APRIL 16, 2010 -- Two bills that could require sprinkler systems in new homes and duplexes are expected to hit the floor of both chambers in the next two weeks.

While proponents and opponents of sprinkler requirements agree systems can save lives and property, putting out the fiery rhetoric between the two in the Statehouse may be another issue altogether.

The Senate version of the bill, pushed forward by changes in international building codes, would require sprinkler systems in new single- or double-family homes. That bill has already been put on the agenda for Tuesday. The House version called for the creation for a study committee to look into the matter.

Sprinkler bills have been a hot topic in the legislature for several years, especially in commercial real estate settings. Legislative interest in tougher sprinkler requirements for commercial properties spiked in recent years after a calamitous Greenville hotel fire and a deadly sofa super store fire in Charleston killed nine firefighters.

These two new, residential sprinkler bills represent the spreading of sentiment within the legislature that heightened fire safety codes may need to be expanded from stores to homes.

Three points at issue

There are three main squabbling points in the debate: feasibility, cost and effectiveness.

Detractors, like Rep. Ted Vick (D-Chesterfield), said requiring sprinklers in new homes was just another needless “big” government intrusion into private lives of citizens and directly into one of the hardest hit sectors of the state economy, homebuilding. “There’s no law that says you can’t have sprinklers; they should remain optional,” said Vick.

Supporters, like Sen. Phil Leventis (D-Sumter), said firefighters, and not homebuilders, are more qualified to keep lives and property safe. “We already have all sorts of mandates on housing, like requiring stouter manufactured homes east of Interstate 95 because of the likelihood of higher wind speeds there,” said Leventis.

Vick said sprinklers wouldn’t work in his rural swath of the state where water pressure could struggle to push the fluid fast enough to suppress a fire.

Mark Nix, executive officer at the S.C. Homebuilders Association, said there were spots in the Columbia where water pressure wouldn’t be sufficient either. Like Vick, Nix said he wasn’t “anti-sprinkler, just ‘pro’ giving consumers a choice.”

“Why would I be against sprinklers?” asked Nix. “On one hand, it’s another thing a builder could install, (and) it could also mean more profit for the builder.”

Leventis said there was an easy solution: a system with a 100-gallon tank in the attic, or other stand-alone storage. But, at 8.4 pounds per gallon, a 100-gallon system could strain the ceiling of the average home, according to Nix.

Different ideas on cost

Straining average homebuyers out of the market is what concerns Vick and Nix the most. Nix said while he hasn’t seen exact costs of installing sprinkler systems in new homes in South Carolina, he has heard estimates ranging from $1 per square foot all the way up to $6 per square foot.

Any increase could, Vick and Nix worried, price some in the state out of the housing market. Economists across the state, including Don Schunk at Coastal Carolina University, have reported that on top of being one of the sectors hardest hit by the recession, homebuilding will be one of the last to recover.

Leventis, echoed by former SLED Chief Robert Stewart, said the costs were relatively minimal.

“According to many industries, ‘now’ is never a good time for more regulation,” said Leventis.

Sprinklers would lower insurance costs

Stewart, who now acts as a legislative liaison on behalf of the S.C. Firefighters Association, said cost savings in increased property values and lowered insurance rates would make up for any initial increase in home sprinklers. He said research had shown that a little over $1.60 per square foot was the national average for installing sprinklers in new construction homes.

“What could happen if we don’t, as a state, pass these (sprinkler) standards, is that our fire ratings could fall and drive up insurance rates and costs,” said Stewart, stressing the “could” portion of his statement.

The Department of Insurance has released a report on the estimated impact sprinkler requirements would have on the state’s insurance market. The report, which has been hailed and assailed by the opposing camps, stated that homeowners would receive anywhere from 4-20 percent insurance credits with installation, with an expected average savings of about 12 percent.

The report went on to state that if South Carolina did not pass these sprinkler bills, then new homes constructed after January of 2011 without sprinklers will cost 20-percent more to insure.

According to the report, 44 percent of the state could see its fire safety ratings drop, potentially creating an increase in home insurance premiums. Interestingly, the report also said that a scenario existed where homeowners could see their flood insurance rates drop if the state adopted the international building codes that would mandate sprinklers.

Nix said he has yet to see the feared increases or welcomed decreases in several other states across the nation that have chosen not to adopt the new international codes.

Sen. Hugh Leatherman (R-Florence) questioned the push toward sprinklers this week. “Does the bill include manufactured homes, too?” asked Leatherman. “Then what is the bill actually doing?”

Vick, hearing Leatherman’s comments, pounced, saying that the only thing a sprinkler bill would do is save “big” insurance companies money. And, Vick pointed out, fire alarms, long mandatory, have been so effective a fire-fighting tool that sprinklers don’t need to be made mandatory.

Leventis has heard this argument before, a decade ago. “Ten years ago, homebuilders were against fire alarms because of the cost,” said Leventis. “Now, there for them so much they say we don’t need sprinklers. What are they going to be saying 10 years from now?”

Crystal ball: The House bill, which calls for a study committee, has the most likelihood of passing since it gives legislators the cover of appearing to do something. But, mandating sprinklers in new home construction will have a tougher time, in part, because of the economy, and in part because of the perceived intrusion on civil liberties. If there were plenty money , this could be a fair fight. Look for this one to die on the floor this year, but to rear its head at the beginning of the next session.

4/9: 2010 session more effective so far

4/2: Will SC reapply for big education grant?

3/26:  Health reform's potential impact on SC budget

3/19:  Environmental issues find middle ground

With the state budget bill expected to come to the floor of the Senate in two weeks, there will be few scheduled meetings next week, as senators work on the budget and wait to see how much money is left for any bills.

The House agenda will be relatively quiet next week, too, with only two major meetings scheduled, both for Tuesday:

• Sentencing reform. A Judiciary subcommittee will discuss the omnibus sentencing reform bill at 10 a.m. in 516 Blatt. More.
  
  
• Health care. The full Judiciary Committee will convene in 516 Blatt Tuesday after adjournment to discuss an agenda highlighted by a proposed state response to federal health care mandates. More.

Next week on the House floor, look for Voter ID to be the big topic, while in the Senate, a bill requiring fire sprinklers in new homes will be debated. According to one Statehouse source, a major item may get move up into next week’s Senate floor agenda, but the topic has not been released yet.

The Senate will be a tough place to get anything done for the next two weeks.

Timing is everything. Two major goofs in state budgeting surfaced this week, totaling close to $127 million, just as Tea Party advocates took to the streets and steps of Columbia to protest taxes and government spending.

First, legislators learned this week that $59.8 million that was supposed to be deposited into a special, earmarked account had been deposited instead into the state’s General Fund budget account and spent. According to a Statehouse budgeting maven, this created a “false positive,” or in layman’s terms, a situation in which the state deposited the check twice and now has $59.8 million less to spend that it expected.

Second, a “miscommunication” over $67 million in federal funds intended for state Medicaid programs resulted in the state spending that amount faster than was intended.  The whole mess resulted in the state’s Board of Economic Advisors issuing this week another budget cut, because part of that Medicaid amount was supposed to also last through the following year.

While the state didn’t technically lose any money, these mistakes have increased the likelihood of state employee layoffs in the coming year.

One of the most contentious bills this year would allow law enforcement to search parolees without a warrant, which is currently needed to do so.

Supporters say the bill makes sense, since parolees are statistically likely to re-offend, and it’s a public safety issue. Additionally, making court-free searches part of the parole deal means offenders can choose to stay in jail if they don’t want to endure possible unannounced searches.

Critics have complained the bill is tantamount to a police state, and that if the person is so dangerous, he (or she) shouldn’t have been allowed out on the streets before fulfilling their sentence. But an interesting linguistic wrinkle has cropped up. The searches had been referred to as “warrantless” searches bill. Now, supporters, including House Speaker Bobby Harrell (R-Charleston) have begun referring to them as “warranted” searches.

Author George Orwell might have joked that slavery has finally become freedom.

Cigarette tax nudges ahead

Now that the Senate has passed a 50-cent per-pack increase to the state’s lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax, the bill has been sent back to the House, where the measure originated in 2009.

The Senate version of the bill, which could bring in close to $130 million in its first year, would put the proceeds in a virtual lock-box, to be used at a later date to offset state health care budget cuts to Medicaid. This version likely will not pass muster in the House, which wanted to use the proceeds to underwrite tax credits to state businesses so they could better and more easily purchase private health insurance for their employees. As a result, the bill will be dealt with in conference committee, before Gov. Mark Sanford vetoes it and the battle to override the veto begins again.

Showdown averted

Looks like the USC Board of Trustees will maintain its thin amount of diversity. In an incredibly close vote, with several legislators switching sides on the floor of the House, the board’s lone black member, Leah Moody, regained her seat.

Threats from black legislators to ask minority USC football and other sports recruits to de-commit spiced the weeks leading up to the vote. Banker Mack Whittle lost by two votes. Sen. John Scott (D-Columbia) said he worked for days, cutting deals and calling on old relationships in the Senate and the House to get Moody, an attorney, a second term.

APRIL 16, 2010 – State Rep. Bakari Sellers, D-Denmark, wants to allow “responsible” gun owners to be able to stow guns under the seat of their car or truck.

This has got to be one of the dumbest proposals offered in a long time. 

Current state law allows gun owners to keep guns in vehicles in four places: the closed glove compartment, a closed console, the closed trunk, or inside a closed and secured container in the vehicle’s luggage compartment. Isn’t that enough for the state deemed the most violent in the nation?

Allowing someone to put a gun under a car seat seems to present a number of problems:

• It offers easier access for drivers, which could make traffic stops less safe for law enforcement officers. Says Jarrod Bruder, executive director of the S.C. Law Enforcement Officers Association: “It’s just one more level of danger that is added to their job.”
  
  
• A stowed gun could slide forward under a driver’s foot and impede driving.
  
  
• A stowed gun could slide backward into the hands of a child in the backseat.

Sellers, a lawyer who is one of the House of Representatives’ youngest members, says he’s heard all of these criticisms. He doesn’t think his bill, which this week passed from a House subcommittee to the full Judiciary committee, is dumb at all. It’s OK in other states, he says, to have a gun under the seat.

“All I’m trying to do is allow responsible gun owners a choice in putting their gun where they deem fit,” he said. “There comes a time where we over-legislate and what I’m trying to do is pull back the reins and give people a choice.”

Choice? If lawmakers go down this road and use this logic to pass this “gun choice” measure, it might come back to haunt them when yet another round of the abortion wars occurs.

One of the reasons for pushing the bill is that some South Carolinians are being popped by police for having a gun under the seat because they don’t know it’s illegal to have it there. 

But instead of changing a law that currently offers “choice” to take into account ignorance of the law by some South Carolinians, it would be better to embark on a gun placement education campaign, instead of dumbing down the current law.

* * *

Since a recent column on how important it is to fill out the Census because it gives the state more resources and potentially another congressional district, South Carolina has been noticed as having a much-improved rate of return for mailed-in Census forms. Ten years ago, the state was second from the bottom with just 65 percent of forms returned. By Friday, the last day to mail the forms, SC’s rate had improved to 69 percent. 

By Roxanne Walker Cordonier
Special to Statehouse Report

APRIL 16, 2010 -- There are no women currently serving in the South Carolina State Senate.  Just 17 of the 124 members of the S.C .House of Representatives is a woman.  Nationwide, South Carolina ranks dead last in the number of women represented in state government.

Women make up half the population of this state and our lack of elected representation in state government is catastrophic.  Because there are no women to participate in the political debate, the predominantly older white males representing us seem to have a developed a rather unhealthy obsession with preventing access to preventative and routine reproductive medical care.  South Carolina currently ranks number 2 in the nation in the number of cases of gonorrhea, number 3 nationally for Chlamydia and number 8 for pregnancy among 15- to 19-year olds. The CDC has labeled South Carolina a “hot spot” for HIV infection.

People in our state are literally dying of preventable diseases because South Carolina lacks the political will to mandate solutions.  The most recent example of the South Carolina’s unhealthy obsession with abortion regulations came this week when a bill sponsored by Spartanburg Republican Senator Lee Bright that would vest the right to live under the state’s Constitution to a fetus upon conception.  

Tim Smith of The Greenville News covered the hour-long debate in the “all male chamber.”  Smith reports that the bill was eventually tabled after critics argued that the move would invite an expensive lawsuit that the state would not win.

There are only three places in South Carolina to obtain a legal abortion:  Charleston, Greenville and Columbia.  The constitutionally approved, legal procedure isn’t an easy or affordable process to negotiate, especially for poor women who live in the more remote locations of our state.  The issue of abortion restrictions is discussed, debated and amended almost non-stop by our white male-dominated legislature.  

To Statehouse Report:

Concerning the current issue of Statehouse Report, your 'Radar Screen'  refers to the looming fight on roll call votes. I had recently asked my local Senator about this and he responded by e-mail to me with his opinion on the subject. 

In his e-mail, Sen. Phil Leventis says, "This bill has little to do with transparency and accountability." 

He continued by saying, "Every member of the House and Senate is on the record for every vote we take, voice or recorded. If we pass a bill by voice vote, then you can and should say that every member or any member voted for the bill. The only way a member can say that he was against the bill is if he or she puts a statement in the journal stating clearly that they opposed the bill."

Additionally Leventis adds, "It creates no more record to take 10 minutes for each and every issue we dispose of with a voice vote than to say that everyone is recorded as voting for unless they state on the record, the journal, that they voted no." 

"So much of what we do is procedural. We must have rules and follow procedures. Yet may would imply that someone is for or against a bill based on the votes that are on procedures." he explains, "If you follow the Senate or the House, you can easily see who is for what and who is against it."   

Leventis states, "Part of the problem with politics today is that advocacy groups are reporting on what we do with a special spin in favor of their position." 

Ending his e-mail, Senator Leventis tells me, "There is a web cast of all of the sessions of the SC Senate and House. Please go to SCSenate.gov to find it."

I believe we can expect to see a different view of this bill from the members of the Senate. 

-- John Reames, Sumter, S.C.

Got an opinion on something -- tax cuts, tax hikes, education funding, offshore drilling?  Send us your thoughts up to around 250 words and we'll share with our readers.  Email us at:  brack@statehousereport.com.  We look forward to hearing from you!

Census. The state did a better job responding to the Census than 10 years ago.  More.

Senate. Nice job closing a payday lending loophole.  More.

USC. Great, you kept the lone minority on your board of trustees; but one is the loneliest number. More.

Cancer. The Senate may have passed a cigarette tax increase, but the House hates how the increase will be spent, and the governor just hates it.  More.

Bean counters. So, you guys watching and spending our money goofed twice this week for about $60 million apiece, for a total of $127 million in last-minute shortfalls? Get the ESC’s number. You’re going to need it.

Corrections. South Carolina is one of three states that segregates HIV-positive prisoners, according to a blockbuster of a report by the Human Rights Campaign and ACLU. Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina: If you put those three state together just about anytime other than a food or football story, something probably is wrong. Read the report: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/04/14/sentenced-stigma

Education. Our schools aren’t improving under Jim Rex? So much for somebody’s gubernatorial bid. More.