> camplate schreef:
>
> > I can't answer your questions but I have a one of my own. How was this
building in Germany costing money? I can see some money, if there was
security, enough maintenance to keep the building okay in case the project
moved forward, etc. But I can't see how this money would be anything but a
fraction of a percent of the cost to just build the thing in the first
place.
>
> IIRC the building of that thing started somewhere in the seventies. It
took them ten years or some such (at least it was more then the two years
they had planned). Then regulations got strickter and the building needed to
be adjusted to those regulations. During all that time there was a legal
battle going on between activists the government and the owner about the
validity of the building licences and something about building regulations
and the place where the thing was built. I think they won in court with the
objections they presented and the building was initially declared illegal.
They had to stop what they were doing untill court decided in favour during
another round in court, and another and another. Then the building at last
and finally was declared legal or is
> it still illegal ? I don't really know. However after some 20 odd years
of legal bickering the thing was unfinished, unsafe and obsolete and now it
has to be torn down and they still don't know how to do it. Anyway all that
time it cost money to make building modifications and adjustments to newer
standards, to restart and stop building it and to keep maintenance up during
that time. It really is a multi billion Mark wreck they built there.
>
> Sonja
Cool, thanks for the answers. I'm all for legal objections to be raised in
the courts. The nuclear people can blame the activists for mucking things up
but if you don't have your Ps and Qs straight before hand then it is their
own fault.
I do have a small on the other hand, about a different point you made, about
new regulations during the building process. If someone told you your
apartment was started in 1977 and finished in 1979, but in 1978 they came
out with more strick codes, like for wiring or fire sprinklers, but they let
the building be built with the 1977 codes, would you stay where you are? I
really only mean this generally, I know nuclear buildings are a lot more
important to get right than apartment buildings (except for the one YOU live
in ;-) I just think this can happen with any multi-year project: the plans
call for a x time frame but regulations are changed every x/2, or x/10 even.
Just wondering out loud.
Kevin Tarr
Trump high, lead low
