The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Responses to "No-Man" Land
This has been an issue since the creation of districts and response zones. It has been a big subject here locally. Recently there was a meeting of the "brains" to discuss this issue.
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/latestheadlines/story/1173356.html
There are some many logistical issues to deal with when it comes to a response in a non designated land. The biggest issue is responsibility if there is an injury or death to a responder. You think there is issues with DOJ and LODD coverage, have something happen in one of these areas and it is an instant s#*& storm.
I just about crapped myself when I saw the statement made in the article by one of our state reps. State Rep. Bruce Chandler of Granger told The Yakima Herald-Republic he plans to introduce legislation to allow - or perhaps require - firefighters to fight fires wherever they can. He calls it a "duty to serve" law.
Now I didn't just fall of the pumper truck...but now they want to just wave their beuracratic wand and tell us that we have a duty to serve these areas. How about the property owners duty to pay for the service. Least of all their duty to assure that the property is included in a districts protection area. It is not a hard procedure to do. Instead, the good old "Well, I'll call 911 and someone will show up. It doesn't matter if I pay for it or not...is this an expectation nation that we are becoming. Hey I like to fight a fire just has much as the next fire fighter but where does it end. Who is the one that is going to take responsibility for this? The property owner, the fire agencies, the state government, where?
What's your take on the issue? Does your department have a policy about these kind of responses?
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/latestheadlines/story/1173356.html
There are some many logistical issues to deal with when it comes to a response in a non designated land. The biggest issue is responsibility if there is an injury or death to a responder. You think there is issues with DOJ and LODD coverage, have something happen in one of these areas and it is an instant s#*& storm.
I just about crapped myself when I saw the statement made in the article by one of our state reps. State Rep. Bruce Chandler of Granger told The Yakima Herald-Republic he plans to introduce legislation to allow - or perhaps require - firefighters to fight fires wherever they can. He calls it a "duty to serve" law.
Now I didn't just fall of the pumper truck...but now they want to just wave their beuracratic wand and tell us that we have a duty to serve these areas. How about the property owners duty to pay for the service. Least of all their duty to assure that the property is included in a districts protection area. It is not a hard procedure to do. Instead, the good old "Well, I'll call 911 and someone will show up. It doesn't matter if I pay for it or not...is this an expectation nation that we are becoming. Hey I like to fight a fire just has much as the next fire fighter but where does it end. Who is the one that is going to take responsibility for this? The property owner, the fire agencies, the state government, where?
What's your take on the issue? Does your department have a policy about these kind of responses?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
State Rep. Bruce Chandler of Granger told The Yakima Herald-Republic he plans to introduce legislation to allow - or perhaps require - firefighters to fight fires wherever they can. He calls it a "duty to serve" law.
I'll throw the BS flag there. As a FF, I am sworn to the community I serve, I am not "deputized" nor would we respond to calls outside our city unless requested by mutual aid pacts. Sorry, but this politician is a bona fide moron if he is going to make some "duty to serve" law.
Pasco Fire Chief Bob Gear says residents in "no man's land" should form their own tax-supported district, contract with a fire agency or join a neighboring district by annexation.
And I agree here. The people living in these areas chose to live there for whatever reasons. They should be asute enough to understand what services they get or don't get. If they live in an area without any type of fire protection, nor mutual or automatic aid agreements, then to me that is like living without health insurance....you just hope something doesn't happen. If a fire occurs and no one shows up, sorry, folks, it is called personal responsibility, you chose to live there, it is up to you to fork over some dollars in order to get services. It is NOT the responsibility of the taxpaying folks who have their services to provide you with their fire protection. Why should those folks be without fire protection while they are responding to your emergency, because you don't want to fork over dollars and some moronic politician wants to make some type of duty to act law. You want the damn protection, open the wallet, or move.
Alex, we fortunately do not have such issues here, but as you can gather from my response I think such a law is a stupid idea. In the end the responsibilty should lie where it does belong, with the property owner choosing to live where they do. Something happens, they have no one to blame but themselves.
-
-
Abe, looks like the article refers to the area outside of any fire protection area and there are no mutual or even automatic aid responses to that area. Basically those area where fire districts do not marry up to another district and the people living in the area are not paying for fire protective services.
-
Permalink Reply by Trainer on
-
This is one for the AHJ to solve, for us it's the 911 board, there should be NO “no-mans land”. If you have some and will be called there for an incident then it's to your advantage to bring them into the fold, that way you can receive the tax. That brings up another agency to go to, someone is receiving tax off of this property, go to the county collector...My point to this is eliminate the problem.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
In Illinois, there should be no more "No Man's Land". All land was to be assigned fire protection.
For instance, we were assigned portions of Interstate 74. Naturally, that is not "in district". It simply means that it was assigned to our response area.
Since we gain no tax from it, we can charge out of district users a fee for our services which as of August 18, 2009, that is $250 per hour per apparatus and $70 per hour per man until the incident is mitigated. We invoke a one hour minimum regardless. And they pay. Good revenue stream.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
If such a law is passed, it would likely be found illegal and perhaps un-Constitutional as soon as it had a legal challenge.
For starters, it is likely un-Constitutional to force a firefighter to perform dangerous work outside of the charter of the agency which hired him or her.
A "duty to serve" law, particularly without compensation from the people being served, could be construed as forced servitude by a good attorney. Forced servitude has another name - slavery - and it is illegal anywhere in the United States. (Note: I am not a lawyer, but I know some firehouse lawyers.)
For the agency, if it is a municipal agency, it likely cannot be forced to provide services outside it's municipal boundaries unless there is a signed mutual aid agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with an outside agency. I'd check the state Constitution - most states clearly spell out the duties and limitations of municipal governments, particularly if the municipal government has Home Rule powers.
As a last ditch effort, if the municipality is forced into serving outside it's municipal boundaries, it should immediately start billing for those services. Bill the county government, not the homeowners - go after the deep pocket. If the county won't pay, take them to state court.
The bottom line is that at the state level, it is very likely un-Constitutional for a state to force taxpayers from one area to provide services to other areas who don't pay for the services. If that becomes legal, then an immediate annexation of the "no man's land" should be legal. At that point, the municipality could force the people who wanted the free services to pay for them.
-
Permalink Reply by Capt.Alex Arnold on
-
Couldn't have explained it any better myself, Crabby
-
-
Now this is an interesting solution. I think that this is feasible. I wonder if that would be the answer. It is up to the property owner to make sure that they have an AHJ and if they do not then the are is assigned to one by the county. If an incident takes place there is a fee that is charged. I like that.
-
Permalink Reply by Oldman on
-
Not being familiar with the area, I Googled the area satellite map. It doesn't appear to be very populated which would bring a cost issue of annexation by a district. The tax revenue might not even cover the cost of annexation, much less contribute to the coffers of the district. I know from experience with district issues in my own area, when something changes a districts boundaries, the election costs can run upwards of several thousand dollars for all the legal issues involved.
Again in Texas under state law, it is the responsibility of the county government to provide fire protection for areas not served by a municipality or a tax district. Having a common mutual aid agreement at least county wide, helps alleviate some coverage issues and perceived liability by stipulating that a individual districts or departments do not deplete coverage for their own area, and still allow assistance to other areas if available. It also allows for compensation from the AHJ, whether it is county or federal, to help recoup costs.
From the little reading I did, this issue came up after a wildfire which was under the control of the BLM, a Federal agency. This being the case, any attempt to pass this type of law, would as Ben said, probably be unconstitutional if not at the state level, almost certainly at the federal level.
-
-
And if you do not have a formal, written mutual aid agreement with the BLM, then I would think you would have to be treated like any other vendor or contract service and be paid for you efforts by the BLM. They do it all the time, during wildfire season. Why would this be different, illegal or unconstitutional? Why should anyone other than YOUR taxpayers profit from your services? Give them the benefits of your service without assessing a fee?
Just how is that "constitutional" for your taxpayers?
I'm confused.
-
-
Art, the difference is that BLM contractors are not forced into the contracts - those are entirely voluntary.
The issue is the potential legal requirement that might force fire departments and firefighters to provide services for which they receive no reimbursement, let alone adequate reimbursement.
BLM can't even use contractors with whom they do not have a pre-existing contract, let alone use the contractor's services by force.
The state law wouldn't affect a federal agency like BLM anyway.
Yep, it's confusing.
-
-
Calgon take me away! ;)
-
-
Well I appreciate the "googling" (I think). Yes here in Eastern Washington the rural areas are very rural. Here in Pend Oreille County it is the same. In my district, SPOFR, though we have approx. 55% of the county living in our response area. Luckily we don't have to many areas of "no mans land" but there are a couple of dozen private homes that are not protected by a designated jurisdiction. We have had a few requests for service to them though. This has been a very precarious situation. One place (years ago when I was new to the district) wason fire. When we got there it was about 50% involved. The chief at the time made the call to sit back, protect exposures and prevent extension into the timber. It was a hard call but he wasn't going to risk an injury to one of us and then be left hanging if something did happen.
I am like the majority of us in this service, I love fighting fires but I hate that someone has to potentially lose something. It makes it even harded when we do have that "moral" obligation to do something but legally we can't. My what a quagmire in the loverly state of Washington.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
