2005 multiple unit apartment fire with no sprinklers present. Courtesy South Milwaukee Fire Department
The Texas Association of Builders has demonstrated their only concern for homeowners is their choices. They managed to have included in the bill that waits on Governor Rick Perry’s desk a provision that would retroactively prohibit local communities from passing local codes that require residential sprinkler systems. This bill was originally meant to reform plumbing licenses.
Interesting how something as unrelated to licenses as a prohibition on sprinkler systems can be included into a piece of legislation.
I wrote in an earlier article about the push many state builders’ association have been making in banning the local government’s control of building codes.
And each time, each time these builders groups come to the legislative houses, they bring with them the load of fluff that they are looking to save homeowners money. REALLY?!?!
Again, the refutation of this information, when the total cost of ownership is considered, the cost of rebuilding a home following a fire, and the upgrade charges a building can charge for any change, addition or deletion of an item on the build list of a home, the builders associations’ claims are dishonest.
The average estimate for a residential sprinkler system is roughly figured at 10% of the cost of the home, not including the upgrades, flooring, lighting, painting, finishing, or other niceties, just the price of wood and sheathing. A home at $300,000 turn-key finished, will probably run around $120,000 for that which is necessary for it to be called a home. Take the 10% from that, and the cost is $12,000 for the system. This translates to $33 per month on a 30 year mortgage. This cost is fixed.
Homeowners insurance offers discounts of up to 15% per year for such safety systems. An annual policy runs near $600 per year, with 15%, or $90 discounted. This savings will only increase over time, as most insurance costs steadily rise over time. This is an increasing benefit.
"Sprinklers work to put out the fires, but smoke alarms save lives," said Scott Norman, executive director of the Texas Association of Builders. The one question I would love to ask this guy is what tree has he been sleeping under. Working smoke detectors or not, there have been fatal fires in homes with working smoke detectors, as well as in homes without them. There have been no fire related fatalities in any occupancy that had a functioning fire sprinkler system. If a fire cannot grow, it cannot increase in size to the point that it will threaten the structure, prohibiting the occupants from escaping. Mr. Norman is following a very predictable path in defending his income. No sprinklers mean larger rebuilding contracts, and consequently, larger sums of money into his organization.
Homebuilders refuse to consider the emotional impact of a fire on a family. If this were not the case, they would be busy pushing through any legislative assistance to REQUIRE residential sprinklers. I stand by the statement they are only concerned about their income. If a homebuilder were concerned about the safety of the families for whom they are building homes, they would DEMAND that residential sprinkler systems were standard equipment in all homes. However, they say that smoke detectors are what save lives, in the face of the mountain of data that indicates smoke detectors are a paltry second to the record of saved lives when compared to functioning fire sprinklers.
For these groups to claim they are simply looking to provide homeowners with the choice of whether or not to have this essential life safety system in their homes is without merit. To use this line of logic, it would be possible to remove smoke detectors, ground-fault interrupted circuits (GFCI), proper grounding of electrical circuits, proper venting of sewer gases, proper heating and ventilation systems, and any number of other building code requirements. All building codes have been developed and implemented over the course of many years based on experiences and a best practice to correct noted deficiencies, with the intent of protecting consumers. Take any one thing in your home, research how and why that particular system was develop and designed. The builders’ associations fail to meet the basic logic of argument development when they fight this issue. If it were left up to them, thatch roofs and mud bricks would be perfectly fine materials for all of us.
A builder makes more money when you change the plan. It is that simple. When I built my home, I read the contract before I signed. I made a list of items that would be changed, requested estimates and worked out the details. I then included this list with the contract as my addendum, and there were no charges. This is ten years ago, and I know that my little antics with the contract may have contributed to the push for changes to the statewide builders contract in use, but it worked. By my estimation, I saved over $1,000 in change fees—the money I would pay the builder to pay more to have my home built. A $10,000 sprinkler system with a 5% up-charge would be a nice $500 “gimme” to a builder who does nothing more than picks up a phone and calls the contractor.
Then it all boils down, the reason builders’ associations are against home fire sprinkler ordinances at the local level is simple, greed. I stand by my statements. Any person who has the power to save lives, but fights against it at every turn in such dramatic ways leaves more questions about their actions than answers.
If the claim is to save homeowners money, why charge more for a life safety feature every home should have. If choice is the claim, why stop with just this item, and not include all items required under code as a choice. If earning greater sums of money on a safety feature all homes should have then include in any legislation that takes away local code enactment rights a prohibition of any builder surcharges or change fees. In many states, the argument against the federal government is that big government is bad, so how does a state law prohibiting a local government’s right to make their own rules different from the federal government regulating the state?
All people need to contact their state elected officials and tell them to support the rights of municipalities to enact life safety codes. Texas residents need to contact Governor Perry and tell him to veto this bill. You have until June 21. Make your voice heard.
Stay fire safe and thanks for reading.
Comments
GREAT article! Scott Norman is doing nothing but protecting his 6 figure income. Unfortunately he wasnt able to keep the builders commission.
Lets take the cars off the road, that will save thousands of lives more then the sprinkler systems. Get rid of the auto's and you will resolve a lot of other conflict within the world. As we now step back in time I am currently looking for a registered camel. May as well save on water when in drought conditions. Everyone better re-read George Owells "1984" Remember "Big Brother is Watching You"
I think "requiring" sprinkles misses the boat on how to save lives. Mr. Sigglekow makes some valid points however he also isn't looking at the bigger picture. Every year, homes get safer due to incremental code changes he cites in his article and fewer people die in homes, sprinklers or not. Go to cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/fire where the CDC has some interesting information. 1/2 of the deaths in fires were in homes without smoke detectors. Smoking is the leading cause of fire related deaths. Cooking is the leading cause of House fires. These statistics say alot. Furthermore, sprinklers are not going to save anyone who lives in an older home. Many of those at risk as listed in the CDC article will be less likely to be able to afford a home with sprinklers and thus continue to be at risk. For the $6B (on average)a year it will cost to install sprinklers in new homes you could install a lot of smoke detectors and save a lot more lives across the board.
A couple of additioanl points:
Based on the CDC infmation, if most fires start in the kitchen why not do a limited fire suppression system in the kitchen, similar to what's required in restaurants. This coupled with getting people to quit smoking in their beds and installing smokes in all homes would probably eliminate most deaths/injuries.
I'm also tired of people like Mr. Siggelkow thinking that the only thing behind builders fight against sprinklers is profit or disregard for our buyers safety. Yes we're here to make money. We wouldn't be doing it otherwise and Mr. Siggelkow would be living in a mud brick hut that he built himself. (Although it would probalby be pretty fire resistant) The reason costs are used to make a point is because it is the only way to make a reasonable judgement about where to spend a limited amount of money for the most benefit. The auto industry does it, the airline industry does it, and many other government intiatives use the same method.
Mr. Songer,
While I can agree with some of your points regarding spending money wisely, you also are acknowledging my point with your examples. The auto industry didn't install seat belts until the 1950s. Airbags weren't required in all vehicles until the 1990s. Airlines have the safety record they have because the interests of the flying public have been given a greater weight than the airlines profit margins. When builders are fighting the local government's ability to promulgate fire codes, the argument about why the fight is boiled down to the simplest reasons for the resistance. In the case of fire fighting, saving lives and increasing a homeowner's safety. Where does the builder have any motive other than profit? How is the profit argument diffused honestly and succinctly? Smoking in bed as a cause of fire has been dropping over the last 3 decades. The type of kitchen only system you mention is as expensive as a whole home system, and the annual servicing costs are very high.
If one wants to have an honest debate about the pros and cons of requiring sprinklers in all buildings over a certain square footage, then the costs need to be viewed in an honest way. Most builders have a method of reducing costs through working relationships with certain contractors and suppliers. This concept would undoubtedly be present with sprinklers. As the need increases, so does the number of suppliers and contractors, and the competition of the free market would have the affect of decreasing costs over time. Decreased insurance costs overtime would also be possible. A large planned tract of construction would be possible to include effective fire protection at even lower costs.
A "big brother" argument is also a straw man. The laws and codes that are present in most communities are for the community as a whole. Where it not for building codes, the homes in which we live would not survive the weather conditions from season to season, or simply having people live in them.
Yes, put sprinkler systems in houses, then we can pass laws so we can make sports cars ilegle and why not out law motorcycles, and of course we will need to put escalators in house with more that three steps so we won't trip going up the steps. Make it illegal to back out og a garage. Where will government intervention in our lives stop? Well hell it's only another 12,000 dollars to the purchase price of a home?.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!