Skip to content

There. We admitted it. So what?

Grand Rapids (MI) has been hit hard once again.  The city has decided to layoff 44 policeman, 25 firefighters, and dozens of other public sector jobs.

That’s scary.

2 complete fire companies will be nixxed.  Response times will go up.  Citizens and firefighters will be less safe and more prone to injury and worse.

It’s a broken record; a scene played out daily across the United States.

In Milwaukee last month, hundreds of firefighters jammed the city council budget meeting openly denouncing the effort to cut public safety funding.

One firefighter asked the council “how much are you willing to pay to have me pull you out of your burning home?”

When these scenes arise, they make for good TV, and the Milwaukee media covered them like a blanket.

These protests are seen all over the nation, with firefighters demanding politicians to admit that the level of public safety will be reduced due to the cuts.

Usually, the pols insist the city can do just fine, hissing “we will get through this, (insert city name here) will emerge stronger and better than ever!”  We all know it’s a “less than truthful” response.

With less people serving the public safety, the level of service declines.  You just can’t argue that.  But they do.

However, we seem to have turned a corner today with the announcement of the massive slice ‘n dice scheduled for Grand Rapids just after Christmas.

City Manager Greg Sundstrom  conceded the cuts “bring our staffing levels to dangerously low levels.”

“Dangerously low levels.”

Finally, a public official making a concession that firefighters across the nation have been trying to get them to admit.

“Dangerously low levels.”

OK then.  There.

Now what?

Now that we’ve reached the point where we can all agree that cutting public safety is “dangerous’”, will the local taxpayer have accepted such practice as a necessary evil?

Because “dangerously low levels” is evil.

And in my opinion, utterly unacceptable.


Also on Fire Daily…

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks

Posted in News, Staffing, WTF?

Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by John Mitchell on November 10, 2009 • View Comments
  • Hmmm, so I poked the FF's a bit and haven't gotten a response?
  • Attention: Ckemtp is taking a probably unpopular stance here. Don't worry, Devil's Advocacy is my forte'. I'm just bringing ideas to the table, so before you flame me, remember I'm wearing Nomex too.

    So what? You're telling me that there's NO fat in the budget of the fire department? You're telling me that it is the ONE organization that cannot shave some inefficiencies off? You're telling me that it is currently at OPTIMUM staffing and that the only thing that can be improved adding staff?

    Now I don't advocate cutting firefighters, really that was just a fiscal conservative spouting off about government agencies being bloated and inefficient as a rule. The fire department, as a government agency, isn't immune to that rule. Here's the reality, our economy is shot and local tax rolls have shrunk. Therefore, government has to cut something. If firefighters don't want to have staff cut, then something else has to give. Everyone has to make concessions to fit within the new reality.

    So you're telling me that Firefighters and other public safety people can't be cut... well then, that's ok, give an alternative. Something's got to give. Milwaukee firefighters (through Milwaukee Co. Paramedics) already have a hold of EMS. I'm not sure about Grand Rapids, but this isn't about them or their departments. This is my statement that there has to be a change to make the fire departments more efficient. You're the experts, find the solution and bring it to the table.

    As a government agency, you're responsible to the taxpayers, be responsible to them. It's not about you. Like every level of government, it's about your service. The politicians that you vilify are elected and will be voted out if they can't find the answer. Firefighters aren't directly responsible to the taxpayers through elections, but you are directly responsible to them inasmuch as you have a job working with the equipment, living in the stations, and being paid by the money that they own. "Jamming Meetings" to demand that no jobs are cut is dramatic... but it doesn't fix the underlying problem.

    The money's not there, something's got to give. So, do you have another answer?
blog comments powered by Disqus