George, And as you point out, the public, unless the disaster is huge or affects someone they know, are largely indifferent. We, like all specialists, are myopic and tend to place our values in a lofty place and then consider them so important and obvious as to be equally important and obvious to the unwashed masses. Don't kid yourselves, Joe the plumber is trying to figure out how to keep the second car, home boat, what have you, has never had a fire, and could care less about sprinklers. In fact he doesn't want them because they cost too much and cause water damage. The builders are playing on all the myths, the economy, anything they can get a slippery grasp on. Tell me if in your major metropolitan area there isn't a nightly fire, usually a house or an apartment, on the news. Who seems to care? The fire guys. The politicians depending on which way the wind is blowing at that moment. The "Who'll think of the children?" bleeding heart types (nice people but hardly effective). The time for sfd residential sprinklers arrived when they hit 101. IRC is the next step. Your state is the next. If you wait around to "Let George Do It," (sorry George, the reference is to a card in the Morgan Tarot from hippie days and not you) then it will happen in its own time. If you work to make it happen maybe there'll be a state or two that adopts it soon so it will be in effect when January 2011 rolls around. Then next time a few more states and then.... NAHB is well organized and has lots of money, lobbyists and strategists assigned to thwart our efforts. And so my question is, What are you doing within your government from the bottom up to promote this issue (again, not you George, I know what you're doing (insert applause here), it was a rhetorical question). I'm afraid that waiting for a state to not require sfd sprinklers, then waiting for someone to die, and then suing a well funded special interest group won't be the most effective approach. My two cents.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:19 AM, George Church <[email protected]> wrote: > So if lawmakers aren't concerned with a suit (and keep in mind most > legislatures are chockfull of lawyers) and don't need to worry about public > outcry (seen a paper lately?) then perhaps the special interest group > responsible for spearheading the omission could be the plaintiff in the > wrongful death suit? > > Can a special interest group be sued? Why not. > > glc > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justin Reid > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Texas HB1511 Legislative Alert > > Ron, > > This may be true and the legal aspect of it is something I have to > research more but...if we take away the legal aspect and focus on the > media/PR aspect of the situation then people such as the the NAHB > become the real "grinch" in the scenario of someone losing their life > in a home that SHOULD have been sprinklered under the 2009 IRC. > > Imagine the headline"Family dies in SFD fire that the State removed > protection from in XYB legislative process". > > The model codes codes usually represent the standard of protection, > based on consensus, that the public expects to be protected by. > > Imagine a national consensus of leading structural engineers agreeing > on a structural provision for the code and mandating this in the the > model code. Then a state like, let's just say California, ammended > this out and a building fell down because of this, then I believe > there would be hell to pay by the legislature. > > This is exactly the situation that will play out when ( not if, but > when) someone dies in a home that SHOULD have sprinklered under the > 2009 IRC. > > Justin D. Reid, P.E. > RLH Fire Protection > 16735 Saticoy St. #110 > Van Nuys, CA 91406 > 213-798-0251 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 1, 2009, at 11:24 PM, Ron Greenman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Justin, >> >> I'm no lawyer nor legislator but I'm pretty involved with this code >> process. I don't know the process in California but in Washington, and >> I believe anywhere, the State may eviscerate the model code any which >> way it likes prior to adoption, it is after all a commercially >> available model. After they're done (subtracting, adding, leaving >> alone) and passed it then becomes the language of the law for that >> state (RCW in Washington). In all cases I know of the lesser >> jurisdictions (cities and counties) must then adopt that code in a >> mini/maxi state, or adopt that code and add more stringent language in >> non mini/maxi states. If a legislature adopts a revised section of a >> model code due to public input (and remember the NAHB is a public >> special interest group and if there's no opposition...---) then I >> doubt that a lawsuit against the Legislature would have a chance. The >> law is a mystical land where logic takes a perpetual holiday and none >> sense rules. >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Justin Reid <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I believe all of these local legislative acts will be mute the first >>> time a person dies in a single family dwelling that SHOULD have been >>> sprinklered based on the 2009 IRC. I will stongly feel the pain of >>> the >>> family that this happens to and will hope that they explore all of >>> the >>> legal avenues available to them at the time this happens (and it will >>> happen, it's a matter of statistics and time). >>> >>> It is my understanding that jurisdictions have the option of making >>> the code that they adopt more restictive but not less restrictive. If >>> they want to pass legislation like this then they will have to find >>> another code (other than the IRC) that suits them better. >>> >>> This argument argument should be passed on to all local district >>> attorneys who are in jurisdictions that these laws are being >>> proposed. Am I wrong? Please somebody tell me if I am off base on my >>> restrictions assumption. >>> >>> Justin D. Reid, P.E. >>> RLH Fire Protection >>> 16735 Saticoy St. #110 >>> Van Nuys, CA 91406 >>> 213-798-0251 >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Apr 1, 2009, at 10:02 PM, "Ryan J. Smith" > <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> I have not seen anyone mention this yet on the forum (if I missed >>>> it I >>>> apologize for the duplicate announcement). There is a proposed bill >>>> in >>>> Texas, HB1511, that would prohibit jurisdictions form enforcing any >>>> requirements for fire sprinklers in one and two family dwelling that >>>> are >>>> less than 7,500 sq.ft. This is the latest in a series of proposed >>>> bills >>>> across the country to prevent the adoption of the 2009 IRC that >>>> includes >>>> the residential fire sprinkler requirement. >>>> >>>> Details and the actual legislative alert from the Texas Fire Chiefs >>>> Association, Texas Fire Marshal's Association and others can be >>>> viewed >>>> at the following link: >>>> >>>> > http://www.residentialfiresprinklers.com/blog/texas-proposed-bill-hb1511-wil > l-limit-local-authority-to-adopt-codes/ >>>> >>>> Ryan J. Smith >>>> >>>> Residential Fire Sprinklers .com - Your Source for Home Fire >>>> Protection >>>> http://www.ResidentialFireSprinklers.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>>> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: > [email protected] >>>> >>>> To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected] >>>> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >>> >>> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >>> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ron Greenman >> at home.... >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
