For those of us who work in fire and life safety, this tragedy felt devastatingly familiar.
The 1942 Cocoanut Grove nightclub fire in Boston — one of the deadliest in U.S. history, believed to have resulted from the ignition of flammable palm tree decor — killed 492 people. The 2003 Station nightclub fire in Rhode Island claimed 100 lives when soundproofing foam on the ceiling ignited due to a pyrotechnic display. In each case, the spark may have differed, but what happened was not an accident of fate. These tragedies and many like them are what happens when safety requirements are ignored, diluted or not enforced — when we choose cost-cutting over proven protection.
We’ve known for decades about the lessons of these fires. Think what happened in Switzerland can’t happen again in the U.S.? Think again.
Some states, often at the urging of the building industry and other special-interest groups, are chipping away at the safety codes and standards designed to prevent exactly these kinds of tragedies. In North Carolina, for example, a freeze on changes to building codes until 2031 guarantees they won’t reflect emerging fire and electrical hazards. And North Carolina isn’t alone: Multiple states have enacted laws or are considering new ones that restrict state agencies from updating fire and building codes regularly and responsibly. In several states, for example, lawmakers are considering proposals that would allow new six-story residential buildings to have a single stairway, bypassing expert reviews through legislative maneuvers.
In the decades since Cocoanut Grove, safety codes have evolved through a rigorous consensus-driven process that considers risk, use, occupancy, building materials and more. It’s not about blocking innovation or new building approaches but about bypassing a proven process with policy shortcuts. Safety decisions should be grounded in evidence, not expedience.
Yet in state after state, lawmakers are increasingly framing life-saving codes and standards as obstacles to affordable housing rather than addressing root causes like restrictive zoning and land costs. These changes may seem like minor adjustments, but they circumvent decades of technical analysis and lessons learned from fatal events.
Modern buildings feel safe to us because codes and standards quietly do their job. When they work, nothing happens. But that very success breeds a false sense of security.
Too often, safety codes are dismissed as potential “red tape” or expensive roadblocks to housing affordability, without understanding that the only reason safety feels automatic today is because past generations insisted on strong protections in the wake of devastating losses.
There’s also widespread misunderstanding about how safety standards are developed. Government determines which codes become law and how they’re enforced, but it’s independent standards development organizations that create them based on technical rigor and broad stakeholder input where no one group can dominate the process.
The resulting standards represent a consensus on a level of safety that the public can rely on. Historically, this public-private relationship was built on mutual trust. Increasingly, however, that trust is being replaced by a narrative that frames safety and affordability as competing goals.
They are not. Safety standards exist because somebody paid the price for their absence. Cutting them in the name of cost savings is an illusion. The only real benefit is the building industry’s bottom line. The result is substandard construction and reduced safety protections that can last generations.
Consider the example of fire sprinklers. A 2016 investigation by ProPublica revealed how homebuilding industry lobbyists spent millions to block residential sprinkler mandates, despite data showing that sprinklers can reduce civilian fire death rates by 90 percent and firefighter injuries by 35 percent. Today, only California and Maryland have adopted the latest code requirement for sprinklers in new residential construction.
In my 30 years working in fire and life safety, I’ve seen how protecting the public from fire, electrical and related hazards requires both a vision for the future and a memory of the past. That’s why our organization has launched a campaign called “Safety Doesn’t Happen by Chance,” our most forceful response to date to defend the integrity of codes and standards and raise awareness of the ecosystem that underpins safety.
As lawmakers consider changes to codes and standards, we must ensure those decisions remain grounded in the expertise of professionals who dedicate their lives to understanding fire behavior, building design and risk management — professionals who understand not just how buildings are constructed but why every protection exists.
Jim Pauley is the president and CEO of the National Fire Protection Association.
Governing's opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing's editors or management.
Related Articles
