Charlie Rule over 20 years ago pushed to get his bosses on the Manteca City Council to require new home builders to install fire sprinklers in all new single family residential construction.
It was a trade-off in his mind for the council not having fire mitigation growth fees in place. The council balked at the expensive fire sprinkler suggestion of the then Manteca fire chief. But they did go ahead and implement a fire fee to pay for growth’s fair share of fire stations and fire engines. That fee, though, has gone for more 20 years without an upward adjustment for inflation
Fast forward to today. The state has mandated fire sprinklers for all new single family homes built in California.
Builders put the cost of a typical system at between $8,000 and $12,000 per home.
Some critics argue that the sprinklers will cause more damage than they prevent. The answer to that is yes and no.
Yes, accidents can trigger the systems and cause water damage without a fire. There have been some instances of homes that have had systems in place for years sustaining damage without a fire. Those examples are limited primarily to issues caused by remodeling workers when they were generating intense heat by doing things such as welding near a sprinkler head without first turning off the water system.
The goal is to protect lives first and then minimize property damage. In that scenario water damage is probably preferable to fire damage if you had to pick the lesser of two evils.
There is little doubt that the move to automatic sprinklers will be another nail in the coffin of the effort to secure affordable housing. But fire sprinklers - if married with sound long range planning and strategic shifting of resources - can actually cost everyone less money.
In 2008, fires accounted for just fewer than 6 percent or 270 of 4,823 emergency calls for service received by the Manteca Fire Department. Meanwhile medical emergencies accounted for almost 65 percent of all service calls.
Fire sprinklers coupled with those statistics mean that fire engines - a costly three-man operation with expensive rigs - could probably have longer response times in neighborhoods built after 2011 as they would be assisted in saving lives with fire sprinkler systems.
Cities could then shift some resources to two-man rescue squads. A system could be in place where full-service fire stations are spaced out even farther part while in between are “mini” stations housing a two-man rescue squad that responds primarily to emergency medical service calls.
Fire sprinklers ultimately could allow for a more effective deployment of limited municipal resources.
The decision to require fire sprinklers in new construction will come with a cost that surely the sponsor of the legislation didn’t anticipate.
That cost will be in the form of overvaluing older California housing stock as the years go by and the economy picks up.
The $8,000 to $12,000 added to the cost of a new home’s price tag ultimately will result in a dollar-for-dollar increase of older homes once the housing market heats up and demand tightens which in turn drives up the price of existing homes.
Residential fire sprinklers - though not by design - will eventually help overheat the housing market and erode affordability not just in new construction but in pre-2011 homes as well.
There is, however, the caveat of somewhat lower fire insurance premiums that homes protected by fire sprinklers would be able to enjoy.
If the state mandate for residential fire sprinklers is embraced properly it can ultimately improve the chances of survival in medical emergencies and end up containing costs.
That, by the way, was one of the primary points that Chief Rule made over 20 years ago.
It was a trade-off in his mind for the council not having fire mitigation growth fees in place. The council balked at the expensive fire sprinkler suggestion of the then Manteca fire chief. But they did go ahead and implement a fire fee to pay for growth’s fair share of fire stations and fire engines. That fee, though, has gone for more 20 years without an upward adjustment for inflation
Fast forward to today. The state has mandated fire sprinklers for all new single family homes built in California.
Builders put the cost of a typical system at between $8,000 and $12,000 per home.
Some critics argue that the sprinklers will cause more damage than they prevent. The answer to that is yes and no.
Yes, accidents can trigger the systems and cause water damage without a fire. There have been some instances of homes that have had systems in place for years sustaining damage without a fire. Those examples are limited primarily to issues caused by remodeling workers when they were generating intense heat by doing things such as welding near a sprinkler head without first turning off the water system.
The goal is to protect lives first and then minimize property damage. In that scenario water damage is probably preferable to fire damage if you had to pick the lesser of two evils.
There is little doubt that the move to automatic sprinklers will be another nail in the coffin of the effort to secure affordable housing. But fire sprinklers - if married with sound long range planning and strategic shifting of resources - can actually cost everyone less money.
In 2008, fires accounted for just fewer than 6 percent or 270 of 4,823 emergency calls for service received by the Manteca Fire Department. Meanwhile medical emergencies accounted for almost 65 percent of all service calls.
Fire sprinklers coupled with those statistics mean that fire engines - a costly three-man operation with expensive rigs - could probably have longer response times in neighborhoods built after 2011 as they would be assisted in saving lives with fire sprinkler systems.
Cities could then shift some resources to two-man rescue squads. A system could be in place where full-service fire stations are spaced out even farther part while in between are “mini” stations housing a two-man rescue squad that responds primarily to emergency medical service calls.
Fire sprinklers ultimately could allow for a more effective deployment of limited municipal resources.
The decision to require fire sprinklers in new construction will come with a cost that surely the sponsor of the legislation didn’t anticipate.
That cost will be in the form of overvaluing older California housing stock as the years go by and the economy picks up.
The $8,000 to $12,000 added to the cost of a new home’s price tag ultimately will result in a dollar-for-dollar increase of older homes once the housing market heats up and demand tightens which in turn drives up the price of existing homes.
Residential fire sprinklers - though not by design - will eventually help overheat the housing market and erode affordability not just in new construction but in pre-2011 homes as well.
There is, however, the caveat of somewhat lower fire insurance premiums that homes protected by fire sprinklers would be able to enjoy.
If the state mandate for residential fire sprinklers is embraced properly it can ultimately improve the chances of survival in medical emergencies and end up containing costs.
That, by the way, was one of the primary points that Chief Rule made over 20 years ago.
