Someone will die in a fire in a home built after this law is passed. It will happen in Texas, and in every state where sprinklers are specifically banned from being installed. A smart lawyer will sue the state and the state will be asked how this is different than banning child car seats, or legislating to ban the wearing of safety glasses, or anything else that is an anti-safety positive (positive being actionable in this sense, against statute, not a plus, nor merely being apathetic). The state will have to defend itself against a wrongful death suit in that they willfully denied the injured party the ability to protect himself against a known threat with a known, and efficacious safety enhancement. Water purveyors ague for double feed lines, one dedicated to sprinklers, because of some perceived liability they'll be subject to if they turn off water service and a fire occurs. Will AHJs, fire commissioners, city fathers, etc. refuse to enforce this rule because they might be held liable as accessories to a wrongful death suit despite the law. I don't know. The builders have made claims they won't be able to support when their "fire-safe" houses don't protect the occupants from contents fires. And of course there will be the breach, there always is without sprinks, and then the lightweight structure rapidly fails. My advice to firefighters, for their own safety, is to perform their rescues, but once that's done let the place burn to the ground. No running into structurally unsound buildings, walking around on roofs, and a very visible demonstration of what happens without sprinklers. And we all know: SPRINKLERS SAVE (firefighters') LIVES.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Scott A Futrell <[email protected]> wrote: > Too late for most anything. It is attached to a funding bill that will be > passed and although the Governor vetoed this NAHB/BAM (Builders Association > of Minnesota) direct bill in 2012, he cannot line item veto it as far as I > know. Ten legislators (almost all of whom have already voted for the ban) > will vote on this in committee. > > > > Here was my response to the former Speaker of the Minnesota House: > > > > Below is an email that I just received a copy of that is being sent out to > support the Builders. > > > > I would guess that home builders make a great deal of money remodeling and > repairing homes that have suffered fire damage. Sprinklers would limit > fire damage and repair costs. Why do you think builders don't want > sprinklers? > > > > When I built my home on 9338 Minnesota Lane (just down from yours) Orrin > Thompson would not let me put sprinklers in (1990). Today the same thing is > happening across the state with a builder in Blaine not allowing a new home > buyer to install sprinklers last year. > > > > If they allowed sprinklers, and if they offered them, we wouldn't be > fighting now. Also, communities, as I stated the other day, can realize > cost savings in fire department equipment and operations if residential > sprinklers are installed. How can those kinds of potential savings be > ignored? That's just one aspect, there is also the potential for narrower > streets, more homes per street, fewer fire hydrants (spaced farther apart) > and more, but you are not hearing any of that, are you? > > > > Home builders aren't mentioning that granite counter tops cost more than > residential sprinklers or that the furnishings in one room of a home cost > more than residential sprinklers, are they? > > > > Look at the link attached where the "NAHB is showing home buyers why they > can afford a higher-priced home..." That seems ironic doesn't it? > > > > > http://rismedia.com/2013-04-08/lower-operating-costs-mean-new-home-buyers-can-afford-more-house/ > > > > See my comments below. > > > > Scott Futrell > > (763) 425-1001 Office > > (612) 759-5556 Cell > > > > > > Take Action: Contact the 10 Conference Committee members by calling or > clicking on their linked email addresses above. You can use the example > email below or compose your own message. > > > > Example Email: > > > > Subj: Vote No on Mandatory Indoor Sprinkler System for MN Homes > > > > Dear , > > > > I'm a Minnesotan who works in the homebuilding industry. I strongly > support the provision in the Omnibus Jobs and Economic Development Finance > bill which prohibits a mandate for home sprinkler systems in our state's > building code. Newly built homes in Minnesota are a national model for fire > safety where fire deaths have virtually disappeared. There are other > important factors I'd ask you to consider: > > > > * The housing industry plays a critical role in the state's > ongoing economic recovery. > > * Coming out of the recession, consumers are very > price-sensitive. > > * The cost of meeting the home sprinkler mandate is > approximately $2.00 per square foot, and twice that for homes with well > water. For a 4,500 square foot (unfinished) home, this adds $9,000 -$18,000 > to the cost of purchase.[saf] This is a very subjective number and can > only be determined on a home-by-home basis. Remember this is new home > construction only and is just as important to rural Minnesotan's as it is > to city Minnesotan's because it can take a considerable amount of time for > a volunteer fire department to get to a remote location. The Builders > cannot point to a CREDIBLE study that supports their costs. There are > credible studies that give realistic costs. > > * Once installed, a sprinkler system requires more rigorous > testing and maintenance than an equally-effective hard-wired smoke alarm > system, further increasing costs for homeowners.[saf] THIS IS FALSE! > Virtually no maintenance or testing is required (I would be happy to > provide you with the manual for the one- and two-family dwelling > requirements NFPA 13D) and smoke alarms need their batteries replaced > annually, to be tested monthly, and they need to be replaced every ten > years. None of that with sprinklers. > > * The potential impact of a false positive is also significant > - while a false alarm for a smoke detector awakens the family, with a > sprinkler system the house is flooded.[saf] This is a very remote > possibility and not something that a fire and life safety issue decision > should hinge upon. The fact is false alarms with smoke alarms make people > disconnect their smoke alarms and then they aren't working when they are > needed. > > Scott > > > > (763) 425-1001 Office > > (612) 759-5556 Cell > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 12:52 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Home sprinkler mandate in MN > > > > Is there a truth on advertising law that could lead to cease and resist? > > > > Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
