EDITORIAL: Sprinklers a good buy in new homes EDITORIAL: Sprinklers a good buy in new homes (April 06, 2005)

It may not be easy to convince a Menlo Park homeowner to install costly automatic fire sprinkler system when the odds are that it will never be activated. Records compiled by the Menlo Park fire district from 1998 to 2003 show an average of just 31 fires occur per year in the city, resulting in an average of 3.3 fire-related injuries annually.

But that is not the whole story. Like insurance, automatic fire sprinklers are there to cover the worst-case scenario, and who knows when that will occur? Menlo Park fire officials cite material from the National Fire Protection Association that says, "Sprinklers typically reduce the chances of dying in a fire and the average property loss by one-half to two-thirds compared (with) properties where sprinklers are not present." Also: "There are no reported deaths in residences shown to have a properly operating fire sprinkler system."

Last year, when the fire district tried to get the City Council to require sprinklers in new and substantially renovated houses, the idea was voted down on a 3-1 vote. Now, after a year of outreach, Fire Chief Paul Wilson and fire board member Ollie Brown have convinced Mayor Mickie Winkler to bring the idea up again, although this time only new construction will be considered.

Last year in this space we recommended passage of a sprinkler requirement for new homes, but not for remodels, reasoning that such work would be too costly and possibly discourage families from doing the work at all.

This time around, we again believe this area's high residential housing prices make the case for adding sprinklers a no-brainer. Even at a cost of $15,000 for a 3,000-square-foot home, sprinklers would represent only about 1.5 percent of the cost of a home valued at $1 million. And the average 10 percent reduction in the cost of fire insurance would add even more value to the sprinklers.

Another factor for the City Council to consider is that under current regulations, the fire district cannot require sprinklers in large projects, such as the 50-plus homes that are in the planning stages at the former Consolidated Freightways parcels in Linfield Oaks, off Willow Road. The district is in negotiations with the project developer to voluntarily install sprinklers in these closely grouped homes, but Chief Wilson said the district can't force the developer to do so.

Fire officials see passage of the sprinkler ordinance as just the beginning of a long process that eventually would equip a majority of the city's dwellings with the safety devices. Scottsdale, Arizona, began requiring sprinklers in residential and commercial buildings in 1986, and now officials estimate that by next year, 55 to 60 percent of single-family homes and 85 percent of commercial buildings will have sprinklers.

The hesitancy to adopt progressive safety advances like sprinklers is nothing new. The housing industry, like the auto industry, has always been reluctant to incorporate costly upgrades, only to see them become extremely popular later. Double-pane windows were once thought to be a waste of money, but now save billions of dollars in heating costs every year. And auto owners and passengers are much safer and better off with seat belts, air bags and catalytic converters, all fiercely opposed by industry.

Automatic sprinklers may not save the day in every fire, but ask yourself this question: Would you sleep more comfortably in a home equipped with sprinklers than in one without?

E-mail a friend a link to this story.