Heated Emotions, Mixed Results
by Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD
June 1, 2009
Various states’ legislators have taken sides in the debate over the IRC mandatory residential sprinkler requirement. Two states have my support, but one definitely doesn’t.
Thank You, New Jersey and Pennsylvania
The state of New Jersey became the first state
to vote in support of adopting the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC)
with mandatory residential sprinkler requirements. The vote was by the State of
New Jersey Uniform Construction Code Advisory Board (CAB).
CAB made one slight modification to the sprinkler requirements. Rather than an
effective date of Jan. 1, 2011, they pushed it back a year to Jan. 1, 2012.
This was done at the request of the homebuilders because of the difficult
economic times.
It was interesting to note that the vote to adopt the 2009 IRC was unanimous.
CAB includes representatives from the homebuilders. Unlike certain other
states, the homebuilders in New Jersey have understood the importance of
residential sprinklers. That doesn’t mean they unanimously support the
mandating of sprinklers. But they do understand the trend to go in that
direction.
The vote by CAB is a very important step in the adoption process. Once CAB
makes a recommendation, it is passed forward to the Department of Community
Affairs Commissioner and the legal department. Once the Commissioner and legal
department sign off on the recommendation, it then moves forward to the
Governor’s office. After the Governor signs off on the proposal, it is
published in the New Jersey Register.
When I asked about the actual adoption date of the 2009 IRC, I was informed
that the state intends to have the code adopted before the end of 2009. Thus,
the 2009 edition of the code would become law within 2009. That is quite an
accomplishment for a state adoption!
A week after the state of New Jersey recommended adoption of the 2009 IRC, the
state of Pennsylvania had a similar recommendation from their code review
committee. They recommended adoption of the 2009 IRC without amendments —
meaning that the sprinkler mandate for one- and two-family dwellings would be
Jan. 1, 2011.
Both states are to be congratulated for a job well done.
Following the decision by NJ CAB, one of the Assemblywomen posted a ridiculous
comment on her Web site regarding the vote. Her statement was, “There is a
limit as to how far government should interject itself into areas that should
be decided by the consumer. The housing industry is mired in a slump not seen
in generations and shows little sign of improvement. For prospective buyers,
adding $10,000 to the cost of a new house can make the difference in whether or
not they make the purchase.”
I realize that she is a politician and politicians are supposed to make absurd
comments. So I wondered what district this Assemblywoman represented. As it
turns out, she represents my mother’s and brother’s
district.
Let me tell you a little about Bergen County, where I grew up. It is not what
you would consider a poor county. At one time, it was considered the third
richest county in the country. A three-bedroom shack built in the 1920s
recently sold for more than a half-million dollars.
It is understandable that a residential sprinkler system in Bergen County could
add $10,000 to the cost of construction of a new home. They build nothing but
McMansions in her district, and the construction costs in Bergen County are
higher than many other parts of the country. But that won’t be reflected in the
cost of the home because new homes in Bergen County sell for whatever the
market will bear. Plus, everyone knows that a sprinklered new home is more
desirable than an existing, non-sprinklered home. Hence, sprinklers are
actually a great marketing tool to stimulate the new housing market over the
existing housing market.
Boycott North Dakota
Living a mile from the Illinois border (in
Indiana), I got to witness on a daily basis the trials and tribulations of the
Governor Blago fiasco. What former Governor Rod Blagojevich proved to the world
is that politicians really are for sale. Did we ever doubt
that?
Most of us were raised to have faith in our elected officials. I still do. But
I get very disappointed that money so easily can buy a vote. Okay, we can’t
call it money; we call it “campaign contributions.” No matter what you call it,
politicians have been bought and sold since the beginning of our country. Our
only recourse is to vote them out of office.
Perhaps the citizens of North Dakota will vote their politicians out of office
the next election. The North Dakota politicians proved how little it costs to
be bought and sold by the homebuilders. This was done at the sacrifice of the
citizens of the state.
This past April, the Governor of North Dakota signed into law a bill that
prohibits any jurisdiction from adopting a code that mandates residential
sprinklers in one- or two-family dwellings. The National Association of Home
Builders touted this as a major victory for the homebuilders. But I saw it as a
disgusting display of buying politicians.
A week after the bill was signed into law, two people died in home fires in
North Dakota.
This reminded me of classes that I took when I was studying to be an officer in
the military. One of the classes dealt with acceptable levels of casualties on
the battlefield. Part of your assignment was to design an offensive attack in
which you listed the potential casualties.
This was a tough assignment. I remember my plan: I listed zero casualties. It
wasn’t the most aggressive plan, but I would have spared the lives of all of my
soldiers. I was the only one who received an “A” for that assignment. That
lesson has stuck with me for a long time. As the Colonel who was teaching the
course stated, “You don’t play with peoples’ lives. You do everything possible
to save them.”
In North Dakota, the politicians should have taken this class. How many lives
is a campaign contribution worth? How many dollars can a politician raise for
each citizen that would die in a fire, or be permanently
scarred?
So I have decided to boycott North Dakota. I would rather spend my money in New
Jersey or Pennsylvania, which I have done since they passed recommendations to
adopt the 2009 International Residential Code with mandatory sprinkler
requirements. As for North Dakota, I’m not spending a dime. I hope you join me
in boycotting the state. If you live in the state, it is time to throw the bums
out.
|
By: Chris
Posted: July 6, 2009 5:19 PM
By: Curtis
Posted: July 6, 2009 5:25 PM
By: Chris
Posted: July 6, 2009 5:29 PM
When was the home built?
By: Julius
Posted: July 9, 2009 10:17 PM
Ouch, if you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger. Your comments are similar to watching the Democrats and Republicans - slash and burn, poison pen, and character assassination. That’s okay, I am a big boy, and I can take it. Apparently, neither one of you read my book. If you had, you would realize that I have been speaking and writing about the mandate of residential sprinklers for my entire professional life. Why not, it makes perfect sense. Having been a volunteer fireman and volunteer ambulance corp member, I have had to face death. I don’t like it. As an engineer, it is my responsibility to make sure that avoidable deaths be avoided. Residential sprinklers are an easy answer.
You should talk to a family member who has lost a loved one in a fire. I have. It tears your heart out. I was crying while talking to the mother who lost her daughter in the beachfront home in South Carolina with her fellow classmates. By the way, it was a new, very expensive home on the beach that completely complied with code. She told me that the flowers for her daughters funeral cost more than it would have to sprinkler that beachfront home.
What you seem to forget, is that the contents of a home burn. Hence, it doesn’t matter what the age. Of course, you could buy into the homebuilders’ rhetoric and say that people only die in older homes. However, that simply isn’t true. People die in homes of any age.
To answer your question, BNP pays me as a columnist. They can’t buy my opinion, that’s not for sale. It never has been. Ask any of my colleagues.
By: Jamie
Posted: July 15, 2009 8:45 AM
By: Edie
Posted: July 15, 2009 12:24 PM
By: Mike
Posted: July 15, 2009 12:55 PM
P.S. Everyone seems to have a price at which they can be "persuaded" some just show it a little bit more than others.
By: Dean
Posted: July 15, 2009 4:36 PM
By: Ron
Posted: July 16, 2009 10:54 AM
By: Ron
Posted: July 16, 2009 3:29 PM
Why did you not answer any of the questions that were asked by Chris and Curtis in your response. It seems that you just repeated your arguments and danced around the actual issue. It must be hard to give an informed answer backed up by any actual hard evidence. I look forward to your response.
By: Glenn Elwell, P.E.
Posted: July 22, 2009 1:47 PM
By: dave
Posted: July 24, 2009 10:47 AM
Posted: July 22, 2009 1:47 PM
Perhaps Jules would like to slander Texas and Long Beach CA now that they have justifiably rejected the residential sprinkler mandate."
Looks like he did (page 6):
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/bnp/pme_200907/index.php?startid=10#/8