Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(34,285 posts)

6. In all likelihood many buildings have them anyway for insurance reasons, but my position is

Thu Aug 31, 2017, 12:49 PM

Aug 2017

not ONE THIN DIME for any property damage that could have been prevented with basic fire prevention regulations.

Not one.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

It is my understanding in Texas you CANT be forced to have sprinklers in a building [View all] Eliot Rosewater Aug 2017 OP

Yes it's true. AJT Aug 2017 #2

A law that prohibits localities from adopting a fire code. . . annabanana Aug 2017 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author trc Aug 2017 #7

Is this what rethugs want for the entire nation? ecstatic Aug 2017 #8