Rolling back a bad idea

Here’s what good reporting can do:

Last Wednesday, two hours after the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and other USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin websites posted a story about a Walker administration plan to roll back a requirement involving fire sprinklers, agency officials said they were dropping the idea.

Walker’s Department of Safety and Professional Services had been quietly advancing plans to end the requirement that fire sprinklers be installed in apartment buildings with three to 20 units, the Journal Sentinel’s Patrick Marley reported.

“That will not be recommended,” Deputy Secretary Eric Esser told Marley. “It will be status quo.”

So you can breathe a little easier if you live in one of those apartment buildings. It was a bad idea, and I’m glad that reporters got on to that story.

But my question is why didn’t someone in the administration raise his or her hand and say, “Um, hold on just one second. What are we doing here?” How much of the Kool-Aid do you have to drink before it blinds you to common sense?

Of course, apartment buildings should be protected by sprinkler systems. And of course the Department of Safety and Professional Services should always lean on the side of safety. Which apparently officials quickly recognized once someone outside the agency made it public. But, wait, the story isn’t over: Other safety measures that firefighters say would save lives and that were recommended by an advisory committee are still in limbo.

The department has not decided whether to expand the use of circuit interrupters that prevent fire and electrocution, as recommended by the committee. Marley reported that such a provision would protect families buying new homes at an added cost of a few hundred dollars, according to firefighters, fire chiefs and advocates for burn victims.

A committee of experts assembled by the department voted 9-1 last year to expand the use of circuit interrupters, which run about $500 per house. But department officials at least initially decided to pass on those recommendations. Why? Cost.

Brad Boycks, executive director of the Wisconsin Builders Association, told me in an email that the cost can make a difference to a homeowner:

“While the cost may seem small in comparison to the cost of a new home, it is important to remember the cumulative effect these additional regulations have on the cost of housing. A 2016 report discovered that, on average, regulations imposed by government at all levels account for almost a quarter of the final price of a new single-family home. Another 2016 report shows that 3,820 Wisconsin families will be priced out of purchasing a new home when the price is increased by $1000. The WBA has worked for years to make sure homes remain safe and affordable for Wisconsin families, and we will continue to do so.”

I appreciate Boycks’ point. I want affordable housing. And I get the idea that government regulation can add unnecessary costs. But in this case, I’m with Wauwatosa Fire Chief Rich Ugaste, who spoke about the overhaul before the sprinkler provision was dropped:

“It not only puts civilians’ lives at risk, it puts firefighters’ lives at risk,” he said. “A department that has safety in its name and safety in its mission should not be doing things that are unsafe for the public.”

Amen.