Fire Chief

For years I’ve held Habitat for Humanity in the highest esteem. In fact, if powers that be at FIRE CHIEF magazine were to call me to the corner office, hand me a pink slip and show me the door, Habitat for Humanity would be among the first to get my résumé.

For those unfamiliar with Habitat, it is an international charitable organization that uses donated money and materials to build housing for the poor. Those receiving the houses in the United States are required to make a $500 down payment, pay a monthly mortgage and donate 300 to 500 hours of work to help build their house and houses for others. The group’s mission is to eliminate homelessness and poverty housing. They’ve built about a quarter of a million homes around the world since 1976.

Disliking Habitat is akin to disliking puppies. I take no pleasure in scolding puppies.

But last month, just before the International Code Council was preparing to vote on adding a requirement that all one- and two-family homes and townhomes be equipped with fire sprinklers, Habitat for Humanity joined the National Association of Home Builders in formally arguing against the new rule.

It was kind of like coming home to find that your puppy had piddled on your best rug or chewed through a favorite shoe.

In a press release, Elizabeth Blake, Habitat’s senior vice president of advocacy, government affairs and legal, said, “Mandating fire sprinklers fails to recognize [affiliates’] varying needs, and runs the risk of requiring something that may be impractical for some of our partner families…. Each home we don’t build due to an added and unjustified regulatory requirement such as this can leave yet another family in substandard housing.”

So I asked Habitat officials, “What’s up?” I wanted to know how many homes they’ve not built because of regulatory burdens. I wanted them to show me proof that sprinklers caused damage by accidentally discharging or bursting in cold climates. I wanted to know why they came out in opposition and if they plan to carry that fight to the local level. Habitat officials didn’t respond by press time (if they respond later, I’ll update this posting).

According to Habitat’s Web site, the average cost to build one of its houses in the United States is $60,000. The National Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition estimates that a sprinkler system adds 1% to 1.5% to the cost of a new home. Even at 2%, that only adds $120 to the cost of a Habitat home. At those costs, they could build 500 homes with sprinkler systems before costs halted the building of one home. Because Habitat is able to build on the cheap, that percentage may be skewed.

In Austin, Texas, there are about 75 Habitat homes with sprinkler systems. The material and labor costs for a 1,000-square-foot home there is $500, meaning you could add sprinklers to 120 homes for the cost to build one home.

NAHB objected on the grounds that in colder climates, pipes could freeze; that it would be impractical in areas with low water supply; and that accidental discharge would cause damage to the home and its contents.

For 15 years, the city of Scottsdale, Ariz., has had a fire sprinkler requirement on its books. According to Fire Marshal, Jim Ford, about half of the city’s homes now have sprinklers. He estimates that 13 lives and $20 million in property damage have been saved during that time. He also says that the average property loss during the last three years for houses equipped with sprinklers was a bit more than $2,000. The average loss for homes without sprinklers was around $45,000. In Habitat for Humanity terms, that means the cost of a new home is equal to 1.5 house fires without sprinklers and 30 house fires with sprinklers. As for the scarcity of water argument, the average annual rainfall in Scottsdale is 7.74 inches; St. Louis records that much in two months.

And those much closer to the situation than I also find Habitat’s position vexing. Jeff Shapiro, executive director of International Residential Code Fire Sprinkler Coalition, tells me that Habitat for Humanity International had previously taken the position of taking no position on this issue. They had, he says, left it up to their local affiliates to weigh in as they saw fit. Habitat had even sent a representative to testify at the Minneapolis hearing.

Shapiro says there was no evidence presented at the IRC hearing showing damage from accidental sprinkler discharge. He also says that they are being used in places like Alaska. As with any technology, sprinklers have their problems. Systems that use antifreeze in cold climates require careful engineering and maintenance. But with greater demand will come greater innovation, Shapiro says.

It is foolish to assume people can be protected against all unexpected events, even their own mistakes. Yet, protective measures with a low cost threshold and a high return cannot be ignored. Mandatory seatbelts in new vehicles did not put the price of cars out of buyer’s range or bankrupt auto manufacturers. Nor will requiring fire sprinklers run home builders out of business or keep Habitat from its mission. Fire sprinklers, like seatbelts, will greatly reduce the damage these tragic events cause.

Habitat for Humanity International isn’t an excitable young pup with bladder-control issues. It’s more like a good and loyal dog that misbehaved.

It is truly a shame that Habitat for Humanity with its outstanding moral mission has come down on the wrong moral side of this issue. For the sake of its reputation, and more importantly for those it works to help, Habitat for Humanity needs to reverse its position on fire sprinklers.