For their own safety, new-home buyers in Pennsylvania had better hope that Harrisburg lawmakers don’t decide to scuttle a Jan. 1 requirement that homes be built with lifesaving fire sprinkler systems.
Legislation pending before the state House would delay for a full year – and maybe longer – the state’s groundbreaking move to require sprinklers in all one- and two-family homes.
As the first statewide sprinkler mandate, the rule would be crucial to making homes safer in the commonwealth. Sprinklers give residents precious time to escape fast-burning blazes that can result from the lightweight materials used in home construction today.
In a last-minute legislative gambit, the Pennsylvania Builders Association prevailed upon state Senate members to approve the delay before heading home for the midterm elections.
The builders favor requiring that buyers be given the option of installing sprinklers, rather than a mandate. They contend that costs for a typical new house would rise between $6,000 and $7,500, but a national fire sprinkler trade group points to far lower estimates – around $3,600 for a home of around 2,300 square feet.
It’s no surprise that builders’ opposition to the sprinkler mandate has intensified amid the sour economy. Indeed, Gov. Christie recently cited economic concerns in scrapping New Jersey’s sprinkler requirement that wouldn’t even have taken effect until 2012.
The added cost of sprinklers, though, would be a small portion of a new-home purchase. It would be financed over the life of a 30-year mortgage and homeowners would enjoy immediate savings on fire insurance.
Christie and builders’ Harrisburg lobbyists are bucking overwhelming public support for sprinklers, particularly among first-responders who say the devices safeguard firefighters as well as residents. In a Maryland county where sprinklers have been required, there have been no fire deaths in homes equipped with sprinklers.
The builders’ trade group has been rebuffed at every step of the way, losing appeals before state licensing officials and in the appellate courts. So the appeal to the General Assembly should be seen for what it is: a desperate back-door strategy to overturn an otherwise legitimate public safety initiative.
Were the House to send this bad legislation to Gov. Rendell’s desk, presumably it would be vetoed. But that’s too big risk to take. If it comes to a vote, House members should defeat any attempt to scuttle sprinklers in new homes.
 | Join on Facebook |  | Follow on Twitter |
- Brendan Calling
- City Howl
- City Paper's "The Clog"
- Commonwealth Confidential
- Daily Kos
- Heard in the Hall
- HuffPost
- Inquirer Editorial & Commentary
- Judges on Merit
- Metropolis
- The Pennsylvania Policy Blog
- Phawker
- Plan Philly
- phillyist
- philadelphia will do
- Philly Clout
- Philly Post
- Qewz: News in Perspective
- Trudy Rubin
- School Notebook
- Talking Points
- WHYY It's Our City
- Will Bunch/Attytood
- Young Philly Politics
- Dick Polman
- NewsWorks
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
