HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » It is my understanding in...

Thu Aug 31, 2017, 12:33 PM

It is my understanding in Texas you CANT be forced to have sprinklers in a building

or to have to comply with any type of government regulated fire prevention?

Is this true, anybody in Texas?

If so, when the inevitable damage occurs that would NOT have had they had the proper regulations, surely they wont ask US to pay for it?

8 replies, 2290 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply It is my understanding in Texas you CANT be forced to have sprinklers in a building (Original post)
Eliot Rosewater Aug 2017 OP
Justice Aug 2017 #1
Eliot Rosewater Aug 2017 #3
AJT Aug 2017 #2
VMA131Marine Aug 2017 #4
annabanana Aug 2017 #5
Eliot Rosewater Aug 2017 #6
trc Aug 2017 #7
ecstatic Aug 2017 #8

Response to Eliot Rosewater (Original post)

Thu Aug 31, 2017, 12:37 PM

1. Correct. No statewide fire code and a law that prohibits localities from adopting one.


I agree that when inevitable damage occurs that would NOT have had (or would be lessened) they had common sense regulations, the federal government (meaning all of us) should not pay.

Like conditioning highway funds on having a certain speed limit because that reduces accidents.

Maddow did a great piece on this last night - after the West plant explosion, the only change the state made to its laws was to make the company's chemical list to the state private (prior to that the list was public).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 31, 2017, 12:40 PM

3. The problem is when it is time to vote again, lower middle class voters will be

told the enemy is the immigrant, that we really need to do a tax amnesty deal AGAIN for corps so they can bring the money back on to American soil, forgetting that last time they did this the investors used that money to buy more stock, not to help create more jobs.

When tax payers are told they are paying for buildings that could have been saved but for this reckless attitude by the GOP, will it matter?

Not if the GOP is telling them black people are violent and immigrants are out for their jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Original post)

Thu Aug 31, 2017, 12:37 PM

2. Yes it's true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Original post)

Thu Aug 31, 2017, 12:44 PM

4. Situation seems to be a bit more complicated than Rachel made it out to be

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2013/05/25/texas-prohibits-nearly-70-percent-of-its-counties-from-having-a-fire-code

Yet for 173 of Texas’ 254 counties, adopting rules based on that experience is illegal. They are either below 250,000 in population or don’t touch a county of that size.

Having fewer people doesn’t mean less risk. Those counties contain some of the most dangerous chemicals and industrial processes in Texas, The Dallas Morning News found.

“It’s not 1956 anymore,” said Jasper County Judge Mark Allen, whose county, while mostly rural, has multiple potential sources of industrial risks.

“It’s not 1964 or ’65,” Allen said. “We’re not Mayberry. We have life-threatening events every day.”

But 85 percent of the code-prohibited counties have no full-time professional fire department anywhere in the county, The News found. Only a few bigger industries have their own specially trained and equipped in-house fire brigades.

Training and gear for chemical emergencies are beyond the reach of most volunteer fire departments. In the 173 counties that cannot adopt a fire code, 21 have established local emergency-services districts, but few of those provide enough money even to cover the basics.

With a state-mandated tax cap of 10 cents per $100 in assessed property value, a $100,000 home provides an emergency-services district with no more than $100 a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Original post)

Thu Aug 31, 2017, 12:47 PM

5. A law that prohibits localities from adopting a fire code. . .

This sounds like one of the stupidest things I can imagine. Who's law is this? Companies that are too cheap and reckless to install sprinklers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 31, 2017, 12:49 PM

6. In all likelihood many buildings have them anyway for insurance reasons, but my position is

not ONE THIN DIME for any property damage that could have been prevented with basic fire prevention regulations.

Not one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Original post)


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Original post)

Thu Aug 31, 2017, 01:00 PM

8. Is this what rethugs want for the entire nation?

I'm watching this very topic right now (DVR of Rachel Maddow's show). Mind boggling! They are so evil, greedy and short sighted. Or maybe they're ok with shit literally blowing up in their faces so they can collect the insurance payouts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread