Christmas Tree Installation

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 972 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, December 11, 2009 - 02:36 pm:    {This is for real) SAFETY GUIDELINES FOR CHRISTMAS TREES & DECORATIONS 1. All trees and wreaths must be brought up to tenant floors using only the freight elevators, do not use the passenger cars. 2. Trees must be wrapped in a plastic covering when brought into the Building. 3. Trees and decorations must be treated and maintained in a flame retardant condition and tagged as certified. Applications of the flame retardant must be done by a certified applicator registered with the State Fire Marshall. 4. No readily combustible material shall be placed on, under, above or within four (4) feet of the maximum horizontal projection of the tree. 5. Trees must be immersed in two (2) inches of water at all times. Immediately prior to such immersion, the trunk of the tree should be cut off at least one (1) inch above the original cut. 6. No Christmas tree or decorations shall be displayed for a period of more than (30) days after the date of a required flame retardant application. 7. Path of egress (exit) shall not be obstructed by any tree or decoration. 8. Only UL-approved electrical decorations and wiring may be installed and maintained on Christmas trees and decorations. (The UL – Underwriters Laboratory – designation must be stated in writing on the device.) 9. No tree or decoration shall block or cover any Life Safety device, including manual pull stations, speakers and fire extinguishers. 10. All rules and regulations of the City of (Name withheld) and (Name withheld) Fire Department must be complied with – whether they are summarized on this listing or not. 11. Trees and decorations may not be stored in the elevator lobby while awaiting disposal. PRIOR TO THE 1ST WEEK IN JANUARY, WE WILL LET YOU KNOW WHEN HOLIDAY TREES WILL BE PICKED UP (WITHOUT EXTRA CHARGE.) PLEASE DO NOT BRING TREES DOWN TO THE LOADING DOCK FOR DISPOSAL. Richard L. Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, December 11, 2009 - 11:18 pm:    Addressing another Seasonal Problem: Santa Claus shall exercise due care to distribute reindeer and gifts uniformly over the roof while descending the chimney to prevent overloading and collapse of the building structure. Santa Claus shall not unreasonably encumber the chimney flue, preventing proper ventilation of the fireplace while descending. Navigating open fireplace flames shall be at Santa Claus's sole risk. The Owner does not warrant that the fire is free of embers that may ignite Santa Claus's clothing. Nor does the Owner warrant that cookies and milk found on the premises are free of transfats that may constitute claims on Santa's part that past or future visits to the Owner's premises were responsible for encumbering flue access. Use of the building Owner's stairs, elevators, doors or windows to deliver toys is strictly prohibited. Upon exiting the premises the Contractor shall clean the premises of dirt, cookie crumbs and milk residue. Further he shall thoroughly inspect the roof prior to debarking to ensure that roof is free of Reindeer deposits. In addition he shall replace to the satisfaction of the building Owner any roof shingles that may have been damaged due reindeer activity. Substantial completion of the delivery of toys does not constitute final acceptance of Santa's products. Upon the Owner's request Santa Claus shall replace all defective work; such defective work being defined as toys inappropriate for the child's age or motor skills, toys not conforming to pre-authorized lists, or toys not consistent with the best available technology. Finally Santa Claus shall hold the building Owners harmless for any child's dissatisfaction with the quality of goods and services provided. Such policies providing the required indemnification shall include the children's parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles as the named insured. The above constitutes the sole agreement between Santa Claus and the building Owner. Such agreement does not serve to limit the rights of the Owner under accepted law or any other neighborhood supported opinion. Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 182 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 01:49 pm:    Talk about BAH HUMBUG! Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 973 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 02:03 pm:    And - on top of that - the local authorities where my church is located (I won't mention the city, but the initials are B.D. and it has the same name as a barricade built by a furry water dweller with a large flat tail - in Wisconsin) have evidently decided that churches cannot have live indoor trees this year. One of our pastors (not mine) received a phone call a week ago to inform him of the decision. As far as I know, our church has not gotten the call, so we are going ahead and putting up the tree we'd already ordered. This should be a decision made well in advance of the season, wouldn't you think? Not a week before! Most churches in the area already have their trees up! And as our pastor said "it's not like we're using candles on the tree"... Since he's also a lawyer, I'm willing to go with his decision. And as a child of the 60's, I'd be willing to stage a sit-in around our tree... James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 67 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 09:37 am:    Lynn, I'm dismayed but not surprised by what you have written. I would not expect such a thing in a state settled in large part by northern Europeans (read Germans). I attend a Lutheran church in Texas (orignally founded by Scandinavian-Americans but now largely German-American) where fresh-cut evergreens play a huge part in the seasonal decoration of the nave. The tree is always the largest that will fit in the space (though not decorated with candles) and garland is everywhere you look. Also, as they should, the decorations stay in place until Epiphany. At the end of the Christmas Eve Vigil the house lights are dimmed completely and hand-held candles are lit by each member of the congregation responsible enough to do so while Silent Night is sung. In the sixty-plus years this congreation has celebrated the Nativity in this manner there has been no associated personal injury or property loss arising from the practice. The finale to that worship service is, as you can imagine, highly spiritual and deeply cherished by each member of the congregation. Woe to the misguided bureaucrat who tries to put a stop to it. We have several lawyers in the pews as well. At least no one, that I am aware of, is harping on the notion that conifers give off oxides of nitrogen which have been implicated in the formation of acid rain. Speaking of harmful gasses, what about the carbon monoxide from all those candles and carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) from all those singing Lutherans? (big grin) Wishing happy holidays (I'm being inclusive here, not just politically correct) and a healthy and properous new year to all. James Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 975 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 10:15 am:    James, I also attend a Lutheran church (and have most of my life). That "Silent Night" scene you describe is very familiar. I wonder if Martin Luther included the directive in his "Small Catechism"? (grin) The peaceful nature of it is only enhanced by a childhood memory of walking out of church after the 11 pm service to softly falling snow (in the New York City borough where I grew up). I agree - woe to the officials who attempt to tamper with this. With no occurrence of disaster or accident to base such a decision on, the city Grinches will have a fight on their hands if they pursue this one! I echo your holiday wishes to one and all and at the risk of sounding like a beauty contestant, hope for Peace on Earth! Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 320 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 10:37 am:    The following was reportedly written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary: My confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat. Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking. Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina).. Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?' In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school.. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.' Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing yet? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not, then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in. My Best Regards, Honestly and Respectfully, Ben Stein "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 227 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 10:46 am:    In my youth (many decades ago) I belonged to a church that used to have live greens all over the place. We also had lots of candles on window sills and column capitals. We had the greens fire-retardant treated, but I'll bet the chemical we used is probably now banned as a probable carcinogen. Of course, the local fire department no longer allows live greens or candles. At least we have our memories. Russ Hinkle, AIA, CDT, LEED AP Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 70 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 10:54 am:    Amen Ron, . .......Amen. I thank God for people like Ben Stein. Russ Hinkle Randy Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 68 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 12:23 pm:    Not to digress from the humorous tone of this thread, but I need to respond to the Ben Stein commentary. Like Mr. Stein, I am not a Christian and still enjoy Christmas. My wife and children have the same non-Christian beliefs, but we have a tree, Saint Nicholas brought presents when the boys were small and I usually attend a local candlelight service. I have no problem with Mr. Stein’s religious live, or that of anyone else. But I do object to his depiction of humanists (like me and many others) as the cause of all the problems in the world. I don’t want to get into a big debate. I just want us all to accept the big tent that we live in, and move on. I hope this doesn’t sound harsh or shrill, it is only intended as a reminder that some of us non-god fearing people are still good. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 357 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 12:41 pm:    As I remember my early inculcation, Joseph and Mary were on their way back to Bethlehem to pay their taxes to the Romans. Since then I’ve come to understand (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that Caesar Augustus (who regularized taxes) had these paid in the summer. If this is true, Christ was born in the summer. Why Christmas? Well solstice of course; the shortest day of the year and the comfort in knowing that from the 21st on it will get a little lighter every day! Evergreens, ornaments and all that – you have all heard the rest of that story. I like the separation of church and state – a lot – and yes, it sometimes goes overboard (what government policies don’t) But without it I fear we (and any society) would allow religion to dictate government policy, which I already said goes over board form time to time. From this, we get pogroms, purges, ghettos, genocides etc. etc. Keep religion at arms length from government – please. What is occasionally missing is the universal good will that will allow me to not believe at all (confirmed atheist) and you to believe whatever you want AND the ability to respect each other in the process of doing whatever you do for he holidays. HAPPY WHATEVER! I’m just glad that after next week it’s going to get lighter and eventually the temperatures will warm up enough that I will not have to remind the contractor of the cold weather requirements in the spec. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 976 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 12:54 pm:    Actually, the constitution doesn't really "separate" church and state as much as it states that the Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So we're guaranteed not to have a "state" religion. BUT when we are not allowed to pray in public state-run schools (no matter who or what we are praying to), or display religious items in public government areas, isn't that a prohibition of the free exercise thereof? However, all this is digressing against the usual way these discussions go - usually we go from the serious to the ridiculous. THIS time, I think we're going the other way and this is getting way too serious. Since I've already stated my beliefs, MERRY CHRISTMAS to all who choose to celebrate Christmas. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 977 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 12:55 pm:    But Marc, how do you confirm being an atheist? Do you have proof of the non-existence of God? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1148 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 01:48 pm:    I think not having natural trees in a church is really a good idea. I seen quite a few tragic losses of beautiful old churches due to fire (not necessarily due to christmas trees). Older churches usually don't have the type of construction and protection systems that new buildings do. Think big white New England church--we've got lots of 'em and they go up like a tinderbox. Churches often are little-used for days at a time, and a fire hazard may develop unseen. And anyway, in cities around the country, assembly uses prohibit flammable decorations. Boston, of course, is the home of the infamous Coconut Grove Nightclub fire in 1942 (and The Station in 2003 in nearby Providence), and these requirements stem directly from that early event. Here in Cambridge, you can't even have a candle on a restaurant table (they use fake candles with a little flicker-bulb). I suggest finding a really good fake tree (there are quite a few out there) and put lots of ornaments on it. No one will even know its not real. Plus, they last years and we don't cut down forests, etc., etc. PS: If religious folks think that they get bashed for believing, they need to get a clue. Being a non-believer is far, far worse, I assure you. Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 100 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 05:22 pm:    I’m surprised that this subject is being discussed on a construction products forum, but since this a big topic in my neck of the woods, here’s my two cents. I belong to a church (LDS) that strongly believes that Jesus was born in April, but we still celebrate his birth on Christmas. I don’t think He minds. I believe the constitution makes sense in how it protects religious freedom. If people would just support that document, we'd all be just fine. The concept of separation of church and state makes sense to a point, but when taken to the extreme it completely falls apart. I’m all for church groups meeting in church buildings and state groups meeting in state buildings. I’m all for religious leaders being chosen by religions and state leaders being chosen by state elections. I’m all for church doctrines and policies being chosen by churches and state laws and policies being chosen by elected individuals. But that is where the church vs state division ends. Anything beyond that begins to contradict the intent of the constitution. Should we make no state laws against killing, since that was one of the Ten Commandments? Should Greek mythology, Egyptian and Middle Age history, art, and architecture be stricken from public school textbooks because of their religious nature? Should every politician be required to denounce religion before being worthy to make laws for the state? Should churches be denied the right to speak out against proposed laws that work against their most sacred institutions and doctrines? Should states have no right to protect victims of those who claim religion as a reason for their crimes? Every human being has religious beliefs of one sort or another and their brains do not categorize their beliefs into religious and non-religious beliefs. My belief in God is sitting right there, next to my belief in subatomic particles (in my case both are based on faith in the claims of other people). Were I to become a politician, I – like every other human being on earth - would legislate according to all my beliefs, not according to some forced categorization of my beliefs. There is not a politician in the world that separates his or her religious beliefs from their secular ones. From what I’ve seen, the only people that want to categorize people (or their beliefs), are the people that want to treat one category of people (or their beliefs) as inferior to their own. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1151 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 09:27 am:    Richard, you're baiting. You have your facts wrong. The teaching of religion of all types is fully protected and is done in school systems across the nation. Teaching these things is a good thing. While churches can and do speak out about laws they disagree with, I do not want my politicians voting according to their religion. When a church threatens to kick someone out if they don't--we have a big problem. I want them voting on my interests as a citizen, which may not align with what their church (or temple, etc) states. If they can't separate the two, they don't belong in power. Let me pose it to you this way: would you feel comfortable if your political jurisdiction instituted sharia law in it's most fundamentalist strain? I really doubt it. To a "secular humanist" or atheist (considered evil or at least "doomed' by much of the world, I suspect) religion in politics in this way is threatening. Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 19 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 10:14 am:    When leaders of tax-free religious organizations spend their resources to influence the laws to conform with their beliefs, I object. Render unto Caeser..., including the responsibility to legislate for EVERYONE. When critical health care reform is stalled and gutted simply because women would be allowed to pay separate premiums to cover abortions, that is not acceptable. You believe in a soul, fine. Many people do not, based on the total lack of evidence. Since this is a matter of faith, which is an individual freedom, it should not be legislated one way or the other. The U.S. was begun by Christians, who valued religious freedom, and they probably did not envision migration from non-Christian cultures, or significant growth in atheism. But that is the reality, and religious freedom still applies. When today's Christian citizens want to codify their beliefs in legislation, they are in opposition to basic American freedoms. You are entitled to your personal beliefs, as is every citizen. Please do not try to force them onto others because you *believe* your truth is superior to that of others. Think globally: if you were born in the eastern hemisphere, you probably would not be Christian. Regarding the confirmation of atheism: The belief in atheism is grounded in faith in science. I won't enter here into a debate on the existence of god, but the atheist position is that in the history of man, there has never been scientific evidence of god's existence, or of the soul. The level of evidence is the same as that in a court of law. Some come to the conclusion that god and the soul don't exist, others simply to the conclusion that there is no proof. Religionists might offer many arguments against this, but none will refute it. I now step off the soap box. Steve Gantner, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: sgantner Post Number: 16 Registered: 08-2007 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 11:07 am:    Me thinks politics should stay out of this forum. Stick with something we all know and understand, specifications. Let's leave the politics to the professional liars in D.C. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 44 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 11:24 am:    Amen. This is not a forum for religion or politics. Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 101 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 11:38 am:    I agree Robert, except that now I feel compelled to respond, since someone commented on my comment. John, I couldn’t have had my facts wrong. I was making hypothetical statements to make a point. You make the point that politicians should vote on our interests as citizens, even when it does not perfectly align with their church doctrines. In other words, they should not do what they believe is right. They should do what they think other people believe is right. I do not believe in that concept. I believe that the time to find politicians that vote with the interests of citizens is Election Day – not any day thereafter. That is what the elections are all about. If you want politicians to vote on your interests, it is your duty to elect them (or run for office yourself). You are correct that I would not feel comfortable if my politicians instituted sharia law, but few would vote for people who threatened such a thing. If however, the majority did vote for such politicians, I would accept the will of the people regardless of my displeasure. Then I would work to change things. There is a poorly understood concept in the country known as the right to “the pursuit of happiness”. Both athiests and fundamentalists have the right to vote for candidates that meet their interests - regardless of what I think of their opinions, regardless of the popularity of their opinions. Relegating any person’s beliefs to a state of inferiority is just arrogance. The only superior opinion that should be recognized is that which was negotiated in our constitution. As long as that document is respected, a person has the right to pursue their own happiness by pushing for a society that meets their own ideals – regardless of who agrees with them. If the people do not share that person’s ideals, the electoral process will naturally dispose of them. Religious organizations do, at times, spend their resources to influence the laws to conform with their beliefs. But this is no different than any other Lobbyist group. I would gladly see the religious organizations stay out of politics – the same day I see the unions and NOW, and the NEA and a gazillion other special interest groups staying out of politics. Specification Writer Senior Member Username: specification_writer Post Number: 9 Registered: 01-2009 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 11:51 am:    ENOUGH with this politics and religion! This is not a forum for this sort of discussion. Stick to specification issues. I would urge Collin to close this discussion thread. Specification Writer Architect Washington, D.C. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 978 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 12:21 pm:    I'm not going to apologize for starting this, because it began with an innocent bit of real information that I though y'all would find interesting especially at this time of the year. AND THEN, as is so typical of thinkers, off we trooped on a tangent, marching onward and venting (sometimes) and expressing our varied opinions. I even tried once to bring it back to the original somewhat lighter-hearted vein to no avail. I do find this interesting reading, however, and am pleased to note that few are getting upset, none are throwing brickbats, and, as should be true here, opinions are thoughtfully and carefully being written. Perhaps it is time to state - again - my wish for joy and blessings and peace at this particular time of the year and for all of 2010 for everyone here. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 979 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 12:46 pm:    Oh, and be sure to celebrate these two holidays: December 17 is . . . . Underdog Day and National Maple Syrup Day December 18 is . . . . National Roast Suckling Pig Day Have a good one! Steve Gantner, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: sgantner Post Number: 17 Registered: 08-2007 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 12:53 pm:    I would prefer to celebrate procrastination day, but I never seem to get around to it! Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 980 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 01:03 pm:    Let's see...your days would be: Be Late for Something Day--September 5 Fight Procrastination Day--September 6 Then there's a whole week: National Procrastination Week--March 1-7 And if you're really serious about it, use this one: perendinate (look it up) Steve Gantner, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: sgantner Post Number: 18 Registered: 08-2007 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 02:05 pm:    As Mark Twain Said, "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow." Ellis C. Whitby, AIA, PE, CSI, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 60 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 02:13 pm:    Lynn; I was so curious about the “regulation” you reported that your city (“B.D”) was going to prohibit live Christmas Trees in churches, that I checked the local paper (“B.D.D.C”) Tuesday. I didn’t see anything there regarding the issue, but I haven’t checked back yet. Has the issue been raised other than in one phone call to one church? Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 981 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 02:22 pm:    Not that I'm aware of. And our pastor hasn't mentioned it - of course, he's rather busy right now. I will try to follow it up though, and let you know what happens. How did you figure out the local paper? I thought I was being very careful (LOL!) Ellis C. Whitby, AIA, PE, CSI, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 61 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 02:29 pm:    Ve have our vays! Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 102 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Friday, December 18, 2009 - 11:17 am:    I apologize for my non-spec-related remarks on this discussion thread yesterday. I’m embarrassed now. I behaved like one of those orcs in 'Lord of the Rings' that feels compelled to jump into the fray when he senses a fight brewing. (I’m blaming it on a weakened mental state from having lost a parent recently). To repent, I decided to convert my previous remark into a parallel spec-relevant discussion: You make the point that specifiers should specify on the interests of the owner, even when it does not align with your own more-extensive understanding of building design and materials. In other words, you are saying that you should not specify what you believe is best. You should instead, specify what you think the owner might believe is best. I do not believe in that concept. I believe that the time for the owner to address their own interests is when the owner hires you to work for them – not any time thereafter. That is what the bidding and hiring process is all about. If an owner wants an architect to work towards their interests, it is the owner’s duty to select and hire the architect and specifier they want (or gain the required education and do the work themselves). You are correct that I, if I were an owner, would not feel comfortable if my specifier specified only the most costly, long-lasting products, but few owners would knowingly hire an architect or specifier that does this. If however, the owner does knowingly hire such a specifier, that owner should accept the decision he or she made regardless of his or her subsequent displeasure. Then the owner should hire someone else for future projects. There is a poorly understood concept in this country, known as the right to “the pursuit of happiness”. Both liberal spenders and conservative spenders have the right to hire the types of architects and specifiers that create architecture that meets their interests - regardless of what I think of their work, regardless of the popularity of their work. Relegating any person’s design decisions to a state of inferiority is just arrogance. The only superior opinion that should be recognized is that which was negotiated in the adopted codes, local zoning ordinances, and the contract agreement. As long as those documents are respected, an architect or specifier has the right to pursue their own happiness by pushing for architecture that meets their own professional ideals – regardless of who agrees with them. If no owners share that architect’s or specifier’s ideals, the bidding and hiring processes will naturally dispose of them. Architectural organizations do, at times, spend their resources to influence the laws to conform with their beliefs. But this is no different than any other Lobbyist group. I would gladly see the AIA stay out of politics – the same day I see the unions, NOW, the NEA, religious groups, and a gazillion other special interest groups staying out of politics. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 241 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, December 18, 2009 - 01:42 pm:    Engineers and architects have an agency relationship with their client and thus need to put their clients interests ahead of there own in many situations. Thus when the design professional imposes his preferences or moral values on the project, when they differ from the clients stated desires, he is in violation of a legal obligation. Admitedly there are limits on the clients ability to have their preferences respected imposed by regulations, the laws of sicience, and other practical consideration but as much as feasible it is our obligation to accomodate out clients stated desires. There are also situations where we believe the clients interests are contrary to his stated desires, and situations where accomodating the clients desires will put the design professional at unreasonable risk both of which can create messy situations. The fact that certain client preferences were not stated at the time the professional services contract was signed is irrelevant. There is a difference between an arms length such as signed with the contractor and a professional services agreement. In an arms length contract you can only expect what was written in the agreement but this is not the case in a professional services agreement. In addition few design professionals can afford to take an arragant attitude towards their cleints desires. It should be noted that Frank Loyd Wright's arrogant actions regards Falling Waters created an unsafe situation. Ash (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, December 18, 2009 - 02:13 pm:    The best part about the holiday season is it opens up a dialogue that ties ideas in that would otherwise not be considered topical. I think it's nearsighted to ban all churches from having live trees without consideration for the flammability of the building materials within those structures. A brick, concrete, and glass structure is in little danger from a live tree. And a discussion board about architectural specifications is probably not going to come apart with a little religious political discussion. May you all find peace and happiness (which will most likely involve taking a long break from the computer)! Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 46 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, December 18, 2009 - 02:47 pm:    Boy has this strayed from info about laws and regulations about christmas trees!!! I disagree with Richard and agree with Mark. Richard: "You make the point that specifiers should specify on the interests of the owner, even when it does not align with your own more-extensive understanding of building design and materials. In other words, you are saying that you should not specify what you believe is best. You should instead, specify what you think the owner might believe is best. I do not believe in that concept. I believe that the time for the owner to address their own interests is when the owner hires you to work for them – not any time thereafter." The A/E is obligated to give the client his/her best advice, but the final decisions lie with the client as long as they comply with applicable laws and regulations. The client is not retaining a "supreme being" who will make all future project decisions for him/her. It is the client's project and the client's money. If you feel that the client's desires, directives, or decisions are not in the client's best interests or the interests of the project, you should so advise the client and ensure that that your advice is properly documented. If the client decides against your advice, so be it. If the opinions of the client and A/E are extremely and continually divergent, it would probably be wise to terminate the services agreement. As a specification consultant, I have the same oblications to my A/E client. I give my best advice, but the final decisions are the A/E's. If we are continually not on the same page, then we should stop working together. I have never had that problem with a client. Similarly, an employee has somewhat the same relationship with his employer. If you continually disagree with the decisions of your employer, it is probably time to find another place of employment (tough these days). Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 103 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Friday, December 18, 2009 - 04:31 pm:    Alright, you got me. I was actually just trying to be ironic by substituting an inappropriate church vs. state discussion with an almost identical, but more appropriate for this forum, owner vs. architect discussion. I didn’t put a lot of thought into the legally binding limitations on an architect's freedom to design. I agree. It is clearly our job, as providers of a service, to serve the owner according to our contracts and to look out for the Owner’s interests. That includes educating clients as to legal requirements and potential problems of which the owner may not otherwise be aware. The points I made really were only intended to spur thinking. If an owner wants a box, should he seek out Mr. Gehry as his designer? If he wants something wild and crazy, should he hire a student of Mies Van de Rohe? Certainly, legally speaking, if Mr. Gehry agreed to work for the guy who wants a box, he should provide the box. That is the service he agreed to provide. But if the owner finds that Mr. Gehry is using every legally permissible trick in his arsenal to turn that box into something more attuned to his designing sensabilities – should the owner really be surprised? All I’m saying is that an owner who wants boxes should hire box-makers to design their boxes. They should not hire the Gehrys of the world and then expect them to be the designers they are not. (For added fun, substitute ‘owner’ with ‘voter’, ‘Mr. Gehry’ with ‘religious person,’ ‘designer’ with ‘elected representative’ and ‘box’ with ‘separation of church and state’.)