The key part of getting a sprinkler ordinance adopted is explaining why you want it in the first place. Policy makers tend to think in terms of problems and solutions, so it helps to present your justification in that way. There are plenty of reasons to want sprinklers in some new structures, all new structures, or both new and existing structures. Here are samples of them:
- The fire department is not staffed adequately to handle the demand that fires pose in your community, and the policy makers have repeatedly refused to increase the size of the fire department or add new stations.
- The policy makers will add new stations but will not increase the number of firefighters, meaning that you will have to spread out your already understaffed department.
- The fire department is so understaffed that the risk to firefighters is unreasonable.
- New developments are overwhelming the ability of the volunteer fire department. If the city does not require sprinklers, the option is to begin hiring career firefighters.
- New development has lengthened the response time of the firefighters, and people are not aware of the risk.
- Your community was once a "bedroom" community without much commercial development. now the policy makers are allowing large commercial buildings and high-rises, but the fire department is not staffed and equipped to handle the increased work load or higher risk.
- The number of firefighters responding to EMS calls is leaving you with an inadequate fire response.
Do not underestimate the importance of describing the problem and solution in a way that policy makers and the public will understand. Policy makers won't approve an ordinance if they are not convinced that there is a problem. The public will ignore the issue if they don't appreciate the value of sprinklers. And when policy makers sense that the public does not care about an issue - well, you know the rest.
It takes more than a recitation of fire loss statistics to sway policy makers. In fact, convincing people that there is a fire problem can be difficult and even frustrating. It can leave the fire official feeling that people are apathetic about fire risk. They aren't, though. People make rational decisions about their fire risk based on what they know. To understand this, compare your experience with what the average citizen knows about fire.
For fire officials, fire is an everyday occurrence. They live with it, they study it. The memory of tragic fire losses is burned into their memories. The average person, however, may never have seen a fire truck on their street in their lifetime. Their lack of personal experience with fire leads them to underestimate the danger. They do not realize how little time it needs to kill. To boot, their perceptions are colored by fictional portrayals on television and in movies. Thus, there is a large gap between a fire official's perception and that of the general public. Policy makers by and large are no better informed than anyone else.
Many fire officials are used to being recognized by policy makers as the authority on fire safety whose opinion is good enough. But when facing opposition, policy makers are skeptical and less prone to accept the fire official's word. They want proof that a problem exists and that sprinklers are the best way to address the problem. So if fire loss statistics won't work, what will?