Posted on 09/30/2010 8:26:22 PM PDT by Go_Raiders
Video at the link above. Palo Alto looks to become second Bay Area city to mandate photoelectric technology for smoke alarms in new residential construction, remodels and rental housing when required by State Law.
Acting Fire Marshal Gordon Simpkinson is interviewed as National Fire Prevention Week (Oct. 3 through 9) approaches.
Ionization smoke alarms often fail to provide adequate warning of smoldering fires, and are far more likely to be disabled by residents due to nuisance alarms. Residents are urged to check existing alarms and replace them if they are ionization type. Any alarm more than 10 years old should be replaced to insure reliable operation.
Read more at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/fire
If you like dual sensor alarms, that's great. Just make sure you install them away from kitchens and bathrooms so you don't get nuisance alarms.
/johnny
They do in my state, can’t sell a house without both smoke detector types and a carbon monoxide detector - because home buyers are apparently simpletons that can’t buy their own detectors....
Under the Constitution, I don’t believe the Federal Government has the authority to require it anywhere other than Federal property. The Federal Government does have some regulatory authority over manufacture and distribution of smoke alarms as that is interstate commerce.
State Laws allow considerable authority over new construction and rental housing. In most States there are also laws that require smoke alarms where title is transferred. My opinion is that this is a legitimate power of State Government under the 10th amendment of the Constitution.
Local Goverments typically enforce State Law. In the case of Palo Alto, they are modifying what smoke alarms are considered as satisfying the State Law, and not requiring alarms in areas previously left unregulated by the State.
Palo Alto is not mandating anything for existing owner occupied dwellings, but they are proposing that if a smoke alarm is going to be forced upon a property owner by the State, that the alarm should be one that actually does what it claims it can do.
Of course, once the building is occupied, the owner is free to make whatever choice he desires, whether that choice well-informed or not.
Nice post. I'd add, though, that federal courts have ruled that the federal government - in any of its capacities - can satisfy its jurisdictional due diligence by merely presuming it has authority to act in any given situation.
Those same courts have ruled that it is then upon the targets of government action to prove that the government was wrong in its jurisidictional presumption.
Oh, and those federal courts have also ruled that the moment you step into one of them, your presence indicates your acceptance of federal jurisdiction.
See, Catch 22 wasn't good enough for the feds. They had to Catch 22 Catch 22, kind of like Catch 22 Squared.
But actually, it's Catch 22 Cubed, because they also ruled they didn't have to tell you about any of their presumptions, or their rulings about presumptions, or basically anything else.
And if they do admit it in court, they've ruled that its perfectly legal to seal the court record.
So that makes Catch 22 to the Fourth Power.
And we haven't even started talking about treaties yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.