Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Staff Contacts | Home RSS
 
 
 

‘Fire suppression’ ordinance: Residential sprinkler requirement proposed

March 23, 2013

Two city council members say they want to help save the lives of young children and the elderly while aiding the efforts of the Cape Coral Fire Department....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(8)

Raydunavant

Mar-26-13 2:45 PM

I just watched the video of the fire sprinkler discussion.

Lurch made a fool of himself as usual!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Raydunavant

Mar-24-13 11:57 AM

If Lurch is for it, I am against it!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lightswitch

Mar-23-13 11:21 PM

This is so bogus. First of all the statement to save the children and the elderly. I guess it is to Hades with those in between. Bottom line is it is a scare tactic to push taxable value up artificially to feed a ravenous creature called city government. Higher building costs, more building inspections, more annual checks of equipment, higher administration charges by the city. Let's see some statistics of the number of residential fires and the deaths caused by those fires.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johngalt

Mar-23-13 4:02 PM

Nesta said. "It's not to extinguish the fire. The fire department still has to go out there, but it will make things easier because when they enter a building, there is a suppression factor to it." Notice how carefully the union mouthpiece chose his words...So we have an unsubstantiated epidemic of structure fires killing the young & old in Cape Coral? My unsubstantiated guess is more folks are injured by ladders & lawn mowers. Perhaps we could craft an ordinance that requires citizens to have city maintenance crews cut our lawns and trim our trees. … I’ll agree to it if they cut the CCFD budget by 50%.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KirstenThompson

Mar-23-13 3:55 PM

Johngalt, I agreed with you up to the point of "first responder union gravy". I feel pretty comfortable saying that I sincerely doubt the fire union has been working closely with Leetz on this ordinance.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johngalt

Mar-23-13 9:53 AM

Brezhnev Doctrine, by which the Soviet Union once told the Free World, "What's ours is ours; what's yours is negotiable." “ Fire sprinklers in all new homes and an increase to a min. 5/8’ water supply.” ? Any alert taxpayer can tell you that water impact fees are based on the size of the water supply. Bigger pipe=bigger fee. Any building owner that has a sprinkler installed will tell you about the monthly “fire line fee” on his water monthly bill for the dubious honor of being connected to the system. Oh, if you have a fire sprinkler system, it requires an annual inspection, both public and private ($$). This has little to do with public safety, more likely “first responder union gravy”.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SLovejoy

Mar-23-13 9:19 AM

I also agree, we don't need the city telling us we have to do this.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KirstenThompson

Mar-23-13 8:36 AM

Who wants to get up and say they don't back this? I guess I will be the rebel. I think it is a great idea to add sprinklers to new construction, don't get me wrong. And the price is affordable. So why don't I support it? I am opposed to any ordinance or legislation that mandates I must do something. Make it an incentive with a reduction in impact fees or discount permitting fees but don't 'mandate' it. Even if it is for my own good, I don't respond well to anyone telling me I MUST do something.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 8 of 8 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web