Sprinklers required in new houses

Council passes measure pushed by firefighters

By ERIN COX, Staff Writer

Published 01/06/09

Fire sprinklers will soon be required in all new Anne Arundel homes after the County Council approved the mandate last night.

Firefighters have lobbied for the across-the-board sprinkler rule for the better part of a decade, and one veteran volunteer firefighter called last night's victory a "landmark piece of legislation."

With the New Year, the council also resolved several other lingering issues from 2008, including tweaking the county's doghouse rule, expanding the solar energy tax credit and rejecting a measure that mandates pollution-reducing septic systems in some homes in the environmentally sensitive...

This story has expired!
You can purchase the full text in our news archives.

YOUR COMMENTS

RULES OF PARTICIPATION

If you encounter other problems, please email ewiffin@capitalgazette.com and include your name, username, and any errors or messages that are displayed. The more information you can provide, the better able we will be to assist you.

In order to post or vote on a comment, you must be signed in with a hometownannapolis account.

Report Abuse or Vote In order to allow the user community the ability to collectively rank the value of comments posted on the Capital Gazette websites we have implemented a thumbs-up/down system. All logged-in users may participate by voting up/down each comment. If others vote on your comment, your individual score will go up/down depending on the votes. Initially, everyone starts with a score of zero, and must earn credits to have significant voting weight. Individuals with higher scores will have more voting weight. 0

Sweet - January 9, 2009

This is great news. Now when the system malfunctions and ruin someone's home and property, is the Anne Arundel County Council going to foot the bill for the repairs? I don?t think so. Didn't they also required fire retardant roofing plywood, that disintegrates at 140 degrees and PPB plumbing as well? Excellent decisions. It only cost me about $11,000 to fix those gems. --- The ironic side.... There are far more county citizens injured, maimed and killed in vehicle accidents than fires. How about a mandatory county wide 35 mph speed limit on all roads? It would reduce emissions and bay pollution too right? You may snicker at the thought but it would save a more lives in a single year than this moronic sprinkler law will in a lifetime.

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking

Dave D. - Pasadena, MD - Karma: Neutral

Maybe... :-) - January 7, 2009

Johnathan, that is what I get for reading and writing while exhausted. :-) However, I think you read too much into my posting when you say we should submit legislation that we are disinterested in. My reasoning for the posting was this: If I wanted to submit legislation (that interests me, of course), I would not have the same "influence" as did Ms. Vitale's husband. There would be a tremendous amount of work to get to the point of legislation. My first read of the article last night was the perception that the legislation was fast tracked because of a close relationship, which should not happen at any level of government (although you did state it took 10 years for it to pass). Whether it was for financial, material, or sentimental gain, my perception is that it got more than a fair share of attention because of the relationship.

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking

Steve K. - ANNAPOLIS, MD - Karma: Neutral

Group of one? - January 7, 2009

Steve I'm failing to make the connection as to how you can see this as a "possible" ethics violation. "Interest" refers to a financial or material interest ie: you, your spouse or relative or buddy own's a stake in a local pipe producer that would benefit down the road from a new market that emerged from this bill passing. "Interest" does not refer to concerned citizens, their spouses or relatives who introduce legislation that they see benefiting the County Residents. Under the auspice of your rationale you are suggesting that we could only submit legislation that disinterested us. The firefighters obviously see what happens in the absence of sprinkler systems so they most likely wouldn't have been pushing so hard for the last 10 years if they didn't think that it would save many lives and property.

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking

Johnathan Locke - Edgewater, MD - Karma: Good

Conflict of Interest? - January 6, 2009

There seems to be an ethics violation when a special interest group (firefighting husband) has easy access to a legislator that introduces legislation favoring that special interest group. In this case, the legislation should have been introduced by someone other than Ms. Vitale to avoid an ethics violation. Ms. Vitale's introduction of this particular legislation, which was lobbied for by firefighters and whose husband is a career firefighter, seems to be in violation of section 7-5-101 ( ?7-5-101. Restrictions on participation. This section prohibits an employee from participating in any matter, except for a ?non-discretionary administrative duty that does not affect the disposition or decision with respect to that matter involved?, if the employee, or one of the employee?s ?qualifying relatives? has an interest in the matter.) and section 7-5-110 (?7-5-110. Legislative acts of members of County Council. This section limits participation by a member of the county council in legislative activity as to any matter if the council member or a qualifying relative of the council member has an interest in the matter.) listed in the Conflict of Interest section on the Ethics Commission home page. While I believe that Ms. Vitale's intentions were for the public good, I think this issue should be brought before the ethics commission to determine if there was a conflict of interest. Rules should not be bent or broken because the act was well intentioned. If the public would be better served by a particular action or process, the rule should be changed to allow for those well intentioned actions or processes.

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking

Steve K. - ANNAPOLIS, MD - Karma: Neutral

Fire Sprinkler systems - January 6, 2009

When will people simply learn to take responsibility for themselves? More importantly will the government allow (perhaps 'encourage') people to take care of themselves? I do understand that the government should pass laws for general safety; traffic laws, building codes, product warnings, food and drug standards, and many more. The government is here to protect people from 'each others'. If I choose to not have sprinklers in my newly constructed single family home why should the government intervene? Smoke detectors are required and for great reason. However, should we legislate monthly battery checks? If I choose not to install sprinklers, perhaps I should have to pay a higher premium for home owners insurance, perhaps I have incurred a slightly higher risk but it is my choice. If an owner believes it to be that important have sprinklers installed. Pay for the installation. This legislation simply forces people to spend money on something that they may not want or need. In my opinion I believe there is an increased potential of home damage from accidental activation. I also believe them to be very unsightly, adding an industrial quality to a homes decor. Am I alone? Can we ask the government to take a step back? More over I ask, if we have time to legislate over dog houses, do we have too much time on the government's hands?

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking

Scott K. - Annapolis, MD - Karma: Bad