Resi Fire Sprinklers Could Soon Be Mandatory

This sounds like a good idea to me.  So what if the houses will sell for a bit more.  There is so much inventory out there that if people don’t want the added cost they can buy an existing home.  The problem is that these builders make such a terrible product on the low cost side that they might now have to pay attention to the quality of at least one of their trades since this will certainly have inspections associated with it.  The quality builders will have no problems with this.  The home owner will start to get a better and safer home and it will create lots of jobs.  I’m surprised that more track builders haven’t thought of offering this as an option.  I bet they would sell a ton!  Then they would come into this new change as the expert instead of hating the change.

I’m on the ‘bad idea’ side of this one—in a big way. What next? Outlaw motorcycles and unsafe cars?

Require mammograms, colonoscopies and other preventative care?

Require burglar alarms in homes?

There are a lot more deaths that could be saved with these measures than with residential sprinklers.

Let consumers decide the level of risk they wish to assume.

Julie,

I think that you are being a little extreme.

We are talking about the evolution to a home.  It’s no different then Centralized AC and Heating. Yards being included, low E windows becoming standard, and even smoke detectors being mandated.

To your point, smoke detectors shouldn’t even be a standard as the consumer should decide the level of risk they wish to assume. 

The customer may end up paying slightly more for a home, but there is no monthly fee required so this is an up front cost which over time will just been seen as something included in the price of the home and there will be no percieved additional cost.

This is called product evolution.  Remember when HDTV’s first came out and were so much more money than SDTV’s?  Why HDTV? Because the government said we were all switching over.  Now there isn’t such a thing as SDTV, they are all HDTV and you get all this great new technology at no additional cost.  This is the same thing!

Ah, but the government doesn’t require central HVAC, yards, energy-efficient windows and HDTV.

It’s evolution and it is good for the customer.

Regardless of who mandates it, aren’t smoke detectors good for the home owner and mandatory? Isn’t digital TV a better experience and mandatory? 

Government is always going to make changes that we don’t like.  Thankfully we get to vote on who the idiots are that are going to change our life.  Just wait till your health care changes because of the idiot in the white house.  You won’t even remember caring about sprinklers in houses.

AH, yes, I suppose that is the good news regarding sprinklers!

This eloquent editorial appeared today from a former fire chief in the Lancaster, Pa. Intelligencer Journal. He was responding to an editorial claiming that smoke detectors are sufficient fire protection in homes. He makes some very interesting points… namely that there has not been a single recorded firefighter death (from fire) in a structure equipped with a working fire sprinkler system and that it is sometimes society’s role to protect citizens.

“Your recent editorial on sprinklers is way off.

“You state that smoke detectors are a “low cost and equally effective alternative” to sprinklers.

“Smoke detectors became commonplace in the 1970s and have greatly reduced, but far from eliminated, fire deaths. Over 3,300 Americans still die in fires each year.

“The failing of smoke detectors is that they are mostly portable and can be removed, as well as their need for regular battery servicing. Most fire deaths occur with either non-existent or non-functioning smoke detectors.

“To this day, a large portion of the homes that firefighters visit do not have a functioning detector. We keep smoke detectors on our fire trucks to install in homes that do not have one. You would think that, in 2009, every home would have one, wouldn’t you?

“Sprinkler systems, on the other hand, are built in and can’t be removed.

“Smoke detectors tell you when there is a fire (if they are there and if they have a good battery), sprinkler systems put out the fire. Which would you rather have?

“There is not one recorded fire death in a structure with a functioning sprinkler system. Not one single death in a building with a sprinkler. Contrast that with the 3,300 annual fire victims.

“I wouldn’t consider smoke detectors even close to equal in safety to sprinklers.

“Your point that fire deaths occur in old homes and not newer homes leads to the obvious question: Where do old homes come from? Do builders erect “old homes”? No!

“The new homes of today will be the old homes of tomorrow.

“If we declare that we can’t fix the problem using your logic, we’ll never build fire-safe homes or have any technological upgrades. There will always be the next generation of “new homes.”

“Today, with the available fire-safety technology, is the time to draw a line in the sand and state, “We will not build any more dwellings that are not fire-safe.”

“I assure you that the same arguments were used when it became mandatory to install working sanitary plumbing and electricity inside homes. Today, you can’t get an occupancy permit without bathroom or electric service.

“Not so long ago these were costly options. And builders probably objected just as strongly as they do today. I don’t see any trending towards outdoor plumbing or gas lamps.

“Sometimes it is society’s role, even in times of economic hardship, to regulate and enforce laws that will protect the citizens, even if they don’t see the benefit. One hundred years ago, people argued against the need for indoor plumbing; today they argue against sprinklers. .

“You missed the chance to add your voice to those who protect society with advances, even though many do not see their benefit.

“Nobody goes to sleep and thinks their home will catch fire. But homes do, and today, we have the technology to reduce the loss of life.

“It’s time to protect the next generation of citizens.”

Glenn Usdin

Lancaster Township

43,000 people per year die in/from car crashes.

Why shouldn’t government:
- outlaw unsafe cars and motorcycles
- Require breathalizer car starters for every vehicle
- Require car makers to make 70 mph the maximum speed of every vehicle
- mandate sidewalks and overhead pedestrian walkways for crossing locations
- add speed bumps all over the place.

When indoor plumbing was mandated, at least it offered a convenience to homes (while reducing the huge number of deaths related to unsanitary conditions).

Sprinklers offer an extra level of insurance. People should be given a choice of whether or not to “buy” that insurance.

Stop arguing just to argue. By your logic, building permits and inspections should be optional as well. Should the homeowner decide if they want this “insurance” to prevent the house from falling down?

This is a life safety issue and sprinklers work. The data is there to back it up.

Julie,

Again you are going extreme here.  The mandate of sprinklers will bring production up, and there for reduce cost.  When you buy a track home there are standards that you don’t have any choice in. The fact that its the government is what you are hung up on.  I’m mad that when I buy my house I can’t delete windows that I don’t want, or do my own integration work, but that’s what’s mandated by the builder.  When you build custom there are standards that the GC has already established. Why not have this safety feature be one of those standards?  Get off the government aspect and look at it differently.  We will get better homes, create lots of jobs in mfg, and trades, and create safer homes.  Who knows, but maybe home insurance rates will be reduced because there will be less losses caused by fire.  I hate “The Man” as much as the next person, but “The Man” isn’t always the government, and change is not always bad.  BTW, I’m sure that you get an insurance break which will likely cover most of the cost at some point.

I think the largest problem is the word Mandate.
If any of you have ever read the Constitution you would know that it is not the governments job to tell us when and how to live. We have building codes for safety reasons and fire sprikelers are great, but in a time when people need to create more jobs not kill them adding thousands to the cost of a house and saving $200 on your insurance is not going to make people purchase more homes. Less people will purchase new homes and more people will be unemployed. Do you all want to live in a socialist country that tells you what to eat, where to live, how much you can make!!
We need less regulation not more. Way to go Julie!!!!

Grant and G, as a dues paying member of the NFPA as well as the NAHB, I am very much in favor of building homes that are safe, but also affordable.  I will tell you that each time a “new” and not slowly implemented change is demanded in the name of life safety, i.e. Arc Fault breakers that continually trip when a four speed fan control is turn from slow to off or when a three way lamp is turn on, or when an older two wire device is plugged in; tamper proof receptacles that will not accept current double insulated two tab plugs,and GFCI’s that will trip when new LG and Kenmore refrigerators kick on, our customers call and complain.  In june of this year, I had to replace $700 worth of meat in a new home with a required GFCI on the Freezer in hte Garage when the compressor kicked, it tripped off the GFCI and after a week, the meat was ruined.  The freezer was purchased on May 20, 2009 from Lowes and was made by LG.  It was manufactured in February of 2009. 

Now mandated sprinkler systems that will need a second pump, extra piping and possibly a secondary water source here in fly over country, i.e. not on city water.  These mandatory changes just cause our customers to a: removed Arc fault breakers as they are a nuisance and cause power outages, b. go to Menards, Lowes or Home Depot and replace receptacles with the $.59 standard receptacles.  With the value of houses in most places going down, adding an additional $5,000 to $10,000 to the cost of the house will continue to keep house building down and jobs in construction scarce.

In Missouri a compromise was worked out that requires the builder to present the facts about sprinklers and the related cost of installing them,  The home buyer then has the option of installing and having the cost added to their mortgage or not installing the system.  While this compromise does not require sprinklers in every home, it does present the facts to each home buyer and they make a decision based on what they, the home owner, wants to include in their home.  After a few years, sprinklers was become a necessary part of the building.

For the record, hard wired smoke detectors with battery backup are required in every bedroom, each hallway leading to sleeping areas, and on each level.  They are not portable, but a required part of the electrical system.  In twenty-five years of installing electrical and low voltage in homes, I have never had a homeowner disconnect or remove a smoke alarm, however, I have returned to homes we wired since the 2005 NEC came out to find Arc Fault breakers replaced by standard breakers.

JUst my 2 cents

Randy,

Regardless of if its government, or special interest, or whoever it is that decides to implement change, change will come and in this example I have no problem with it and think it is better for the home market and the consumer.

In regards to jobs, if you believe that we are either at bottom, or near the bottom of the housing market than adding $5-10k to the cost of a new home is not going to effect anyone.  The jobs are already lost.  The builders are already gone.  On the other side if a mandate says that all homes must have a sprinkler system then you are going to see more vendors, more competition, more jobs, and more competetive pricing.  You are also going to see more trades needed to install all of these systems.  This is a lot more jobs, which meens more money for people to be able to afford houses.  While someone not buying a new home will have a minimal effect on the builders, minimal because they are already at or near the bottom, then people will buy more existing homes.  Still a good thing for the economy and we need to get this housing inventory under control. 

Or maybe, just maybe something else would happen.  Ric says that in MO they have an option to buy a sprinkler system, and “after a few years sprinklers has become a necessary part of the building”.  This means that people find value in this safety.  Something that they can’t retrofit and something that they need to buy a new house in order to get.  If the majority of people are already buying the sprinkler system as an option in a case study in MO, then why would they be concerned about a $5-10k price increase on a new home when every new home is going to have the same increase and same added benefit from it?

Ric, the Arc Fault thing sucks, so does all of the UL mandate which is a joke and one of the biggest scam businesses in America.  That being said that’s not our government doing that and yet you build your house to the guidelines and you pay more for breakers and outlets, and the cost of the home goes up.  At least it is consistant to everyone.

Nobody likes to be told what to do and most hate change, but everything has to evolve and this could be a great thing for the consumer, but more importantly our country which needs as many jobs and as many reasons to get people to spend money regardless of if it is an existing home they can afford or a new home with more standard features.

For the record, I live and do business in the 2 most negatively effected housing markets in the country here in the Southwest, so I feel everyones pain regarding home sales.

G, being an electrician means that I am sometimes misunderstood.

THe Missouri compromise is just now going into effect.  My point here was to gradually bring this mandated change into affect.  Thus allowing the public to become aware of sprinklers and their associated costs and benefits. 

Here in Ohio, adding an additional $5,000 to a house will kill the market, period!

Back to Jason’s point, the ability to monitor an test, these systems will be a dry systems, thus only calling for water when the sensor announces a preset rise in heat.  Ohio requires that sprinkler installers be licensed by the State Fire Marshall.  This license is different from the Fire Alarm license.  The only monitoring will be that of the sensor, which will be part of the FIre Sprinkler license. 

AS to my comments about Arc Faults, receptacles, etc., they were not to say they are not a good safety issue, but that they should be implemented slower, to work out the kinks and to allow the general public to become aware of the safety issues.  Also these items can be retrofitted into existing homes, but only after the manufacturers work out the initial problems.  With Arc Faults and tamper proof receptacles, the end user is the test market and they can take these items out when they do not work as planned. With the sprinkler systems, they have no choice.

For the record, I do think sprinklers are a good thing, I just would like to see them slowly implemented and not mandated as a must do now issue.

Why don’t we all go to work for the governemnt and let them provide us with safe and affordable housing… Just like Startrek, “We did away with poverty years ago” and now we all ride in starships. Watch out for the Romulan’s…