We fought this fight in city council chambers where the only Amendment to
the IRC was that of removing all mention of fire sprinklers from single
family homes. Being a WY transplant, I lean towards such things as do not
impose governmental influence into personal choice. I watched helpless as
my local Fire Chief said "we don't see the need for Residential Fire
Sprinklers at this time", his trusty FM at side. We debated the 'mandate'
portion of the argument with what we felt was the simplest of logic, ....
what building code isn't a mandate? We can get lost it seems in this debate
as to the what infringement poor Ben Cartwright may have, or too what extent
the Sheriff's role may be, but we forget, ... ol Ben always came through OK.
Our focus should remain on the choice (denied by removing sprinklers) of the
towns folk. It seemed every episode one of them was maimed or killed, we
have a responsibility to the 99% (a bit of presidential humor) to ensure the
mass developed residential community is a fully sprinkled one, while
allowing for Little Joe's tomfoolery, we can still debate the Ponderosa's
of tomorrow.
JD Gamble
Life Safety Solutions of Sheridan
307-763-3361
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott A Futrell
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 6:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Home Fire Sprinkler Guidance - New Jersey
Forest,
Ben doesn't have to retrofit the Ponderosa, it is new homes only. That's
one of the misconceptions.
When I had my home built the builder would not allow me to have sprinklers
installed...that is one of the reasons we need to adopt the IRC.
Builders make more money repairing houses with fire damage then they do
building new ones. Why do you think they don't want to put them in?
profits...
Scott
(763) 425-1001 Office
(612) 759-5556 Cell
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Forest
Wilson
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:41 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Home Fire Sprinkler Guidance - New Jersey
I have thought about this issue very much.
I was formerly supportive of codes mandating installation of fire sprinklers
in houses.
However after reading Atlas Shrugged I have reconsidered my stance.
At issue is Ben Cartwright, at home on the Ponderosa. Does the state have
the moral right to go to the Ponderosa and tell the Cartwrights they need to
install fire sprinklers in the ranch house?
Now Ben is a knowledgeable man. He built the Ponderosa from nothing. If he
wants them I'm sure he would install them without being coerced.
And what happens if Ben didn't install them? Will the Sheriff go out there,
and use force (with a gun) to make him do it? If he resists will he shot?
Will he be imprisoned?
How would Thomas Jefferson reply if the state told him how to design his
estate?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 29, 2013, at 5:30 PM, Frank Herrick <[email protected]> wrote:
My heartfelt congratulations to everyone in New Jersey who made this
happen, you have saved lives !
That’s a thousand times better than what's happed here in Kansas. Code
official have been cut off at the knees thanks to the combined efforts of
the HBA and the Realtor's Association. Local city and county cannot
require sprinklers in single family housing
I guess that the citizens of New jersey are more important than people in
Kansas and deserve the protection of a residential fire sprinkler system.
As a fire service professional and a paramedic with over 25 years of
experience I can tell you exactly what will happen in a home without fire
sprinklers.
Furthermore, I can tell you that the two most likely places these
residents will relocate to: The Burn Center or The Morgue.
Here is the Kansas law that will be responsible for the deaths and
injuries to numerous Men, Women, Children and the elderly, and who knows
how many firefighters:
Kansas Statute 12-16,219. Cities, counties; prohibition on fire sprinkler
requirements in certain residential dwellings.
(a) As used in this section:
(1) "Municipality" means any city or county.
(2) "Residential structure" means any improvement to real property to be
used or occupied as a single-family dwelling or multi-family dwelling of
two attached living units or less or any manufactured home.
(b) No municipality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, order, code,
standard or rule requiring the installation of a multi-purpose residential
fire protection sprinkler system or any other fire sprinkler protection
system in any residential structure. Nothing in this section shall
prohibit any person from voluntarily installing a multi-purpose
residential fire protection sprinkler system or any other fire sprinkler
protection system in a residential structure.
(c) No municipality shall require the installation of a multi-purpose
residential fire protection sprinkler system in any residential structure
as a condition for consideration or approval of any building permit or
plat.
History: L. 2010, ch. 116, § 25; L. 2011, ch. 43, § 1; Apr. 14.
Very sorrowfully yours,
Capt. Frank J. Herrick
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
