It was recently brought to my attention that Tad Farlow has been pushing the Pittsville Town Commissioners to pass an ordinance that would require new residential construction to incorporate sprinkler systems for fire suppression. I was unable to attend the last Town Meeting during whichI understand the issue was brought up for a second time. I am adamantly opposed to this requirement. I have no problem with Tad and have been aquainted with him for some time. I do, however, have a big problem with continued pushes toward government intrusion (at all levels) into the lives and businesses of the citizens. The last thing we need is another law dictating how we conduct our lives.
I found the following letter on the internet written by a home designer from Renton, Washington. This letter basically guts the theory that sprinkler systems save property owners significant amounts of money in property damage and insurance premiums. Therefore, the position that I foresee will be taken by proponents of this type of legislation will be the saving of lives in the unfortunate event of a fire. Is it not true that in the vast majority of cases where residential house fires resulting in death, smoke detectors were either non-existent or not operating? Wouldn't it be more prudent to push an effort to continue to educate the public about the importance of smoke detectors and how to make certain they are working properly?
Where does the type of legislation proposed in Pittsville stop? Do we require that all older homes be retrofitted with sprinklers? Do we require that all homes be constructed of cinder block to further reduce the possibility of fire? Do we require that all interior cabinetry, carpet, curtains, etc., be made of asbestos or some other fireproof material? The ridiculous notion that the the govt. must regulate everything we do from the time we open our eyes in the morning until we close them at night brings us closer to Socialism everyday. This must stop.
Following is a copy of that letter.
Jun 21 2008
As a residential designer in Renton, I feel compelled to respond to a recent letter to the editor. My goal as a designer is to produce the best home solution for my client. This may or may not include fire sprinklers but does consider their “bottom line” and safety. Fire sprinkler systems are good to have but should not always be required.
The writer’s obvious bias against the Master Builder’s Association (MBA) seems to have affected his math abilities. If a fire sprinkler system costs one-half percent of a new home’s price, that would average $2,000 in a $400,000 home. The actual installed cost averages over $8,000. Spread it over a 30-year loan and it doubles to $16,000. The savings one can expect from homeowners insurance on a $400,000 home would be about $100 per year. $16,000/$100 equals a 160-year payoff. This alone is “economic grounds” to avoid sprinklers.
Keep in mind that residential fire-sprinkler systems are not fire-suppression systems. While they may put out a small fire directly in their path, they are specifically designed to increase the escape time occupants have before the fire gets beyond its control. This effectively negates fire and water damages as a cost variable. Fire marshals can and do require fire sprinklers wherever the fire department cannot respond to or gain complete access to, regardless of a city’s codes.
New homes within four to six minutes of a fire department (most of us), with all of today’s required life-safety technology, are not unsafe. To expect that a builder must “eat” the cost of a sprinkler system shows ignorance in construction and basic economics. The additional cost, with the contractor’s typical markup, will be added onto the house’s cost, guaranteeing higher-cost homes. Water departments will have to redesign their systems to provide increased availability, adding costs to everyone with or without sprinkler systems. It is an enhancement and will be marketed that way, forcing up the basic cost of any new home.
Forced requirement of sprinklers in every new home is an additional and unnecessary intrusion of government into our daily lives that is not yet economically relevant as the writer attempted to promote. Have an escape plan; test your smoke detectors monthly and keep them working; learn to use extinquishers;if you can afford it, put in sprinklers, and use common sense to avoid fire hazards.
Karl Koning
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
10 comments:
not in this economy, its going to be hard enough for anyone to get a loan for a house let alone jacking the cost up to boot. this ideal will die fast.
sprinklers do save lives and property. many places in California have had these types of building codes for quite awhile and property damage and loss of life has gone down in fire related accidents.
not that it is nice to have the govt to change building codes that cost money, but there are some side benifits to it.
I have a friend who has a condo at Baltimore's Inner Harbor. She told me that her neighbors wanted to insure some valuable antiques and artwork in their condo.They had a hard time finding a company who would insure the contents and when they did the premuims were high. They were told by the insurance companies that there is a greater chance of the sprinkler system malfunctioning and ruining their valuables than a fire.
Any sprinkler system is designed to save lives, not property.
The systems are designed to keep fires small long enough for victims to escape.
They do that job well. They do, however, cause quite a bit of damage.
Well placed and operable smoke detectors can probably do just as well.
In a privately owned building it should be the owners decision.
Alot of hipe in the past few years from the "Fire Service" about residential sprinklers, more than likely generated by the manufacturers and installers.
I posted a while back about the politics associated with Pittsville,MD.
On a personal note, I truly believe that the person considering to build in the Town limits of Pittsville needs to be submitted for a psychological evaluation.
With municipal impact fees at $10,000 and add $5,250 - Wicomico County impact fee the person has to be insane.
$10,000 + $5,250 + Health Department Fee + Building Permit Fee = Insanity.
Pardon my french, 'BUT THE SOB POLITICOS HAVE GONE CRAZY'
And now residential sprinklers?
More lemmings being lead over the cliff by the Home Builders Associations. And "Karl Koning, Residential Designer in Renton" did not write that letter- at least most of it, because the majority of that letter is cut-and-pasted verbatim from one of the Home Builder's Association's Anti-Sprinkler Propaganda Kits.
Want to know how much it REALLY costs to install a residential sprinkler system? Pennies on the dollar!
Take a look at this report just released by NFPA Fire Reasearh Foundation on the cost and saving by insurance companies for residential sprinkler protetion.
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Research/FireSprinklerCostAssessment.pd f
The cost of sprinkler systems to the homebuilder, in dollars per sprinklered SF, ranged from $0.38 to $3.66. This range represents the 30 different house plans, with the average cost being $1.61 per sprinklered SF. The low end of this range iv ($0.38/sprinklered SF) represents a California house in a community with a longstanding ordinance, sprinklers in the attic and the garage (in addition to the living space), and some potential pricing benefits from a volume relationship with the sprinkler contractor. The high end of this cost range ($3.66/sprinklered SF) represents a Colorado house on well water and a system constructed with copper piping which utilized anti-freeze for freeze protection during the winter. These costs include all costs to the builder associated with the sprinkler system including design, installation, and other costs such as permits, additional equipment, and increased tap and water meter fees – to the extent that they apply. When accounting for any available credits given for
the use of residential sprinklers (as was the case in Wilsonville, OR), the total sprinkler system costs to the builder averaged $1.49 per sprinklered SF.
Insurance quotes for a theoretical prototype house were also obtained for the nineUnited States communities and one Canadian community. Quotes were obtained with
and without a sprinkler system in an effort to estimate the discount that may result fromhaving a sprinkler system. Annual discount savings averaged $22, or 3.42% of the
annual premium. The difference in this discount compared to the average percentage discount found in the survey is likely due to the disconnect between generally quoted
ranges and the real discounts allowed on real policies. As sprinkler systems become more common in given areas and this discount becomes a more common topic in the
consumer-insurance agent dialogue, it is anticipated that actual discounts would moreclosely track with general ranges.
Case studies that examined installation costs and insurance premium discounts associated with the installation of home fire sprinkler systems were conducted for 10 communities, nine distributed throughout the United States and one in Canada. They are: Pitt Meadows, BC (Canada); San Clemente, CA; Fort Collins, CO; Huntley, IL; Matteson, IL; North Andover, MA; Carroll County, MD; Prince George’s County, MD; Wilsonville, OR; and Pleasant View, TN.
Anon 3:16....
Oh really? See this.....
http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/ren/opinion/letters/20594929.html
So what? Posted in some newspaper or on here, the wording in his letter is the exact verbiage used by the HBA's. Whats your point?
Having been in the sprinkler industry for 20 years now here is my 2 cents. The chance of a sprinkler system going off inadvertantly is very, very small. The majority of problems with residential systems failing or not working properly are often due to improper insulation, homeowners painting the sprinkler heads and even shutting the systems off for no apparent reason. All of these items are far beyond the reach of the installer. Having seen first hand that sprinklers can and do extinguish a small fire before the loss of life or property becomes catastrophic tends to make me biased. Even the fire marshalls in RI where the nightclub fire occured several years ago said that sprinklers would not have stopped that fast moving fire but would have allowed more people to get out safely. Sure requiring residential sprinklers would be great for business, seeing as how things are very, very slow now. While I agree that government-whether national or local-seem to be requiring more and more regulations and rules, it would occur to me that anything that could be done to help prevent the loss of life or property might be a good thing. We dont need homes of concrete and steel, but anyone who has done any construction in OC for example knows the fire marshall requires all the data on flame spread and fire ratings on paint, drywall, carpets, etc-basically ANYTHING that is inside a living space.
For anyone who is a non-believer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5DTOctzM5s
Post a Comment