Bain

I agree with everything you're saying vis a vis if it's wrong it's wrong. I'm a geekosaurus when it comes to delineating every deficiency I notice . . . I mean, hey, I killed my first deal of the year this week to the tune of $750K. But grade issues have little to do with whether a house was trashed by Katrina. I've never been to WA state, but do you really think an appropriate grade around the bungalow you described would have prevented four feet of water from swooshing into the place?

Well, but Mike . . . I would have likely mentioned the same stuff you did that was going on around the bungalow, but geez, it isn't really reasonable to think we can/should protect our customers from force majeures that occur in fifty year cycles.

Chris, with nothing but kindness, I say, "Be your own man." From your posts, it's quite obvious you're thoughtful and responsible, and take yourself seriously. You decide what's important for your customer to know about the house they're buying. Like others have said previously, you don't want to overwhelm someone with minutiae and have them not attach appropriate significance to what really matters. A few weeks ago, I had to return to a house I'd checked out several days prior because the appraisor said the house had structural problems. Know what he perceived to be a structural problem? Cracked parging on the blocks used as a form for the concrete slab. Cracked paint on an old house? Obvious to a buyer and not such a big deal to us, but FHA appraisors rail about it due to lead issues. Remain true to your own perceptions of how you should do your job. I don't know you at all, but I think you'll do just fine.

The incoming service is likely rated at 400 amps. Looks to me like the electrician wanted to save a couple of hundred bucks by not installing two 200-amp panels, which is the typical set up around here.

I don't have any really good ones, Jesse. I primarily take photos of the more egregious defects and also roofs, attics, crawlspaces, and other places my client isn't typically gonna want to check out herself. Download Attachment: DSC06652a.jpg 277.16 KB

Crap from my own hometown. One of the frat boy's mothers is an alleged mold expert, and she "discovered" the problem. A follow-up article contained a photo of her decked out in full haz-mat gear. $230,000.00 was the cost to rectify the problem according to the second article below. Mold. Scary stuff http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/15645536.htm http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/ne ... 191643.htm

Actually that was one the few enjoyable aspects of the gig--telling the client to Google EIFS water damage for both articles and images. I knew he'd be bombarded with info. What you say is true, Kurt. But the house has been on the market for awhile and the seller may take the position that the sales contract is valid so long as he makes any and all repairs. We both know that the only real way to determine the extent of the damage is to rip off the cladding, but the seller may find a bozo contractor who takes an idiotic counter-position. Look at all the windows in this baby. I guarantee you there's gunked up wood all over the place. Download Attachment: 632709_016.jpg 25.86 KB

Does anyone know a really good stucco and/or EIFS specialist within a few hundred miles of Lexington? I checked out a 750K house yesterday with stucco on the original portion and EIFS on the rear, two-story addition. As you can see from the photos, water was oozing out of the stucco in one area and dripping down onto the driveway. The rear addition is packed with windows because our reservoir is just beyond the backyard and the view is spectacular. The EIFS merely abutted all of the windows. There was no evidence of backer rods and appropriate caulking, the interior walls were water stained, and there was evidence of exterior movement in the substrate. The buyer will likely walk, but may need a more detailed assessment by a specialist to do so. Without the luxury of x-ray vision, the only option I'm aware of that will allow definitive analysis is to rip the cladding off and start over. But of course that may cost a few bucks . . . Download Attachment: DSC06649a.jpg 264.79 KB Download Attachment: DSC06651a.jpg 127.71 KB Download Attachment: DSC06643a.jpg 158.22 KB

I, too, agree with the recent conditioned-crawlspace reasoning, Kurt. But the foundation vents shouldn't be covered in the absence of conditioning. The vents, uh, wouldn't perform their intended function if covered. Or is that another thread I'm thinking of? : )

Scott, That insulating method is becoming fairly common around here, and it's a good system--when the foundation vents aren't covered--since it can't detach like fiberglass batts. It makes our jobs a pain in the neck 'cause you can't see floor systems or what I assume is a knee wall in your photo very well. The obvious negative is that the space between the insulation and foundation creates a conduit through which termites can enter the floor system.

Device must be 20" above the floor.

After getting multiple phone calls over the years from clients who were "unable to turn their fireplaces on," I now make it a point to explain that the pilot button may have to remain depressed for awhile when the fireplace hasn't been used for a spell. Uh, I also tell them to keep firing the igniter every ten seconds or so to prevent scorched eyebrows.

Our state plumbing code requires anti-siphon devices on all exterior hose bibbs, but I can't remember ever having seen one. Go figure. Sometimes the expanse between what's required and what's typically done/accepted can be fairly wide. I check water pressure at hose bibbs, and oftentimes find to be in excess of 100 psi, especially in new neighborhoods. After losing many battles with builders/plumbers/etc. over the years, now I merely recommend to the buyer that he/she have a pressure regulator installed at his/her own expense.

Double ditto. Once you're in bidness for a while and see what kind of responsibility and work ethics the alleged professionals possess, you'll realize that, as a group, they're horrid. Exceptions exist, but sadly they typically work their way up the food chain, start a business of their own, and hire employees who are far less competent.

Well, but that's the difficult aspect--creating a report that best satisfies the needs of the client and that also protects us from the nutzos who may wind up wanting to sue us. Rather than continually scrawling out the same protective sentences ( Like: Windows above staircase landings are now required to contain tempered glass) it's much easier to check a box. Well, though, you might say, that wasn't a code requirement fifty years ago. But try that in front of a jury staring down at a child who's fallen through a window and who's now scarred for life. Is checking a box adequate protection? I don't know, but at least the information was there. I enjoy writing. And one of the more gratifying aspects of my job is being able to educate and inform people. But if they aren't going to read what I've given them . . . How many people take the time to learn what radon is all about? Do they realize the EPA bases its information on a bunch of miners who worked underground for many hours a day and who likely smoked fistfuls of cigarettes? Probably not. Buyers want a simple yes or no regarding the existence of radon in a house so they can act accordingly with a seller. I'm recreating my report system over the next month or so and will let youse guys take a look and tell me where I screwed up once I've finished. I vacillate between a surfeit of information that both informs and protects, and a different kind of document that's incredibly short and sweet. And of course there's that cliched(I have no idea of how to insert the little accent mark) middle ground . . .

Ditto to what Randy said. I realize it runs counter the the current trend of "narrative" reporting, but buyers typically merely want to know what's wrong, what it takes to fix it, and who's gonna pay for it. The report I created for myself is quasi-check-boxy, quasi-narrative for this precise reason. It's difficult, knowing how much or how little information to deliver.

I don't remember--probably--it's been years ago.

Not to toss a old sock into the gears of the thread, but I'm certain an instructor in a CE class said some authority, somewhere, mandated dedicated circuits for fridges so indigent families couldn't inadvertently lose an irreplaceable--due to liquid assets--week's worth of food should a GFCI trip. Maybe the speaker was a nut, but it makes sense. I will, however, rely on and defer to, Jim and the NEC on this one.

The Field Guide Jim mentioned is splendid. We should all read it twice.

Me, too. Simple declarative sentences work best, and don't be afraid to use the same word two or three times in the same sentence. That works better than a bunch of needless synonyms and/or dangling participles. Stephen King experiments a lot with different styles, or at least he used to. Check out "The Dark Half." The short, declarative sentences keep the story zooming right along at a supersonic pace. Perhaps six sentences in a row will start with "He," but you don't notice, and you certainly don't think it's amateurish, 'cause it's so effective. The opposite kinds of styles are employed by pedants, but as someone recently said, someone I've never met but whom I like immensely, "I've stopped reading his posts. They're too long & windy for me. The content isn't worth the effort." A master of brilliant brevity, Ernest Hemingway, once said, "What good is it to write a thing, if no one wants to read it?"

My camera's set to snap photos at about a 500-K size so's when I burn them onto a CD the photos are nice and clear. I uploaded a few that were the original sizes and the lovable Brian G. told me to downsize them for the folks who were using dial-up. I mostly ignored Brian, primarily out of laziness, but a month or so later the photos were rejected due to being too large. Soon thereafter, and now, I decrease the sizes with Photoshop so the photos'll be accepted. But if I'm able to upload the big boys again . . .

I'm with Kurt. Enough is enough. It's sixty degrees near the end of November here, and I'm gonna take Loki the wonder dog for a walk. With no coat. Global warming? Not if you read Mark Twain, where oranges used to grow in Missisippi but no longer can 'cause it's too cold. Loki will bark and chase the moon, probably like we humans used to do before we became so civilized.

ad hominem Latin. 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. I'm guilty of neither of the above. I was merely stating an opinion regarding the manner in which you chose to express yourself.

Kevin, I don't think the patronizing definitions were necessary. Having said that, you're mostly correct. The words one uses and the manner in which he speaks tells others about his education, background and experience. There's nothing wrong with describing an egregious structural defect or the profligate work of a contractor(definitions purposely omitted). But the stilted language utilized in your earlier posts serves no real purpose. Who doesn't silently moan when someone says, "That is correct," rather than, "Yes" or "That's right?"

Never heard of that one, Frank. Actually, due to pressure differentials, combustion gases likely won't enter the living-space air unless the crack is really huge. I used to operate a natural-gas well field. The gas coming out of the well heads had to be compressed because it wouldn't enter the distribution line unless the pressure of the well-head gas was equal to or greater than the pressure within the distribution line. The same principle applies to combustion gases trying to enter the plenum when the blower is operating.