Very good information. Thank you for sharing Steve. I will add this to my ammunition in our ongoing fight.
Rod DiBona Rapid Fire -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 2:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Penn Builders Assn Lawsuit I've seen "net" cost figures thrown around, and I don't recommend that we use them for now absent concrete data to support the numbers. I can tell you that in CA, our task group included the codes and leg' director for California Building Industry Association; CBIA is the trade and spokes group for the homebuilders. This individual is as much a player in the success we had as anyone, given that he influenced the homebuilding industry to participate in the inevitable rather than fight it out, and I consider him a pragmatist and ally in that regard. Having done planning and design work for several large homebuilders up until a couple years ago, I was aware - and he and I discussed at length - that the future of single family homebuilding was going to be different in the next 3-5 years than what we have seen until now, at least here in the Southwest. The subdivision of large tracts of land into "planned communities" is not going to work economically in the foreseeable future, because of the high costs of acquisition and carrying through the end of development, which will likely take years instead of months. Therefore, we can all expect that a lot - perhaps most - of new single family housing will be infill and so-called cluster housing, where densities will be higher and formats will be smaller, including lot sizes and closer proximity of dwellings to one another. This is based on both the economics of acquisition and development costs (i.e. fees) and holding down the cost of end product because middle-class folks can't afford to be paying as much for housing over the next couple of years. So what we did in CA was to very carefully consider amendments to the standards AND cost-beneficial trades that we could offer in favor of active fire protection, that would make the sprinkler requirements more palatable. One of the most significant will require that sprinklers be installed in all attached garages and in carports where there is living space over. The flip to this is that no "Type X" gyp board will be required, the between the dwelling and garage won't have to be rated, and the minimum setback at property line is reduced to 3'-0". In some cases, the setback alone might pay for sprinklers throughout the project if they developer can get another lot or two out of the deal, so to say that sprinklers are $100 or $200 or $500 per home is sexy, but relative. I think that smart homebuilders will separate themselves from the pack a little bit, by putting down the sword and picking up the phone. I know from experience that the local fire official would love to hear from them ... Steve Leyton Protection Design & Consulting San Diego, CA -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 10:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Penn Builders Assn Lawsuit 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) __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4797 (20100122) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ 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)
