While this will be the first reading on residential sprinklers, several new codes will be presented tonight and some are concerned about the additional expense of installing such systems into new homes.
I, for one, support residential sprinkler systems. So you see an increase of $5,000.00 to $7,000.00 per home, (on average) increase on the cost of the home. I personally do not see where this is a big deal. The system goes off only in the area in which there is a fire, saving the home, (in most cases) yet some Firefighters say it only slows the fire down. I disagree and we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter.
Insurance rates come down quite a bit if you have one of these systems and the value of your home goes up. It's a win/win situation. If you also look down the road towards the future, the more homes that have these systems, the less you have to rely on $50,000,000.00 Fire Stations. Some Firefighters see this as a threat towards their future. Too bad! It should be more about saving lives and property than Fire Departments getting bigger and bigger and taxpayers having to front the money to keep up with their demands.
Former Fire Chief See and Assistant Chief Gordy have constantly shoved it down the taxpayers throats that they need to have the latest and greatest equipment. Well, I say, load up future homes with mandatory sprinkler systems and eventually downsize the Fire Departments.
The bigger question is, what do you think about mandatory residential sprinkler systems?
38 comments:
Bad idea, not in this economy its bad timing. Plastic pipe huh, what kind of fumes does that put off when it melts.
With the lower water pressure in Salisbury, how effective will they actually be? I'm not saying I'm for or against just wondering.
I think it is a great idea. How many times in recent years have we heard of fatalities in fires because they didn't have a working smoke detector? I don't mean to down play smoke detectors either. Smoke detectors should ALWAYS be installed in conjunction with fire sprinklers. I think it's a small price to pay for someone's life.
Maybe if the inspectors did what they are paided to do and made sure all the contractors on a resedential job were properly licensed and the work being done was up to code you wouldnt have some senseless fires. Like thats ever going to happen. Did you know that you dont even need a permit to install a gas or oil fired furnace around here.
im pretty much againist ANYTHING thats mandatory. if i want to save 4-7 thousand dollars, that should be my choice. i dont agree with mandatory insurance, i dont agree with mandatory sprinklers, and i definately do not agree with mandatory government...
12:53 PM obviously has no clue what he is talking about.
And niether does 12:54 PM.
I think it is a great idea. Saving lives out weighs the small extra cost in the long run. The pipe is fire resistant and the water pressure would be sufficient in the city.
I am all for it. Actually the national average is about $1.50 a square foot so you are talking about 2 to $3,000 or less for new construction such as ranchers. Well worth the investment.
Anonymous said...
Bad idea, not in this economy its bad timing. Plastic pipe huh, what kind of fumes does that put off when it melts.
12:53 PM
Hey Dumb, Dumb, the sprinkler will put the fire out before it melts. LMAO
'Tis better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt ...
Doesn't matter. It's just more government in the peoples business. Unless the house is so close to another that it represents a danger of burning another house, leave it alone. Where does it end? Should the government require special air filtration systems that remove 99.7% of all allergens above 3 microns? This, to use a popular term, is a wet pants liberal, socialist government intrusion into the personal property rights of others. Remember the conversation we had the other week Joe? Life happens.....right? While you may not feel like $5000 is a lot of money, many people do. The government already costs us way too much money in order to comply with it's intrusive regulations and it is the largest reason this nation is in the financial condition it is today.
If the insurance companies want to charge more to those who don't have sprinklers systems - so be it - that's capitalism. But to require someone to put it in their new homes when there is no likelyhood it will damage the property of others is socialistic IMHO.
Anonymous 12:53 - Are you kidding me,what is the plumbing in your house done in? Also they would not melt if there were putting out a fire!! WOW
What and where will a new house be built in this city? OR are we going to annex some.
sure all new homes built from here on out should have them and also be solared powered.
i'm against it. think about how devastating it would be if one of those pipes burst? i've seen it happen before in commercial properties.
also, the homeowner will then have to have the system inspected annually and if something goes wrong with it, its just one more thing to maintain, making homeownership more and more expensive.
how about this: requiring it only in new construction homes over 3000 square feet?
fire dept supported it, joe
there's probably more politics to this than most people realize... a few years ago worcester county tried to change their legislation a little bit right after a well connected prominent citizen opened a new fire suppression system company, everyone is trying to line somebody's pocket
I'll have to agree with Anon 1:07, I don't like mandatory things either. But I for one, as a firefighter, support residential sprinklers but I just think it should be up to the homeowner and not any type of govn't to decide. It's bad enough we get stuck with mandatory health care in 2014.
For Anon 1:36, I understand the cost of residential sprinklers, and maintenance. But at what cost would it be if it was someone life? You can replace property but not a family member (even if you don't like that family member, i.e. mother-in-law).
As Joe said, it would keep the fire company from just going out and buying and save the tax payers money. It may not be right away but down the road you would be able to see the difference. So I am on both sides of the fence, I support residential sprinklers but not for them to be mandatory. I would rather encourage more people to put them in on their own.
Amen Bob!!
This was brought up in Pittsville and passed.
I feel it should be the property owner's decision as long as it is a free standing structure.
Someone earlier made a comment about the loss of lives due to a non working smoke detector and that they agreed with this intrusion. The smoke detector was probably in need of a $2.00 battery. Do you think the sprinkler system will be maintained if they won't even replace a battery?
Get a clue!!
I think Bob (1:25) is correct, partially. It truely is not the goverments business until the homeowner calls 911. Once the call to 911 is made and Bob requests help it becomes the goverments business. Sprinklers will control and/or extinguish the fire before it reachs flashover. Residential sprinklers were designed to contain the fire giving the occupants time to evacuate the residence. Over the years the fire service has found that the fire actually puts the fire out usually with one head and no more than fifteen gallons of water a minute. Therefore saving property as well. A handline used by firefighters to extinguish the fire will use at least 100 gallons per minute? Residential sprinklers are also key to firefighter safety. I don't think I need to elaborate on that.
These systems are not new. Prince Georges County has required them for over 20 years in residential occupancies and the State has required them in apartments and townhouses. They are very different systems than those you see in a commercial occupancy.
A great idea and the wave of the future. Way to go Salisbury!
Bad bad bad idea!
What happens when a pipe freezes and breaks? What happens when a kid bounces a playball off of teh head of the sprinkler?
What happens when the house is destroyed by water?
What happens when homeowners cover the ugly heads hanging from the ceiling and render them useless?
In the last about 4 days, there have been 2 fires in OC in large structures... in both cases the fire was extinguished by sprinklers before the fire spread.
Agree with possible exemption for certain below value/square foot properties to keep a home affordable.
But also remember there is a reason everything on the downtown plaza is brick and stone. We have had many devastating fires.
I think there is a line to be drawn here.
This change in the code will help the Lord Mayor in driving home owners out of Salisbury and ensuring no further annexations of developed property.
1:09 errr J. Albero ... Forgive me if I take the word of trained fire fighters over your "expert opinion". And I would think that with all of the businesses, restaurants and countries that you have owned, surely you would have experienced a sprinkler system pipe leak or burst and cause a lot of unneeded headaches.
how long until the government tells you you have to the new hot water tankless system (which is a great idea but a bit pricey at this time), or that you have to have solar panels (also pricey), or a certain type of curtains hanging, or a certain type of carpeting; and this would all be done because someone's hand is in another persons pocket.
I think it should be a choice. I pay insurance for a reason. I also maintain my fire alarms. Its life, things catch on fire. But seriously I think I would rather my house burn down then have the amount of water damage from the sprinkler system. Water damage can be really bad.
I totally agree with Cathy. I have also seen the damage that water causes in a house (HUNDREDS OF TIMES). I believe more damage is done every year by water than by fire in a home.
I'm a firefighter and I'm all for them. They work. They put us out of a job, but hey, they do it better. The best time to put out a fire is when it starts, and firefighters can't get there faster than a sprinkler.
It's a great idea, especially in new construction, when the cost is minimal. Joe, to elaborate on your comment about controlling fire spread vs. complete extinguishment, residential sprinkler systems are designed to control and contain the fire to allow occupants the time to escape. However, most of the time, they extinguish the fire completely.
Most causes of the pipes freezing are from an owners lack of heat or the system was not insulated properly. As an installer of sprinkler systems it is rarely the fault of the installation or installer that caused the system to fail. The pipe undergoes a 200 psi test for 2 hours before the drywall is even hung. As for maintenance there is little or none and it would be like any other system in your home, you are responsible for it. The local fire marshall is not going to come knocking on your door to see if you had it inspected.
1:09
I asked a simple question. Is there a reason you had to be so rude or are you always just an a$$? Do you have an answer to my question? I bet you don't.
If the sprinkler slows the fire down then the occupants have a better chance of surviving and escaping.
even if salisbury does not pass it. it is in the new IBC so when ever that gets adopted people will have to do it.
even if salisbury does not pass it. it is in the new IBC so when ever that gets adopted people will have to do it.
It is in the new IRC, which the State of Maryland has already adopted. It will be up to the individual jurisdictions to exclude the requirement out of the code if they do not wish to have the regulation.
i work for a local home builder. we build maybe 2 houses in the city per year. people cant afford the taxes and the builder would end up eating the cost of the sprinkler system. housing prices are down probably 20 percent or more with this economy. builders cant afford to absorb any more cost.new electrical codes have already added to cost. now this..WHATS NEXT
Where did you get those 5-7 thousand dollar estimates???? When I had an office built, there was no city water hook ups.(mind you first I had to pay that 5,000 impact fee, even though to this day we still dont have city water) I was qouted 25,000 dollars to install sprinklers AND I had to install a water tank that would make the sprinkers work I cannot remember the tank size but it was huge and needed all kinds of upkeep..according to the sprinkler company "a well pump just doesnt cut it.....BTW that office was only 1,000 sq ft.... so the price of 5-7,000 is only if you have a city hook up
We do not need more government intrusion,or manadatory additions to our homes.
12:37
I AGREE 100%.
Post a Comment