Sprinkler requirement kicking housing industry when it is down

EDITOR’S NOTE: This letter appeared in a York newspaper at the end of 2010.

By Rick Smith

I sometimes wonder how far it will have to go before “We the People” get angry. At what point will we finally get fed up with our government protecting us from ourselves? When they outlaw the quarter-pounder?  When they force us to wear sunscreen? When they fine us for running with scissors?

For me personally, a change in the state’s Uniform Construction Code, scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011, represents the last straw. Beginning in January, Pennsylvania will become the first state in the nation to require sprinkler systems in the construction of new one- and two-family homes. Unless our legislators act quickly.

Such systems will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a new home, pricing many potential buyers out of the new-home market and further depressing an already battered construction industry.

According to James Miller, executive vice president of the York Builders Association, York County building permits fell from 2,946 in 2005, to 1,094 in 2009, a decline of 62.8 percent. My guess is, 2010 numbers will be even worse. Either way, that decline represents an enormous drag on our economy in terms of workers laid off or let go, materials not purchased or manufactured, and businesses closed.

In fact, according to the Pennsylvania Builders Association, home-building represents 14 percent of our state’s gross product. And each new home constructed involves at least 54 businesses. Talk about a ripple effect.  Meanwhile, by failing to pass legislation to modify the 2009 Uniform Construction Code, with its sprinkler system mandate, our state legislators will be choosing to kick the industry when it’s down.

And why? According to data from the National Fire Incident Reporting System, occupants of one- or two-family homes with an operating smoke alarm in Pennsylvania have a 99.7 percent chance of surviving a fire. The cost to install hard-wired smoke detectors in new homes? Only about $500. And they are already mandated in the state’s existing construction code.

I know, some of you are thinking how do you place a value on a human life? But there comes a point where reason must prevail. Someone pointed out that in 1977, there were 204 million Americans and 6,000 died in fires that year. Today, we have over 300 million people and last year only 3,000 died in fires.

Meanwhile, as Americans, we do cost-benefit analyses all the time. More than 30,000 people die on America’s highways each year. But do we lower the speed limit to 30 on highways? Do we have speed traps every five miles? Do we build cars like tanks? No.

Why? Because the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits.

So here’s what we can do instead. Why not require builders to offer sprinkler systems in new home construction. That way, their customers can choose to have a system installed. This would be more in keeping with the will of the people, seeing as an August, 2006, National Association of Home Builders survey found that only 15 percent of consumers would be willing to pay $4,800 or more for a residential sprinkler system. According to National Fire Protection Association cost estimates ($1.60 per foot), $4,800 would be the approximate cost of a system for a 3,000 square foot home

Bottom line? I am sick of government forcing decisions down my throat, decisions that I’m fully capable of making as a half-way intelligent adult, and, in this case, decisions that can harm York County builders, suppliers and their people…our friends and neighbors.

If you agree with me, please contact your representatives and senators in the Pennsylvania General Assembly and ask them to make sure this sprinkler system mandate is rescinded. Ask them to support House Bill 1809 and Senate Bill 1114.

Thank you.

Share

2 Comments

  1. How can one person’s life – or even the lives of several people – possibly be worth less than $4,800?

    EDITOR: If a fire breaks out in one of a thousand non-sprinklered households, the cost of saving that life is $4,800 x 1,000 which is $4,800,000. Spending the $4,800,000 for other purposes could theoretically save ten lives.

  2. Funny I didn’t hear the building industry complain when the gov’t gave out $8000 tax credits to new home buyers last year. I, for one, didn’t particularly care for that gov’t forced decision.

Comments are closed.