+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: proposal: require fire sprinklers (/showthread.php?tid=8558)
Pages:
1
2
proposal: require fire sprinklers - Bullwinkle - 03-05-2011
making homes safer - pricey requirement
http://www.staradvertiser.com/business/20110305_fire_chiefs_want_sprinklers_in_all_new_single_family_homes.html
edit link
RE: proposal: require fire sprinklers - pslamont - 03-05-2011
I don't see this one happening...
I want to be the kind of woman that, when my feet
hit the floor each morning, the devil says
"Oh Crap, She's up!"
RE: proposal: require fire sprinklers - wax - 03-05-2011
Checked with an architect on this. Estimated cost for a 1200 square foot house Is $3500 - $4000. But that is the house part. If you are on catchment you will probably need a bigger tank AND a pump to support the system. Even on County water you may need a pump to step up the pressure. Then they wonder why there are not enough affordable houses! These legislators continue to add "nice to have" stuff to the code and then scratch their heads when there are more homeless or inadequate homes. Some - check the current County Council - conclude that the way to fix it is to simply decree that builders WILL build 40% affordable after they have added tens of thousands to the cost.
RE: proposal: require fire sprinklers - Rob Tucker - 03-05-2011
Residential fire sprinklers are a good thing. If people were legally allowed to do their own plumbing or electrical here the cost of construction, at least for owner builders, would come down considerably. Fire sprinklers are not inherently expensive. A fire sprinkler head costs about $8 from a mainland plumbing supply house. They do usually operate at a higher water pressure then household but I think they are available for lower pressure situations as well. Considering the loss of life and property fire sprinklers are a good investment. It shouldn't cost $6,000 to install $1,000 worth of work.
I've long been amazed and disappointed that the state does not allow an individual to do their own plumbing and electric work. Everywhere else I have worked it is allowed. If you don't do the work right it doesn't pass inspection. Simple.
It seems to be based on an assumption of incompetence and I resent that. The law assumes us to be competent enough to defend ourselves in a court of law but not competent to glue a couple pieces of ABS together or sweat a copper joint. The law here appears to be driven by the unions. I wish someone would file suit on the subject. I think the state would lose.
RE: proposal: require fire sprinklers - hotinhawaii - 03-05-2011
I like the idea of sprinklers. The insurance companies are big advocates because it will save them money. I doubt those savings will be passed off fully to the consumers.
Rob, do you think everyone is also competent to practice medicine, fly a plane, engineer a bridge? There are fine details in both plumbing and electrical that would be time consuming and difficult if not impossible to inspect. Considering that plumbing and electric impact health and safety of current and future homedwellers, I think the current system works well.
RE: proposal: require fire sprinklers - Rob Tucker - 03-05-2011
hotinhawaii, I know that doing your own work is legal in most states and considering the quality of work I have seen from licensed plumbers here I will generally trust an owner builder to do a better job. The owner builder is intending to live with his/her work product, not derive maximum profit.
We weren't discussing practicing medicine (though all of us do so regularly), flying a plane or engineering a public bridge.
I have been in the construction industry for forty years and licensed plumbers have been a constant source of bad workmanship and cost overruns. One big problem with the licensed plumbers is they hire a lot of no nothings and put them in the field, under their license, without supervision. May as well let the owner/builder do it.... you will get better work done for less money.
RE: proposal: require fire sprinklers - wax - 03-05-2011
No doubt adding the sprinklers would be very nice to have. One reasonable question is how many such nice to haves should be required. At the margin we are pushing more and more people out of being able to buy a house. Today's politicians would like to ignore that by simply decreeing the action. That is irresponsible on their part.
RE: proposal: require fire sprinklers - Rob Tucker - 03-05-2011
Wax, I agree, Nice as it might be it should not be required. There should not be financial/legal obstacles for those that want fire sprinklers either.
RE: proposal: require fire sprinklers - Seeb - 03-05-2011
Residential sprinklers are a life saver- and if you’re a long way from a firehouse it’s the only thing that would save your house. They are usually run off a pressurized tank ( in case the power is out )
RE: proposal: require fire sprinklers - Seeb - 03-05-2011
but with all the other issues going on here making them required would just push more people to build unpermited