Dear Editor,
After reading the fire sprinkler editorial I must ask the question: Why sprinklers in any home? You state that mandating fire protection in homes larger than 5,000 square feet is sensible, but lowering that threshold is not. Why? Are those living in larger homes so much more deserving of this life-saving protection that we should mandate it for them, but not for the rest of us?
If the editorial board would check the Dispatch’s own archives, I’m sure you’ll find that devastating home fires are far from rare. You’ll find recent cases in which lives were lost, and cases in which modern homes were destroyed by arsonists armed with far less than five gallons of gas (another absurd comment).
Home fires are most commonly started by much simpler, seemingly innocent means than gasoline and a blow torch. Leaving burning candles too close to curtains, a towel left too close to the stove or kids playing with matches.
Residential fire sprinkler systems in California would be more affordable if combination systems, where the sprinklers are simply installed to extensions of the cold water risers serving the plumbing fixtures, were allowed. These systems have proven adequate in giving occupants time to evacuate. The sole purpose of a fire-protection system is to preserve human life. When property damage is minimized that’s an added benefit.
Steve Andrade, Gilroy
