There are the basic “you need to do the engineering correctly” kind of codes – the safety stuff you’re talking about – which, I agree, are absolutely needed, and then there are the code items designed to uphold the “here’s how we like to do it here” things. Codes for minimum lot size, minimum house sq footage, minimum 3-car garages, 2×6 construction, roofing material requirements (”clearly, slate is better!”), larger-than-needed main electrical service panels, requirements for short inter-outlet runs, GFIs everywhere, insulating codes designed to fit someone’s decision that initial cost is more important than heating bills even when that puts the initial cost out of reach, material codes that, while nice and high-quality, aren’t necessary and increase cost . . .

There are lots of code items across the country that have been shown, very clearly, to have the end result of mandating a certain minimum house-build price. You take fifty items, each of which makes for a nicer house, and a better house, and mandate them, and you end up – sure – with a better house, but the cost of entry has just gone up.

“Just about everything you said is wrong, bobby.“

Yeah, I get that a lot here.

But, no, it wasn’t, actually. If you look at what I said, I was speaking about the “green home” concept as it has been developing across the country, and that development route has encompassed some costly changes in design, specifically in the HVAC, insulating, roofing and window areas. Many of those design items are, I think, clearly going to have a long-term net benefit – but it’s usually a more expensive package.

As for the “Health House” to which you refer – did we read the same MPR article? Didn’t see it in there.

I stand corrected on the gas tax at the pump vs the excise tax. However the point is that if it goes to mass transit vs roads the argument remains the same. If I pay a tax that is supposed to go to roads and it is diverted to mass transit that money does not go to the intended outcome i.e. maintaining and building roads. The argument that we need an increased gas tax falls short when we are diverting funds from the excise tax. Before we raise taxes we should look at where the money is going now and make the appropriate decision (granted that is open for debate.)

People who don’t use transit still benefit. Anything that reduces the number of cars on the road helps reduce congestion, wear and tear on the roads, among them.

On a marginal level if any. The congestion on along the light rail line is no better than it was before the train was installed. In my opinion to accommodate the light rail it made it worse. more stop lights and the timing change needed to stop traffic for the train increased traffic delays. Buses with increased lanes seem to be a more economical way to accommodate the traffic but trains are in no way a solution to congestion in the twin cities.

I’m not quite sure, maz, but I think you proved my point.

“Ifs” are for children. Either you take it seriously or you don’t. If you don’t Gore could be squatting in a hovel and he’d just be an eccentric kook.

Uhm, might want to read again. It was the anti-transit people that were complaining about the tax subsidy to support it. Transit supporters were merely pointing out that roads are paid for the same way.

I mean, dontya think?