Your New House Mail Bag: January to April 1999

"Your New House" Mail Bag!

January to April 1999

Down here at the home office in Boulder, Colorado, our e-mail box is overflowing with great suggestions from our readers. Here's a selection of the most recent comments, ideas, bargain tips and advice. Of course, if you'd like to add in your two cents, feel free to e-mail us.

If you're new to this page, you can check out previous mail in our archive files linked below.

WARNING: Links to other web sites on this page are informational only. They do not constitute an endorsement by us or our book, YOUR NEW HOUSE. Be sure to check out any sources carefully before ordering.

Should we own the lot?

Dear Alan & Denise, I just read your book and continue to re-read it. It is incredible. The wealth of info in there is very relevant to what my wife and I are planning. You mentioned that if we had any questions we should ask you. So here goes.

My wife and I have just finished designing our house with a designer. He will not be overseeing the building of the house. Our intention now is to bid out the plans to 3-4 builders from an original list of 7-8 initially. We have fairly complete blueprints and a spec list that is pretty thorough so that we will get an apples to apples bid.

My question lies in the lot situation. We currently do not own a lot. We know what lot we want in a particular subdivision. In fact there are about 4 lots in there that our acceptable. So we are not too worried about them being snatched up.Our conundrum lies in the fact that we have heard that builders can get a builders discount on lot purchases. So we are thinking of putting the cost of the lot into our bids in the hopes that the builder can save us some money on the land. If this happens and the builder can get it cheaper than we ordinarily could buying it on our own, we still want to "control the gold" and have the lot in our name.

The question is, can builders really get this discount? And, if they do would they still want to let us put the lot in our name?

Also, if we put out to bid and we don't own a lot, will they take us seriously?

Note: We have the money now to buy the lot outright.

Any guidance on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

Steve & Lori in Spfld, ILL

(Currently in Apartment-This would be our first house)

our reply

Steve & Lori

Thanks for reading our book, YOUR NEW HOUSE. We appreciated your kind words.

Well, that's a good question. I guess I would determine how much of a discount builders might get on lots---I doubt it is much. And while it is possible a builder might buy the lot for you, I don't think they would then sell you it at cost OR pass along their discount (they would face acquisition costs, time, etc). So, all in all, it might be better for you just to buy the lot outright and then approach builders to build on it.

And yes, I'm sure any builder would more seriously consider your project knowing you owned a lot.

Does that help?

alan & denise

authors, YOUR NEW HOUSE

Problem builder

Alan & Denise-

Your New House is a wonderful book. I wish I had found it before we

chose our builder. It should be required reading for anyone that even

considers building a house. We are currently doing so and have ran into

continuous problems. Even though, I would say our builder and house

passed many of the tests you suggest.

We are currently building a home with a semi-custom builder. So far the

project has been nothing but problems. We had a great buyers broker who

found a wonderful waterfront lot for us. We closed on the contract in

late october 1998. We met with our construction supervisor and he said

we would be off and running in 4-6 weeks. It took our builder 115 days

to permit for this house (21 days stated as normal time in contract).

He stated that environmental regulations required a wetlands survey that

was not on our survey and that the permit had to be resubmitted and the

lot resurveyed with the wetlands line on it. Our construction

supervisor was moved to sales in the company and by the time we got the

building permit after nearly 4 months; we were assigned a new

construction supervisor. He was on the project long enough to get the

house sited and bring in fill dirt for the foundation and have our well

dug. After a period of about 1.5 months he left the company. Now we

have another construction supervisor who has started the house.

Unfortunately, the first thing that was done was prepping the foundation

for a monolithic slab (most common in Florida). Everything passed

inspection on this foundation (rough plumbing, compaction) even my

private inspector said everything looked good (even copper plumbing

which is apparently rare in Fla). However, a county inspector cited the

builder for a violation stating that "...the land alteration permit

clearly stated that fill dirt was not allowed on our lot outside of the

foundation and septic area. Mono slab was to be removed and all fill

dirt removed. Subsequently, the foundation had to be redug for a

completely different foundation known as a stem wall which the builder

states that they submit automatically with our construction documents as

an option. Our private inspector questioned this at first but seem

satisfied with the explanation. So, our builder is currently prepping

the site for the new foundation and preparing to pour our footer with

rebar. Now I notice on the construction foundation plan it calls for

2500 psi concrete for the slab. Is this enough?

Thankfully, we have a fixed cost contract so it is not costing us for

this mess up. However, we are 6 months into the project and we don't

even have a foundation yet and it is costing us interest on the payoff

of the lot. We do hold the gold and our required to sign off on all

draws (which none have been taken by the builder).

I met with the president of the company to express our concerns and

asked to be compensated for the interest that I had paid for the past 6

months and he refused saying "he paid the costs of the environmental

surveys which under the contract we were responsible for and that since

he got the building permit he was only 2 weeks behind schedule". "In

addition, the model house we chose was selling for $15,000 higher base

price than what we paid. He said if he defaulted on the contract which

states "builder has 180 days from obtaining permit to complete

construction" he would pay any of our costs at that time.

In your opinion what should we do?

Thanks again for writing a truly invaluable book.

Cheers

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------

Return-Path: <campbell@sacd.arch.usf.edu>

Received: from rly-zb02.mx.aol.com (rly-zb02.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.2]) by air-zb04.mail.aol.com (v59.4) with SMTP; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:52:27 -0400

Hot 'net sites for real estate info

PRESS RELEASE

INTERNET SURPRISES REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY WITH NEW MODELS

FOR 100-YEAR-OLD PRACTICE OF BUYING, SELLING HOMES

San Francisco - April 20, 1999 - Conventional wisdom said that players who will change the 100-year-old practices of buying and selling homes were already in place with giants like Microsoft, Realtor.com and Fannie Mae firmly entrenched on the Web. But several recent announcements by hot, young Internet ventures are fostering new business models and 1999 may mark the year the revolutionaries begin to rule real estate.

Some major moves that highlight the imminent shakeup of the "old way" of buying and selling real estate:

-Homebid.com has shattered existing real estate business models by becoming the first to use the Internet to auction conventional real estate, using the Web as a more efficient method to buy and sell properties.

-LendingTree, a major online mortgage lender, inked a deal with Priceline.com that allows consumers to name their own mortgage rate. Homebuyers will be able to name their own interest rate and terms at Priceline.com and will get a free hotel night certificate if their bids are accepted.

-E-Loan, the dominant online mortgage lender that is already generating billions in annual mortgage orginations, has announced its Initial Public Offering (IPO), a first for the online mortgage category. Their business model saves consumers as much as 80 percent on loan fees.

-Realestate.com's Mortgage Auction allows lenders to bid head-to-head for individual consumer's home loans - at no cost or obligation to the consumer.

- ImproveNet employs sophisticated online matching of contractors and architects bidding on consumer remodeling and design jobs based on consumer profiling.

-Both SpringStreet (formerly AllApartments) and Bamboo.com (formerly Jutvision) have begun to completely redefine their own categories. Spring Street, an online rental service, will open offline stores in San Francisco and Seattle, featuring roommate and apartment locator services. Industry observers are watching Bamboo.com as it repositions itself from being a virtual reality firm to a "Web content provider."

Each of these firms is participating in Real Estate Connect 99 http://www.inman.com/summit, a Summit where high technology and real estate leaders will meet in San Francisco this summer. Fittingly, one of the lead keynote speakers is former Apple Computer marketing guru Guy Kawasaki, the author of the best-selling non-fiction book, "Rules for Revolutionaries."

"Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water a new set of sharks emerge," said Connect 99 creator and organizer Bradley Inman, adding, "Being complacent is a curse if you're involved in anything related to the Internet. Fortune 500 companies come to Connect because they know this is where tomorrow's leaders meet and there's growing evidence that many of these revolutionaries will become the new rulemakers."

Real Estate Connect 99: The Commerce and Technology Summit is expected to draw more than 1,500 industry leaders on July 14-16, 1999 at the San Francisco Hilton & Towers. The fourth Summit is the only national conference that focuses solely on the convergence of real estate - both residential and commercial - and technology.

Organizations co-sponsoring the Summit with Inman News Features include Yahoo! Real Estate, Microsoft HomeAdvisor, Prudential Real Estate, GE Capital Mortgage Corp, Fannie Mae, Stewart Title, E-Loan, Intuit, Gannett's Celebro, LoopNet, GTE Enterprise Solutions, Moore Data Corp., Interactive Pictures, Countrywide Home Loans, Chicago Title Market Intelligence, Bamboo.com, Mortgage.com, Ocwen/RealTrans, ImproveNet, Lending Tree, Homes.com and the California Association of Realtors. A reception before the Innovator Awards program is being sponsored by homebid.com.

Early bird registration is $595 before June 15, 1999, and instant registration is available online at http://www.inman.com/summit or by calling Inman News at (800) 775-4662 ext. 123.

# # #

Media contact:

Kevin Hawkins

206/855-9477 or

888/398-6397

kevin@tnlg.com

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------

Return-Path: <kevin@tnlg.com>

Received: from rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) by air-za01.mail.aol.com (v59.4) with SMTP; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 02:04:35 2000

Inspector blows whistle on Calif. fraud

Hi,

I need your help. Please be an Ambassador for Consumer Protection.

Support the "Inspection Public Awareness" campaign. Thank you, Joanne

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

FROM: Joanne Perkins <joanne@inspected.com>

TO: Senator Richard Shelby <Senator@shelby.senate.gov>

DATE: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 08:19:22 -0700

RE: Realtor Deception Costs Consumers!

Date: 04/16/99

Dear Senator Shelby,

Consumers are being deceived in Real Estate. Specifically, Realtors

are interfering with Home Inspections, the condition disclosure

process. Realtors disclaim condition liability and consumers are left

paying the unexpected repair bills. The consequences ultimately impact

entire communities with declining Home Sale Prices and increased

foreclosures. http://www.inman.com/InmanStories.asp?ID=12732&CatType=R

State & local Real Estate leaders are ignoring the facts and attempting

to manipulate our local newspapers with advertising boycotts if they

publish articles discrediting Realtors.

An "Inspection Public Awareness" campaign in Riverside/San Bernardino

counties, CA has been implemented. This area had the worst Home Sale

Prices decline in the nation during the 90's. (A 23% decline verses a

17% increase nationally. See Inman News Article on web) Historically,

the area has the lowest usage of Home Inspectors in the state.

Indications of the cause and effect.

Our Web site has Realtor letters showing evidence of corruption and

articles posted defining the problems and offers solution. It has been

featured by Inman News for consumer assistance.

http://www.inman.com/InmanStories.asp?ID=13320&CatType=R

Real Estate has been complicated unnecessarily by Realtors. The

powerful National Association of Realtors (NAR) is deceiving consumers

with misleading TV ads and uneducated Realtor membership. Third-party

Professional Inspectors offer consumers information to make an informed

purchase decision. Realtors manipulating that process is despicable.

Another example of deception is the proposed legislation regarding

RESPA Reform and variations like "One Stop Shopping". NAR must be

forced to make adjustments for consumers to have half of a chance of

protection in Real Estate. Please use www.inspected.com to research

details.

Any suggestions to force consumer protection are welcome.

Sincerely,

Joanne Perkins

Surety Property Inspections

(909) 789-1001

FAX: 909-780-6698

E-mail: joanne@inspected.com

Website: www.inspected.com

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------

Return-Path: <joanne@inspected.com>

Received: from rly-yd01.mx.aol.com (rly-yd01.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.1]) by air-yd03.mx.aol.com (v59.4) with SMTP; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:38:37 -0400

NAEBA fights dual agency

Groups: No dual agency

Propose 'consumer-friendly' regulatory changes

Thursday, April 08, 1999

Inman News Features

Five years of changes in real estate law have been mostly harmful to

consumers as well as the future of the real estate industry, according to two

groups that are against dual agency.

The American Homeowners Foundation and the National Association of Exclusive

Buyer Agents are both opposing recent laws that the groups say weaken the

common law of agency and consumer disclosure laws.

"The common law of agency is undermined by legislation which permits dual

agency, because it creates circumstances where consumers expecting full

fiduciary service receive less than they hoped for," said Bruce N. Hahn, AHF

president.

Leo Berard, charter president of NAEBA, said, "We strongly oppose the

legislative strategy being pushed by the traditional real estate industry to

abrogate the common law of agency.

"Such efforts only serve to weaken consumer disclosures and the level of

services provided to home sellers and buyers. Unfortunately, we in the

industry are often too focused on serving ourselves rather than on the needs

of the public."

NAEBA contends all new real estate service labels -- like transaction broker,

facilitator and designated agent -- are merely cover-ups for practicing dual

agency minus full disclosure and informed consent. In its own review, the

group has determined the National Association of Realtors' legislative thrust

is a "very poor marketing strategy for our industry."

Both groups called on ARELLO to take a greater leadership role and made

recommendations on improving conditions for real estate services and products.

Real estate organizations, including NAR, should also get involved, according

to AHF.

"If these groups … were to join together to repeal poorly conceived state

dual agency laws, consumers would benefit and the image of real estate

professionals who represent either the buyers or the sellers would benefit,"

AHF said.

NAEBA also called for a consumer bill of rights and uniform disclosures for

real estate Web sites.

***

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------

Return-Path: <AMERHOME@aol.com>

Received: from rly-zb01.mx.aol.com (rly-zb01.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.1]) by air-zb01.mail.aol.com (v59.4) with SMTP; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 21:53:12 2000

Should we trust a bank inspector?

My wife and I have found a great community near Sarasota Fla, bought a great

lot, found a reliable and highly recommended builder and are ready to start

construction in a few months.

We have never built a house before but have heard absolute horror stories

about the process. In searching the shelves at Borders I found and

purchased your book. We have both read it (twice) and cant thank you enough

for helping insure our 31 year marriage will last another few decades even

though we are going to go ahead and build our retirement home.

In following your suggestions we have retained a lawyer to review all

contracts but are having difficulty in finding a home inspector. We have

not yet moved to Florida and planned on waiting until our new home was

completed. The problems we could use some advice on regarding the home

inspector are:

1. We are getting advice from a few people suggesting that we should rely

on the banks inspectors . The bank we planned to finance with does a

significant amount of construction loans. My question is: will the lending

institution look out for our interests and do banks retain competent

inspectors.

2. We have called a number of inspectors listed in the phone book in the

Sarasota area. I have yet to find one that has done anything other than

inspect resale homes although they are all willing to take on our project.

We asked our builder if he could recommend anyone who he has worked with

before and he declined to make a recommendation but let us know he would be

glad to work with anyone we selected. We asked the bank the same question

and they couldn't give us a recomendation. Can you give us any advice on

finding a qualified home inspector? We do have a very high degree of

confidence in the builder we selected . The home is a standard design he

has which we modified somewhat. We want to protect our interests but as

you suggested in your book also want to find the right inspector who will

not be unnecessarily confrontational with our builder.

Any suggestions you have would be appreciated, and again thanks for a great

book.

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------

Return-Path: <stlbarney@Email.msn.com>

Received: from rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) by air-za01.mail.aol.com (v59.4) with SMTP; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 07:21:00 -0400

Our reply

Hi,

Thanks for reading our book, YOUR NEW HOUSE. We appreciated your kind words about our book.

Well, to answer your questions:

I'm glad to hear you're hiring an attorney to review all contracts--that is a good first step.
Sure, it is possible that a bank might hire a competent inspector. But remember he (she) is looking out for the BANK's money, not yours. While that might seem like a minor difference, it is important---most bank inspectors are checking to see what percentage of work is done, in order to make sure the contractor is advanced the right amount of money. Generally, they do NOT check for quality, finish or adherence to your special requests (or the specs in general).
Of course, it all depends on WHO is doing the inspecting. You CAN ask that person if they will do MORE work for you on an hourly basis, assuming they are a free-lancer.
Meanwhile, I would call one of the inspector associations mentioned in our book (ASHI is one). Get a list of their members in that area. That should be a good place to start (and perhaps a better bet than the phone book).

YES, it can take some effort to find the right person who has experience with new home inspection. But it will be worth the effort, trust us.

It is a good sign your builder is agreeable to all this.

Hope that helps,

alan & denise

authors, YOUR NEW HOUSE

NAEBA warns about law changes

News Release

CONTACT:

Kathleen Chiras

(303) 670-4304

(800) 986-2322

NAEBAHQ@naeba.org

Real Estate Law Officials Told Recent Real Estate Law Changes Harm

Consumers

VICTORIA, BC (Embargoed for release on April 8, 1999) --The National

Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents (NAEBA) said today that changes

in real estate laws made during the past five years have been largely

harmful to consumers and the future of the real estate industry.

Speaking during the mid-year meeting of the Association of Real

Estate Law Officials (ARELLO) Leo Berard, charter president of NAEBA,

said his group strongly opposes further legislative efforts to

invalidate or water down the common law of agency and weaken consumer

disclosure laws.

NAEBA consists of real estate agents across North America who

represent only the buyers in real estate transactions and serve,

therefore, as true fiduciaries. NAEBA is for choices in the marketplace

and full, up-front disclosure of consumer rights and options. This

strong commitment to buyers keeps NAEBA members focused on consumer

protection issues, such as agency options.

"We strongly oppose the legislative strategy being pushed by the

traditional real estate industry to abrogate the common law of agency,"

Berard said. "Such efforts only serve to weaken consumer disclosures

and the level of services provided to home sellers and buyers.

Unfortunately, we in the industry are often too focused on serving

ourselves rather than on the needs of the public," he added.

In Massachusetts, where Berard has practiced exclusive buyer agency

since 1989, consumers and real estate agents worked together in a joint

legislative committee on government regulation. As an example of what

happens in such an environment, Berard pointed out that the committee

voted not to move ahead with anti-consumer legislation favored by the

National Association of Realtors (NAR).

Berard hastened to add, however, that Massachusetts is an

exception. In most cases, he explained, consumer groups and advocates

have not been involved in developing and influencing legislative

changes. And, he said, Realtor(R) members generally are not aware of the

negative impact many of the new laws will have on their businesses and,

eventually, the industry in general.

In 1993 the NAR commissioned a Gallop opinion poll on real estate

agency and service options. When alternatives were explained, buyers and

sellers both said they preferred to have a true fiduciary agent on their

side during a real estate transaction.

"We should not be surprised to learn that people want fiduciary

agents on their side as they make the greatest investment decision of

their lives," Berard exclaimed. "Eliminating this highest form of

service and protection as an option is very bad news for both real

estate consumers and those who are in the business of real estate," he

said.

NAEBA also believes that all the new real estate service labels

being employed --such as transaction broker, facilitator, and designated

agent -- are really cover-ups for practicing dual agency without full

disclosure and informed consent.

Said Berard: "Disclosed dual agency is only allowed under the

common law for accidental cases of conflicts of interest and not as

regular business practice. The common law protects consumers by

requiring full disclosure of dual agency and its ramifications at the

beginning of a real estate transaction.

NAEBAis review of most of the changes enacted so far shows that the

public does not get adequate disclosure information up front. And,

because of watered-down disclosures and deceptive labels used by agents,

the association says that the public remains confused and uninformed.

"If the purpose of the current legislative strategy is to perplex

the public, in our view it is definitely succeeding," said Berard. "It

is NAEBAis opinion, therefore, that the legislative program designed by

the National Association of Realtors is also a very poor marketing

strategy for our industry. We seem to be shooting ourselves in the foot.

"The industry should be improving its product line of services

instead of diminishing it by statutory changes. A fiduciary provides

the highest form of consumer service, protection, and accountability.

The current industry movement away from fiduciary standards and the

provision of value added services," Berard continued, "will lead to

less n rather than more -- use real estate services by the public."

Calling upon ARELLO to provide balanced leadership as it continues

to review real estate agency and disclosure law, NAEBA made several

recommendations:

-- Embrace the common law of agency as the highest level of consumer

protection. Relative to establishing a model law, standardize real

estate services and provide consumer protection by restoring the common

law in states where it has been watered down or abrogated.

-- Involve consumer groups and advocates in each state in the

development of any proposals to modify laws and regulations impacting

upon real estate services and representation.

-- Insure that consumers understand their rights and service

options, including the ramifications of each one at the beginning of

their contact with any real estate practitioner. A national

consumer-friendly model is needed for this type of consumer disclosure,

including requirements for compliance checking and reporting back to the

public on the results.

-- Because, real estate internet sites are ripe for misleading and

missing information, develop uniform disclosures to inform and protect

consumers. Hot links to statesi mandatory consumer disclosure forms

should be established.

-- Develop a consumer-friendly brochure for public distribution plus

an internet site to tip off relocating interstate buyers that the type

of real estate services and representation they had in their former

state may not be available at their new location. Explain what this

could mean. Recommend that they ask the right questions of the real

estate agents in their new state.

-- Develop a consumer bill of rights. As a cornerstone of this

product use public service announcements in the media to inform

consumers in each state how to file complaints against illegal and

deceptive practices.

-end-

Kathleen Chiras

Association Manager, NAEBA

7652 Gartner Rd. Ste. 500

Evergreen, CO 80439

NAEBAHQ@naeba.org

www.naeba.org

800-986-2322

2x6 framing

Alan and Denise:

I just purchased and read your book "Your New House" today, and found it filled with excellent and useful information. However, I read with interest your thoughts on 2x4 vs 2x6 framing and the money savings which are enabled by using 2x6 construction and thicker insulation. I’d like to call to your attention an article which appeared on page 14 of the February 1999 issue of The Family Handyman.

"According to an Energy Efficient Building Association study, for an average home with frame construction in a cold climate like Minnesota’s, 2x6 construction would yield an annual savings of $30 compared to a similarly constructed 2x4 wall. So in Missouri, where the winters are milder, the savings will be much less. Because a 2x6 frame costs about 20 percent more to build than a 2x4, it would take 75 years to reach the payback point, according to the study. And that’s for an entire home; for an addition, the payback would take even longer.

"A much better option is to use rigid foam sheathing on a conventional 2x4 wall. A wall built this way costs 10 percent less than a typical 2x6 wall and can be even more energy-efficient."

Their photo in the article illustrates two walls. The first photo shows an R-19 wall constructed with 2x6 studs and R-19 insulation. The second photo shows an R-20.5 wall constructed with 2x4 studs, R-13 insulation batts and R-7.5 Rigid Foam sheathing.

"The rigid foam sheathing also provides an uninterrupted envelope of insulation to prevent thermal bridging. Thermal bridging occurs when heat is lost through the studs and nails, lowering the effective R-value of the wall. Another benefit: The rigid foam acts as a wind barrier, stopping cold drafts from sneaking into your walls."

While it’s a fact that you can get more and better insulation between 2x6 studs than 2x4 studs, a 3 inch R-13 batt costs about 28 cents per square foot and a 3 inch R-15 batt costs about 50 cents per square foot even without considering the higher still cost of 5 inch batt thickness and the more expensive 2x6 studs. I haven’t priced a 4’x8’ R-7.5 panel but I purchased a 2 inch thick R-17 4’ x 8’ panel about a year ago and they cost about $17 each which make them about 53 cents per square foot. I’d guess the R-7.5 panel is significantly less than that.

It seems to me that, given the cost and payback rates of the two construction techniques, 2x6 construction is NOT cost effective, especially if you don’t keep the house until you reach "payback". I suggest doing the calculations before making the commitment one way or another.

All that said, I think you folks have done a great job with your book which is MILES ahead of anything else I’ve found so far.

Thanks,

Wayne Clark

Fullerton, CA

Suggestions

Dear Alan & Denise:

I am in the process of reading your "Your New House". I find it very

informative and containing the right spirit. I am also enjoying your use of

the term "idiot". I guess one strong message which I am getting out of the

book is that the owner is boss and must grab the bull by the horns. The

other message that I am getting is "don't get intimidated" and lead the

way.

Just a couple of suggestions. For your next edition of the book you should

consider including the following:

1. Some diagrams/pictures in the chapters that deal with

construction (foundations, the frames, etc.)

2. A brief list of the "Mini-Tycoon" builders (chapter 7)

(Florida, Southern California and other similar "retirement" locations)

3. A list of videos about house construction, architecture and

garden design

4. I enjoyed very much those "boxes" in the chapters. You should

consider having full articles from the Wall Street Journal or other

publications that are relevant to your topic. Modern college text books

often include similar articles which really bring things to focus.

By the way, if you do have a list of videos, please send.

Regards.

Eli Abssy

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------

Return-Path: <Isfintl@compuserve.com>

Received: from rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (rly-yb05.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.5]) by air-yb02.mail.aol.com (v56.26) with SMTP; Sat, 06 Mar 1999 10:54:23 -0500

Spec loopholes

Hi, just wanted to drop you a note to tell you how much I like your book.

I live in a Marietta Ga, a suburb located outside Atlanta. The building

market here is booming and builders are not hurting for work.

I am a structural engineer and project manager for the government and run

many new construction projects. I have dealt with architects and general

contractors for the last five years on multi-million dollar projects. From

what I've found so far with residential construction things are quite

different. In building construction you live and die with the

specifications, but that doesn't seem to be the way it is with the home

builders.

I just got back from a meeting with a builder in a subdivision today the

last part of his specifications included the following statements:

"Material specifications subject to change based on availability and

builder discretion" "Blueprint details may be revised at builder's

discretion" When I quizzed him on this he basically told me he can do what

ever is necessary and I have to live with it. I suppose I keep looking for

a builder who is more customer focused. I can sort of understand they don't

want owners telling them how to build a house but I'm a licensed

professional engineer and I know construction.

One more interesting item in his specifications was the following: "All

drywall has small imperfections and is considered normal by industry

standard" When I asked him to explain this is what I got. If never having

been in the house before if you walk through and you can see any

imperfections in the drywall from six feet away they will fix it.

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------

Return-Path: <joedebmarinaccio@mindspring.com>

Received: from rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) by air-za01.mail.aol.com (v56.26) with SMTP; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:22:54 -0500