It’s hard to quibble with proponents of expanding sprinkler
regulations in Gilroy. When advocates play the
”
it-will-save-lives
”
card, those who oppose them look, well, cheap and heartless.
For the sake of common sense, we’re willing to take that
risk.
Currently, new homes in Gilroy are required to have sprinklers
if they’re larger than 5,000 square feet or built on a hillside.
Those regulations are sensible.
It’s hard to quibble with proponents of expanding sprinkler regulations in Gilroy. When advocates play the “it-will-save-lives” card, those who oppose them look, well, cheap and heartless.
For the sake of common sense, we’re willing to take that risk.
Currently, new homes in Gilroy are required to have sprinklers if they’re larger than 5,000 square feet or built on a hillside. Those regulations are sensible.
The City of Gilroy is seriously considering reducing the threshold at which sprinklers are required. We urge them not to make the change.
First, major house fires are extremely rare in Gilroy. The vast majority of the calls that our firefighters respond to are medical in nature and, when a hose fire does occur in the city, they’re quick to put out what is usually a kitchen fire.
Second, at $1.50 per square foot (an estimate we believe is very conservative), a sprinkler system adds $3,000 to the cost of a 2,000-square-foot home. It’s hard to talk about the need for more affordable housing on one day and then require expensive and rarely needed sprinkler systems on the next. But that’s what City Council members who advocate this seem to be doing.
Third, if saving lives is really a high priority, then we suggest the city legislate “safety into buildings,” to borrow Councilman Craig Gartman’s phrase, by requiring homeowners to replace wood shake roofs or building owners who don’t meet seismic standards to meet them or shutter their buildings, which pose much greater risk to life and limb than new homes without sprinkler systems.
Finally, in this post-9/11 world, we have to guard against the “safety at any cost” mentality that seems to beset so many of us. It’s a hard, cruel world and bad things can happen. But we have to take a clear-eyed look at the tradeoffs we’re making on every front in our pursuit for safety.
Most new homes, with fireproof roofs, stucco exteriors and more-than-adequate fire department access, shouldn’t be required to have expensive sprinkler systems. If homeowners want them, that’s great, but the city shouldn’t be requiring them to install a system when, to quote local developer James Suner, “Most new homes you couldn’t burn down with five gallons of gasoline and a blow torch.”
That’s why, to answer Councilman Bob Dillon’s question, we’re quibbling.
We’re hoping Mayor Al Pinheiro’s sensible reaction to this proposal prevails in the end. “I’m reluctant to say we’re going to require all of them to be sprinkled,” Pinheiro said. “I come from an insurance background where you choose to have certain risks.”
When it comes to sprinkler systems, Gilroy should let homeowners choose.
