 OK, let's do the math. It would have cost $166,000 to install a sprinkler system at Gardner Academy, but the law didn't require it, so the district didn't do it. Now the school will pay $150,000 to $200,000—its portion of the fire insurance deductible—to repair the damage. So where is the logic in any of this?
The money that the district could have initially spent by adding the sprinklers, during Gardner's $4.5 million renovation, is now being spent on the deductible. Should we blame the district for this oversight? Percentage-wise, it would have encompassed approximately 3.6 percent of the renovation budget. So a little number juggling and foresight might have resulted in those sprinklers becoming part of the campus's upgrades. Without them, the school has lost its computer labs, which includes two-thirds of the school's computers, its library, administration office and seven classrooms. Yet without a state mandate, the district spent its money on its immediate needs, not on future protection. Cost over safety won out.
On the other hand, if state legislators had any regard for child safety, a bill would have been passed back in 1997 when it was first proposed by statewide fire officials and legislators, who recognized the importance of upgrading schools to meet fire safety code requirements.
It is unconscionable to me that a school fire safety bill mandating sprinklers, automatic smoke detectors and fire alarms would fail four times. Three bills authored by San Carlos Assemblyman Ted Lempert were vetoed by both former Govs. Pete Wilson and Gray Davis, the argument being it was too costly. And Wilson also added insult to injury when he justified his rationale for vetoing the bill by saying no child was a victim of a school fire.
Yet one of the first remarks after the devastation was from Greater Gardner Advisory Council board member Norma Jean Mendez, who said, "Thank God none of [the children] were in there."
Perhaps it takes a mother or loving parent to see the rationale for such safety measures; obviously our legislators do not.
And they shouldn't sit on their laurels with the passage of a 2002 compromise bill that requires the installation of sprinklers only in new buildings but does not include any buildings being modernized or retrofitted.
That bill is laughable, especially in the face of our current state budget crisis. How many new schools are we going to build? My bet is close to zero. Yet on the flipside, how many schools are we going to modernize to some degree? Most likely every single school in a district where a bond measure was passed within the past several years. That includes San Jose Unified. So once again the logic of those we have elected remains in question.
But it probably shouldn't surprise any of us when you consider that school buses—still chugging along from the 1950s—are missing seat belts. Why then should we need sprinkler systems in buildings that are a mere 30 years old?
Should we ignore the pleas of experts or comments from those such as San Jose Fire Chief Dale Foster, who acknowledged that the installation of sprinkler systems would have "made a significant difference" after surveying Gardner's charred remains? Or should we shun statistics that point out that 51 percent of fires that occur in schools are the result of arson?
It's time to stop ignoring the safety of our children.
Perhaps we should ask these legislators to drive cars without seat belts or live in homes without smoke detectors. Or for that matter, maybe we should have them all work in old buildings that are not equipped with sprinkler systems or have not been retrofitted to meet earthquake safety requirements. It seems only fair, considering they are asking future generations to reside and study in those same conditions.
Moryt Milo is the editor of The Willow Glen Resident. She can be contacted at 400.200.1051 or mmilo@svcn.com.
|
