Comments on: Sprinkler Mandate Proposal Agreement Reached

By: Scott N

Scott N — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 02:56:00 +0000

Jim… Are you ready to finance these improvements? What gives him the right to force condo dwellers into arbitrary improvements? Perhaps we should let the condo dwellers themselves decide whether to make these costly improvements if they see value in them.

Most condo buildings were built with some fire protections. Fire resistent walls between units (cement block) and concrete floors and ceilings make a good barrier to fire spreading. Centralized alarms, zoned communication systems, fire hoses on each floor and more shows most high rise condos are already safer than many single family homes or townhouses.

A one size fits all approach is wasteful and goverment / special interests intrusion at its worst. Give me a call when this is forced on ALL homeowners instead of where the special interests can make the most money.

By: urbaneddie

urbaneddie — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 20:55:00 +0000

You might be surprised then to know that most fire deaths don’t occur in high rise buildings, but instead in single family homes and other smaller structures that are overall far deadlier than any high rise (even those older ones without sprinklers). Fires don’t travel that easily in buildings built from steel & concrete.

My 1960s high rise has concrete walls throughout (even inside individual units). My last apartment was a typical early 1900s courtyard building. Aside from the brick exterior walls (and a couple fire walls separating apartment blocks), the inside was all wood & a fire trap at that.

The fire sprinkler ordinance is being pushed by special interest groups like the Northern Illinois Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board. Their members stand to gain millions in work related to any legislation passed to require retrofit of existing structures along with new construction requirements.

By: Richard V.

Richard V. — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:39:00 +0000

I’m sure building concrete barriers around all the biking lanes in the city would save lives too – but we don’t do that. Why? Because of money. Lots of things in life could be made safer by spending more money, but not everyone can afford this and the results can be disastrous for lower income families. Arguments in favor of the sprinkler requirement that don’t acknowledge this reality don’t make any sense to me.

By: Jim C.

Jim C. — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 22:55:00 +0000

Scott N: Because fire sprinklers are proven to prevent loss of life and property from fires. That is why we should ‘settle’ for this man who want’s to save lives.

By: Scott N.

Scott N. — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 07:04:00 +0000

So why settle for his ‘promise’ instead of officially limiting this man with an agenda who has the support of plumbing lobbyists for creating a boondoggle legislation?