Governor opposes fire sprinkler bill
Measure's backers say it's money versus lives
By Brian Hicks
Measure's backers say it's money versus lives
Letters between Gov. Mark Sanford and House Speaker Bobby Harrell
Gov. Sanford's letter dated 2/6/2008 to House speaker Bobby Harrell.
House speaker Bobby Harrell's letter dated 2/8/2008 to Gov. Sanford.
Gov. Sanford's letter dated 2/13/2008 to House speaker Bobby Harrell.
In our special section with photos, videos, interactives, donation information and every story written about the tragedy.
Governor Mark Sanford said legislation that offers tax credits for businesses to install sprinkler systems is too expensive and smacks of too much government interference.
His comments, and the looming threat of a veto, have sparked a litany of criticism from lawmakers and firefighters, who say this is all about the politics of money and the price of human life.
The legislation, filed in response to the June 18 Sofa Super Store fire that killed nine Charleston firefighters, would give businesses a tax credit for 80 percent of the cost of installing sprinklers in their buildings. It is considered one of the safest bets to pass the General Assembly this year.
Sanford said the size of the proposed tax credit makes this a government entitlement, not encouragement, and erodes the free market and home rule.
His office suggested that a lower percentage on the tax credit would be more appropriate, and palatable, to the governor.
House Speaker Bobby Harrell, who vows to override any veto of the sprinkler legislation, told the governor in a letter that "you miss the point entirely."
"This bill is about saving lives," said Harrell, R-Charleston.
This difference of opinion and philosophy threatens to politicize one of the most high-profile pieces of state legislation this year. Some Statehouse insiders say that, quietly, lobbyists have been complaining to lawmakers about the high cost of adding sprinklers to existing businesses.
Mike Parrotta, president of the South Carolina Professional Firefighters, has spent time in Columbia in support of the sprinkler bill, and has been shocked by the opposition.
"Sprinkler systems save lives and property, there is no argument," Parrotta said. "What's more important than that?"
Sanford wrote to Harrell, and members of the House Ways and Means Committee, about the bill on Feb. 6. He said that while he applauded lawmakers' attempt to "bring good out of the horror that has come to South Carolina," he said emotions "can swing to the point of creating policy that would cause damage to society at large in different ways."
"There seems to be too much government interference, regulation and subsidy," Sanford wrote earlier this month.
The governor said that adding more sales tax exemptions for sprinkler bills, basically subsidizing sprinklers, could be a burden to taxpayers.
Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer couldn't say what the governor will do if the Legislature passes the sprinkler legislation, which has wide support in the House and Senate.
"If the bill comes to the governor's desk, he'll look at it carefully, but he does have concerns with the bill in its current form," Sawyer said.
Harrell said the sprinkler bill is much the same as the coastal insurance legislation passed last year at the governor's urging, which offers tax credits to owners of homes and businesses that are retrofitted to make them safer from storms.
The cost of the coastal insurance tax credits is about $30 million over five years, and he estimated the cost of the sprinkler legislation at about $36 million over the same period.
"I really don't understand the opposition to fire sprinklers when the support was there for coastal insurance reform," Harrell said.
Sanford said the difference is that the coastal insurance legislation provides only a 25 percent tax credit capped at $1,000, but the sprinkler legislation is a 20 percent private match to get 80 percent public funding.
The sprinkler legislation enjoys wide support in the firefighting community. Jeffery Thompson, deputy chief with Pine Ridge Fire Department, lost his brother, Brandon, in the Sofa Super Store fire. He said the bottom line is that sprinklers save lives.
"I definitely feel the outcome of the Sofa Super Store fire would have been different if they had had sprinklers," Thompson said.
House and Senate members said they can likely round up the two-thirds majority needed to override a Sanford veto, but fire groups hope that it doesn't get that far. Roger L. Yow, president of IAFF Local 61, the Charleston Firefighters Association, said this isn't about philosophy, and there is no gray area.
"They are putting money above lives," Yow said. "If he vetoes it, apparently he doesn't support fire safety."
Reach Brian Hicks at 937-5561 or bhicks@postandcourier.com. Reach Yvonne Wenger at ywenger@postandcourier.com or 803-799-9051.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
moonpie (anonymous) says...
I don't get it. Why would GOV Mark be for the coastal legislation and be against this? Can they work together behind close doors and make this work instead of duking it out in the papers?
February 14, 2008 at 6:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldglory (anonymous) says...
Would one of you local wizzes be kind enough to post a link for the coastal insurance legislation, referenced in the following paragraph? Thanks.
"Harrell said the sprinkler bill is much the same as the coastal insurance legislation passed last year at the governor's urging, which offers tax credits to owners of homes and businesses that are retrofitted to make them safer from storms."
February 14, 2008 at 7:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sccu25 (anonymous) says...
we should have kicked mark out of office a few years ago, but nooooooooooooooo everybody thinks he is God! Wake up South Carolina he isn't!!!! Maybe he will be the next Vice Pres. LOL!
February 14, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
House Speaker Bobby Harrell, who vows to override any veto of the sprinkler legislation, told the governor in a letter that "you miss the point entirely."
"This bill is about saving lives," said Harrell, R-Charleston.
Exactly, Mr. Sanford.
February 14, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AHLeland (anonymous) says...
It is ridiculous to equate a veto on this bill to the governor not supporting fire safety. Personally, I'm with Sanford on this one. Of course we all want all buildings to have sprinklers. Of course we all know that they save lives. But let's think for a minute about what this will actually cost the state. For argument's sake, we'll say they're $20,000 (I have no idea what the actual cost is - and I'm sure it's more). If businesses get a tax credit for 80% of the cost for installing their system that's $16,000. This means that for every 100 businesses that install a system, the state is losing $1.6 million in tax revenues. For a state that struggles to fund its current (flawed) health care and education systems, this is a big deal. He's not saying no to tax credits. He's saying no to an 80% credit.
February 14, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ccfirefighterchick (anonymous) says...
Evidently, Gov. Sanford has never lost anybody or anything in a fire. Sprinkler systems save lives! Does anything else need to be said about that??? What I get out of this is that the Governor our state thinks that money is more important than lives. When he is stricken by a fire, I hope the fire dept stands outside and does nothing. Think that might change his mind?
February 14, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AHLeland (anonymous) says...
If we use the logic that the cost doesn't matter - we're saving lives here - then it could also be said for just about any cause. Let's give home owners tax credits for building underground tornado shelters. Heck, I have a fear of being bitten by a snake. Can I have a tax credit for keeping a supply of anti-venom? I wear my seatbelt every day. Where's my credit? Why stop there? Are they going to pay for 80% of the lit exit signs in the office building where I work? How about the fire extinguishers? All these things save lives but the government can't be expected to pick up the tab. I know this stuff may sound silly (it's meant to) but you see my point. I agree that giving building owners an incentive to install the systems is a good idea but 80%? Come on.
February 14, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
captainscott (anonymous) says...
I guess we should just continue the good olde boy message and not change our old antiquated views.......firefighters know that their jobs are dangerous and know that they risk losing their lives so we don't have to pass legislation that saves lives. WAKE UP SC. The rest of the country has long understood the need for sprinklers. SAVES LIVES and stop protecting stupid out of date practices.
February 14, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scmoonpie (anonymous) says...
So, if Mr. Harrell says this is about saving lives, then why don't we just provide pay 80% of the cost of sprinkler systems in homes or fire alarm systems. More than 9 people a year die in SC from fire. How about paying 80% of the cost of healthcare for every citizen since it has been shown that preventive care saves lives. How about all the people driving unsafe cars that take numerous lives a year in accidents. We should provide 80% of the cost to get everyone a safe and reliable car. I could go on and on. The sad truth is the Sofa Super Store fire has become so emotional that being against anything in response to the fire makes one out to be against fire safety. If it were about safety, Mr. Harrell and the rest of the legislatures would just mandate with the consquences of large fines to all businesses that do not comply to install sprinkler systems. Govenor Sanford is not the villian. It isn't about money, it is about common sense......something most of our politicians don't possess.
February 14, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
Sanford supports tax subsidies for "Cabela's" but opposes this?? Seems fishy...
February 14, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crankyyankee (anonymous) says...
This bill is the knee jerk reaction of the missinformed directed by the well intentioned. It does nothing for safety but make a few individuals fell good. Yeahright you are 180 degrees out on Sanford supporting Cablea's but I suspect you already know that and your spinning things to your liking. I've never seen a State that fought progress more than this one. Build your string bean museum and fund the gold plating of your decayed submarine but for god's sake don't fix the education system or balance the budget someone might think you can. Think that is! If you want to see the main problem with South Carolina take a long look in the mirror. If you have kids you're the second or third generation or should I say degeneration of the problem.
February 14, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
You're right Cranky...I was misinformed and got it backwards. Sanford opposes both subsidies, good for him. My bad.
February 14, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JohnS (anonymous) says...
I am glad the Gov did this. This was a feel good bill from a knee jerk reaction from the Sofa Super Store fire.
February 14, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wheels2u666 (anonymous) says...
im with Sanford on this one, why should us the taxpayers support business owners, lets face it the ones just scraping by wont get it, the "wealthy" ones will, SC Moonpie says it all, btw , what was the outcome of sanfords fight against sullivans island property assesment? jus wondering
February 14, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DixieTiger (anonymous) says...
Gov. Sanford is easily the smartest person in Columbia. The Legislature run by so-called "Republicans" would like to burn our money faster than we can earn it. This bill is the definition of a subsidy and as Republicans our representatives and senators should oppose it. Look the option to install sprinklers and other fire safety measures is a simple risk analysis decision. These business owners decide whether the cost of installing sprinklers is less than the potential cost of a fire. Let business owners decide for themselves and don't let these subsidies distort the market. Go Mark Go!
February 14, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KoolaidDrinker (anonymous) says...
If you edukates people in one of the worst public school system in the country then you can't be suprised when they say things like palmettoman does. Maybe if we do nothing we can lower our fire safety to that same illustious level.
All of you who are uninformed need to get the facts about this bill.
Hint: See the scottsdale az study on the mandatory fire sprinkler law that they enacted in the mid 1980s.
How much does it cost to build a fire station?
How much does it cost to equip that station?
How much does it cost to man that station?
How much does it cost to dispatch that fire truck?
(Don't think in terms of cost per mile but total cost devided by the number of fire calls per year)(If palmettoman needs help please somebody help him with the math)
How much is the life of YOUR loved one worth?
How much does it cost to hospitalize and care for the victims of a fire tragedy?
How much does it cost your insurance company when your neighbor's home or business burns? (In Scottsdale the average house fire with sprinklers was $2,100.00 compared to $47,000.00 for non sprinklered homes!)
Finally how much is a life worth?(In the case of the SSS about 8,500 per fireman!)
The fact is that these life saving systems cost less than 1% of the value of a new home or building!
These systems are PROVEN to save lives by passively extinguishing the fire 24/7 before the fire truck even arrives!
I challenge all CWS with all the tax funded engineers to prove the "impact" for which CWS was charging up to $90,000 to prove by calculations the impact...they know it can't be proved thats why they quit extorting the impact fee from the businesses!
Folks the facts are out there and the INFORMED public knows this.
By the way the Good Ole Boy Gov has a home on the coast I just hope it doesnt catch fire with his family inside...but wait he has a publicly funded bodyguard to wake him up and get his family out..too bad about you!
Mr Harrell and Sen McConnell are "dead" right on this one
"YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT IT IS ABOUT SAVING LIVES"
February 14, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AHLeland (anonymous) says...
I really wish that posters on this story would quit equating opposition to this bill to some sort of a callous disregard for public safety. Sanford is not anti-sprinkler. He's anti-subsidy! Good grief.
February 14, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
firemike (anonymous) says...
Governor Mark Sanford opposed this bill because the people who give him money for his campaign are rich business owners with buildings (they also have nice big beach houses). Fire fighters may support his campaign (I volunteered some of my time to help him win) but we (fire fighters) don't give him as much money as big business owners do. So I'm not mad that my life is worth less than someone who gives him more money. It only makes good business since on his behalf. I just wish he would have at least attended the meeting (in Columbia this week) that transpired to show why sprinklers are so important. He needed to at least show up so he could have looked in the South Carolina fire chefs eyes before he spit in them. I will no long support Mark Sanford - I feel like my support thus far may kill more fire fighters. I have lost all respect for the Governor.
February 14, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EdgeumakatedMoron (anonymous) says...
Not being born in this state, but electing to settle my family here, I am not surprised. All the things said about South Carolina are true. "Smiling Faces. Beautiful Places." should read "Limited Education! Enter At Your Own Risk".
For a State so rich in History, Heritage, Geographic Beauty and Patriotism it hurts my heart to know that people just don't get it because they refuse to educate themselves.
Whether you're for this Bill or against this Bill, it really does not matter. Thirty years ago air conditioning, in homes and in establishments, was a luxury. Go buy a home or lease a building today without one.
At least the Senators and Congressmen of this State have offered to the Public a voluntary opportunity to "Save Lives"!!!
Resistance is futile! The State will make it "CODE", which is kind of mandatory at that point!
KoolaidDrinker: You're Right On The Money!
Governor Sanford: Prepare your exit speech for when you're ousted, "Cause We Mass Communicating Now"! Oh, "Goober Says Hey"!
Folks: Read the statistics. Review the facts. Look at the supporting data. Do your own homework about Fire Sprinkler Systems. The World Wide Web offers an abundance of information.
The TRUTH IS THERE. FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES.
February 14, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KoolaidDrinker (anonymous) says...
Stand, Thanks for your comment
The primary difference between the misguided gov Sanford and his merry band of followers is that you admit to being uninformed.
The truth is that these systems save lives and PROPERY (so there ya go you penny pinchers)
We are spending the money anyway on less effective traditional measures to attempt to protect ourselves.
There will always be those who have invested 5 minutes of reasearch and have 20 minutes of commentary!
Palmettoman, wheels, Dixietiger and the rest I implore you to get the facts, your very lives depend on it!!!!
Go to this link and read the information and then make your comments based on facts not your preconceived ideas!
I DARE YOU TO READ THE RESEARCH!!!
http://www.homefiresprinkler.org/inde...
February 14, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MotoryachtSoCo (anonymous) says...
Year after year at the Carolina Cup the Governor sits in his box and I in mine. And year after year, Campbell, Hodges, and now Sanford all have their photos taken with me or my kids and I smile and let them do their glad handing never once wanting to do bring up an issue, after all it's leisure time and I figure I'll give the man a break.
No more Mr. Nice guy, this year he's getting an ear full. I might just wear my Captain's Badge on my sportcoat collar and give him a verbal trip to out behind the woodshed.
Then we'll have a little chat about Mr. Ravenal and then Scarlett Wilson... I know she wasn't his first choice... but for crying out loud!
February 15, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- New drug may hold promise for lupus sufferers
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Off campus
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
