# Costly sprinkler regulations would limit consumer choices



## mark handler (Jun 9, 2012)

Costly sprinkler regulations would limit consumer choices

June 6, 2012

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120606/PC1002/120609495/costly-sprinkler-regulations-would-limit-consumer-choices

I was disappointed to see the advertisement in the May 22 Post and Courier advocating fire sprinklers in new homes. You may be aware of the National Fire Protection Association’s nationwide push to influence government to require fire sprinkler systems in single-family new homes via the building code.

This is presently an issue in our state as the Construction Codes Council considers the 2012 International Residential Code. As a rejoinder to the “facts “ presented in the advertisement, I submit:

» The proposed mandate is for single-family homes. Sprinklers are already required in apartments, hotels, and most condominiums.

» Sprinkler systems only modestly improve the chances of saving a life in the event of a fire. According to the National Fire Protection Association, the survivability rate for fires in homes with working smoke detectors is 98.6 percent . This rate rises to 99.4 percent where both sprinklers and smoke detectors are present.

» More than 34 states have amended or passed legislation prohibiting mandatory sprinkler mandates in new one- and two-family dwellings. Only California and Maryland have adopted such mandates.

» The cost of a sprinkler system included in a new home is estimated to be $26 per square foot, depending on the size of the home and the project’s specific details. If the proposed new home is not in an area with sufficient public water pressure available, the systems necessary to ***** the pressure could cost an additional $5,000 to $10,000.

» An effective, reliable smoke detector costs something like $20.

» Dr. Joey Von Nessen, research economist with the Moore School of Business at USC, estimates that 17,000 families in South Carolina will be priced out of buying a new home if the sprinkler mandate is implemented.

New homes are built with fire stopping techniques and less flammable materials than older homes and do not, in fact, burn faster and hotter as the ad claims. New homes are also required to include several smoke detectors.

There are many other relevant discussion points but the biggest is one word: Freedom.

A person building a new, detached home should decide for himself or herself whether the cost of a sprinkler system is worth the perceived benefit. This is not an issue of homebuilders’ protecting their profits, as has been alleged.

If the mandate were to pass, all homes would have the same requirement, all would experience the same cost increase, and none would suffer any more than the other. The cost would universally be passed on to anyone building a home, even the citizen building a home for himself or herself. Costs where adequate pressure does not presently exist would be exponentially more.

The advocates of fire sprinkler products should focus on showing the consuming public how great their product is and why we should want to purchase it.

Instead they work tirelessly to convince the government to require us to purchase it, whether we want it or not. It is time to focus on freedom and consumer choice — not on the promise of safety through expensive regulation.

Don McDonough

Division President

Ryland Homes

Charleston/Myrtle Beach

Seven Farms Road

Charleston


----------



## TheCommish (Jun 9, 2012)

There  are lies, damn lies and statistics, they can be used for  or against any argument. Sprinkler put out fires, save lives, reduce property damage and keeps homes intact.  The small fire does not reach the proportion to smoke the whole home or worse, destroy family mementos, keep family out of homes while they are being repaired for months or a year. Rather the damage is minimal, the family  is back in the home within hours or a few days.


----------



## conarb (Jun 9, 2012)

The lies are from the corrupt fire and fire sprinkler industry, we have repeatedly exposed the lies, like $1.99 a square foot to install them while I've posted bids on a real house at $25 a square foot, in addition I've posted real meter upgrade costs of over $300,000, as well as Canadian government studies showing sprinklers are a waste of money.

As I said after the fraud in Minneapolis the only way to get back at the lazy good-for-nothing firemen was to go after their pensions, we had an election Tuesday and every fire district tax measure asking for more money was defeated, voters know that their tax money will go right into the pockets and pension funds of firemen.



			
				Contra Costa Times said:
			
		

> East  Contra Costa Fire District officials are preparing for station closures  and layoffs in the next several weeks following a failed parcel tax.
> 
> The  resounding defeat of Measure S at the polls Tuesday -- the proposal  fell 23 percentage points short of the two-thirds vote needed -- will  force the agency to shut down more stations and slash its payroll.
> 
> The district's nine-member  board of directors will meet Monday to decide which of two options to  adopt. One would involve giving 16 of its 43 firefighters pink slips and  closing the Bethel Island and Knightsen stations as well as one of the  two in Brentwood; the other would be to eliminate 19 jobs and shutter  the first two stations only.¹


I tell every group I belong to about the fire fraud, I've tipped of a newspaper's investigative reporter about the kickbacks from the sprinkler "coalition" into the unions, they found several firemen retiring at age 50 with half million dollar pensions, I'm 76 and still working, I don't want my tax money going into the pockets of people so lazy they retire at 50. the only way to get back at you guys is to go after your jobs and pensions, you may have won in Minneapolis, but we are getting back at you, you hit us in the wallet for something useless like sprinklers and we'll hit you in the pocket a lot harder for something useless, like your salaries and pensions.

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_20800358/fire-district-prepares-layoffs-station-closures-following-parcel?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com


----------



## hlfireinspector (Jun 10, 2012)

He said he voted against Measure S primarily because the firefighters' union didn't finish negotiating its new contract before the election, choosing instead to wait and see whether there would be more money on the table.

Romick only could speculate what the primary reason was for residents' opposition. Is it the economy? A distaste for taxes in general? Skepticism that the district actually will close stations? Or perhaps *firefighters are doing such a good job right now *that the public doesn't see the need to shore up services, he said.


----------



## forensics (Jun 10, 2012)

Fire protection is required by the insurance underwriters and it will be provided by the builders or by the taxpayers the only consumer choice that exists is private or public funded options. The builders don't want to loose their subsidy from the taxpayers !


----------



## forensics (Jun 10, 2012)

This is so simple and they want to make it so difficult...

 When builders include fire sprinklers the local government becomes the backup fire safety plan and the homeowner takes personal fire safety responsibility rather than continuing to build and equip new fire stations at taxpayer expense.

 Think about the subsidy that you pay for the builders who buld sprawl and then leave the area with a 50 year fire problem...

 Think about your tax dollars...

 Think about your family's safety...

 HOME FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES AND PROPERTY


----------



## forensics (Jun 10, 2012)

Not one word of truth in this statement

 * Sprinklers are not now required in townhomes

* Sprinklers provide absolute protection (Not 1 single death ever in a properly operating sprinkled home)

 * Many states have rejected sprinklers but not the huge sums of money from the homebuilders PAC

 * WOW $ 26 PSF I know they were offered to Ryland at $2 and rejected(Wanna see the quote)

 * Smoke dectors are neither reliable, nor dependable , BUT they are CHEAP

 * New homes are far more dangerous due to the cheaper lightweight construction materials It is not the home that burns but rather the CONTENTS !

 * We have sprinklered hundreds of homes and not once have we encounted a water pressure problem that resulted in "exponentially more" cost.


----------



## tmurray (Jun 11, 2012)

conarb said:
			
		

> ... as well as Canadian government studies showing sprinklers are a waste of money...


http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/pdf/63945.pdf?fr=1339415257031


----------



## mark handler (Jun 11, 2012)

> ""... as well as Canadian government studies showing sprinklers are a waste of money... "


"Not true, It does *NOT* say they are a waste of money. it says



> "Sprinklers could produce a fire safety improvement in new one- and two-family homes, but costs are much higher than for other safety measures"The purchase, installation and maintenance of sprinklers produce a comparatively high cost per life saved. Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of Installing Fire Sprinklers in Houses calculated in 1989-1990 that the cost of saving one life by mandating sprinklers would be more than $38 million.


It questions the Costs and Benefits. How much is a life worth?

There is rederic on both sides

The report is based on "Canada" not the US The numbers are also calculated in 1989-1990 years

"waste of money" is a Conarb term.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 11, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> How much is a life worth?


To put that in perspective the Afghan war costs $300 million a day


----------



## cda (Jun 11, 2012)

Have I heard this song before??? Oh yes golden oldies

Ok all for sprinklers on this side of the line and those against on this side of the line.   no biteing, pinching, or hits below the belt, oh yea and no ear chewing ding ding ding


----------



## tmurray (Jun 11, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> ...How much is a life worth?


According to the National Research Council (the people who develop our codes here in Canada) 3 million dollars last time I checked.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 11, 2012)

The correct question should be

What will the Fire Service Industries deam as acceptable losses of life per 1,000,000 population

Some state are very low (4)some very high

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/estimates/states.shtm

Maybe the effort & money spent would be better focused in the higher death rate areas.

We lost 11 people in the whole state.


----------



## conarb (Jun 11, 2012)

Mountain Man:

I think the firemen should look at what's causing the fires in high fire death rate states, since they are mostly Southern States I'd put my money on educational levels and cooking fried foods, the money would be better spent on educating the populations about the deleterious effects of not only fire (since 60% of fires are cooking related), and eating fried foods.


----------



## rshuey (Jun 11, 2012)

*Jumps In The Ring*

I think residential sprinklers are a great thing because less people volunteer these days and the sprinklers save peoples lives.

Now, saying these systems save property is bull****. They aren't full NFPA systems and do not protect the entire structure so stop spewing lives.

This should be up to individual fire service areas and those local governments to figure out if they have the man power needed or if they need residential sprinklers to help them offset the low manpower, old equipment, etc issues.

That's my take.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 11, 2012)

looks to me that the death rate has been dropping pretty steady since 2000 thru 2009

Of course the statistics lump all residences together SF MH & APTS


*National Fire Death Rate*

*14.8*

*14.1*

*13.5*

*14.2*

*13.6*

*13.5*

*13.2*

*13.2*

*12.0*

*11.0*



Note: The fire death rates are based on all deaths in which exposure to fire, fire products, or explosion was the underlying cause of death or was a contributing factor in the chain of events leading to death. Specifically, ICD 10 Codes: F63.1, W39-W40, X00-X09, X75-X76, X96-X97, Y25-Y26, and Y35.1 were extracted for this analysis resulting in a total of 3,391 fire deaths.

That is not an unacceptable loss considering there are over 200 million people in the United States

The need for a code change was based on a real significant safety reason and believed a code change could significantly reduce losses to life or property. Now they are pretty much emotionaly charged changes.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 11, 2012)

The death rate has been dropping pretty steady since the 1970's, when smoke detectors we introduced into the codes.

The eighties was when most states started to really enforce the codes.


----------



## incognito (Jun 12, 2012)

Anyone who thinks this is anything but a money grab by the fire cartel is a fool. If they were really interested in saving lives they would push to lower all speed limits by at least 50%. Then we would immediately start saving tens of thousands of lives each and every year. And do not forget the life-changing injuries that go along with auto accidents. Yeah, it would probably be costly but to quote the sprinkler advocates "how much is a life worth". At best sprinklers may save a dozen or so lives a year for the next 50 years if we started putting them in every new home immediatly.


----------



## fatboy (Jun 12, 2012)

:beatdhrs................opcorn


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 12, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> :beatdhrs................opcorn


:beatdhrs............

Sometimes, you have to agree to disagree...... and then a hockey game breaks out !

Congrats to the Kings for the Stanley Cup!


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 12, 2012)

:beatdhrs............

:beatdhrs............

:beatdhrs............

:beatdhrs............

:beatdhrs............

:beatdhrs............


----------



## cda (Jun 12, 2012)

Builder Bob said:
			
		

> :beatdhrs............:beatdhrs............
> 
> :beatdhrs............
> 
> ...


why do people always pick on horses???????????


----------



## cda (Jun 12, 2012)

Builder Bob said:
			
		

> :beatdhrs............:beatdhrs............
> 
> :beatdhrs............
> 
> ...


keep on beating::::

OH NO HIGH DOLLAR MILLONAIRE FIREFIGHTERS DOING VOLUNTEER WORK::::::::::::::::

N.C. Firefighters Installing Sprinklers in Habitat Homes

By Brian Freskos

Star-News, Wilmington, N.C.

Volunteers in a group run by a Wilmington Capt. Kenneth Bogan made it their mission to equip houses built by Habitat for Humanity with sprinkler systems.

The blaze was out before fire engines ground to a halt outside. Damage to the house, built by a local Habitat for Humanity chapter in a north Wilmington neighborhood, was confined to one bedroom. Although they were inside when the fire began, the residents were unharmed.

For firefighters, the limited toll inflicted by the fire that broke out last month on Price's Lane brought into sharp relief the benefits afforded by indoor sprinkler systems. A sprinkler head hanging from the ceiling doused the fire before it spread.

"Had we not had a sprinkler in it, we'd be looking at an empty shell of a house," said Esmond Anderson, Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity's construction manager.

Though sprinklers are now a requirement in certain commercial buildings, such as hotels and apartments, firefighters for years have pushed unsuccessfully for North Carolina to make them mandatory in all new construction, including private houses. Many officials say despite the state's unwillingness to intervene, homeowners and builders are voluntarily incorporating the devices into their building plans, though the practice is not ubiquitous, as advocates prefer.

In that light, volunteers in a group run by a Wilmington Fire Department captain named Kenneth Bogan made it their mission to equip houses built by Habitat with sprinkler systems. To date, volunteers mounted sprinklers in 32 houses around the city constructed by the nonprofit organization.

Bogan said the goal is to prove sprinklers are easily installed, cost little for upkeep and are effective at saving lives.

"It was an opportunity to put our money where our mouth is," he said. "It was an opportunity to put into action what we'd been asking for."

What firefighters want is the N.C. Building Code Council, a 17-member body appointed by the governor to set building standards, to require sprinkler systems in all residential structures. The proposal, which failed by a single vote the last time it came before the council, faces criticism from recession-weary builders concerned about costs, liability and maintenance, among other perceived issues.

"It ups the risks of selling a home; and in these times, boy, that's a tough one," said David Smith, a Wilmington-based builder and council member who voted against the proposed sprinkler provision.

"There's a lot of things we try to do as the building code council," he added. "But we have to be careful and consider costs as well as the unintended consequences that may arise out of it."

The price of sprinklers seems to vary.

Mark Brown, president of the N.C. Fire Marshal's Association, said the systems typically run between $1 and $1.50 per square foot, or about $3,000 for a 3,000-square-foot home.

Smith, however, said the price depends more on the complexity of the house than the square footage, and may cost between $2,500 and $16,000.

The Wilmington Fire Department's partnership with Habitat for Humanity dates back to 2008, when the department approached the nonprofit with the idea to emulate a program begun in Pinehurst in 1996. There, firefighters have worked alongside the local Habitat chapter for the past 16 years, and in 2003 received a federal grant to expand the program, Floyd Fritz, deputy chief with the Pinehurst Fire Department, said in a telephone interview. Since receiving the federal funding, the program has incorporated 33 affiliates, mostly in North Carolina, but also in Virginia and Texas.

In Wilmington, volunteers drawn mostly from the fire department but also including their family members and people from the general community have largely followed through on their pledge. Except for a brief stint where a meter issue resulted in a brief suspension of the program, they hooked up sprinklers in every Habitat house built in the past four years. Firefighters work on their days off, so it costs the city nothing, Bogan said.

While firefighters pursue sprinklers in all new construction, state officials said it remains unclear when the issue might come before the building council again.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 12, 2012)

See (next thread RFS Saves) regarding the excellent work the NC Firefighters and others are doing. The saving of those lives and yes even the property is in the same jurisdiction that Cda mentions in his post! Couldn't get any better than that!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 12, 2012)

RFS are a good and worthwhile initiative. My objection is to the mandatory requirement. Statistically it does not make sense to mandate RFS

 However, this same report states that only three-quarters of American households have a smoke alarm that works: The odds that a home that had a fire had a smoke alarm are *1 in 1.41* (71%).



  [h=2]Residential Fire Sprinklers Save Lives[/h]In 2009, only 20% of reported fires occurred in one- and two-family homes but these fires caused 70% (2,107) of all civilian fire deaths.  Homes also account for the largest share of civilian fire injuries and direct property damage.

Despite the fact that these figures represent improvement over the last 30 years, they continue to be appalling.  Such losses are unacceptable. Why are they appalling and unacceptable? What is an acceptable number of civilian fire deaths per year. 2,107 out of a population of over  300 million


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 12, 2012)

I found this article to be very informative and I thought very well written. The basic conclusion is if you want to reduce residential fire deaths you need to approach the problem locally and not with a national one size will fix it solution that RFS proponents believe will happen

http://www.dos.ny.gov/DCEA/pdf/Fire%20Deaths%20in%20the%20United%20States.pdf


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 12, 2012)

> a national one size will fix it solution that RFS proponents believe will happen


Not all.....not all!


----------

