Senator Robert Singer (R-Monmouth, Ocean) issued the following statement after voting against legislation that was advanced by the Senate to require new single- and two-family homes to have expensive fire sprinkler systems:
“The people of New Jersey should each decide if this expensive measure is necessary in their own homes. Government should not decide how families spend their personal income or force them to spend thousands of dollars more for things in their homes.
“Where does it stop? Burglaries, robberies and home invasions are more common and can be just as dangerous as fires. Do you now make people pay for burglar alarms or home security systems?
“This bill also threatens our recovery from Superstorm Sandy and the Great Recession. Too many of our middle class families are already saddled with steep financial burdens in this uniquely high-tax state.
“Aside from adding to the cost of building a home, this legislation will make homeowners pay more throughout the rest of their lives because of increased water utility fees and general upkeep of the system. Added on top is the increased risk of flooding due to burst water pipes during severe winter weather like the past months that New Jersey just experienced.”
[TLS]
This senator has his head in the right place. Government should NOT be coming into our homes & tell us what we need & what we don’t need
We are not taking about a few thousand dollars. I looked into getting one for my house and it can easily add twenty thousand dollars to the cost of a house
Right on, Mr. Singer.
I agree.
Would you prefer a flood or having your home burn down? Then there is the matter taht this system might save your life. What price do you put on that?
How about we leave it optional and offer a property tax break to those who choose to install the system
Does your house have a sprinkler
Thank you, Mr Singer. U r, of course, 100% right. This bill does a lot more bad than good. I hope Mr Christie vetoes this bad, really bad, bill.
It’s about choice!!
If you want to have sprinklers installed in your house go ahead there is no law stopping you, but why do you need a law to tell you to install them?
All of you out there telling the world we need them “they save lives” show us your house with the installed system and what you paid for the system and how much you saved on your home owners insurance.
I agree with #9. It is a fact that sprinklers save lives.
It is also a fact that if the sprinkler pipes in the attic are poorly insulated they can burst in freezing weather. Think about how cold this winter has been….
Due respect to Mr Singer, but…
A burglar invasion only effects the individuals in that particular home. A fire effects the neighbors and fire fighters and rescue personnel.
Other pipes in the home can burst as well, sprinklers are no more a risk than existing water pipes.
I have sprinklers and I don’t have any ‘water utility fees and/or general up keep fees’ for my sprinkler. Do you pay upkeep fees on you kitchen and toilet pipes? In fact, home insurance will be lower.
Yes, installing in pre-existing homes can be expensive but the law doesn’t include them. It is far cheaper to install in new construction. No one’s shelling unit 20,000 it’s far less and included in your mortgage, you’ll hardly notice the difference per month over the years.
This is not Government telling you what to do. This is 21st century ‘I can do what ever I want even if it puts others in danger’ attitude. Some people seem to feel it’s ok to gamble with life. Since the ‘chances of anything happening are so small’ it becomes more bad than good. Even if that bad is someone or a family dying!!? If we can do something towards saving a life it should automatically be far better than good!
Have you seen the new electrical sockets that a re difficult to plug into? That’s a safety feature that is imposed by law that costs money, but improves safety. I know that having a few sprinkler heads around the house has been proven to save lives. Why the backlash? It improves the safety in your house.