Rants
Residential Fire Sprinklers
I ran across an interesting article at QRFS.com’s Blog titled The Conflict Over Residential Fire Sprinkler Requirements which I found interesting. It does a reasonable job of laying out pro’s and con’s on the the cost of the systems themselves and their safety benefits. What it does not discuss is the additional regressive fees that communities are currently putting on these systems. This is often a hidden tax as well, i.e. one that’s not recognized until the bill comes after construction.
This is an argument I had with the Town of Culver last year. Sand Hill Farm Apartments has a Fire Sprinkler System. This is required by the State of Indiana. We also installed a fire hydrant on the property. This was not required, but just seemed like a reasonable way to terminate the line. (There is a fire hydrant adjacent to the site in the street, so there was no insurance benefit or coverage benefit to it. It was just there to flush the line.) Before construction was even complete, we received two invoices from the Town, one for $700 for having a Fire Hydrant and one for $1,200 (plus tax!) for having a Fire Sprinkler System. When I inquired about this, I was told that it was in the ordinance. It doesn’t cover material, maintenance, inspections, replacement or any other service. Paraphrasing: It is there to cover additional load and upsizing of the system to support the additional fire protection. These are arbitrary fees, i.e. it is the same fee whether one of these is installed in a single family home, a 24 unit apartment building or a 400,000 sf manufacturing facility.
This is not solely picking on Culver. Culver is just where it first came to my attention. While they are not as high, Plymouth has the same fees. Neither community allows for higher densities (as suggested in the linked article) or gives any other incentives; just punitive fees if these things are installed. They are also not capped, so if a developer/apartment building owner/homeowner would rationalize these fees as they stand and plan for them, there is no guarantee that they will not double or triple in the future. Being an arbitrary fee suggests that it can change arbitrarily as well. These fees are apparently suggested by the accountants doing the rate studies as a way of reducing fees charged to residents.
It cost $500 to remove the fire hydrant at Sand Hill Farm Apartments. Wasted money on top of the original installation, but a reasonable investment against $700 or more a year forever more. Again, there was no issue regarding coverage as there is a fire hydrant in the street in front of the building. It was installed on site as a way to flush the line where it terminated.
In my opinion, the assertions made about the additional costs for the system are specious. 1) The standard line size was used in the street in front of the apartments to provide the loop service and to supply the fire hydrant that would have been there regardless of the development. The line was not upsized due to the sprinkler system. 2) The whole point of the sprinkler system is to put out a fire before it spreads. Theoretically, a fire in one of the apartments would be extinguished before it spread to other units, using much less water than a building that could otherwise be engulfed in flames.
Furthermore, it would make sense to encourage sprinkler systems with incentives in lieu of penalizing them with regressive fees. 1) They improve life safety for residents. 2) They improve life safety for fire fighters. 3) They reduce fire fighting equipment costs. 4) They improve a communities fire rating, which helps all residents.
Because the State requires sprinkler systems in multifamily housing, the local community has building owners over a barrel. We took this into account for the Riverside Commons project planned for Plymouth. That development will be 100% townhouses. By using this model, with firewalls in-between units, the State requirement is void. This increases initial construction costs, but helps control yearly ownership costs.
At some point, as discussed in the QRFS article, fire sprinklers may be required in all residential construction. I cannot say this is a bad thing or that it doesn’t improve life safety. It is one more thing that contributes to the high cost of housing and is an expense that must be considered on any affordable housing project.
DST: Still not a Fan…
Everyone talked about the extra hour of sleep they got Sunday morning. Nope. Still woke up at the same time. Then tired all day. This morning was the same thing. I’ll be dragging all week. We really need to end this idiocy…
Granted, Fall is better than Spring when it comes to the DST change, but change is bad. Nope. Nope. Nope. I do not like it…
You can find a couple of my previous DST rants here and here or just search DST in the search bar. Nothing as good as John Oliver did in the video above, but still worth it if you want to laugh at my folly… or with a few of them, maybe even learn something. Ha!
Sweet Caroline Ban! YES!!!
I heard some great news today! Finally something good is coming out of 2020 Covid-19… Neil Diamond’s Sweet Caroline sing-a-longs are being banned at bars and sporting events around the world! YES!!!
I heard several weeks ago that Neil himself was trying to save the song by updating the lyrics. All that radical, pre-Corona B.S. about hands touching hands and reaching out touching me and touching you… NO TOUCHING!!! Stop it!!!
But now it’s been acknowledged that all the drunk yelling of the song into other drunk faces is not safe. To be honest, it was always just the chorus. No one actually knows the words to the song. Though groupthink has added “Bump-bump-bums” and repetitive “So Goods” sprinkled throughout the parts they do know. As stated in the article about the Irish Pub in Spain banning it, “Play it late into the night at any venue in either country and you are likely to get a vocal response from the intoxicated customers present. “
A quick Google search confirmed that I’m not the only Sweet Caroline Hater. Former Yankees Pitcher Joba Chamberlain Says “Sweet Caroline” Was Worst Part of Fenway. Way to go Joba! Thanks for having the courage to speak out against this atrocity. Catchy does not equal good…
I also found where it has been banned at Penn State football stadium, though that’s more about the touchy-feeling part of the song and the connotations revolving around Jerry Sandusky scandal. Though is “reaching out, touching me, touching you” really appropriate at Beaver Stadium anyway?
It’s just become annoying and part of that is because it’s so ubiquitous at bars and sporting events. To paraphrase what Mr. Chamberlain said in his interview on the Balk Talk podcast, “Is it catchy? Yes. I won’t deny that. But at the same time… I don’t want to hear it.”
The last time I enjoyed hearing it even a little, was when Pete & Wayne butchered it on stage at Sloppy Joes in Key West. They professed their hate for it when a paid request came to them to play it, claiming they didn’t even know the words. A bidding war ensued in the bar upping the ante on both the play side and the no play side with Pete & Wayne raking in several hundred dollars in tips though the good-natured melee. Their version was funny and proved the sing-a-long idiots only cared about bump, bump, bumping through the chorus.
Much like Covid-19, I don’t think Sweet Caroline will die out anytime soon. Both seem to be way too infectious and often spread by drunk crowds. But one can always hope that this could be one of the few good things to come out of 2020… That would be Sweet! Maybe even worth a So Good! But please, no Caroline…
Editing My Writing
I went back through the ECC blog the other day, looking for a post that I wanted to reference to someone. Of course I reread it to be sure it said what I remembered. Yeah… it did… but I also found two grammatical errors. Ugh! That’s SO frustrating! When I post one of these, I generally read it a couple of times and if possible, read it out loud to myself before I post it. Unfortunately, both errors appear to be the result of previous editing where I apparently changed part of a sentence, but not the rest.
I struggle proofreading my own work. I know what I wanted to say and often gloss over my mistakes, apparently self-correcting them in my head. This is just the opposite of what I do reading other people’s writing. When reading someone else’s article, blog, etc., once I run across an error, I reset to proofreading mode and find myself looking for additional errors in lieu of absorbing content.
That said, let me throw this out there to my lurkers. While I don’t like it when I or others find errors in my writing, please don’t hesitate to tell me about them. Yes, I will be embarrassed, because I try my best to avoid them, but better that I’m told and correct them than let them continue to stand for others to stumble over. This blog celebrated its 12th Birthday in May. There are 178 pages of posts! No Kim & Ginny, I’m not going back and removing all the double spaces after periods! Ha! I’ve corrected that from when I learned I was in error, but those are going to stay in the older posts.
I’ve also chosen to write like I talk, so proper English often loses out to colloquialisms. While it is technically Easterday Construction Co., Inc.’s business blog, I often use it as a personal forum to vent about things that aren’t worth arguing in public. Some examples of that are here, here and here if you’re interested. Judging by the limited comments, I’m probably talking to myself most of the time here… which may be for the best! If you made it this far, thanks for “listening”.
Graphic in the top paragraph was borrowed from The Princeton Tutoring Blog
Interesting Take at the Plan Commission
I attended the Culver Plan Commission with a client Tuesday night. I was a little surprised to be called out in front of my client regarding another project, but so these things go.
Some Background: Last month I appeared for the Secondary Plan Review for the PUD (Planned Unit Development) needed for construction of The Paddocks. The project is one of the signature pieces in Culver’s Stellar Strategic Investment Plan and had been before the Plan Commission multiple times. It passed with one dissenting vote. I wondered about that vote, but never questioned it. It was their right to vote against the project. If they had expressed their objections before the vote, I could have provided a rebuttal to their objections, but after the vote it was a moot point.
Tuesday, that commissioner chose to elaborate on their no vote. To paraphrase, their objection was that all ordinances should be treated equal and since the Town had adopted a Complete Streets ordinance, and The Paddocks had agreed to provide a trail connection through The Paddocks property, the developer should have been required to exhaust all options to continue the trail through the adjacent property. The Developer should also be held to a higher standard due to the Tax Abatement awarded to The Paddocks.
A few things bothered me about that, but again, it was water under the bridge so I did not attempt to address it at that meeting. This is my venue to vent though, so here are my thoughts:
- I was disappointed that this was brought up after the fact when I was there with a client for another project. I thought that was inappropriate as it put me in an undeserved negative light when the project I was there for had nothing to do with The Paddocks.
- Complete Streets aside, this has not been a standard applied in the past. The last PUD developer was asked to provide trail access and as with The Paddocks, they provided access up to their property line. The adjacent property owner was not amenable to a trail through their property, so that was left to be addressed in the future… similar to what was done with The Paddocks. In that case, that development was not even required to provide the future Right-of-Way that was called out in the Comprehensive Plan because adjacent property owners were not supportive. The Paddocks PUD was required to dedicate additional Right-of-Way that wasn’t part of the Comprehensive Plan or part of the current project. The Town will be setting a high bar to hurdle if they choose to start requiring developers to purchase or negotiate rights to additional property outside the initial development.
- The Paddocks PUD did receive some matching funds and a tax abatement from the Town, but this was done because incentives were required to get the housing that the Town had made a goal. This also allowed the Town to receive matching funds from the Regional Cities Initiative (RCI) and qualify for the IHCDA LIHTC program. These were very public negotiations. Making one sided changes to those agreements will make developers leery of working with the Town. On a side note, to my knowledge, this is the only RCI funded project where that funding is given to the Town through the Developer. In the awards of which I have knowledge, the RCI funding went to the Developer.
- Originally, and in all the Stellar discussion, this property was to connect to the Town via the revitalization of the Jefferson Street corridor. That was to be the “Complete Streets” connection. It was not until later that a request came for a connection to Cass Street. The Paddocks did agree to provide a trail connection to Cass Street, but was required to do so now despite some objections, one of which was the lack of a connection through adjacent properties. The preference would have been to provide the connection at a later date when it would have connected to Academy Road. Connecting to Cass Street was also an option, but it would have made more sense to wait until the Town had worked out a route with adjacent property owners.
As I have said many times in the past, I respect the volunteers that serve on public boards and commissions. They take more slings and arrows than ever gets balanced out with accolades. That doesn’t alleviate their responsibility to know all the facts. In this case, some of the commentary was counter to things previously negotiated with the Town Council and the Plan Commission’s own Technical Review Committee. Speaking from the table at the front of the room gives their voice additional weight. That needs to be used judiciously.
Obviously this commissioner’s take differs from mine. Fortunately for me, the project and the Town, his position wasn’t shared by the other commissioners.
