Log In | Register
Sprinkler Requirement Will Drive Up Cost Of New Homes - Home-Builders Can Expect To Pay Thousands Of Extra Dollars In Pennsylvania
That's just the upfront cost - then there is the cost of inspections, testing, repairs and maintenance. Did anybody think this through before wholesale adoption of this portion of the Building Code being applied to residential home construction?!
Are sprinkler systems a good idea? Absolutely. Should they be mandatory in construction or renovation of public buildings? Absolutely. Should insurance companies give steep discounts to new homes that include this feature - maybe - but the so-called cost savings comes at a price - quarterly or annual inspections of the fire alarm system; sprinkler flow tests; required periodic pressure testing, etc. Does that mean that if your home is flooded by a sprinkler malfunction from this regulatory mandate, that your homeowner's insurance covers the damage or do you have to buy a supplemental water damage policy?
These systems are only effective if they are well maintained, have sufficient water pressure (which in rural areas will mean booster pumps, holding tanks, protection from freezing, what about power outages - then is there a required emergency generator back-up (with testing requirements. . .)
Depressed home building market; aging public water supply infrastructure in cities and small towns; a disparate impact on rural areas that rely on wells and springs for water. . . and we're going to add a regulation for private residential construction that places further demands?
This is one of the worst cases of ill-conceived, poorly thought through wholesale adoption of governmental regulations that I've seen in a long time. It is highly questionable that this regulation will have the positive, life-saving and property-saving results that were intended by the NFPA and Building Code authors. What it will undoutedly do is further depress building and home construction markets.
