Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
There are regulations in place that says if the government rebuilds a building, it has to be rebuilt EXACTLY as it was before even if it was a 50 year old building.
|
Garbage. Whoever told you that probably also has a bridge to sell, or oceanfront property in Kansas. Either that, or someone read part of something, or read something they didn't understand.
-
As a matter of law, when anyone rebuilds a building, whether it's paid for by a government entity, an insurer, a mortgage company, or the owner, unless that building has been designated a Historical Landmark, local and state regulations require that the new building be constructed to the then-current building codes. Now, there may be provisions that exempt the entity paying from footing the bill for the required upgrades, but that's a lot different than rebuilding it exactly as it was.
-
And as for the situation in Joplin, no one can force you to rebuild around existing undamaged portions of property. What probably happened was that the entity or insurer that was paying for the damage repairs refused to pay to tear down undamaged parts of the building, meaning the owner has to either repair around the undamaged portions, or foot the bill for the difference in what was paid and the cost of tearing down what was left and rebuilding from scratch.
-
With all due respect, and I mean that, it's dangerous to listen to anyone who is telling you what someone else told him, or to listen to someone who thinks they know, but really don't, because they don't have all of the facts. I was a licensed claims adjuster for 18 years, and worked in over 30 states. I worked hurricanes, tornadoes, California earthquakes and brush fires, winter freezes, floods, and a host of other types of claims.
