The City Council should not be driving up the cost of a new home
by $4,500 unnecessarily, and what’s the deal with exempting granny
units?
Almost exactly a year ago, Gilroy City Council members considered the idea of lowering the square-footage limit for requiring fire sprinkler systems in new homes. We voiced our objections then.
Last week, City Council approved a draft ordinance that would require sprinkler systems in all new homes of 1,000 square feet or greater – virtually all new homes. And nothing’s changed. The proposal is all wet.
This ordinance will add at least $4,500 to the cost of a 3,000-square-foot new home, and that’s just a guesstimate. Guess what happens when contractors know something is required? The actual price could prove to be much higher.
“It’s a very small price to pay for safety,” City Councilman Craig Gartman contends.
What’s next, requiring that every electrical outlet in a home have childproof covers?
Within city limits, to sprinkler or not to sprinkler decisions should be left to homeowners. If they want to spend $4,500 for a sprinkler system, that should be their decision.
Thanks to fireproof roofs, stucco exteriors and, presumably, excellent fire department access paid for with our tax dollars, most new homes have a much lower risk for devastating fires than existing homes, particularly those with shake roofs.
Gartman’s “small price to pay” assessment doesn’t ring true. In fact, $4,500 is a steep price to pay when you consider that the fire risk of new homes is quite low. As local developer James Suner colorfully put it last year, “Most new homes you couldn’t burn down with five gallons of gasoline and a blow torch.”
When you consider how difficult it is to afford a home in Gilroy and the Bay Area, that $4,500 becomes an even steeper price. Our politicians pay a lot of lip service to affordable housing, but when it comes to an action it’s another matter entirely.
Add in Gilroy’s highest in the state impact fees – $45,000 a unit – that $4,500 boost for developer puts yet another brick in the wall for middle-income families’ ability to purchase a home.
When you consider the much more imminent safety risks that exist in Gilroy – from cracked sidewalks to dangerous intersections to illegal fireworks – we have to wonder why the city is focusing on this non-problem.
Finally, we have to question city officials’ professed safety concerns when the cutoff for this requirement is 1,000 square feet – a limit established specifically to exempt granny units. Safety concerns are apparently shut off when it comes down to elderly mothers-in-law.
The ordinance is scheduled for approval in October.
City Council members
to remember Mayor Al
Pinheiro’s words when this topic was raised last year: “I come from an insurance background where you choose to have certain risks.”
Well said.
