Although my sense of humanity says these attempts at barring life safety devices are just plain bad my sense of reality says there would be any common sense until someone's kid dies in a new house, due to fire, where the owner opted to not install a voluntary system due to cost, and sues the municipality or the state for not making him. Unfortunately this will satisfy my sense of irony but not my sense of fair play because the real culprits (may I suggest criminals-the money behind these laws) will go free and another child will have died for no reason. I've heard of at least one incident where a fat cat with his multi-million dollar house of ginormous proportion, who was having to sprinkle due to long standing fire code issues about size, distance from hydrants, etc. got his political buddies to force the fire marshal to stand down. House burned down and he sued the county for not making him sprinkler (of course to a 13D). The story may be apocryphal but it serves to illustrate a point.
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:26 AM, John Drucker <[email protected]> wrote: > And more out of Kansas. > > There's a bigger problem brewing, the IBC currently requires sprinklers > throughout all buildings that contain an R fire area (use). > > "[F] 903.2.7 Group R. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance > with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R > fire area." > > Legislation such as this has the broad effect of reaching beyond the recent > IRC modifications, threatening established fire safety provisions of the > IBC. We could be witnessing a step backwards. > > John Drucker, CET > > -------------------------------------------- > > KANSAS CONSIDERS LAW NOT ALLOWING LOCAL RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER CODES. > > HOUSE BILL No. 2515 > > By Committee on Commerce and Labor 1-21 > > AN ACT concerning cities and counties; relating to residential fire > protection sprinkler systems. > > Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas: > > Section 1. As used in this act: > (a) ''Municipality'' means any city or county. > (b) ''Residential structure'' means any improvement to real property to be > used or occupied as a single-family dwelling or multi-family dwelling of > four attached living units or less. > > Sec. 2. On and after July 1, 2010, no municipality shall adopt or enforce > any ordinance, order, code, standard or rule requiring the installation of a > multi-purpose residential fire protection sprinkler system or any other fire > sprinkler protection system in any residential structure. Nothing in this > section shall prohibit any person from voluntarily installing a > multi-purpose residential fire protection sprinkler system or any other fire > sprinkler protection system in a residential structure. > > Sec. 3. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its > publication in the statute book. > > http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2010/2515.pdf > > > _______________________________________________ > 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) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Bates Technical College Tacoma, WA Member: SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, WSAFM _______________________________________________ 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)
