On Oct. 3, 2024, The New York Times published an article titled “How the North Carolina Legislature Left Homes Vulnerable to Helene,” which made several false and misleading claims regarding the legislature’s passage of pro-housing legislation concerning the devastation caused by Hurricane Helene in western North Carolina. The article attempted to conflate these two issues and reported numerous falsehoods that do not accurately reflect the actions taken by the legislature or the North Carolina Home Builders Association.

In a time when all efforts should be concentrated on rescuing, recovering, and restoring the families and communities affected by Hurricane Helene, it is disappointing that valuable time must be diverted to address these false claims. The outrageous statements made by the NYT, which have been repeated by various state and local media outlets, require a response, as the salacious nature of these accusations cannot go unanswered.

Below are the facts regarding several of the false and misleading claims made by the NYT that were later repeated by various state and local media outlets.

Claim: “The legislature passed a law that essentially blocked the state from adopting new building codes until 2031.”:

This claim is completely false. The law that the NYT was referring to in this statement is HB 488 (Session Law 2023-108). HB 488 did not block the adoption of a new Residential Code until 2031. In fact, HB 488 [SL 2023-108] mandated the adoption of a new Residential Code consistent with the 2024 code cycle (See Section 1q of HB 488 below):

SECTION 1.(q) Subject to Section 7 and Section 8 of this act, nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the timing of, or abrogate the duties of, the Building Code Council in its revision of the North Carolina State Building Code collection, including the North Carolina State Building Code: Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings, into the 2024 North Carolina State Building Code collection, to become effective on January 1, 2025, as required by G.S. 143- 138(d) prior to the effective date of the remainder of this section.

The Building Code Council followed this mandate and a new 2024 Residential Code will become effective on 01/01/25.

The only element of the 2024 Residential Code that was impacted by HB 488 was a pause to specific chapters involving expensive energy code-related measures and nothing else. This pause, which will last only until 01/01/26, not 2031, has no impact on any other section of the Residential Code. Thus, there is no impact on any measure designed to improve the structural integrity, flood-freeboard requirements, or fire-prevention protections required for new home construction in our state.

Claim: According to state Rep. Pricey Harrison, bills introduced in the 2009-2010 session would have helped with Hurricane Helene by placing statewide restrictions on construction on steep or hazardous slopes:

It’s absurd to claim that Rep. Harrison’s inability to pass steep-slope legislation while the Democrats held the majority illustrates that the current Republican majority’s efforts to oppose regulations harms Hurricane Helene victims. Additionally, the numerous local ordinances in western North Carolina that regulate steep slopes further demonstrate the irrelevance of this claim.

Our association has responsibly supported regulations necessary for protecting life and safety, while also advocating for regulatory efficiency. We oppose the unnecessary addition of statewide regulations that overlap with local regulations addressing the same issue. The issue lies not in the regulatory goal itself but in the repetitive imposition of regulations at both state and local levels. This practice leads to unnecessary redundancy, costing the regulated community time and money.

Claim: The 2013 decision to extend the code-adoption cycle to six years from three years causes codes to fall behind in addressing important life-safety measures:

It is our association that sought legislation more than two decades ago that applied our Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to our Building Code Council. The APA provides that any person or entity can file a petition for rulemaking which the relevant board or agency is obligated to consider. Thus, the opportunity exists for any person or entity to seek a building-code change at any meeting of the council.

The statute does provide that a more comprehensive review of the residential code occurs every six years. However, that provision does not stand for the proposition that was asserted by the NYT. In other words, an assertion that the full re-adoption and the publishing of a new statewide building code on a six-year basis prevents revisions and amendments to update the code at any time for the protection of life and safety is simply not true. The building code is regularly amended by the council to address emerging life and safety issues even when a full review is not required.

Claim: HB 488 and SB 166 weakened building standards, “such as preventing local building inspectors from ensuring that home builders correctly install protective sheathing on homes exposed to winds of 140 miles per hour or less.”:

There is not a single provision within HB 488 or SB 166 that could reasonably be argued to weaken the protection of life or safety. Instead of undermining building standards, the legislation we supported has enabled the Building Code Council to require local building inspectors to conduct separate sheathing inspections on homes located in areas subject to 140-mile-per-hour winds or greater.

Prior to this law change, local building inspectors lacked the authority to require a separate sheathing inspection for residential dwellings within all wind zones in our state.  As a result of HB 488, the Building Code Council formally adopted in 2024 a provision that a separate sheathing inspection be conducted by local building inspectors in areas of our state susceptible to high winds, including western North Carolina. 

Please note that local building inspectors have the responsibility to fail any inspection in which the work does not meet the code for any buildings and structures in North Carolina which include sheathing requirements for dwellings in wind zones less than 140 miles per hour. Thus, they are not prevented from “ensuring that home builders correctly install protective sheathing on homes exposed to winds of 140 miles per hour or less,” as the NYT asserts. Not only did our association not contribute to the loss of life and property as a result of Hurricane Helene, the NYT failed to report that our association supported requiring a separate sheathing inspection for areas of our state subject to high wind.

Claim: The legislature is responsible for a 2018 code carve out of a provision requiring a statewide mandatory freeboard requirement in flood zones:

The decision was made by the Building Code Council, which consists of 17 members appointed by the governor, not by the legislature. Our association supported the statewide mandatory freeboard requirement in flood zones and successfully advocated for its inclusion in the statewide code during the current code cycle. The claim that the action of the governor-appointed Building Code Council, contrary to our advocacy efforts, somehow implicates our association or the legislature is incorrect.

Claim: “The new law has made it harder for North Carolina to qualify for Federal Emergency Management Agency grants…”:

The claim that there was a loss of federal funding due to HB 488 is false. Data from recent FEMA BRIC funding shows that appropriations to the program went from $2.295 billion in FY 2022 to $1 billion in FY 2023 (with only $675 million currently allocated for specific grant projects). When considering how North Carolina has performed against other states over the past three grant cycles in contrast to the reduction of available funds this year, our state is outperforming rather than underperforming.

Since HB 488 directed the Building Code Council to adopt the new residential code to be effective on 01/01/25 and since the adoption of the latest edition of the building code is a criterion for the award of FEMA BRIC funding, there is no reason to believe that NC’s applications will be adversely affected in the future.

Claim: A 2014 bill weakening protection for wetlands contributed to flood damage:

Regardless of any claims about past or recent legislative actions concerning wetlands, environmentally sensitive and flood-prone areas in our state are subject to extensive regulations that restrict development. These regulations include floodplain management, watershed management, stormwater control, and riparian buffer measures. Additionally, various other regulatory constraints affect these lands, ensuring that our state’s coastlines, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, and floodplain areas remain preserved for flood control and storage, preventing their development.

Claim: “Under pressure to control housing costs, Republican lawmakers rejected standards meant to protect against disasters….”

There is not a single regulation or standard that our association has opposed or advocated to be weakened that would have protected homeowners from the unprecedented devastation caused by Hurricane Helene.  This historic storm created several 1,000-year flood events across western North Carolina and there is no regulatory scheme in any state that would have had any mitigating impact on this tragedy.

Conclusion: The increasing cost of homeownership in our state has become a serious crisis. Our association is dedicated to championing housing that is affordable while also prioritizing essential regulations that ensure life and safety. Unfortunately, there are some individuals and groups that are more concerned with political agendas and profit from increased building and energy regulations than honestly addressing Hurricane Helene’s impact on the people of western North Carolina.

Our association’s strategy for improving home affordability and homeownership in North Carolina focuses on tackling unreasonably long permit review times and regulatory redundancies. We aim to eliminate these unnecessary delays, which ultimately cost future homebuyers both time and money, without compromising the overall regulatory objectives.

Despite the distraction caused by the false and misleading reporting from the NYT, our association has collectively raised over $300,000 so far. These funds will be used to help our members and their families recover from this disaster.

While all our efforts should be dedicated to supporting the victims and addressing the areas of greatest need throughout the region, when anyone makes false or misleading remarks about our hardworking members or our supporters in the legislature, we will respond with the truth.