Here we go again...another storm

[Cnynrat]

They certainly are strong believers in property rights in Boundary County!


While I don't think events of this widespread magnitude are that common, I think power outages in more limited areas are not uncommon. This is a natural result of living in an area that has a lot of trees, has above ground power distribution, and has four real seasons. Given the consequences of being without power (loss of food due to spoilage, property damage due to freezing pipes), I personally feel more comfortable having a backup generator.

Dave

[aiden_is]

Originally Posted by AK76

The excerpt above is clear indication "that perhaps north Idaho building codes were substandard", evidently, or at the least have the potential to be. Frankly I find that refreshing that the county puts the onus on the people who choose to build and occupy a poorly built dwelling, for they have no one to blame but themselves. Sadly, this is all too rare that people are put in the position to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, or lack thereof. I wonder (rhetorical) how the insurance industry treats such instances?

Regardless of where a dwelling is located and the amount of "govt. intrusion" involved I would not purchase a home without a proper inspection, so, any "substandard" construction would be exposed and any decision following, based on that.

I'm not sure how building codes have ANYTHING to do with the structural integrity of the surrounding trees. I doubt that a house built of solid reinforced concrete would have power any more than a homebuilt cabin in the woods if the trees fell on the power lines.

As a homebuyer, it is your responsibility to have an inspection done prior to purchase. That is true in ANY state, regardless of the building codes. The onus is on the buyer. Adding more building codes does not in any way lessen the burden on the buyer. So I fail to see the relevance of the entire "building code" segway, especially in how it relates to the power outage situation we've been enduring here.

[AK76]

Originally Posted by aiden_is

I'm not sure how building codes have ANYTHING to do with the structural integrity of the surrounding trees. I doubt that a house built of solid reinforced concrete would have power any more than a homebuilt cabin in the woods if the trees fell on the power lines.

As a homebuyer, it is your responsibility to have an inspection done prior to purchase. That is true in ANY state, regardless of the building codes. The onus is on the buyer. Adding more building codes does not in any way lessen the burden on the buyer. So I fail to see the relevance of the entire "building code" segway, especially in how it relates to the power outage situation we've been enduring here.

I fail to see the relevance of your post after all of the previous exchange. Please take the time read ALL of it, I am certain I made myself clear.

As far as I know, the only time trees and building code are directly related to one another is when the dwelling is constructed of logs. Who on earth would think that standing trees have any bearing on construction practices aside from the potential threat they pose of falling on a home, but that was covered earlier as well.

Incidentally, I am not the one who introduced falling trees into the building code discussion, my point was directly related to wind damage against buildings/methods, others got excited about falling trees and created the tangent.

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by AK76

Incidentally, I am not the one who introduced falling trees into the building code discussion, my point was directly related to wind damage against buildings/methods, others got excited about falling trees and created the tangent.

Well, not really. You introduced the building code question into a discussion of falling trees - see below:

Originally Posted by AK76

It seems to me, perhaps, is that structures are not built sturdy enough to withstand the weather conditions that high winds bring. We get 100+MPH winds every year, often 2 or 3 times, and often the only property damage is shingles being blown off.

Yet all the storm damage was from trees falling on buildings and power lines. That being the case, why did you bring up the building code question?

Dave

[AK76]

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

Well, not really. You introduced the building code question into a discussion of falling trees - see below:



Yet all the storm damage was from trees falling on buildings and power lines. That being the case, why did you bring up the building code question?

Dave

Where do you see the word "tree" in what you quoted me as saying?

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by AK76

Where do you see the word "tree" in what you quoted me as saying?

The entire thread is about trees falling on buildings and power lines - that's what happened in the recent storms.

[AK76]

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

The entire thread is about trees falling on buildings and power lines - that's what happened in the recent storms.

Ok, whatever you say, I must have been reading and contributing to different thread entirely.

[DagnyT63]

Yikes, guys!

AK76 originally (and erroneously) thought the damage to buildings was from the wind blowing again the building....or trailer as the case may be. Once he realized his error, somewhere in there he did acknowledge it. I don't know anyone here, but I really don't think AK76 was trying to be snarky, just a few misunderstandings.

[banjomike]

The old-timers almost never built a cabin in the trees.
Back when Idaho was settled, they knew that trees blew over, or split, or shed big limbs. They also knew that a small grass fire can quickly turn into a tree fire, and can take the cabin with it when surrounded by trees. They are often built close to a tree line, as a grove will throw shade a good distance in the afternoons. Most of them face the east or south-east to catch the morning sun.

Some of the older cabins that are still occupied show how it was back then- most don't have any grass surrounding them for about a 20 foot circle, many are fenced with a low wire or buck fence to keep the horses out, so the horse manure won't draw flies, and many are built on a slope so the water can drain off. There is always a small outbuilding or two, and the 'yards' are commonly graveled. The bare dirt is usually packed as hard as a rock.

While there was never a lawn, there was almost always a garden or two, surrounded by a high hog wire fence, and often, an apple tree was planted. Roses were a favorite flower, and were left to grow big and thorny, planted around gardens to discourage the livestock.

Some are built on fairly tall foundations which can be anything from piled rocks, logs or timber, or concrete pilings. Most are located close to an above-ground water source like a creek or spring, and most have a covered porch to beat the summer heat. A boot scraper is always close to any doors.

The idea of a home in the woods is relatively recent, in my observation. While lots of old long-abandoned cabins may now be surrounded by trees, the trees came along much later. Back then, a cabin was part of a working property. The word cabin denoted a log structure; if the home was built of lumber, cinder blocks, or anything else, it was called a house.

This just goes to show how the nature of back country living has changed, I guess.

[AK76]

Originally Posted by DagnyT63

Yikes, guys!

AK76 originally (and erroneously) thought the damage to buildings was from the wind blowing again the building....or trailer as the case may be. Once he realized his error, somewhere in there he did acknowledge it. I don't know anyone here, but I really don't think AK76 was trying to be snarky, just a few misunderstandings.

You are correct! Thank you!