Jamie, any data on how many lives or property sprinklers would actually save? Without that information there is no way anyone can make a rational decision about this proposed rule being of genuine benefit to city residents.

Here's a presentation put together by the city of Medford, Ore.: http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Files/The%20Case%20for%20Residential%20Fire%20Sprinklers.pdf

I'm sure there are better studies out there, but this one has the advantage of being easily available.

I think sprinkler systems are a great idea. The fact is, other peoples' carelessness is ultimately paid for by the public and by private insurers. Either way, the cost gets passed on.

There are two very good reports that are available free for download.

The first is the Scottsdale Report. Scottsdale AZ was one of the very first cities to enact a sprinkler ordinance in the 1980's. This report, and other presentation materials, can be found at http://www.homefiresprinkler.org/FS/Scottsdale15.html.

The second report is the Residential Fire Sprinkler Activation Report. Its a straightforward statistical analysis of srpinkler activations from 2003 to 2007. Its available for free from the US Fire Administration website.

Both sources provide excellent information on the effectiveness of residential sprinklers, both in saving lives and greatly reducing property loss. And not to jump on the "green" bandwagon, but other recent studies show sprinklers result in a significant reduction in smoke and toxic gases, contaminated water runoff, and landfill impact.

Thanks for sharing those reports, Jerry!

A new well intended $7000-$15000 barrier to improvement. That's 10-20% of the cost of most extensive rehabs.

Do Mary Pat Clarke and Warren Branch have sprinkler systems in their homes? I'd really like to know. If it's worth foisting a $10k cost on everyday citizens, I sincerely hope they consider it so valuable that they've made the investment themselves.

Just the kind of incentive we need to get people to rehab Baltimore's decaying housing stock. Although I suppose it's not that big a deal - the housing market is on fire right now. Tacking on thousands of dollars in extra costs doesn't matter when houses are flying off the market as quickly as they're being listed.

Another Government law to make the decaying housing stock in Baltimore totally unworth renovating that is supported by City Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke, who sponsored the bill with Councilman Warren Branch.
Well now we know that at least these two council people have absolutely no common sense or they are shilling for a sprinkler installation company or both. My God with leadership like this Baltimore you are lucky to not be bankrupt. Oh wait....you are bankrupt. I understand.

Eeek. It already costs thousands of dollars for a owner of the typical 1920s home in Baltimore just to keep it in decent shape, even without major renovations, much less having to add something that requires one of the most expensive skills out there... plumbing. And what to do to get all those pipes in brick and plaster walls? Are our homes going to look like industrial buildings? Are they going to lower property taxes so the homeowners or investors can afford this? I value human life, too, but just because something might be desireable doesn't mean its feasible.

Since the cost is a concern---maybe to start with it could be required only for work with a plumbing permit, and possibly to that add only a certain area of coverage required. That way you get some safety benefit and cut down on the expense unique to the requirement, since the plumber and some of the demolition are already being paid for. Once the cost has had some time to work into the market, then make the requirement broader.

Thanks for the link Jamie.

It helps to have some numbers to assess potential benefits to such a law. However as has been pointed out by others such a law would increase the costs to renovating Baltimore property and we should (and more importantly City Council) should be weighing potential loss of tax receipts from lost renovations if such a law is implemented with any potential savings to property and life from such an ordinance. City Council needs to properly assess how many fires occur in Baltimore City that are in spaces that have been renovated and would have been subject to such a law. And they need to assess what are the potential looses to renovations and increased tax receipts would be.

Also another potential unintended consequence of such a law would be an increase in renovations being done with out pulling any permits or required permits.....

Looks like some of these city workers need to take a course in economics.

If they are free then that's great, but I doubt they will be so it's just another thing we have to pay for on top of taxes and the new health bill.

This sprinkler idea is beyond dumb. The working poor can barely afford to pay their rent now as it is. So how are they gong to be able to afford a several hundred dollar increase in their rents to cover the rehab cost of installing a sprinkler system? The city government is broke as it is, so they aren't going to subsidize the tenant's rent for the portion that is related to the sprinkler install. This bill if passed will put affordable housing Baltimore City out of reach for those who need it most or it will drive out many investors thus creating a shortage of houses in Baltimore. Pick your poison.

I can see both sides of the argument and usually would side with the requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed on safety and environmental grounds. However, that is for new builds where the cost is minimal, I don't agree with making it compulsory for renovation properties as that could substantially increase the cost of the development.

New builds yes but retro fitting every home will be a step to far unless money can be found in the way of grants to home owners willing to pay part.

i really don't understand why some people are complaining about this bill, i think it's a great idea that will undoubtedly save countless lives... in my opinion that's worth the small price of a minimal aesthetics loss.