hausdok

This is one that will make you proud of some home inspectors in South Carolina. Where elderly folks are living in run-down housing with no way to get out, inspectors are stepping up to improve their living conditions. To read the entire story, click here.

Well, the cherry trees, lawyers, and newspapers are worth the effort. I won't waste my energy on that last part. OT - OF!!! M.

Let's put it this way; you probably don't want to go up against this guy in court. He's so damned smart it makes my hair hurt just thinking about it. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi Caoimhin, Yeah, I realize that, but there's no way that I can know that it is asbestos free, short of testing, and then, as Bill Kibble likes to point out, one can't really be certain even with testing. Here in the Seattle area, most buyers have essentially been conditioned by the Seattle PI, with years' worth of sensationalized stories about vermiculite killing folks, to turn tail and run. I really don't have a problem with them being scared of the stuff, 'cuz that makes my job easier - I report vermiculite and they run - duck soup. It's the folks that don't run that tend to make one nervous; especially when they can afford a house in this price range. I used to tell folks that I think that the most prudent course of action is to get it professionally removed by a licensed abatement firm, reinsulate, and then have the house thoroughly cleaned and then tested for asbestos. However, lately, I generally just tell folks they've got it, that it may or may not contain asbestos, so they need to limit their exposure to it, and I direct them to the EPA website here. If they want to know how to get rid of it I've been punting the whole thing to a local indoor air quality firm and letting them advise them what to do about it. Frankly, I have to wonder how dangerous asbestos really is. Hell, it's ubiquitous in the environment, most of us have been exposed to it for our entire lives and we know folks who worked around it for years and who've lived to a very old age and died of natural causes unrelated to asbestosis or mesotelioma or anything else like that. One would think that, if it were as dangerous as the media portrays it, most of the population would be walking around with oxygen bottles and there'd be lines outside of funeral homes (I could say the same thing about "toxic mold" too.). I bet a higher ratio of folks exposed to cigarettes die from cancer than the ratio of those exposed to asbestos, and an even smaller ratio of those exposed to vermiculite die. Still, thanks to the media and the "system" we inspectors have got to go around looking over our shoulders to make sure that there isn't some blood-sucking suit with a law degree chasing us around trying to take our homes and impoverish our families. Can you tell I'm feeling grouchy today? [:-gnasher ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Ezra, I certainly appreciate the explanation. We meant no offense to Doug, but his post did seem pretty bizarre. 1968 Code? It sure seemed pretty far fetched. I know what you're talking about when you refer to deteriorating houses. Have you ever checked out bid4assets.com ? There are thousands of distressed homes all over the country. OT - OF!!! Mike

Ah! A pox on you Jodi for bringing this up. I read that post this afternoon about 4:30 or so and suddenly I have this image flash into my head of a 2-inch ABS vent terminating in an attic someplace and telling myself, "Whatever you do, when you climb down out of here, don't forget to note that." Well, guess what, I did just that; I forgot to note it ...........I think. I sat there for the next 30 minutes turning that image over and over in my mind, trying to decide whether it's a real memory, false memory, or an old memory. Since it persists, I've concluded that it's a real memory, and I have the sense that it must have been fairly recently. However, I can't remember where it was. Aaaagh! So; then I went through all of my reports for the past couple of weeks and used the process of elimination to cross off those where there were no attics, or where I had no access to attics, and I've just now finished calling each of those clients to tell them I might have left something out of their report and need to go back to reinspect those attics. I suppose I could have just let it go and put it out of my mind, but right is right, I have to follow up on it and confirm whether there actually is an attic with a disconnected vent. Now that I've made myself look like a complete jackass, I sure hope I find an open vent or I'm going to feel a whole lot dumber than I do now. Suddenly the idea of a little cigar-sized video cam headset transmitting to a recorder someplace is sure looking interesting right about now. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike [:-banghea[:-banghea[:-banghea[:-banghea[:-banghea

Hi, I've been musing about that photo for days. While I agree that there should be a pan flashing under that door over the deck, flashing over the ledger and the ledger bolted, I also know that a hard wind can push rain as much as 4 inches up a wall behind clapboard siding where it then drains down the face of the paper behind the siding. If that paper gets wet, it slowly dries out. Wouldn't wet building paper behind siding cause the same pattern to appear on an infrared imager? If so, that's a far cry from a rotting wall. No? By the way, when wood is rotting it's essentially composting. Wouldn't wood that's rotting show a warmer temperature than the wood around it? Sorry, lots of questions born out of very little understanding of these devices. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Bill, After reading that article, one would suspect that might be the case. I don't think talking to us is going to help - he needs a local guy who's right there to bird dog this thing. OT - OF!!! M.

Heck Ezra, It doesn't sound like it meets the 1909 NEC! I think you'd be really pushing it to try and find a home inspector - other than Douglas Hansen, perhaps - who has a copy of the 1968 NEC. Has he tried the Mike Holt forum? If anyone would be able to help, I would think that crew over on those boards would - they're mostly electricians and code gurus. http://www.mikeholt.com This doesn't make sense, though. When was the home built and why wouldn't they require folks to build homes to a later/safer version of the code? OT - OF!!! M.

I see that Jim was thinking the same thing that I was. I'm thinking a scanned copy of the official notice on the city's letterhead - no? OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, Well, without knowing what the specific complaints are, there's no way that we can help you here. It sounds like you bought the house without an inspection. If the problem is with the electrical, you need to hire a licensed electrician immediately to go down to city hall, get a copy of the violation, and then begin one-by-one to verify them and correct them. Are you sure about that 1968 edition of the NEC? Did you actually talk to the local building inspector about this? Hell, that doesn't even require GFCI protection on the exterior. Why would any city open itself up to that kind of liability by using a 40 year old code? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Yeah, that sounds about right. For most whole house electric on-demand units you need a minimum service size of 200 amps. Those pull more amperage than a typical electric storage tank water heater. We have some homes around here which are all electric, including the water heaters, and they run fine on 100 or 125 amp panels. It's really a question of how the home is configured, its size, and what type of devices are used. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi Randy, Call for a structural and insist it be a guy who's intimately familiar with residential foundations 'cuz they're a different animal than commercial jobs. You could call Dave Pioli at Criterium in Bothell, or, I've heard that Bodine has an engineer on staff. Either way, hHorizontal cracking should always be called, and, in this case, I bet you've got a stemwall that's fractured because of liquifaction movement - probably during the 1996 or 2001 quakes. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi All, Well, the Washington State House Labor & Commerce Committee met at 8:00 PM last night in Olympia to hear testimony for and against Senator Spanel's bill, SB 6606. I'd meant to drive down for the hearing but was unable to because I was working on a bear of a report. I'm kind of glad that I didn't, because there were folks who made that long drive and signed up to speak but weren't heard. I always seem to arrive late to these affairs, so I probably would have ended up making the drive for nothing. In any event, I got to see the hearing this morning via the magic of televised hearings. The first two-and-a-half minutes of the hearing video is taken up by some give and take between this bills prime sponsor, Senator Spanel, and the committee chair. For the next hour and 8 minutes, they introduce and discuss other bills before they actually begin hearing testimony of inspectors at precisely 1:10:50 into the recording. Then for the next 32 minutes and 32 seconds they take testimony from those interested in this bill before concluding testimony about it and breaking for recess. For those of you who are interested in watching the video, here it is. Those who testified strongly in favor of the bill were: Sandy Hartman - Secretary and spokesperson for the Washington Home Inspectors Legislative Advisory Group (WHILAG) Hugh Kelso - ASHI Pat Knight - WIN Home Inspection Franchises Paul Luczyk - ASHI Troy Walton - interNACHI Bob Mitchell - Washington Realtors (WAR) Others spoke against the bill or in favor of the bill with changes. These were:Duane Roundy - Washington State Pest Control Association (WSPCA) and Kaplan Schools (Against). Roundy said that the bill has come a long way over the past few years, and that he was 95% in favor of it, but: 1. He takes issue with sections 18 and 21 that remove the mandatory requirements that all home inspectors in the state also be licensed pest inspectors. 2. He doesn't like the idea of dual licensing that will be required if a home inspector also chooses to do bug inspections. 3. He says that the bill as written would remove the financial responsibility requirement that currently protects consumers by removing the requirement for a mandatory $25,000 bond or a $100,000 E & O policy. 4. He explained to the committee that under the current system an inspector can get the bond for between $300 and $500 a year but that E & O costs a minimum of $2000 to $3000 per year. Thus, if the pest requirement is removed from home inspectors, the public will be left unprotected. He made it sound like the bond was, for the consumer, the better option, because inspectors could better afford that. 5. He said that the training requirements in the law that require at least 120 hours of education plus 40 hours of supervised inspections were excessive, and that Kaplan's research had determined that, in the 21 states where licensing exists and there is a mandatory training requirement, that the average amount of training required is only 75 hours, and that other states (Texas and NJ) have had to half their requirements after they encountered difficulties. He says that Kaplan favors only 80 hours of education plus another 30 of supervised inspections. Charlie Buell - ASHI, interNACHI, Bellingham Technical College HI Instructor (In favor with changes) Buell testified that the bill was pretty good but stated that he'd like to see the mandatory pest license requirement remain in the law, or at least see a requirement where all inspectors would need to prove, via the state's structural pest inspector's exam, that they at least were capable of identifying pests and pest conducive conditions. Michael Gaffey (sic) - Attorney (Against) He claims to have represented two clients who'd been the victims of horrible home inspections and says that the bill is too weak and needs to be substantially strengthened. Points he made were: 1. He wants a mandatory probing requirement because he feels that a visual inspection is inadequate. 2. He wants more education and complains that the current bills' education requirement is less than 1/4 of that required to get through community college. 3. He complained that the 40 hours of supervised training requirement in the bill is inadequate because it only says that an inspector must to "up to" 40 hours of training and no minimum is specified. 4. He complained that as written the bill has no financial responsibility requirement. 5. He wants the mandatory pest inspectors license requirement to remain in the bill. 6. He complained that limits of liability in current home inspectors contracts were unfair. 7. He complained that the bill's enforcement provisions were inadequate. 8. He complained that there is nothing in the enforcement provisions of the bill to address deceptive acts or advertising. At that point, the chairman stopped him and asked if he'd submitted his complaints to the staff and whether he'd ever discussed these issues with the bill's prime sponsor before it went through the senate. He said that he'd spoken at last years hearings and at the sunrise review hearings but that he'd not had an opportunity prior to the hearings in the Senate to address these issues to the Senator although she's aware of them from prior conversations. The chairman moved onto the next person.Paul Neiss - ASHI (In favor with changes). Neiss said that he was in favor of the bill but would like to see the pest inspector requirement remain in the bill. JIm Irish, representing a coalition of appraisers (Against if changes aren't made) - Irish testified only that the things that home inspectors do - visual inspections, write reports on general conditions, etc., have been done by appraisers for decades and the appraisers wish to be exempted from the law. When the chair asked him if he'd spoken to the bill's prime sponsor about this, he said that the Senator had told him that there were already too many groups exempted from the bill. A fellow from the Department of Licensing (DOL)He testified briefly that they take issue with a couple of conflicts between sections 7 & 9 of the bill based on their sunrise review findings. He didn't elaborate on what these were and said that DOL had submitted their issues to the staff in writingAt that point, the meeting went into recess. Roundy's background is as a pest inspector who expanded his business into home inspections. For nearly 2 years he'd been a member of WHILAG but had quit when he couldn't convince the group to favor keeping the mandatory pest requirement in the bill. Like other WHILAG members, he'd agreed when he joined that the point of the group was to work toward common ground. He'd also agree, as had all WHILAG members, that, regardless of one's personal feelings about specific issues, when the coalition voted on a position, that position would be the public position that all members would take, irrespective of personal feelings. Eventually, he demonstrated that his word wasn't his bond, when, even though the inclusion of his vote resulted in many positions and opinions by other WHILAG members being voted down, when it came to not getting his own way, he cut and run and he is now speaking out against the work of the coalition. What Roundy neglected to mention in his testimony to the committee, is that the bond requirement and the E & O requirement only currently apply to pest inspections, and, that if an inspector who is currently practicing wants to have his or her home inspections covered by insurance, he or she still must spend the $2000 to $3000 a year for E & O insurance, regardless of the current pest law. It was no doubt a very shrewd, calculated, and convenient omission on his part, because the committee members didn't seem to see the distinction. At this point it's anyone's guess what's going to happen - this committee can vote to send this bill on to the house floor for a vote or they can send it back to the Senate for more work. Alternatively, they could kill it and still hear the companion bill that's been authored by WHILAG in the house. However, I doubt that they'll do this because right now the two bills are so close on so many points. Guess we'll just have to wait and see. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Washington D.C. - Feb. 27 (Source: NAHB) In the latest evidence of the continuing contraction in housing markets, the U.S. Commerce Department reported today that sales of new single-family homes declined 2.8 percent in January to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 588,000 units, the slowest pace since February of 1995. "While home builders are reporting some glimmers of buyer interest starting to develop, many consumers are still firmly planted on the fence, waiting for just the right incentive to make their move," said Sandy Dunn, president of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and a home builder from Point Pleasant, W.Va. "Clearly, now would be an ideal time for Congress to follow up on its recently enacted economic stimulus program by passing legislation such as a home buyer tax credit that would help push those who are on the edge of a home buying decision off that fence and into the home of their dreams. Such action would reduce the inventory of units on the market and help restore housing to its historic role as a primary engine of economic growth." "Our latest surveys reveal that builders are seeing greater traffic of prospective buyers through their model homes than in previous months, yet this has yet to translate to any improvement in actual sales activity," noted NAHB Chief Economist David Seiders. "It stands to reason that policy measures to stimulate housing demand could be a powerful force and help bring about a housing and economic recovery." Three out of four regions posted lower new-home sales in January, with a 10.3 percent decline reported in the Northeast, a 7.6 percent decline reported in the Midwest and a 2.4 percent decline reported in the South. The West posted a 2.2 percent gain for the month, following a large decline in December. While the inventory of new homes for sale was down 2.2 percent to 482,000 units in January, the supply of units at the current sales pace edged up to 9.9, its highest level since April of 1982. The median length of time that completed homes were on the market was 6.7 months in January, up from 6.2 months in December and 4.8 months a year earlier. #####

I think we're being a little harsh here. When you think about it, the Achilles heel of storage type water heaters is the tank. One can get replacement thermostats and heating elements for decades after a tank is no more because electrical components are pretty standardized. It's the piping to the tank and the tank itself that goes bad. So, they've produced a tank that will outlast other tanks. Yeah, one must still replace the electrical components occasionally, but that's a whole lot simpler than hauling a new tank in and out every 8 to 15 years and all of the plumbing work that's associated with that. Is it more efficient than an on-demand type? Probably not, but it's an efficiency that can be measured a different way. When someone else has gone through 2 or 3 conventional tanks, the owner of one of these might have had to replace one or two heating elements or a thermostat in the same time frame. Given escalating labor rates, over 2-3 decades, that could translate into substantial savings over the replacement costs involved with several times replacing a regular storage type tank. OT - OF!!! M.

Yesterdays home. $1,475,000 - extensively remodeled not long ago; with an attic full of vermiculite. Sigh OT - OF!!! M. Image Insert: 26.52 KB

That's a form of peel-n-seal. It's wholly inadequate for what it's being used for and gooping it up with asphalt cement will only cause the bituthene backing to break down. It's more likely that the water is getting in through the crown and the flue or through worn mortar where the counter flashings had been let into the stack, or though a cracked/missing crown, and is then migrating to the roof framing and decking. What's the top of that stack look like? Do you still see those T-tab lockdown shingles a lot in North Dakota? They haven't been used regularly around here for over a quarter of a century. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Ken, We know that. He wants to know what the "advantages" of having a split-bus panel are. I didn't answer 'cuz I don't really consider them an advantage. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi Matthew, The use a catalyst to eliminate the CO. It works, but these still produce a ton of moisture and dump particulate matter into the interior air. OT - OF!!! M.

Answer: Very carefully

JLC Online is presenting a free ladder safety webinar conducted by Peter Kuchinsky II and hosted by Werner Ladders. The seminar will cover: Training Maintenance Best Practices In this webinar, Peter reviews basic guidelines and rules to achieve the best level of safety. If you're too busy to sit and watch a webinar, you can also download a free podcast from the JLC media console. For more information and to register click here.

Hi All, For those of you who post your reports to a website for your customers to view, you might find a freeware communication program, eZ, useful. It's a fast and simple way to view, markup, combine and publish different file types such as AutoCAD DWG, Adobe PDF, Google SketchUp 3D, ARRIS, BuildersCAD, JPEG, BMP, PNG, PowerPoint, Word, Excel, and PLT. According to the reviews I read about the program, it was designed by an architect so that he could easily share details of a plan with his clients via the internet. Cdnet has checked it out and certified it to be a virus and malware free program. If you're interested in downloading the program go here ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Raymond, You missed a point of my earlier post, which was to say, in a roundabout way, that we're happy to have you here, but we really don't give two fairy farts what they're doing over on the NACHI forum, and we certainly don't need that soap opera coming over here. Yes, some of the associations will stifle dissenting opinions on their message boards - exactly the same as a newspaper editor will not post every single nasty letter to the editor he or she receives. That's nothing new, because there is no such thing as "free speech" in private conversations. The only place that "free speech" applies is when the government tries to stifle what private citizens say and it's primarily aimed at ensuring that citizens have a right to speak out against what they perceive as unfair governance. There's nothing that says anyone who is not in the government cannot prohibit someone else from saying certain things unless it's related to governance. Bosses fire folks all the time for speaking bad about them in their businesses and the content on televisions, radios, newspapers and books is edited constantly. It isn't a question of "free speech" at all - it's a question of rules. Break the rules, and you end up being deleted. We have the same rules here. One of ours is we try to avoid repetitious posts that constantly say the same thing over and over or lead to bashing. If you read the forum rules, you'll note that. I quit both NAHI and ASHI over things that I felt strongly about - I don't spend every day over here re-hashing those decisions I made; that's in the past. If you were wrongfully terminated by interNACHI, that is a matter between you and interNACHI. Venting about it here one or two times is OK, I suppose, but nothing we say here really has any effect on the decision of those in power over there. The best thing you can do at this point is put that whole experience behind you, forget about them, and go on with your life. We have a good solid family of technically proficient folks here who are here to help answer questions. Embrace that and forget the NACHI nonsense. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

LOL, and around a corner at 60 mph on a sheet of ice and never lose traction. Subarus are phenomenal on corners - the damned things corner like they're on rails - even with ice on the road. My sympathies, Chad. [] OT - OF!!! M.