here in Maryland being liberal like the left coast - yes much of it is. I live in the county that produced the current Republican Governor of Maryland, yes Maryland has a Republican Governor. Sheldon
Sheldon,
I have posted here about details of the Oakland fire and its relation to building safety violations that may or may not have involved zoning. However, it was not my intent to have my comments interpreted as proving that zoning amounts to telling people where to live in the context of your earlier objection to being told where to live in relation to New Urbanism, political disdain for the suburbs, etc.
I realize that that linkage was introduced by someone initially commenting on the Oakland fire, apparently to say that zoning is a good thing because it prevents people from dying in fires, and when you say you don't want to be told where to live, that means you are against zoning and all the good it does. I thought it was a rather convoluted linkage that the forum is famous for.
So when you say, "So to somehow imply that the fire in Oakland, or zoning laws somehow have anything to do with the earlier conversation about telling people where to live is total nonsense, a strawman......" , I want to clarify that I did not intend to imply that.
Euclid, thank you, and yes, completely understood.
Zoning is generally good, not always perfect, but generally good. So are building codes. Some building code details are a little out of control these days, but that is a topic for a different forum.....
Again, that has nothing to do with compelling people to live close to their jobs or mass transit.
CandOforprogress2 A new oil discovery in the Permian Basin may upset the apple cart.......
A new oil discovery in the Permian Basin may upset the apple cart.......
Undoubtedly swings in the price of fuel have an impact on the support for and use of public transit, but it probably is a minor factor. And likely to be more so as science and technology develop alternatives to how today's vehicles are powered and controlled.
The percentage of Americans using public transit for work ranged from 4.6 per cent in 1989 to 5.2 percent in 2014, according to Table 1-41 of National Transportation Statistics. It dipped slightly between 2001 and 2003 and again between 2008 and 2010, probably due in part to recessions.
In most parts of the country public transit is not a good option because of housing patterns, distributed employment centers, inconvenience, etc. Personal vehicles are more comfortable, flexible, and private than public transit. Most of the people who use public transit (buses) where I live are poor, elderly or handicapped.
A solution for relieving congestion in big cities appears to be the biggest push for better public transport. In most areas of Texas, while congestion is getting worse, it is manageable. In south and west Texas most people want better roads; they don’t want public transit.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.