Periodic Building Inspections

Posted by Thomas Spear on May 7, 2012 in Articles, Blog | 0 comments

Periodic Building Inspections

Once a property is fully occupied and stabilized it is easy to simply lose focus or ignore the occupied units. That, unfortunately, is a practice which is not in the best interest of a property owner. In Los Angeles it is necessary to physically inspect for smoke detectors every six months. This inspection is a great opportunity to do a more thorough inspection, thereby protecting the property and addressing any potential liability issues. It is an opportunity to assess parts of physical property often ignored. While the periodic inspection requirements from other municipalities may be different, the discipline of a six-month inspection is a very good idea.

During the inspection process an owner or property manager can look beyond the smoke detectors at other aspects of the property to ensure that each tenant is taking care of the property and that there are no situations which require the owner’s attention, such as illegal roommates or the tenants doing excessive damage to the property. The six-month inspection can also be used to check all the plumbing fixtures to make sure that they are working properly and to make sure that, even more importantly, they are not leaking thereby causing excessive utility charges to the owner.

This inspection also presents a very good opportunity to look for mildew or mold in a unit. An owner can easily take the time to look at the likely places, under the sinks and in the bathrooms where there’s plumbing and moisture gathering. The early detection of mildew is a huge benefit as it allows the owner to address the situation before it becomes problematic and before it becomes a problem with the tenant. During an inspection an owner can also look at the door locks to make sure they’re secure, as well as the latches and locks on the screens and windows to ensure the safety of the tenant and also address potential landlord liability.

Finally on owner can look for any damages or potential damages, which will have to be addressed either immediately or in the future when the tenant leaves. At a minimum, the owner has advance notice of a potential situation and can address it appropriately. Whether or not an inspection is required by the municipality it is a good idea to do inspections every six months to review the operating systems within occupied spaces and to ensure that the owners’ liability and the premises are well taken care of and all problems are viewed advance.

Asphalt vs Coal Tar Pitch Roofing

Posted by Thomas Spear on Mar 28, 2012 in Articles, Blog | 0 comments

The following article is a very good discussion of the most popular and utilized roofing systems used since WWII  in the US.

 How the two popular bitumens measure up across the years

 What’s simple, durable, expensive, and welcomed by a wide swath of the roofing industry?

If this item existed, we probably would have favored it for decades. But who would have been conscious of ozone depletion, sources of smog, global warming, urban climate change, LEED, OSHA, asbestosis, mesothelioma, toxicity of arsenic, lead, and chromium, recycling, emissivity, and albedo a few decades ago?

Actually, that material does exist – and it’s still in use today. For low slope bituminous roofing systems, what goes around really does come around.

Bituminous Roofing Hits the Market
Back in the pre-World War II years, there were two bituminous substances (bitumens) that dominated the roofing industry. Coal tar pitch was a by-product of processing coal to make coke, which in turn was used in making carbon steel and electrodes for the aluminum industry. Asphalt, a by-product of processing petroleum to make gasoline, fuel oil, and various hydrocarbon polymers, was also popular.

Roofing systems originally consisted of alternate layers of hot bitumen and reinforcement. The original reinforcement was called “organic felt,” a paper-like product consisting of waste paper, cotton linters, and asplund wood fibers.

Was the system simple, durable, inexpensive and welcomed by all? Actually, it was and still is. Since bitumens are vulnerable to ultra-violet imbrittlement, these membranes were surfaced with a flood coat of bitumen into which gravel or slag was embedded. This screened UV light and greatly improved fire resistance.

By the 1950s, a coated base felt was introduced, replacing the “two dry, three mopped” roof systems over wood decks. Where the flood coat and gravel surface was inconvenient, substitution of asbestos or fiber glass reinforcements permitted the omission of gravel, with asphalt-aluminum roof coatings or clay-stabilized asphalt emulsions used for UV protection.

Cut-back coatings such as solvent-asphalt-fiber systems were incorporated. Water-based white coatings such as White-Gard and Star-White were offered as a substitute for the aluminum coatings, but these were stained by migration of the bitumen into the coating and were not elastic enough to accommodate movement of the bitumen sub-surface.

In 1973-1974, we were faced with an oil embargo. Two-ply coated asphalt felts were introduced since there were less moppings of bitumen to be applied and less labor to install. Unfortunately, these two-ply roofs were troubled by blistering between the two coated sheets and lacked the proven durability of their 4- and 5-ply predecessors.

Meanwhile, some light-weight roof systems were having success in mild climate regions such as much of the West Coast and Arizona. They might be 2- or 3-ply systems with a mineral-surfaced cap sheet. At low slopes, inorganic roofing felts such as asbestos or glass fiber were used, since the organic-based materials would absorb water at side and end-laps if the roof ponded water.

Asphalt Emulsions Step into the Spotlight
We mentioned clay-stabilized asphalt emulsions earlier in this column. While asphalt is hydrophobic, it can be dispersed in water as long as an emulsifying agent is used, such as extremely fine particles of bentonite clay. This system provides a stable base for reflective roof coatings, and the cured coating has excellent fire resistance without needing gravel surfacing. The emulsions were so good that some roof systems marketed used a one-ply base sheet, followed by a generous application of emulsion and chopped glass fibers roving as reinforcing. The emulsions also proved useful when re-surfacing existing bituminous roofs and served as a base for reflective roof coatings.

Emulsion systems must be protected against freezing during storage, something that is true of acrylic systems as well. Many new roof systems, such as self-adhering modified bituminous membranes, aluminum roof coatings, and water-based insulation adhesives also require ambient and substrate temperatures during application of 50 degrees F. or higher.

Emulsion systems also contain no flammable solvents (no red label), they are permeable to water vapor, but not liquid water, which is very useful in damp-proofing and resurfacing. They contain few or no VOCs that contribute to the formation of smog. Also notable is that these systems are quick to apply. Because these emulsions do not flow when subjected to high temperatures, they make a stable base for the current generation of reflective acrylic roof coatings.

You might agree they are simple, durable, inexpensive, and welcomed by all!

Richard (Dick) L. Fricklas was technical director emeritus of the Roofing Industry Educational Institute prior to his retirement. He is co-author of The Manual of Low Slope Roofing Systems and continues to participate in seminars for the University of Wisconsin and RCI Inc., the Institute of Roofing, Waterproofing, and Building Envelope Professionals. His honors include the William C. Cullen Award and Walter C. Voss Award from ASTM, the J. A. Piper Award from NRCA, the William C. Correll award from RCI, and the James Q. McCawley Award from the MRCA. Dick holds honorary memberships in both ASTM and RCI Inc.

Automated large-scale attacks taking down SMBs

Posted by Thomas Spear on Mar 28, 2012 in Articles, Blog | 0 comments

There’s always chatter about the sophistication of malware and the advanced hacking techniques attackers use to steal payment information or sensitive corporate data. While that may be true for targeted attacks against high-value targets such as government agencies, the defense industrial base or financial institutions, the majority of victims, according to the 2012 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR) (.pdf), are smaller companies that fall prey to commodity attacks that expose shortcomings in basic information security best practices. The innovation is in the automation and process refinement behind attacks, and not necessarily in the sophistication of the malware involved, the report suggests.

Small businesses are worried about the bottom line. It’s a matter of expertise, time and resources that they’re not able to defend themselves.Christopher Porter, principal, Verizon RISK team

Christopher Porter, principal with Verizon’s RISK team, said organized cybercrime groups have automated attacks end to end. These groups will scan the Internet looking for exposed PoS or remote administration services, such as remote desktop management, and will use brute force attacks against the logins to gain access. Since many use easy-to-guess, or default passwords on these systems, gaining access can be trivial. Once inside, malware—usually a keylogger—is installed and begins collecting data. The malware is also preconfigured to send data outbound, either via FTP or email, to a Web server under the attacker’s control. The data is then sold on the black market, or, if credentials are stolen, deeper attacks are carried out against bank accounts or other systems within an enterprise.

“We joke that there must be some sort of old crime groups that have gotten their MBAs,” Porter said. “In the last several years of these types of industrialized attacks, we’re seeing innovation in the process and methodology used.  The whole process is end to end and it’s massive in scale.

Landlord versus Tenant

Posted by Thomas Spear on Jan 23, 2012 in Articles, Blog | 0 comments

One of the most critical areas in apartment or commercial management is the relationship established between Landlord and Tenant. It is also an area where a Landlord has the least control, unlike deciding vendors or services. The Landlord and Tenant relationship is critical as this helps define the most important aspect of real state ownership, income. Viewed in that light, this relationship, like all others requires nurturing. The natural inclination is for a Tenant to feel that they are paying too much for too little. Conversely, the Landlord feels that the Tenant is paying too little for what is being provided to them. Thus, we have the perfect formula for conflict. How then does one approach this to create the proper ‘real estate’ relationship?

The best approach is to be the Landlord that views the Tenant as an important client. They are, after all, responsible for the cash flow or any residential or commercial property. This means a respectful and businesslike approach, but not one where any unnecessary advantage is given. The lease is the lease. The second part of the equation is to remember this is a critical business, commercial relationship and not to personalize no matter what issue or attitude is presented from a Tenant. The final part is to provide all services (repairs and maintenance) in a quick and professional manner. Nothing makes a Tenant angrier than a broken item being left for a long time. It makes the tenant feel unimportant and unwanted. A broken faucet will cost the same to repair today, as it will next week. So why not do this today?

Any thoughts on success stories or strategies will be welcomed.