http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37096603/concerns-over-cost-continue-to-delay-vote-on-fire-sprinkler-bill

great statement: "That's my Christmas wish," said condo owner Pat Paterson to city councilmembers. "Stop thinking of ways to spend our money. There are enough ways that you're doing it now."

duh
"It's so difficult," said councilmember Ann Kobayashi. "There are old buildings and the tenants are also older, they don't want to take out a new loan."
"With all these buildings, we're going to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars for a very rare event and the only people that are going to be happy about it are the contractors," added condo owner Jim Morrow.

I heard it was $8k each unit which seemed too low but $30k to $50k is a significant cost, especially when it's an all or nothing installation. I doubt they'll be able to make the tenants pay for that. At what point (if ever) will the lack of fire sprinklers lower the resale value of the unit.

"There are about 300 high-rises on Oahu that were built before a 1975 law made sprinkler systems mandatory in new structures, according to a survey conducted by the Honolulu Fire Department. The Marco Polo building that caught fire Friday was built in 1971."

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37096603/concerns-over-cost-continue-to-delay-vote-on-fire-sprinkler-bill

great statement: "That's my Christmas wish," said condo owner Pat Paterson to city councilmembers. "Stop thinking of ways to spend our money. There are enough ways that you're doing it now."

duh
"It's so difficult," said councilmember Ann Kobayashi. "There are old buildings and the tenants are also older, they don't want to take out a new loan."
"With all these buildings, we're going to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars for a very rare event and the only people that are going to be happy about it are the contractors," added condo owner Jim Morrow.

"With all these buildings, we're going to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars for a very rare event and the only people that are going to be happy about it are the contractors," added condo owner Jim Morrow.

This is my opinion as well.  There comes a certain point where "safety" doesn't outweigh convenience or cost.  They could reduce traffic fatalities by simply shutting down the freeway and banning people from driving faster than 5mph and include obnoxious penalties.  At a certain point, it doesnt make sense.  And it is idiotic to come up with new regulations when they're not even enforcing current ones.  In the case of marco polo, there were numerous fire code violations that contributed greatly to the spread of the fire.

It's buyer be ware when it comes to fire safety in high rise buildings. If the owners don't like the fire protection in the units, they can either make changes to the property management or move.

I wonder what will happen to the Marco Polo maintenance fees after this fire (not including fire sprinkler installations)? Something for other property managers to consider if a fire happened in their building.

It's buyer be ware when it comes to fire safety in high rise buildings. If the owners don't like the fire protection in the units, they can either make changes to the property management or move.

I wonder what will happen to the Marco Polo maintenance fees after this fire (not including fire sprinkler installations)? Something for other property managers to consider if a fire happened in their building.

Older buildings were generally built a lot tougher because of the lack of the fire sprinklers.  you see a lot of concrete separating units, heavy fire insulation, fire doors etc.  In most fires, you see the fire damage itself contained to a single unit (with the units aruond damageed by water/smoke.  Marco polo is the exception, not the rule.  It's basically built like a huge wind tunnel, and residents having screen doors and fire exits propped open did not help the matter much.  I dont know if they have firehoses in the hallways, but if they did, that could have contained the fire to 1 unit pretty easily.  If residents observed fire code, it likely would not have spread the way it did either.

The city taxpayers should not have to help subsidize installations of sprinklers, and residents of other condos shouldnt' be forced to pay for them either.

I can see why we have so many laws and regulations. Whenever something happens we always beg the local govt. for answers, who to blame and for money. These govt. leaders recognize that and will leverage it for more power.

This regulation that's floating around is like the bump stock reg and others like it.  When something bad happens, law makers are quick to make a reg/law to prevent it.  But don't think about it's practicality.  Grandma on fixed SS income can't afford 10K-20K for the installment.  She can't qualify for a loan either due to having no income.

Cutting costs?  What could possibly go wrong?

Since 9/11 attackers used planes to fly them into high rises - how about having every building over a certain height or of significant economic or cultural value to have its own Patriot battery?
Or let's look at another risk in life.
Have every driver wear a helmet, knee and elbow pads. Makes more sense as we experience more vehicle accidents than we do high rise fires.

Since 9/11 attackers used planes to fly them into high rises - how about having every building over a certain height or of significant economic or cultural value to have its own Patriot battery?
Or let's look at another risk in life.
Have every driver wear a helmet.

Start with motorcycle and scooter riders ....   

Start with motorcycle and scooter riders ....   

they've been debating that issue for decades. Insurance companies would like it. Riders don't want to despite the inherent risk. Heck look at people riding in the back of pickup trucks. No sense at all since we mandate the use of seat belts. That's a bonafide LOOPHOLE!

they've been debating that issue for decades. Insurance companies would like it. Riders don't want to despite the inherent risk. Heck look at people riding in the back of pickup trucks. No sense at all since we mandate the use of seat belts. That's a bonafide LOOPHOLE!

No, a loophole is a failure of the law to cover a specific case unintentionally.  The law specifically allows helmet-less MC riders 18+ yo and pickup truck bed riders 13+ yo.

Cutting costs?  What could possibly go wrong?

The Towering Inferno was an inside job! 

Older buildings were generally built a lot tougher because of the lack of the fire sprinklers.  you see a lot of concrete separating units, heavy fire insulation, fire doors etc. 
The city taxpayers should not have to help subsidize installations of sprinklers, and residents of other condos shouldnt' be forced to pay for them either.

My understanding is that buildings in the 50s and 60s (post WW2) were built to protect the residents from a possible bombardment. As the memory of WW2 faded, developers started making more modern designs. Sprinkler systems were very expensive until they were mandated by municipalities thanks to increased demand. I don't think I've seen a building without fire sprinkler but with fire hoses. If the hoses are tied into the residential water supply, I doubt it would be very effective... more like a garden hose. As I said, I doubt the C&C will be successful with mandating sprinkler installations unless they can show the residents the money.

No, a loophole is a failure of the law to cover a specific case unintentionally.  The law specifically allows helmet-less MC riders 18+ yo and pickup truck bed riders 13+ yo.

damnit. I thought I found one!

damnit. I thought I found one!

An example would something like:  All home owners, including house builders, must pay property tax on all completed units.

So, the builder leaves one thing unfinished until the home sells to avoid paying taxes, like installing the water heater or finishing the drywall installation.  He's taking advantage of a loophole in the way the law is written.

Mandatory fire sprinkler refits aren't going to happen.  They should look at other ideas.  They could mandate installing carbon monoxide detectors in each apartment and network them together to help aid with early evacuation.  Require each apartment have a fire extinguisher.  Have more fire extinguisher's in the hallways.

Mandatory fire sprinkler refits aren't going to happen.  They should look at other ideas.  They could mandate installing carbon monoxide detectors in each apartment and network them together to help aid with early evacuation.  Require each apartment have a fire extinguisher.  Have more fire extinguisher's in the hallways.

Extinguishers are only good for immediate flare-ups.  Once a fire reaches the carpets, drapes and furniture, the smoke and toxic fumes will get you without oxygen tanks.

Maybe adding O2 canisters next to fire hoses and extinguishers will help residents stay and fight a fire instead of evacuating to prevent smoke inhalation?

Extinguishers are only good for immediate flare-ups.  Once a fire reaches the carpets, drapes and furniture, the smoke and toxic fumes will get you without oxygen tanks.

Maybe adding O2 canisters next to fire hoses and extinguishers will help residents stay and fight a fire instead of evacuating to prevent smoke inhalation?

Brings up another idea, volunteer firefighters?  Have a few residents trained for large apartments who can respond quickly.  They don't have to be trained like professional firefighters, but have the know how and minimum equipment to keep the fire from spreading.

Brings up another idea, volunteer firefighters?  Have a few residents trained for large apartments who can respond quickly.  They don't have to be trained like professional firefighters, but have the know how and minimum equipment to keep the fire from spreading.

There would have to be some elements of a volunteer brigade, or else the building could be liable for deaths or injuries if anyone tries to use the firefighting gear without training and acknowledgment of the risks.