7/2/2001 11:26:37 PM
Fire Codes unfair to the Hearing Impaired
Submitted By Margaret A Pitts, Editor
One of the greatest fears in the deaf community is being caught in a house or apartment fire without proper visual notification systems. According to the fire code as I understand it, the landlord must furnish smoke detectors to suit all of their tenant’s needs. Now you would think that wouldn’t be a problem for the hearing impaired, wrong. The fire code as written at this time in Washington State does not protect the hearing-impaired. I filed a complaint against the public sector in 1996 and finally prevailed in 1997 forcing the public landlords to provide visual fire systems and visual doorbell signalers for all hearing-impaired tenants upon with a written request in Washington State. That was a victory for me. This case was a federal case and it was acted upon nationally from that point on.
What I found out March 1, 2001 along with my husband who is hearing, this fire code that we fought and prevailed in 1997 did not apply in the private sector for the hearing-impaired. Since my husband as well as myself are disabled. We utilize the subsidized housing program called " Section 8" offered by Housing and Urban Development. I had my husband go and look at the apartment at the end of January. He liked the apartment. We paid a holding fee and part of the deposit at that time. They ran a credit check and we passed. Our projected move was for March 1, 2001. During this time, I contacted my case worker at Spokane Housing Authority numerous of times asking, would there be any requirements I would need to know about to assure our passing our move-in inspection. She never answered. Six weeks went by and we made the usual preparations to move in our apartment on March 1, 2001.
We were excited because the layout of the apartment was going to enable each of us to have some space apart from each other due to our health problems as well as I being profoundly deaf. My husband is hearing; an elderly and has COPD, a respiratory failure disease. We had our energy; money for our new apartment, only to find that I did not pass the inspection due to lack proper visual fire systems for me; the reason is because the apartment for the hearing-impaired must have hard-wired visual strobe smoke detectors with a high-pitched decibel sound under the H.U.D. rules. I moved into a townhouse with two levels, the H.U.D fire codes and regulations required me to have one for my bedroom upstairs, but none for downstairs. The visual fire system upstairs is not effective for me when I am downstairs 80% of my time. I can’t see them upstairs from where I would be downstairs.
The real surprise was when H.U.D told me that I would have to pay for these visual fire strobes myself. I was in shock, which could have been that callous to think up a regulation like that in the first place. Naturally I felt all along that I was being blatantly discriminated against and not having my needs met under the equal accessibility of the American Disability Act Laws.
I contacted our local fire marshal and made them aware of the problem and that I felt it was unfair. Now to the private section, when you move into an apartment, it is required by fire code (RCW 48.48.140) that we as tenants must sign a "Smoke Detector Device Notice", to reflect our responbility to maintain the fire systems in our apartment to ensure that the audible fire systems are operational. In that notice there is no mention of the hearing-impaired; thus, we are not protected. The form that tenants are required to sign is not broad enough and specific enough. It is designed for the hearing tenants only not for the hearing impaired tenants.
For a landlord to ask a hearing impaired tenant to sign it, would be I feel illegal and discriminatory. It violates the civil and human rights of the hearing impaired tenants and covers up the problem. In the event there was a fire, an a fire department found no visual fire systems for us, they could fine us for not having them in our apartment, or they can fine the owner of the property for not providing us the necessary visual fire systems for the hearing impaired tenants. Or more on a serious note, the landlord could be faced with a manslaughter charge if one of us dies in a fire at the property that was privately owned.
The form (notice) that I referred to earlier states that if you don’t check and maintain the system, we can be fined up to $200.00 dollars. This is not fair because the notice is directed toward the hearing tenants only. I simply want to put the deaf community and the hearing community at notice until the codes can be rewritten and changed to include the requirement for the hearing impaired and others who might require special fire warning systems. I also want to advise those of you not to sign the "pink slip"—" Smoke Detection Device Notice" if there are no proper visual fire systems at your residence that you rent. It would be not valid. If you do sign it without the proper visual fire systems, they can fine you. It would release the responbility on the wrong person, YOU! Until we get the fire codes rewritten and modified, do not sign any " fire notices" submitted to you by your landlord if there is no hard-wired visual fire systems. If any questions, you can contact your fire department.
What my husband and I found when we started researching the problem of the fire code. Under H.U.D. fire regulations for an apartment for the hearing-impaired tenant must have a hard-wired visual fire systems, it must be placed in the hall and in the bedroom. This is a requirement, not an accommodation. Because the smoke detectors for the hearing impaired costs much more, we must pay whereas the hearing tenants are never charged for these same items for any apartment they rent, but yet the hearing impaired are required to pay. That is what happened to my husband and me last March of this year.
I was referred to this reality management company by another deaf couple who praised this management company for being so accommodating to their needs and that this company had provided the visual fire systems and the visual door signaler to them at no charge. I subsequently contacted them and applied for an apartment that would be available to me on the basis that they would do the same thing for me. Lo and Behold, that was not to be, the day we moved in, I had learned that I would have to pay the additional charges close to $500.00 for the apartment to pass the fire code inspection. I had no choice but to accept the conditions; however, I made it very clear I was paying under duress. I tried to get the management company to accept the responbility of paying for the required visual fire system for me to no avail. We had no choice but to accept the conditions, remember, they had 6 weeks prior to our move to let us know of this requirement. I feel I was discriminated against very badly. .I want to remind you again, hearing tenants do not have to pay for these items at any given time when they are renting. Hearing impaired does!
The fire department required that all public and private sectors must furnish a working audible fire system in their properties for the hearing tenants, but yet we were forced to pay placing an undue burden on us. We protested after the visual fire strobes were installed by filing a complaint with several agencies. Human Rights Commission (HRC) was one of the agencies; oddly they found no discrimination. Yet I did not give up, my husband and I filed a civil suit against this company through" Small Claims Court" after offering mediation in which they flatly refused initially until we forced them into mediation. I prevailed thanks to the mediation process set forth by the Courts. The rental management reversed all of our costs. It was victorious for my husband and me.
From the beginning of this process in March, my husband and I have been working very closely with a very wonderful lady who works in the Education department of the fire department here in Spokane. We are attempting to get the fire codes rewritten at all levels. This wonderful lady with so much dedication to the hearing and visually impaired has supported us throughout this whole process after I filed several complaints. We both have done our research and are still ongoing. I have contacted the Governor’s Office and made aware of the problem with their office as well as many other fire agencies. During this research, I found was that there were states that recognized the special needs of the hearing impaired and the visually impaired concerning the visual fire systems. The law in some states requires the landlords in both public and private sectors to provide the visual fire strobes for their hearing impaired tenants. I am proud to say that the state of my birthplace enforces the laws that protect the hearing impaired as well as the visually impaired. Oregon is another as well as the city of Baltimore, Maryland. The lady in the Education Department of the Spokane Fire District is currently doing a lot of research of how to get the fire codes rewritten by possibly using their model format and use it for Washington State and hopefully get the fire codes all supported nationwide. I am very committed to seeing this happen and I want the deaf community to be aware of the latest issue.
I say; watch out for the word" accommodation", it is being loosely translated, means if you have special needs, the landlord must allow you to meet these accommodations, however you must pay. You can protest this to the fire department, also you can send me your complaint, and I will make sure to forward that to the person who is in charge of this investigation at the fire department that I have been working closely with. With persistence, staying alive would not be an accommodation, but a requirement. There is a vast difference between the two words. I strongly empathize that without your complaints and support. The landlords can get away with blatant discrimination and murder; let us stop it now.
I am very confident that we as hearing impaired and visually impaired tenants will be treated fair and receive the justice we deserve. I feel confident that the Governor’s office will help us expedite this. Once they understand the hearing impaired is being placed at risk because of the unfairness of the fire codes. So won’t you help me to show them how we feel and that if the fire codes are not written in our favor, that we could easily be the last ones out of a fire and lose our lives while the hearing tenants can defend themselves in time.
Lastly, who wants to support this issue can contact me at this email address, pittsp@qwest.net. You can also call me TDD 509-532-8836. I will be more than happy to work with serious takers interested in making it happen. If you feel that your landlord or any other provider has discriminated against you, I have some wonderful tips I can share with you. The lady that I am working with at the Spokane City Fire Department has been nominated by me to the Washington Association for the Deaf for a recognition award. I feel she deserves it for her heartfelt dedication in helping making a difference for us. Of all the people I have dealt with, I have never encountered such a sincere person who is not deaf and able to be aware of the unfairness of the fire code as it is presently written. She is also willing to work towards on getting the fire codes changed. I thank her for the efforts she has put forth. Finally more lives will be saved and we hearing impaired will be heard. Together, she and I will continue to fight.
I would like to add some more information to what is happening and what we can expect soon. Jan Doherty at the Spokane Fire Department. She is a Public Fire Education Officer who has persistently following up on our complaint with inadequate fire codes for the hearing impaired. She has contacted the following and has had some positive feedback from the community in hopes of getting the fire codes in Washington State revised for the hearing impaired. First, she contacted the National Fire Protection Association and presented a scenario of the landlord-tenant rights and responsibilities regarding the fire systems in their units. The question she posed was that has anyone at his or her site worked this issue or managed to get federal guidelines from various code sources onto one page?
My point and my issue presented to Jan Doherty in our complaint with the Fire Department. At issue: if a tenant is deaf or hard-of-hearing, audible smoke detectors afford no protection. Strobe detectors cost about $ 150 per unit as compared with $15 per audible unit. Landlords are sometimes utilizing the HUD distinction that strobe detectors constitute a "modification" (that the tenant must purchase) rather than a "accommodation" that the landlord should provide.
It would seem that the short-term cost, (rather than the purpose of detectors as a recognized means for early warning; increased chances of fire survival and diminished probability of extensive property damage), guides the decision. However, it would appear to me at this point that renters who are deaf have to bear the financial burden of installing smoke detectors while renters who can hear receive them as a matter of legal requirement.
Currently there was a situation explained earlier in our article where I was charged close to $500 dollars in totality for the visual fire systems and the doorbell signalers. I feel that without one another, the protection from the fire will diminish greatly. According to HUD, requirements, the building owner was required to provide the strobes… but could pass that cost along to the deaf renter even though the rent is subsidized because the total apartment complex is not a HUD project.
Jan Doherty and I have been working hard on this. We have contacted the State Fire Marshall’s Office, Spokane Fair Housing, www.hudclips, ADA, HUD office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, D.E. Sievers and Associates, advocates for the deaf and hard of hearing. State Building Code, Inland Empire Fire Chiefs Association, President of the Inland Empire Rental Association and the latter was very receptive to working with the landlords regarding a code clarification and ways to get strobes more available even before the code can change.
The Spokane Valley Fire Marshall who works with regional code issues has been contacted as well. The copy of the Oregon Fire Laws came into my hands mailed to me by Jan. We are working on getting the Washington Fire Codes revised similar to the Oregon model. We have a lot of support of pursuing changes in the wording of the applicable codes and we started at the local level (and then pursue at the State and National Levels.). What likely happened was that no one knew how to complaint appropriately and to whom and that no consideration or distinction was given to the issue of audible/visible smoke detectors when RCW 48.48.140 (requiring smoke detection devices installed in all dwelling units occupied by persons other than the owner on and after December 31, 1981) was written (in the late 1970’s).
Unfortunately, it appears that this issue was not clarified in code language at the local or state level for already existing structures. We are now pursuing this with local building owner and management groups, the State Fire Marshall and Building Code Councils. I have asked to sit in them.
Forward-thinking owners and management companies systemically ask whether there is need for any special accommodation and then provide the strobe detectors upon request of the tenant. Logical-thinking anybody would understand that a detector has no value unless it makes an alarm. An alarm has no value unless it can be perceived. There should be no distinction between audible and visual alarms in terms of the INTENT of RCW 48.48.140. Conscionable landlords should easily recognize that, given they are legally responsible for the installation of smoke detectors for tenants, they are legally responsible for that provision whether the tenant responds to an audible or visible alarm. Bottom-line, economy-minded landlord$ would even recognize that the money involved in the installation of appropriate smoke detection and alarm devices is a mere" drop in the bucket" in relation to the potential damages associated with a delayed response to a fire situation in their building, i.e. injury, potential deaths, and a burned structure.
My complaint and my case that I prevailed had helped utilized an opportunity to utilize" RCW 34.05.240, Declaratory order by Agency—Petition according to Jan Doherty at the Fire Department. It is as follows:
There are a lot to be done, and clearly can not be accomplished before the summer is over; it may take some months…but I think that it will ultimately be of benefit to a much larger community… because it’ simply the right thing to be done, i.e., clearly state owner responbility in providing basic smoke detectors protection without cost to either hearing and non-hearing tenants. Along that line, we wonder from a police-legalese perspective about landlord responbility for someone who may be deaf and blind and may need a vibrating alert system? Any thoughts on that for the fire codes while they are at the drawing table revising the fire codes?
© copyright 2001 Washington State Association of the Deaf (WSAD)