How sad that some want to remove consumer choice in buying decisions.
What happened to freedom?
Freedom is still there, it is about saving your arse. Some people are to ignorant to maintain smoke fire alarms in an operational state. It is also about saving properties and lives.
No it is not Marcel.
If I chose to live in a shack built from pallets, that’s my business not yours or the governments.
I would hope you believe in personal responsibility along with property rights but not being responsible always comes with a cost that must be paid.
Taking money out of someones pocket by force of law is still theft and it is sad how many in this country truly desire the nanny state to take care of them and protect them from themselves:(
Someone has to protect the idiots out there from dying in a fire because of their lack of responsibilty.
It is about saving lives, and unfortunately, just as the same idiots create laws to not drive drunk on the road, or rob banks, we all have to pay for the protection of all.
What is your problem with a sprinkler system that will save your butt?
Look at the statistics out there before you voice your opinion on something you feel is infringing on your freedom. If you don’t like it you can stay in your own shack unprotected, I will send you flowers.
Debate over home fire sprinklers heats up in Maine
The Associated Press
Posted July 17, 2011, at 9:44 a.m.
https://bangordailynews.com/wp-content/themes/bdn/images/print.gif https://bangordailynews.com/wp-content/themes/bdn/images/mail.gif [https://bangordailynews.com/wp-content/themes/bdn/images/facebook.gif](http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://bdn.to/9j3d&t=Debate over home fire sprinklers heats up in Maine) https://bangordailynews.com/wp-content/themes/bdn/images/twitter.gif
SOUTH PORTLAND, Maine — The debate over whether to mandate fire sprinklers in new homes is heating up in Maine.
South Portland City Council is expected to take up the issue later this summer. If it passes, South Portland would join Portland, Westbrook and Rockland as the only municipalities in Maine with such a requirement.
Gorham, Falmouth and Sanford have limited ordinances that require sprinklers under certain circumstances, such as new homes in subdivisions that don’t have water sources for fire departments.
The Maine Sunday Telegram says those local efforts are part of a nationwide debate that’s been going on since the mid-1980s, when Scottsdale, Ariz., became the first major city to mandate sprinklers in new homes.
South Portland Fire Chief Kevin Guimond says the sprinklers save lives. Homebuilders, real estate agents and banks oppose such requirements.
Why?
Do you consider someone who doesn’t want to pay for a sprinkler system an idiot?
If so that is an extremely broad brush you are using.
Marcel, if I want to get in a plane, parachute out of it and take my chances that the chute will open that is my right.
You apparently would ban the activity entirely to “save lives”
How far are you wiling to go for the cause of saving lives?
There will always be someone that wants to do even more than you may find reasonable.
One either believes in the concept of freedom or is willing to take it away from others for some so called good.
Call me crazy but I still believe this country was founded on freedom and personal responsibility and it is sad to see in diminished by taking the rights of others away.
You are free to believe in whatever you want Mike.
Try changing it.
Marcel, you said this:
I don’t think you meant to infer that lack of sprinkler isntallation was idiotic but one could read it either way which is why I asked.
I find it disturbing that so many are wiling to give up their hard won freedoms.
You don’t usually get them back without a revolution.
It is not my responsibility to protect you or anyone else besides my wife and kids.
Your insurance point is right on.
Let them decide via premiums and incentives. That maintains freedom while government mandates do the opposite.
Marcel,
what was the price per sqft to sprinkler retrofit your own property?
Many years ago we heard how some people thought it was a violation of their rights on seat belts then Air Bags .
I wonder how many of those people are alive today because they where made mandatory .
I expect they will kick and holler but end up Living longer because of Sprinklers .
It has been proven they save lives and homes.
CMHC … has this info…
. http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/publications/en/rh-pr/tech/99-102_e.pdf
It was and is, just as forced wearing of helmets is.
Like I said you either believe in the principles of freedom and personal responsibility or you are willing to take it away from others.
Again, the insurance companies could have moved the populace toward these important safety devices through incentives and premium adjustments.
That is the free market way that maintains our cherished freedom.
The other is tyranny.
Barry, If I had your money to get it done, I could tell you. :mrgreen:
All I need is one head in the basement and one in the garage since my car is under the bedrooms, all adaptable off the domestic lines.
Garage would need a dry side wall application. Guessing, $ 300 using my friends at Eastern Fire Protection. Worked with them for years. 
But you are willing to price someone else out of the market with these safety mandates?
That is inconsistent Marcel.
Mike, call it whatever you want, I am not going to argue with you all night.
As a former Fire fighter i have feelings about this.
I feel all new homes built should have them
A considerable reduction in your insurance and taxes should implemented if installed on a existing home. (This should be enforced by law the reduction of tax and insurance.) that is
This a life saving system , I do not agree it is taking your freedom away , you may be the owner but children do not have a say in what dad and mom spend money on nor do the neighbors beside the home. Fire fighters die every day trying to save people in burning homes, so those who have not walked with dragon should not spout.
On the other hand if 50 percent of the people can not even bother installing batteries I am wondering how a sprinkler system’s are going to be maintain . also what worries me are the pencil necks that run the local government will see this will be a cost cutting for them reducing fire fighting personal and equipment which will cost more fire fighters lives .
So with that i feel a careful steps should be taken in enforcing sprinklers
Guidelines should set
1.Ensure all Municipalities are not able to recklessly reduce the Fire Dept.
2.Insurance companies are forced to reduce Insurance on any older home retrofitted . In fact Insurance companies could be approached to help off set the price on older homes by low cost loans for the retrofit .
3, laws in place on a maintenance scheduled certification of sprinkler systems because we all know Home owners will not do it.
4. Water sprinklers may not be the only system , Dry Chemical should looked at ( less property damage . faster turn around time .
Besides if done right this could be a avenue to create more jobs across the country.
So i see it as a win, Less loss of life and property, Create jobs for installing and a avenue for creating companies to maintain and certify
I can see Nick and Ben now huddling in a dark room creating a certification course lol
Costs would lower with demand ( that should make some Happy)
As far as freedom i think we should be able drive as fast as we want but can we? no. why? for safety reasons
Thanks Wayne, well said. 
You nanny state boys stick together I get it. 
Someday a cherished freedom of yours will be taken away and there will be no one left to defend you.
I hope you enjoy the tyranny of it all.
None of you have attempted to explain why the force of government is needed to accomplish the goal of safety but I sure would like to see you try.
Thank you Wayne can I use this at My presentation Love it big Time … Roy
**You have to be willing to listen before someone can explain it **.
:shock:.
None of your arguments promotes freedom Wayne.
They only take it away I just cannot support that.
One can make all kinds of excuses for taking others peoples money but it is what it is.
Maybe you country of origin does not value freedom as much as many here do.