- This topic has 50 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 8 months ago by
desmond.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 22, 2012 at 2:50 AM #748704July 22, 2012 at 7:08 AM #748709
no_such_reality
ParticipantIt’s so obvious, you’re right. It’s really for our best that we pay some of our small university presidents $300-$400K, and $60,000 a year for a housing allowance and $12,000 a year for a car allowance.
It’s really for our best that they do this on Wednesday and then on Thursday tell us that we will have a 5% increase in tuition IF we pass the tax hike propositions or a 20% if we don’t.
July 22, 2012 at 7:42 AM #748710sdrealtor
ParticipantSo the argument we often hear why these public sector palaces are so….well…palacial is that they need to match the community character and design standards. So lets play the old Sesame Street game of “One of these things is not like the others”
Helen Woodward directly across from fire station
[img_assist|nid=16480|title=Helen Woodward|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=316]
Ordinary but somewhat aging shopping center next to that
[img_assist|nid=16481|title=shopping|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=350]
School next door to fire station
[img_assist|nid=16482|title=school|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=350]
Barn just up the road
[img_assist|nid=16483|title=Barn|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=358]
Fire Station
[img_assist|nid=16473|title=Crown Jewel of RSF|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=350]
July 22, 2012 at 9:10 AM #748713patb
ParticipantI”m not sure where you are coming from?
Do you think Public buildings should be Quonset huts?
I have no problem with Public INfrastructure being built on a “Monumental” basis and with long design lifes come real value in elegant design.
(One is the old library, one is the new library)
the same goes for schools, Fire stations, Police stations,,,
If i am going to have to look at something for a very long time it may as well be a very nice thing to look at.
Which do you prefer to look at the Golden Gate Bridge or
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/21492887
that.
July 22, 2012 at 9:39 AM #748715ParticipantThe Golden Gate is beautiful because of its sheer size and what it spans. You can find similar suspension bridges all over the east coast.
Architecturally signifcant public buildings in major metropolitan centers are a different matter. Building palacial fire stations in every cash strapped city across SoCal is irresponsible. Not to mention the RSF Building is garish and gaudy not elegant. Its the architural equivalent to many of the tract mcmansions.
Public buildings should be utilitarian not monuments to excess. They should also match their settings not go far and above. For example, most people have a big misconception about RSF because of the wealth there which is along the lines of Beverly Hills. The real charm of RSF is its understated country atmosphere. Yes there are some real palaces there built as monuments to individual egos but most RSF architecture is relatively simple and timeless.
July 22, 2012 at 10:23 AM #748718Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=CA renter]Allan,
If the government uses its own employees, they don’t have to worry about profit margins, and have greater control over material quality and costs (no cost+ on materials, either). I will also admit, though, that too few govt managers/supervisors are especially good at cost control, but this is usually at the top, not where union workers are involved.
What would happen if they accepted the lowest bid, and the contractor showed up with fresh (illegal?) immigrants with no experience, etc. and used sub-standard materials? How much would it cost to remedy problems that would not be as likely happen with union workers who are paid a living wage? As you know, with union workers, you know that you’re getting trained, experienced workers who can more easily be held accountable for the work they do.
Not saying there aren’t issues with unions and all the red tape, just saying that using the cheapest labor and materials won’t necessarily translate into savings over the long run.[/quote]
CAR: Except low bidder does not = illegal labor and sub-standard materials and for one reason: Existing building codes like IBC 2012 (Int’l Building Code).
Most of the conventional costs are carried in Labor and Material. When you use union crews, the costs skew heavily in the Labor direction. You can deliver excellent build quality (from the Material side) without breaking the bank to do so, but Labor costs can swing widely and all it depends what costing standard (e.g. Prevailing Wage, union, Merit/Open Shop (non-union), etc) that you’re using.
I’m not banging away on unions here, this is just from past (and present) experience. The rough rule-of-thumb that we use in Metro markets (like NYC, Chicago, SF) is 2x Materials and 3x+ Labor (and this number goes even higher in Metro NYC, which is a friggin’ nightmare) when compared to a “standard” Commercial project.
July 22, 2012 at 10:53 AM #748719ltsddd
Participantdel
July 22, 2012 at 11:21 AM #748720desmond
ParticipantDo governments even have workers to build buildings? Isn’t it contracted out with maybe government supervisons on the job?
July 22, 2012 at 12:39 PM #748725Participant[quote=desmond]Do governments even have workers to build buildings? Isn’t it contracted out with maybe government supervisons on the job?[/quote]
On the Military/Federal projects I work on, the owner (US Army Corps, Naval Facilities, etc) has a project team that runs the gamut from contracts officers (who manage the contract with the winning contract team, including architects, engineers and general contractor), through project engineers (who oversee that the project is being built according to the approved plans/specs and ensure quality control) to a project manager who provides oversight throughout and then signs off on the final construction and “gets the keys” (and thus releases the project team).
I’m not aware (on the Mil/Fed side) of any government construction teams; it’s all done by private contractors who bid/bond/prosecute the work.
July 22, 2012 at 1:01 PM #748728Hobie
ParticipantNow you’ve done it, a new agency.
— U.S. Department of Construction. “No worker left behind..” is the motto. “To correctly and fairly spend stimulus dollars” is the credo.
July 22, 2012 at 2:57 PM #748731Participant[quote=Hobie]Now you’ve done it, a new agency.
— U.S. Department of Construction. “No worker left behind..” is the motto. “To correctly and fairly spend stimulus dollars” is the credo.[/quote]
Hobie: Actually, I think the proposed National Infrastructure Bank (an altogether new layer of bureacracy) would solve that problem handily.
Since we cannot do anything without Big Gubment, we should source the construction component to them as well. In this way, we could guarantee that everything would go exactly according to plan, there would be no cost overruns, corruption or shoddy workmanship and a la the Soviet Union of the 1930s, we’d be guaranteed new roads, bridges, etc that we could use to better our collectivist existence.
July 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM #748732Participant[quote=Hobie]Now you’ve done it, a new agency.
— U.S. Department of Construction. “No worker left behind..” is the motto. “To correctly and fairly spend stimulus dollars” is the credo.[/quote]
We could bring back the concept of the New Soviet Man:http://vimeo.com/24389859
Behold the Power of the State!
July 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM #748733bearishgurl
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]So the argument we often hear why these public sector palaces are so….well…palacial is that they need to match the community character and design standards. So lets play the old Sesame Street game of “One of these things is not like the others”
Helen Woodward directly across from fire station
[img_assist|nid=16480|title=Helen Woodward|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=316]
…
Barn just up the road
[img_assist|nid=16483|title=Barn|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=358]
…[/quote]
The Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant was assembled in 1928, to help preserve and maintain the character of the community and unique land features, as well as establish architectural guidelines to restrict the type of homes and amenities to be built in the area…
The Covenant CC&R’s have been amended many times since then.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/2291910/what-is-the-covenant-of-rancho-santa-fe-san-diego-county-
I’ve left Photos #1 and #4 up because of the age of the buildings. The barn is likely 60-80 yrs old. The Helen Woodward Animal Shelter was built in stages between 1972 and 1983.
http://www.animalcenter.org/about_hwac/history.aspx
I do not have a copy of the Covenant’s CC&R’s (flyer, can you assist us here?) but the buildings depicted above likely predate the RSF “Architectural Committee” or “Art Jury” amendment(s) by decades.
For the sake of illustration, let us compare a South County uninc area (“Sunnyside” 91902) small spec-built infill tract of about 14 “luxury” homes. “Ames Ranch” was completed in 2004 (all but 2 lots) with CC&R’s encumbering. It encompassed only one cul-de-sac, created by the developer. Next to this tract was a dog kennel on 2-3 AC which had been in operation since the early 60’s. It boarded dogs which barked night and day which bothered the new neighbors in the new tract, esp those whose backyards backed into the kennel property. These new owners filed many complaints with the Assn and the county, which went nowhere. The dog kennel had all the necessary permits to operate and was situated in a semi-rural area at least 100 feet from the neighbor on the west and 500 feet from the easterly neighbor … that is, until new owners began moving into Ames Ranch.
Another slightly-newer 9-home spec development situated about 3 mi northwest of Ames Ranch in the South County uninc area of “Bonita Mesa” (91902) is “Vista Pointe,” an infill development of large luxury homes. It had the same fact pattern as Ames Ranch except I don’t believe VP has an HOA. On the southwest corner of this developer-built cul-de-sac, there existed a family-owned chicken ranch on an approx 1 AC parcel which had been in existence for at least 55 years. The *new* VP neighbors complained to the county about the odor of the chicken ranch to no avail.
In the mid-late ’80’s, an “upscale” (for the era) medium-sized tract with dramatic facades (for the era) went up just west of the master-planned community of “Cottonwood” <100 yards south/southeast of an existing commercial egg ranch. Here is a recently closed listing on one of the sts which were most affected by the sulfur odor.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110065824-11741_Calle_Albara_El_Cajon_CA_92019
The new owners complained vociferously of the strong sulfur odors after moving in and the Assn/County could do nothing. I do not know if the egg ranch is still in operation today.
In my third example, the egg ranch was a "stone's throw" to three sts in the tract, but was actually situated on a long private gravel drive not reachable directly from that tract. One would have to drive all the way around an adjacent county park and circle around to the north and back south again to reach the egg ranch (3.5+ mi). Nevertheless, the odors were there intermittently when viewing the builder models and should have been noticed by potential buyers. In all of these cases, the new owners had the oppt'y to notice and should have noticed what was on the adjacent properties PRIOR to going under contract in a new development.
Compare the above scenarios to a new owner moving in under the jet-rising path in 92106 and then complaining to the City about the noise! I'm sure there are many other areas of the county which have infill and tract development adjacent to these pre-existing issues.
Here, there was nothing the RSF Assn could do about the animal shelter or old barn. The other properties in photos #2 and #3 look as if they could be newer and thus went thru some sort of "vetting" by the RSF Assn. Remember that the "amendments" to the CC&R's were a "work in progress" all during this time.
A civil action was filed in 1996 by a new RSF homeowner who sought a judicial determination of the validity and enforceability of certain unrecorded (RSF Assn) guidelines. Later the Assn filed a writ of injunctive and declaratory relief against her (to have her seek the proper permits or tear down her newly-erected wrought-iron fence). The case is interesting but has a bit of convoluted fact pattern. The Assn ended up prevailing eight years later. In part, the 4th DCA found that the challenged (by Dolan-King) RSF Regulatory Code provisions were valid concerning the definition of the terms "major" and "minor" construction.
See https://www.davis-stirling.com/CaseLaw/RanchoSantaFevDolanKing/tabid/845/Default.aspx
Between 1-22-04 (when RSF v Dolan-King was finally published) and July 2006, there were five legislative changes that directly impact CA Architectural Review Committees within HOA’s. Those changes are:
1) Effective July 1, 2006, architectural committees are required to keep meeting minutes. (Civil Code section 1365.2(a)(1)(H).) These minutes must be made available to members, upon request. (Civil Code section 1365.2(b)(1).) The association may withhold or redact information because of privacy, privilege under law, or if the information may lead to fraud in connection with the association. (Civil Code section 1365.2(d).)
2) Architectural committee decisions must be in writing. (Civil Code section 1378(4).)
3) If the proposed change is disapproved, the notice of the decision sent to the homeowner must include an explanation of why the proposed change was not approved and provide a description of the procedure for reconsideration of the decision by the board. (Civil Code section 1378(a)(4).)
4) If an application is denied, associations are required to have a procedure in place to allow homeowners to appeal the architectural committee’s decision to the board. (Civil Code section 1378(a)(4).)
5) Associations are required to annually mail a notice to all homeowners describing the association’s application process. The notice must describe the common changes that require association approval and include a copy of the procedure used to review and approve or deny a proposed change. (Civil Code section 1378(c).)
The above “landmark” published version of this opinion can be cited as Rancho Santa Fe Association v. Patricia Dolan-King (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 28 and has been affirmatively cited throughout CA courts many times since then.
The likely reason for the RSF Fire District’s heavy compliance with the Board’s Architectural Committee or “Art Jury” is due to the fact that, if sued by the Assn to be “out of compliance” after they had already built part or all of the fire stn, they would very likely lose. The District was looking out for its own self-interests (and those of their taxpayers) when they brought all their plans for the new station to the Committee first. It’s really as simple as that and had NOTHING to do with those who work in the building, “public sector porn,” or the “system.”
July 22, 2012 at 4:58 PM #748736CA renter
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=desmond]Do governments even have workers to build buildings? Isn’t it contracted out with maybe government supervisons on the job?[/quote]
On the Military/Federal projects I work on, the owner (US Army Corps, Naval Facilities, etc) has a project team that runs the gamut from contracts officers (who manage the contract with the winning contract team, including architects, engineers and general contractor), through project engineers (who oversee that the project is being built according to the approved plans/specs and ensure quality control) to a project manager who provides oversight throughout and then signs off on the final construction and “gets the keys” (and thus releases the project team).
I’m not aware (on the Mil/Fed side) of any government construction teams; it’s all done by private contractors who bid/bond/prosecute the work.[/quote]
Not sure how much actual construction work they do these days (as opposed to private contractors), but what about the…
Navy Seebees:
“Seabees are members of the United States Navy construction battalions. The word Seabee[1] is a proper noun that comes from the initials of Construction Battalion, (CB) of the United States Navy. The Seabees have a history of building bases, bulldozing and paving thousands of miles of roadway and airstrips, and accomplishing a myriad of other construction projects in a wide variety of military theaters dating back to World War II.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabee_%28US_Navy%29
——————–
Army Corp of Engineers:
“From the beginning, many politicians wanted the Corps to contribute to both military construction and works of a civil nature. Assigned the military construction mission on 1 December 1941 after the Quartermaster Department struggled with the expanding mission,[17] the Corps built facilities at home and abroad to support the U.S. Army and Air Force. During World War II the mission grew to more than 27,000 military and industrial projects in a $15.3 billion mobilization program. Included were aircraft, tank assembly, and ammunition plants, camps for 5.3 million soldiers, depots, ports, and hospitals, as well as the Manhattan Project, and the Pentagon.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Corps_of_Engineers
——————-
And there’s this (not just construction related, but it is related to fraud, waste, and abuse whenever public money and private interests intersect):
“September 12, 2011 — The recent report by the U.S. Commission on Wartime Contracting, which examined contracting abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, understandably focused on the loss of up to $60 billion to waste and fraud out of the $206 billion given for contracts and grants.
The commission offered a series of sensible recommendations for reform, some of which resonate with a 2010 report I co-authored on contracting’s role in the future of warfare. Private contractors are likely to be an enduring presence on the battlefield – some 260,000 contractors served in Iraq and Afghanistan last year, more than the entire American troop presence in those countries. While we are unlikely to see another large-scale reconstruction effort akin to Afghanistan and Iraq any time soon, for the foreseeable future America will be unable to engage in conflicts or reconstruction and stabilization operations of any significant size without private contractors.”
“It is a new era in which contractor waste can threaten mission failure after eight years of war. But the reality is that America’s reliance on private contractors is not likely to fade. The Pentagon and others have made major advances in recent years, but the path to reform remains long. It is time to get on with it.”
July 22, 2012 at 7:10 PM #748745CDMA ENG
Participant[quote=CA renter]sdr,
You can take your complaints to the PRIVATE developer and HOA that mandate that type of architecture. It’s the architectural style that draws most of the people who **choose** to live there and pay for it.
You can also take your complaints to the PRIVATE developers/contractors who profitted from this building. Not a single firefighter/”union thug” got any of the money spent on this building.
“Jim Ashcraft, president of the fire district’s board of directors, estimated that with all contingencies included, the total cost of the new station will be about $4.7 million.
Michel and Ashcraft said 75 percent of the money for the station will come from fees charged to developers for projects within the district, while the remaining 25 percent will come from the district’s general fund, generated primarily from property tax revenue.”http://www.ranchosantafereview.com/2011/11/01/new-rancho-santa-fe-fire-station-nearing-completion/
……………………
Stop trying to malign the hard-working, decent people who work in public service. Your bitter little song and dance is getting old. If you made poor career (or other) choices in life, that is nobody’s fault but your own.[/quote]
For once I have to agree with with CAR sdr. The same is true for cell sites. The amount of money that wireless carriers spend on a cell site is directly proportional to the amount of asthetic quality that the local zoning board dictates. Wasteful? Absolutely but this is the rules we have to play by. If every network in this nation was built to the same zoning standards that San Diego demands customers would have to pay double what they are currently paying for services.
The point is that local zoning boards are responsible for this and not the public unions.
And CAR as anti-union as sdr is… You are just as guilty in rallying around the counterpoint.
In fact sdr is the ying… To your yang.
CE
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.