Hotel fire safety back on agenda

e-mail this story print this story

Such legislation died in 2004 after it was introduced following the fatal fire at the Comfort Inn on Congaree Road, and some lawmakers still oppose requiring sprinklers in existing hotels.

Nancy Smith, who lost her foster daughter in the Comfort Inn blaze, said she hopes lawmakers will take action. She is upset that any lawmaker would oppose a requirement for sprinklers.

"How many lives is it worth?" she asked.

Firefighters also want lawmakers to take action.

"It's a known fact that sprinklers do save lives," said William Heathman, the fire chief and former fire marshal for the town of Hartsville. "It's like having a firefighter on duty at the location 24/7."

But some Charleston area lawmakers who opposed the legislation last year have expressed continuing concerns that it could hurt historic hotels in that area. They include a powerful Charleston senator who vows to fight any bill requiring sprinklers to be added to existing hotels.

State Sen. Verne Smith of Greer, who chairs the Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee and filed hotel sprinkler legislation last year, said he believes the Senate will pass legislation to better protect hotel guests.

He said he will consider filing sprinkler legislation if he can work out a compromise with Charleston lawmakers, who he said killed his legislation last year.

"They were really strong against a sprinkler bill," he said. "But it would save some lives."

Charleston lawmakers said last year any sprinkler proposal would cause financial hardship for the operators of many historic and older hotels in their area because it would cost so much to install.

Charleston Sen. Glenn McConnell, who also serves as president pro tempore of the Senate, said he would oppose any bill that would require sprinklers be installed in existing hotels.

"In my opinion, if they want to prospectively require sprinklers in buildings that are built, that's one thing," he said.

"But buildings that were built to code and historic properties should be left alone. It would ruin them and put them out of business, and to me that would be us overreacting."

Nancy Smith disagreed.

"How many children has he lost in a fire?" she asked.

McConnell said some of the older hotels are protected from fire better than newer lodgings because they are made of masonry.

"I would rather be in a building that is masonry without a sprinkler than a building with wooden construction that has a sprinkler," he said.

Smith's bill would have required sprinklers in all hotels by July 2007. The bill was later changed only to require sprinklers in hotels taller than three stories.

But McConnell and other Charleston lawmakers still objected and Smith's committee instead approved legislation that would require hotels without sprinklers to notify guests of that fact using lobby signs.

That measure failed in the House, but its sponsor, Sen. David Thomas of Fountain Inn, said he has re-filed the bill.

"You would think this would be the lowest common denominator, which is simply a notice requirement," Thomas said. "And yet, some of the powers that be, some of the vested interests, even don't want that. If we have another fire it could very easily cost human life. So I can't understand any hesitation about passing a notice requirement."

Rep. Harry Cato, a Travelers Rest Republican who chairs the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, believes Thomas' bill will pass his committee this year.

"I think a pure notification bill stands a very good chance," he said. "The only fear last year was that everybody said if we moved it, it would be amended with a mandatory sprinkler provision and we knew that bill died quickly because of the Charleston delegation."

Nancy Smith said the law should require hotel guests to be told or given a written document.

"I'm not going to see a sign unless a clerk points it out to me," she said. "Hand me something. I may still stay, but I should have the choice."

Heathman also has problems with the sign requirement. "I think instead of alerting the customers, I think there should be more education of the public so that people understand what sprinklers are for and how they operate.

"Even in this day and age, people still think that sprinklers damage property and don't protect property," Heathman said. "So I think it's a better idea to educate the entire population so they can see that sprinklers do save lives."