College Park Mayor Stephen Brayman issued a memo last week that stirred suprisingly little reaction from the City Council. Perhaps it was the long meeting, or maybe it was the thick report the mayor’s message topped off, but it’s important that what the memo proposes not be ignored. Members of the council, the city’s landlords, residents and students must all take a long, hard look at the balance between costs and safety, and carefully consider the benefits of Brayman’s plan to retrofit every home in College Park with fire sprinklers within the next 10 years.
Brayman’s proposal is an ambitious step toward increasing fire safety in a city marked by the death of a university student and the spectre of multiple arsons. Fire sprinklers in every home would give the city bragging rights that are likely rare among Washington-area municipalities, and the increased feeling of safety alone might be a greater incentive for attracting those hard-sought families the city has lacked.
Authorities pointed out that sprinklers would have potentially saved the life of Michael Scrocca when an arson gutted the Princeton Avenue house in which he lived in May, if only by confining the majority of the damage to the exterior of the building. In the case of the minor fire in South Campus Commons Building 5 in June, fire sprinklers managed to quell a blaze from an errant candle. Though the water may have caused tens of thousands of dollars in property damage, the fire damage and possible loss of life could have been much, much worse if the fire had spread.
Landlords and property owners have been quick to decry the costs of mandatory sprinkler installation, and understandably so. Much of College Park’s housing stock is older and would be difficult to squeeze a modern system into, and the necessary displacement of tenants could prove to be a headache for both landlords and renters. But that means they should engage in the debate and consider the options the city can offer to offset the cost: Tax breaks, waived fees and exceptions to certain zoning rules could outweigh the short-term costs. And the time frame — 10 years — should ease the burden a little. After all, shouldn’t landlords be performing some serious cleaning and renovations on their properties at least once a decade anyway?
What Brayman proposed last week certainly won’t be easy to implement, nor will it be cheap. But the promised long-term benefits and safety improvements should be more than enough to bring the parties to the table for a serious discussion. It should certainly be enough to warrant some support.
