Yes, state ought to repeal sprinklers-in-new-homes requirement

Monday, March 14, 2011

State House Speaker Sam Smith and a majority of his colleagues got it right last Monday when they voted overwhelmingly to repeal a requirement that sprinklers be included in all new single- and two-family homes built in the state.
No matter how well intended the mandate, it's governmental paternalism at its worst.
One Philadelphia lawmaker who supported the bill made a fool of himself on the House floor Monday when he said that the mandate would allow thousands of folks to lay their heads on their pillows knowing they wouldn't be victims of a nighttime tragedy.
Most fatal house fires occur in existing homes, not new ones, and those "old" homes are exempt from the sprinkler requirement.
As the GOP's Smith of Punxsutawney and Democrat Rep. Camille "Bud" George of Houtzdale pointed out, rural areas would be especially hard-pressed by the sprinkler mandate, with inadequate supplies and water pressure requiring homeowners to build expensive holding tanks in lieu of water lines.
"The families who build new homes should be the ones choosing their safety features, not the state government," Smith said.
Insurance companies do write policies on houses without sprinklers. All the more reason to keep government's heavy hand out of it. In fact, insurance, not government, should be the regulator here, but we notice no rush to give discounts to sprinkler-equipped homes. Could that be because sprinkler systems do go off by mistake sometimes, as smoke detectors do, but sprinkler damage can easily exceed $10,000 even if there was no fire? If insurers don't think it's such a hot idea, why does government?
Sprinklers will add thousands of dollars in additional costs to new homes at a time when many prospective buyers don't need extra costs. That doesn't even mention the chilling impact on the housing industry, still reeling nearly three years after the bottom fell out of the market in the wake of the subprime bubble bursting.
How in the world this Big Brother legislation ever became law in the first place remains a puzzle.
The state Senate voted to repeal it at the end of its session last year but House Democrats neglected to take up the legislation in the wake of losing control of the lower chamber in the November election.
We're glad the House took action so early in this session. We urge the Senate to concur and Gov. Corbett to sign the repeal into law.
- Nick Hoffman