Susan Hilton College Station Real Estate
Realtor & Vice President of Sales
Read my blog below
Sprinkler System Required in a New Texas House? WHAT????
October 24th, 2008 Categories: Home Improvement & Design
DId you know that we have a new International Residential Code (minimum standard for the building code followed in Texas) is going to require fire sprinklers in single and two family homes and townhomes for homes built after January 1, 2011?
When I first read this I thought they were referring to the sprinkler systems in the yard – NO WAY! This is talking about the INTERIOR of homes!
What did the National Association of Homebuilders (NAH) think? They were not in favor of the mandate. NAH said the additional cost and maintenance was not justified. Habitat for Humanity agreed! It is too costly!
The National Fire Protection Association sponsored a study and reported this will increase costs from $.38 to $3.66 per square foot – averaging out at $1.61 per square foot increase. There may be some insurance discounts but not enough to cover the expense -
About the only good thing is that it is not retroactive!
Susan Hilton – Realtor & Sales Trainer for Century 21 Beal
Want to Search the Bryan/College Station Real Estate MLS? CLICK HERE!!!
Sphere: Related Content
Before reacting in a knee jerk way, you may want to do a little research.
By requiring fire sprinklers in new construction whole subdivisions or areas of a jurisdiction can take advantage of trade ups that have been utilized when developing such areas. By including the sprinklers, water mains can be downsized, fewer hydrants are needed, cul de sacs can be longer, cross streets can be fewer…in short development costs are significantly less, reducing the overall cost.
Also, insurance savings would apply. When the savings are compared to the incremental cost on a monthly basis, the cost is further reduced.
Currently, the cost of fire protection to a community is spiraling upward due to increased costs of personnel, equipment, facilities, etc. The fire service does a tremendous job but they are under pressure due to budget constraints and increased responsibilities for hazmat, home land security, emergency response, etc. To expect that this will continue without an erosion in overall performance is unrealistic. Mandating sprinklers, helping to control costs, is the responsible thing to do for the future of fire protection in our communities.
I assume you don’t have a problem with other code requirements that provide benefits for the community. Why would you single out this one when so many of those responsible for the safety of your customers believe it is the right thing to do?
I imagine you had a problem with seat belts when they were introduced as well.
“About the only good thing is that it is not retroactive”, is a very short-sighted and uneducated statement. Lives will actually be saved, both the occupants and the firefighters.
The cost of sprinklers is less than that of your lawn sprinklers or of the granite counter top in your kitchen or the furnishings in one room.
Hopefully those that you know, and those that you teach, and those that sell homes to will never experience a fire, but if they do, and they have automatic sprinklers they will live to tell about it and they won’t lose all or most of their possessions.
You are in a position to teach (”Reator and Sales Trainer”) and I would think you would want to get all of the inforamtion before you teach any subject.
Check into the lightweigth truss construction that goes into today’s homes and you’ll find these fail in before the fire department can save the structure. Do you realize that is long before the the fire department arrives! Recognition of a fire, calling it in, response time of the fire department, tagging hydrants and attacking the fire with a full-time fire department takes longer than that and with a volunteer department can take much longer.
Ms. Hilton:
Fire spinklers are the technology solution to the fire safety problem in the U.S. Did you know that over 3,000 lives are lost in home fires every year? The place were we feel most secure is where people are dying. This loss of life is totally unnecessary. I invite you to visit the link that follows my comment so that you may become more informed about the issue, and perhaps you will agree that residential sprinklers are a good thing.
Have a safe day.
http://www.homefiresprinkler.org/RealEstate/RealHome.html
Obviously this struck a nerve with a few people. The issue here is NOT whether sprinklers could save lives. There are MANY things that could be mandated that could possibly save lives. The issue is more government regulation. I do NOT want more regulations. If we mandate another $3 per square foot into the cost of a home is it worth it? Habitat says no –
Less government regulation and personal choice is preferred over more regulation and more cost.
Personal choice should rule, but since builders (and realtors) choose not to offer (or in my case even allow me to have sprinklers installed in my new home) this is the only way to save the lives of the young, the old and the firefighters.
I am passionate about this and when I talk to homeowners, show them the devastation of fire, the loss of their valuables, and show them the lack of damage after a fire where sprinklers are involved they almost unanimously agree. Fortunately, I haven’t pulled a child or another firefighter out of fire, but I have friends that have.
I would ask you to watch the two videos of Christmas tree fires (one without sprinklers and one with) at http://www.fire.nist.gov/tree_fire.htm. I realize that Christmas trees are the extreme, but you’ll see that the room flashes over in 45 seconds (everything is over 1,400°F) without the sprinkler and is survivable with the sprinkler. The lamp next to the tree never goes out. The couch is barely damaged. That is reality for fires in our homes, they just don’t grow that fast.
Over 3,000 people die a year in residential fires. That is the world trade center disaster annually and all of them would be prevented with residential sprinklers.
I can back up the facts if you want more information. As a matter of fact, I would be happy to send you DVD about residential sprinklers if you’d like it. The builders associations can NOT back up the statements they make about residential sprinkler systems.
There are cost benefits for communities (infrastructure savings: no cul-de-sacs, longer dead-end streets, and we have trouble getting volunteer firefighters so this makes the ones we have more cost-effective and much more) as well as the safety for the homeowner and their families.
AND, when building a house, $1.50 to $2.00 per square foot (or 1-2%) is almost nothing over the life of your mortgage. AND the mortgage increase for a $3,000 increase amortized over a 30 year loan at a 7% interest rate is approximately twenty dollars per month. The net cost following insurance rate reductions (average premium reduction for sprinklering is about 10%) and income tax savings (based on 28% federal and 7.05% Minnesota tax rates) is just over $7 per month. I’d ask you to teach that.
Thanks for corresponding.
Again – it is NOT that I am against having sprinklers. It is that I don’t want more regulations. If I want to pay to have sprinklers in my home I can. If I don’t want that feature I should not be mandated to have it.
It is about personal choice and less government regulations.
Whether you want more regulation or not isn’t the point. Because this saves people, saves homes, saves firefighters, and saves neighbors, it’s going to be required. And its’ about time.
You can be up in arms all you want, but you still have to wear your seat belt. Right? Why? It saves lives. And people are generally stupid so some times it’s necessary to regulate stupid…
Tim –
We disagree on a main platform. I do not think people are generally stupid therefore I think people should decide for themselves what is appropriate.
Well Good morning ALL! I just wanted to add a little to this situation that seems to be buring quite violently. As for the seat belt comment, totally different subjects that do not apply to each other in any practical concept. As for govt. regulations making me do something that I should have enough knowledge to do myself; loose them in this case. Govt. mandates and regulations put us in this economic crunch we are in now, so I don’t have very much faith in their wisdom when ite comes to this type of minor issue since they can’t seem to make a sound major decision.
Fire safety is very important!!! Do not confuse that importance with an individual buyers ability to make a sound decisions whether or not to install a fire sprinkler system in a home they are building. Let the decision be up to the buyer. Every builder should be required to give a price comparison when conducting the interview with the buyer and their Realtor, but for the builder to incur the cost of the installation just because the GOVT. says so is not fair to the builder and the buyer that the cost is passed down to. Let the buyer make an educated decision, Don’t force the issue.
I agree with Susan. We don’t need more regulation in our lives. I think the information needs to be presented about the advantages and costs of sprinkler systems, both in the short term to install and the long term to maintain the system. If people see that this is a good thing, it will happen. If this has been such a terrible situation, why is this the first time we have heard about it. By the way, I began wearing seat belts long before they were required because I saw the advantage.
ignirant, Maria, Tim & Scott Futrell — What are you, the Sprinkler police? This is a non-issue. Just something to Randomly write about and let people know for future reference. Don’t you have something better to do with yourself than Rant about the “Need” for sprinklers in houses? I mean, come on! The issue has already been decided, and I can have whatever opinion about it I want. A dollar plus squarefoot might not seem like much to you, but it makes the difference in a home no longer being affordable to some people. ANd for what? Here is an idea. BUY FIRE DETECTORS FOR YOUR HOME. There are lots of situations where there is “unnecessary loss of life” in this world. I truly doubt that DEATH due to lack of sprinklers in home is high on that list. AND if development costs were truly lower, Why would multiple organizations agree the cost was not worth the benefit. It is simply govenrment stupidity that would require something where the cost is clearly not worth the benefit. And individual stupidity that would draw a connection between that and a seatbelt. No, I don’t want more information. I have a life. What good would it do? PLEASE. Lets focus on requiring everyone to have a security system installed in their home. Then there would be less break-ins and murders, oh yeah, and the system could notify the fire department if their was a house fire. Kill two birds with one stone. Tim – Do you work for a sprinkler intalling company? UM. HM, right. Guess what folks, stupid laws aren’t carved in stone forever.
This whole thing about it saving lives is a silly argument. Freedom is worth loss of life. Else we would outlaw cars, flying, working on your own roof, swimming, and countless other activities.
Very interesting post you wrote. Glad I have stumbled upon it. Cheers!
You are a very smart person!
Great stuff. Nice to read some well written posts that have some relevancy !