Sidin{ and Soffit from James Hardie

The resilient building materials with the durability of concrete and the worlnbility ofwood.

You're looking at some of the most resilient siding and soffit materials ever developed.

Siding and soffit from James Hardie.

Let it blow

Hardie siding can be installed to withstand winds up to 130 mph!'So if you're the least bit worried about gusty winds, don't be. Hardie siding can handle it.

Hardie siding and Hardisoffit'" have earned their reputations by standing up to humidity in places like Malaysia, where the humidity often reaches 90%. For comparison's sake, the average humidity of Southeastern U.S. is usually a mere 750/0.*

The remarkable lightweight masonry building products that have survived more than two decades in some of the most swelteringly unforgiving climactic conditions New Guinea, Malaysia, Australia and Indonesia have ever produced.

Now these rugged building materials are available Stateside.

Talk about coverage

Which means if Hardie siding and Hardisoffif" can survive some of the most unbearably hot and humid climates on earth, you can safely assume they can make it through the summers in Key West, Florida.

James Hardie is a world leader in fiber cement technology with over 100 years experience. To date, billions of square feet of Hardie siding and Hardisoffit'" have been installed.

Another strike against wood Hardie siding and Hardisoffit'''are noncombustible.': Their cementitious compositions make them some of the most fireresistant building materials money can Duy.

Or Cape Cod, Massachusetts for that matter.

Fear no termites

Hardie siding and Hardisoffit'" are warranted to withstand the ravages of even these treacherous vermin.

Any products that can survive sweltering humidity, sizable ff termites and tremendous winds deserve a good warranty. Good reasons why Hardie siding and Hardisoffit'' come with a transferable, 50 Year Limited Product Warranty. Read the details and compare wherever the product is sold.

$4.$ when avalhble, plus shlpplng 8nd handlh.

chang€o loTho Morchanil MagEzlrF, 45m Campus Dr,, Ste 480, Nervpon Boach, Ca. 92660 I}|EIERcH^l|TI^G^z|l{E(UsLsi96s60m)bpUb|bh€dmonbtyat4500camF!D].,st.''|80,l{0Upo]tBo.ch'ca.92660'010852.|990'byTheM9rhantMagaz|ng,|nc'Ss# ch3spodageia|$pa|daiNf,porlB0ach'ca.'andadditlona|postd|bes.|tbaninda9nden|v{wnedpub||caton|orth9retail,who|esa mad(ob|n13w$|9mshb.copyr|g|io|99|byTtrMednntMagaz|n9,|nc.covora]dontir0con[€n[saB|U|lypo|€c{edandm6tno|bgr€prducedinanymannerwbdwmgnFmb. slon. AllBlghb Roson/€d TheMorchailMsgazlne assum$ m llablliy br maledab tumbhed to it

DAVID CUTLER editor- publisher

No facts, just action

If you've ever wondered what it takes to get a species listed under the Endangered Species Act, the case of the California gnatcatcher provides what may be a typical example.

While Department of the Interior secretary Bruce Babbitt has held up the gnatcatcher as a demonstration of his "flexible" approach to the ESA, it turns out Interior listed the bird despite a total absence of research data.

In a fit of environmental zeal, Interior's bureaucrats decided to list the bird without allowing any public review of the data that "justified" their action. Responding to the howls of local builders and developers, U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin took the bird off the threatened species list. Then Mr. Babbitt promised to provide the data, so back onto the threatened list the gnatcatcher went.

When the building industry asked Interior for the research data, it was nowhere to be found. Refened to the ornithologist who did the study, industry was told the data had been destroyed in 1986. Now the story gets really weird. The 1991 report that backed the original listing had been preceded by two reports. One in 1988 which claimed the Mexican and California gnatcatchers were the same species and a 1990 report saying they weren't. California builders had eadier pointed out that the thousands of birds north of the border were at least matched by a similar number south ofthe border. Endangered species, indeed. Despite its lack of justification, the Interior Deparment's enviros have continued to push for the listing of the gnatcatcher as an endangered species. In view of the fact that their listing puts vast tracts of coastal land off limits to development, the species most threatened here is the human. Much of the land involved was slated for first time home buyers and low income families. By putting the bird first and the citizens second, the Department's commitrnent to environmental extremism becomes clear. Similar examples abound across the U.S. No matter what the facts, the Interior Department is going to do what it wants to do.

It seems an obvious case of the public be damned.