Sunday, Dec. 4, 2016    Login | Register        

PTC passes on fire sprinkler mandate for new homes

A proposal to require fire sprinkler systems to be installed in all new single family homes in Peachtree City failed on a 4-1 vote at Thursday night’s City Council meeting.

Fire Chief Ed Eiswerth gave an impassioned plea urging approval of the ordinance, citing recent construction techniques that have caused quicker building collapses when they are exposed to fire. He also noted that sprinklers dramatically increase a person’s chances of surviving a fire.

Several representatives of the home building industry argued against the fire sprinkler requirement, saying that residents can currently opt to put in fire sprinkler systems currently if they choose.

Language that would have required fire sprinklers to be retrofitted for single family homes used for day care or health care businesses was removed from the staff-recommended ordinance prior to the council meeting.

The ordinance change was denied by council on a 4-1 vote at the meeting April 1. The only council member in favor of the sprinkler requirement was Kim Learnard, who said the matter wasn’t about money, rather it was about saving lives.

Councilmember Vanessa Fleisch, who is a Realtor, said she didn’t think it was up to the government “to save us from ourselves.”

“There’s no doubt it saves lives, but in the end I’m tired of government thinking for me, so I’m for the choice,” Fleisch said.



mudcat's picture

That's what I like to hear at a council meeting - less government, not more. Kudos to Vanessa.

Hoosier Fan's picture

Now that's the the kind of "pro-choice" public servant I'd like to see MORE of!

I'm all for freedom of choice, not freedom FROM choice.

Kudos to all the council members who voted for freedom of choice... men and women alike.

Why did you hesitate and then mention "women alike?"

Is your interpretation of "freedom" that you should be able to do "anything" you wish as long as it doesn't violate someone elses "freedom?"

And does the "maybe violation" have to happen while that person is in front of you?

In other words can you pee in a stream if no one is looking?
Assume the stream runs directly into the ocean within sight.

Can you walk up and down your street singing horrible country music very loudly as a right of freedom of speech or can the neighbors stop you?
Assume you aren't using loudspeakers.

Can I shoot those deer that are eating my bushes and killing them if there is no chance of anyone being hit with the bullet?
Assume there is a big dirt bank behind them.

Can I park on my grass and have a 60 foot camper in my front yard? That don't hurt nobody does it?

If I let goats eat my grass in my lawn (tied to a rope of course) and never bath them, will that hurt anything?

Can I electrify my door against religious nuts and salesmen selling insurance or are they the kind that also have a right not to be shocked.

I'm writing another book!

meanoldconservatives's picture

Can you electrify your door and grab the doorknob, while standing where you just peed? We'd all appreciate it.

Someone killed the law by adding old, existing homes to the law. Probably someone who installs them.

I find it hard to understand however why Realtors, etc., don't want such a life and property saving device in all new homes, and of course those businesses who take care of kids, and our schools.
So we not now have sprinklers in most office building, hospitalls, etc?

That was mandated years ago due to some particularly tragic happenings.

So, next I suppose there will be some who will want to do away with the rules of the road. Drive on the left if you want to do so. Drive drunk if you want to do so.
Drive an unsafe vehicle if you want to do so. Burn your kids up (they aren't able or capable of commenting, are they)?

Anything that applies to everything is still competitive!!

Do you want to hunt in the woods alone naked?

mudcat's picture

Assuming I'm hunting you and you are the one that is naked.

God, I can't believe I'm even answering you but here goes --- Putting sprinklers in existing homes is way over the top expensive. Requiring them to be put in all new homes costs less, but it is still a lot and it does not add value to the house - only cost. You may disagree, but most consumers of housing are not thinking about fire when buying a house. So then, this ordinance would make all Peachtree City houses $2 or 3,000 more expensive than those outside the city limits - not to mention resales in the city. It is not worth it to the consumer.

No one in their right mind disputes the safety aspect of sprinklers, but it is as Vanessa says - telling us how to think. I for one have had enough of that from government.

And staff sensibly removed the provision to retrofit old houses before it got to a vote.

And when this happens -
and Vanessa has some homes for sale in the neighborhood, she will be crying out for the government to step in and do something as she can't sell the homes, the values have gone down (and her commissions)... The neighbors will beg for help - there was a catastrophe, bail us out!!! Why not add some cell towers in Peachtree City so we can get better coverage there? Why should the government have any say on that? Let people do whatever they want, it is their property. That is all fine - until it affects you. My home is sprinklered, as are hundreds of my neighbors. I enjoy a nice insurance discount, I don't have to worry about if the fire dept. (government) is able to get to me if my house is on fire, and most importantly, my family is safe. At the end of the day, you protect yourself with home sprinklers - LESS government is needed.

Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content