Jack Moroney (RIP)
03-17-2005, 07:03
The following action took place yesterday in the Vermont House. I assume that their next step will be to have safety locks installed on sneaker laces to keep them from coming untied so folks won't trip over their own feet. Now it is not that I do not think CO detectors are a bad idea, I just don't think I need some legislator telling me what I have to do in my own home. Can't wait for the mandatory hand holds in the bath tub etc.
House debates carbon monoxide detectors
March 17, 2005
By Ross Sneyd Associated Press
MONTPELIER — Homeowners and other owners of residential property would have to install carbon monoxide detectors under a bill that won preliminary approval in the House on Wednesday despite some lawmakers' concerns about government intrusion into people's homes.
The bill was a reaction to a carbon monoxide leak at an apartment building at the University of Vermont in January that killed one man and sickened several others, causing injuries ranging from life threatening to relatively minor.
"For the tiny burden and small cost of a carbon monoxide detector, we can save lives that are needlessly lost," said Rep. Kurt Wright, R-Burlington, who was one of the prime advocates for the bill.
The legislation would require carbon monoxide detectors to be installed in any building where people sleep: dormitories, apartment buildings, condominiums, hotels, motels and private homes.
Although many lawmakers spoke in favor of requiring commercial buildings and multifamily buildings to have the devices, there also were a number who were reluctant to impose the requirement on single-family homes.
"Although I understand the need for people to install carbon monoxide units in residences, this bill is just one more instance of government intrusion in the privacy of Vermont citizens," said Rep. Sylvia Kennedy, R-Chelsea.
"It is out of respect for the freedom of all Vermonters to make some of their own decisions without government interference, even if the decision is a poor one, that I vote no," said Rep. Greg Clark, R-Vergennes.
But advocates of the measure said the requirement was not an onerous one — the detectors generally cost less than $100 and they can be paired with smoke detectors. "Carbon monoxide is odorless, silent and invisible," Wright said. "This bill is not about freedom, it is about the safety of unsuspecting citizens who sometimes go to sleep and don't wake up."
The bill would not set up a mechanism for the state to inspect private homes to make sure there were carbon monoxide detectors. But one of the devices would have to be in the building when a home was sold, just as a smoke detector has to be now.
House debates carbon monoxide detectors
March 17, 2005
By Ross Sneyd Associated Press
MONTPELIER — Homeowners and other owners of residential property would have to install carbon monoxide detectors under a bill that won preliminary approval in the House on Wednesday despite some lawmakers' concerns about government intrusion into people's homes.
The bill was a reaction to a carbon monoxide leak at an apartment building at the University of Vermont in January that killed one man and sickened several others, causing injuries ranging from life threatening to relatively minor.
"For the tiny burden and small cost of a carbon monoxide detector, we can save lives that are needlessly lost," said Rep. Kurt Wright, R-Burlington, who was one of the prime advocates for the bill.
The legislation would require carbon monoxide detectors to be installed in any building where people sleep: dormitories, apartment buildings, condominiums, hotels, motels and private homes.
Although many lawmakers spoke in favor of requiring commercial buildings and multifamily buildings to have the devices, there also were a number who were reluctant to impose the requirement on single-family homes.
"Although I understand the need for people to install carbon monoxide units in residences, this bill is just one more instance of government intrusion in the privacy of Vermont citizens," said Rep. Sylvia Kennedy, R-Chelsea.
"It is out of respect for the freedom of all Vermonters to make some of their own decisions without government interference, even if the decision is a poor one, that I vote no," said Rep. Greg Clark, R-Vergennes.
But advocates of the measure said the requirement was not an onerous one — the detectors generally cost less than $100 and they can be paired with smoke detectors. "Carbon monoxide is odorless, silent and invisible," Wright said. "This bill is not about freedom, it is about the safety of unsuspecting citizens who sometimes go to sleep and don't wake up."
The bill would not set up a mechanism for the state to inspect private homes to make sure there were carbon monoxide detectors. But one of the devices would have to be in the building when a home was sold, just as a smoke detector has to be now.