Carriers have an effective way to influence a change. Offer a roofing credit to all new construction and existing units to homeowners and insured who have their buildings built to the proposed standard. Let market forces dictate the change and reduce the biased building influenced planning and development bureaucracy.
Your proposal sounds good, but the implementation is difficult. How much discount? There is not data to tell those of us that set up prices how much we should discount. The discount needs to be large enough to influence behavior but if too large, insurance companies could lose money. Also, how does a company know for sure that the roof meets the standard? If we pay for an inspection, that increases expenses and that needs to be contemplated in the rate. The cost of the inspection could offset the amount of discount. Good idea, but may or may not be practical.
More than 8 years and still no progress on lightweight construction without adequate fire protection.
NAHB refuses to spend 1% for highly effective fire sprinklers!
The NAHB is lobbying against the implementation of national standards and requirements not the implementation of any standards or requirements. Homes are built differently around the US. For example, homes in California rarely have basements while homes in the mid-west regularly have 8 feet tall basements. A national standard regulating the height and type of construction of the lowest floor of a building does not take this into account, nor does this take into account man made levies built in many areas of the US.
The NAHB does represent the interest of home builders. However, the ICC represents architects, code enforcement bureaus and other industries that benefit from increased code regulation. Both sides have a bias.
1% to die for gives the best example of bad legislation meant to benefit the fire sprinkler industry under the guise of safety. There were around 3,000 fire related deaths in the US in 2013 making up around .12% of total US deaths.
The sprinkler lobby claims sprinklers only increase costs by 1%. It is estimated that home fire causes $6.5 billion in loss per year which sounds like a lot until you consider the state of California alone has 13.5 million housing units. Dividing the $6.5 billion in damage by Just CA’s housing stock you get $481 or about 1% of a home worth $48,100 home. In other words the cost of installing sprinklers in only California homes costs more than the loss from fire each year. This doesn’t even consider the cost of inspecting homes for compliance or the fact that poor households will be significantly more burdened by the replacement requirement.
Sprinkler requirements are not only economically ineffective but also infringe on individual rights to choose how to build on private property.
Carriers have an effective way to influence a change. Offer a roofing credit to all new construction and existing units to homeowners and insured who have their buildings built to the proposed standard. Let market forces dictate the change and reduce the biased building influenced planning and development bureaucracy.
But you see, that makes too much sense. Bureaucrats do not have this trait and often make rules to perpetuate their jobs, so they won’t use it.
Your proposal sounds good, but the implementation is difficult. How much discount? There is not data to tell those of us that set up prices how much we should discount. The discount needs to be large enough to influence behavior but if too large, insurance companies could lose money. Also, how does a company know for sure that the roof meets the standard? If we pay for an inspection, that increases expenses and that needs to be contemplated in the rate. The cost of the inspection could offset the amount of discount. Good idea, but may or may not be practical.
More than 8 years and still no progress on lightweight construction without adequate fire protection.
NAHB refuses to spend 1% for highly effective fire sprinklers!
https://community.nfpa.org/community/home-fire-sprinkler-initiative/blog/2016/06/28/story-documents-homebuilder-substantial-dollars-and-political-resources-aimed-at-fighting-requirements-for-home-fire-sprinklers
Codes are the minimums, not the maximum. We can’t prevent every disaster.
The NAHB is lobbying against the implementation of national standards and requirements not the implementation of any standards or requirements. Homes are built differently around the US. For example, homes in California rarely have basements while homes in the mid-west regularly have 8 feet tall basements. A national standard regulating the height and type of construction of the lowest floor of a building does not take this into account, nor does this take into account man made levies built in many areas of the US.
The NAHB does represent the interest of home builders. However, the ICC represents architects, code enforcement bureaus and other industries that benefit from increased code regulation. Both sides have a bias.
1% to die for gives the best example of bad legislation meant to benefit the fire sprinkler industry under the guise of safety. There were around 3,000 fire related deaths in the US in 2013 making up around .12% of total US deaths.
The sprinkler lobby claims sprinklers only increase costs by 1%. It is estimated that home fire causes $6.5 billion in loss per year which sounds like a lot until you consider the state of California alone has 13.5 million housing units. Dividing the $6.5 billion in damage by Just CA’s housing stock you get $481 or about 1% of a home worth $48,100 home. In other words the cost of installing sprinklers in only California homes costs more than the loss from fire each year. This doesn’t even consider the cost of inspecting homes for compliance or the fact that poor households will be significantly more burdened by the replacement requirement.
Sprinkler requirements are not only economically ineffective but also infringe on individual rights to choose how to build on private property.
Oliver Queen: how many bodies to the morgue and burnt houses to landfills would be enough for you?