In other words:
“To poor and struggling cities and towns all over Massachusetts: Please stop calling us for help. You’re fine. And remember to vote Healey/Hillman ’06!
Love always,
Mitt & Kerry”
Please share widely!
Reality-based commentary on politics.
Is there even one of the 351 communities of Massachusetts that would say, “We’re doing good”? I could swallow rhetoric like “poor and struggling” if I for once heard a town say “we’re okay”. Ever.
<
p>
Take my town for example. We’ve got a good school system, a well-stocked and staffed library, low crime, good roads, excellent public safety departments, and yet just last night one of our selectman took a jab at the lack of state aid.
<
p>
Just what is a “poor and struggling” community? Are we talking real poverty — no food, living in the streets — or do we mean that the football team couldn’t buy new uniforms this year?
<
p>
For as disappointed as I am in Romney’s neglect for the past year (more?), I have appreciated that he doesn’t promote a nanny state. If a community outspends its resources, negotiates contracts that result in salary increases beyond revenue generation, should it be “the state” that has to bail them out? The state is us, and we can’t all be clamoring for more. But that’s what is happening, and that’s what rhetoric like “poor and struggling” is supporting.
<
p>
Congrats on living in what sounds like a really kick-ass place to live. Seriously. I live in Newton. Frankly, we’re not struggling either. And yet, every year it seems we’re faced with the choice of whether or not to fund this after-school program, or keep that fire department open. So, you’re right, even the wealthier twon would never say they’re fine.
<
p>
But I’m talking about communities like Fall River, New Bedford, Lowell, Lawrence, Worcester, Springfield…and the plethora of other communities whose schools, hospitals and local goverments are crumbling in no small part from the neglect of a Romney administration that really couldn’t care less.
As a resident of a city that really is struggling, I do find this comment offensive. I’d like to know the last time Mitt spent some time on the ground here.
<
p>
We’re really trying in Worcester. We’re trying to invest in our past (Union Station, renovating the downtown theatre, the airport) and our future (Citysquare, new Worcester Voke, Courthouse, Gateway Park). We’ve had to fight very hard to have anyone on Beacon Hill recognize our efforts.
<
p>
We’re doing a lot better than some of the other cities you list, but a new administration of ignorance like the one we have now will not help our chances of future success.
“Stumbling”, “crumbling”.
<
p>
What does this mean, you know, in facts, numbers…? Has the local aid been cut to Worcester? House prices down? Education per head down? Firemen headcount down? Police? Local aid down?
<
p>
Help me out here with some facts.
Straight from the DLS:
<
p>
All municipal aid in FY02: $4,506,255,883
<
p>
All municipal aid in FY06: $4,206,244,153
<
p>
A couple years ago they changed the cherry sheets and no longer include school and highway construction aid in the figures. So you have to take the first number and subtract 312 million in school construction and 10 mill in highway construction to compare apples to apples. They moved those numbers elsewhere. (And no, they haven’t grown significantly)
<
p>
Still, we’re at approximately the same level of funding now as we were in 2002. Healthcare’s been going up 10% a year, pensions have been going up, inflation is close to 5% and our own local receipts are capped at 2.5% growth.
<
p>
How do you think we’re doing?
Hare we doing?
<
p>
At least you’ve addressed the biggest financial problem:
<
p>
<
p>
And, the fact that you’re aware of the cherry sheet and changes therein tells me you’re likely a state or town employee. So, aid is down in fy06 in total compared to fy02. Remember that we did have a tax rollback of .65% in 2003.
<
p>
So, how we doing?
<
p>
We is more than a town budget, it’s you and me too. So, after that partial rollback, the residents of the third richest state in the US with an average of, thereabouts, $40K per head with a population of 6.3 million received, in their pockets nearly a billion bucks. And, no, not the richest residents either. The bulk of the tax burden in on the back of the middleclass; the bulk of the tax refund went to the middle class.
<
p>
Spending on education rose, employment declined, scholarships to college students increased, consumer spending is booming and businesses finishing up a great year. Property taxes rose if local towns raised them and over 100 towns locally voted to increase their own taxes. BTW, property valued increase too. Significantly.
<
p>
Could it be better? Probably.
<
p>
Stumbling and crumbling? Not even close: that’s empty and hollow rhetoric and fear-mongering.
But you’re still making that collosal leap from assuming because both personal wealth AND expenses are increasing, that across the board there aren’t communities barely getting by, or worse.
<
p>
Are the increasing costs of municipal benefit programs partly to blame for the budget crunches in cities in towns? I’m sure. But that doesn’t relieve the state of its responsibility to its cities and towns.
Look, we disagree ok. Let’s agree on that.
<
p>
But the language: “communities barely getting by, or worse.”
<
p>
From your view of the Commonwealth, I’m expecting to leave today from work through a burnt out shell that resembles Beirut! Or, worse, East St. Louis.
And even if you throw out the healthcare and pension crises, normalize them to say the rate of inflation…
<
p>
2.5% is still less than 5%. 0% (increase in state aid) is quite a bit less than 5%.
<
p>
Our budgets are effectively being cut for us, year after year. All we’ve done in the 2 years I’ve been in office is lay off teachers, police, and reduce/eliminate very important jobs in town hall just to stay even. This spring we reduced the number of police, laid off about 17 teachers, and reduced hours for almost every single employee in town hall. In the past few years we eliminated the Town Planner and Asst Town Administrator positions entirely, in a town with growing population. This isn’t a matter of cutting the fat out of the budget, it’s a matter of doing the best we can (not good enough IMO) with a dwindling pool of resources. Tyngsboro was hit worse than some towns because this financial disaster happened in the middle of a transitionary period in our management, but the best management and planning in the world can’t make a buck into a 1.05 every spring.
<
p>
This isn’t a matter of simply making less photocopies, take your multiple-dozen-million town budget and figure out what 5% of that is. We’re behind the 8-ball for 7 figures or close to it every year. For a few years (02, 03, 04 in our case) there were unnecessary services that could be pared down. Now we’re cutting to the bone.
<
p>
The crumbling is happening in slow motion but it’s definitely a “crumble”.
<
p>
The .65% tax cut was a shell game with local property tax increases, school user fees and local service reduction. The state balanced its budget by cutting ours. Now Healey wants to do it again?
1: Entitlements will increase as a per cent of budget.
2: Raise (or maintain) income tax rates.
3: Send the .3% money to Boston.
4: Boston takes a cut.
5: Boston sends local aid back (maybe).
6: Property tax and local votes make up the diff.
<
p>
or
<
p>
1: Entitlements will increase as a per cent of budget.
2: Lower income tax rates.
3: Don’t send the .3% money to Boston.
4: Property tax and local votes make up the diff.
I’m also figuring out that a lot of state and municiple employees post here.
Is that the state gets to take their cut first. We’ve seen that it’s easier for them to cut town budgets than state budgets. That’s part of why I support Deval because if Healey was going to confront the legislature on these issues, why hasn’t she already? She’s supposedly looking out for us as LtG, she even said she would on the trail in 02.
<
p>
The problem with option B is that property tax sucks. If David makes 5x the salary of Bob, he probably lives in a home with about twice the valuation. It also disproportionately affects retirees who’ve spent their years working, paid off their mortgage, are on a fixed income and they get soaked by the property tax increases while not really gaining anything from the income tax cut. So your average Woburn breadwinner making 41k a year would save .003 * 41k = $123 a year in income tax reductions while watching their property tax bill go up to the levy limit and then being forced to either accept an override which will hit them for more than 123 or lay off teachers in their community.
<
p>
Income tax is fair because it’s based on what people can afford to pay. Are you prepared to tell all of the seniors in your community that they should get a reverse mortgage to handle increased property tax bills or be responsible for laying off their grandkids’ teachers?
kick-ass place. We’re doing ok. A huge industrial park helps our tax base. It’s a city, so there’s always problems, but the cuts in state aid hurt us less because of the good tax base.
<
p>
However, there’s this little problem about our FRIGGIN’ DOWNTOWN FLOODING!!!!!!
<
p>
We can’t afford to fix that ourselves. We’ve been asking the state for help for a number of years. There was a provision in the budget a couple years ago. Romney vetoed it. And then when the downtown flooded again this past May, Mitt was all “oh, you guys got a problem up there? Oh, is that what I vetoed?”
<
p>
When Willard Mitt is too busy jetting off to South Carolina to notice that you need a friggin’ boat to get from one end of Peabody Square to the other, and then his idiot spokesweasel comes up with crap comments like this–you bet your kiester I’m pissed.
<
p>
Next time Peabody Square is underwater, I’m gonna go find Willard Mitt and his spokesweasel and throw them in the friggin’ deep end.
How can you sell newspapers or run a campaign on “Things are pretty good in Massachusetts”. It’ll never sell.
<
p>
Town, state of nation comes down to Wiker’s Rule: Government expands to absorb revenue … and then some.
Because things are okay in your town, there aren’t other cities and towns in Mass that for the past six years have been either level funded, or had funding slashed, resulting in real problems for real people? Because you don’t see these things everyday, it’s just rhetoric? Just more “government” soaking up revenue?
<
p>
If I’m John Walsh right now, I’m on the phone with every mayor or local selectman that’s told me a horror story over the past 18 months about what state cuts under the Romney administration have done to people in those towns. And then I’m going to make Fehrnstrom’s quote the banner in my ninth 30 second spot, followed by direct quotes from people in these communities. And I’ll make the Healey campaign EAT today’s Globe quote.
<
p>
But that’s just me.
I know rhetoric; I’d like facts. Trust but verify.
<
p>
Show me “funding slashed”. I’m a numbers sorta guy.
A guy walks up to your door and says I’m hurting, can I have $100, would you do any checking or just hand it to him?
G-man, I suspect one of the many differences between you and I is that even if you did do the checking, and found the man to be credible, you’d actually have the $100 on you to give to him.;)
<
p>
No, what I meant by “no kidding” was I know you’re a numbers guy. I think we’ve established that. But I dont have time to conduct a study at work right now, or even google one. What I can tell you is that going from town to town, reading the paper and being involved, I know there are communities are hurting. I see it with my own two eyes. I hear it all the time. I read about it. I see it on the news. You know, there are times when politics isn’t so much about numbers, but about opening your eyes and taking a look around.
What would you guys do?
<
p>
You know, a path without obstacles leads to nowhere (kinda like a all Dem or all Rep government).
<
p>
Link.
<
p>
Here’s the MMA’s website. Why don’t you see if you can debunk what they’re saying. They tend to be pretty reliable, AFAIK.
Just happened upon these at Sen. Jehlen’s site: of the four communities she represents (Somerville, Medford, Woburn, and Winchester), only Winchester (!!) has had its local aid restored to where it was in 2001 (and those numbers are not inflation-adjusted).
So Woburn.
<
p>
<
ul>
$4.7 million
<
p>
So is the Town of Woburn stumbling or crumbling?
<
p>
And yeah, if you walk into the Woburn’s Town manager’s office and say hey I’m the politics of hope, what do you want? It’s like sitting on Santa’s lap. Of course he’s going to ask for money.
<
p>
So what to do? Do the Deval shell game:
1: tax income more.
2: take it to boston.
3: send some it back to towns. (but not all)
<
p>
Or, do we do the Romney shell game:
1: tax income less.
2: allow the property owners and voters of the town decide via their Selectmen and Prop 2.5, to raise the property taxes or, else, cut the local costs.
<
p>
You’ve picked one. We disagree.
<
p>
And the reason we disagree is that I favor 1) local choice and 2) I strongly believe the problem is out-of-control insurance and entitlement that’s not being addressed by your candidate.
<
p>
But the politics of fear is great and successful: towns are crumbling, roads are falling apart, people are starving, the black plague is near, look a comet!
Woburn is a city with a Mayor…and the schools (at least 3 of them) are crumbling to the point that now that the new high school is finished (which they will be paying for forever), they will need to consolidate and construct 3 elementary schools…Woburn has a multi-lingual school population and for the most part Woburn schools are and always have been average or below average…some people even send their children to the Catholic school in Winchester to avoid the Woburn schools…
<
p>
Woburn benefits in tax revenue from intense industrial and commercial properties along 128…but that does not offset the costs of infrastructure to suppport those properties, the traffic mayhem that results daily, or the problems created by over-development and the continued and recurring groundwater and flooding problems at Horn Pond.
<
p>
And anyone who lives on a side street in Woburn knows that when it snows you stay home until God removes the snow from the streets (the city runs out of snow removal money before Christmas)…and if you don’t think the roads are in extreme disrepair…ask any car repair shop…they put their kids through college on front end alignmnets and tire replacements.
Why was it that you were a Democrat? And for that matter, what is the basis of your disappointment with the Romney administration? I don’t mean to be rude, it’s just that, having read your posts for a while now I have a hard time imaginining which core Democratic values or policies are–or were–important to you. Not inclusion, clearly. For instance, you are evidently more concerned that Deval be scrupulous in honoring the–alleged–differences between Healey the candidate and the Romney administration than about whether immigrant children have access to an education. And you seem to live in a Massachusettts where there’s good reason to doubt that towns and cities are struggling (and, hence, where we might doubt that schools have all the support they need). So I’m just wondering what kind of Democratic party it was you thought you were supporting.
was distracted by a phone call while posting. this reply was supposed to be to dweir’s initial reply, above.
phew. For a second there I thought I was being seriously misunderstood.:)
One of the most frequent themes in the Lowell Sun and the NorthWest Weekly has been the Chelmsford-Westford comparison. Chelmsford, hit by local aid cuts, wonders why their wealthy neighbors get more aid and keep on getting more aid.
<
p>
Here’s some numbers:
<
p>
Westford
Year (Enrollment) School Aid
FY01 (4179) $ 7,409,012
FY02 (4442) $10,325,011
FY03 (4495) $10,615,861
FY04 (4709) $ 9,400,986
FY05 (4911) $11,057,152
FY06 (4961) $11,305,202
FY07 (5034) $12,975,693
<
p>
Chelmsford
Year (Enrollment) School Aid
FY01 (5633) $ 7,166,800
FY02 (5671) $ 8,241,820
FY03 (5659) $ 8,241,820
FY04 (5663) $ 6,593,456
FY05 (5706) $ 6,593,456
FY06 (5668) $ 6,876,856
FY07 (5633) $ 7,440,307
<
p>
Gee, dweir, YOUR town didn’t take the 20% local aid hit, but your neighbor did. You took an 11.4% reduction in FY04, but it was more than restored in FY05. Right now, Chelmsford has less school aid than the 2001-02 school year. They were doing better when Jane Swift was governor, and there are about 115 cities and towns in the same boat.
<
p>
Just because YOUR libraries are well stocked and your schools haven’t taken a hit, it doesn’t mean that your neighbors aren’t hurting. So, instead of saying local aid isn’t a problem, why not go to the floor of your town meeting and tell your neighbors that you are getting much too much local aid, and perhaps we shouldn’t share some with Chelmsford.
Pablo, the numbers you display show that Westford’s enrollment grew by almost 25% while Chelmsford’s remained flat. This is how the funding difference has been explained — Westford was a high growth community and received funding advantages because of that. I haven’t found these categorizations mentioned in any published budget documents, but that’s the line I’ve heard. I don’t buy it.
<
p>
The measurement that is of more interest is the gap between actual aid and target aid. I am well aware that, as compared to Chelmsford, Westford was receiving a larger percentage relative to its target aid. I am well aware that despite this, in the FY07 budget, Westford’s gap narrowed while Chelmsford’s (and Littleton’s for that matter) remained flat. I, too, am well aware that not one resident — Democrat or Republican or otherwise — decided to run against their elected representative, Geoff Hall. Am I wrong in believing that the legislature has a larger hand than the governor in dispersing the allocation to communities? Am I wrong to believe that it’s foolhardy to blame this on the governor’s office when local citizens can’t even get resutls from their reps?
<
p>
So, please, don’t try to cast me as some cold-hearted person who doesn’t care about those in need. I do. If you’ve read my blog, you know that I predicted we would be receiving less state aid as more money would be shifted to low-performing school districts. And you’ll notice that I didn’t cry “poor us!”. I said — let’s prepare for that.
<
p>
Your post reinforces the point I made which is you never hear a community say “we have enough”. Even in Westford, where we received generous amounts of state aid, officials attempted to push through an override claiming that our schools were “devestated”. And yes, I did campaign for School Committee while opposing the override.
<
p>
But, no. I wouldn’t say let’s give our money to Chelmsford. Even though Chelmsford is receiving less aid than Westford, I think anyone would be hard pressed to consider Chelmsford to be “poor and struggling”. Personally, I would like to see the state DoE strengthened so that each district can be freed from expensive administrative costs related to data mining, CORI/certifcation checks, and curriculum development. This is something that would benefit the whole state, not just isolated communities.
Let’s get back to the context of the post. Mr. Prisby posted the following statements. One, by Mr. Fehrnstrom, was the Romney position on the issue. The second was Mr. Prisby’s interpretation.
<
p>
Fehrnstrom said the financial distress at the local level is overstated. “It ain’t as bad as Deval Patrick and the cities and towns make it out to be,” he said.
<
p>
Prisby’s analysis: “To poor and struggling cities and towns all over Massachusetts: Please stop calling us for help. You’re fine. And remember to vote Healey/Hillman ’06!”
<
p>
Then you post, in what seems to be support for Romney and Fehrnstrom.
<
p>
Either
(a) local aid isn’t a problem.
(b) cities and towns are really hurting.
<
p>
The way I read your statement. You think (a) local aid isn’t a problem, things are good, you have plenty of money.
<
p>
I’m just saying, because you happen to live in the land of milk and honey, that doesn’t mean local aid isn’t a problem and we should stop whining. No, this is a time to be whining, complaining, pressing our case. It’s an election. Local aid is an issue. It’s an important issue. Maybe not in Westford, where Route 225 is lined with Healey-Hillman lawn signs. But it is in my town, and there are more than 110 towns that share the distinction of being Swift-aided. As long as Jane Swift gave me more local aid than Romney and Healey, and as long as Romney and Healey tell me it’s not a problem, I’m going to make all kinds of noise about this issue to prove them wrong and run their myopic and elitist administration out of office.
…er…I mean, Ed!
When they stop sending giant, portable, high pressured, multi-ton, water pumps, and the people that operate them, to medical emergencies and minor traffic accidents, I will belive the cities and towns.
For new rescue trucks then, I presume?
Get rid of some fire trucks and staff. Combie some surburban departments. Cut down on over time and over staffed departments.
<
p>
Local firefighting is much different than it was 20 – 30 years ago.
Disclaimer I was a volunteer firefighter before I moved to Worcester…
<
p>
How has local firefighting changed to allow for these cuts, Ernie? I’m honestly curious.
They have virtually been eliminated because of fire codes, new materials, less smoking, smoke detectors, all sorts of stuff. But the house fires just aren’t the common occurrence they once were.
I could only find numbers from 1996 on, but they don’t show any consistant drop at all:
<
p>
Year Fires Deaths Injuries Direct Dollar losses (millions)
1996 428,000 4,080 19,300 $4,962
1997 406,500 3,390 17,775 $4,585
1998 381,500 3,250 17,175 $4,391
1999 383,000 2,920 16,425 $5,092
2000 379,500 3,445 17,400 $5,674
2001 396,500 3,140 15,575 $5,643
2002 401,000 2,695 14,050 $6,055
2003 402,000 3,165 14,075 $6,074
2004 410,500 3,225 14,175 $5,948
2005 396,000 3,055 13,825 $6,875
<
p>
Unless you’ve got some better backup, I don’t think your perception matches reality.
I’m talkin’ post WWII up until mid to late 70s. Every urban neighborhood had many house fires over the years.
<
p>
1996. lol
<
p>
So cute and adorable.
Nice condescending post Ernie, but what you said was that fires “have virtually been eliminated…” I think Rollbiz’s stats, be they from 1996 or 1966 show that you couldn’t be more wrong.
I said there are fae fewer house fires today than 30 years ago yet staffing has not changed.
This is what you said just a few comments up;
<
p>
House Fires Use to Be Very very Common (0.00 / 0)
They have virtually been eliminated because of fire codes, new materials, less smoking, smoke detectors, all sorts of stuff. But the house fires just aren’t the common occurrence they once were.
<
p>
ernieboch3@hotmail.com
You are a worthy opponnent. I had no idea.
<
p>
A few question, for you, Sparky.
1.Do you believe more people have computers todayt than in 1995?
2.Do you need to see statistics to know this or are you that out of tune with your community?
3.How many houses burned down during you’re volunteer firefighter stint?
I would suspect that one of the reasons the number of fires have decreased is fire prevention. Absent any statsitics I am sure the local fire departments are responsible for much of the prevention and I would go so far as saying that sending those trucks out to an automobile accident is part of the prevention. Just yesterday a car went off the mass pike near my home shortly after burst into flames and the surrounding woods caught on fire. Imagine that a fire truck was there and helped contain the fire almost immediately.
1)Absolutely
2)I don’t need numbers for this, but this comparison is apples and avocados. Not to mention, if I was putting forth the assertion that there weren’t more and someone challenged my logic, I could and would provide numbers to prove my point.
3)I was a volunteer for about 5 years, and all large fires would be covered by at least 4 towns. Totalled, these towns probably had a population of about 8,000. Going from memory, there were 15-25 fully involved structure fires a year.
<
p>
Housefires still do happen quite often. We (Worcester) had a spurt this past winter with a few three deckers a week going up, and as people get creative with their heating and lighting options. I’d wager that we’ll have the same again starting with our first cold snap.
don’t exaggerate!
Don’t give me $$ value. Give calls to houses and businesses for actual fires. Then give me number of multi-alarm fires.
No contest roll-a-bone.
1)The number of fires is on the list.
2)I already said that the numbers I could find didn’t go back that far.
3)What’s happened to population and number of dwellings since WWII?
<
p>
You made a claim with no backup, I disputed it and provided the backup I could find. You told me I was still wrong and asked me to get you more information. Here’s a thought! Why don’t you find the information, since you made the claim and all. No contest yourself, unless we all live in What-Ernie-Thinks-Land…
Look up your own goddamn statistics. I ain’t here to prove you an idiot. Idiot.
<
p>
You weren’t around then lad. Folks who were and lived in the city would tell you house fires were more common than today.
<
p>
You’re right. Itis not “What Ernie Thinks Land”
It is “What-Ernie-Knows-Land”
<
p>
OK Laddie
If you’re going to call names and be an asshole, than…Comin’ right back at ya!
<
p>
Look at MY statistics, since you can’t seem to stop being a know-all but prove-nothing long enough to find your own…The numbers move up and down, there’s no consistant decrease.
<
p>
I don’t want folks to tell me what they ‘know’, I want some proof. Problem is, you can’t find any. Therefore, the only response you have is to be a demeaning prick and try to piss me off enough so that I forget what we were arguing about to begin with. Well, it almost worked. Almost.
<
p>
Once again, there are numbers on the table. Sorry I don’t have the stats from the Dawn of Time when you were born, Ernie. Dig through your papyrus scrolls and provide some numbers yourself, because otherwise it is plain as day that your point has no merit except that you ran your cobwebby brain for a half a second and decided what you wanted everyone’s reality to be. Sounds a lot like everything else you write here, actually…
<
p>
-Except your polls, they rock. You should stick with what you’re good at.-
<
p>
OK Grampa
In one fell swoop, Fehrnstrom managed to alienate municipal officials and English teachers everywhere. That ain’t bad!
I learned in the 11th grade. I was at one of my cross-country races when one of the runners passed out. So, someone called an ambulance. Wouldn’t you know, two firetrucks and an ambulance showed up, and we all remarked, a la EB3, that it didn’t make too much sense for two firetrucks to show up, when actually zero firetrucks were needed.
<
p>
Then someone explained that firefighters are first responders in all emergencies. They are usually trained EMTs themselves, and are most often the closest responders in a given city. So, while you may not need them…well, better safe than sorry.
How many guys worked on your friend and how many hung around. How much gas was used for TWO fire trucks to be there when a something much smaller would do. Why arent cops emts? who was there first/ Cops I bet.
This was about 15 years ago. But the rational seems to me that the EMT’s feel like have the fire department respond first helps save lives, and while they may not save a life every time they’re called, the lives they do save are worth the price in gas.
<
p>
I understand what you’re saying, and I’d encourage you to maybe call around and find out what the deal is. But I disagree with you to the extent that you’re saying city and town funding shouldn’t be restored because firetrucks waste too much gas responding to emergencies.
EB3 is right. There’s just not house fires like the good ol’ days. That’s when a housefire might mean a block fire which might mean a Chicago, holycrap we lost a city fire.
<
p>
Firecodes and new materials changed fires. I was haven’t dinner one evening and lightning struck the house across the street: smoke, fire, folks running for cover, the works. About 20 minutes or so later, about 5 trucks show up and put out the fire that pretty much stayed in one room. I’m guessing that a hundred years ago the house would have burned to the ground in 20 minutes.
<
p>
But, and certainly I’ll defer to experts, maybe fire departments haven’t really changed to respond. They just grow.
There may be fewer fires, which has meaning to a statistician.
<
p>
When there’s just one fire, and it’s your house, you want a firehouse with adequate equipment close enough to provide a reasonable response time.
<
p>
What happens if you don’t have a reasonable response time? Your homeowners insurance rates rise. Insurance companies are really good at math. They know that the quality of response, and the response time, have a big impact on the size of the loss.
<
p>
Play the shell game. Move the cost from taxes (firefighters) to homeowners insurance. I’d rather pay for first responders than higher insurance premiums.
<
p>
An extensive Google search reveals that an insurance company has never rescued a cat from a tree.
Would you have wanted the firefighters to WALK to the call?
<
p>
Here’s a good reason to bring the trucks.
<
p>
1. EMT call.
2. Firefighters go to call, but leave the trucks at the firehouse.
3. Ambulance arrives.
4. House fire call.
5. Firefighters go back to the firehouse to get the trucks before they respond to the call.
<
p>
Simply put, you want the fire trucks and the firefighters to be in the same place.