Re: Six Problems with Construction Today

[Guest guest]

,Where should the ACCOUNTABILITY for problems lie? Is nobody typically willing to take RESPONSIBILITY for theproject being done properly?Or do they NOT HAVE TO, the way the system is set up now?

[Guest guest]

Quack:

My response (right or wrong) to your questions.......

Accountability needs to be directed at where the root cause of the problems lie; sometimes this is easy to determine, and sometimes it is not. Then there are the ancillary damages to decide apportionment.

Responsibility......Well, this is where the mud flies, intransigence sets in, and finger-pointing really gets bad. IMHO, if people would be a bit less prone to threaten legal action, and a bit less quick to call their attorney, then maybe, more folks that are accountable would take responsibility and take action. However, if legal counsel gets involved, you will find no one taking responsibility because an attorney’s main job is to make sure that their client does not acknowledge responsibility. Insurance companies are no different – insurance companies are ruled by attorneys and actuaries. In fact, I have seen where a Contractor wanted to take the initiative and correct a defect, a roofer, and the damage was to the roof but caused by another trade. However, the roofer’s insurance company and the roofer’s attorney would not allow it – because that could be implied as responsibility! Well, you guessed it....the roof leaked, and water got inside, and things went from bad to worse. Then more attorneys got involved and the problems still did not get fixed, and it went from worse to a total loss. This cycle happens frequently. I can’t tell you the number of times I have told attorneys that they need to set aside their egos, responsibility, and culpability, and mitigate the damages pronto; or it will get worse. And you know what...I am not very successful when stressing practicality with attorneys in these situations. It is sad. It is frustrating. I have seen some fine properties shuttered, and then demolished several years later.

The system......it needs fixing. It is a complicated, complex mess. And I will probably get no argument there.

Enuff said.

,

Where should the ACCOUNTABILITY for problems lie?

Is nobody typically willing to take RESPONSIBILITY for the

project being done properly?

Or do they NOT HAVE TO, the way the system is set up now?

[Guest guest]

>

> Quack:

>

> My response (right or wrong) to your questions.......

>

> Accountability needs to be directed at where the root cause of the problems

lie; sometimes this is easy to determine, and sometimes it is not. Then there

are the ancillary damages to decide apportionment.

>

In my opinion, there should not be this ease in passing the

responsibility to the next guy. In practice, this means that for many

people, they are injured and then left out in the cold because getting

somehow compensated becomes next to impossible. You know that, I can

tell from the skillful way you phrase all of your answers. I'd like to

hear a skillul answer for that?

> Responsibility......Well, this is where the mud flies, intransigence sets in,

and finger-pointing really gets bad. IMHO, if people would be a bit less prone

to threaten legal action, and a bit less quick to call their attorney,

This is a big part of the problem. " Call their attorney? " Well, as you

know, most people can't afford to have attorneys (who last i checked,

made hundreds of dolars an hour) on retainer.. In fact, in your great

state, I was recently told that renters, no matter how badly inured,

would probably find it impossible to get a good lawyer because without

huge damages associated with major property loss, their lives were

just not worth enough. So that means that working people are out of

luck under our legal system, huh?

>

>

>

> then maybe, more folks that are accountable would take responsibility and take

action.

I don't get this at all. You are saying that they will simply

VOLUNTEER to be more responsible when it would cost them money that

right now they appear to be able to get away with not spending on a

massive scale, even though that is destroying many people's lives.

I see this as a sort of subsidy being paid in blood by poor working

people to support rich people's often work-free lifestyles. Do you

have any suggestions on a more reasonable way to get people who are

sick EXPENSIVE, VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND medical care and get the

lawyers out of the picture without allowing the current situation of

many people's lives being destroyed by their being made sick and

permanently 'allergic' by mold to continue?

>However, if legal counsel gets involved, you will find no one taking

responsibility because an attorney's main job is to make sure that

their client does not acknowledge responsibility.

Is something broken here? So, you are admitting that. You are such a

foe of additional regulation, I know. BUT WHAT IS ANOTHER ANSWER? The

continuation of the 'honor system' we have now would mean the

continuation of much pain and misery, and a subsidy to exactly the

worst kinds of businesspeople (at least we both agree on that) that is

being paid by the least able to philathropize them. The poor and the

middle class and especially the poorest of the poor.. (because the

worst landlords, employers, etc. SEEK THOSE PEOPLE OUT FOR THE VERY

REASON THAT THEY ARE LEAST LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO FIGHT BACK)

> Insurance companies are no different – insurance companies are ruled by

attorneys and actuaries. In fact, I have seen where a Contractor wanted to take

the initiative and correct a defect, a roofer, and the damage was to the roof

but caused by another trade. However, the roofer's insurance company and the

roofer's attorney would not allow it – because that could be implied as

responsibility! Well, you guessed it....the roof leaked, and water got inside,

and things went from bad to worse. Then more attorneys got involved and the

problems still did not get fixed, and it went from worse to a total loss. This

cycle happens frequently. I can't tell you the number of times I have told

attorneys that they need to set aside their egos, responsibility, and

culpability, and mitigate the damages pronto; or it will get worse.

Those attorneys know from experience that usually the victim is forced

to eat their losses..

>And you know what...I am not very successful when stressing

practicality with attorneys in these situations.

Your crocodile tears....

It is sad. It is frustrating. I have seen some fine properties

shuttered, and then demolished several years later.

What could people like you and people like me agree on that would

result in the end of this worstening situation of people getting

really sick and not being able to get medical care and get better, but

instead getting worse and sometimes even dying.. with of course the

establishment at that point spending SUBSTANTIAL resources to COVER UP

the real cause.. MOLD and BACTERIA from chronically WATER DAMAGED

BUILDINGS...

>

> The system......it needs fixing. It is a complicated, complex mess. And I

will probably get no argument there.

>

NO, you won't. How would you propose fixing it under your voluntary,

'honor system' trust based BIG SHELL GAME model?

>

>

>

>

> ,

>

> Where should the ACCOUNTABILITY for problems lie?

>

> Is nobody typically willing to take RESPONSIBILITY for the

> project being done properly?

>

> Or do they NOT HAVE TO, the way the system is set up now?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Quack:

>

> My response (right or wrong) to your questions.......

>

> Accountability needs to be directed at where the root cause of the problems

lie; sometimes this is easy to determine, and sometimes it is not. Then there

are the ancillary damages to decide apportionment.

>

In my opinion, there should not be this ease in passing the

responsibility to the next guy. In practice, this means that for many

people, they are injured and then left out in the cold because getting

somehow compensated becomes next to impossible. You know that, I can

tell from the skillful way you phrase all of your answers. I'd like to

hear a skillul answer for that?

> Responsibility......Well, this is where the mud flies, intransigence sets in,

and finger-pointing really gets bad. IMHO, if people would be a bit less prone

to threaten legal action, and a bit less quick to call their attorney,

This is a big part of the problem. " Call their attorney? " Well, as you

know, most people can't afford to have attorneys (who last i checked,

made hundreds of dolars an hour) on retainer.. In fact, in your great

state, I was recently told that renters, no matter how badly inured,

would probably find it impossible to get a good lawyer because without

huge damages associated with major property loss, their lives were

just not worth enough. So that means that working people are out of

luck under our legal system, huh?

>

>

>

> then maybe, more folks that are accountable would take responsibility and take

action.

I don't get this at all. You are saying that they will simply

VOLUNTEER to be more responsible when it would cost them money that

right now they appear to be able to get away with not spending on a

massive scale, even though that is destroying many people's lives.

I see this as a sort of subsidy being paid in blood by poor working

people to support rich people's often work-free lifestyles. Do you

have any suggestions on a more reasonable way to get people who are

sick EXPENSIVE, VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND medical care and get the

lawyers out of the picture without allowing the current situation of

many people's lives being destroyed by their being made sick and

permanently 'allergic' by mold to continue?

>However, if legal counsel gets involved, you will find no one taking

responsibility because an attorney's main job is to make sure that

their client does not acknowledge responsibility.

Is something broken here? So, you are admitting that. You are such a

foe of additional regulation, I know. BUT WHAT IS ANOTHER ANSWER? The

continuation of the 'honor system' we have now would mean the

continuation of much pain and misery, and a subsidy to exactly the

worst kinds of businesspeople (at least we both agree on that) that is

being paid by the least able to philathropize them. The poor and the

middle class and especially the poorest of the poor.. (because the

worst landlords, employers, etc. SEEK THOSE PEOPLE OUT FOR THE VERY

REASON THAT THEY ARE LEAST LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO FIGHT BACK)

> Insurance companies are no different – insurance companies are ruled by

attorneys and actuaries. In fact, I have seen where a Contractor wanted to take

the initiative and correct a defect, a roofer, and the damage was to the roof

but caused by another trade. However, the roofer's insurance company and the

roofer's attorney would not allow it – because that could be implied as

responsibility! Well, you guessed it....the roof leaked, and water got inside,

and things went from bad to worse. Then more attorneys got involved and the

problems still did not get fixed, and it went from worse to a total loss. This

cycle happens frequently. I can't tell you the number of times I have told

attorneys that they need to set aside their egos, responsibility, and

culpability, and mitigate the damages pronto; or it will get worse.

Those attorneys know from experience that usually the victim is forced

to eat their losses..

>And you know what...I am not very successful when stressing

practicality with attorneys in these situations.

Your crocodile tears....

It is sad. It is frustrating. I have seen some fine properties

shuttered, and then demolished several years later.

What could people like you and people like me agree on that would

result in the end of this worstening situation of people getting

really sick and not being able to get medical care and get better, but

instead getting worse and sometimes even dying.. with of course the

establishment at that point spending SUBSTANTIAL resources to COVER UP

the real cause.. MOLD and BACTERIA from chronically WATER DAMAGED

BUILDINGS...

>

> The system......it needs fixing. It is a complicated, complex mess. And I

will probably get no argument there.

>

NO, you won't. How would you propose fixing it under your voluntary,

'honor system' trust based BIG SHELL GAME model?

>

>

>

>

> ,

>

> Where should the ACCOUNTABILITY for problems lie?

>

> Is nobody typically willing to take RESPONSIBILITY for the

> project being done properly?

>

> Or do they NOT HAVE TO, the way the system is set up now?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Quack:

>

> My response (right or wrong) to your questions.......

>

> Accountability needs to be directed at where the root cause of the problems

lie; sometimes this is easy to determine, and sometimes it is not. Then there

are the ancillary damages to decide apportionment.

>

In my opinion, there should not be this ease in passing the

responsibility to the next guy. In practice, this means that for many

people, they are injured and then left out in the cold because getting

somehow compensated becomes next to impossible. You know that, I can

tell from the skillful way you phrase all of your answers. I'd like to

hear a skillul answer for that?

> Responsibility......Well, this is where the mud flies, intransigence sets in,

and finger-pointing really gets bad. IMHO, if people would be a bit less prone

to threaten legal action, and a bit less quick to call their attorney,

This is a big part of the problem. " Call their attorney? " Well, as you

know, most people can't afford to have attorneys (who last i checked,

made hundreds of dolars an hour) on retainer.. In fact, in your great

state, I was recently told that renters, no matter how badly inured,

would probably find it impossible to get a good lawyer because without

huge damages associated with major property loss, their lives were

just not worth enough. So that means that working people are out of

luck under our legal system, huh?

>

>

>

> then maybe, more folks that are accountable would take responsibility and take

action.

I don't get this at all. You are saying that they will simply

VOLUNTEER to be more responsible when it would cost them money that

right now they appear to be able to get away with not spending on a

massive scale, even though that is destroying many people's lives.

I see this as a sort of subsidy being paid in blood by poor working

people to support rich people's often work-free lifestyles. Do you

have any suggestions on a more reasonable way to get people who are

sick EXPENSIVE, VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND medical care and get the

lawyers out of the picture without allowing the current situation of

many people's lives being destroyed by their being made sick and

permanently 'allergic' by mold to continue?

>However, if legal counsel gets involved, you will find no one taking

responsibility because an attorney's main job is to make sure that

their client does not acknowledge responsibility.

Is something broken here? So, you are admitting that. You are such a

foe of additional regulation, I know. BUT WHAT IS ANOTHER ANSWER? The

continuation of the 'honor system' we have now would mean the

continuation of much pain and misery, and a subsidy to exactly the

worst kinds of businesspeople (at least we both agree on that) that is

being paid by the least able to philathropize them. The poor and the

middle class and especially the poorest of the poor.. (because the

worst landlords, employers, etc. SEEK THOSE PEOPLE OUT FOR THE VERY

REASON THAT THEY ARE LEAST LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO FIGHT BACK)

> Insurance companies are no different – insurance companies are ruled by

attorneys and actuaries. In fact, I have seen where a Contractor wanted to take

the initiative and correct a defect, a roofer, and the damage was to the roof

but caused by another trade. However, the roofer's insurance company and the

roofer's attorney would not allow it – because that could be implied as

responsibility! Well, you guessed it....the roof leaked, and water got inside,

and things went from bad to worse. Then more attorneys got involved and the

problems still did not get fixed, and it went from worse to a total loss. This

cycle happens frequently. I can't tell you the number of times I have told

attorneys that they need to set aside their egos, responsibility, and

culpability, and mitigate the damages pronto; or it will get worse.

Those attorneys know from experience that usually the victim is forced

to eat their losses..

>And you know what...I am not very successful when stressing

practicality with attorneys in these situations.

Your crocodile tears....

It is sad. It is frustrating. I have seen some fine properties

shuttered, and then demolished several years later.

What could people like you and people like me agree on that would

result in the end of this worstening situation of people getting

really sick and not being able to get medical care and get better, but

instead getting worse and sometimes even dying.. with of course the

establishment at that point spending SUBSTANTIAL resources to COVER UP

the real cause.. MOLD and BACTERIA from chronically WATER DAMAGED

BUILDINGS...

>

> The system......it needs fixing. It is a complicated, complex mess. And I

will probably get no argument there.

>

NO, you won't. How would you propose fixing it under your voluntary,

'honor system' trust based BIG SHELL GAME model?

>

>

>

>

> ,

>

> Where should the ACCOUNTABILITY for problems lie?

>

> Is nobody typically willing to take RESPONSIBILITY for the

> project being done properly?

>

> Or do they NOT HAVE TO, the way the system is set up now?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Quack:

Way too many questions, and most of them are preference with: poor innocent

victims of abuse left out in the cold cruel world.

This is gonna sound crass, but I will say it anyway......I am a building

specialist, not a person specialist. I cannot make someone whole, once

injured. Often, I don't care nor do I want to get involved in people's

personal or health problems. My best patients are structures, not occupants

therein. If I can restore the health of the structure, I, in turn, can

restore the environment for the occupants. Can I restore the health of the

occupants from a compromised structure?....usually not; because I often

arrive on-site long after the damage was done. Making persons whole, post

event, is what attorneys excel at; not me. If the injured cannot afford an

attorney, I agree it is a shame. I cannot change the obvious, I can only

complain like you do.

>

>>

>> Quack:

>>

>> My response (right or wrong) to your questions.......

>>

>> Accountability needs to be directed at where the root cause of the problems

>> lie; sometimes this is easy to determine, and sometimes it is not. Then

>> there are the ancillary damages to decide apportionment.

>>

> In my opinion, there should not be this ease in passing the

> responsibility to the next guy. In practice, this means that for many

> people, they are injured and then left out in the cold because getting

> somehow compensated becomes next to impossible. You know that, I can

> tell from the skillful way you phrase all of your answers. I'd like to

> hear a skillul answer for that?

>

>> Responsibility......Well, this is where the mud flies, intransigence sets

>> in, and finger-pointing really gets bad. IMHO, if people would be a bit less

>> prone to threaten legal action, and a bit less quick to call their attorney,

>

> This is a big part of the problem. " Call their attorney? " Well, as you

> know, most people can't afford to have attorneys (who last i checked,

> made hundreds of dolars an hour) on retainer.. In fact, in your great

> state, I was recently told that renters, no matter how badly inured,

> would probably find it impossible to get a good lawyer because without

> huge damages associated with major property loss, their lives were

> just not worth enough. So that means that working people are out of

> luck under our legal system, huh?

>>

>>

>>

>> then maybe, more folks that are accountable would take responsibility and

>> take action.

>

> I don't get this at all. You are saying that they will simply

> VOLUNTEER to be more responsible when it would cost them money that

> right now they appear to be able to get away with not spending on a

> massive scale, even though that is destroying many people's lives.

>

> I see this as a sort of subsidy being paid in blood by poor working

> people to support rich people's often work-free lifestyles. Do you

> have any suggestions on a more reasonable way to get people who are

> sick EXPENSIVE, VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND medical care and get the

> lawyers out of the picture without allowing the current situation of

> many people's lives being destroyed by their being made sick and

> permanently 'allergic' by mold to continue?

>

>> However, if legal counsel gets involved, you will find no one taking

> responsibility because an attorney's main job is to make sure that

> their client does not acknowledge responsibility.

>

> Is something broken here? So, you are admitting that. You are such a

> foe of additional regulation, I know. BUT WHAT IS ANOTHER ANSWER? The

> continuation of the 'honor system' we have now would mean the

> continuation of much pain and misery, and a subsidy to exactly the

> worst kinds of businesspeople (at least we both agree on that) that is

> being paid by the least able to philathropize them. The poor and the

> middle class and especially the poorest of the poor.. (because the

> worst landlords, employers, etc. SEEK THOSE PEOPLE OUT FOR THE VERY

> REASON THAT THEY ARE LEAST LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO FIGHT BACK)

>

>> Insurance companies are no different ­ insurance companies are ruled by

>> attorneys and actuaries. In fact, I have seen where a Contractor wanted to

>> take the initiative and correct a defect, a roofer, and the damage was to the

>> roof but caused by another trade. However, the roofer's insurance company

>> and the roofer's attorney would not allow it ­ because that could be implied

>> as responsibility! Well, you guessed it....the roof leaked, and water got

>> inside, and things went from bad to worse. Then more attorneys got involved

>> and the problems still did not get fixed, and it went from worse to a total

>> loss. This cycle happens frequently. I can't tell you the number of times I

>> have told attorneys that they need to set aside their egos, responsibility,

>> and culpability, and mitigate the damages pronto; or it will get worse.

>

> Those attorneys know from experience that usually the victim is forced

> to eat their losses..

>

>> And you know what...I am not very successful when stressing

> practicality with attorneys in these situations.

>

> Your crocodile tears....

>

> It is sad. It is frustrating. I have seen some fine properties

> shuttered, and then demolished several years later.

>

> What could people like you and people like me agree on that would

> result in the end of this worstening situation of people getting

> really sick and not being able to get medical care and get better, but

> instead getting worse and sometimes even dying.. with of course the

> establishment at that point spending SUBSTANTIAL resources to COVER UP

> the real cause.. MOLD and BACTERIA from chronically WATER DAMAGED

> BUILDINGS...

>>

>> The system......it needs fixing. It is a complicated, complex mess. And I

>> will probably get no argument there.

>>

> NO, you won't. How would you propose fixing it under your voluntary,

> 'honor system' trust based BIG SHELL GAME model?

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> ,

>>

>> Where should the ACCOUNTABILITY for problems lie?

>>

>> Is nobody typically willing to take RESPONSIBILITY for the

>> project being done properly?

>>

>> Or do they NOT HAVE TO, the way the system is set up now?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

> specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material

> available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,

> human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

> We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit

> to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included

> information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted

> material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use',

> you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

[Guest guest]

Quack:

Way too many questions, and most of them are preference with: poor innocent

victims of abuse left out in the cold cruel world.

This is gonna sound crass, but I will say it anyway......I am a building

specialist, not a person specialist. I cannot make someone whole, once

injured. Often, I don't care nor do I want to get involved in people's

personal or health problems. My best patients are structures, not occupants

therein. If I can restore the health of the structure, I, in turn, can

restore the environment for the occupants. Can I restore the health of the

occupants from a compromised structure?....usually not; because I often

arrive on-site long after the damage was done. Making persons whole, post

event, is what attorneys excel at; not me. If the injured cannot afford an

attorney, I agree it is a shame. I cannot change the obvious, I can only

complain like you do.

>

>>

>> Quack:

>>

>> My response (right or wrong) to your questions.......

>>

>> Accountability needs to be directed at where the root cause of the problems

>> lie; sometimes this is easy to determine, and sometimes it is not. Then

>> there are the ancillary damages to decide apportionment.

>>

> In my opinion, there should not be this ease in passing the

> responsibility to the next guy. In practice, this means that for many

> people, they are injured and then left out in the cold because getting

> somehow compensated becomes next to impossible. You know that, I can

> tell from the skillful way you phrase all of your answers. I'd like to

> hear a skillul answer for that?

>

>> Responsibility......Well, this is where the mud flies, intransigence sets

>> in, and finger-pointing really gets bad. IMHO, if people would be a bit less

>> prone to threaten legal action, and a bit less quick to call their attorney,

>

> This is a big part of the problem. " Call their attorney? " Well, as you

> know, most people can't afford to have attorneys (who last i checked,

> made hundreds of dolars an hour) on retainer.. In fact, in your great

> state, I was recently told that renters, no matter how badly inured,

> would probably find it impossible to get a good lawyer because without

> huge damages associated with major property loss, their lives were

> just not worth enough. So that means that working people are out of

> luck under our legal system, huh?

>>

>>

>>

>> then maybe, more folks that are accountable would take responsibility and

>> take action.

>

> I don't get this at all. You are saying that they will simply

> VOLUNTEER to be more responsible when it would cost them money that

> right now they appear to be able to get away with not spending on a

> massive scale, even though that is destroying many people's lives.

>

> I see this as a sort of subsidy being paid in blood by poor working

> people to support rich people's often work-free lifestyles. Do you

> have any suggestions on a more reasonable way to get people who are

> sick EXPENSIVE, VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND medical care and get the

> lawyers out of the picture without allowing the current situation of

> many people's lives being destroyed by their being made sick and

> permanently 'allergic' by mold to continue?

>

>> However, if legal counsel gets involved, you will find no one taking

> responsibility because an attorney's main job is to make sure that

> their client does not acknowledge responsibility.

>

> Is something broken here? So, you are admitting that. You are such a

> foe of additional regulation, I know. BUT WHAT IS ANOTHER ANSWER? The

> continuation of the 'honor system' we have now would mean the

> continuation of much pain and misery, and a subsidy to exactly the

> worst kinds of businesspeople (at least we both agree on that) that is

> being paid by the least able to philathropize them. The poor and the

> middle class and especially the poorest of the poor.. (because the

> worst landlords, employers, etc. SEEK THOSE PEOPLE OUT FOR THE VERY

> REASON THAT THEY ARE LEAST LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO FIGHT BACK)

>

>> Insurance companies are no different ­ insurance companies are ruled by

>> attorneys and actuaries. In fact, I have seen where a Contractor wanted to

>> take the initiative and correct a defect, a roofer, and the damage was to the

>> roof but caused by another trade. However, the roofer's insurance company

>> and the roofer's attorney would not allow it ­ because that could be implied

>> as responsibility! Well, you guessed it....the roof leaked, and water got

>> inside, and things went from bad to worse. Then more attorneys got involved

>> and the problems still did not get fixed, and it went from worse to a total

>> loss. This cycle happens frequently. I can't tell you the number of times I

>> have told attorneys that they need to set aside their egos, responsibility,

>> and culpability, and mitigate the damages pronto; or it will get worse.

>

> Those attorneys know from experience that usually the victim is forced

> to eat their losses..

>

>> And you know what...I am not very successful when stressing

> practicality with attorneys in these situations.

>

> Your crocodile tears....

>

> It is sad. It is frustrating. I have seen some fine properties

> shuttered, and then demolished several years later.

>

> What could people like you and people like me agree on that would

> result in the end of this worstening situation of people getting

> really sick and not being able to get medical care and get better, but

> instead getting worse and sometimes even dying.. with of course the

> establishment at that point spending SUBSTANTIAL resources to COVER UP

> the real cause.. MOLD and BACTERIA from chronically WATER DAMAGED

> BUILDINGS...

>>

>> The system......it needs fixing. It is a complicated, complex mess. And I

>> will probably get no argument there.

>>

> NO, you won't. How would you propose fixing it under your voluntary,

> 'honor system' trust based BIG SHELL GAME model?

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> ,

>>

>> Where should the ACCOUNTABILITY for problems lie?

>>

>> Is nobody typically willing to take RESPONSIBILITY for the

>> project being done properly?

>>

>> Or do they NOT HAVE TO, the way the system is set up now?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

> specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material

> available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,

> human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

> We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit

> to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included

> information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted

> material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use',

> you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

[Guest guest]

Quack:

Way too many questions, and most of them are preference with: poor innocent

victims of abuse left out in the cold cruel world.

This is gonna sound crass, but I will say it anyway......I am a building

specialist, not a person specialist. I cannot make someone whole, once

injured. Often, I don't care nor do I want to get involved in people's

personal or health problems. My best patients are structures, not occupants

therein. If I can restore the health of the structure, I, in turn, can

restore the environment for the occupants. Can I restore the health of the

occupants from a compromised structure?....usually not; because I often

arrive on-site long after the damage was done. Making persons whole, post

event, is what attorneys excel at; not me. If the injured cannot afford an

attorney, I agree it is a shame. I cannot change the obvious, I can only

complain like you do.

>

>>

>> Quack:

>>

>> My response (right or wrong) to your questions.......

>>

>> Accountability needs to be directed at where the root cause of the problems

>> lie; sometimes this is easy to determine, and sometimes it is not. Then

>> there are the ancillary damages to decide apportionment.

>>

> In my opinion, there should not be this ease in passing the

> responsibility to the next guy. In practice, this means that for many

> people, they are injured and then left out in the cold because getting

> somehow compensated becomes next to impossible. You know that, I can

> tell from the skillful way you phrase all of your answers. I'd like to

> hear a skillul answer for that?

>

>> Responsibility......Well, this is where the mud flies, intransigence sets

>> in, and finger-pointing really gets bad. IMHO, if people would be a bit less

>> prone to threaten legal action, and a bit less quick to call their attorney,

>

> This is a big part of the problem. " Call their attorney? " Well, as you

> know, most people can't afford to have attorneys (who last i checked,

> made hundreds of dolars an hour) on retainer.. In fact, in your great

> state, I was recently told that renters, no matter how badly inured,

> would probably find it impossible to get a good lawyer because without

> huge damages associated with major property loss, their lives were

> just not worth enough. So that means that working people are out of

> luck under our legal system, huh?

>>

>>

>>

>> then maybe, more folks that are accountable would take responsibility and

>> take action.

>

> I don't get this at all. You are saying that they will simply

> VOLUNTEER to be more responsible when it would cost them money that

> right now they appear to be able to get away with not spending on a

> massive scale, even though that is destroying many people's lives.

>

> I see this as a sort of subsidy being paid in blood by poor working

> people to support rich people's often work-free lifestyles. Do you

> have any suggestions on a more reasonable way to get people who are

> sick EXPENSIVE, VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND medical care and get the

> lawyers out of the picture without allowing the current situation of

> many people's lives being destroyed by their being made sick and

> permanently 'allergic' by mold to continue?

>

>> However, if legal counsel gets involved, you will find no one taking

> responsibility because an attorney's main job is to make sure that

> their client does not acknowledge responsibility.

>

> Is something broken here? So, you are admitting that. You are such a

> foe of additional regulation, I know. BUT WHAT IS ANOTHER ANSWER? The

> continuation of the 'honor system' we have now would mean the

> continuation of much pain and misery, and a subsidy to exactly the

> worst kinds of businesspeople (at least we both agree on that) that is

> being paid by the least able to philathropize them. The poor and the

> middle class and especially the poorest of the poor.. (because the

> worst landlords, employers, etc. SEEK THOSE PEOPLE OUT FOR THE VERY

> REASON THAT THEY ARE LEAST LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO FIGHT BACK)

>

>> Insurance companies are no different ­ insurance companies are ruled by

>> attorneys and actuaries. In fact, I have seen where a Contractor wanted to

>> take the initiative and correct a defect, a roofer, and the damage was to the

>> roof but caused by another trade. However, the roofer's insurance company

>> and the roofer's attorney would not allow it ­ because that could be implied

>> as responsibility! Well, you guessed it....the roof leaked, and water got

>> inside, and things went from bad to worse. Then more attorneys got involved

>> and the problems still did not get fixed, and it went from worse to a total

>> loss. This cycle happens frequently. I can't tell you the number of times I

>> have told attorneys that they need to set aside their egos, responsibility,

>> and culpability, and mitigate the damages pronto; or it will get worse.

>

> Those attorneys know from experience that usually the victim is forced

> to eat their losses..

>

>> And you know what...I am not very successful when stressing

> practicality with attorneys in these situations.

>

> Your crocodile tears....

>

> It is sad. It is frustrating. I have seen some fine properties

> shuttered, and then demolished several years later.

>

> What could people like you and people like me agree on that would

> result in the end of this worstening situation of people getting

> really sick and not being able to get medical care and get better, but

> instead getting worse and sometimes even dying.. with of course the

> establishment at that point spending SUBSTANTIAL resources to COVER UP

> the real cause.. MOLD and BACTERIA from chronically WATER DAMAGED

> BUILDINGS...

>>

>> The system......it needs fixing. It is a complicated, complex mess. And I

>> will probably get no argument there.

>>

> NO, you won't. How would you propose fixing it under your voluntary,

> 'honor system' trust based BIG SHELL GAME model?

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> ,

>>

>> Where should the ACCOUNTABILITY for problems lie?

>>

>> Is nobody typically willing to take RESPONSIBILITY for the

>> project being done properly?

>>

>> Or do they NOT HAVE TO, the way the system is set up now?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

> specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material

> available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,

> human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

> We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit

> to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included

> information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted

> material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use',

> you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

[Guest guest]

,Thank you. I suppose that's as good an answer than I could have hoped for. But people need to realize that the percentage of the seriously mold injured people that CAN afford an atorney in these situations is probably less than one percent.

That is absolutely obscene. That represents a market completely broken and out of whack. One with no realistically deterrent sanctions at all on this kind of irresponsible behavior.It has to end. Its in society's interest for this to end because the LOSS to society of all these people's health is huge. They are not getting justice. It must end. I am not a crybaby, I am stating the facts.On 8/23/07, Geyer <

mgeyer@...> wrote:

Quack:

Way too many questions, and most of them are preference with: poor innocent

victims of abuse left out in the cold cruel world.

This is gonna sound crass, but I will say it anyway......I am a building

specialist, not a person specialist. I cannot make someone whole, once

injured. Often, I don't care nor do I want to get involved in people's

personal or health problems. My best patients are structures, not occupants

therein. If I can restore the health of the structure, I, in turn, can

restore the environment for the occupants. Can I restore the health of the

occupants from a compromised structure?....usually not; because I often

arrive on-site long after the damage was done. Making persons whole, post

event, is what attorneys excel at; not me. If the injured cannot afford an

attorney, I agree it is a shame. I cannot change the obvious, I can only

complain like you do.

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you for defending the contractor. My

point wasn’t to slam the contractor. My point was the market has a lot to

do with the cost and the contractor will make a profit or be out of business.

Therefore something must give, i.e. materials, speed, or quality sacrificed (knowing

or unknowing).

As far as the contractor following plans,

I can not fully agree here as I have build homes and used plans. In the end I remind

the customer that boiler plate plans are not the best as some times the garage roof

lines go right through the dwelling windows or the toilet is 6 inches from the

wall in front of it. Can you believe it? And it was signed off by two architects

(separate seals). I believe it is up to the contractor to bring any defects

back to the client and have them sign off if they don’t choose to pay for

the alterations. So your rite want it built correctly, it will cost. If it can’t

be built correctly, don’t build it.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Geyer

Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007

12:35 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Six Problems

with Construction Today

EnviroBob:

All very well stated. Yes.

Your question regarding affordability can be comparable to just about anything

today.....homes, cars, clothes, tools, toys, food, etc. My favorite

sayings are: “Pay peanuts, get monkeys” or “Buy the best and

you will never be disappointed.” Affordability has been an issue

before money was printed. It is not new.

Very much like the entry-level home buyer who typically cannot afford a

well-designed home constructed by a competent custom builder, and must

therefore purchase from a merchant builder, the teenager (entry-level car

buyer) typically cannot afford a Lexus, Mercedes, BMX (unless his parents foot

the bill), and must therefore purchase a Chevrolet or Ford or Hyundai. Is

there a difference in affordability...Yes. Is there a difference in

quality...Yes. Is quality affordable? Hmmm. This said, what

ills the housing market and product quality are many factors. Take for

example ’s Six Biggest Problems Facing Construction Today:

1 – Kids coming out of engineering and architecture colleges who have

never built anything before (Shop classes in High School are essentially gone),

but they are good a computer-mouse cut and paste. Architects who insist

on form over function. Engineers who can’t design (calculate)

without a computer. Both of whom have never assembled many of the

components they are putting on paper. (I see disasters all the time!)

2 – Legal and illegal immigrants in the construction labor pool that

can’t read English (therefore can’t read manufacturer specs,

instructions, or blueprints), have no formal training in construction assembly

- it is usually learned on-the-job from similarly inexperienced mentors, along

with many bad habits too. There is a dearth of journeyman and apprentice

training schools in the trades; except unions and most residential building is

non-union.

3 – Overworked and/or inexperienced Superintendents that are not spending

enuff time in the field supervising! Imagine that, a Supervisor not

supervising, and instead stuck in the job-office trailer buried in paperwork.

4 – Outdated building codes that are not keeping-up with engineered

materials, land-use changes, and environmental needs. Remember.....The

codes only represent the MINIMUM level of construction assembly necessary to

keep the structure sound. Quality of habitation is only more recently

being discussed for the codes, and quality of habitation is vague, ambiguous,

and very dependent on thousands of factors. IMHO, not good for building

codes. It needs its own set of guidelines, not codes.

5 – Lack of specs and data on new engineered building materials that may

test well in isolation, but not in assemblies. Are they compatible?

Do they hold-up in very hot/cold climates? Do they resist

wind-driven rain? Do they remain flexible when flexibility is warranted?

Do they maintain function when wet? Do they decomposed? What is

their anticipated life cycle? Those that are critical to the assembly

should outlast the life of the structure....Duh! But they sometimes

don’t. (Like damp-proofing on basement walls - of which I am VERY

critical of this practice AND anyone who still recommends it. There are

much better methods/materials.)

6 – Local planning departments and building jurisdictions that dictate

how a development will look, what a development will include, where it will be

built, and what it is going to be built with; essentially limiting architect,

engineering and contractor flexibility. Combined this with an

intransigence to require institutional controls which would improve building

performance (like not building below sea level-New Orleans!) or improve indoor air quality (like

requiring passive impermeable barriers under foundations at the time of

construction to limit radon gas infiltration). These institutional

controls would “label” the community, and I see many Planning Depts

and community leaders who don’t want to negatively “label”

their area.......regardless of the potential structure losses, or ill

health effects, of their decision by not requiring institutional controls.

(This is ESPECIALLY frustrating to me.)

Bob, this said, I will agree, there are many ills of the construction trade,

and it has been this way for years and years. Is it improving...Yes.

Is there a long way to go...Yes. Are there still going to be

problems 100-yrs from now...Yes. However, all too often I hear negative

remarks specifically about the Contractor, how the Contractor should have done

a better job, and how the Contractor was only in it for the profit –

similar to your post....you only mentioned the Contractor and not any of the

others involved in the decision to build and how to build. Please

understand that the Contractor often builds from a set of drawings and specs,

prepared by others, that tell him what to build and what to use. Drawings

and specs typically developed by architects, engineers and Planning Depts.

The Contractor should be accused of a defect if it is a: Defect in

the means and method of assembly; Defect in material quality due to poor

job-site handling/storage, Defect due to a code violation. (I think there

is one or two that I am forgetting). If not one of these, then you need

to look beyond the Contractor – because someone else may have made poor

decisions. If the Contractor is part of the design process, as it is with

many merchant builders, then the Contractor assumes a much greater liability,

no doubt.

Don’t blame the Contractor for trying to make a profit! Typically

the Contractor builds what he is contracted to build based on Drawings and

Specs. He should not be expected to build it better, or improve on the

design/spec. If you want a custom build, be prepared to pay for a custom

build; and be prepared - it may not be affordable.

For what it is worth...and I apologize for getting on top of my soap box.

I don’t like to see the Contractor blamed for all ills, or faulted

for wanting to make a profit.

On 8/20/07 6:12 AM, " EnviroBob " <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs>

wrote:

,

You said: To outlaw crawlspaces is to significantly increase the

cost of construction in many locations of the U.S.; which further increases the

cost of housing and makes “affordable” home-ownership less achievable.

My reply: I agree in that cost is a great concern in the public being able to

get into a home or not. Although we must remember that building the home

cheaper becomes a factor in the profit margin as well. We must be sure we are

not sacrificing the struggling public sector for profit. They may be excited at

first until the symptoms begin and they find the dream home that now holds all

of their assets in destroyed or extremely costly beyond their means to restore.

Now of course the contractor made a living and has moved on, what about the

distressed home owner? So in the end, did we really create affordable housing?

Just a thought,

EnviroBob

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of Geyer

Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007

2:46 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re:

crawlspace [was Question on Fungal fragments]

Carl:

I can’t believe that you said what you said!

When I hear someone state that crawl spaces should be outlawed, I scoff, I

bristle, and I dismiss the person as an idiot. You are not an idiot, but

I am appalled by your comment. This is not a statement made by a person

who understands construction, building science and/or building design.

Statements re outlawing crawlspaces are akin to those who want to outlaw beans

in Mexican restaurants in order to eliminate flatulence. It is

impractical, it is unnecessary, and it is not the solution to the problem.

BTW.....to eliminate flatulence, take BeanO; it is made from Aspergillus niger!

Keeping crawl spaces dry is easily accomplished at the time of construction,

assuming someone does not build on a spring, tap into a seep, or dig into

standing water; and if so, a short basement is not going to solve the moisture

problem. Crawlspaces are often the only practical cost-effective method

of establishing a foundation in some locations, and any other type of

foundation assembly will significantly increase the cost of construction.

Crawlspaces also allow one to locate mechanical systems that otherwise

cannot be placed in the attic. The least expensive foundation is

slab-on-grade, followed by crawlspace, followed by basements. Ever try to

build a basement on a slope? If a slab could be installed it probably

would be, because it is the least expensive foundation assembly.

Crawlspace foundations are installed where slabs are often impractical to

install. Eliminate crawlspaces and what choices are left?

Yes.....I agree that there are many problems with crawlspaces, and excessive

crawlspace moisture is a very common complaint in some locations; including new

construction. Based on the last statistic I read, excessive crawlspace moisture

accounted for nearly 37% of the complaints in new construction.

That’s BIG! And something should be done about it –

Agreed. Some of these problems can be mitigated with proper design and

construction. Why haven’t the building codes addressed it? I

don’t know, but it is one of my suggestions for the IBC-IRC group that is

forming within BETEC. IMHO....We should outlaw HVAC units being placed in

attics before we outlaw crawlspaces! Also, I have seen many situations

where the root-cause of excessive moisture and bugs in the crawlspace was not

the fault of the structure, but the occupants and their irrigation practices,

or a lack of maintenance, or from shear stupidity (plumbing the roof drain to a

stem wall vent).

To outlaw crawlspaces is to significantly increase the cost of construction in

many locations of the U.S.; which further increases the cost of housing and

makes “affordable” home-ownership less achievable. We have

many families in the U.S.

that would like to be homeowners. Do you want to increase that group of

folks by making home construction much more costly?

There are many other methods and materials to accomplish the same thing that

most of you “outlaws” want to accomplish; without outlawing

crawlspaces. This said, there are also those occupants that are fools

and/or don’t pay attention, and the cause of the problems are their own

doings – not the crawlspace.

Don’t blame the building system! It all starts with a design that

is appropriate for the location. Cookie-cutter designs just don’t

cut it in all locations. It should start with a local code, codes should

be performance based, reflect the most practical design for the area, and the

other elements should follow suit. Get involved with code changes!

Don’t make foolish impractical suggestions to eliminate a building

element that provides a lot of value. There are other less costly means

to accomplish the same effect.

For what it is worth......

On 8/17/07 3:09 PM, " Carl E. Grimes " <grimeshabitats>

wrote:

Wei,

I not only agree but have also been an advocate of outlawing them. At

least in the usual configuration. There are ways to keep them without

the " normal " problems.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> Carl,

>

> That's why some people say that crawlspace shouldbe

" outlawed " .It's

> difficult to keep it dry and clean. Turning it into ashort basement

> is one of therecommended long term solutions.

>

> Wei Tang

> QLab

>

> " Carl E. Grimes " <grimeshabitats

<mailto:grimes%40habitats.com>

> wrote:

> ,

>

> I would like to put this to bed also, mainly

because you and Wei are

> the only ones to provide a direct answer to

my question of whether or

> not germination from hyphae is possible and

under what conditions:

> Not for incident-based events.

>

> My remaining concern is those long-term

relatively stable conditions

> of dampness and nutrients (crawlspaces) that

may be conducive to

> germination of hyphae and other factors in

the " soup. " I've always

> wondered about amoeba and bacterial

symbiosis, for example. If so -

> and it sounds like nobody knows - then

crawlspaces are a different

> " animal " than an incident based

issue.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -------------- Original message

---------------

> Let's put this thread to bed. Hyphae are NOT

a concern for continued

> growth if spread. They die and are mostly

not viable. They also come

> out of the air quickly. We are straining at

a gnat here.Secondly,

> killing is never the answer. Spores are

everywhere present. WATER IS

> THE PROBLEM, MOLD IS THE SYMPTOM. Given that

you can have Aspergillus

> numbers

> of 12 to 40 million in a two square inch

space on a surface, killing

> them is not going to be effective. Assume

that you have a 99.99% kill

> rate of the 40 million. You leave 4,000

viable spores in 2 square

> inches (assumes all are viable). More than

> enough to recolonize the world.

> Remove, not kill. Killing is a " feel

good " solution. When the water

> returns, so will the microbial soup that is

life.

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the

use of which has not

> always been specifically authorized by the

copyright owner. We are

> making such material available in our

efforts to advance

> understanding of environmental, political,

human rights, economic,

> democracy, scientific, and social justice

issues, etc. We believe

> this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such

copyrighted material as

> provided for in section 107 of the US

Copyright Law. In accordance

> with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the

material on this site is

> distributed without profit to those who have

expressed a prior

> interest in receiving the included

information for research and

> educational purposes. For more information

go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use

> copyrighted material from this site for

purposes of your own that go

> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain

permission from the copyright

> owner.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote: And you know

what...I am not very successful when stressing practicality with attorneys in

these situations. It is sad. It is frustrating. I have seen

some fine properties shuttered, and then demolished several years later.

My reply: That is because the attorneys

get a percentage.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Geyer

Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007

12:13 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Six

Problems with Construction Today

Quack:

My response (right or wrong) to your questions.......

Accountability needs to be directed at where the root cause of the problems

lie; sometimes this is easy to determine, and sometimes it is not. Then

there are the ancillary damages to decide apportionment.

Responsibility......Well, this is where the mud flies, intransigence sets

in, and finger-pointing really gets bad. IMHO, if people would be a bit

less prone to threaten legal action, and a bit less quick to call their

attorney, then maybe, more folks that are accountable would take responsibility

and take action. However, if legal counsel gets involved, you will find

no one taking responsibility because an attorney’s main job is to make

sure that their client does not acknowledge responsibility. Insurance

companies are no different – insurance companies are ruled by attorneys

and actuaries. In fact, I have seen where a Contractor wanted to take the

initiative and correct a defect, a roofer, and the damage was to the roof but

caused by another trade. However, the roofer’s insurance company

and the roofer’s attorney would not allow it – because that could

be implied as responsibility! Well, you guessed it....the roof leaked,

and water got inside, and things went from bad to worse. Then more

attorneys got involved and the problems still did not get fixed, and it went from

worse to a total loss. This cycle happens frequently. I can’t

tell you the number of times I have told attorneys that they need to set aside

their egos, responsibility, and culpability, and mitigate the damages pronto;

or it will get worse. And you know what...I am not very successful when

stressing practicality with attorneys in these situations. It is sad.

It is frustrating. I have seen some fine properties shuttered, and

then demolished several years later.

The system......it needs fixing. It is a complicated, complex mess.

And I will probably get no argument there.

Enuff said.

On 8/20/07 11:30 AM, " LiveSimply " <quackadilliangmail>

wrote:

,

Where should the ACCOUNTABILITY for problems lie?

Is nobody typically willing to take RESPONSIBILITY for the

project being done properly?

Or do they NOT HAVE TO, the way the system is set up now?