General Discussion

pnwmom

(108,980 posts) Sun Apr 8, 2018, 03:02 PM Apr 2018

In 1999, Donald LED the fight against sprinkler requirements for NYC apartments.

He said he couldn't afford them.

https://nypost.com/1999/01/04/survivor-of-culkin-fire-a-crusader/

I asked Rose what he would like to say to Donald Trump, who doesn’t own the building but has made himself the spokesman for all high-rise landlords, the way Rose has made himself the champion of high-rise tenants.

Trump has called a dozen council members to lobby against sprinklers, including Speaker Peter Vallone. He has also donated $5,000 to retire Vallone’s campaign debt, and personally telephoned committee chairman Archie Spigner, and Walter McCaffery, the sponsor of the bill.

Trump says he can’t afford to install sprinklers in all his buildings.

SNIP

“I would tell him if there has been a sprinkler in the Culkin apartment, the fire would have been out in 30 seconds, and nobody would have died. I will gladly pay a small rent increase to have sprinklers.”

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

In 1999, Donald LED the fight against sprinkler requirements for NYC apartments. (Original Post) pnwmom Apr 2018 OP

I fail to understand Sherman A1 Apr 2018 #1

Insurance companies simply charge for the risk the take on fescuerescue Apr 2018 #3

Greedy bastard. He is directly responsible for the death in his building and smirkymonkey Apr 2018 #2

He's not responsible. He turned over control to his sons. JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2018 #4

If I owned the building where my family slept, I'd have it sprinklers in it. NightWatcher Apr 2018 #5

so he's (according to him) fabulously wealthy and successful, to the tune of billions mnmoderatedem Apr 2018 #6

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)

1. I fail to understand

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2018, 03:09 PM

Apr 2018

just how anyone in a building of this type without sprinklers can get insurance. If the code doesn't require them (which in and of itself is beyond absurd) why would an insurance company accept the added risk of providing coverage for such a risky structure?

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)

3. Insurance companies simply charge for the risk the take on

Reply to Sherman A1 (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 8, 2018, 04:42 PM

Apr 2018

That's pretty much the reason they exist.

Same exact building with sprinklers would cost less to insure than the same building with sprinklers

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)

2. Greedy bastard. He is directly responsible for the death in his building and

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2018, 04:39 PM

Apr 2018

I hope he is sued for millions.

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,350 posts)

4. He's not responsible. He turned over control to his sons.

Reply to smirkymonkey (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 8, 2018, 04:55 PM

Apr 2018

Or so he says.

But I'd be happy seeing Uday and Qusay sued for the millions. Or Beevis and Butthead. Whatever their names are.

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)

5. If I owned the building where my family slept, I'd have it sprinklers in it.

Reply to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2018, 04:57 PM

Apr 2018

To be fair, if I owned a building I'd put sprinklers in it regardless of who slept there, but to cheap out where your kids sleep is just cheap bastardness of the highest order.

mnmoderatedem

(3,728 posts)

6. so he's (according to him) fabulously wealthy and successful, to the tune of billions