Pa. sprinkler debate flares again

Pa. sprinkler debate flares again

There are 23 comments on the York Dispatch story from Mar 4, 2011, titled Pa. sprinkler debate flares again. In it, York Dispatch reports that:

Supporters of a controversial law requiring sprinklers in new houses hoped the resistance would die after the law took effect at the beginning of the year, but the debate keeps flaring up.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at York Dispatch.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
I support the FFs

York, PA

#1 Mar 4, 2011
I'm sick of these shyster builders always whining about the inclusion of common-sense safety features. The builders try to substitute monitored smoke detectors and alarms for sprinklers.

No dice! The alarms only work as long as the homeowner pays the $30/month subscription fee. The sprinklers work for the life of the house, and will knock down fires before they spread, limiting damage to one room.

I will be watching how my Rep. Ron Miller votes, and will remember when he is up for election again.
any

Dover, PA

#2 Mar 4, 2011
Support FF---
Your representative, Mr. Miller is the chair of the L & I committee that has responsibility for the legislation you speak of. And by the way, Mr. Saylor is a co-sponsor of the legislation.
Mr. Miller could have bottled the legislation in the L & I committee and left it die.
Hey firemen, Mr. Miller and Mr. Saylor don't care about you. They only care about you to get elected.
Typical REPUBLICANS!! And you will vote for them again!!
Jakkie Hammer

Wrightsville, PA

#3 Mar 4, 2011
I was a volunteer fire fighter for over 40 years and feel sprinkler systems are a luxury that virtually no one can afford. Yes, I know there are those that will say "how do you place a value on life?!"; you can't BUT you cannot keep bleeding homeowner's, whether it be through exhoribant building costs and/or taxes.

If this issue was really started due to shoddy building materials or methods then kick the builder in the a$$; make them start building better homes. Don't penalize the buyer! All the code does is force a prospective buyer to pay for a sprinkler because of lax code enforcement elsewhere.

Bottom line, this whole thing stinks and is an expenditure not necessary IF proper building methods are used and enforced by the inspectors.
Old Timer

Lenhartsville, PA

#4 Mar 4, 2011
More and more laws. More and more regulations. No wonder builders look for the cheap way out. We have to have sprinklers in our houses. we have to use light bulbs that are going to result in people having more eyestrain and thus forcing people to buy glasses. We canít have salt, sugar, or whatever in our foods. We have to follow government guidelines about food, health, living, breathing, what we can buy and how we can live. Enough regulations already, LEAVE US ALONE with out own choices however stupid they may be.
uninformed joe stevens

York, PA

#5 Mar 4, 2011
Joe Stevens does not know what hes saying, we are not using less wood nor is it any lighter. micra lam beams are way heavier than a 2x12 wooden beams, 3/4 advantech floor sheeting is also heavier than 3/4 plywood, and these materials are better and help save on our forests.
Joe you should research what you are talking about.
No More Stupid Laws

Cambridge, MA

#6 Mar 4, 2011
They are not telling you the full story about the cost of sprinklers. The homes built out in rural areas that have wells will require tanks and back up generators since wells require electric pumps to run the water. Theres another $10,000.00 dollars added to the cost. All this nonsense was brought on by the new building codes...and they keep adding on too it all the time. Building construction should be up to the homeowner, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Sprinklers should be a matter of choice not MANDATORY.

Sprinklers dont save lives...they save property...that is if the water damage doesnt ruin everything. Smoke alarms sound off long before the sprinklers go off. Sprinklers are best suited for high rise....not single family homes.

I'll bet you not many firefighters will be building a new home in Pennsylvania anytime soon. They wont be able to afford it.

I would NEVER build in Pennsylvania.
mayhem

York, PA

#7 Mar 4, 2011
As far as "cheaper" materials, wouldn't approval to use fall on the building codes for that particular municipality?
Sprinklers - Just another law of a government over setting its bounds.
Old Timer

Lemoyne, PA

#8 Mar 4, 2011
No More Stupid Laws wrote:
They are not telling you the full story about the cost of sprinklers. The homes built out in rural areas that have wells will require tanks and back up generators since wells require electric pumps to run the water. Theres another $10,000.00 dollars added to the cost. All this nonsense was brought on by the new building codes...and they keep adding on too it all the time. Building construction should be up to the homeowner, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Sprinklers should be a matter of choice not MANDATORY.
Sprinklers dont save lives...they save property...that is if the water damage doesnt ruin everything. Smoke alarms sound off long before the sprinklers go off. Sprinklers are best suited for high rise....not single family homes.
I'll bet you not many firefighters will be building a new home in Pennsylvania anytime soon. They wont be able to afford it.
I would NEVER build in Pennsylvania.
So well said. I forgot about wells. Also, what about the fact that people don't replace batteries in smoke alarms, couldn't they disable or turn off the sprinkler system. If the fire doesn't destroy your property, the water certainly will. Also what about sprinklers going off accidently. True, no lives lost but "no more stupid laws" said Sprinklers don't save lives.
Sprinklers save lives

United States

#9 Mar 4, 2011
Re: No More Stupid Laws
If you are building a $250,000 -$1,000,000 home that is typical in rural areas, wouldn't $10,000 be a reasonable amount to protect your family and home from fires?

How does a smoke alarm save your life if you are one of the approximately 50% of the population that is not awakened by one? Did you know that with construction by current codes a basement fire can cause the floor to fail in six minutes? That is barely enough time for residents to evacuate and is a death trap for firefighters.

What is the alternative to prevent the water damage from sprinklers? If you have sprinklers you will have minimal fire damage and water damage only in the room where the fire started. If you don't have sprinklers and call the fire department (and they arrive very quickly)you will have at least one room destroyed by fire, smoke damage throughout the house, and water damage in several rooms from the fire nozzles. If they do not arrive very quickly, your entire home will be lost to fire.

If homeowners choose not to have sprinklers what will they do in case of fire? Do the firefighters that they call get to choose whether to respond and risk their lives to save a house that the homeowners didn't think was worth $3000 to protect?
Realist

Saint Cloud, FL

#10 Mar 4, 2011
Sprinklers save lives wrote:
Re: No More Stupid Laws
If you are building a $250,000 -$1,000,000 home that is typical in rural areas, wouldn't $10,000 be a reasonable amount to protect your family and home from fires?
How does a smoke alarm save your life if you are one of the approximately 50% of the population that is not awakened by one? Did you know that with construction by current codes a basement fire can cause the floor to fail in six minutes? That is barely enough time for residents to evacuate and is a death trap for firefighters.
What is the alternative to prevent the water damage from sprinklers? If you have sprinklers you will have minimal fire damage and water damage only in the room where the fire started. If you don't have sprinklers and call the fire department (and they arrive very quickly)you will have at least one room destroyed by fire, smoke damage throughout the house, and water damage in several rooms from the fire nozzles. If they do not arrive very quickly, your entire home will be lost to fire.
If homeowners choose not to have sprinklers what will they do in case of fire? Do the firefighters that they call get to choose whether to respond and risk their lives to save a house that the homeowners didn't think was worth $3000 to protect?
It is my house, I paid for it, it is none of your business what I want in it or not in it. If it catshes fire so be it, I have detectors to get out and insurance to repair. Shove your sprinklers! Unless YOU want to pay for them!
orv

York, PA

#11 Mar 4, 2011
what cheap materials? does he build houses? how many new houses are on fire? Next they will want mmore money for doing nothing! The fix was in from the beging when the bused firefighters in to sponser the bill and shove it down our throats. People need to find the truth- its like politics.
orv

York, PA

#12 Mar 4, 2011
Sprinklers save lives wrote:
Re: No More Stupid Laws
If you are building a $250,000 -$1,000,000 home that is typical in rural areas, wouldn't $10,000 be a reasonable amount to protect your family and home from fires?
How does a smoke alarm save your life if you are one of the approximately 50% of the population that is not awakened by one? Did you know that with construction by current codes a basement fire can cause the floor to fail in six minutes? That is barely enough time for residents to evacuate and is a death trap for firefighters.
What is the alternative to prevent the water damage from sprinklers? If you have sprinklers you will have minimal fire damage and water damage only in the room where the fire started. If you don't have sprinklers and call the fire department (and they arrive very quickly)you will have at least one room destroyed by fire, smoke damage throughout the house, and water damage in several rooms from the fire nozzles. If they do not arrive very quickly, your entire home will be lost to fire.
If homeowners choose not to have sprinklers what will they do in case of fire? Do the firefighters that they call get to choose whether to respond and risk their lives to save a house that the homeowners didn't think was worth $3000 to protect?
what a stupid satement.
orv

York, PA

#13 Mar 4, 2011
I support the FFs wrote:
I'm sick of these shyster builders always whining about the inclusion of common-sense safety features. The builders try to substitute monitored smoke detectors and alarms for sprinklers.
No dice! The alarms only work as long as the homeowner pays the $30/month subscription fee. The sprinklers work for the life of the house, and will knock down fires before they spread, limiting damage to one room.
I will be watching how my Rep. Ron Miller votes, and will remember when he is up for election again.
Really so like the battery detectors, If one leaks or im a landlord i turn it off because of maintance or leaks, u still have same problems!
Realist

Saint Cloud, FL

#14 Mar 4, 2011
I support the FFs wrote:
I'm sick of these shyster builders always whining about the inclusion of common-sense safety features. The builders try to substitute monitored smoke detectors and alarms for sprinklers.
No dice! The alarms only work as long as the homeowner pays the $30/month subscription fee. The sprinklers work for the life of the house, and will knock down fires before they spread, limiting damage to one room.
I will be watching how my Rep. Ron Miller votes, and will remember when he is up for election again.
Hey dummy, the alarms work whether you have monitored service or not. The only thing the service does is phone the fire company or police.
tax payer in pa

Philadelphia, PA

#15 Mar 4, 2011
Sprinklers save lives, Builders make profits, some people are just cheap, but when their homes catch fire they wimp out, call 911 and expect someone else to risk their lives to save them. Its not a personal decision when you call 911. It won't be long before the volunteer fire departments close up because too many people only worry about themselves. If you don't need sprinklers, don't call 911 for help. Just stand there and watch your home go up in smoke and pray you and your loved ones get out ok on their own.
Matt

York, PA

#16 Mar 5, 2011
Jakkie Hammer wrote:
I was a volunteer fire fighter for over 40 years and feel sprinkler systems are a luxury that virtually no one can afford. Yes, I know there are those that will say "how do you place a value on life?!"; you can't BUT you cannot keep bleeding homeowner's, whether it be through exhoribant building costs and/or taxes.
If this issue was really started due to shoddy building materials or methods then kick the builder in the a$$; make them start building better homes. Don't penalize the buyer! All the code does is force a prospective buyer to pay for a sprinkler because of lax code enforcement elsewhere.
Bottom line, this whole thing stinks and is an expenditure not necessary IF proper building methods are used and enforced by the inspectors.
I work at Lowe's. Trust me the building materials are Not Cheap. I think there just bleeding the common man for more money. Who could afford a sprinkler system in there house. Also Houses are Built and Inspected. If that's the case. Then eliminate the use of all 1/2" drywall and make the new standard to use all 5/8th inch Drywall. That's the one called "Firewall" Designed to help stop fires. switching to all 5/8th inch would be cheaper then a sprinkler system, and it would help prevent a fire from spreading. I'm glad your a firefighter who thiks these sprinklers are stupid to.
older homes requirements

York, PA

#17 Mar 5, 2011
Once there is enough damage to your older home, you will be required to comply with new ordinances and laws when repairing. This means adding a sprinkler system where none existed before due to this law. Since there wasn't a damaged sprinkler system to replace, insurance company payment would only happen if ordinance or law coverage is included in the policy. It often isn't there and is always a limited dollar amount. Bottom line, people with older homes will get a nasty surprise.
any

Dover, PA

#18 Mar 5, 2011
All these posts are typical Republican BS. All you fine people don't realize the REPUBLICANS voted in the building code (Ridge '99) and the REPUBLICANS are getting rich off this. You have to remember this is what the public wanted. The next time we have several young children die in a fire Will you be happy about the tradegty? All of you don't have a clue about codes, you are just running at your mouth because you are too dumb to learn about anything and lazy to boot. Go back to your Facebook.It will be passed.
Dan Torzilli

AOL

#19 Mar 7, 2011
I live in New York and I'm interested in building a brand new home in Pennsylvania. I have been following the sprinkler system arguement since August 2010. As soon as the bill is repealed, I will go into contract on a new home. If the bill is not repealed, I will look to build a new house in another state that doesn't have this costly, unnecessary and unwanted addition to their building code.
Dan
All

York, PA

#20 Mar 7, 2011
any wrote:
All these posts are typical Republican BS. All you fine people don't realize the REPUBLICANS voted in the building code (Ridge '99) and the REPUBLICANS are getting rich off this. You have to remember this is what the public wanted. The next time we have several young children die in a fire Will you be happy about the tradegty? All of you don't have a clue about codes, you are just running at your mouth because you are too dumb to learn about anything and lazy to boot. Go back to your Facebook.It will be passed.
It's usually the Democratic inner city dumps that burn and where most people die as the result of these fires. Nothing going to help those folks. We Republican burb folks usually fare much better. Had to ATTEMPT to be as stupid as you (impossibility) and CONTINUE your idiotic rant on "POLITICS"! Talk about typical Democratic bullshit!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Manchester Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Amid 911 staffing shortage, York Countya Sun Trifecta 2
News The Greene Turtle not coming to York County Apr 20 Sir Speedy 2
News Police: Woman went to Atlantic City, left 3 kid... (Mar '11) Apr 11 I WAS the 12 year... 158
News Lost Civil War gold in Pennsylvania woods? (Mar '08) Apr 10 Army of Northern ... 36
News Bankrupt store chain Bon-Ton gets acquisition o... Apr 10 CityguyUSA 1
News York City RDA soliciting bids for Penn Marketa Apr 7 CityguyUSA 1
News Valley View: Comedy and Contention: Casting All... Apr 3 weapon X 2

Manchester Jobs

Personal Finance

Manchester Mortgages