before he just declares an argument to be a "worst". From his column from a Sunday ago was this:
Among the worst arguments we heard for any bill this week was that by Sen. Tom DeBlois, R-Manchester, trying to pass a bill exempting developers from fire sprinkler requirements.
The sprinklers push up new-home costs, he said, and "it doesn’t save that many lives more than smoke alarms."
Worst? Or is it because it implies that dreaded phrase "cost / benefit"? I’ve seen this play out before ("…if it only saves one life!"), but in this case, let’s do what this MSM reporter failed to do – provide context. I remembered this from a while ago from Popular Mechanics (Sept 14, 2010). The lead of the story was this:
No one wants to see anyone die, especially from burns or smoke inhalation from a fire. It would be nice if we could just snap our fingers and save everyone for free. However, like everything else in life, there are costs; the other relevant bits:
…The California Building Industry Association estimates sprinklers will add about $5000 to the price of a new home….
Not an inconsiderable amount of money – add that to a starter home, it could keep some buyers out of the market from a governmental mandated cost. However, would it be effective, or is this merely a way for one industry (fire sprinkler manufacturers) rent-seek its marketplace by the use of Government regulation?
The fire survival rate in homes with working smoke detectors is 99.41 percent, according to the NFPA. Toss in a sprinkler, and the rate rises to 99.6 percent. "Consider how little it costs to install smoke alarms," Orlowski says. "For the cost of the sprinklers, you’re really not getting a significant increase in safety." But you are, for better or worse, buying a house that’s built to the latest code.
Right – an increase of 0.19%. Worth $5000? To some, maybe, and they would gladly pay it. For others, no. Me? I have no intention of retrofitting my house, if that is any indication – and I have a working wood stove that is used.
Thus, for Tom Fahey to call it a "worst argument" itself is a "worst argument" on the other side. A simple Google search might have given him the context – I guess we bloggers have to do their work….again….or…
In this case, was it media bias? It certainly seemed that the Press took quite the delight in pointing out the stumbles of the Rs as they took over from the Ds this cycle.
In any case, it is clear that NH Senator Tom DeBlois was right – if it were me, I’d simply put in another smoke detector or two, get the fresh batteries, and make sure my insurance was paid up.
