Fire Sparks Sprinkler Debate

The Times’ editorial (“The Inevitability of Sprinklers,” Sept. 19) stated that the tragedy in a Century City condominium “has rekindled the debate over the need for mandatory sprinklers in older high-rise residential buildings.” Unfortunately this sad event did not rekindle honest debate, but rather an emotional backdrop for irresponsible demagoguery.

Sprinklers have been suggested as the magic cure for the loss of life in fire. Fire officials have claimed for years that most fire-related deaths are from smoke inhalation, not flames, as was apparently the case in Century City. Sprinklers were designed to protect the spread of fire in empty buildings like First Interstate Bank. Residential high-rises are constructed specifically to limit the spread of fire and clearly the Century Park incident was testimony to that fact.

According to the 1989 BOMA Fire/Safety Survey, “sprinkler systems controlled only 25% of office building fires where sprinkler systems were installed.”

Holden claims that his “proposal” for sprinkler retrofit has “been stalled for years”; he has apparently forgotten his vote to allocate $100,000 for a study to determine the costs, benefit and impact of residential retrofit. (The study is currently under way through the city Housing Department.)

Why are The Times and Holden demanding sprinklers in our homes, which are not public buildings, when those that are, like City Hall and the Fire Department headquarters, do not have them?

GLENN ROSTEN, Vice President, Greater Los Angeles Condominium Assn.