viscousmemories

If you haven't been in a cave for the last week, you probably heard about the nightclub fire in Rhode Island.

The thing I found most disturbing was that the club didn't have a sprinkler system because it was built before 1976. The explanations I've heard for this are that it's illegal to make new building code laws retroactive and that bringing older buildings up to new safety codes is cost-prohibitive. Does anyone realize how insane it sounds to say, "a more comprehensive fire-safety system wasn't required by law because the building was very old." Doesn't it seem logical that the "really old" buildings are the most in need of such precautions?

Godless Dave

You might feel differently if someone came into your business and told you you were required by law to spend tens of thousands of dollars to bring your building up to code. I think the lesson to be learned here is not to set off indoor fireworks in an old, low-ceilinged, wooden building. Actually you shouldn't set off indoor fireworks at all without a permit from the fire chief or fire inspector. I think any municipalities that don't already have that requirement will soon.

simian

I couldn't agree more. However, I do understand why the "grandfather" clauses exist - making the owner of a building go back and spend substantial money retrofitting equipment when the building was (potentially) built less than one year prior and met the existing codes at the time is difficult to justify.

Any idea if the RI or Federal rules require retro-fitting equipment when there is substantial remodeling going on anyway? If not, it may be worth seeing what can be done to add that into legislation.

Then of course, there is the fire in Chicago (in a place that was supposed to be closed).

Unfortunately these things happen all the time - I think the only reason they got press is because the Chicago one was a hangout for some wealthy and recognizable people - the RI one was a nice follow-up story.

We live in a country where people don't like being told to buckle their seatbelts. A country where a 0.08 % blood acohol content for drunk driving is considered to be a draconianly low level. What do you think the odds are that they can be convinced that requiring businesses to put in fire supression equipment is a good thing to be mandated by the government?

I strongly suspect there are a huge number of low income housing building where there are no fire supression systems.

Simian

Loren Pechtel

To require retrofit of sprinklers would be devasating to the owners of old buildings. Added during construction they aren't a big deal. Added afterwards they are.

There's a limit to what we can reasonably spend on safety. Despite how people scream about it, the right way to evaluate safety precautions is by how many $ per life saved. The notion that no price is too high is crazy--if you're going to spend the money on safety, spend it where you get the greatest benefit.

Note that they did *NOT* have the requisite permits. That's the real problem here--the fire marshal would never have signed off on using pyro there. (At least if it wasn't a government project--I can't imagine how our fire marshals signed off on the new government center here.)