Michael, Your Michigan Construction Code Review Committee has blundered. They have just made new townhouse construction under the 2009 IRC less fire safe than under the 2006 IRC and all previous codes. See the reduction in fire separation that is a given, not just a trade off. And more importantly they have by decree, and let me guess they are appointed and not elected, determined that there is an acceptable casualty rate. Perhaps they now need to set the number. They can use the average annual death toll from residential fires over the past ten years. maybe last year's toll. Any way they slice this loaf they have said to the citizens of Michigan that not is it only OK for a certain number of you to die each year now with no determined upper cap except a statistical average based on current fire deaths, but it's OK for your children and grandchildren to run this risk in the future since we won't be replacing existing housing stock with new safer buildings. And what about those former auto workers that could enter the trades as designers and fitters and make some money so they could buy their own product. Seems to me that was Henry Ford's concept when he doubled the salary of Ford workers so they could afford to by the Model Ts they were making. Maybe you need to find a sympathetic editorialist at a big Michigan media outlet.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Rod DiBona<[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for the update Micheal. Sorry to hear about the loss but this > information helps us as we prepare to battle here in South Dakota. The > Homebuilders have put together legislation to do the same. > > Rod DiBona > Rapid Fire > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael > O'Brian > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:41 AM > To: SprinklerFORUM > Subject: Update from Michigan > > It was not a good day for us in Michigan yesterday. > > The Habitat for Humanity proposal to remove the residential fire > sprinkler > requirement from the code was accepted 10 to 2 by the Michigan > Construction > Code Review Committee (2 nay votes to deny the proposal were labor and > fire > service). > > The room (large 250 plus?) was filled to overflowing with the fire > service > or advocates of sprinklers being out numbered about ten to one by the > homebuilders. The Michigan fire service lead by the Inspectors > association > came out in very good numbers and put up a well organized fight as > compared > to the other states The hearing began at 9:30 and concluded at 2:00 PM. > > The key arguments put forward by the homebuilders were as follows. > > > - Sprinklers should be an option not mandatory, > - The cost of installation and other associated cost are too high. > - The necessity for mandatory installation is not justified given the > number of fire deaths. > > The home builders and Habitat representatives pounded away at those > three > points. A couple of other side issues we need to be aware of which I > think > could get legs in other states are as follows. The fact that a number of > states have now removed the requirement during their code adoption > process > was mentioned a couple of times. That momentum is going to be troubling > for > us in the future. The homebuilders suggested on a number of occasion > that > the sprinkler requirement is being pushed by a greedy group of sprinkler > manufacturers , suppliers and contractors. In other words the motivation > is > not life safety as much as it is profit driven. > > Aside from the above points there were the normal myths and > misconceptions > expressed by those who obviously have not taken the time to look into > the > technology, the requirements of 13D or the issue as a whole. These were > very frustrating and repeated by most in the proponent of the code > change. > I was fascinated that they utilized 2 buses of advocates and they were > well > beyond home builders. They were just about every interest group > including > homebuilders, building officials, private interest, every habitat for > humanity chapter from the state, and other low-income groups. > > The only comment made by the members of the committee came prior to a > motion > to adopt. The comment came from a committee member who is a homebuilder > and > I understand is also a firefighter. He said that he would be voting to > support the Habitat motion not because he thought the sprinkler > requirement > was not appropriate but that the economy and depressed home building > market > could not endure further pressure at this time. He stated he would vote > in > favor in 2012 if the economy turned around. > > Time for Plan B here in Michigan and we will see what that is. But if > you > are interested in serving on some committees to help us on our 2012 > push, > let me know > -- > Michael O'Brian > Code Savvy Consultants > O: 313-618-6401 > F: 313-557-0294 > [email protected] > www.codesavvyconsultants.com > www.inspector911.com > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: > [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Bates Technical College Tacoma, WA Member: SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
