Fire Sprinklers in Homes Don’t Serve Greater Public Purpose
Fire Sprinklers in Homes Don’t Serve Greater Public Purpose
Editor,
The editorial in the Jan. 24 Free Lance spoke in favor of the Board of Supervisors approving the sprinkler ordinance for new homes and homes with substantial renovation.
There is no doubt it would reduce fire damage and the need for such large fire departments. It would be an improvement over smoke alarms for warning individuals and possibly saving lives.
The California Coastal Commission is notorious for imposing conditions on individuals. In Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled there must be a logical connection between a condition placed on an individual and the public purpose for which the condition is imposed.
The key is public purpose. Imposing a condition on an individual homeowner benefits the individual, not the public. There is no public purpose for imposing a sprinkler system on an individual’s home.
The city of Fresno apparently attempted to circumvent Nollan. The rational supporting the city’s ordinance was sprinkler systems in new homes would help alleviate the chronic water shortage and air pollution, thus benefiting the public.
Fresno County Superior Judge Donald Franson ruled on Aug. 25, 2006, that the Fresno ordinance was not valid. There is no data to back the claim that a sprinkler system will improve air quality or save water. The city of Fresno may appeal the ruling.
The issue is not the merits of a sprinkler system. They are effective.
The issue is the government imposing conditions on individuals for the individual’s good, not the public good.
The Fresno Bee article of Aug. 26 mentioned the possibly of the builder being liable if a fire starts in an area not covered by sprinklers. Squirrels collecting insulation from electrical wiring in the attic or under your house resulting in a fire is an example.
Marvin L. Jones
Hollister
