T
Tom Horne
Guest
On Jul 19, 3:39 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
about would have to require a change to what is already built.
Requiring the addition of smoke, CO, and explosive gas detectors to an
existing building as a condition of a renewal of the use and occupancy
only regulates the future condition of the building and then only as a
condition of it being used in a certain way such as rental property.
The code in question would be an ex post facto law if it required that
the existing electrical plant be brought up to current code, that the
pitch of the stairs be changed, or that the width of doorways that met
the code at the time of construction be changed to match a new code
requirement in the absence of a change in use. The difference is
admittedly subtle but there is a difference.
--
Tom Horne
To be an ex post facto law the the requirements you are complainingOn Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:16:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 12:12 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:50:40 GMT, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
In article <3mv765da9sgkg1k9t2iiq8lovjgea4m...@4ax.com>, jk <kles...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
There was a transition period
allowed to give plenty of time for the switch over, mean while, they
simply did things like 480 volts in a 240 volt receptacle..
A particular inspectior in a particular jurisdiction might have
allowed this, but it would not be to code, and ther eIS NO GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE any where in the NEC.
Well, no, but any attempt at forcing compliance with a code that didn't exist
at the time the installation was made falls under the Constitutional
prohibitions against ex post facto legislation...
Fire codes do this all the time, particularly in commercial and rental
units. Smoke and CO detectors being prime examples.
OK Explain how requiring the installation of smoke or CO detectors in
rental or commercial properties after the enactment of the enabling
legislation is the same as applying the current electric code to a
preexisting installation.
They're both ex post facto laws. The buildings were existing long
before the law was passed.
about would have to require a change to what is already built.
Requiring the addition of smoke, CO, and explosive gas detectors to an
existing building as a condition of a renewal of the use and occupancy
only regulates the future condition of the building and then only as a
condition of it being used in a certain way such as rental property.
The code in question would be an ex post facto law if it required that
the existing electrical plant be brought up to current code, that the
pitch of the stairs be changed, or that the width of doorways that met
the code at the time of construction be changed to match a new code
requirement in the absence of a change in use. The difference is
admittedly subtle but there is a difference.
--
Tom Horne