Fire Sprinklers

Honorable Senator XXXX,

Why do we continue to see fire fighters die in fires at non-residential buildings where there are no civilians in need of rescue? In the past year we have lost nine fire fighters in Charleston, South Carolina in a furniture store fire, two fire fighters in New York City to a fire in an abandoned commercial high rise office building, and two firefighters to a chinese restaurant in Boston. This is probably in addition to others that do not make the national news. In each case, there were no civilians in peril within the building when the fire department arrived at the scene.

Having been a member of a fire department myself that lost a firefighter to a fire in a rug warehouse that was closed for the holidays, I know the empty feeling inside when you realize that you lost a brother because he was asked to defend items, stock, inventory, physical assets; all of which could have been replaced by the insurance company.

Since we are never going to stop fire fighters from entering buildings that are on fire, we need to offer a higher level of protection to both civilians and fire fighters alike. It is a widely accepted fact that fire sprinklers work. They protect both life and property. They stand guard waiting to be employed to extinguish or at least control a fire, and they cost very little when compared to the life expectancy of a typical building. Some original fire sprinklers that were installed back in the 1800’s are still in use today. Think about it, if you compare the original installation cost of the system, plus the periodic maintenance cost, to the number of years it has been in service; the cost of the system is probably less then the amount of money the building owner has spent on flowers for the front entrance.

The fact of the matter is, we expect a certain level of safety and security when we enter a commercial building or company property. We expect to be able to safely walk through the building and to not be electrocuted by exposed wires. We do not expect to be hit by a falling safe, piano or any other heavy object. We expect to not slip and fall on wet floors, and if the floors are wet, we expect to be warned by a sign or other hazard warning. In each of these cases, we would consider the owner negligent if they allowed the situation to continue to the point where someone was injured. So if we can expect a certain level of safety when we enter a property, we should then not expect to be killed by an out of control fire or smoke condition. Furthermore, why should a firefighter expect to be called to a building that is on fire only to find that the owner neglected to install a fire sprinkler system? The time has come to hold all non-residential building owners responsible for fire related deaths that involve a building without a fire sprinkler system.

I would like to propose a bill mandating that all non-residential building owners be required to have a fire sprinkler installed and maintained. In the event that the building does not have a sprinkler system, and any civilian or fire fighter is killed due to a fire or smoke condition, the building owner shall face manslaughter charges and a mandatory jail sentence. Furthermore, any and all of their other commercial properties will be seized and sold with the proceeds being paid to the surviving families.

Everyone knows that fire sprinklers save lives and property. It is time for building owners to step-up and invest in the safety of the people they profit from, and the people that protect their assets. We should not end the next 100 years with fire sprinkler being an option for building owners. The time to act is now.

I’d appreciate your attention and support in this matter.


Respectfully,


John M. Stofa