|
|
Post by RyEnFF38 on Mar 16, 2010 18:52:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RyEnFF38 on Mar 17, 2010 11:11:44 GMT -5
A state appellate court last week upheld strict new fire-safety measures in the
Pennsylvania building code, but the group that originally objected to the
regulations said yesterday that it was not giving up yet.
The Pennsylvania Builder's Association, which filed the request for an
injunction in Commonwealth Court in January, asked Judge Johnny Butler on Monday
to reconsider his decision to uphold the code.
Fire-sprinkler systems are currently required only in multifamily dwellings and
commercial properties, but the new regulations would require them in all new
townhouses and one- and two-family homes.
The PBA had argued that the updated code would add excessive costs that would
discourage new-home buyers, association spokesman Scott Elliott said. The
organization estimates that sprinkler systems cost about $3.49 per square foot
of house, or just shy of $8,000 for the average home.
But fire-safety groups and the federal Fire Administration say that sprinklers
are a necessary safety precaution and cost much less than the PBA says they do.
A study done by the Fire Protection Research Foundation found that the cost was
$1.61 per square foot.
"The bottom line for [the new mandate] is life safety and fire protection," said
Tim Knisely, co-chair of the Pennsylvania Residential Fire Sprinkler Coalition.
The International Code Council makes recommendations on fire codes to states
every three years. Pennsylvania was one of five states - California, Iowa, New
Hampshire and South Carolina were the others - to adopt the full new code.
Groups in some other states have fought for legislation that would limit the
sprinkler mandate, but Pennsylvania is the only state in which a group has
sought legal action, said Robert Neale, deputy superintendent at the National
Fire Academy.
Lance Haver, Philadelphia's director of consumer affairs, said that he "didn't
understand the logic" of the PBA's actions.
"They have the financial resources to run ad campaigns, lobby elected officials,
place ads in papers and to do all of those things to call attention to the
issue," he said, "but they're choosing not to involve consumers and the public
to instead go through a legal route that appears not to be working for them."
|
|
