eg

JVB. BANK RIGHT. Our drive-thru lanes are open for business during the COVID-19 Emergency! Coudersport Office and Lillibridge Place Office in Port Allegany. (West Mill St.)

Howard's Inc, Coudersport, PA

xxx

xxx

Southern Tier Polaris, Olean, NY

Do You Know: You can buy this marquee ad on Solomon's words for the wise for your business or event for only $10. per day! It's just one of the low cost advertising options available. Your ad is viewed 40,000 to 70,000 times every day. Email us for information on other ad locations.

Solomon's Auction & Yard Sale Page

Suplizio for Senate

JVB

UPMC Cole

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

All New PA Homes Must Have Sprinkler System

Home Fire Sprinkler Code Approved
04/22/09 6:33 pm | reporter: Dennis Buterbaugh producer: Myles Snyder
WHTM TV
Harrisburg, Pa. - A state panel that reviews residential construction codes has approved a requirement that all newly-built homes in Pennsylvania have an automatic fire sprinkler system beginning in 2011.

The vote to include the sprinkler requirement in the state builder's code came late Wednesday afternoon after heated debate on the issue in Harrisburg. Supporters said sprinklers should be required by the state, while opponents argued the choice should be up to the home buyer.

The Pennsylvania Builders Association said consumers building a new home rarely ask for a sprinkler system, which can cost about $6,000. More...

33 comments :

Anonymous said...

Are you kidding me.....I have to have a sprinkler system if I build a new home after 2011...What will they think of next.....You wonder why the ecomomy is so bad...You can't afford to build with all the restrictions...

Anonymous said...

Who is paying for these sprinkler systems? They want us to, ON TOP of just buying a new home! Get your head out of your ass!!!!

Anonymous said...

This is sooo ridiculous. Can they not do something more constructive down there?

DannyB said...

Sure...the sprinkler system costs about $6000 to install, but if it goes off by accident, the homeowner will have way more than that in water damage. Sprinkler systems also need periodic professional maintenance which adds to the cost. This should not be made a mandatory code. There are very many home fires that are electrical, and the last thing you need when you are trying to get your family out of your house during a fire is to have the sprinkler come on and shock the crap out of you.

M.D. Healy said...

This is certainly a win for the fire service in the Commonwealth. In the long run this will result in fewer fire deaths to civilians as well as reduce fire damages and insurance costs. The $6K that is spent on the initial installation will more than be saved in reduced insurance rates over the life of a home not to mention its increased resale value. The other thing that the builders association failed to mention was that the cost is also off-set by the reduction in fire fated materials in other portions of construction. This is a win for everyone.

JMHO said...

"The $6K that is spent on the initial installation will more than be saved in reduced insurance rates"

Huh? Insurance rates are just like taxes- they NEVER go down.

JMHO

Anonymous said...

I can understand mandatory installation in commercial buildings and multi-unit rental buildings, but mandatory in ALL residential buildings is not only over the top, it borders on the edge of ridiculous...

Anonymous said...

More gevernment meddling.

My House = My choice

Yes it's a great idea, but it still should be my choice.

It's interesting to note how the supporters, throw liberty out the window once an idea agrees with their thinking.

Anonymous said...

I had a sprinkler system installed.
I sleep better, I feel better and the suspected maintenance cost and labor have been surprisingly low.
very low.
A bottle of spray 9, every once in a while. A bar of soap, here and there,some shampoo and, if needed, conditioner.
My friends seem to be overjoyed.

Anonymous said...

oh and the Government will regulate where the sprinklers are built (Mexico) and for the Governments added protection they will have cameras installed in the units to make sure the "people" are not going to revult!!

M.D. Healy said...

The reality of it is that every year in the U.S. thousands of people die as the result of fire. The vast majority of these deaths occur in single family and two-family dwellings. Ask the 10 people that died last year in Brockway what they would think of this requirement. Or maybe ask the individual that was burned in the fire this morning in Coudersport what they think of sprinklers.

Modern construction is causing houses to burn faster and fail sooner. Not only does this increase the likelyhood of an occupent suffering serious injury or death but it also means that it is unlikely that a property will be saved in the event of a fire.

Another fact is that you DO get a cost reduction in your home owners insurance for having a sprinkler system so the system will eventually pay for itself.

King of Prussia, PA has had this as a requirement for a number of years and it has had very successful results. This WILL save lives and property and will be well worth the cost of implementing. Just what is YOUR life worth?

Anonymous said...

Wrong wrong wrong people--your homes will be paid for by you--you can mow the grass--everything else will be dictated to you, ASSUME YOUR POSITION

Anonymous said...

All good & true points. Not debating the idea. Still should be my choice and your choice.

It's the nanny syndrome, when does it end?

Anonymous said...

m.d. healy what happens when the sprinkle system fails and doesn't work? they are a mechanical device and they do fail.what then? what happens when someone dies becuase they didn't work? maybe we need better construction materials make sure homes get the proper fire rated materials. apparently you haven't ever had a bad steam burn either .some of the things we have to protect us are the very things that can kill us we should have freedom of choice.

Common Sense said...

What happens when your brakes fail? Does that mean we shouldn't have them on our cars? What happens when whan electricity causes a fire? Does that mean we shouldn't have that in our homes?(re: ladona plaza fire this a.m.) You'll need to come up with a better arguement that the "what if's" to prove your point. I agree with the "nanny syndrome" but the bottom line is if it saves lives and property, in the long run it keeps insurance and health care from increasing costs faster it is a bebefit to us all.

Anonymous said...

$6,000. someone stated that will be saved from insurance credit for having sprinklers. On our $200,000 house we pay $350. a year insurance. Even if they give a 10% discount that is $35. a year. Just say I live 100 years in my house, that is still only $3500. I really can't see me getting my money back. I doubt the insurance companies are going to give a 20% discount but then I would at least get my $6000. after 100 years. Give me a break! I'll take my chances and stick to fire and carbon monoxide detectors.

M.D. Healy said...

Here are some links to the facts about sprinkler systems. I invite all of those here that think its a poor idea to read the truth.

http://www.firesprinklercareers.com/about.html

http://www.firesprinklersystemsinfo.com/faqs-on-fire-sprinkler-systems.htm

Anonymous said...

Here is my thought.How or why I choose to protect or not protect myself from being burned is not the governments business.Get the **** out of my living room!

Anonymous said...

First seatbelts now sprinkler systems, what's next is the government going to tell us what we can and cannot eat. If I don't wear a seatbelt or have a sprinkler system it's my choice, it doesn't hurt anyone. Funny how they are so worried about me and my well-being. ARGUE THAT!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Who is in bed with the companies that manufacture these sprinkler systems?

Any ideas?

I've got one, "Fast Eddie"!

Ain't Nobody's Business But My Own said...

People People, lets focus here.

1. Interior sprinkler systems are a good idea.

2. Can they malfunction - of course they can.

3. Is anyone in bed with anyone - who knows.

Remember home of the brave, land of the free etc etc...

There are plenty of good ideas out there, ban smoking, ban super sized french fries & the Baconator, put helmets on everyone who operates a vehicle, wear shoes all the time so you dont cut your feet, put govenors on cars so they cant speed, look both ways before you cross the street, exercise daily on and on and on.

The degree to which an idea is beneficial, does not supersede the fact that it should not be forced on a person by their servents.

The free man lives with the consequences of his actions, whether they be good or bad.

The bigger picture is it's a Freedom issue or whats left of it.

M.D. Healy said...

This is not just a PA thing. This is something that was passed into the ICC which is the national codes. So it has nothing to do with any connections that any companies have to the government of this Commonwealth.

Anonymous said...

Ok Cowboy, then how about this plan...

If YOU choose not to wear YOUR seat belt, or YOUR motorcycle helmet and YOU are involved in an accident that results in YOU being injured in such a way that a seat belt or a helmet would have protected YOU, then the health insurance companies can forfeit having to pay any amount of YOUR outrageously expensive claims for YOUR health care bills...so that MY insurance rates don't increase.

And then how about this...

If YOU choose to not install a simple residential sprinkler system in YOUR new construction home (not retrofit into your existing home, but build into your new home), and then YOU have a fire that completely destroys YOUR new home, then the insurance companies don't have to pay a nickel of YOUR claim...so that MY home owners insurance rates don't increase.

I mean it's really only fair that a free wheeling rebel, like yourself, should have to bare the sole burden of YOUR choices...right?

But it doesn't work that way John Wayne. It's not the government that's creating the necessity for these types of laws...it's insurance companies. It's not about personal safety, it's about money.

And do you honestly think that there is some sinister backroom deals going on between "the sprinkler companies" and state government? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Residential sprinklers consist of running small plastic water lines to each room in the house and connecting them to small sprinkler heads, much like plumbing a bathroom sink. These are NOT high dollar outfits. There is no major statewide "sprinkler syndicate" getting rich installing these systems. General contractors install them in NEW CONSTRUCTION. And no one is getting kick backs. That's just dumb.

The single biggest lobby group fighting the sprinkler laws all around the country is the Home Builders Association. Despite the neo-patriotic rhetoric that they're pitching to you, they're not fighting against these laws in favor of YOUR personal freedoms, or the suggested infringement thereof...they're fighting them because their members stand to loose money, a lot of money. They really couldn't care less if you burn to death in that swank new home of yours or if, God forbid, a fire fighter is injured or killed fighting a fire in your unsprinklered home...they just want to make money.

ARGUE THAT, jackass. Sheesh!!

Anonymous said...

I will argue that.
With millions and millions of homes in this country,how many burn down every year with any injuries that would have been prevented by a sprinkler?I would guess that that percentage is astronomically low.I would also guess that when all these sprinklers are in place and the homeowners get their insurance breaks,they will still be paying more then, than they are now.With everyone trying to protect me from myself,who is protecting me from you??If you want it,buy it,put it in, and get your break.I would like to make my own decisions about how MY money is best spent!

Anonymous said...

Argue this, set it up the way you suggest, now come on lawyers because you have just opened up a lawsuit. How does anyone say,,oh if you would have had a seatbelt or helmet on you wouldn't have died. How about this, ever heard wow, if they would have had their seat belt on they wouldn't have been killed. I have. Actually had a friend some 30 years ago killed on a motorcycle because of a helmet. The strap slit his throat and he bled to death. Yes, we wear our helmets but our choice not yours. Dead is dead and I truly believe when it's time to meet our maker it will happen, regardless.

Anonymous said...

Wonder how many of these bitching have ever or will ever build a new home from the ground up that require sprinklers. My guess is is way, way low if any. Some folks aren't happy if they aren't complaining.

Anonymous said...

"I mean it's really only fair that a free wheeling rebel, like yourself, should have to bare the sole burden of YOUR choices...right?"


I think you've got it. My choice = My burden.

Why don't people like this just leave other people alone?

Nothing more than a school yard bully.

M.D. Healy said...

Well all of you "it's my choice" folks, just remember... It's also my choice as to if I decide to get out of bed at 0300 hrs when your unsprinklered home is on fire and you're trapped in your bedroom Bar-B-Qing like chicken or when you fall off that big bike of your's and bounce your fragle mellon off the asphalt at 65 MPH. Or perhaps you went off the road while chatting on your cell phone and dove through the windshield because you didn't have your seatbelt on.

Yeah, this is the land of the free and maybe you should be able to have the choice to be stupid. But then don't be calling 9-1-1 in a panic asking me to risk mine to save yours either. In 25+ years I've never denied assistance to those that have asked for it. Maybe its time we start doing that for those that decide that they aren't willing to take the appropriate measures to protect themselves. After all, you'll be the one with the emergeny..... not me.

Anonymous said...

I think we have reached agreement.

You choose, I choose, no coercion.

The Founding Fathers would be proud.

DANA STEVENS said...

m.d. first no one is asking you to volunteer.if you dont want to get up at 300 am simply do not.if you do not want to pick up someones fragile melon after they wreck their big bike simply do not.if you do not want to pick someone out of their windshield simply do not. i have been a volunteer for 20 + years never asked why never thought of it as someone asking me to help. just simply done what needed to be done.maybe you need to ask yourself why you volunteer.as for me answered the call at 428am on thursday for the ladona fire and answered the call at 220 am on friday for the galeton fire.no questios asked no thanks needed thats how i roll brother. and still proud to be a life member in 2 yes 2 volunteer fire depts. sta 44 and sta 48. DANA STEVENS

M.D. Healy said...

My Dear Brother Stevens,

I believe that you have overlooked the point that I was trying to make. Perhaps it was a poor one, or maybe just poorly stated. But what would happen if those of us that choose to volunteer all chose not to? Our numbers have been dwindling for decades now. Once 300,000 strong in the Commonwealth alone the last numbers we had are down to 70,000. In a recent conversation with State Fire Commissioner Ed Mann, he stated that realistically its probably about 50,000. One Thanksgiving many years ago my wife got mad at me for leaving a dinner table full of family and guests to answer an alarm. My reply to her was, what if it was you that needed help and everyone said "I'm not going" because they had Thanksgiving dinner on the table? Perhaps if some of those that choose to argue about the sprinkler requirement would choose to volunteer with their local fire department we could make some progress.

The sprinkler initiative moved forward in PA because of the work of the Fire Service in the State. We haven't been as successful in some of the other states. The fire service isn't all about fire suppression, but also fire prevention and life safety. Perhaps you should check out the PA Fire and Emergency Services Institute (www.pfesi.org) or the Pennsylvania Emergency Services Legislative Alliance (www.pesla.org) and take a look at some of the things that we are working on in Harrisburg. I presume you are familiar with the S.R. 60 report.

As for me, I too belong to more than one area fire co. And I too was up @ 0430 the other morning for the Ladona fire, at my station ready to respond, even though my dept. ended up not be called upon. Some would call me a "whacker", some would just say I'm nutts. After 25+ years and being in a several departments in 2 states, attending countless hours of training in places such as the National Fire Academy and the NY State Fire Academy, and 4 yrs of running EMS in the City of Buffalo, I prefer to call it dedication.

Stay Safe Brother!

DANA STEVENS said...

M.D first of all people some people like the idea of sprinklers some don not.instead of getting mad and going on a rant.be the bigger person don't argue.as far as knowing whats going on in harrisburg hands down you know more then me.my wife tells me theres more to life then firefighting and that i am a volunteer and yes she still gets mad sometimes when i go because we have plans but hey thats life.as faras fire prevention its working up here how many structure fires did your dept run last year?how many were fatal?as for us i think it was 6 and not one was fatal.we must be doing something right.education and information is always better then making a new law or rule. be safe DANA STEVENS

Anonymous said...

one thing that also needs to be addressed in this blog is what about those not on a city water source such as a well with no electric as is a very good possibility in a home fire caused with an electrical malfunction you will not have an operatable sprinkler system yes i do believe they are a good idea but rural areas should be examined due to a case as stated now there is a good chance this money will be invested where it will do no good and where the 5-6k could have been used for maybe a home monitoring system such as brinks or adt