Should government dictate building codes?

       "Architects and builders know plenty of ways to construct homes and businesses to withstand storms, floods, fires, and climate change, but that doesn't mean they will use them."

      So writes Houston Chronicle business writer Chris Tomlinson.  He says that "only tougher (building) codes will bring safer homes" because the market does not demand it.  

      This statement deserves a little scrutiny.  Correction: make that a LOT of scrutiny.

     Tomlinson brings up many reasons why the market does not demand tougher building standards.  Unsurprisingly, the added COST is reason number one.  Further aggravating the situation is that appraisers don't put enough value on resilient features, and real estate listing services don't allow buyers to search for them.  And many buyers simply don't want to hear doom and gloom predictions that their dream home might be destroyed by a hurricane or other natural disaster some day, and that they better prepare for that now.

      But like so many pundits, he jumps straight to the conclusion that the only solution is government.  I've addressed this mindset in many articles on this blog.  Somewhere in our government-run educational system, children are being taught that government is the ultimate solution to any and all problems that the human mind can conjure.

      In fairness, he is correct that the housing market, just like every other commodity out there, is not perfect.  Consumers don't always demand the right things, and producers don't always supply the right things, and communication between all parties is sometimes lacking. 

      Well, that is because these entities are run by humans, and humans are not perfect.

      But hold on a minute.  The acknowledgment that human-based markets are imperfect should not automatically infer that human-based governments are perfect.  Both markets AND governments suffer from the same human-inflicted flaws.  Simply being a government employee, or a politician who won the last election, does not confer any kind on intellectual superiority on anyone.   

      Remember that political elections are essentially just popularity contests, where the winner is he or she with the best MARKETING.   The average voter is, in fact, more influenced by image and emotion than the average consumer is influenced by thoughtful analysis of what he/she is purchasing.  So by what logic does one conclude that some government-critter knows best?

Innovation

      When government takes on the task of promoting "quality" in construction, or any industry for that matter, it creates a lot of negative consequences, mostly unintended ones.   Innovation and creativity is stifled.  Blandness and conformity become the order of the day, instead of spontaneity and uniqueness.   Bureaucracy moves at a glacial pace, always several steps behind the latest technology.  And all these laws can cause otherwise honest, peaceful, hardworking, courteous, law-abiding citizens to get branded as criminals. 

      Furthermore, let's not forget that these armies of bureaucrats, agents, inspectors, and administrative personal cost money for payroll, facilities, and tons of other expenses, and somebody has to pay for it all.  And once a bureaucracy is established, good luck getting rid of it, even if it's no longer needed.

      The correct solution to constructing better, stronger buildings is to let the market work it out.  We need to ask hard questions like:  WHY are home-buyers so unwilling to face the harsh reality that mother nature is out to get them?  WHY don't appraisers put more value on building resiliency?  And insurers need to put more skin in the game, too.  Many do offer discounts for better-built homes, but evidently, those discounts are insufficient to change minds.  Why is that?  Is there yet another layer of government-imposed red tape that drives these so-called market "defects"?

      All of the comforts and conveniences of modern life that we enjoy were created by profit-seeking marketers looking for ways to do things better, and sell solutions to buyers willing to pay for it.  Government did not create these things.  No, the free market is not perfect; some people make poor choices.  But by that same token, a lot of people make very good choices - as long as they have the freedom to do so.