IBJNews

Bloomington defends tough smoke-detector ordinance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The city of Bloomington argues in its defense of an ordinance requiring hard-wired smoke detectors in rental properties that Indiana law allows local rules to be tougher than state regulations.

Bloomington property owners sued in July to block the smoke-detector ordinance after the city council passed the rule in November 2012 requiring rental property owners to install hard-wired smoke detectors by Dec. 31, 2018.

Their suit argues that Bloomington's ordinance is ineffective and unenforceable because state law allows for multiple types of smoke detectors, while the city requirement would limit landlords to one type.

But Bloomington assistant attorneys Greg Small and Patty Mulvihill wrote in their request for summary judgment in the case that Indiana's smoke-detector regulations allow city ordinances to be tougher than state code, the Herald-Times reported.

"State law says smoke detectors can be either battery-operated or hard-wired. The city, in the interest of public safety, chose to pursue the more stringent requirement of hard-wired systems," Small and Mulvihill wrote.

Indiana law requires all smoke detectors to be battery-operated or hard-wired. It also allows for city regulations to be more stringent or detailed, although they cannot conflict with state code.

Attorney Michael McBride filed the suit in Monroe County on behalf of Fierst Rentals LLC, Hays Building LLC, the trusts of Marjorie Hudgins and Donald E. Geels and John and Sharon Kirtland. He also has requested summary judgment in the case.

Bloomington's requirement has not been sent to the Indiana Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission for approval. McBride argues that it should be subject to approval by the commission because it was "established to safeguard life or property from the hazards of fire," which makes it a fire safety law and building law.

Small and Mulvihill contend the panel does not need to approve the ordinance because it involves installation of residential smoke detectors, which are exempt from commission approval.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • commies
    City and Co gubment hear in Bloomington have become nothing but communist Anti Americans.
  • Questions?
    As a former landlord, I have some questions about the regulation. If it is such a good regulation, why does it not apply to ALL residences in Bloomington instead of just rental properties? I haven’t seen any of the homeowners in Bloomington clamoring to get it expanded to them. What prevents a tenant from disconnecting the hard wiring and capping the lead to the detector? If this is done, and a fire occurs, who is too blame then? Is the landlord responsible for regularly inspecting the detectors for functionality and how would this be enforced? I ask these questions with my daughter living in a rental unit in Bloomington for at least the next 18 months. From the surface, this looks like another stupid law that is just another over-reach of the city council. Tenants will do whatever they want and that is mostly why I am not in the business any longer. When will bureaucrats stop trying to protect us from ourselves? My best guess - NEVER!!!
  • Commission Approval
    I think a key issue here that has not been mentioned is that the City of Bloomington submitted all but two chapters of the newly revised Property Maintenance Code to the State Commission for approval. The Commission rejected all chapters sent and the City of Bloomington is no longer enforcing those chapters. The two chapters that were not sent includes the smoke detector chapter. Many landlords in Bloomington think the smoke detector chapter should have been submitted to the Commission. If the Commission were to approve the Property Maintenance Code in its entirety or even the smoke detector chapter, then they acknowledge the City followed due process. It has to have Commission approval.
  • Greed - Nothing More Than Greed
    Landlords are more interested in the bottom line than the death toll from an apartment fire that injures or kills other residents. By the way, the Building Code allows for local Building Departments to make specific changes and requirements to any section of the Residential or Commercial Code.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

    2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

    3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

    4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

    5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?

    ADVERTISEMENT