Intelligencer Editorial, Doylestown, Pa 3-9-11 MONEY SPOKE LOUDER than safety this week in Harrisburg, where House lawmakers voted 154-39 to repeal a law requiring sprinkler systems in all new residential construction. The bill now moves to the Senate. The battle lines on this issue are clearly drawn: On one side are firefighters and fire safety officials, who know from personal experience that home sprinklers save lives and property; on the other side are Realtors and home builders, who say that the additional cost of putting sprinklers in new homes is a detriment to sales, particularly in a continuing weak housing market. Though the vote among local legislators was slightly against repeal, the overall vote tally to do away with the sprinkler requirement wasn't even close. Apparently, the builders have a stronger lobby than the firefighters, and economic concerns are more persuasive than common sense. The cost argument is legitimate, insofar as sprinklers do add to the price of a new home. How much seems to depend on whether you talk to someone who favors sprinklers or someone who's opposed to them. If you use a more-or-less accepted price of, say, $1.65 a square foot, then the cost to put sprinklers in a 3,000-square-foot house figures out to just under $5,000. In light of the cost of a typical new house today - at least in our neck of the woods - $5,000 more isn't a whole lot. Amortized over the life of a 30-year mortgage, it's next to nothing. The bigger the house, the more expensive the sprinkler system. But bigger houses cost more whether they have sprinklers or not, and those houses attract high-end buyers who aren't necessarily put off by the extra expense. In addition, you can't discount that sprinklers may actually be a selling point in a potential home sale. A fire-safe house has definite appeal. Hard-wired smoke detectors, which are required, contribute to that appeal. We think sprinklers would be a great complement. We find it ironic that sprinkler opponents claim the law is especially burdensome in rural communities. It's there, in areas not served by nearby fire departments, that sprinklers can really prove their worth, limiting the extent of fires or even extinguishing them while fire trucks are still miles away. If you weigh the initial financial outlay for a sprinkler system, whatever it is, against the cost of a possible future tragedy that involves loss of life + well, we're glad we were not among those who voted for repeal. There's no debate about the effectiveness of sprinklers. They absolutely work, which is why they're a standard part of commercial construction. Sprinklers protect property and preserve lives, not only the occupants of a building but those who respond to fight the fire. Don Konkle, a former Harrisburg fire chief and executive director of the Pennsylvania Fire and Emergency Services Institute, made the value of sprinklers perfectly clear: "We could almost avoid all loss of life in sprinklered buildings." That's from a man who knows all about the destruction fires can cause. Lawmakers in the House saw the penny wisdom in repealing the sprinkler law. But they missed the obvious pound foolishness of their decision.
_______________________________________________ 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)
