Debate Rages Over Fire Sprinkler Proposal
Posted in Fire Sprinkler Supplies |

Firefighters are all fired up about a proposal that would require sprinklers in all new homes. But homebuilders say the idea is all wet. Darren Cunningham shows why this debate is heating up.

Lansing Fire Marshall, Phillip Sabon, has battled a fair share of house fires. That’s why he supports the mandate.

“Sprinklers systems will slow the progression of a fire. It won’t allow it to spread, thus giving the people the ability to get out. Plus, it’s a tool that gives the fire department…makes our job a little bit easier,” says Sabon.

But the Michigan Home Builders Association says the cost makes the requirement unfair.

“They only operate 39% of the time. so why make people spend money that they choose not to spend on sprinklers. we think it’s better spent with a smoke alarm,” says Lee Schwartz of the MAHB.

If the fire sprinklers become mandatory, it will have an even harder affect on groups like Habitat for Humanity who build homes for low-income families.

“We have nothing against voluntary smoke alarms, we are against mandated sprinklers as is Habitat for Humanity, as are building officials, as are a whole host of organizations around the state,” says Schwartz.

But the fire marshal says it’s better to save lives than to try and save money.

Sabon says, “In other areas, of the United States, they do require the sprinklers in residential homes already. Here in Michigan, a fire is going to react the same way on a home in Michigan, as it does in Arizona. So if it’s OK there, it’s OK here.”

Tags:

Leave a Reply