http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=10519927

Spotted on a local TV website. Please weigh in. My wife and I are completly, totally and utterly on board with this idea.

Home builders not happy about proposed residential sprinkler bill

Posted: June 11, 2009 05:45 PM CDT

By Jena Johnson - bio | email

LUFKIN, TX (KTRE) - "How much would it cost to put a glass door in here?" asked Jim Chmielewski to his home builder.

As the Chmielewskis put the final touches on their house plan; a fire sprinkler system isn't in their budget. "We'd have to sacrifice either the driveway or cut the square footage down significantly," said Chmielewski.

Their previous home was ripped apart during hurricane Ike. "We had two big oak trees and that concerns me a lot more than fire damage and I wonder if the government wants to put a net up to catch them," said Chmielewski.

Insurance agent Terry Morgan said it doesn't make dollars or any sense. "You're only talking anywhere from a $50 to $100 credit of your insurance rate for the sprinkler system," said Morgan.

John Bryan is building their new home. He said requiring a sprinkler system is ridiculous. "You'd have to have a pump and of course a separate water supply system if you're out in the rural area and in city limits you'd have to have a separate meter tap made for that," said Bryan.

Others said the benefits of installing a sprinkler system outweigh the costs. "I would like to see a sprinkler system, I do know that it would increase the cost of a home, but how do you put a cost value on life," said Dale Allred, Lufkin City Inspector.

I voted no.
Mandatory smoke alarms, yes.

Interesting. What's your take, Bobby? Why not?

I can see the benefit of having a sprinkler system, but I dont think I'd support them being mandatory. If you have a fire and the system goes off; instead of having fire damage, now you have flood damage from all the sprinklers saturating your home. Granted your house will still be standing, but you'll still have to deal with the insurance company and you'll most likely be displaced for a little while.

I voted NO. yes as brown said, yes your house will be standing, but you will have the flood damage, which could almost be worse in some cases, plus what if you build an addition? you have to get water over there as well, I agree with bobby with the smoke detecters, because if you reconise it soon enough you can stop it

I would rather have a smoke alarm instead of seeing these hangen from my ceiling

[img]http://www.firefightersequipmentco.com/shop/image.php?productid=16640[/img]

x2

Maybe when it comes out of his pocket, he won't be so quick to say something like that.

You can get sprinklers that look nicer. The circle on the left is a sprinkler



I don't think it should be mandatory, however I think homeowners/builders should maybe get some kind of rebate and a deeper discount on their homeowners insurance if they have a system. I think that would incent more people to get one.

If I built a new house, I'd think about installing a system. Part of the problem I have with it is that the systems just use water, so it wouldn't be effective for grease fires (kitchen and garage) or eletrical (my office, living room).

Mandatory sprinkler system no. Smoke alarms yes. Chances are the water damage would be as great as having a fire while your away. Plus most insurance companies catagorize all water damage as "flood" so if you don't have "flood" insurance your screwed. From what I see it's a ploy by the insurance companies to grab customers that otherwise wouldn't consider the flood coverage because they aren't in a flood plain and actually require the protection. Or it's a cheap way out because if you lose everything to fire the company has to pay out where as a small fire is put out by the sprinkler it limits the insurance company to fix the fire damage and not the personal property damaged by the water unless you pay the "flood" premium.

I can see an auto fire extinguishing system over the stove as being mandatory.

Don't forget the possibility of false alarms too that would cover your home in water.

X2 That's why i wouldn't want them, what if you're moving a piece of furniture and you smack into it?

Thanks for weighing in, all.

My take is this: if the state of Texas requires the extinguishing systems, then insurance would HAVE to cover the water damage.

When I DO build my own house, it will have a good sized bedroom that will be used as an office/library. That room will have a Halon system installed, it will be concrete walls and ceiling, and a fire-rated door. The rest of the house will have some sort of dry chemical fire killer thats NOT halon, but I will most certainly have a fire system. Most likely Purple K or ABC type agent.

The beauty of this kind of mandate would be the speedy research and development of fire killers. They would HAVE to become non-residual or have a "safe" residue that would not be harmful to kids or pets. The agents would become, out of cost-effectivness for refills, more efficient and cheaper. Know how some fires "jump" from building to building, or spread into wildfires? Not once the house that the fire started in killed the blaze before it became a blaze.

Like I said, me and my wife both see this as a really good thing that has very few downsides.

Not only this but any other means of triggering it. I'm sure it only takes so much before the sprinkler actually goes off which can pry go off from just smoke, etc... What if you burnt something ya know?

typically it is heat, not smoke that sets these off.

Yep it's the heat that makes the little red part burst. Burning something wouldn't set them off. Heck, I've seen people fry stuff in the microwave at work and the sprinklers don't go off.

I don't think you'd smack one with furniture either. It's flush with the ceiling.

I think Herc has probably the most valid point.

here in mn they require co2 detectors within ten feet of any bedroom, but I like richard's take with the halon, there was just a apartment building that went up in the cities, no sprinkler system..but in the year it was built, the code didnt call for it, and I know in MN, you can have a house say built in 1958 like my parents house and unless you remodel a certin part, your grandfathered in to the code that stood when the house was built, as far as it being mandatory...I think it should be up to the home owner