With time running out, sprinkler bills in troubleBy Yvonne Wenger (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
COLUMBIA — Although communities across the state have been impacted by fires in the last year that have grabbed the national spotlight, legislation aimed at getting sprinklers in more homes and businesses is in trouble. At a glanceTHE ISSUE: How the state should be involved in encouraging home and business owners to install fire sprinklers. THE PROBLEM: Two versions of bills differ in the tax incentives offered, and the Legislature is running out of time to turn the proposals into law. WHAT'S NEXT: The full Senate Finance Committee must send either the House or Senate version to the floor for a vote. The committee meets again next week. This year's legislative session is down to the final four weeks, and two bills to offer tax incentives to those who install sprinkler systems are stuck in the Senate. "We're going to try to do whatever we can," said Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, R-Gaffney. "There are examples statewide of why it's needed." Peeler acknowledged, though, "it's an uphill battle." A Senate subcommittee agreed Tuesday to send one of the bills to the Finance Committee, where the House version has languished since February. The versions are very different. The House passed its bill to give homeowners and businesses a state income tax credit worth 80 percent of the cost of purchasing and installing a sprinkler system, up to $50,000. The latest changes to the Senate bill would allow a maximum of 50 percent of the cost of a system, half through local property taxes and half from the state. The state portion, under the proposal, would only be available if local governments agreed to offer a property tax credit. Both versions would limit tap fees to actual costs. Sen. Danny Verdin, R-Laurens, who has taken the lead in trying to build consensus in the Senate for the bill, said it has been a tough road. "We had a hard time trying to find something that met little or no resistance," he said. Gov. Mark Sanford weighed in early in the process with his concerns about making sure whatever the Legislature considers does not go too far. "The catastrophic fire in Charleston shows the importance of enhancing fire safety, but as saddening as those events were, I believe we should be very deliberate in forging law to deal with this tragedy," Sanford wrote in a letter dated March 28 to senators. Firefighter CoverageIn our special section with photos, videos, interactives, donation information and every story written about the tragedy.Sanford said Tuesday that he stands by the concern voiced in his letter: "Although the property-owners who install fire sprinklers under this legislation will be the primary beneficiaries of increased fire safety, the taxpayers will shoulder nearly all of the costs." Following the Sofa Super Store fire in June that took the lives of nine firefighters, Charleston-area lawmakers joined the fight first waged by their counterparts from Greenville. Greenville was shaken by a fire in 2004 at a Comfort Inn that killed six people. After a house fire in October at Ocean Isle Beach, N.C., where seven South Carolina college students died, more resolved to continue the fight. "I understand there are concerns, but when you have tragedies of this magnitude, I think this is the least we can do," said Rep. Chip Limehouse, R-Charleston. "We need to do what we can on a state level to ensure this never happens again. This legislation will absolutely save lives in the future." Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-799-9051 or ywenger@ postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 18 comment(s)
Posted by Thomas1776 on May 14, 2008 at 2:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Stupid law by corrupt lawmakers.
Posted by BillytheKid on May 14, 2008 at 2:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The owners of the type of properties that would need to HAVE, that is what the law should be, got off cheap when the building was built. Sprinklers have been around for a long time and they should have been mandated years ago.
The property owner, that has to put in the sprinklers, would in the end get their money back in insurance savings. It cost a hell of a lot less for fire insurance when you have a sprinkler system. Hooking into the water system should be at no cost, except for labor and parts to tie into the system.
The lawmakers sold their vote on this issue.
Posted by motoflyguy on May 14, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hey thomas the best way not to apear ignorant is to not speak if you don't know the facts
1-No person has ever died in a sprinkled home ...ever
2-The water departments can not prove any impact...so no
impact fee is justified
3-The insurance companoes do not give a fair discount for sprinklers in fact the amout of discount is as low as 2 to 4 percent and then the discount is shared with other incentives such as smoke detectors
4 Sprinklers relieve the fire department from the primary responsibility to protect the building occupants and save because we can down size the Fire Department...so the primary benefit is to the homeowner but the entire tax base community benefits as well
5 Argue and resist but ultimatly people will die if we don't embrace the technology of sprinklers and...
6 These lawmakers and this Govonor have blood on their hands for this!
Those who would make glib comments and allow this resistance to change are not the ones who have lost family and loved ones to fire especially at the SSS where inocent firemen died but then think how much money was saved by not installing a sprinkler system why im sure if would have cost at least 90,000 (60,000 of which is tap fees for a system that uses no water)so 90,000 divided by 9Lives equals 10,000 per fireman ...we should be very ashamed because this stupid fire in this illegal building has made us the case study all over the country...but its ok cause we are saving that money
Posted by motoflyguy on May 14, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh yeah a couple of more things
The building owner has committed a criminal act by exposing us to an unreasonable threat and therefore people have died so that constitutes manslaughter and when the reports are in he will be charged!
The city and the fire department were negligent in thier duty to the public and grossly failed in their responsibility to protect the public
It will happen again because their are other buildings out there that are not protected and they are ticking time bombs
HOW MANY MORE HAVE TO DIE FOR US TO GET IT...
Posted by 3olivesmike on May 14, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not so sure the SSS owner will be charged. He seems to have a pretty impressive teflon coating. The city's even giving him money so he can set up more fire traps.
Posted by wpc3iop on May 14, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Our legislature strikes again by doing nothing...VOTE THEM ALL OUT!!
Posted by ColdBeer on May 14, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nothing will be done until someone in the good ol' boy network decides to sell and install sprinklers. At that point, what ever works out well for that new business will be inacted in to law.
Posted by gencon1 on May 14, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wish you posters would use your brain instead of your emotions when you post.
The store was not required to have sprinklers by the building code. It was no more a firetrap than any other furniture store in the state. Most furniture stores are laid out the same way. Several firemen stated that they knew that store was a "deathtrap". Of course they didn't say that until after the fire. The store owner isn't a trained firefishter who knew the dangers. He complied with all of the issues brought up during the fire inspections.
I have heard all of you "experts" explain that you knew it was a firetrap. If you all knew it was a firetrap, tell me why 9 highly trained firefighters ran into a burning building that they knew was a death trap.
Then please explain to me why it's a furniture salesman's fault that these highly trained firefighters ran into a death trap when they knew beforehand that it was dangerous?
It's like blaming a guy that owns a peice of property with a 100 foot cliff when someone comes along and jumps off the cliff. These firefighters knew it was dangerous and yet didn't treat the building like it was dangerous.
As far as requiring sprinklers in buildings. Any new building or substantial improvement to a building must meet the building code that is in place at the time of the construction.
The way it's always worked is the building code is changed about every 3 years and all constructions must adhere to the new codes. A building only has to meet the code that was in effect when it was constructed or remodeled.
It doesn't make sense to require existing buildings to meet the latest greatest code every time there is a change.
That would put a huge burden on building owners that no one could keep up with.
Posted by motoflyguy on May 14, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gencon
While your assessment is correct about the code requirements at the time of construction, any time you operate in an unlawful or unsafe manner that results in the death of other persons you have committed involentary manslaughter...PERIOD He will be charged you watch
The second thing is that any time a business relocates it must bring the facilities up to the current standard for that type of operation in that particular building. It is the business owners responsibility to ensure he is operating lawfully and safely.
Lastly there was unpermitted modifications to the building that were directly related to this tragedy and that is a violation of the law (the building code is LAW not just suggestions)
The SSS still has a store in west ashley and it has NO SPRINKLERS he still doesnt get it! and neither do you for that matter but thats ok because we are saving all that money
Posted by RTC on May 14, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RUSTY THOMAS IS RETIRING!!!
IT'S ON THE NEWS NOW!!!
Posted by Thomas1776 on May 14, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
motoflyguy,
Why do you harass people on this website? Don't you know that can get you put in jail?
Bite me.
Posted by Thomas1776 on May 14, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The House passed its bill to give homeowners and businesses a state income tax credit worth 80 percent of the cost of purchasing and installing a sprinkler system, up to $50,000.
Posted by Thomas1776 on May 14, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rusty Thomas should not get any retirement. He needs to be sued till the cows come home!
Posted by Thomas1776 on May 14, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why should we have to pay for other peoples sprinkler systems with OUR money we had to work for?
I think if this bill is passed and made into law, civil suits should be filed seeking to strike it down. It's illegal to force people to pay for someone else's SPRINKLER system. South Carolina tax payers are going to have their money fleece and stolen because of these corrupt tyrants in Columbia.
There needs to be a Federal Investigation as to what exactly is going on in the Statehouse. This monkey business is getting old.
Posted by motoflyguy on May 14, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Thomas
Why dont you spend more time persuing the facts instead of making stupid insulytting comments...Now leave your mamas computer alone and go finish your homework cause you really need the educational experience that the CCSB is providing for the slower public school kids like you
Posted by gencon1 on May 14, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Moto:
The sofa superstore in West Ashley has sprinklers. You need to get your facts straight.
Posted by JohnS on May 14, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a knee jerk bill. A business should not be made to put these in at taxpayer expense.
Posted by madpeeps on May 14, 2008 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People are we really going to let the state tell the taxpayers that they have to pay to put sprinkler systems in local businesses. That is a part of business. If you can not afford it do not open a business. Why should we as taxpayers pay so people can open a business. Don't we do that as consumers.
If you read the last bit of this article, it stated that people died in a hotel fire in Greenville a few years ago. I f you remember back then the state tryed to pass a law says that all hotels and motels had to upfit with sprinklers. Guess who was the biggest opponent of that. The city of Charleston's precious Mayor Riley.
Mayor Riley ran to Columbia and fought strenously so mom and pop bed and breakfasts could stay open.
Y'all chew on that for a while, and decide how much more you want to pay for goods today. Aren't gas prices bad enough do we want to be raped by every other business in this state.