First, I'm not an attorney so don't take my legal interpretations for anything more than a layman's read.
The lawsuit is their last-ditch (I hope) attempt at getting rid of the sprinkler mandate and other "unnecessary" code updates. The lawsuit was filed by the PBA (state chapter of NAHB) and some homebuilders (we're in midst of quoting typical floor plans to one of them who's a previous customer) states that the new Act is unconstitutional because the legislature passed the writing of the new requirements to a private group of citizens (the Advisory Panel Thom and I watched in action last April) and to the ICC, producers of the IBC and IRC. First, it is interesting that when a member of the PBA was appointed chair of the Advisory Committee, and we believed the membership was stacked in favor of the builders, the NAHB/PBA seemed to have no problem with the Panel's constitutionality since it gave them a vehicle to remove the onerous sprinkler requirements. Except they lost, and in an interesting irony, the chair, a homebuilder, voted FOR sprinklers! He did this in the mistaken belief by voting with the winning side, he could open it up for discussion and another vote. And whether it was correct procedurally or not, he indeed did call for another vote and the result was to keep sprinklers in the code- again. So since the forum in which they cheerfully participated didn't give the result they wanted, they found fault with the process -which they were involved it. Gee, this seems to echo the IRC vote situation- I doubt they'd have questioned the correctness of the IRC votes if the sprinkler mandate wasn't included in it. As I understand it, the suit questions the constitutionality of the legislature delegating its rule making function to private individuals. Excuse me, but isn't most legislation drafted by special interest groups and then carried along to law by the congresses, state and federal? Aren't a group of private citizens representing special interests meeting behind closed doors hammering out the health care changes? And yes, Rowe Sprinkler sponsored the monthly meeting of one of the PBA chapters last eve. We were given a round of applause (we bought dinner for >50 attendees) and a warm welcome given the circumstances. And during the business meeting, when the topic of the lawsuit came up, their MC noted sprinklers were only a part of the onerous provisions, there was much more and all were encouraged to attend a 2009 IRC update to learn the new changes. The feeling was they don't appreciate having this rammed down their throat, its not that they don't like sprinklers. And after showing the Builder video component of the HFSC Built for Life video, I had to acknowledge that Ron Hazelton's comment near the end, that SFDs could be done with a net cost of $200 each when tradeoffs were considered, well, I wasn't going to install these for $200 a house- but the water supplies weren't going to be $10k either. Amazingly, one of my employees was talking to a PA competitor yesterday and this principal of a sprinkler company didn't know PA passed the new code. Guess he's not on the Forum and maybe doesn't read his email? Holy out of touch, Batman! Only time will tell how successful the lawsuit will be, and whether or not the PBA will have another attempt at de-railing the adopted mandate. In the mean time, we'll continue reaching out to the Builders, AHJs, realtors, etc and educating them on residential sprinkers. glc -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Terri Leyton Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 12:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Penn Builders Assn Lawsuit George Church - where are you? George was in the "den" of the PA Builders last night. He was a very special guest speaker at their meeting. Wonder if he took a bodyguard? T Terri Simmons Leyton PROTECTION DESIGN & CONSULTING Ph: 858-751-2930 - ext. 101 Fax: 858-751-2933 Cell: 619-871-8450 Getting what you want is not nearly as important as giving what you have. --Tom Krause -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Kettler Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 9:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Penn Builders Assn Lawsuit Not sure if this link will still work, but this should be the court filing: http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B1DCGz1Grdk7Yjk3NTRmMDMtOTI3Ni00YTc1LTkx NDYtZTI2ODFlM2VlODQ3&hl=en Jim K. James M. Kettler, EFO, CFPS Director of Building and Codes/Fire Marshal Buckingham Township PO Box 413 4613 Hughesian Drive Buckingham, PA 18912 215-794-8836 www.buckinghampa.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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 [email protected] http://fireball.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 [email protected] http://fireball.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)
