Lawrence Kansas Stands Up To Code Changes

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

It made me proud to be a native Kansan after reading the recent Lawrence Board of Realtors Newsletter. Here is an article apparently written by the KAR's own lobbyist / Luke Bell (the hero that helped get HI's licensed in Kansas).

Its good to know people like this are looking out for us.

__________________________________________________ _______

Luke Bell, LBOR Director of Governmental Relations

The City of Lawrence is Beginning to Discuss the Adoption of New Building Codes; Controversial Fire Sprinkler Requirement Will Be Included in the Discussion Over the next year, the city will begin to review changes to the city’s existing building code. In early 2008, the city adopted the 2006 International Residential Code as the building code for residential properties. Since that code has now been updated to the 2009 version, the city will now examine the possibility of adopting the 2009 International Residential Code.

Unfortunately, the 2009 International Residential Code, which regulates the construction of single-family residential dwellings, includes a requirement mandating the installation of a fire sprinkler system in every residential dwelling. If the city chooses to adopt the 2009 International Residential Code, it must specifically opt out of the fire sprinkler requirements contained in the model code.

At this time, the city anticipates to complete this review by May 2010. The LBOR Governmental Affairs Committee will discuss this issue and participate in the code review process. What This Means for REALTORS®: Proponents of the fire sprinkler requirement contend that the installation of fire sprinklers provides fire safety protection to homeowners and firefighters.

However, the opponents of this requirement contend that fire sprinklers are difficult to maintain, increase homeowner maintenance costs, can cause accidental discharges that cause property damage and that the installation adds considerable expense to the cost of residential construction.

[James H. Bushart]

A state fire marshall that I met with, recently, told me how a representative of the Missouri Association of Builders recently spoke at one of their meetings...condemning the new IRC requirement for residential fire sprinkler systems that save the lives of dwellers and firefighters.

He began to speak as to how the increased cost would adversely affect the ability of some people to afford new homes.

He didn't get far. According to the fire marshall, he was "booed and hissed" out of the room.

[Dale Duffy]

Jim said:

He began to speak as to how the increased cost would adversely affect the ability of some people to afford new homes.

"Really?".....I guess he wasn't given the time to place a price on a human life?

But "some" people wouldn't be able to afford a New Home if they were required to install a life saving device.

Russian Roulette is much easier in his mind I take it?

Incredible.

[Dale Duffy]

Dan posted:

However, the opponents of this requirement contend that fire sprinklers are difficult to maintain, increase homeowner maintenance costs, can cause accidental discharges that cause property damage and that the installation adds considerable expense to the cost of residential construction.

I've had them in my house since 1997, never had a problem.

As a matter of fact, I have NEVER heard of ANYONE having a problem with their fire suppression system in Scottsdale, which is, and has been a building requirement for many years.

Opponents----isn't that something?

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

The same crowd that was ADAMANT about licensing home inspectors to PROTECT the consumers in Kansas, are part of the crowd OPPOSING sprinklers so as To PROTECT the consumers from accidents.

[Dale Duffy]

Dan, all I can do is shake my head in amazement.

You guys in the KS. MO. Area probably do the same, "Frequently"------

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by dbowers

The same crowd that was ADAMANT about licensing home inspectors to PROTECT the consumers in Kansas, are part of the crowd OPPOSING sprinklers so as To PROTECT the consumers from accidents.

I can not stop laughing at this one Dan. Go figure, and they are publishing it ta boot, Classic.

And telling Fireman you do not like Fire Suppression Systems, that takes BALLS or no Brains, or both.

[Michael Larson]

How far are you guys willing to go to have government protect human life through mandates?

How "safe" do you want to make things?

Maybe we should ban stoves, bath tubs and stairways in the home as they are a potential source of serious injury and death.

Where do you draw the line?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mlarson

How far are you guys willing to go to have government protect human life through mandates?

How "safe" do you want to make things?

Maybe we should ban stoves, bath tubs and stairways in the home as they are a potential source of serious injury and death.

Where do you draw the line?

There was a developer who built two subdivisions, side-by-side, in Kentucky. Experimentally, he built one subdivision with sprinkler systems and the other without. The development with sprinklers sold out before all the homes could be built....while the second struggled to sell the homes that had already been built, until they began adding sprinkler systems to them as well.

Moral of the story.....buyers will buy a sprinkler protected home over one without when the option is available.

"My right to fry" does not seem to impress too many people who are looking for a safe and comfortable dwelling to raise a family.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Moral of the story.....buyers will buy a sprinkler protected home over one without when the option is available.

Thank you for making my point.

The market decided that there was value in the sprinkler systems being added as evidenced by the pace of sales of the protected homes.

The free market works if you let it.

The government does not have to mandate and in fact distorts the market and tends increase costs.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Thank you for making my point.

The market decided that there was value in the sprinkler systems being added as evidenced by the pace of sales of the protected homes.

The free market works if you let it.

The government does not have to mandate and in fact distorts the market and tends increase costs.

I think the market has demonstrated that the builders are wrong in their objections to building codes.

You have to live in the absence of them to fully appreciate what it is like for 11-year old "electricians" to have no standards to go by when they wire their grandparents' home from instructions received over the internet.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I think the market has demonstrated that the builders are wrong in their objections to building codes.

You have to live in the absence of them to fully appreciate what it is like for 11-year old "electricians" to have no standards to go by when they wire their grandparents' home from instructions received over the internet.

I will ask again:

Where do you draw the line?

[James H. Bushart]

You guys have no idea how serious this situation is.

I inspected a nursing home with open splices (in one instance, a splice of romex to low voltage wiring) laying half buried in dry cellulose insulation.

This was what prompted my call to the fire marshall where he told me the story I posted, earlier. My reason for calling him was that there was a record of his inspection of the property less than a year ago and I wanted to know if he had missed....or if he had approved....this dangerous condition.

He told me that he does not look at wiring. "I'm not an electrician" were his exact words. He checks for sufficient fire extinguishers, adequate egress, lighted exit signs, blah...blah...blah....but has never removed a panel cover from the electrical service.

This is in a county with no building codes, no licensed contractors, and no one inspecting their work.

In the neighboring county, under the same conditions, 10 people burned to death in a fire.

People like Larson are very easily led to believe, by those who financially profit from the absence of minimum basic building standards, that building codes are an intrusion upon their rights as Americans.

But people who drive to various Ozark locations from the state of Wisconsin, where Larson lives, are sleeping in structures and barbecuing on wooden decks overlooking deep ravines, cliffs and rivers.....that have never been inspected by anyone after having been built, repaired and maintained without codes and licenses........and they don't even know it. They think, as they turn the light out in their motel rooms, that they are as safe here as they are in their own homes where contractors are accountable to certain standards. They are not.

Building codes are laws that are designed to protect the public. The illustration I gave shows the mandate that the public gives to being protected.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I will ask again:

Where do you draw the line?

Building codes are minimum basic standards that are applied in building and maintaining the property and are designed to protect the property from damage and the people dwelling within from harm.

When a device or procedure becomes known that has been proven to save lives, it should become a part of these minimum basic standards.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Building codes are minimum basic standards that are applied in building and maintaining the property and are designed to protect the property from damage and the people dwelling within from harm.

When a device or procedure becomes known that has been proven to save lives, it should become a part of these minimum basic standards.

"People like Larson " are not against building codes Jim.

They are concerned that we are far too willing to let government mandate everything under the sun for our our own good and removing personal responsibilty from our decision making.

Nobody wants to admit it but it does come down to cost vs. benefit.

If you go for "maximum safe", what are you giving up?