Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on June 12, 2011 at 5:17am

John, all I did was ask questions and your "garbage" statement is a mischaracterization.

Your assessment of whose job it is to do what is still based upon how YOUR department does it.

I'm not confused about anything. I understand the timeline. I'm just asking questions.

You don't seem to be able to answer them from any perspective other than everyone else is seemingly bound to do it the same way your department does it.
That's not necessarily the case.


Also, if you had actually been paying attention to what I said, you'd note that nowhere did I say that the FD in this case was obligated to do the salvage. Once again, I was just asking questions.

You - and others - also used "emergency" vs. "non-emergency" as a distinction in whether or not it was appropriate for the FD to become involved in this.
Based on that, it's entirely appropriate for me to point out that FDs do non-emergency work on a daily basis.

As for a fire being an emergency, after the fire is extinguished, the emergency is over, which puts fireground salvage squarely back into the non-emergency category. The confusion here isn't on my part - you're confusing the difference between "emergency" and "non-emergency" with timeline issues. The two are not the same thing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on June 12, 2011 at 5:25am

"...nonfire hazard"???

If that is an issue, then fire departments have no business in the hazardous materials response business unless there's a rescue, do they?

After all, most hazmat operations don't involve a life hazard. They involve simply protecting property. A lot of hazmat is simply dumped somewhere and discovered weeks or months later. Does that mean that the FD hazmat team should not respond or take care of the problem?

"And in this instance, what to you consitutes this as an emergency?" Straw man. I didn't say this situation constituted an emergency, despite your attempt to make it appear as if I did. Interesting that you'd do that in the same conversation in which you accused me of being confused.

It seems to me that you're just cherry-picking the kind of things that the FD should do and what it shouldn't, based once again, on how YOUR department does it. That's fine if that's how your department or your contract defines it. However, that doesn't obligate every other department to play by the same rules.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on June 12, 2011 at 9:56am

"...nonfire hazard"???
If that is an issue, then fire departments have no business in the hazardous materials response business unless there's a rescue, do they?

After all, most hazmat operations don't involve a life hazard. They involve simply protecting property. A lot of hazmat is simply dumped somewhere and discovered weeks or months later. Does that mean that the FD hazmat team should not respond or take care of the problem?

You missed the "OR" between no fire and hazard. Last time I checked as long as the emergency is taken care of, HAZMAT cleanup thus befalls on the owner. If the HAZAMT has potential to affect lives, the environment, etc (IE still spilling/emitting) then there is cause for FD to mitigate because there can be a potential emergency.


"And in this instance, what to you consitutes this as an emergency?" Straw man. I didn't say this situation constituted an emergency, despite your attempt to make it appear as if I did. Interesting that you'd do that in the same conversation in which you accused me of being confused.

Simple question. You are arguing the point that emergency services should be utilized for private gain, I'm asking why you see this incident entails an emergency service response? After all there is definately risk involved for responders, crews are taken out of service from other responses/emergencies, and this is all because the property owner did not have insurance or enough money to take care of this situation himself (lack of responsibility). So it is a simple question as to why you see such utilization of resources befit?

It seems to me that you're just cherry-picking the kind of things that the FD should do and what it shouldn't, based once again, on how YOUR department does it. That's fine if that's how your department or your contract defines it. However, that doesn't obligate every other department to play by the same rules.

Isn't that a red herring now? I never once said this is how other depts should operate. I simply gave a contrasting example of how a collapse occurred and that emergency workers are not being utilized as private workers under the guise of salvage. I never once said this is how all other depts should operate. Now, what this incident does do for many depts, is sparks the idea of what may garner an emergency response. For this dept, it doesn't sound like this is a standard and thus why you see the grievance filed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on June 12, 2011 at 10:08am

Your insistance on having only one set of standards for this type of response is both cherry picking and telling others that's how to do it, especially when you're responding in that vein - repeatedly - when questioned.

As for hazmat, you're once again muddying the waters. Not all hazmat releases are emergencies, even prior to the cleanup. Ever heard of the Hazmat Triangle? In case you haven't, it's similar to the old Fire Triangle. The three sides are Container, Chemical, and Location, with the word BAD in the center. If you have a hazmat with a Bad Container, Bad Chemical, and Bad location, it's an emergency. If not, then it's not an emergency. That does NOT imply that the public safety hazmat team shouldn't respond or that it should not identify the chemical, stop the leak, and other non-cleanup functions.

Then you used another straw man - "Simple question. You are arguing the point that emergency services should be utilized for private gain..." I have argued no such thing. First, there was no private gain in the situation in question. There was the potential to stop a loss, but there was no gain other than protecting property...the same thing we do when conducting fireground salvage. That's not "gain" its "stopping the loss."

Then there's your accusation about the owner's "lack of responsiblity". If he's financially unable to pay for insurance or building repairs, then the lack of insurance isn't a choice on his part. That puts this into the realm of taking care of those who are least unable to care for themselves. Why shouldn't we do that?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on June 12, 2011 at 10:26am

Your assessment of whose job it is to do what is still based upon how YOUR department does it.
I'm not confused about anything. I understand the timeline. I'm just asking questions.
You don't seem to be able to answer them from any perspective other than everyone else is seemingly bound to do it the same way your department does it.
That's not necessarily the case.

No, you are the one assessing that I'm simply going by how my dept does things, however, I never stated as such, this is your personal wrong interpretation. Besides I do believe I mentioned (sarcastically, yes) about all the "salvage" operations and removing of personal property from the vast area Katrina hit, or the tornado destruction in Joplin, but why stop there. It simply goes forth that such examples of this incident are not common and not a public entity's job to mitigate.


Also, if you had actually been paying attention to what I said, you'd note that nowhere did I say that the FD in this case was obligated to do the salvage. Once again, I was just asking questions.

I never accused you of saying they were obligated either.

You - and others - also used "emergency" vs. "non-emergency" as a distinction in whether or not it was appropriate for the FD to become involved in this.
Based on that, it's entirely appropriate for me to point out that FDs do non-emergency work on a daily basis.


Well, since you brought up the stuff like prevention , pub ed, inspections, and so forth and thus made it out to assume I only think a FD does emergency work, let's put it in terms of beyond the scope of the FD then. I know the FD does non-emergency work in part of their service, don't make assumptions that I don't. However, much of the non-emergency work done involves the ability to respond to emergencies as well as doesn't involve the same risk/benefit.

So let's look at some risk benefit between the stuff you mentioned and this incident.

Fire marshal...Risk, little to none, Benefits.... may investigate to determine fire cause, enforce codes, build case for arson, etc

Prevention.... Risk, none Benefit...ensures public buildings are safe, reduces the chance of fires, less fires means less risk to responders

Education.... risk, none Benefit.... public is better aware of fire potential and hazards, learns what to do in case of emergency, thus reducing the chance for injury or death and reduces the risk a FF would have to take as well.

Some other non-emergency responses

Lift assists....risk, little due to lifting/exposure Benefit...reduces chance of further injury or death of the person who fell

CO alarm activation risk...little if CO present Benefit, ensures hazard does't exist public is safe

stuck elevator... Risk, little to none depending on lockout/tagout Benefit....ensure people can be safely removed (FD doesn't fix the elevator)

hydrant shovelling (in some places) risk... little.. cold exposure, lifting, slip hazard. Benefit.... access to water source for potential fires

Bee calls risk, little to moderate (depending on allergies etc).... Benefit... remove a potential threat to the public (although sometimes an exterminator would have to be called)



Now take this incident, private property retrivial from collapsed building

Risk, high. building is already compromised, potential secondary collapse, questionable stability, lifting/moving injury potential, public risk due to services being utilized for private work.

Benefit...owner gets public resources to move property for free because he does not have insurance. Public benefit, none


To further expand, the sole reason the FD was called was because the mayor told them to, most likely because the owner asked and did not have insurance to pay. How is this the concern of the FD?
Let's further go on to see that the owner had no or little prevention in place. Owner did not live there, this was a summer home, could have asked someone to take a roof rake to the snow to decrease the load, they should know it was snowing heavy.
So would roof raking now befall the FD or public services, it can be considered prevention then right? If so, where is the general public benefit of doing so?

Quite frankly here, what we see is public services being utilized for personal private gain.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on June 12, 2011 at 12:02pm

"Quite frankly here, what we see is public services being utilized for personal private gain."

If that's the case, then when people call us to extinguish fires on their property, they're utilizing public services for personal, private gain.

What I'm asking here is for you to differentiate why you think it's OK to use some public services for private gain, but not others. So far, you haven't done that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on June 12, 2011 at 12:43pm

What I'm asking here is for you to differentiate why you think it's OK to use some public services for private gain, but not others. So far, you haven't done that.

Fire also has potential to spread and further endanger the public and lives. The difference is the scope in which public emergency services are thus utilized.

Since you are taking this approach as to "why not" then let me ask you where the line gets drawn? If such resources should be utilized to move personal property under the guise of salvage and if you state that we also protect property, where does the line get drawn?

So to put a different spin here, how far does the service stretch for personal property under the guise of emergency services work? You stated prevention is a non-emergency task in which the FD does, but is that just limited to fire? If we are to prevent fire and thus also protect personal property then why isn't the FD sent out to protect individual homes prior to an event?

You live in hurricane country, does the FD thus go out and board up people's homes because a storm is approaching under the guise of prevention and protecting property? What if this is a summer home and the person doesn't have insurance and can't hire a private contractor to do the board up of his home, is this now a task of the FD to do under the guise of prevention?

You see how the can of worms can get opened here? So if the FD does it for one person, then shouldn't they do it for all? Is this the responsibility of the FD or is it the responsibility of the homeowner?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on June 12, 2011 at 1:16pm

Nice spin attempt by using the word "guise".

What each individual department does and under what circumstances are the choice of that department, based upon community expectations and how the FD is chartered.

Setting those rules isn't a "guise". It is simply how each department sets their rules.

My point in this entire thing is that whether or not the salvage operation in question was appropriate is up to the individual department. No one else can make that decision for them.

As for the supposed can of worms, it's easy to keep that can shut and it's equally easy to open and shut it on a case-by-case basis, particularly if the rule is "generally we don't do that, but we can make exceptions on an individual, means-tested basis."

That also doesn't mean that the FD has to do it. As I've stated elsewhere in this topic, there are building codes, city engineering, and public works people that can get involved in this.

That's especially true if the structure has tax liens or if it's been condemned and the owner doesn't have the financial means to demollish it according to code. Once the property is either abandoned by the owner or taken over by the city based on tax non-payment, then the salvage problem clearly isn't on either the original owner or the FD.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on June 12, 2011 at 1:31pm

What each individual department does and under what circumstances are the choice of that department, based upon community expectations and how the FD is chartered.

Setting those rules isn't a "guise". It is simply how each department sets their rules

Yes, I agree, but this is also why we see the grievance filed in the first place, because such circumstances and every individual case is not always looked at or expectations established. Filing such a grievance does establish that point and expectations and definations of duties as well.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page