Skip to Next Poll »
2
Would you support manditory installation of sprinklers in newly-constructed one- and two-family home
Some communities have voted for their local building code to include "sprinklers" or a "fire suppression system" to be mandatory in newly constructed one- and two-family homes.

Do you think this should be a nation wide requirement in new constructions?
| Closed on 08/11/10 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, Politics | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
19 Fans 
32%a. yes because _____
42%b. no because ____
26%c. not sure

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#1 | 1506 days ago

Nope, can't support this as mandatory.  Great idea, everybody should do it.  But don't make it mandatory.  Just another government hand getting into our business. 
  
21 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1506 days ago

Nope, can't support this as mandatory.  Great idea, everybody should do it.  But don't make it mandatory.  Just another government hand getting into our business. 
#2 | 1506 days ago

on the surface it looks like a very good idea with regard to fire safety, but on the other side I see it as just another freedom lost if made mandatory
not sure  
#3 | 1506 days ago

having safety measures in your own home is a good idea,however i wouldn't want it to be mandatory,i want my house the way i want it built,not somebody elses idea if it went off by accident would flood insurance cover the water damage
no because ____  
#4 | 1506 days ago

 Government has a right to regulate public safety (which is why we have the military and police and fire departments) so it would be fully in their right to require this. Not completely sure how I feel about it, but it seems logical enough.  The quicker you can suppress the fire the better.
#5 | 1506 days ago

CAPTAINSEAFOOD wrote:
having safety measures in your own home is a good idea,however i wouldn't want it to be mandatory,i want my house the way i want it built,not somebody elses idea if it went off by accident would flood insurance cover the water damage
probably would work something like my med insurance, it pays for ambulance ride only if i am admitted to hospital.
not sure  
#6 | 1506 days ago

i agree
not sure  
#7 | 1506 days ago

does your homeowners ins pay anything toward water damage if they go off by accident?
not sure  
#8 | 1506 days ago

I would say yes' Former homeowner who had a fire. Even with insurance, I am still feeling the repurcussions of not having a sprinkler system " INSIDE" my home at the time!
yes because _____  
#9 | 1506 days ago

Nope, i could not support this.  This should be a city thing.  Give the power to each city to decide for them selves.  Country people are bothering no one but themselves.  Should be an individual decision.
no because ____  
#10 | 1506 days ago

cuddles127017 wrote:
Nope, i could not support this.  This should be a city thing.  Give the power to each city to decide for them selves.  Country people are bothering no one but themselves.  Should be an individual decision.
right now it is being passed in some communities as a county ordnance, so in some places it involves rural homes
not sure  
#11 | 1506 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
right now it is being passed in some communities as a county ordnance, so in some places it involves rural homes
I don't agree with that!!!  Government has intruded too much in our lives telling us what is good for us.  I can understand doing it in cities where houses are built so close together and one burning might catch others on fire.  The option to do it should be there but forcing it down our throats is just too much.
no because ____  
#12 | 1506 days ago

cuddles127017 wrote:
I don't agree with that!!!  Government has intruded too much in our lives telling us what is good for us.  I can understand doing it in cities where houses are built so close together and one burning might catch others on fire.  The option to do it should be there but forcing it down our throats is just too much.
 I don't completely disagree with you, but is it shoving safety down your throat that you have to pay taxes for a Fire Department or Police Department or even a military? Its the same idea - public safety.
#13 | 1506 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 I don't completely disagree with you, but is it shoving safety down your throat that you have to pay taxes for a Fire Department or Police Department or even a military? Its the same idea - public safety.
Say I live out in the country.  If my house burns down, it is not public safety.  It is my lost and has nothing to do with the public.  Now if i am a smart comsumer and can afford this sprinkle system then i think i would be wise to maybe invest in one.  I am sure the bank will start requiring this before you can get a new home loan.  Sometimes i feel like i would like to go to the mountains and live in a one room shack and live off the land. 
no because ____  
#14 | 1506 days ago
vindog (+)

For me this is a toss up! It is WISE to have a fire-suppression system in your home- especially in heavily populated areas. But I don't know if I would support an actual LAW that states you must have one. Now IF it becomes part of the National Fire Code (for residential buildings)- then so be it. It is ALREADY part of the National Fire Code for Commercial and Industrial complexes anyway- and those CODES have saved many, many lives over the years.  As in everything, Building Codes change for a reason and MORE codes are put into place because of "accidents" that have happened. For instance, until the late 1970's, residential electrical wiring(throughout the home) could be made of aluminum and didn't require any type of device grounding at all. The ONLY thing that had to have a ground was the main electrical connection to the dwelling. Well after thousands of homes burning down (and lots of people killed in those home fires), from faulty wiring, Codes were put into place for obvious safety reasons, and now you can no longer use aluminum wiring (because of the heat it creates and GFCI's (Ground fault circuit interrupters) must be installed on circuits that are within so many feet of water lines, in ALL restrooms and kitchens. I see this as no different but am still on the fence over the actual code.
not sure  
#15 | 1505 days ago

cuddles127017 wrote:
Say I live out in the country.  If my house burns down, it is not public safety.  It is my lost and has nothing to do with the public.  Now if i am a smart comsumer and can afford this sprinkle system then i think i would be wise to maybe invest in one.  I am sure the bank will start requiring this before you can get a new home loan.  Sometimes i feel like i would like to go to the mountains and live in a one room shack and live off the land. 
 But if you live out in the country and are surrounded by let's say a forest and your house burns down then the forest becomes endangered.  It then becomes a public debt.  I'm all for personal liberties, but not when it causes harm to the public.  This is fairly logical, as long as the sprinklers can be trusted to not go off in any other instance. 
#16 | 1505 days ago

yes, but don't mandate retrofitting old properties with them. My brother is a firefighter and he has mentioned numerous times how those systems save lives. Plus they don't set off every one in the house/building like in the movies, they are set off individually (by heat) to reduce water damage, panic, etc. Maybe there should always be a grandfather clause in these types of things.
yes because _____  
#17 | 1504 days ago

If you live in the country, and the fire rescue response to your home could take a while, it would make sense to
install one to decrease the damage to your home.   To retrofit an existing home could prove to be very costly, so
that should be the homeowners call.  For new construction, I agree with what Cuddles said, and banks will probably start requiring it to obtain one of those elusive loans.
yes because _____  
#18 | 1504 days ago

say what?
#19 | 1504 days ago
vindog (+)

I think the main preface of this "Code" are the words newly constructed one and two story family homes. In other words- a safety feature ADDED to NEW Construction!  After reading the actual proposal- I see nothing wrong with it at all. Seat belts and air bags on cars weren't mandatory for many, many years- now they are- the reasons are quite obvious, just as a fire suppression system is an obvious safety feature in NEW homes!   IF you don't want the "Big Bad Government" telling you what to do- DON'T buy a NEW house- pretty simple if you ask me!
not sure  
#20 | 1504 days ago

Good idea, but once again it's "big brother" getting in our business. Home building costs are at an alltime high, despite new construction nearly coming to a halt over the past two years. I am currently looking to buy/build a new home, and an in home sprinkler and the cost/risk factor is something I'm looking at. I don't need the government to tell me what that ratio is.
no because ____  
#21 | 1500 days ago

while i thinkit is a good idea as far s safety goes.....my question would be, will they give wiggle room to the insurance industries in not covering the damage the spprinkler and water damage causes IF there is a fire?  and how will this affect homeowners insurance?  i would need to know much more on the logistics of the bill..
not sure  

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
F/E 7/25
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked Yesterday
7 opinions | 15 comments | Last by Cali_Kat
F/E 7/24
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 07/24/14
6 opinions | 23 comments | Last by woody050681
F/E 7/22
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 07/22/14
5 opinions | 9 comments | Last by woody050681
F/E 7/23
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 07/23/14
6 opinions | 34 comments | Last by woody050681
Phryday Philter Errr
Asked by marcus_nyce | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 07/18/14
7 opinions | 15 comments | Last by Beaneaters