City Council has introduced Automatic Sprinkler Bill 220299 and there has been significant pushback. We’re all for fire safety, but this is a definite overreach and will cause more problems than it purports to solve. This specific safety concern has been around for a long time, but I’m curious about this particular bill and what possible motivations may be behind it, apart from fire safety?
Former councilman (and current criminal) Bobby Henon was apparently very involved in the promotion of this bill. Even after he was “unelected”, he still had a hand in its progress. Why so concerned, Bobby? Here’s an article from 2020 that may provide some insight into what’s set Mr. Henon’s solicitude ablaze…
The revenue that could potentially accrue to the local Sprinkler Fitters’ union could be significant. The costs to retrofit high rises in Philly could be staggering. But there seems to be some local mythologizing that all condominium owners are some sort of elites with deep pockets. Not so. It should be noted that many condos are rentals, so any costs will be passed on to tenants and put another potential squeeze on affordable housing in the city.
The sad truth is that most fire deaths in America take place in homes, not high rise buildings.
Older homes are not required to have sprinklers, nor to have hardwired smoke detectors – two technologies that are known to save lives. (Post-2010 residential construction like townhouses, are required to have sprinklers, while detached and semi-detached houses are not.) Battery operated smoke detectors, when present in a home, aren’t always in working order and a common discovery in Philly house fires. Hardwired detectors might be a better use of rent money than an elaborate piping system that has its own potential problems. But the law does not seem to punish landlords for failing to insure their buildings are properly equipped in the event of a fire or disincentivise removal of detector batteries by residents. The law could probably be more creative in preventing house fires & increasing safety.
Here are some examples that may be cited by proponents of this bill. They are not examples of typical high rise fires, of which there have been very few in Philly over the years. Here a fire started in a high-rise basement and some basements of high rises are actually exempt from the law.
A 2018 arson fire is often mentioned. Call me crazy, but if an owner is purposely burning down his building, with zero regard for the neighbors, I suspect he’s going to turn off the sprinklers, so bad example.
There was a tragic fire in a small apartment building in Philly in January of 2022 and a dozen people died. That building would have been exempt from the current legislation.
The structures in these examples are a far cry from mid-century high rises built of steel and concrete with hardwired smoke detectors, effective fire towers and elaborate alert systems for residents. Buildings like this are extremely safe, but this bill is a one-size-fits-all. There do not seem to be any considerations for buildings that already meet strict criteria. This is another reason why it should be suspect.
There are more cost effective ways to insure Philadelphians are safe from fires in their residences and other technologies that don’t favor certain unions. This bill is not an example of a thoughtful response to fire safety. Mark Squilla and Katherine Gilmore Richardson should either amend it significantly or rewrite it altogether to create a true and reasonable fire safety bill for all Philadelphians.
It's Always Phunny in Philadelphia 