Housing: Where’s the Fire?

It's hard not to see the reasoning behind the Virginia Professional Firefighters' support for a proposal to require sprinkler systems in all new home construction. Homes with sprinklers incur far less damage from fires than homes without them, and the cost of the sprinklers can be recovered through lower insurance premiums.

It's also hard not to see the reasoning behind the Home Builders Association of Virginia's opposition to the idea. Requiring sprinklers adds to the up-front price of a new home -- a price that often is jacked up further by proffers, minimum lot-size requirements, and other government policies that help put homes out of affordable reach for many first-time buyers.

Government policies don't do it alone, of course; the average size of new homes has increased nearly 50 percent since the early 1970s, even though average family size has shrunk. But buyers still can seek out smaller houses if they so desire. They can't seek out less expensive houses if government mandates impose higher costs no matter how big or small the dwelling.

The Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development was right to postpone adoption of a one-size-fits-all approach to the sprinkler question. Consumers are the best arbiters of their own housing needs -- and the commonwealth shouldn't foreclose the option of no-frills, low-cost starter homes for those who want them. The sprinkler question comes down to a cost/benefit calculation: Is the added precaution against an unlikely event worth the certain added expense? The commonwealth shouldn't presume to make that decision for others.