You've got to be kidding. This is a case of being unclear on the concept. The goal here is to prevent future fatalities, not political handwaving and CYA via ineffective bureaucracy that gives the illusion of action, but in reality accomplishes nothing.
Problem: 1) Smoke detectors need to be functioning to be
effective (i.e., they need be checked and the batteries changed
at least annually.) 2) Smoke detectors give false alarms, so people tend to disable them. 3) Disabled or missing smoke
and carbon monoxide detectors can result in fatalities.
Solution: 1) Require inspections of all rental units when new
residents move in. To blame the lack of inspection on state
funding is either disingenuous or uninspired. Most housing sales inspections are done by licensed contractors paid for by the buyer. Rental inspection can be done the same way and paid for by the landlord (and of course, passed on to the renters).
Inspectors would not need much training and costs could be
left up to the market. Minneapolis seems to have an unseemly addiction to organized labor. 2) What is clear about these students deaths is that smoke detectors lack good human engineering. I'm suggesting that the city council require NEW technology (which is not very complex) that will reduce the number of fatalities. 3) Pass an ordinance that requires landlords to check or certify smoke detectors twice annually, i.e. they have to have someone enter the unit and push the test button on each smoke detector and change batteries.
What we need are real solutions to real problems, not hat tricks that give the appearance of sensitivity
and concern sufficient only to soothe the liberal masses.
Peter Vevang writes: The reason you have an egress window in every bedroom is because in past fires when people had time to escape, they were trapped with no egress and they died or were burned. The reason you have fire rated walls and flame spread rules for materials, is to contain or slow the fire so that people have time to escape, in some past fires people were engulfed before they knew what was happening. The reason we have occupancy limits is because when people tried to escape from a fire, they were trapped in the clutter and the commotion and the panic and they couldn't get out. The reason we have specified types of hallways with fire rated doors, walls and egress systems is because in past fires people have died by the dozen as they lost their way in the smoke and suffocated. The reason we have hard wired smoke detectors (no need to replace the battery) in apartments is because many people who die in a fire, die in their sleep. Some rules and building practices are to protect fire fighters, so that they don't fall through floors or have walls collapse on them. The rules we have are rooted in accidents that could have been prevented. They work when properly implemented.
Children dying in a fire is not a conservative or liberal issue, it is a universal issue. The Code is a sacred document, it has been paid for with human lives lost in preventable accidents. Almost every regulatory practice we use follows from that principle, inspectors are not arbitrarily stomping about looking to cause trouble, they are looking in very specific places for very specific things that endanger peoples lives and property. They have been given that power because we demanded that they have it, they are there to protect us.
Inspections of this kind are a part of a 100 year tradition, that has proven itself effective at saving lives and property. The rules we have are part of a national, comprehensive effort to maximize safety, from the building materials, to the building construction processes to building operation, all of that work going on quietly in the background, bu government regulators and industry analysts working together. Inspectors are the last line of defense and are the only people who can truly back up the code with tough enforcement. The kind wide ranging compliance expertise that inspectors have regarding codes, ordinances and building practices does not exist in the private sector except perhaps in the insurance industry, and they will gladly give someone an inspection, and the slum lords will gladly keep them out. The market and the property owners aren't in a position to be effective inspectors; they have a fundamental conflict of interest and they aren't qualified, they don't understand and haven't been educated in the science, or the history.
The sweeps send a clear message to the slum lords: Clean up your act, or the hammer is going to come down on you. You call this kind of action an "illusion", I strongly disagree. I believe in the rule of law. And just because you can't see it in action, doesn't mean it isn't real, and it doesn't mean it doesn't work. From everything I have heard, slum lords near the U are on a short leash, and the city is working hard to fix the situation to make the neighborhoods safe. You liken this action to a soothing "liberal" balm, and nothing more. I think nothing could be further from the truth.
I think this action was prudent and well warranted. These codes and inspection processes have been written and developed over a 100 year period and have been proven both scientifically and in practice. We have a process that is time tested and rock solid and 'conservative' in every sense of the word. If our action was extreme, many buildings would have been condemned, and that would have hurt both owners and renters. If action was weak, no citations would have been made, and kids would be at continued risk. The inspections struck a balance and were a start at tackling the problem. The owners are now fully aware, that the onus is on them to keep their apartments up to code. The owners now know they are being watched by the community for overcrowding, and offending owners will clean up their act or their property will be condemned after neighborhood complaints.
Your assertion is that our attempts here in Minneapolis to enforce life safety standards are nothing more than flim flam and grand standing. I find your views to be distorted and innacurate, and as such your overall points are meaningless, and your solutions are equally meaningless. Inspections is an extremely serious and tough job, it takes skilled and dedicated workers and I don't think you are giving our inspectors the credit they are due. I have worked on projects in other cities and I will stack our system up against any city or suburb in the metro. As inspections go, we have good service and qualified employees. Inspections has some of the hardest working employees anywhere.
By the way, I think it is interesting that you bemoan 'liberalism', and then advocate for intrusive government in the form of additional rules, ordinances and laws with expansive and expensive regulation and inspection that would be a burden on property owners, all of this by city council decree, and with no idea how to pay for it. I guess that makes you one of these new 'big government' conservatives.
Peter Vevang Audubon Liberal
REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
