Comments on: Industry reacts to Walker’s call for Commerce Department shake up (UPDATE)

By: Troy Kaufert

Troy Kaufert — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:07:02 +0000

Every city seams to be charging a yearly registration fee or certification for contractors Why not just once at the state level and be done with it? To hold a registration and pay a fee in every municipality that you work in is crazy.
Thats like requiring a sticker and added fee on your car for every county you drive in.

By: mudman

mudman — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:03:39 +0000

Why would we want to eliminate having the state review building plans? Now we have a centralized system with plan reviewers who are highly familiar with the statewide building code not a fragmented system where local inspection departments interpret codes and do those reviews. Local building inspectors rely on those reviewers decisions and interpretations and for the most part it’s the local inspectors job to inspect the construction for code compliance. Architects and engineers can rely on fairly consistent code interpretations through that centralized sytem. This system works and hsould be retained.

By: ACivilEng

ACivilEng — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:33:58 +0000

I now understand where Walker got the wrong impression last week that hurricane clips were required to be used in WI building construction. No, Mr. Deschane, buildings in WI do not have to withstand hurricane force winds like they do in the southern coastal areas of the country where buildings have to be designed to meet a 150 mph wind gust, but we do have wind in WI (at least as of this morning when I walked from the parking lot from my truck into the office). The min. requirement in WI is that buildings must be designed to withstand a 3-second long 90 mph wind gust.

By: Merlin Caine

Merlin Caine — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:41:58 +0000

“The requirements were developed from a national model and require that new construction withstand hurricane-force winds,” Deschane said. “Do we really need that in Wisconsin?”
—————————–

Mr. Deschane,

Yes, we do. What is wrong with wanting to build things well and robustly? Too much of what we build is shoddy. What’s wrong with rules that require we use quality materials and building techniques?

By: Abe Froman

Abe Froman — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 05:14:27 +0000

Businesses that relocate due to rail access = long-term jobs (plus short-term construction jobs!). I know… I’ve met with several.

By: plumbguy

plumbguy — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:08:30 +0000

It’s because the board should be made up of business people “with brains” that we would address the needs and practicality of business, which would equal long term jobs. When we spend money on needed infrastructure, as opposed to short term pet projects that create greater long term expense after the short term jobs are done, that we will see the greater sustained recovery.

By: Abe Froman

Abe Froman — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 17:34:48 +0000

Good move.

Ironically, if you have people with brains that understand long-term job creation on that board, the first question they’d ask is why we denied high-speed rail.