Snohomish County Councilman, and current Chairman, Democrat Mike Cooper -- himself a former firefighter -- believes that increasing the initial cost of homes by thousands of dollars, and the cost of maintenance of those homes by hundreds or thousands more over their lifetimes, is an acceptable thing to force on homeowners in the county. (Ultimately, the proposal was not acted on.)
I am not sure why anyone would be in favor of this; anyone who wants the sprinklers and can afford them, can get them. Why force it?
Regardless, it's one thing to believe that the government has a right, or obligation, to force their views of cost vs. safety onto consumers. It's another thing to be a complete jerk about it.
KING5 had better video than this on May 6, the date of the public hearing, but I can't find it on their web site. So I pulled this off the Council's video web site. Here's the lovely transcript of an exchange (starting at about 46:20) between Cooper (on the far left of the council table) and David Toyer, a representative of the Master Builders Association (just off the screen to the left, at the podium).
This clip is just a small portion of the entire discussion.
Cooper: "So, my question for you and your organization is: what is the acceptable kill rate? Because for me and the people that are sitting out here who do the job [of firefighting] every day, it's zero. For the Master Builders, what is the acceptable kill rate? Before you would put a price on a human life?"Toyer: "I think you're looking at this in the wrong way, Mr. Cooper. I think you're looking at an issue which is: what is the consumer choice on this? We all have when we, anything we choose, whether it be life insurance, car insurance, house insurance, we have options that we can choose. Now there are things at the state level, they're like, put mandates on medical insurance, that certain coverage be provided.
"But it's at what cost and what level of safety does the individual want for themselves? And I think you need to leave it to the choice of the individual, and it shouldn't be mandated by this county council."
Cooper: "So the Master Builders' position is, it's acceptable for people to die in fires."
I hope Council District 3 is proud of their representative.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 11, 2009 11:18 PM | Email Thiswhen Cooper bought his last car or refinanced a home, and the salesman heaped on a ton of misc & junk fees, adding--say--another 10--20% to the costs, did HE haggle or ask what & why each one of these were imposed? you can bet your dollar he did!
good for goose, good for gander; next, we'll have to put sprinklers into the tents in Tent Cities and a host of other "safety" & "quality of life" mandates; soft & heated sidewalks for bums; sprinkler waivers for illegal alien homeowners; all signs & switches in private homes with 8-language stickers on every wall & outlet; silly? just watch; it's happening on the national level, why not locally?
Posted by: jimmie howya-doin on May 12, 2009 05:22 AM:: Paging Darcy Burner ::
Posted by: Fire Marshall Bill on May 12, 2009 07:13 AMNot that I want to give Cooper any ideas ...
Posted by: pudge on May 12, 2009 07:21 AMAnd for the "choice" posters, it is difficult to "retrofit" sprinklers into an existing house without a lot of extra costs.
Posted by: swatter on May 12, 2009 07:58 AMExpect that he will remain on message with this issue so long as it exists. He will not back down. He will not waver. He will stay focused, direct, blunt, and on task.
I don't agree with him or his policies. I do, however, grudgingly admire the political skill he displays in his ability to find a message, boil it down to an emotional hook, and then relentlessly repeat it over and over again.
IMO, the loyal opposition in this state needs to learn to do likewise. Big time.
Posted by: Jack Turk on May 12, 2009 08:20 AMHe didn't do that here. Instead he devolved into attacking an individual, a person he clearly had personal problems with. If this is "staying on message" for him, I'd think most of his constituents would frown upon it if they actually saw it in action.
Furthermore, there is an impact on innocent people here. A fire threatens firefighters (though I suppose the libertarian argument is that government has no business fighting fires) and neighbors.
The rational basis for such safety codes is cost/benefit analysis, which requires putting a value on human life, however, uncomfortable that makes us. Arguably, one value of a life should be used for risks that are imposed on us, and a lower value on a life for risks that we choose to take ourselves. It gets complicated, and politically sensitive, but it's still how most governments make these decisions.
I don't know how the sprinkler rule rates in cost/benefit, but anyone other than the most rigid libertarian ought to agree that Cooper is asking the right questions.
Posted by: Bruce on May 12, 2009 08:49 AM"So the Master Builders' position is, it's acceptable for people to die in fires."
The video doesn't show Cooper frothing at the mouth or anything of the sort. He very clearly, very calmly makes his case in stark, powerful, emotional terms.
I repeat -- to oppose the ever creeping encroachment on individual freedom and liberty in our state and across our country will require equally powerful, equally succinct phrasings that move the heart as well as the mind.
So give the guy his due. The poor MBA rep muttering foul play about "mandates" and "coverage" and "insurance" never had a rhetorical chance against words like "die in fires."
How about a rebuttal along the lines of "And what is an acceptable level of unemployment, foreclosures, and bread lines when the last construction job has left the state?"
We need to play the game to win.
... something that I neither said nor implied? The answer to that is self-evident.
Sprinkers are good, but do have some problems. They have gone off all of a sudden and make one heck of a mess if your not there. (Yes I had it happen)
They had to have a large sypply system.
If you want one during the build, I have no problem with it. Now forcing it by law is just flat out wrong.
BA. Smoke detectors are easy to install, if they go off for what ever reason. No damage to the house, unlike sprinkers.
PS... Cooper is a jerk!
He's one of them people who think the gov should run your life.
Exactly. This is not a good thing for Cooper. No sane people could possibly think this reflects well on Cooper. He is, very clearly, intentionally twisting Toyer's words into something he obviously doesn't mean. Very few voters of any partisan stripe likes this sort of thing, especially in genteel Pacific Northwest.
He very clearly, very calmly makes his case in stark, powerful, emotional terms.
Calmly ... and irrationally and dishonestly.
How about a rebuttal along the lines of "And what is an acceptable level of unemployment, foreclosures, and bread lines when the last construction job has left the state?"
If it were me, I'd probably have responded, "Councilman Cooper, don't be a jackass. You know damned well that's neither what I said, nor what I meant. If you can't speak to your constituents rationally and respectfully and honestly, then maybe you shouldn't be speaking to them -- or for them -- at all."
But that's me.
Sure, he was grandstanding a little, but he was asking the right question -- what level of risk is acceptable. Master Builder Toyer, at least in the excerpt you posted, was refusing to answer the question, essentially saying government has no right to regulate home safety. Up against such evasiveness, Cooper's strong language was justified.
Again, I'm going only on the excerpt you posted. I don't know whether sprinklers should be required in single-family homes. I just don't understand what, specifically, Cooper did wrong here.
Posted by: Bruce on May 12, 2009 09:07 AMHm. So @13 you argued against something I did not say, as if I had said it. Then @18 you accuse me of agreeing with something I very clearly implied I disagree with.
Are you having a bad day, Bruce?
I'm going only on the excerpt you posted
If only that were true, you might actually write something useful and productive instead of attacking straw men.
Sure, he was grandstanding a little, but he was asking the right question -- what level of risk is acceptable.
Cooper dishonestly asserted the only "acceptable kill rate" -- defined by him as how many people die, given certain regulations -- is zero. If that were true, he would require all buildings be made out of nonflammable materials, or disallow any fire-causing materials in homes. After all, Cooper even said the one man who died from sprinklers was in the chair that where the fire started ... so obviously, we should disallow flammable chairs. If he does not ban flammable chairs, then his "acceptable kill rate" is greater than zero.
So please let us not pretend that Cooper was not being extremely dishonest in his questioning, mmmmkay?
Toyer, at least in the excerpt you posted, was refusing to answer the question
No, he didn't. Toyer said, in the excerpt I posted, that the level of acceptable risk in this case should not be decided by the government. That is answering the question ... just not in the way Cooper wanted. But as Cooper's question was so dishonest, I don't find that to be an indictment of Toyer.
essentially saying government has no right to regulate home safety
Toyer said no such thing, in fact. (For those new to us, yes, this is a pattern with Bruce. Three times in this short discussion he has falsely attributed to people positions they do not have.)
Cooper's strong language was justified.
Tell me, Bruce, have YOU stopped beating YOUR mother?
I have heard sprinklers create a lot of smoke damage.
Firefighters tell me that their main concern (other than saving lives) is to save the adjacent homes if the fire is too large. As for lives, isn't that what smoke alarms are supposed to do.
Does the Cooper solution mean that if you have a 5 gallon per minute well that you have to install sprinklers? That means you not only have to have the $3-5000 extra per house, you have to install a huge tank and another huge pump to get the water pressure necessary to run the sprinklers. Then you have to worry about contamination and water quality for the stagnant water. That is, unless you run two sets of pipes- one for consumption and one for sprinklers.
Frankly, I'll take my chances on death by fire than death by contamination or death by "I hope the blasted things work and are not rusted when I could use them".
Posted by: swatter on May 12, 2009 09:44 AMI agree with you that Cooper should have not have said the acceptable kill rate is zero. This is hyperbole like the time Bill Gates said the acceptable bug rate in Microsoft Word was zero. It is the right goal for a firefighter but not for a public policy maker.
But how can you defend Toyer's statement that "the level of acceptable risk in this case should not be decided by the government"? Why is this case different from any other case? If cost/benefit analysis makes sense for one safety measure, why not for another?
Unfortunately, this is classic. Politicians can't say that there is an acceptable level of risk, because people don't like to think that there's a financial price on their lives (even though everyone makes decisions based on that principle every day). Meanwhile, corporate executives deny there is any risk, or, in this case, deny that it is appropriate for government to weigh the risk against the cost of measures to reduce it.
In Toyer's shoes, I would have said, "We all want a kill rate of zero. But there is no way of eliminating all risk. We need to weigh the huge cost of requiring sprinklers -- which our struggling homeowners will have to pay -- against the extremely small benefit that would result. When the cost is so high compared with the benefit, I would rather leave it to individual homeowners to make the decision of whether to spend their money on sprinklers or something else that they consider more important."
Then I would have cited the estimated cost per life saved, and compared that with the cost/life for other safety regulations that we have, as well as other potential regulations that we reject as not worthwhile (such as requiring people to drive only Hummers or have monthly colonoscopies).
I have no idea whether, in fact, the benefit here really is extremely small compared with the cost. But both sides should have been willing to address it.
Posted by: Bruce on May 12, 2009 09:50 AMHe's nothing more than a union thug with short-man's complex disguised as a politician.
Posted by: jimg on May 12, 2009 10:01 AMI said it in the original post. What part of it did you not get? It is very easy to "figure out" what my point was: READ THE POST.
But how can you defend Toyer's statement that "the level of acceptable risk in this case should not be decided by the government"?
How can you attack it?
Why is this case different from any other case? If cost/benefit analysis makes sense for one safety measure, why not for another?
Listen to the rest of what he said and get back to me. I pointed you to it, and told you where to start listening. Again, in the original post.
In Toyer's shoes, I would have said, "... When the cost is so high compared with the benefit, I would rather leave it to individual homeowners to make the decision of whether to spend their money on sprinklers or something else that they consider more important."
Which is basically what he DID say. He spoke for a few minutes, I didn't transcribe it all, but rather pointed you to it instead.
I have no idea whether, in fact, the benefit here really is extremely small compared with the cost. But both sides should have been willing to address it.
Toyer did. So again, I ask, how can you attack Toyer?
In fact, it demonstrates precisely the opposite. Every poster here demonstrated they are capable of making their own decisions based on the evidence.
Some commenters say sprinklers are good, others say they're not perfect, others say that fires aren't the greatest risk in life. All of these are obviously true but irrelevant.
No, it's all relevant, in fact.
Others argue against strawmen like wrapping all cars in bubble wrap or prattle on about liberty (which is relevant only if they're denying government's right to impose any safety codes).
No, in fact, it's directly relevant even if you concede the government has such a right.
And others resort to ad hominem attacks.
And you resorted to straw men against both me and Toyer.
Pathetic.
Indeed. Try harder next time!
I don't have time to listen to the entire hearing, nor to investigate what else Cooper and Toyer may have said and written during their lives. But you posted, and commented on, an excerpt that shows a politician and a PR guy both refusing to admit that the cost/benefit should be considered.
Posted by: Bruce on May 12, 2009 10:19 AMFirst of all, sprinkers go off last. If I remember right, the top of the ceiling must reach around 160 F before they pop.
Your smoke alarm goes off way before that.
Rick is right. The smoke kills you long before the fire does.
Sprinklers go off one at a time as each one get's hot. So you won't flood the whole house.
Nothing is 100%.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on May 12, 2009 10:25 AMPudge, Toyer never addressed the cost/benefit in the excerpt you posted (which I did listen to).
Correct. I never said he did, either.
If you disagree, can you tell me how he addressed it?
I can, but I will not. I already pointed you to it in the original post, and then I pointed you to it again in a subsequent comment.
I don't have time to listen to the entire hearing
Sure. Which is why I told you which part of the hearing to listen to. Again: READ THE POST. It's not hard. You can do it!
But you posted, and commented on, an excerpt that shows a politician and a PR guy both refusing to admit that the cost/benefit should be considered.
I did no such thing. That excerpt DOES NOT, in any way, show Toyer implicitly or explicitly refusing to admit that at all. In fact, Toyer explicitly DOES say that cost/benefit should be considered, in that excerpt, contrary to your claim. He simply says that IN THIS CASE, that choice should be left to the consumer.
The point Pudge makes is why is the government mandating them at all?
Railings, spacing is set at 4" because 5% of crawling infants can pass through a space wider than 4" (must be the narrow headed ones...) which is what set this distance. Used to be 6", before that 9", before that...?
Sprinklers, not cheap for residential, but way cheaper than commercial requirements. (why require life safety elements in commercial projects? Same argument Pudge - if the owner wants his tenants and visitors to be safer, let him make that decision.)
Some areas make sprinklers mandatory, others base in on potential risk to neighbors (based on building separation) or driveway grades (can't get a tanker up or down your driveway, then you sprinkler). Sprinklers are there only to knock down a fire to allow occupants to escape, and give the fire department a chance to fight a small fire rather than a large one.
Escape windows in bedrooms are sized to allow a firefighter to carry an occupant out -what's that about? Shouldn't an individual have the choice to decide if, in a fire, the method that they want the fire department to employ to save someone in their house?
There are plenty of locations in this country where building permits are nominal or absent, why have any requirements at all?
Logically, if what you're doing can't harm an adjoining owner but only yourself then who should care?
When you think about it that's how on-site septic rules work - you can pollute to your hearts content a portion of your land - but not your neighbors.
Posted by: BA on May 12, 2009 10:34 AMPlease show the class where I made that point. (I won't hold my breath, because, quite obviously, you're being dishonest.)
"I am not sure why anyone would be in favor of this; anyone who wants the sprinklers and can afford them, can get them. Why force it?"
as taking the position that you were questioning a government mandate to require sprinklers.
Logically smoke detectors are no different. Are you instead saying that it is perfectly reasonable for government mandated safety devices in homes up to a certain cost but sprinklers are excessive?
OK.
What is your cost threshold that you think makes a requirement excessive? I didn't think we had an argument here.
Posted by: BA on May 12, 2009 11:27 AMCorrect.
Logically smoke detectors are no different.
Incorrect, obviously, as you yourself concede when you mention cost differences. And people have brought up other differences, as well, including the possibility of damage to the home, the increased maintenance requirements, the difference in the mode of assistance provided to the homeowner, and so on.
Are you instead saying that it is perfectly reasonable for government mandated safety devices in homes up to a certain cost but sprinklers are excessive?
No. I am not commenting on anything but sprinklers at this time.
Again, as stated clearly and up front, my disagreement about sprinklers is not really the point: it's about Cooper being a jerk. I am not prepared at this time to broadly discuss government's role and rights in housing safety requirements, and would not have posted this at all if not for Cooper's incredible responses to Toyer.
Tanker up a driveway??? Say what.
You find tanker trucks in rural areas that have no hydrants. No hydrants.. no water system large enough to handle sprinklers.
We make some homes the have small acess streets or high angles to have fire sprinkers.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on May 12, 2009 12:00 PMI bet you could look at the deaths in residential homes over time and discover they had no smoke detectors. Cooper should be madating retrofits (at fire district expense) for all older construction. The nursing home that burned in Arlington about 20 years ago did not have anything in them and it was nearly a century old building.
I submit to Cooper, and you too, BA, that new construction, as is, is adequate. And that includes sprinklers in hard-to-reach places.
Posted by: swatter on May 12, 2009 01:00 PMSwatter, why should I pay for retro-fitting your dwelling for smoke detectors? Or a nursing home? As for sprinklers in new residential construction, other than perhaps because of access or proximity to a neighbor - I'd let the homeowner and their insurance carrier make that decision.
Finally, Pudge - I see now that you were not prepared to expand this conversation beyond a jerky public official into when is it appropriate to privatize safety items costs and who should make those decisions - but know that code decisions are made all the time that can have dramatic effects on the cost of construction and it's a pretty closed group of folks in the loop doing it. Every Fire Marshal I've ever spoken to wants sprinklers, a turnaround in your front yard and a station at the end of the street.
Pudge (in response to question about sprinklers' relationship to smoke detectors): "I am not commenting on anything but sprinklers at this time."
Is this the same pudge who has been going on (and on and on) about incest and its relationship to gay marriage, and how the right to gay marriage implies the right to incest?
my disagreement about sprinklers is not really the point: it's about Cooper being a jerk. I ... would not have posted this at all if not for Cooper's incredible responses to Toyer.
Oh yes, he was so rude to use a little hyperbole! Can you believe he talked that way to a poor lobbyist who was just trying to do his job? What would we do without people like pudge to remind us all to be civil?
Posted by: Bruce on May 12, 2009 01:38 PMif a homeowners driveway is too steep to handle a loaded tanker, some jurisdictions require sprinklers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
We don't take tankers up driveways??? Again you don't find tankers in cities where hydrants are at. The only time we mandate sprinklers is where the engine cannot enter a street.
We always park on Engine on the street away from the burning house.
(swatter) The problem is most people. They never check their smoke devices (batteries) Even sprinkers need service.
I can't begin to name how many fires I've been to with non-work smoke dectors.
I've seen and met Cooper.
He is a jerk! When it comes to egos. He's got one big one!
Just because he's a firefighter, doesn't make him god or always right.
I for one don't believe government should tell us what to do in our home and am consistent with my belief that government should stay the hell out of our lives, except for only those things that we individually cannot do for ourselves; i.e. military, interstate freeways, sewage treatment . . . that pretty much raps it up. Oh, and ferries to get me to Whidbey on the weekends. That's it, nothing else.
I don't think they even carry enough hose otherwise, and if they did and could, and had the pump capacity as well to run water in the line up the drive, they'd block off access to any other responders.
I have frequently worked with departments on projects to understand how they intend to arrive with what equipment and where they want to place it depending on what they're responding to. Line lengths and placement, pump and tanker positions, grades, etc. are all part of the equation.
In California we had to provide just 5000 gallons of on-site water to a very large remote dwelling - the departments thinking there was that if it wasn't enough water to put a fire out - they weren't ever going to save the house anyway.
Posted by: BA on May 12, 2009 02:49 PMIf your rules mandate something that takes away from my enjoyment of my property, you should pay for it. In the detector or sprinkler scenario, Cooper sleeps better at night with the understanding that I am supposedly safer.
Hey, Medic, when my batteries go out in my house, the alarms don't let up until I change the batteries. I would have to be deaf not to change them. Which alarm system are you referring to.
Trolls, please keep topics the issue at hand.
Posted by: swatter on May 12, 2009 03:43 PMNope. I said that many arguments for the right to gay marriage imply the right to incestuous marriage; not all of such arguments. Indeed, I explicitly stated that a legislative approach that simply says "we like gay marriage and we don't like incestuous marriage, so we are creating a right to gay marriage" implies no such right to incestuous marriage. It's only when you say "the 14th Amendment equal protection clause implies a right to gay marriage" that you open the door to incestuous marriage.
And what's that got to do with this? I see nothing at all. Do you? Because you certainly didn't explain it.
Oh yes, he was so rude to use a little hyperbole!
I can only presume you are using a little hyperbole to say that Cooper was merely using a little hyperbole.
Duke: oh please. Do people really still believe that nonsense you're pushing, in this day and age? I disbelieve.
I thought I would break out some of the facts I (along with others from the industry) presented in the hearing.
I believe strongly that the decision as to whether sprinklers should be installed in single family homes should be left to the consumer - much like buying insurance. The modern house is very safe and has many safety features that older housing did not, including fire blocking, draft stopping and smoke alarm systems. All of these improvements have significantly reduced fire deaths.
1. Fire fatalities in single family residences in Washington State dropped 24% in 2007 and 12% in 2008.
2. In 2008, there were 45 house fire deaths in Washington. Of these, only 19 occured statewide in single family residences that would have been covered by such a sprinkler mandate. Of these fire deaths, more than half could have been saved if there were working smoke alarms. (These numbers were taken from information gathered by the Washington Association of Building Officials and the Washington State Fire Marshal Office)
3. Nationally, fire deaths in single family homes has dropped 56% in the past 40 years. Nationally, fire deaths in homes averages about 3,600 per year. By comparison, the INFLUENZA is attributed to 36,000 deaths according to the CDC.
4. The U.S. Fire Administration has cited that less than 4% of fire fatalities are reported as occuring in homes with working smoke alarms.
5. According to the National Center for Health, fire deaths per million population in Washington State declined from 10.7 in 1983 to 7.5 in 1999.
6. Fire sprinklers cost approximately $2.25 a square foot to install just inside the house. For a 2000 square foot house, the cost is approximately $4,500. However, the total costs for sprinklers can exceed $15,000 per house because of additional costs associated with larger water lines, second water meters and additional general facilities charges paid to the water purveyors.
7. A 2007 study of this area by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) found that for every $1000 increase in the price of a home, 1310 people are priced out of the market. This was before the market went severly downward.
8. Mandating sprinklers in all new homes would price between 5,245 and 19,650 people out of the market. Forcing them to seek out other housing options, which may include old housing stock that in some cases is less safe.
9. Consumers aren't requesting sprinklers as an option.
10. The County's comprehensive plan requires the county to complete an economic analysis of proposed building and land use regulations to evaluate the costs and ensure the intent of regulation can be acheived in the least amount of additiona cost. See Policy HO 3.A.1. No such analysis was ever completed by the County.
I appreciate the discussion this issue has generated.
Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in with some comments.
Posted by: David Toyer on May 12, 2009 03:59 PMI'd only add two things to Toyer's remarks - one is that a public water supply isn't required for sprinklers (storage and a pump is, but the quantity of water necessary to be stored is typically in the hundreds of gallons, not thousands of gallons).
Second, unless the rules of the market place have changed - an increase in the cost of a product (a home) doesn't mean the market price increases at all, let alone in lockstep with a cost increase. If the market did work that way, we wouldn't be seeing any price deflation in the housing market for all these recently built homes - their cost to build didn't suddenly change back in time.
Posted by: BA on May 12, 2009 04:27 PMQuestion: what were you thinking when Cooper said that to you? And then followed it up with "your position is that it's acceptable for people to die in fires?" You seemed a bit taken aback.
Posted by: pudge on May 12, 2009 04:29 PM
taking your absurd posting to its logical conclusion, this was addressed above:
@ 5...the government should also be able to require homeowners to hire 24/7 live-in firefighters. With full salary and benefits, of course.
Also dgk, what kind of helmet do you wear while driving in your car?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 13, 2009 05:32 AMBA. I have no idea where you live but. Most if not all fire hyds are 100ft apart. The difference is in business areas they are 50ft.
Many fire engines carry 500ft + of supply line for the hyd's. So your 100ft is NO big deal. The lines we use to fight fires with are over 800 to 1000ft long. Pumping up hill is no problem.
I've fought many fires in the Everett and Mukilteo areas where up hill and down hill is a part of life. Same when I worked in Calif.
Why your fire dept said they need a tanker would tell me you live in the country where the nearest hyd's is far away. So as I have said before. You couldn't have a sprinkler system because you lack the water flow. Unless you install one very $$$$ holding system.
(Swatter). I can't begin to tell you in my 20+ years of fire fighting how many fires I've been in, where the people didn't like the low battery alarm going off. So they unplugged them?? NUTS!
Right, and did you not read Mr. Toyer's statistics above @ 50? We can take public safety to some mandated absurd level, but unlike you, I trust the people with a large degree of their own personal safety.
Just as fire sprinklers keep a fire small or extinguish it ergo removing the danger to the occupants in the first place.
You must not know alot about the workings of sprinkler systems then. As Medic/Vet stated above, they are the last thing to go off in the event of an actual fire. Smoke inhalation is the cause of 75% of household fatalities, not flames. Being alerted to a fire by a simple, inexpensive smoke detection device with working batteries installed and removing oneself from the scene is the most important protocol. You'd be out of the house and around the block 5 times before the sprinkler system were to activate. Wish I had more time to expound on this, but I've gotta commute to make.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 13, 2009 07:21 AMBA, the current situation is much, much different than the stereotypical supply/demand on the price of the home. Developers and people are now being required to sell their product for less than the cost to build. And some of these are builders who know what they are doing as compared to the people who spend where they shouldn't.
In most situations and in most economies, the cost of sprinklers gets added to the cost of the house. This one is different from the mold.
Mr. Toyer, and only as a devil's advocate since I agree with your assessment, isn't the saving the life of one person worth all the money that is spent on sprinklers? That seems to be Cooper's position. The Democrats seem to want the nanny state.
Posted by: swatter on May 13, 2009 07:41 AMRight. Cooper asserted that sprinklers would not have saved the guy who died in his chair ... so we need to force everyone to replace their flammable chairs. One life is worth it!
Posted by: pudge on May 13, 2009 08:29 AMI am not making a judgment one way or another, I simply stating that this whole thing may be mute since it is headed to us via another route anyway.
Posted by: TedR on May 13, 2009 12:29 PMPudge, the building codes are not amended by local jurisdictions (with the one exception being the City of Seattle...) , nor do they have the authority to not adopt them.
So, resisting mandatory residential sprinklers has to happen at the State level.
Posted by: BA on May 13, 2009 12:56 PMThis will happen at the state level by the Washington State Building Code Council.
Posted by: TedR on May 13, 2009 01:05 PMYou didn't say, nor imply, anything about the chances of this requirement passing at the state level.
Posted by: BA on May 13, 2009 02:47 PMFalse. That was exactly what I implied. I responded to TedR's statement about state action. I used the inaction at the county level as evidence that Democrats in general are not interested in this particular requirement.
I understand why you read it the way I did, but I absolutely implied it. That my implication was not clear is my fault. That you are falsely saying I made no implication is yours.
I did misunderstand you, but all is clear now.
I wish I shared your optimism about the amendment but I think the sprinkler requirement may stick. The reason being, liability. Once it makes it into the code, there is a factor of liability if you amend it out, perhaps not a financial one (the Code Council, I believe, is shielded in same manner from liability) but certainly an emotional one.
I wish Councilman Cooper had been called on his failed logic. He committed the fallacy of false conclusion. If someone doesn't believe in the sprinkler requirement that doesn't necessarily mean they believe people should die in fires. Philosophy 101 is taught at every community college, perhaps Councilman Cooper should enroll.
Posted by: TedR on May 13, 2009 10:01 PMAnd FWIW, Cooper is in Council District 3.
And yes, SnoCo will have to live with Cooper, but if a majority of conservatives get on board, maybe sanity can be reclaimed.
Posted by: Wireless on May 14, 2009 10:02 PM