What Alarm System Was At Value Lodge?
"She’s a hero’: Nanaimo mom rescues neighbours from motel fire
"Manson, a Nanaimo mom of three, risked her own life, after waking up at 3 a.m. on Dec. 26 to smoke in her family’s rented room on the second floor of Nicol Street’s Value Lodge. She told CHEK News Saturday that once she’d woken her kids, she then ran door to door of the motel, to wake up all of those still sleeping inside."CHEK NEWS"
Public Questions: What alarm systems were operating at the Value Lodge when the fire broke out?
A Boxing Day fire at Nanaimo’s Value Lodge on Nicol Street sent seven people to hospital for smoke inhalation after six ambulances were dispatched, and it displaced about 40 people, including 35 longer-term residents who were living there full time.
This wasn’t just “tourist accommodation.” When dozens of people are effectively living long-term in a motel setting, the public has a right to know—plainly and transparently—what life-safety systems were in place, whether they worked as intended, and how prevention is managed.
Online listings commonly describe the Value Lodge as a 55-guestroom/55-unit property. (travelocity)
(Some reports have described different unit counts—so this is also something officials should clarify clearly for the public.)
Why this matters
BC fire safety guidance is blunt: all sleeping rooms in B.C. are required to have working smoke alarms, and the owner/occupier must maintain required systems in operational condition. (Government of British Columbia)
In other words: early warning is not optional—and it shouldn’t depend on luck, or on who happens to be awake.
The questions Nanaimo deserves answered
1) What alarm system was installed—and what actually activated?
Did the building have a building-wide fire alarm system (panel, pull stations, horn/strobes), or only in-room smoke alarms?
If there was a building-wide system: did it activate on Boxing Day? If not, why not?
Was any system monitored (automatic signal to a monitoring company/dispatch), or was evacuation dependent on phone calls and human action?
2) Were the smoke alarms interconnected (unit-to-unit or corridor-to-unit)?
Were alarms hardwired or battery (or mixed)?
Were alarms interconnected, meaning if one unit alarm triggers, others also sound? (If not, why was that acceptable for a building housing long-term residents?)
3) Audible warning and notification
Were there audible alarms that could be heard throughout the building, including in sleeping rooms?
Were there visual strobes in common areas?
If alarms were present, were they tested regularly, and is there a maintenance/testing log?
4) Suppression systems
Was the building sprinklered (fully or partially)?
If not sprinklered: what was the applicable standard for this type/age of building, and were any alternative measures required?
5) Fire separations and spread
Were there any known issues (that can be publicly shared) related to fire doors, fire stopping, corridor separation, attic/roof spaces, or other features that affect how quickly smoke/fire spreads?
6) Inspections and compliance history (dates and status—not blame)
What was the date of the most recent fire inspection at the Value Lodge?
At that last inspection, was the property in compliance (yes/no)?
Were any orders/deficiencies issued in the past five years, and were they cleared (dates)?
7) Prevention program: how often are these buildings checked?
How often does Nanaimo Fire Rescue typically inspect motels/hotels / multi-sleeping-room buildings, and what determines frequency (risk, complaints, age, occupancy patterns, etc.)?
Given 35 long-term residents were living there, did that change the risk profile or inspection priority?
A reasonable public expectation
No one is asking investigators to release sensitive details about cause while the investigation is underway. But the public can still be told—now—basic life-safety facts:
What alarm systems existed
Whether they activated
Whether they were monitored
Whether the building was sprinklered
The date and compliance status of the last inspection
Because when 35 people are living full-time in a 55-room property, “we’ll look into it later” isn’t good enough.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for your input. Your comment will appear once reviewed.