Just weeks after the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) request to appeal residential fire sprinkler requirements in the 2009 edition of the International Residential Code (IRC) was defeated, the home builders lobby has moved on to their next attempt to attack required residential fire sprinkler use. This time they are introducing state legislation in an effort to block the local adoption of these requirements.
To date, the IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition is aware of two states where these bills have been introduced: Arizona with the recently filed HB2267 and North Dakota with the recently filed SB2354.
The language used in these bills makes it clear that this is a direct attack on residential fire sprinklers and the recent IRC requirements. Consider the following text from the North Dakota bill:
“Neither the state building code nor a building code adopted by a city, township, or county may include a requirement that fire sprinklers be installed in a single family dwelling or a residential building that contains no more than two dwelling units.”
It is expected that this type of legislation will be introduced in other states across the country. At a national level, the IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition and fire sprinkler advocacy organizations are coordinating resources to identify and respond to this type of legislation.
Some may wonder what chance this legislation has of passing since it restricts a state from choosing to follow a nationally recognized code standard. Fire safety supporters hope that this latest home builder tactic will be quickly recognized by state legislators as another blatant attempt by home builders to dictate public policy. After all, it was the hundreds of voting fire and building officials from across the country who approved adding the residential fire sprinkler requirement to the IRC by utilizing a code making process specifically designed to give government officials, not special interests, the final word.
Ironically, Arizona, one of the first states to see this type of proposed legislation, is home to a shinning example of how effective residential fire sprinkler requirements are, the City of Scottsdale. For over 20 years the city has required fire sprinklers in every home and history has shown an impressive record of fire safety and declining costs of system installation. How could state legislators from the “poster child” city of residential fire sprinkler success support a bill denying the same fire safety progress in other areas of the state?
State and local groups are encouraged to watch for the use of these tactics. If you become aware of a similar bill in your area, please notify the IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition to ensure that an organized response is given.
UPDATE 1/28/2009: Similar proposed legislation has been introduced in Connecticut. See Connecticut HB-6204.
firewatch
firewatch January 27, 2009 at 7:50 am
Ok…c’mon, seriously. What kind of bizarre mixed message is this?
“…will be quickly recognized by state legislators as another blatant attempt by home builders to dictate public policy” – isn’t that what sprinkler advocates have been doing for years???
“a code making process specifically designed to give government officials, not special interests, the final word.
“Ironically…” – and this whole comment just made me chuckle. ‘Cause on my computer display, it appears right next to the ad for the Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition. Does anyone else see the ‘irony’? You know, because of the statement about special interest groups not having the final word on code development and HFSC is a special interest group…and they got the final word?? That’s funny stuff!
Ryan J. Smith
Ryan J. Smith January 27, 2009 at 10:10 am
@firewatch, glad to see you are taking an active interest in this topic, even though your anonymous comment suggests that you do not support residential fire sprinkler requirements.
You are absolutely correct that sprinkler advocates lobby in the support of residential fire sprinklers, but I would suggest there is one key difference between that and the latest home builder opposition tactics:
Residential fire sprinkler advocates educate and influence to gain support for the benefits of fire sprinklers, while this latest opposition tactic attempts to legislate away the rights of county and city officials to even consider residential fire sprinkler requirements.
This opposition tactic attempts to eliminate the healthy discussion that should take place at the state, county and city levels to determine if the nationally recognized model code should apply in their area. I don’t fault the home builders in this effort, they are simply, and very artfully, representing the interests of their industry.
Bob R
Bob R August 28, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Fire sprinklers in new homes is a ridiculous proposal. These are already the safest homes in America. Quick math on a national level suggests you would have to spend over one trillion dollars to provide fire sprinklers in all of America’s homes. If you did, you could potentially save 500 lives per year. You are six times more likely to drown than die in a residential fire so it’s ridiculous to suggest that fire sprinklers are what America needs.
What we need are fewer special interest groups telling us how to spend our money.
Matt Tabels
Matt Tabels March 16, 2010 at 3:06 pm
The really sad thing about all this is that homeowners lose. The cost of new homes is going up without good reason. The value of older homes is going down not just because of the economy but now thanks to our federal government they are sure to lose value because of the new lead law that takes affect 4/22/2010 What all this boils down to is that we all lose because fewer and fewer customers will be able to afford our products any longer. We have turned a corner here that is going in a very wrong direction and we are heading at a high rate of speed at the proverbial fan.
Jerry C.
Jerry C. August 30, 2010 at 10:44 am
In a sense i think that people are not looking at the big picture; what about fire fighters? Every year fire fighters loose lives attempting to save the lives of those caught in a burning home. If there is a sprinkler system in place then the the risk decreases greatly not to mention the saftey of the home owner. Lets think about this, if there is no sprinkler system in place then your house can simply burn down. If the FD gets there before that then they just flood it causing water damage. Now if a sprinkler system activates due to a fire then the fire is likely to be put out before the FD gets there and the home owner can shut the system off themselves after the fire is out. This will help prevent the home from burning down, allow for safe exiting and minimize water damage and fire fighters are at less risk. Makes a whole of sense to me. The only thing i dont agree with in a residential system is the fact that the attic is still not required to be protected because its not living space. Texas needs to move in the direction of requiring residential sprinkler systems.