Posted on 06/27/2005 3:21:38 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
That would be an expected outcome if buyers were making decisions rationally ... but from what I see in our local housing market, reason is not a major factor.
ya, it's not just 'home safety' that is driving this. It is the environmentalist movement that is a primary driver behind this new call for 'home sprinkler systems'. If your house burns down they dont want you spewing any of that yukky smoke into the atmosphere. Ucky Pooh!
Another point to stress is that fire sprinkling is designed to only save the lives of occupants to give them a chance to escape. It isn't designed to save property. As your post points out, it generally will destroy the interior of the building in the effort to save it. Water and sheet rock don't mix.
IMHO, smoke detectors and alarms and a fire extinguisher are far more effective and much closer to a homeowner's budget. Since very few people actually maintain their detectors, don't be mislead into believing sprinkler piping will be any better maintained.
The systems can cost anywhere from $2,200 to $5,000 for the average new house, but can range upward to $25,000 and more for the mini-mansions that are often built in the exurbs.
OTOH, the 'system cost' cited for the average new home is probably deceptive because that figure doesn't account for the home-builders' costs that result from the requirement...another requirement to be met, paperwork, delays waiting for installers, increased complications (i.e., cost) for drywallers, paperhangers...
And a weapon as well. Because their FEELINGS are more prevalent than logic as compared to the rest of us, they somehow think they can govern better over us.
There's some chemical out there that gets drawn to a flame as it disperses. Still makes a mess, but much of it is focused on any flame in the room. Can't recall the name of it, sorry...
People are getting sick of the bureaucratic bull and more and more will attempt to "fly low and beat the radar", making this a great opportunity for cities to increase their "rat line".
Check my tag line...
It's their way to snoop and tax, period.
Thank you for the LINK!
So you think the fire department won't respond because the home has fire sprinklers? They will respond to an alarm at a sprinkled home with exactly the same level of effort and expense.
Find some other justification -- one that makes sense.
I don't. I remember back when Jack Kemp was at HUD that he had a report that more than half the cost of a house is in regulations alone. My father is a builder and I have seen the regs for a new home development in his small town -- the book is three inches thick. Heaven forbid you have to put in a road; if you do you have to hire the town engineer to watch every load of material put down.
The developer has to pay a high priced bureaucrat to monitor an operation that can take weeks or months. I won't even get into septic regs. If your house costs 300k the 25k for the sprinkler system looks pretty insignificant compared to all the other junk you have to pay for.
I recently budgeted over three times the $25k to sprinkle a simple wood frame house and the bids came in at $110k. $45 - $75k are reasonable in So CA, assuming one doesn;t have to redesign the fire main in the street.
Just think of the benefits from increased floor space as you eliminate need for closets because you can hang all your clothes on the pipes ;-)
"...but it puts a cost on the community as a whole because it has to send the fire trucks."
You may have a MBA in finance but you don't seem to have a 9th grade level of education in common sense. Do you really think that by installing fire sprinklers will eleminate the need for the fire trucks to respond? Do you really think that cities will reduce their fire defense budgets, lay firefighters off and close fire stations? Do you think that when a homeowner with a fire sprinkler system in his house has a fire, they (or their neighbors) don't call the fire department?
The worst failure of common sense is the very fact that the government writes regulations soley to expand it's scope, power, employment numbers and the requirement to increase taxes on the common serfs..........NO OTHER REASON!
Reasoning without "real world savvy" is dangerous to our freedoms.
Holy &*$%!
Was this a commercial-grade, NFPA 13 system, with steel pipe?
Or a residential, NFPA 13D system with poly piping?
From you LINK:
***.....What is the opposition's case against residential sprinklers?
Bottom line, any opposition centers on leaving no choice in the matter. That would be what you'd expect from builders, and the National Association of Home Builders was certainly against the passage of the Scottsdale ordinance. Make it an option, they say, and leave it up to the homeowner to decide. .....
If it grows your local fire department (= bigger budget + higher taxes), then they will be in favor of it. They'll need to hire more inspectors to go verify your property.
The system is only designed to save a life in the event of a life threatening fire. The cost to property damage from unitentional discharge is probably as great if not greater, denpending on how run runs the numbers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.