Here’s the story behind the story. According to the Globe, the cuts were the result of a failed override.
The decision to close the fire stations goes back to June 2004, when Gloucester voters rejected by a 4-to-1 ratio a proposal to override the state cap on property taxes, known as Proposition 2 1/2, which limits the annual increase in taxes and forces municipalities to seek voter approval for extra tax increases. The tax increase would have added $1.23 million to the city budget.
Without the money, firefighters, police, and other city workers were laid off, and the two fire stations were kept shuttered most of the time since the vote.
But let’s look at the context. Looking at local aid to Gloucester from the big three aid line items (Chapter 70 school aid, Lottery aid, and Additional Assistance) the city of Gloucester was seeking a tax increase to fill a fraction of the deficit from the withdrawal of local aid. The $1.23 million override wouldn’t have made up for the $2.05 million difference between local aid in FY03 (Jane Swift) and FY05, the fiscal year of the override vote.
Here’s the numbers:
Year Combined Aid (change from FY03)
FY03 (2002-03) $11,481,138 $0 (final Jane Swift budget)
FY04 (2003-04) $ 9,431,262 -$2,049,876
FY05 (2004-05) $ 9,431,262 -$2,049,876 (failed $1.23 million override)
FY06 (2005-06) $ 9,918,164 -$1,562,974
FY07 (2006-07) $10,606,102 -$ 875,036
Note to Christy Mihos: When you hang the Big Dig deaths on Muffy, don’t forget this one.
Of course, the Globe article and you neglect to mention that in 2004, the firemen of Gloucester DIDN’T support the override. So even if the State had shoveled some pork into Gloucester trough, the firemen must have figured it wouldn’t have been spent on them just like extra 2.5 money wouldn’t have benefitted them.
<
p>
Hindsight is 20:20 but local politics, local spending decisions, and local voting carried the day. Your discussion of Chapter 70 is interesting but irrelevant.
<
p>
The stupidity of the union does nothing to reduce the impact of the local aid cuts.
Town: Vote for an override, we need more fire stations.
<
p>
Firemen: We don’t think so.
<
p>
You: The Govenor knows more than the Town or the Firemen. Give the town a big pile of your money. Even if they don’t build a new fire station maybe a big pile of taxpayers money will help someone.
<
p>
Patrick: Hope.
<
p>
Smokey the bear: Only your money will prevent forest fire.
<
p>
Globe: To err is human, to blame it on someone sells more papers.
Town: “Vote for an override, we need to maintain staff levels.”
<
p>
Firefighters: “We don’t trust you to keep us on the payroll.”
<
p>
Patrick: “See what cutting local aid does to communities?”
<
p>
42-year-old woman: “Was I still alive at the 6-minute benchmark?”
Do you think that the firemen rushed in to the structure immediately upon arrival? It doesn’t happen that way. Do you know how involved in flames the building was when the first call was made to 911? Do you know if her fate was preventable or inevitable? Of course not, but go on ahead and politicize this ugly tragedy.
FYI-The override was earmarked for school funding.
<
p>
The city of Gloucester lost a lot of local aide. As soon as Romney/Healey got in the money ran out…and we had to cut, cut, cut.
<
p>
Interesting fact: John Bell, the mayor of Gloucester, not only supports Healey, but was on the podium when she announced her candidacy.
<
p>
Final thought: the Bay View Fire Station (the one which was closed) was 3 minutes away, not six. Bridget Cleary died of cardiac arrest in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. One can’t say for sure, but the general wisdom is that she would have lived if Bay View was open. So I agree: Christy go ahead and put this death in Healey’s column (and John Bell’s too).
<
p>
Let’s see, 80% of the City votes against an override. Town decides whether to close or open fire departments. Then, someone dies in a fire.
<
p>
You have no idea whether the woman who died would, or would not have survived given other City policy choices. You have no idea whether the Fire department’s arrival times, and transport times caused or otherwise contributed to her death. You have no idea whether an intervening medical conditions caused or didn’t cause her death.
<
p>
So couch all the unknowns against a policy decision, toss in some “One can’t say for sure” and “general wisdom is”. weasel words then you smugly suggest to put the death in a government official’s “column”.
<
p>
That’s an ignorant and despicable comment.
about 3 minutes breathing in smoke from a burning building versus more than 11?
<
p>
i’m gonna have to go with what’s behind door #1: local aid cuts closed the fire station, which certainly didn’t help her survive.
<
p>
If Kerry Healey wants to play with fire, she’s gonna get burned. Cutting local aid is playing with fire.
I wish you tax crybabies would — just once — be honest with everybody and say “I don’t care how many people die, I just want more money in my pocket”.
<
p>
Do you have an ideal death rate in mind? Would 4 people a year dying because of local aid cuts in the Commonwealth be too many? 40?
<
p>
No, there’s never going to be a point at which the gated compound, silver spoon and corporate welfare crowd says “OK, that’s enough; our taxes are just right, they’re not too high anymore”, is there? And there’s no lie too big to repeat over and over, until enough people believe it that the cash register rings.
<
p>
Then there’s the denial. “Response times have nothing to do with fire department staffing levels.” “Money doesn’t improve education.” “Decreases in local aid don’t result in reduced services.” Stand up in my town meeting and tell my neighbors, I dare you.
<
p>
Just a word to the wise — people are starting to break the code.
(and I’m in favor of Patrick’s tax plans) giving schools more money isn’t necessarily going to improve the quality of education. Family socio-economic backgrounds are far more important – if people’s lives at home aren’t okay, it doesn’t matter how much money you throw at a school, it probably won’t help. That’s evidenced by the fact that some of the school systems that get – by far – the most per pupil are in some urban areas.
<
p>
Of course, there are programs and such that can be added, which are costly but valuable, which help – after school programs, etc. – but money alone isn’t enough. The money a) has to be spent wisely and b) we need to find ways to improve situations at home to improve them in schools.
The problem with the “the failing urban schools get the highest aid” argument is that people seize upon it to argue that their aid should be cut, because it is being wasted.
<
p>
Let me throw this one out to you — maybe the level of aid still isn’t enough. Why not? Because the levels, although higher, are only marginally so. Like maybe the difference between $8k/student and $10k student. Do you think that $2,000 more to a student growing up in poverty and all the baggage that entails is going to equalize that student with a student growing up in a well-off family? I bet the well-off student is getting far more than $2,000 in educational support from his parents.
<
p>
I agree that “pouring more money” doesn’t work — but that’s a Republican frame. No one ever brings a bag of money into the school department and says “here, go for it”.
Yes. I’m proposing that instead of looking at “aid per pupil”, and then coming up with an acceptible number, and then trying to fit programs into it, we need to figure out “what do we need to make these kids into functioning members of society?”, and then figure out the dollars needed to support those programs.
<
p>
We need to stay away from comparing districts on resources while ignoring needs. If a poor district has 7 kids per class, and that is helping kids learn, then it doesn’t matter if the wealthy district next town over has 20 kids per class, as long as they are learning too.
<
p>
I also think an eye needs to be kept on what most districts consider to be necessary — if most districts are teaching Chinese, then Chinese should be a core item that should be available in all districts. The fact that so many school systems spend twice their foundation budgets tells me that the foundation budget is not measuring what is considered an “average” education.
It’s not about how much you spend, but what you spend it on. I wasn’t arguing we were already spending enough per pupil; in fact, I’d argue we aren’t spending nearly enough for those who need it most. However, where we spend it (in schools) isn’t the only place we need to spend it. IMHO, kids are doing worse in some places than others because of more difficult and troublesome lives at home. If a kid’s parents are out of work and worried about how they’re going to pay rent, I somehow doubt homework is going to be the first thing on the kid’s mind. If a kid isn’t getting 3 square meals a day (plus a well-balanced snack or two), they’re not going to be learning anywhere near as effectively. If parents didn’t value the importance of getting a thorough education and instill that value in their kids, their kids aren’t just suddenly going to get it (which is why college-educated parents tend to have kids that do much better IMHO).
<
p>
So… to help students do better in school, I think we need to focus more on what happens out of school. We need to tackle issues like childcare, healthcare, the effects of divorces on kids, questions of sexuality, depression, school violence, drugs and 100s of other issues if we want to get every school district performing at similar levels.
<
p>
Repainting the walls and giving the football team the best and shiniest weightlifting equipment isn’t going to get the job done alone.
Please don’t get me wrong — I don’t doubt your support for education. The only reason I posted was to express my opinion that you stepped into a Republican frame — that giving more money (or “pouring more money”, or “throwing more money”) to the schools isn’t the answer. Why? Because that frame makes people automatically think that schools don’t need more money, and that giving them more money would just be wasteful.
<
p>
I agree with your point that home lives are very troublesome, and that the most improvement will come when those lives improve, but I am skeptical that a government program can have substantial effects in those areas. I think that jobs are a better answer. I also think it’s dangerous to hang the programs you describe (which I think can be beneficial) on the school system.
<
p>
Personally, I think that initially, money given to schools would first go toward patching walls and fixing deferred infrastructure issues, then it would probably go toward paying higher salaries (which I find problematic because of the public perception, not because I believe that teachers don’t deserve raises — I think that a lot of people are opting out of teaching because the difficulty in becoming a teacher isn’t worth the salary), and then it would go toward things like smaller class sizes, innovative programs, etc.
Hang the responsibilities on schools. And I don’t do “republican frames or democratic frames,” I just say what’s right. It’s absolutely right that throwing money at schools isn’t going to make them better. Certainly, most urban schools aren’t having money thrown at them. It’s more like the occasional breeze floats a buck or two by the window, with the Superintendent frantically flapping their outside trying to catch a few of them a day.
<
p>
Here are some ideas that I think can work, much of which Deval Patrick supports: after school programs, free school lunches (without making kids need tickets), free access to all extra curricular activities and sports. Furthermore, coinciling should be widely available and free for all students who need it – and should be widely publicized and opened up to encourage student use. After school programs should also include homework clubs, etc, to help encourage students to do their work in school (it may not get done at home, or at least not without help and encouragement).
<
p>
A lot of those proposals can directly help problems that are at home. For one thing, students wouldn’t need to be home as much. They’d be having fun in school, with their friends and getting a lot of the art and entertainment that’s getting sucked out of school budgets because of money and standardized testing (there’s no class time for art when you have to pass the MCAS!). Furthermore, by providing more free meals a day, it will ensure every child gets at least 2 square meals who need it (breakfast and lunch). I’d even provide after school snacks for a lot of those programs. I don’t even think a lot of these programs need cost school systems huge resources: a lot of current teachers could be enticed to run these programs with some relatively small stipends. Heck, a lot of them are there anyway.
<
p>
Ok, then using your secret decoder ring, how many fire departments do you want, one per block? A policeman in every home? How about a mandated Flubber coating for every car in the Commonwealth so they bounce off each other rather than causing damage? $10,000 per kid per year for education? How about $50,000?
<
p>
Better yet, let’s scrap all those decisions, otherwise made locally, and turn to the great city on the Hill: Boston! They have the answers and big baskets of cash to solve the problems.
<
p>
Firehouses, police, stop signs versus traffic lights, sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian lights are all policy decisions, usually made locally, that affect death rates. Policy makers must decide.
<
p>
Morn the lady and her family because she died, but using the death for political game is just wrong.
<
p>
What about the recommendations that have been given BY NATIONAL STANDARDS? That 6-minute response time wasn’t pulled out of someone’s ass. It is a measured efficiency standard that appears to be somewhat agreed on.
<
p>
Why don’t you throw up YOUR hands and ask, why do we need ANY firemen at all? Just leave some water in a tank down the street and get it your own damn self if your house is on fire. Why don’t you? Because even you recognize that there’s a minimum level of acceptable loss of life and property. That level’s been determined, hashed over, and set, and this local closing destroyed that.
<
p>
About 1/3 of the nations’ towns have the 6 minute response rate. 2/3 don’t.
<
p>
So, I presume it your argument that the state legislature should mandate as law, a 6 minute response time?
<
p>
It is afterall, a NATIONAL STANDARD, said large, I guess ’cause
(a) the nation is BIG?
(b) Caps means it must be true?
(c) Cap lock got stuck?
(d) National is wiser than state which is wiser than local?
(e) Patrick is God, and Healey kills people in fires.
this tragedy would have been avoided. Ben wants to become a firefighter.
for a liberal to a cause. Better than 6 minutes? It’s a NATIONAL STANDARD!
If you’re going to compare us to Littleville California, population 250, square mileage 250 square miles…. duh.
<
p>
The fact is most Massachusetts towns have a fairly dense population, making a 6 minute standard feasible. Sure, a 6 minute rule may not be feasible in Gosnold, Ma, but to compare Massachusetts to 2/3rds of America is rediculous. You may as well compare us to the freak’n Outback in Australia because not that many more people live in our “heartland.” Heck, half of California is almost unpopulated, with perhaps a half-dozen vast sections of land about as large as Rhode Island (or bigger) completely deviod of human life.
<
p>
Just like anywhere, Massachusetts needs to have feasible goals. In most cities and towns, a 6 minute rule is very feasible and even efficient.
<
p>
BTW – Gloucester is one of those towns.
There are towns that certainly can’t meet a 6 minute response time due to its rural nature.
<
p>
The City of Gloucester is not that kind of place. In fact, the City of Gloucester did meet this standard. They had the firehouses, they had the personnel. It was a $2.3 million local aid cut that led to the budget cuts that resulted in the loss of ability to meet the standards.
<
p>
It’s true, you can’t throw money at a problem and expect to fix it. However, you can’t expect to maintain or improve performance by reducing funding.
-Blame EveryReady
-Blame the EveryReady Bunny
-Blame the Govenor for cooperating with the Legislature to cut local aid
-Blame the firetruck for not driving fast enough
-Blame the town for not passing an override
-Blame the firemen for not advocating an override
-Blame the Lt. Governor for not telling the Govenor to send the town more money
-Blame the dot.coms for going bust and causing the recession that caused the drop in income tax collections.
<
p>
But for God’s sake Pablo, make sure you politicize the situation so that Boston will toss some money your way.
Let’s not play a game of revisionist history.
<
p>
Maybe it wasn’t the very first thing Romney did in office. He probably got the mens’ room key and had his wife send apple cider out to the state police detail. However, it didn’t take long. From the January 30, 2003 Boston Phoenix:
<
p>
The emergency is over. Or, shall we say, the emergency is the house fire in Gloucester. Romney-Healey, restore your local aid cuts.
Regardless of whether or not the fire department closing caused the death of the victim, it certainly didn’t help. One can never know for sure whether or not the lady would have survived, but the fact that the Fire Department did get to her and did get her in an ambulance (where she died on the way to the hospital) certainly contributes to the fact that a quicker recovery time would have saved her life. How much quicker is a matter of debate. However, this isn’t: when you close down fire stations in towns and cities, more people will die, get injured or otherwise hurt who wouldn’t have IF the station was still opened.
<
p>
Just like cutting teachers will mean fewer students will become properly educated. Cutting sports, extra curricular activities and the arts means fewer students will have well-rounded opportunities and chances to excel and find something in life that they love. It’s just like cutting public health benefits: fewer people will find their cancer soon enough to actually survive it; fewer people will get treatment for their illnesses before it means a hospital visit and possible long-term side effects.
<
p>
When you cut local aid and cut government spending, there are very real consequences. Some cuts are good; sometimes things are wasted. However, sometimes what seems like having a waste (ex: having more than one fire station in a town) is indeed smart policy. Ordinary people know little to nothing about how many firestations are required per square mile or per person for a town to be safe. This is EXACTLY why we ELECT officials to do that stuff for us – this is exactly why Prop 2 1/2s suck… regular people can’t judge whether or not Town Committee or the Mayor is just full of shit. Heck, the Town Committee and the Mayor may not even know whether or not they need that “extra” fire station.
Although I think its a stretch, you have every right to blame this death on local aid cuts. But the Democrats have a supermajority in the legislature, and accordingly, the legislature has the power to override any budget cut. So please take a little responsibility for happens in this state and stop giving us the Beacon Hill Salute.
By Representative is Doug Pederson. He’s one of the most progressive in all of congress, part of the progressive bloc.
<
p>
Your critique holds no water.
<
p>
PS: I just took a Democrat to task on my blog yesterday.
*my representative
<
p>
(I really need to start editing before I click submit LOL)
You pointed the finger at the Governor and I simply stated that you should ALSO be pointing the finger at the legislature? I fail to see how it matters whom your representative is?
<
p>
On a side note, the dirty little secret about fire departments is that there are a number of ways that money could be saved and services be increased that the Fire Department Union opposes. So while you blame the death on local aid cuts I blame the death on the fire departments wasteful practices that led to the closure of the firehouse.
Where does Deval’s plan for reducing the property tax burden fit in all this? I don’t believe I have seen a community cut property taxes when the good years of local aid come rolling in. Maybe it slows the growth of property taxes. How will Deval link increases in local aid with reductions in property taxes.
<
p>
When most local communities received increases in local aid in the late 90s they spent it and kept their property rate at max allowed under Prop 2 1/2. I can’t see Deval forcing the locals to lower their property taxes.
<
p>
Healey’s charge of “For it all Deval” may be starting to stick.