With 24 hours left in the 2008 session, state Sen. Brian Weinstein has issued the following press release:
Today, I communicated to the Speaker’s staff that I’ll agree in principle to Speaker Chopp’s three-point proposal with some minor technical and substantive changes, if he’ll agree to allow a homebuyer to bring a legal action against a builder who has violated a building code after giving the builder notice and an opportunity to fix it.
A builder is already required to comply with building codes, but Washington law affords a homebuyer no rights to enforce the building code. This is a bare minimal right that all Washingtonians must agree a homebuyer should have.
I know the Speaker is a man of his word, and I would only do this with a good faith representation from him that he will work diligently to expand the right of access to the courts to aggrieved homebuyers in the next Legislative Session.
Really… is that so much to ask for? The right to sue a builder if they violate a building code, and refuse to fix it? I invite the pro-BIAW trolls in the comment thread to justify to me why homebuyers should not have this right?
I have first hand experience with construction defects remediation.
It’s amazing to me that there are law firms, construction management firms, and general contractors who work exclusively in this area. Contractors build homes, and then there’s a whole pack of attorneys, insurance companies, engineers, and contractors who go along behind them to clean up the messes. And it covers every price range out there. I’ve seen shocking defects in homes in the $300k range up to $4M.
I can say with 100% certainty that courts are QUITE willing to find in favor of plaintiffs who can make legitimate claims of substantive defects in construction. And settlements in these cases are quite fair.
I’m not against providing more legislation to give more homeowners more rights. But it’s not like homeowners have no recourse against construction defects with the law the way it stands today.
Worshippers of free markets tell us everything will be wonderful if there’s no government regulation and we trust the profit motive to solve all of the world’s problems. Yeah right. This has been proved wrong so many times it’s barely worth providing another example. However, I will.
“DALLAS (March 12) – Southwest Airlines Co. grounded 43 planes to examine if they were structurally sound enough to carry passengers after it recently acknowledged it had missed required inspections of some planes for cracks. …
“The move … comes as Southwest faces a $10.2 million civil penalty for continuing to fly almost 50 planes after the airline … missed required inspections of the planes.
“The Federal Aviation Administration, which announced the penalty last week, has also come under fire for failing to ground the Southwest jets … when agency inspectors learned they had not been inspected for cracks in the fuselage.”
Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://news.aol.com/business/s.....2509990001
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Another fucking free market failure. And another fucking failure of the pro-business lapdogs of the anti-consumer Bush administration. It’s lucky hundreds of people weren’t killed. Inspecting and maintaining airplanes costs money, and if you leave it up to the airlines and their profit-driven manages — they won’t do it. Never in our lifetimes has commercial flying been as dangerous as it is right now because of the lax regulation that has subordinated passenger safety to airline profits. Near misses and runway incidents are at an all-time high; airlines are replacing union mechanics with inexperienced cheap labor; the civil aviation fleet is falling apart. Airline crashes may be good for Boeing workers in terms of boosting demand in the replacement market, but it’s lousy for the flying public.
@1 Oh go fuck yourself until you pay your gambling debt. I wouldn’t buy a home from you, or a home built by you, if it were the last hovel on earth. If a guy can’t even pay a $100 debt I don’t trust him as far as I can piss.
There wouldn’t be a single construction attorney on the face of the earth if builders did their job.
Another thing….
Don’t think that just because your building has been inspected by your city and has an occupancy permit that the building is of good quality.
The fact of the matter is that municipal inspectors only pay attention to issues which affect life and safety. So they’ll check the furnace to make sure a gas leak doesn’t detonate the building when the thermostat kicks on. They’ll check the electrical system to make sure you don’t get zapped when you flip the switch. But not much beyond that.
Much of the construction defect work out there relates to water intrusion through the building envelope. Municipal inspectors pay NO ATTENTION to that. I’ve seen cases where there is no weather resistant barrier, or where the WRB is mislapped. I’ve seen where there is no flashing around windows and doors. I’ve seen where structural elements aren’t connected to the foundations. I’ve seen cases where mold formation and intrusion is rampant.
Those of you who think government is going to protect you are naive and wrong. Municipal inspectors are 100% indemnified from any liability for defects. So you can’t sue the city if your building turns out to be a POS.
When you buy a home, the “inspection” that is done is cursory at best. The stuff you gotta worry about is buried so deep that a typical inspection would never find it.
Also, when you buy a home, the current owner and the real estate agent have an obligation to disclose any known problems. If they don’t do that, THEY are liable, not you as the purchaser.
@1 “I can say with 100% certainty that courts are QUITE willing to find in favor of plaintiffs who can make legitimate claims of substantive defects in construction. And settlements in these cases are quite fair.”
That’s why they want to force home buyers out of the courts into a kangaroo arbitration process they control. And that’s exactly what we will have in this state if BIAW gets their way. In which case, I will advise legal clients to refuse to buy new residential construction under any circumstances.
@5 That’s why you hire an architect to supervise the design and construction of your new home instead of buying a tract house the builder threw up on speculation from a stock plan.
The extra money you spend on an architect who works for YOU and represents YOUR interests is the best insurance policy you can buy against defective construction. A good local architect also knows who the trustworthy builders are — and who the gypo builders are.
The only builders who need to be afraid of lawyers and courts are ones who have a reason to fear lawyers and courts.
@6…RR…
You well know that arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism is highly favored by courts since it offers a substantially less expensive and more expeditious decision making process than traditional litigation, which can take years.
But then again objectivity isn’t exactly your forte.
The Piper
@10 Why don’t you tell people why it’s favored by courts, piper? Never mind, I’ll tell them. Because it reduces case backlogs in courts, and because it’s cheaper than court trials. Peddling arbitration to the public has nothing to do with litigants getting a fairer shake. It’s for the courts’ benefit, not the public’s. But let’s get past this generalities and get to the nub of things. In Texas, builders not only got legislation passed that pushes ripped-off homebuyers out of the court system into mandatory arbitration, they also seized control of the arbitration process and stacked it with their cronies so that these arbitrations are nothing but a kangaroo court to protect shoddy builders from legal liability. In Texas, they actually passed laws REGULATING HOMEBUYERS!!!
I’ll tell you what, Piper. With new homes going for anywhere from $500,000 up, if I can’t sue a builder who sells me a defective home, I’m not buying. Period. I simply won’t risk that kind of money on a questionable product when I have no legal recourse. You want me to entrust my life savings to an arbitrator hand-picked by the builder? Fuck you, piper. And fuck them.
If builders block reasonable consumer protection laws in Washington, then consumers should boycott their product. This is too much financial risk for buyers to assume if they don’t have reasonable legal protections.
Hardly a day goes by when Republicans don’t take away more of our right.
rights.
Piper @ 10: I’ve been through this before, so I’ll give the short version.
Filing a civil case in Superior Court: $ 200.00 filing fee, per RCW 36.18.020(2)(a). You will also have to pay service of process fees, expert witness fees, other assorted costs of litigation, plus your attorney’s fees.
Proceeding under the American Arbitration Associaton: All of the above, except instead of the $200.00 filing fee, which instead is one and one-half of the estimated hourly fees of the three-attorney panel which will be sitting in as judges on the case. Some simple math: $300 per hour for each attorney, X 40 hours estimated time to hear motions, testimony, consider a verdict, and write a decision; X the number of arbitrators (usually three), then divided by two (each side puts up one-half in advance). Total cost which has to be paid before the first motion is heard: $18,000.
The builders can put up a check with no problem, knowing that few homeowners, especially those with a home with structural problems making a re-financing or second mortage impossible to get, will be able to raise that kind of money.
Under arbitration proceedings, the doors are closed unless you have at least that much money at your disposal. That’s why businesses like mandatory arbitration so much.
Oh, and let’s not forget the clauses in the arbitration contracts which state where the arbitration will be held (New Jersey?), or which state’s laws will apply (Utah?). The game’s rigged, before you even begin.
This bill is being pushed by blowhards like Roger with scare tactics about “what we will have in this state if BIAW gets their way”. What are you Roger, the cranky clairvoyant?
This bill (despite Chopp and Weinstein hammering out some phony democrat pseudo compromise) provides a dis-incentive for the GOOD builders and does nothing to improve the quality of work by the bad builders. As soon as this bill kicks in, there will be a “wide net” of increased risk associated with every builder, supplier, sub, architect, engineer, etc. who touches a SFR.
I’ll spell it out for you Roger: “any asshole can file suit.” Whether a house is good or bad, suits will be filed. Then the defense costs pile up. After that suit is settled or dropped, liability insurance becomes unavailable or sky high. That is the scenario that will drive good builders away and open up more slots for the bottom feeders.
Now tell me every lawsuit over defective construction will be 100% with merit, repair costs will not be exorbitantly padded, attorneys will not be ambulance chasing all the new potential clients, and I will have a good laugh.
Have it your way and see what happens, suckers. It’s not surprising that the lefties populating HA believe that filing a lawsuit will guarantee that their every wish is granted. You guys are all about entitlement. Just don’t whine about the loss of affordable housing any more.
BTW, I have officially changed my name above, because the only crank on HA who can rile me up enough to comment is Roger. (Thanks Roger).
@15: I’ll spell it out for you Roger: “any asshole can file suit.”
More free floating, fact free argumentation, I see. What fucking mendacity. Allow us to respond in kind. Yes, any asshole can file a suit, BUT not just any asshole can win. Further, if you have a track record of filing losing suits, you will soon find that: Judges hate you; You have no clients; and You are flat broke. Did you learn stupid all by yourself? And ask yourself this…Do you honestly believe that only lawsuits that win should be filed? In that case, who needs judges and juries?
Further: “To the best of my knowledge” is a legal loophole that even fat assed MTR could drive through.
Redneck lunatic: (1.) If you buy a new HOME, you generally sign a waiver indemnifying the builder unless you agree to an arbitration system stacked in his favor; (2.) Inspectors don’t inspect for water intrusion because that is not part of their perview; (3.) There are solid reasons why you cannot sue the inspector; (4.) Cite one case at law in this state where a buyer of a new house successfully sued the builder for construction defects where said waiver of indemnity was in place; (5.) This issue has nothing to do with resales, so you are demonstrating that you will say anything, tell any lie, to make your case. You’re worse than the weasel lawyers you always condemn. Far worse.
Goldy Says: Really… is that so much to ask for? The right to sue a builder if they violate a building code, and refuse to fix it? I invite the pro-BIAW trolls in the comment thread to justify to me why homebuyers should not have this right?
To start with Goldy, Weinstein is a trial attorney and he is lying which is part of being a trial attorney.
If a builder violates the building code he can be sued during the first year after the house is built.
If you want to make that period longer or include construction defects just tell me how much more you would pay for your house to get that kind of coverage. To illustrate the difference.
A single family home builder who builds 10 homes a year can get liability insurance from about $20,000 a year to around $50,000 a year under the currant law. If the same builder built 10 condominiums instead of 10 houses the insurance would be a minimum of $450,000 per project if he could even get it. Most small builders can’t.
For you Seattle public schoolers out there that would raise the cost of your home by a minimum of $40,000.
While there are instances of very poorly built homes the vast majority of homes are well built with little or no problems and the majority of builders correct what problems arise.
If you change the law the insurance companies will raise their rates and most of the smaller builders will be forced out of business and the home buyer will not only be paying the additional premium for insurance but they will pay an increased premium in price because under Brian Weinstein’s bill the housing supply will be maintained by a very small group of big builders who will also hire big lawyers.
@15: “This bill (despite Chopp and Weinstein hammering out some phony democrat pseudo compromise) provides a dis-incentive for the GOOD builders and does nothing to improve the quality of work by the bad builders. As soon as this bill kicks in, there will be a “wide net” of increased risk associated with every builder, supplier, sub, architect, engineer, etc. who touches a SFR.”
Bullshit. The bill raises risk to dishonest players, i.e., “bad” builders.
Quality builders won’t be sued if they deliver a well built product. If bad builders are driven from the market because risks have increased, it will give those that remain more pricing power which would tend to offset the marginal cost increases due to suit happy homebuyers. Buyers may pay a small higher cost to reasonably insure they get what they paid for. You cannot get something for nothing.
This is fucking elementary economics.
RE: 18, Elementary economics will tell you that reducing the supply of builders will result in increased costs not decreased costs. Have you heard of an elementary economic principle of “Supply and Demand”?
@17: Most civil suits involving businesses are filed by businesses against other businesses for things like breach of contract, and patent infringement. This is an overwhelming, indisputable fact. These costs raise prices, insurance, etc., to all of us. We all contribute to making corporate law a very profitable profession.
Yet not once have I seen any of you wingnut fuckers decry this rampant shysterism and the confiscatory costs (yes, taxes to pay for our overburdened courts, and higher prices at the counter) involved, or decry corporate lawyers and insurance companies getting rich as they crush some poor schmuck who called his latte stand the ‘Mickey Mouse Slurp”.
Not once.
Explain why.
RE: 20, What? I guess you missed the conservative position on medical malpractice, product liability, the Washington State Condominium Act and others.
Did you ever wonder why a condominium is $600 per sq. ft. and a single family home is $350? In case you haven’t let me give you my take on it. Only large corporations can afford and get the insurance, afford the risk and attorney’s to build condominiums.
@19: Reducing the “supply of builders” does not “increase costs”. It reduces the number of builders. You seem to think that having a bunch of low rent trunkslammers in the market is a social good. I would disagree. It is a misallocation of resources since they (bad builders) are simply trying to game the system and sell under non-optimal conditions where their marginal costs are lower than their marginal revenue. This is non-optimal.
This is basic microeconomics.
The bill could be reasonably seen as shifting the supply curve upward, and fewer homes would be built at any given level of demand (ceterus parabus). On the other hand, demand may increase because people have more certainty that they are purchasing a good product (demand curve shifts upward). If that is true, then the number of homes produced and sold would remain unchanged.
There is more to this than “cost”. It’s about creating good rules to help markets work.
PTBAA – How many litigation claims have you won? Do you have any experience at all in this area?
Didn’t think so…
Keep talking out your ass.
Dumfuckingshit…
RE: 22, Proud to be an ass says: “The bill could be reasonably seen as shifting the supply curve upward, and fewer homes would be built at any given level of demand”
Ok, I guess I missed the economic principle that producing fewer of something increase the supply. Could you explain that please?
Proud to be an ass also says: “There is more to this than “cost”. It’s about creating good rules to help markets work.”
Markets generally make their own rules that work that is the beauty of the “Free” market system we have enjoyed since the revolution. That said there is a place for government to edict some rules, I am not for those rules being made by a trial attorney like Brian Weinstein who has something to gain personally with his rules at the cost of the population.
Rob sez: “RE: 20, What? I guess you missed the conservative position on medical malpractice, product liability, the Washington State Condominium Act and others.”
No, I have not. Not one of those ‘positions’ decry corporate attorneys and their costs so they can engage in lawsuits against other businesses or investors. If you are going to disagree, please at least have the courtesy to address the fucking point.
Rob sez: “Did you ever wonder why a condominium is $600 per sq. ft. and a single family home is $350? In case you haven’t let me give you my take on it….”
Don’t bother. It is clear you know absolutely nothing about costruction costs, and what drives them, you’re not considering life cycle costs, you don’t distinguish as between hard and soft costs, and you don’t account for market bubbles…and confuse “price” with “value”, a pretty elementary error.
The fuckwad trolls get stupider everyday…just like their moronic pResident.
@23: So now you’re an attorney? Fuckwad. Cite ONE case you fucking idiot.
Just one.
Did’nt think so.
dumbfuckingignorantfuckingassholeidiot
roblet above: “Markets generally make their own rules that work that is the beauty of the “Free” market system we have enjoyed since the revolution.”
Like the free markets in the Congo?
Like the ‘free market’ of american industry that hid behind high tariff walls from the Revolution to well after WWII? That fucking ‘free’ market? Gawd. That’s a pretty pathetic case.
Redscum asks rhetorically: “How many litigation claims have you won?”
This passes for brilliant rhetoric in wingnut circles.
This is all you’ve got? You’re fucking useless. And you call yourself a ‘producer’? Jacking off into the toilet is not contributing to GNP. I don’t care how many times you try to argue otherwise.
Ignorantchumpfuckwadliar
@24: “Ok, I guess I missed the economic principle that producing fewer of something increase the supply. Could you explain that please?”
You actually read what other people write, or just hallucinate some straw men to destroy?
You can’t claim to miss what was never there to begin with, idiot.
@15 First of all, you should find yourself a different screen name before you get arrested for false advertising, because you — thank the Great Mother Rabbit Spirit! — are NOT my conscience.
Now let’s talk about your conscience. This won’t take long because you don’t have one. All you have is sticky fingers. Which trade group pays you to shill for their greed? Builders? Insurance companies? Importers of toxic toys?
What do all of the above have in common? They don’t like being sued. What is their solution to being sued for ripping off their customers? Take away the victims’ right to sue. Yeah, that’s you pal.
Fuck you, wingnut! This insult brought to you by a member in good standing of the Washington State Bar Association. I have long pointy ears and a cute cottontail, too! Want to inspect my cute tail close up? For a good time, call 1-900-LICK ROG. All proceeds go to the Help Roger Rabbit Live Like A Republican Fund.
@16 Proud: Leave him be. He’s mine. This one is all mine. I want him.
@16 I make this request as a matter of professional courtesy among liberal punks.
RE: 25, actually I do know quite a bit about hard costs, soft costs as I have personally built over 2,500 units in this area while working for one of the biggest builders in the US.
Life cycle costs are taught in business school for long term investments but never used in “for sale” housing and I have never seen it in a proforma in my 29 years of experience. What do market bubbles have to do with anything?
Regarding your insane premise that corporate attorney’s are engaging in lawsuits against investors I would have to ask you to give at least one example of corporate attorney’s initiating a lawsuit against investors?
As for corporate attorney’s suing other corporations for non payment, patent infringement et. al. Do you have a problem with that? If you do you should get rid of those rules you want to “make the market work better”
RE: 30, yes I do and I also quote it, I guess you were to embarrassed to print your own quote again but as I am just here to help I will do it for you without the Media Matters censoring.
Not to embarrass you or anything but here is what you said genius:
24: rob says:
RE: 22, Proud to be an ass says: “The bill could be reasonably seen as shifting the supply curve upward, and fewer homes would be built at any given level of demand”
Ok, I guess I missed the economic principle that producing fewer of something increase the supply. Could you explain that please?
@17 “While there are instances of very poorly built homes the vast majority of homes are well built with little or no problems and the majority of builders correct what problems arise.”
Well, then, lawsuits shouldn’t be a problem should they? You see, rob, you can take someone to court only if you have evidence to support your complaint, otherwise your case gets tossed at a very early stage of proceedings AND the defendant can ask the judge to make you and your attorney pay his defense expenses.
What wingnut “tort reform” arguments boil down to is that the legal system is clogged with frivolous lawsuits and innocent defendants are getting taken to the cleaners by predatory plaintiffs and their Mephistolean lawyers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Non-meritorious lawsuits get ejected from the system faster than a thorn from an elephant’s foot. Contingency fee lawyers who don’t screen cases for a high probability of success at trial won’t be in business very long; they’ll go bankrupt in short order. It’s expensive, time-consuming, and nerve-wrecking to sue someone, so why would any home buyer do that except as a last resort? Don’t you think the people who do this have already tried to work with the builder to correct the problems, and went to a lawyer only after that failed, and only because the builder jerked them around or ignored them?
More fantasy from Wingnut Land! Nobody likes dealing with lawyers or going to court. Trust me on this; I’ve been a lawyer for 35 years and I know about this. People don’t like lawyers; they don’t like sitting in the witness stand; they don’t like having their fate decided by juries; they don’t like the delays, the high cost of litigation, etc.; there’s nothing about litigation that anyone likes. They do it because a financial disaster of someone else’s making has befallen them.
Why do we even have lawyers and courts, if they’re so unpopular? I’ll tell you what. Ask yourself what people did before formal legal systems were invented. They went to the other guy’s tent looking for revenge, that’s what. They killed him, raped his daughters, burned his tent, and slaughtered his clan. Then that guy’s relatives and friends went to the first guy’s tent and did it back to him and his relatives. Sometimes this went on for hundreds of years, long after their descendants had forgotten what started the fight. Given that lawyers and courts are so unpopular, why do we still have them? Because, as bad as our legal system is, most folks figure they’d rather put up with it than go back to the old system of tent-burning and daughter-raping.
Fucking wingnut idiots. This is the problem with people who have no education, don’t know the reasons for things, and don’t care whether we live in a civilization or a jungle.
So — go ahead, take away my right to sue. No problem. If you burn me, I’ll come over to your tent and torch the fucking thing. With you in it.* Who needs a lawyer for that?
* Just kidding! More of that good ol’ girl Ann Coulter humor that you wingnuts love so well. ha ha hahaha
Rob sez: “Did you ever wonder why a condominium is $600 per sq. ft. and a single family home is $350? In case you haven’t let me give you my take on it….”
WHAT A MORON! ROB DOESN’T KNOW HIS ASS FROM A HOLE IN THE GROUND!
My ex-wife has a condominium unit here in King County that she will be glad to sell to Rob for the bargain basement price of only $350 per square foot. It was built in 1995 or so, has 801 square feet, one bedroom, and she replaced all the carpet and some other things newly refurbished before listing the unit, which has been vacant since the new carpet and other stuff was put in.
In fact, she would be happy to sell it to Rob for only $300 per square foot. Or even $250 per square foot.
Caveat emptor: The condo unit has been recently listed for something like $218.50 per square foot. It has been on the market for at least six months or so without being sold.
@ 30
When “I-don’t-do-the-work-but-I’m-still-a-Producer” rob[sic] reads about an “upward” shift in the supply curve, he thinks you’re talking about an increase in supply. Which is why, when discuss demand and supply curves with wingnuts, I tend to use the words “rightward” and “leftward” (which are semantically equivalent to “downward” and “upward” respectively).
But, I have to admit, it is quite amusing to see people touting the virtues of “free” markets while demonstrating that they haven’t a clue as to how free markets actually function.
Hey Darryl can you do an ISP check to see if “Roger’s Conscience” is our old friend Kevin Carnes? This poster has “paid troll” stamped on his forehead.
@ 35
Um. An “upward” shift in the supply curve actually represents a reduction in supply. Have you forgotten what’s on the axes of that curve?
I’ll bet that ISP tracks straight back to a BIAW computer.
Or maybe one of Hannah’s co-workers, hahahahahaha ha ha.*
* Just kidding! Don’t take it personally, Hannah. You’re new here, so we’re playing with you, like a dog does with a new bone. All the newbies get chewed up. After all, this is HorsesAss, the biker blog for liberal punks.
@19 Reducing the supply of builders is a good thing if we can find a way to weed out the charlatans, fly-by-nights, gyppos, shoestring operators, incompetents, and crooks.
Hard to tell who the general public trusts less, contractors or trial lawyers, but it’s a sure thing that builders aren’t held in the same esteem as Red Cross donut ladies. Betcha there’s a reason for that.
Perhaps one of our brilliant BIAW sock puppets can answer this question for me. If increased insurance premiums would cause builders to raise their prices, why shouldn’t builders raise their prices now? Why wait for insurance premiums to increase before raising prices?
@21 rob would have us beloved that condo builders are poor people teetering on the brink of bankruptcy
(snicker)
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
If anyone’s getting $600 a foot for condo space, it’s because the market will bear it, not because builders of crappy condos are getting sued too frequently. In my neighborhood, where lots of condos are going up, the builders tool around in Hummers, not 30-year-old Dodge pickups. At some point — the point where a crummy, cramped, leaky little condo costs just as much as a detached single family house — people are going to buy the house instead of the condo.
But let’s say this law does drive up the cost of condos by $40,000. And let’s go even further and say that makes people stop buying them. Does this mean our poor, benighted, condo developer goes broke and has to file for food stamps? Naaaaaah. Nobody loses money building condos. When demand dries up and they can’t make a hell of a huge profit building them, they just quit building them. No one ever sells at a loss in this business, except maybe an occasional greenie who hasn’t learned the business ropes yet. There’s a ton of profit — gobs of profit — in those $600-a-foot condos. The moment there isn’t the builders move to commercial or detached construction, or take a vacation and live on their investments for a while.
No need to shed tears for the condo builders because the buyers are given legal rights to protect them from the ripoff artists in the industry.
RE: 36, sorry rabbit but again you have no idea what you are talking about. Prior to the 4 year statute of limitations on lawsuits under the condominium act the board of directors of all major condominium associations get a visit from predatory lawyers. They intimidate the board by informing them that they as individuals could be held personally responsible if they do not do a complete destructive examination of the condominium. Guess what, they even have a company that will do that for them. There are two architecture firms in Seattle that do this for attorney’s as there only means of support. Guess what again, they find what they perceive is a problem, go figure. Under the condominium act if they find one problem ( a defective window) they are allowed to claim that all windows are defective and it is up to the developer to prove they are not.
That is the way sleazy lawyers like (in my opinion) Brian Weinstein operate
@24 “Markets generally make their own rules that work that is the beauty of the “Free” market system we have enjoyed since the revolution.”
Horseshit. You are so fucking ignorant it’s hard to know where to begin. For thousands of years, as far back as we have records of human activities, a principal purpose of government has been to create and enforce rules of commerce so that “free” markets can exist and function. Without rules, you don’t even have property, only a free for all to see who can grab what by clash of arms.
Rob @ 46
It is nice to have some law firms that are willing to perform this service to assist condo owners and their associations.
@25 Someone recently threw up a McMansion in my neighborhood for $90 a foot on the lot where her mother’s little cottage stood and sold it for $800,000. The buyer paid around $200 – $225 a foot and the seller made a clear profit of at least $100 a foot. Forty years from now that entire house will be landfill. They don’t build them like they used to. None of this junk will still be standing 100 years from now, which is probably just as well, because by then land use patterns will have changed so much today’s condos and McMansions will just be in the way, anyhow.
RE: 45, I think you missed my point. It was probably my fault. I was explaining the cost of condo’s compared to single family homes regarding insurance. If you dumbass Seattle liberals believe you are getting value for you dollar in buying a closet sized apartment in an old industrial area for $ 1 Million more power to ya! The large corporation developers are making a fortune off you idiots! I know I used to work for one.
I was trying to be a populist for the little (small brained liberal) sorry, being a populist isn’t my strong suit. lol.
@23 I’m quite sure Mark the Welsher isn’t an attorney. Even my slimesucking profession doesn’t want people like him. If a guy won’t even pay a $100 debt, he can’t be trusted with the legal welfare of his clients, either.
@34 Well well, rob is a builder, and runs with the BIAW crowd. That explains a lot.
RR @ 36
Dueling, of course, was another popular means of settling disputes until litigation became the more accepted alternative. Most of our wingnut friends have forgotten that part of history that enshrines the jury trial as a fundamental right of a free people, a bedrock of democracy, a right set forth in the Magna Carta which was drafted in about 1215, or something like that. No, in their Limbaughian rush toward totalitarianism, they would gladly move disputes from the public courts to private arbitration. Arbitration, after all, serves capitalism, the type of capitalism that demands utter servitude, the bend over and fuck me servitude that the wingnuttery worships. And, who gives a damn if even most of those who laud and magnify arbitration couldn’t possibly pay for it? Whatever happened to true conservatives? Conservatives who actually recognize that old values like the jury system still matter?
@ 48
As a condo owner, I’m quite glad we were able to avail ourselves of the services of such law firms when we discovered major problems with our condos. It’s probably public record: Canyon Ridge in Bothell.
Re: 49, Rabbit you are good at making stuff up as you go along. Buildings in general are much stronger now than they used to be, all newer buildings are built under new earthquake codes and energy codes, stronger reinforced foundations, a whole series of earthquake related hold downs, straps and clips, thicker walls with more insulation, insulated windows, longer lasting roofs, the list goes on. Quit lying like a lawyer Rabbit.
RE: 52, not a member and never have been one, I did work for a company from 1986 to 1991 that I believe could have been a member (I do know they are now).
@34 “Regarding your insane premise that corporate attorney’s are engaging in lawsuits against investors …”
Well actually they do, rob, in a manner of speaking. Corporate attorneys try to preempt shareholder suits by making sure shareholders (a) have no say in corporate governance and (b) don’t have any rights. No rights, no lawsuits, it’s that simple. Consequently, corporate attorneys spend most of their time lobbying Congress and legislatures to prevent passage of laws protecting shareholders and — if they can get it — laws hindering or eliminating the ability of shareholders to sue. They’ve been so successful at this that we now have corporate managements who answer to no one and act as a law unto themselves.
Apart from insulating corporate managements from any accountability to shareholders and thwarting or defending shareholder suits, corporate attorneys (depending on what department they work in) do sue other firms. In fact, the litigation departments of large corporate law firms consist largely of highly compensated attorneys whose only function is to take money out of one corporation’s accounts and put it in a different corporation’s accounts. Maybe the next week the first corporation buys the second corporation and gets its money back. In fact, often it gets the loans to buy the target corporation by pledging the target corporation’s assets, so winning a lawsuit against another corporation can make a corporation a more attractive takeover target. All of this seems pointless to an outsider and small shareholder like me, but believe me, it goes on. It’s not so much a matter of corporate attorneys suing investors, although sometimes they do (as, for example, when an investor has pledged capital and then changes its mind), but really more a matter of corporate attorneys suing each other’s corporations and pushing the same money in an endless circle. It’s hard to tell who owns what anymore.
RE 54, so you support my position, what were your problems and who built it?
@ 58
Answer my questions @ 44, sport.
robbed @ 46
Brian Weinstein did not practice condominium law. Oh, and robbed, the insurance premiums you are talking about for builders are typically assessed against the builders who have histories of significant claims against them. Now, between you and me, it’s hard to say who I dislike more–shitty builders or insurance companies. Neither, despite proclamations to the contrary, give a rat’s ass about anything but their bottom line. So, pardon me if I don’t cry if shoddy builders who want immunity from suit get their liability premiums raised. Of course, both groups–builders and insurers–will give all their political donations to Republicans. Funny how builders complain about insurers and then support insurers’ politicians.
@44 Because their conscience won’t permit them to make obscene profits at the expense of their valued customers.
(snicker)
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
@46 Predatory lawyers keep predatory builders honest. Isn’t it funny how that works?
If I knew I was certain to get a visit from predatory lawyers, I’d be pretty motivated to build it right in the first place, so I could send them packing.
@50 Hey rob can you send us a list of Democrats able to afford $1 million condos? It’ll help our fundraising. Thanks.
Roger Rabbit Quiz
It’s time for another rabbit quiz, kiddies! As always, put on your thinking caps and take your time, because while this isn’t a trick question nevertheless a knee-jerk response is likely to make you look as foolish as you are. Are you ready for the question? Here we go:
Who are $1 million condos sold to?
[ ] 1. Working class Democrats.
[ ] 2. Republican entrepreneurs.
@53 Conservatives never really gave up their monarchical aims.
Re: 44 and 59. Have you ever studied a discipline called ECONOMICS? Builders don’t collude to raise prices, for one it is illegal and second builders don’t like each other that much. We are in an economic principle called COMPETITION! If we all have to raise our prices because of an industry wide insurance raise we will, just like we would if lumber increased.
You liberals really aren’t that dumb are you? Oh, I forgot I was talking to liberals. Never mind! jesus.
@55 Oh it’s true we have a better understanding now about things like earthquakes, but builders don’t do anything that laws don’t make them do. If you go to any of this state’s old mill towns, what you’ll find is a lot of 100-year-old structures still going strong while the stuff built from the 60s on is rotting away.
@60 Insurance companies, much as I dislike them too — do perform the socially useful function of driving bad builders with high claims out of business.
@67 Lumber did increase. A lot. So did cement, steel, the copper used in pipes and wiring, and every other construction commodity. Why? Because you “free market” dopes sent our jobs and money to China. Waytago wingfucks!
RE: 60, I am sorry but you know not what you speak. I do however and in building 2,500 units the only day in court I spent was as a witness in a dispute against two sheet metal contractors. I have however purchased several insurance policies for several projects and you have never purchase more than your car insurance. Put it to rest, you are out of your league
Quit trying to project knowledge you lack, you are just a dumbass liberal.
Decades ago, part of Washington became a third world economy that exports raw materials (logs) and imports finished goods (lumber) and labor (immigrant construction workers).
To illustrate the energy efficiency of free markets, trees are cut down in Washington, loaded on ships and sent to China or Japan, where they are sawn into lumber, then put on ships and sent back to American retail markets, and all this oil is burned in ship engines for the sake of keeping Americans from having good paying sawmill jobs.
Have you ever studied a discipline called ECONOMICS?
According to the University of Wisconsin, yes.
First, I made no comment about collusion. I don’t know where you got the idea, but it wasn’t in any of my questions.
Second, part of the competition builders face is from the sales of existing homes, which are not at all affected by your insurance premiums. Apparently this fact doesn’t figure into your notion of competition.
Lastly, if the premium you pay is not based on the number of homes you build, then you cannot increase your profits by raising your prices regardless of what premiums other builders have to pay. Show me that you understand ECONOMICS! by explaining why that’s true.
RE: 70, In Roger Rabbits world building materials have increased. Well Rabbit, they have been decreasing steadily. In case you haven’t noticed there is a decreased market. It’s on the news, do you listen?
And then they wonder why nobody can pay them $600 a foot for the condos they build with cheap imported lumber and cheap immigrant labor.
Under the old system, when expensive American labor made expensive lumber that builders turned into expensive houses and condos, everyone had a higher standard of living and more income.
The thing that amazes me is who do business people think they’re going to sell to, if they kept pushing down wages and exporting jobs? When America’s working class runs out of money, where will they find markets? Now that America’s financially beseiged middle class has abruptly run out of cheap credit, we’re about to find out.
I’m selling my stocks now, because I’m expecting a deep and prolonged recession.
This will be remembered by history as the time when America’s middle class was caught in a perfect storm of falling incomes, a credit squeeze, high inflation, runaway health care costs, pension defaults, collapsing asset values, soaring retail interest rates, and a cash crunch.
It won’t be pretty.
robby @ 71: ” I am sorry but you know not what you speak.”
What, precisely, are you claiming I don’t know about? You, as usual, failed to specify. I’m pretty confident I pay more in insurance premiums than you do. I’m also pretty sure I understand the insurance industry a whole lot more than you do. That, however, is beside the point. My point involved the building industry bitching about insurance premiums while attending the same political fundraisers as insurance lobbyists. Who do you think might be getting taken for a ride, robby? Do you think that the insurance industry actually wants anything to happen politically that would require a reduction in premiums? What kind of capitalist are you?
George W. Bush swore he’d take our economy back to 1893 and by God he did!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893
RE: 57, In keeping with the “Media Matters” form a journalism Roger Rabbit didn’t include my whole quote. As I am here just to be a populist and help, I will include my quote in full.
Rob says, Regarding your insane premise that corporate attorney’s are engaging in lawsuits against investors I would have to ask you to give at least one example of corporate attorney’s initiating a lawsuit against investors?
As you can see, Roger Rabbit was unable to come up with one instance of corporate attorney’s suing shareholders.
RE: 78, I explained that at 71, I am talking to allot of people here and I don’t have time for do overs for the mentally impaired, sorry but I seem to be in demand.
RE: 74, So you studied economics in Wisconsin? Great another imported liberal, could you go back please? Anyway here was your ignorant question along with my response, If you have a problem with it it’s just the way us Washingtonians think.
Don Joe says:
Perhaps one of our brilliant BIAW sock puppets can answer this question for me. If increased insurance premiums would cause builders to raise their prices, why shouldn’t builders raise their prices now? Why wait for insurance premiums to increase before raising prices?
rob says:
Re: 44 and 59. Have you ever studied a discipline called ECONOMICS? Builders don’t collude to raise prices, for one it is illegal and second builders don’t like each other that much. We are in an economic principle called COMPETITION! If we all have to raise our prices because of an industry wide insurance raise we will, just like we would if lumber increased.
You liberals really aren’t that dumb are you? Oh, I forgot I was talking to liberals. Never mind! jesus.
One free do over for the transplanted liberal from Wisconsin.
robby @ 81
You are the only wingnut on this thread, I’ll hand you that. So, I am sure you’re at your wit’s end trying to just spew, spew anything, to promote the wingnut point of view. It must be exhausting; hell, even Puddy’s not coming to your aid. The reality is, robby, that you have not addressed anything directly that has been posed to you. I’m sure that your inadequacies, however, will not cause you to lose any sleep.
@ 82
Um, sport, that answer wasn’t coherent the first time you posted it. I have no idea why you think it’s coherent now. Is that really how Washingtonians think? Naw. That’s how wingnuts think, which is to say that they don’t think at all.
But, never mind all that. You could just go back to trying to convince us that an upward shift in the supply curve represents an increase in supply.
@80 I’m not your fucking free research assistant. If you want cases, either find them yourself or pay me my customary hourly rate.
@83 Hmmm, I noticed that … where did “Roger’s Conscience” go? Slithering back into the BIAW sewer he crawled out of?
Roger Rabbits Clash of Arms. Been reading Marx again?
RE: 85, Don’t try to answer a question if you can’t or don’t want to answer it then.
RE: 84, is that a new question? It seems you were embarrassed in your first one.
Ok you get one more answer. An increase in the supply curve always means an increase in supply, It doesn’t however mean an increase in inventory which is what I suspect a transplant from Wisconsin would be getting it confused with. What do you supply in Wisconsin other than cheese,lately mediocre football and dumbass liberals imported to Washington?
Is there anyone out there who can speak fluent robese? Candidates for the position of translating rob must not only be able to decipher whatever language it is that he writes in, but also be able to fill in the gaps between his incomprehensible attempts to make a rational argument. Please post all applications here.
@ 89
is that a new question?
It was an observation about your ignorance. You still haven’t adequately answered the first set of questions I asked, and calling me a dumbass librul won’t change that fact. ‘Course, you could go back and try to come up with a satisfactory answer, but you’re clearly out of your league.
If you follow the competition argument all the way through, the effect of this legislation would be to weed out firms who operate closer to the margins, i.e. firms that are building shoddy homes. Were you a builder of high quality homes, you would favor this legislation, because the weeding out of lower quality firms would mean an increase in the prevailing market prices. Since, as a builder of high quality homes, your insurance premiums would not increase, this increase in the prevailing market price would translate into increased profits for your firm.
Thus, we conclude that you are either too stupid to know what’s good for your own business, or you are, in fact, not telling the truth about the quality of your homes. Frankly, I’m betting that you’re just too stupid to figure this stuff out.
An increase in the supply curve always means an increase in supply…
Wrong on two counts. First, we’re talking about an upward shift in the supply curve. That’s neither an “increase” nor a “decrease”. It’s merely a change in the relationship between price and quantity supplied for a given firm or industry.
Second, an upward shift in the supply curve represents a decrease in supply. Remember that price is along the vertical axis. Therefore, an upward shift in the supply curve means that, for any given price, firms are willing to produce less output. To say the same thing in different words, an upward shift in the supply curve means that, for any given quantity of output, firms would demand a higher price.
Now, what was that about dumbass liberals?
By the way, all of the discussion @ 91 assumes that insurance premiums are computed based on the number of homes a builder builds. If that’s not the case, then the whole insurance premium argument is a load of bullshit.
Any fixed cost (i.e. a cost that’s not based on quantity output) is not a component in the supply curve.
So, “I-don’t-do-the-work-but-I’m-a-Producer-anyway” rob [sic], is your defect insurance premium computed based on the number of homes you build? Or, is it based on the number of successful defect claims that have been filed against you?
RE: 90, apparently not, at least I haven’t seen one rational argument, I have seen the occasional attack the messenger rants from feeble minded libtards like yourself.
When you read your own posts tell me how proud of yourself you are.
Well libtards, seems like I won again, with one half of my brain tied behind my back!(borrowed from King Rush)
I have to go now, I have some work to do tomorrow and you all have to collect your entitlements.
Thanks for playing though,
Rob
RE: 92, good question let me answer it for you.
Now on the market are two types of insurance for residential builders ( there are more than that with different coverage’s but to make it simple, two kinds with completed project insurance)
Single family builders insurance is based on volume, the rates I quoted were for a single family builder building 10 homes per year, $2 Million in volume. As the volume goes up so does the premium.
Condos, (Weinstein’s Bill) are a different animal.
For $1 Million in coverage you get what is called wrap insurance, it covers the general contractor and all subcontractors and the cost of their legal fees, the total coverage is $2 million with $1 million per occurrence. The last I checked the premium was $450,000 for a project with 0 to $20 Million in value. The last I checked was 2 years ago so I am sure the premium has gone up.
I have some work to do tomorrow and you all have to collect your entitlements.
You know, I think this clown actually believes that this is true.
Thanks for playing though
You’re quite welcome. Any time you want to put your ignorance on display again, we’ll be here to point it out for you.
@ 94
Next questions:
1) Aren’t insurance premiums already going through the roof (no pun intended)?
2) Where is the evidence from states that have similar laws showing that insurance premiums actually increased because of the laws?
RE: 96, Don Joe liberal transplant from Wisconsin, I have no idea what other states do, I was born and raised Washington. I believe I just told you what the Washington Condominium Act (which Brian Weinstein and his surrogate goldy wants to do to single family homes)did to insurance rates here where it affects me and even dumbass liberal transplants.
Ive been in construction for my entire life and many, many
of the small homebuilders have gone out of business because
of insurance related issues. Too many people looking to
score the bullshit claim and too many lawyers looking to help. Lawyers and their greed have ruined many an industry.
We ought to kill all of them, just go through the phonebook.
Jeez, I sound like that retarded rabbit.
Don Jo, I resigned from a national builder 4 years ago, now I build about 20 homes per year. When I first started on my own my premiums were $50,000 they are now $20,000 with the same volume. Positive experience counts, it’s called the FREE MARKET, not rules imposed by skanky trial lawyers.
I know you liberals believe the government should take care of everything for you including wiping your ass. Conservatives have a different point of view.
@ 97
I have no idea what other states do
You don’t know how to use Google?
@ 99
Positive experience counts, it’s called the FREE MARKET, not rules imposed by skanky trial lawyers.
Actually, anecdotal evidence is of rather limited value, though, clearly, it’s quite sufficient to convince you. That’s not exactly something one should trumpet as anything positive.
As for “FREE MARKET”, just how “FREE” do you want those markets to be? Should the government get out of the business of, say, enforcing contracts? If not, then you’re not exactly an advocate of “FREE” markets.
Roger 41
LOL it’s me zip! You sucker, I never even heard of BIAW until Goldy started ranting over them on HA after the Democrats stole the election.
Rob seems to have held his own here and I find it amusing to see “economics experts”, lawyers, cranky clairvoyants, etc. together with assorted fools trying to refute the basic premises of risk management applicable to any industry.
Also amusing how all you lefties conveniently ignore my main premise: even good builders, architects, engineers, subs, suppliers, etc. will be defending claims and suits if this Weinstein bill passes. Ever seen a suit that was not a “shotgun” hoping to pick a deep pocket? When some of them “move on” because they don’t like the hassle, don’t like the increase costs etc. or don’t like the risks, what have you accomplished? Nothing.
The builders that ignore those types of increased risks are either mega-corps with mega capital behind them or “bottom feeders”. They ignore the risks because they have no intention of paying claims. Where does that leave the middle class professionals and builders that do good work and are just trying to make a living? On fucked street.
You lefties are so knee jerk it’s amazing: anything a trial lawyer like Weinstein tries to sell you is A-OK as long as you’re not at risk of getting caught in the cross fire. You guys need to get out into the real world of business some day and ask somebody what “risk management” means before you spout off about topics like this and display your ignorance.
Also amusing how all you lefties conveniently ignore my main premise: even good builders, architects, engineers, subs, suppliers, etc. will be defending claims and suits if this Weinstein bill passes.
Why should we waste our time addressing a premise which is pure fantasy and entirely lacks any form of supporting evidence?
Don Joe,
Thanks for being such a pompous asshole! I guess you’ve no experience in these matters.
I don’t see any supporting evidence in the 100 comments preceding mine supporting Weinsteins bill.
Enable Weinstein and the Democrats running this state to fuck over the middle class involved in home construction. Go ahead, knock yourself out.
Don Joe 92
“is your defect insurance premium computed based on the number of homes you build? Or, is it based on the number of successful defect claims that have been filed against you? ”
Since you are ignorant let me spell it out for you: If defect claims are successful, insurance renewals (must occur annually) will be either unavailable or very expensive.
If you had any sense of this issue, you would have asked what the deductible is on this insurance. Oh by the way, the deductible comes out of the owner’s pocket, it is not paid by “big insurance companies”. Of course you probably already learned that in school. (hint: higher deductible=lower rate)
Maybe you should claim that this bill will have no affect on insurance premiums or availability like commenters were claiming a few days ago? That would be a good way to futher muddy the waters and proclaim you ignorance.
after the Democrats stole the election.
2 million plus of Republican (some of it BIAW) money could not prove this before a handpicked Republican judge.
Your real estate shill of a candidate lost. Get over it.
The whiner will lose again in November. Get over that as well.
Weighing in late on Rob @ 21: I haven’t checked condominium prices for quite some time. But I would expect that any average per-foot disparity would be because (a) the per-foot calculation is apples and oranges, since the condominium footage being considered doesn’t include the common areas, and (b) condominiums are being built in developed urban areas, wheras single-family homes are being built in outer suburban areas wher he cost of land is cheaper.
@ 103
Thanks for being such a pompous asshole!
In other words, you have no evidence to support your premise. We’re just supposed to assume that people will be filing frivolous lawsuits in cases where there are no defects.
I don’t see any supporting evidence in the 100 comments preceding mine supporting Weinsteins bill.
Find a factual statement in the previous 100 comments that’s in any way controversial.
@ 104
Since you are ignorant let me spell it out for you: If defect claims are successful, insurance renewals (must occur annually) will be either unavailable or very expensive.
I ask a Socratic question, and this twit thinks I’m ignorant. Of course, in the process, he misses the point entirely (proving, once again, that questions hurt the wingnut mind).
If the building industry in Washington didn’t have significant defect rates, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Now, the BIAW could actually take reasonable steps to rectify this situation, but that’s not what the BIAW is doing. Rather, the BIAW is whining about that horrible boogey man of increased insurance premiums, which will raise the prices of new housing (ignoring, completely, the role that demand plays in setting the prices of new homes), and pissing and moaning about those pesky trial lawyers.
So, let me spell it out for you, sport: lower the industry defect rate, and this bill will be a complete non-issue.
By the way, my family has been in the construction business since my Grandad (“PawPaw”) was an itenerant carpenter during the Depression. My father and his brothers would get off from school and go “swing hammers” until it got too dark to work any more. My father became an engineer on the G.I. Bill, one of my uncles built a concrete business, another went into building supply, and another became a commercial building contractor. I have cousins in everything from landscape contracting to home building.
As for myself, I learned to “swing a hammer” from my father by age six, I worked building houses while on breaks while I was in college, and I’ve rehabed and resold a few houses on the side. I’ve a considerable number of friends in the construction business or trades, and they sometimes come to me for business advice.
So yes, I do know a little about the construction business.
Proud Leftist: I buy homes live in them and then sell them. I am not a speculator, builder, contractor, or sub contractor in the housing industry.
If Rob has built over 2500 homes, which, BTW he has said countless number of times on HorsesASSholes (google it fools), he has the builders point of view. If he claims NOT to be a BIAW member, I am sure if Richard Pope gives his email address to Rob and Rob gives his full name to Richard and Richard isn’t on his Hannah witch hunt for Hannah’s information (no Hannah not calling you a witch) on Rob for who he is, the BIAW question will be moot and the leftist fools will be holding their wangs again.
Now Rob if you are a BIAW member then you’s da fool. Anyway, I’d like to here from a leftist builder what he thinks and not just read the horseshit from all you leftist “solicitors”, “economists”, “people advocates” and a retired oxygen starved person acting like a crazed animal.
As stated above, I am not in the building industry unless, of course, you include building high speed networks. Now if you include that in the argument then, of course, I can speak to this. Maybe I should enter the building industry and install superior networking for the building industry. Install 100GE cabling. Never worry about your network needs again. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Thanks Proud Leftist. I’ll send you some moolah later.
I do know my dr. cousin who is at NIH is paying higher premiums over the years for their malpractice coverage because the insurance industry increased the rates over all drs. not just the bad ones. Why is that? So if Rob says his premiums increased for the whole industry, I’d like to hear from a leftist builder if that’s true. If it is, then you libtards will be holding your wangs again.
I think it’s amazing Don Joe went to Wisconsin and so did Perfesser Darryl.
Rog–
Seems like your career as a DSHS State Employee Bureaucrat has manifest itself into an unhealthy hate of folks who risk capital every single day and don’t have a State guaranteed salary, benefits & pension just for showing up.
Most tax revenue is a result of people RISKING CAPITAL Rog.
Why do you think trial attorney’s like Sandy Levy are so for this Bill?? Could it be more Legal Revenue when she sues Insurance Company’s?? I’m not sure…but I do know Trial Attorney’s have quite a Lobby..lead by Weinstein.
hear not here – erratum
Anyway, I’d like to [hear] from a leftist builder what he thinks and not just read the horseshit from all you leftist “solicitors”, “economists”, “people advocates” and a retired oxygen starved person acting like a crazed animal.
For the record, I’m not an Economist. Anyone who walks out of college with a degree in Economics and has any delusions about the market value of that degree needs to give back their diploma. Not that having a degree in Economics has been useless in my chosen profession. Indeed, it’s been one of the reasons I’ve excelled where others haven’t.
But, I digress. If I understand you correctly, you would rather accept the ramblings of someone whose statements about Economics are clearly false than accept the conclusions that follow from generally accepted facts and sound reasoning. No wonder you think it amusing that both Darryl and I attended the University of Wisconsin.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that insurance premiums will, indeed, rise across the board if the homeowner’s bill of rights becomes law. Let’s further assume that at least some of this increase in premiums (the actual percentage is debatable, but it won’t be 100%) will get passed on to homebuyers in the form of higher prices (something which is true if and only if insurance premiums are computed based on the number of homes built). If both of these statements are true, then an inescapable conclusion is that current prices of new homes do not accurately reflect the quality of the construction. Indeed, this is tautologically true.
Now, if you are truly a free market advocate, then you are compelled to conclude that the homeowner’s bill of rights will improve the efficiency of the new home market.
I will predict that none of our resident wingnuts will take on that argument on its merits. Rather, they’ll dismiss my argument based on who they think I am. However, the rest of us will then know who has the better argument.
Anyway, I’d like to [hear] from a leftist builder
Why should any person waste their beautiful mind on a purveyor of right wing bullshit like you?
A right winger who by the way supports a candidate for President who is MORE LIBERAL than
Ted Kennedy
and
(gasp!)
HILLARY CLINTON.
It’s a fact.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Nearly every building constructed does not comply 100% with the building code. Does that mean they’re defective? No. Deviations from the building code are routinely allowed by the building inspector as long as the deviation is justifiable and doesn’t impact the integrity and safety of the building. Buildings aren’t constructed on an assembly line like cars. Each site has unique conditions that may require a deviation from some element of the building code. If the threshold for suing a builder is deviation from the building code, there will be a lot of lawsuits for inconsequential things such as a nailing pattern in the wall, or height of the risers on stairs.
Poorly worded legislation written by people who don’t understand the subject matter will create opportunities for frivolous lawsuits. The result will be costlier insurance and more expensive homes. Weinstein’s legislation seems solely aimed at creating opportunities to sue, rather than preventing the problems in the first place. Could this be because he’s a trial attorney by profession? You decide.
If the threshold for suing a builder is deviation from the building code, there will be a lot of lawsuits for inconsequential things such as a nailing pattern in the wall, or height of the risers on stairs.
The law doesn’t categorically declare any deviation from the building code to be a defect. It merely provides standing to sue for a defect that was caused by a deviation from the building code. Providing the grounds for a lawsuit doesn’t automatically provide proof of damages. Your argument is the logical equivalent of saying that we should eradicate all concepts of contract law merely because the existence of that body of common law makes it possible for people to file frivolous lawsuits for breach of contract.
Your argument also, rather conveniently, ignores the fact that there are existing sanctions and costs associated with filing frivolous lawsuits. Increasing insurance costs and allegedly frivolous lawsuits: common boogey men invoked by nearly all wingnuts.
Weinstein’s legislation seems solely aimed at creating opportunities to sue, rather than preventing the problems in the first place.
It is, however, a solution to the problem that employs free market forces. It’s amusing that people who invoke the concept of free marks would decry this solution.
But, hey, I’m glad you acknowledge the existence of a problem. Perhaps you have another solution in mind? If so, I’m all ears.
Bottom-line–
Bill written by Trial Attorneys and supported by Trial Attorneys.
Bottom Line
You don’t have a solution to an acknowledged problem. But, thank you for playing.
Does Goldy know what this “Roger Rabbit” is doing to his site?
Ok so how many voted for R67 (right to sue medical insurance companies?) Remember the fight against it, we were told OMG insurance rates will skyrocket…have they?
Hannah – I don’t know about you but RR is seriously making me leave this blog forever. If Goldy doesn’t ban him, I’m gone.
FreedomLover….why?
@ 121
You spelled “bye” wrong.
Don Joe:
You can gloat in the GOP’s current misery, but I remember when things were really bad for the Dems in 1994. Things always turn around.
@ 123
I don’t recall gloating on the GOP’s misery. I’m just not at all impressed with your threat to not participate in the discussions here. Had you actually contributed something intelligent to the conversation, my opinion might be a little different. At this point, however, you really won’t be missed.
If Goldy doesn’t ban him, I’m gone.
It’ll never happen. Roger Rabbit and Goldy are friendly acquaintances if not actual friends. Roger has attended DL’s and is held in high regard.
The rabbit’s background as a vietnam war vet, lawyer, Judge and public servant speaks volumes.
Light years beyond any troll who has ever darkened these comment threads.
Word of unsolicited advice: don’t let the door redden your fat ass on the way out.
YLB:
Thank god RR doesn’t represent all Vietnam vets, otherwise I’d think they were all pathetic assholes. Fortunately he represents only his own.