The Privatization of Your Fire Department
July 17th, 2008 | by Tom Harper |As you know, it’s been a record year for fires throughout the Western states, especially California. And the fire season has barely begun.
The need for fire safety is on a collision course with the exploding population in fire-prone areas. More and more self-absorbed yuppies are moving to their own private paradise in the woods — right smack in the middle of a potential firestorm. Something’s gotta give.
Oh, here’s an MSNBC.com article about some changes that will be made because of all these fires. It’s about time. More funding for local fire departments would be a good start. And the public needs to be made much more aware of the potential for fire and how to avoid it. In rural areas, newcomers need to be reminded that “you are no longer in downtown San Francisco or L.A. Things are different here. You need to adapt.”
And every homeowner is going to have to make a few personal sacrifices so that his/her neighbor won’t get killed in a fire. No more of those flammable shake roofs; talk about a no-brainer. And everyone should be required to maintain a firebreak between their house and the nearest vegetation.
These changes are long overdue, but better late than never. Anyway, this article says…WTF?!?!? Private fire protection services for wealthy property owners.
Great. Just fuckin’ great. It figures. The Gilded Age lives on and on and on… Hey, if some deadbeat can’t pay for his own fire protection, why should he be coddled by a big slobbering Nanny State? Burn, Hippie! Watch your family DIIIEEE!!!
Socialized fire protection?? Bootstraps buddy.
Janet Upton of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection said: “Life has to come first, then property. We know the number of private contractors is on the rise. If they communicate with us, they could be an asset. If not, they’re a big liability.”
One private contractor in Montana, Wildfire Defense Systems Inc., deals exclusively with homes that have a replacement value of $1 million or more. And at least one major insurance company — which has donated millions of dollars in the past to local fire departments — is now underwriting three of these private fire protection contractors.
A spokesman for another insurance company said: “Very wealthy people like to live in places that are naturally perilous. With the fires right now, we’re getting a lot of calls about fire protection.”
Lori Moore-Merrell, a researcher for the International Association of Fire Fighters, said: “In a fire, if there are houses, there is higher risk. We don’t know much about the contractors’ level of training. And fire protection should be available to all citizens regardless of how much money they have.”
Lori, Lori, Lori — that’s sooo twentieth century. Commie! Get used to it! You now live in the Ownership Society.
22 Responses to “The Privatization of Your Fire Department”
By steve on Jul 17, 2008 | Reply
Doom and Gloom liberals at it again…
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 17, 2008 | Reply
I don’t know. Wealthy people, celebrities and all, if they can afford it, hire private security firms. This would be above and beyond the security provided by the public law enforcement agencies whose services are available to all and paid for out of taxes. Why should the wealthy not be able to hire private fire protection above and beyond that available to everyone? No problem to me at all.
I’m sorry but I don’t see the problem here at all. Is someone suggesting that only the wealthy, those who can afford private contractors, should get protection from fires?
Not that I can see. I mean, if you’re seriously saying that the wealthy SHOULDN’T be able to purchase extra fire protection, all I can say is, perhaps you’d be more comfortable in a more socialist country, like Canada, where even wealthy Canadians are forbidden by law to buy private health care, where everyone must be restricted to the lowest common denominator of health care or go to the US to get prompt health care. Me? I’d much prefer that I and everyone else be able to purchase what each finds affordable. The government will still provide services where the tax-base can afford a full-time, professional fire service and where those who can’t can have volunteer firemen. But to just decide that the wealthy are not able to buy a Rolls Royce until even the poorest can afford one is just not a country I’d care to live in.
By Tom Harper on Jul 17, 2008 | Reply
Craig: It just sounds too much like a foot in the door. That one private contractor that only deals with houses worth over $1 million — what would they do, put out the fire on their client’s property and then let the peon neighbors’ houses burn because their houses aren’t expensive enough?
I just don’t like where this is going.
As far as comparing a Rolls Royce and fire protection — sorry, no dice. One is a luxury and one is a necessity. No comparison.
By rube cretin on Jul 17, 2008 | Reply
seems to me that anyone who in the possession of the necessary equipment and training who would let anyones home burn down ain’t got no heart. Not sure if that’s liberal or conservative.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 17, 2008 | Reply
Tom,
Sorry. Private security forces have no more supplanted public police forces than private fire services will supplant public fire departments but you get what you pay for.
It is comparable, in my view. Some means of conveyance is very much a necessity for almost everyone. The only question is the level of “luxury”, if one insists on using the word, available to people. Some can only afford a beater. Some can’t even afford that. They ride the bus or walk. The rich should not be limited to dependence upon the same level of fire protection that is available to all if they can afford more any more than movie stars should be prevented from hiring private security and be limited to dependence upon the police force available to all.
As for letting houses burn, hey. Houses burn. That’s what insurance is for. Yes. If home owner A can afford extra levels of protection and home owner B cannot, then home owner B cannot afford the same level of protection from fire that home owner A can, in exactly the same way that he likely cannot afford round the clock personal security. Again, should the wealthy be denied the right to hire personal security just because his neighbors cannot? Should the wealthy home owner not be allowed to install top of the line protection from home invasion because his neighbors cannot?
I don’t like where your line of reasoning is going.
Just as not everyone can afford a Rolls Royce, not everyone can afford the same level of fire protection. Those who can, should be allowed to purchase it. Those who can’t had better make sure they’re insured. You don’t like the Rolls Royce comparison. Fine but you just skipped right over the issue of private security contractors. Seems to me that THAT’s a pretty good comparison.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 17, 2008 | Reply
You also skipped right over the health services comparison that I raised. Why should the wealthy be forbidden to get the best health care they can afford in a country where everyone is afforded a base level of health care as they are in Canada?
So far as I’m concerned, the health care comparison is as good as the private security comparison is but I think the Rolls Royce comparison is pretty good too. When’s the last time you had to go without a vehicle of some sort for any period of time? Personal vehicles are pretty necessary too in this world. Okay, Rolls Royces are a little too luxury for you. Fine. Should everyone be limited to riding the bus because some people are limited to riding the bus? Should everyone be limited to a 15 year old beater because that’s all I can afford?
And if the issue is just letting a home burn, I have no problem with that. Now if there were someone trapped in that home and someone had the training and equipment to get them out before the house went up in flames, that would be outrageously lacking in heart but houses are things. Things can be replaced. A little perspective there, Rube.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 17, 2008 | Reply
No. They would let the municipal fire department put out the fire in the houses not paying for a private contractor to protect their house from fire. Again, no one is talking about eliminating public fire departments. We’re talking about private firms adding value, not replacing public services.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 17, 2008 | Reply
As an addition to the above, it may sound like I should have said, “Yes” rather than “No” because in an instance where they, the private contractor, were in place to protect a home of a paying customer and the publicly provided fire fighters were not there, indeed the private guys would fulfill the contract and do what they contracted to do to save their customer’s house and would likely, if the public fire fighters were NOT there to save the other houses, WOULD let the other homes burn but here’s the thing. If such private contracting firms were not allowed to exist, they wouldn’t be there to save ANY of the homes so those non-contracting homes would burn ANYWAY. So unless the public fire fighters can save a home, private contractors or no private contractors, those homes will burn either way.
The only question is, should private contractors, paid by home owner A to save his home, be required by law to act to save the other homes as well as the home of the paying customer. I say, no. We may be talking about dozens of homes, maybe hundreds. In the absence of the firefighters who ARE being paid, publicly, to save those other homes, why should it be up to a privately owned firm to save the homes of non-paying customers? Would the government turn around and pay the private firm for their services? Unlikely. If they could afford that level of fire fighting services, the public fire fighters would be providing the same high level of service that the privately paid firms are providing and there would be no perceived need for private contractors.
Not only would it be economically unfeasible for the private firm to save dozens of homes for which they were not paid or contracted with to save, it would be fascistic to force private contractors to do work they had not contracted with anyone to do and for which it is unlikely they would be paid anything like a fair rate for the services they’d be forced to render. This is just not how free societies and free economies work.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
Of course, governments could contract with these private firms for services but then you run into the whole military-industrial complex/private contractors in Iraq syndrome. How’s that working for y’all?
By Lisa on Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
I have an idea give everyone the same level of protection and send the bill to their nearest rich neighbor.
By manapp99 on Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
If a fire is raging through a particular area, any level of fire fighting is helpful to the overall containment. If a private contractor is fighting the fire at his/her clients it is relieving the pressure on the public fire fighters and freeing them to not have to attend to that area. How can this be a bad thing to the overall objective of containment of the fire.
If a private contractor puts out the fire on his/her clients land then that same fire cannot procede past that point. This could likely save the next door neighbor or any other property in the future path of the fire if left unchecked and allowed to gain strength.
Again I do not see how this can be a bad thing if your objective is to put out the fire.
Also, the private contracts will be paid seperatly from the taxes that the clients pay already. They are in effect paying more than their share. Isn’t that what the progressives are always clamoring for?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
Yes, Manapp99, but they don’t want the rich to actually GET more for the more that they pay.
By Badtux on Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
I remember another place, another time. The central government wasn’t allocating enough money for fire protection. So private companies formed to sell their services to people who wanted their houses protected in case of fire.
The end result: Half the city burned down because the private fire companies went around setting fires in order to pump up demand for their services.
The city, BTW, was Rome. The time was approximately 50BC. The fire companies, owned by rich senators, were responsible for the triumphant reception that the law-breaker Julius Caesar received when he marched his single legion into the city of Rome. After all, the Republican Senators had burned half the city down. A dictator couldn’t be worse than that, right?
Oh, and the senators? They got their necks stretched or turned into pincushions. Of course. So they managed to make a profit by burning down half the city, only to lose their necks. If only our current crop of Republicans could learn lessons from history…
– Badtux the History Penguin
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
Again. No one is advocating getting rid of or even underfunding public fire fighting forces. You want better fire fighting, go to your local government and fight for it. Just don’t go to your federal government and forbid private enterprise.
By Badtux on Jul 18, 2008 | Reply
The Roman Senate didn’t advocate getting rid of or underfunding public fire fighting either. They merely did so (underfunded public fire fighting) — then formed their own private fire fighting companies to capitalize on their own legislative action. Look at the investors behind these private fire fighting companies and you will find a line back to legislators who at one point or another had a hand in the current under-funding of public fire fighting.
The problem with history is that a) nobody studies it, and thus b) it always repeats itself. As it was, so it is.
– Badtux the History Penguin
By manapp99 on Jul 19, 2008 | Reply
So Badtux, you would advocate that a good citizen should not try to protect themselves in case of fire. Just sit back and let the government do everthing. What about a home owner taking out his garden house and protecting his house. Is this too much non-governmental involvement for you? I mean there are less fortunate individuals that may not be able to afford a hose. It wouldn’t be fair for those evil rich people to use a hose if the poor don’t have them. Then there is the use of household fire extinguishers. Unless the government makes sure that all citizens have them we should ban their use.
That makes about as much sense as your comparison to ancient Rome.
You want a more modern comparison to fire fighters setting fires they get to put out you can find plenty of examples on the government payroll.
http://www.wpxi.com/news/16708440/detail.html
“PITCAIRN, Pa. — A Pitcairn firefighter was arrested Tuesday afternoon on suspicion of starting fires that he then helped to put out.
Pitcairn Station #2 volunteer firefighter James Cole, 19, has been accused of lighting several bags of garbage on fire. Cole reportedly called the fires in and then responded to the fire with the fire department.”
By manapp99 on Jul 19, 2008 | Reply
Here was a famous one in my state:
The woman who admitted to starting the largest wildfire in Colorado history apologized here today and was sentenced to six years in prison.
The woman, Terry Lynn Barton, a Forest Service employee at the time of the fire, sobbed as she read a brief apology to the court.
”I’d like to say I was sorry. I’d like to get forgiveness, but I have not forgiven myself yet,” she said. ”The fact that I have hurt so many people kills me each and every day because I do love people. I destroyed something I have cared for all of my life.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DE3D7133DF931A15751C0A9659C8B63
By Badtux on Jul 19, 2008 | Reply
The profit motive and firefighting don’t mix, because it gives you an incentive to set fires in order to drive up demand for your services — as what has happened in isolated incidents when seasonal firefighters have set fires in order to get a call-out from the Forest Service to go fight the fire. But if you systematize it, then the problem becomes exponentially worse. (And BTW, the USFS reliance upon seasonals to fight fires is yet another symptom of the systematic underfunding of fire-fighting in order to drive private-enterprise solutions… I could have predicted incidents of fire-setting when the USFS went almost 100% seasonals. History is clear here. But nobody asked me).
As for the owners of those multi-million-dollar homes who want to hire their own fire-fighting teams, there’s a way to do that without giving private fire companies the incentive to set fires. It’s called “creating a fire district”. See, you get together with all your neighboring owners of multi-million-dollar homes, and you (gasp) TAX YOURSELVES, and you set up a professional *full time* fire department that has no incentive to go out and set fires because they get paid the same regardless of whether there’s a fire or not. I mean, this isn’t brain surgery. This is why every major city in the United States has its own municipal fire department rather than relying on private enterprise to fight fires. We just have too many thousands of years of experience showing that PRIVATE FIRE FIGHTING DOES NOT WORK. F*** ideology. This is reality we’re talking about. As was true in 50BC Rome, as was true in 1700’s Philadelphia, so it is still true today. Unless you can find some way to change human nature. Good luck with that one, the Communists tried it and didn’t have any luck there either.
By steve on Jul 19, 2008 | Reply
Badtux wrote:
Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. Why would a private fire firm set fires to make a profit? They would be set up and paid for by private citizens. They would make the most profit if there were no fires period! They get paid for sitting around if there is a fire or not. It’s not a production firm, it is a preventative firm. What if these guys are also clearing brush for fire prevention? As it stands right now, the city or county does not do this!
By Badtux on Jul 19, 2008 | Reply
If there’s no fires, why would anybody pay for the services of a private fire-fighting company? DUH!
By Badtux on Jul 19, 2008 | Reply
And note that I am *NOT* talking about fire districts or other such outfits that are full time and paid for year round whether there’s fires or not, I’m specifically talking about the for-profit fire prevention companies that are the topic of this article. They get business when panicked insurers or etc. call them because of news of a fire outbreak. No fire = no business.
We have already seen, with the forest service seasonals, just how toxic the profit motive is in the fire business. If you don’t get paid unless there are fires, the motivation to set fires is VERY big… I mean, this isn’t rocket science. We have 2,000 years of experience here we can draw on. We don’t have to talk hypotheticals. This has happened time after time after time over the centuries. The profit motive and fire fighting just do not mix. The end result is always — *ALWAYS* — more fire, despite everybody’s protestations of the best of intentions.
By steve on Jul 19, 2008 | Reply
You make no sense. What about fires caused by an act of God? In California the past month, we have had thousands of fires beyond the man power of the state’s fire resources. We have fighters coming in from many other states and New Zealand and Australia.
How the hell does taxing people more prevent the US from not needing help from other countries? If rich people have the resources to purchase services they need why should we prevent them? Their money is just as good as anyone elses and they are creating jobs and helping the economy. It is NOT a crime to be rich in this country. As stated well up this post by Craig, rich people already fund private security. Do private security companies create crimes to give them more value? C’mon… your ideas are ludicrous.