Building codes are like speed limits. It doesn’t matter if you drive a moped or a Ferrari, the same rules apply. In tax terms this makes codes regressive rather than progressive.

Historically speaking, this has always been acknowledged in the creation of and updates to building codes. At the beginning of each code in the intent section it typically even states that the purpose of the code is “to establish the minimum requirements.”

Codes were never intended to be what we can do; they are there to establish the minimum we must do.

The last few decades have seen a significant evolution in building codes and the pace of change. In Hawaii the last decade has been particularly revolutionary. In order to understand why, it is necessary to take a step back to understand the code adoption process.

Codes begin as “model codes” created by independent nongovernment organizations. Altogether, three NGOs write the seven model codes that are adopted at the state and local level in Hawaii. Four of these codes are written by the International Code Council. The ICC follows a three-year cycle for updating codes.

Keep in mind two important points: 1) three years is an arbitrary time frame selected by the NGO writing the code; and 2) the ICC makes a lot of money selling code books. In fact in 2022 the ICC had a gross profit of $96.5 million.

Once a model code is completed it is reviewed and amended for local conditions by the State Building Code Council. Once the SBCC adopts a code it is then up to each county to adopt the state version of the code as is, or with amendments within two years.

What this means in practical terms is that currently the ICC is working on 2024 codes, the SBCC is working on the 2021 codes, and the counties are working on the 2018 codes. To attempt to keep this straight carries some obvious complexities, not just for the architects and builders, but also for the regulators such as plan checkers and inspectors.

‘Minimum Requirements’

One of the things that has evolved as a result of this process is for organizations with agendas beyond establishing “minimum requirements” working to influence what is in the code at all three levels.

Sometimes these groups have noble goals such as seeking to reduce the impact of climate change. Other times they are simply manufacturers looking to enhance the needs for their products.

In either case the effect is the same: a rapidly expanding and hidden tax on the cost of housing for everyone. Renters, homeowners and home buyers all pay this tax whether they know it or not.

The common refrain you will hear from code adoption advocates is that the change is incremental and not significant in driving up cost. Taken in isolation this is usually true. Taken as a whole the cumulative effect is death by a thousand paper cuts.

The influence of codes and other regulations on cost has been documented repeatedly including just recently in the report by The Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawaii. The UHERO report documented that 58% of the cost of a newly constructed condominium in Hawaii was attributable to regulations.

Not all of that figure is codes, but a portion is. The National Association of Home Builders routinely tracks code cost implications. NAHB found that between the 2009 International Residential Code and the 2018 IRC, that codes made a typical house between $9,800 and $32,000 more expensive to build.

Keep in mind that these costs are national averages, and our construction costs are at or near the highest in the country. Also keep in mind that this represents the cost of the model code. Both the Hawaii SBCC and City and County of Honolulu have a history of adding more burdensome amendments to these codes.

In short, there is a clear and undeniable nexus between code updates and construction costs and there is disproportionate and regressive impact on affordable housing.

So, what can we do to alleviate some of the pain caused by this process?

First and foremost instead of being stuck with ICC’s three-year schedule, we simply review every other code making it a six-year cycle as proposed by House Bill 2089. As originally written this would have applied to all codes.

The reason for that is that four of the seven codes could be reviewed on one cycle and three on the other. While this revised version isn’t perfect, it at least grants relief on the pace of change on two of the most important codes.

Secondly, we need to avoid local amendments that impact housing.

A classic example of this is Bill 65 currently making its way through the Honolulu City Council. The current Bill includes a local amendment requiring tsunami proof foundations in risk Category 2 buildings. This category includes all multi-family affordable housing projects.

The question before our elected leaders is do you truly believe we have an affordable housing crisis? If so, these are two easy steps in helping with that problem.