Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Helping the Detroit Fire Department.

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default Helping the Detroit Fire Department.

    I'm not sure if most of you have heard this about yet, but theres been a lot of news stories about this website to help the DFD: http://www.detroitmutualaid.com/

    If your company has any spare good condition equipment or gear, they're looking to take just about anything. They're also selling shirts.

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,590

    Default

    We're all giving Detroit Fire Dept plenty of help.

    Michigan's US Senate delegation has announced a $24 million grant for Detroit that will be used to hire 150 firefighters.

    That certainly cuts the piggybank down for the rest of the countries departments

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    MemphisE34a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Memphis, TN - USA
    Posts
    2,526

    Default

    This probably wont be popular, but the people of Detroit continually voted in idiots who got the entire town in the shape that its in and continually had failed leadership in their departments.

    Consequences......sometimes they suck.
    RK
    cell #901-494-9437

    Management is making sure things are done right. Leadership is doing the right thing. The fire service needs alot more leaders and a lot less managers.

    "Everyone goes home" is the mantra for the pussification of the modern, American fire service.


    Comments made are my own. They do not represent the official position or opinion of the Fire Department or the City for which I am employed. In fact, they are normally exactly the opposite.

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,598

    Default

    Plus the SAFER Grant money that they are receiving.

    Fire, Police and EMS should be funded locally.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    870

    Default

    I agree with the general consensus here but this Detroit situation has gotten so severe that something HAD to be done.If it takes federal money then so be it. I would hope they can solve their problems locally at some point. Or they'll be back over and over again for more.

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I agree with the general consensus here but this Detroit situation has gotten so severe that something HAD to be done.If it takes federal money then so be it. I would hope they can solve their problems locally at some point. Or they'll be back over and over again for more.
    but do you think federal money should also go to the isolated rural departments that cry "poor me, I don't have a tax base" ?
    ?

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    but do you think federal money should also go to the isolated rural departments that cry "poor me, I don't have a tax base" ?
    Detroit FD is in a crisis situation that hopefully will be somewhat temporary. Rural areas without a tax base face a permanent problem. It's not the same thing.

    I believe it is a problem that should be dealt with by the states. Many rural areas are policed by a state police force, or at least heavily supplemented by a sate police force. Fire protection should be the same way. If an area doesn't have a tax base for their own fire department, then there should be a local station of a state fire department. Yes, the more populous areas would then be subsidizing the less populous areas when it comes to fire service. It's already the case as far as other services go, such as those state police.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    Detroit FD is in a crisis situation that hopefully will be somewhat temporary. Rural areas without a tax base face a permanent problem. It's not the same thing.

    I believe it is a problem that should be dealt with by the states. Many rural areas are policed by a state police force, or at least heavily supplemented by a sate police force. Fire protection should be the same way. If an area doesn't have a tax base for their own fire department, then there should be a local station of a state fire department. Yes, the more populous areas would then be subsidizing the less populous areas when it comes to fire service. It's already the case as far as other services go, such as those state police.
    The problem with your answer here is you are okay with the entire country subsidizing a city that by its own well known reputation for corruption and mismanagement has buried itself so deep that it can't dig itself out, but not okay with that same handout to small rural departments that simply by demographics don't have the tax base for adequate protection. That doesn't seem at all a justifiable position. One city sinks itself and gets bailed out, many rural communities struggle on and by your idea deserve nothing from the feds. Sorry NO, either everyone is eligible for that piece of the federal pie or no one gets any. The truth is whether Detroit continues to flounder or rebounds should have absolutely no effect on any other fire department getting federal funding.

    This big city "Needs" federal money and all your rural folk don't BS is one of the reasons why there is such a divide in the fire service and why we are weak as a whole on the national political scene. One would think you would see the hypocrisy in believing big cities, such as your own, that have received BILLIONS in federal aid for fire, police and homeland security, while expecting states to take care of the rest. Seriously, where do you expect the states to come up with this money to fund these state fire departments? Especially when part of our tax money is buying your FD and Detroit and other large metro fire departments Billions of dollars in equipment?

    How happy would you have been if the State of New York, or the federal government, had taken over fire protection within the city limits of new York during your city's famous near bankruptcy in 1975? Where the teacher's Union invested $150 million from their pension fund back into the city to prevent default, and where the Fed loaned the city $2.3 BILLION. You see it is all so easy to flippantly say you don't get this money but we do until you peal away the layers and look at the big picture.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 12-01-2013 at 09:04 PM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,598

    Default

    The solution is simple.

    Local communities handle local emergency services.

    No more grants for fire, police or EMS including Homeland Security money.

    Would that ever happen? No, but I am a believer that if community X wants to provide this level of fire, police or EMS protection, find a way to fund it..

    the only exception to Homeland Security $$$ would be Washington.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 12-02-2013 at 08:15 AM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,096

    Default

    LaFireEducator;1392080]The solution is simple.

    Local communities handle local emergency services.

    No more grants for fire, police or EMS including Homeland Security money.

    Would that ever happen? No, but I am a believer that if community X wants to provide this level of fire, police or EMS protection, find a way to fund it..

    the only exception to Homeland Security $$$ would be Washington
    So once again I will say that either the chance for federal grants should be available to ALL in the emergency services or none. That is the only fair and just way to run those programs.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 12-02-2013 at 02:57 PM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,096

    Default

    Just to be clear, I am not opposed to Detroit getting assistance IF they met the criteria of the program and f course jumped through all the hoops of the application process and were awarded this grant through the same process as every other fire department. I do NOT believe they should have been given any special consideration.
    slackjawedyokel likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    The problem with your answer here is you are okay with the entire country subsidizing a city that by its own well known reputation for corruption and mismanagement has buried itself so deep that it can't dig itself out, but not okay with that same handout to small rural departments that simply by demographics don't have the tax base for adequate protection. That doesn't seem at all a justifiable position. One city sinks itself and gets bailed out, many rural communities struggle on and by your idea deserve nothing from the feds. Sorry NO, either everyone is eligible for that piece of the federal pie or no one gets any. The truth is whether Detroit continues to flounder or rebounds should have absolutely no effect on any other fire department getting federal funding.

    This big city "Needs" federal money and all your rural folk don't BS is one of the reasons why there is such a divide in the fire service and why we are weak as a whole on the national political scene. One would think you would see the hypocrisy in believing big cities, such as your own, that have received BILLIONS in federal aid for fire, police and homeland security, while expecting states to take care of the rest. Seriously, where do you expect the states to come up with this money to fund these state fire departments? Especially when part of our tax money is buying your FD and Detroit and other large metro fire departments Billions of dollars in equipment?

    How happy would you have been if the State of New York, or the federal government, had taken over fire protection within the city limits of new York during your city's famous near bankruptcy in 1975? Where the teacher's Union invested $150 million from their pension fund back into the city to prevent default, and where the Fed loaned the city $2.3 BILLION. You see it is all so easy to flippantly say you don't get this money but we do until you peal away the layers and look at the big picture.
    You said yourself that Detroit CAN"T dig itself out. So what do we do? Let em burn? Tell the citizens and firefighters of Detroit that they're on their own? I believe federal money should be used. I don't like it, but I think it should be done. If Detroit is ever going to recover help will be needed. Ideaology and righteous indignation will not accomplish anything. If we are willing to write off Detroit, what else (and who else) are we ready to write off?

    But I should have explained my position more clearly. I don't want to see large amounts of federal assistance to small rural departments on an ongoing basis. I think the states should have the responsibility for fire protection in rural areas as some do with police protection. I don't believe small rural towns, villages, counties, etc. can finance fire protection properly. I have no problem with federal money going to statewide fire services to supplement what the state has budgeted.

    You mention Homeland Security money. That should go where it is needed. For security. NYC has been targeted numerous times by terrorists. Small villages and towns have not. It makes no sense to put that money in rural areas. I've seen Homeland Security grants used to put surveillance systems on libraries in Nebraska. Really ridiculous if you think about it. Does no good for anyone with the exception of the camera installers. This is not an anti rural or anti middle America bias. This is just common sense. Homeland Security money should be spent on utility and transportation infrastructure hardening, border security, protection of high value terrorist targets such as financial, government, military and cultural locations, etc wherever they may be.

    No one is talking about the state of Michigan or the federal gov't taking over Detroit's fire department. I don't see where you came up with that analogy.

    I'm not saying NYC should get money and smaller towns shouln't. As you pointed out, NYC received federal LOANS, which were paid back (presumably). Rural areas receive federal money all the time. Probably not in proportion to what they contribute. They probably get a better return per dollar sent to Washington than the big cities do. It may not go to fire protection, but that is decided by the politicians representing those areas.

  13. #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The solution is simple.

    Local communities handle local emergency services.

    No more grants for fire, police or EMS including Homeland Security money.

    Would that ever happen? No, but I am a believer that if community X wants to provide this level of fire, police or EMS protection, find a way to fund it..

    the only exception to Homeland Security $$$ would be Washington.
    Why is it that only the local community should handle emergency services? The local community gets help with transportation infrastructure. Help with police. Help with education. Etc, etc, etc. Should that all stop too? We in the fire service are our own worst enemies. Many of us would turn down state or federal help as it might upset the status quo.

    It's ridiculous to say that only Washington should get Homeland Security money. That money should go to whatever sites need protection regardless of location.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    You said yourself that Detroit CAN"T dig itself out. So what do we do? Let em burn? Tell the citizens and firefighters of Detroit that they're on their own? I believe federal money should be used. I don't like it, but I think it should be done. If Detroit is ever going to recover help will be needed. Ideaology and righteous indignation will not accomplish anything. If we are willing to write off Detroit, what else (and who else) are we ready to write off?

    I never said let Detroit burn, but you said in your first post that rural areas shouldn't get federal money for fire protection, while big cities like Detroit should. If Detroit applied for a federal grant, and it appears they did, a SAFER Grant, and they met the requirements, then yes, they should get the money. EXACTLY the same way some little rural FD out in the middle of nowhere applies for a grant, meets the requirements, and gets a grant. It is really that simple.

    But I should have explained my position more clearly. I don't want to see large amounts of federal assistance to small rural departments on an ongoing basis. I think the states should have the responsibility for fire protection in rural areas as some do with police protection. I don't believe small rural towns, villages, counties, etc. can finance fire protection properly. I have no problem with federal money going to statewide fire services to supplement what the state has budgeted.

    I don't want to see large amounts of federal money going to New York City, or Detroit, or any other large city just because they are large, for fire protection either. Frankly, they should fund their own fire protection, or perhaps using your suggestion go to the state hat in hand asking for money. Your naivete at what part the state pays in funding rural fire protection is simply astounding. It plays no part at all in Wisconsin other than the 2% insurnace rebate that is supposed to go directly to fire departments for doing inspections. Otherwise there is no direct funding to municipalities from the state for fire protection.

    You mention Homeland Security money. That should go where it is needed. For security. NYC has been targeted numerous times by terrorists. Small villages and towns have not. It makes no sense to put that money in rural areas. I've seen Homeland Security grants used to put surveillance systems on libraries in Nebraska. Really ridiculous if you think about it. Does no good for anyone with the exception of the camera installers. This is not an anti rural or anti middle America bias. This is just common sense. Homeland Security money should be spent on utility and transportation infrastructure hardening, border security, protection of high value terrorist targets such as financial, government, military and cultural locations, etc wherever they may be.

    I look at the entire Homeland Security thing as one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated upon the American taxpayer. Is there a need for extra security in high risk areas? Of course. But the BILLIONS upon BILLIONS spent for equipment that will become obsolete before it is ever used being given to each large metropolitan area is ridiculous. Enough supplies for initial operations should be supplied and the remainder cached in centralized locations, one east coast, one midwest, and one west coast, with alert crews on hand to airlift those needed supplies to wherever they are needed. COST EFFECTIVENESS, versus everyone having enough supplies to handle every contingency on their own. If you are honest you know as well as I do most of those supplies will either go out of date, or become obsolete, or surplussed, and sold for pennies on the dollar before they are ever used.


    No one is talking about the state of Michigan or the federal gov't taking over Detroit's fire department. I don't see where you came up with that analogy.

    Yet you believe in rural areas state run fire departments should pop up and protect those areas. If it's good enough for them why not Detroit or New York? You see your posts are so wrought with inconsistencies and ideas for everyone else that you won't accept for yourself. Frankly, I look at the $2.3 BILLION loaned to New York back in the 70's and wonder how much good that could have done all across the country. Yet you wouldn't seem to support that kind of loan program for anyone else. Kind of egocentric don't you think? The "WE deserve it because we are bigger than you" BS.

    I'm not saying NYC should get money and smaller towns shouln't. As you pointed out, NYC received federal LOANS, which were paid back (presumably). Rural areas receive federal money all the time. Probably not in proportion to what they contribute. They probably get a better return per dollar sent to Washington than the big cities do. It may not go to fire protection, but that is decided by the politicians representing those areas.

    YOU SAID EXACTLY THAT IN YOUR FIRST POST! You said that the states, not the feds, should provide fire protection to rural areas unable to fund it on their own. Only after I challenged you on that did you miraculously change your mind. Seriously, while New York City is a vital part of the United States, there are over 300,000,000 of us that don't live there, and while we believe you should be protected and get your share of federal money you have no right to tell anyone else they don't have the right to apply for money to support local services under those very same grant programs.
    We all pay taxes too and believe me we don't pay them to lose out to other states and their cities at every turn.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    We all pay taxes too and believe me we don't pay them to lose out to other states and their cities at every turn.









    Originally Posted by captnjak

    You said yourself that Detroit CAN"T dig itself out. So what do we do? Let em burn? Tell the citizens and firefighters of Detroit that they're on their own? I believe federal money should be used. I don't like it, but I think it should be done. If Detroit is ever going to recover help will be needed. Ideaology and righteous indignation will not accomplish anything. If we are willing to write off Detroit, what else (and who else) are we ready to write off?

    I never said let Detroit burn, but you said in your first post that rural areas shouldn't get federal money for fire protection, while big cities like Detroit should. If Detroit applied for a federal grant, and it appears they did, a SAFER Grant, and they met the requirements, then yes, they should get the money. EXACTLY the same way some little rural FD out in the middle of nowhere applies for a grant, meets the requirements, and gets a grant. It is really that simple.

    You have totally mis-characterized my post. I NEVER said that rural areas should not get money for fire protection while big cities like Deroit should. I said that I agreed with the general consensus (being that Detroit probably doesn't deserve the money), but I thought they should get it because their situation was so severe. I did not reference ANY other city big or small.

    But I should have explained my position more clearly. I don't want to see large amounts of federal assistance to small rural departments on an ongoing basis. I think the states should have the responsibility for fire protection in rural areas as some do with police protection. I don't believe small rural towns, villages, counties, etc. can finance fire protection properly. I have no problem with federal money going to statewide fire services to supplement what the state has budgeted.

    I don't want to see large amounts of federal money going to New York City, or Detroit, or any other large city just because they are large, for fire protection either. Frankly, they should fund their own fire protection, or perhaps using your suggestion go to the state hat in hand asking for money. Your naivete at what part the state pays in funding rural fire protection is simply astounding. It plays no part at all in Wisconsin other than the 2% insurnace rebate that is supposed to go directly to fire departments for doing inspections. Otherwise there is no direct funding to municipalities from the state for fire protection.

    I am not naive as to what states do or do not do as far as fire protection goes. I stated what I WOULD LIKE TO SEE from states. I agree that large cities should fund their own fire protection

    You mention Homeland Security money. That should go where it is needed. For security. NYC has been targeted numerous times by terrorists. Small villages and towns have not. It makes no sense to put that money in rural areas. I've seen Homeland Security grants used to put surveillance systems on libraries in Nebraska. Really ridiculous if you think about it. Does no good for anyone with the exception of the camera installers. This is not an anti rural or anti middle America bias. This is just common sense. Homeland Security money should be spent on utility and transportation infrastructure hardening, border security, protection of high value terrorist targets such as financial, government, military and cultural locations, etc wherever they may be.

    I look at the entire Homeland Security thing as one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated upon the American taxpayer. Is there a need for extra security in high risk areas? Of course. But the BILLIONS upon BILLIONS spent for equipment that will become obsolete before it is ever used being given to each large metropolitan area is ridiculous. Enough supplies for initial operations should be supplied and the remainder cached in centralized locations, one east coast, one midwest, and one west coast, with alert crews on hand to airlift those needed supplies to wherever they are needed. COST EFFECTIVENESS, versus everyone having enough supplies to handle every contingency on their own. If you are honest you know as well as I do most of those supplies will either go out of date, or become obsolete, or surplussed, and sold for pennies on the dollar before they are ever used.

    I agree that most Homeland Security money is wasted. But in theory it should go to where it will provide the most real security.

    No one is talking about the state of Michigan or the federal gov't taking over Detroit's fire department. I don't see where you came up with that analogy.

    Yet you believe in rural areas state run fire departments should pop up and protect those areas. If it's good enough for them why not Detroit or New York? You see your posts are so wrought with inconsistencies and ideas for everyone else that you won't accept for yourself. Frankly, I look at the $2.3 BILLION loaned to New York back in the 70's and wonder how much good that could have done all across the country. Yet you wouldn't seem to support that kind of loan program for anyone else. Kind of egocentric don't you think? The "WE deserve it because we are bigger than you" BS.


    No, state run departments should not pop up and run rural departments. The discussion was not about rural areas per se, at least until you chimed in. It was about rural areas that do not have enough tax base to fund a department. This was brought up by another member of this forum. The 2.3 billion LOANED to NYC could have better been used elsewhere, but I'm sure this is true of MOST federal money that goes just about anywhere. The "we are bigger and deserve it" sentiment is entirely made up by you. I did not EVER state that or even hint at that!

    I'm not saying NYC should get money and smaller towns shouln't. As you pointed out, NYC received federal LOANS, which were paid back (presumably). Rural areas receive federal money all the time. Probably not in proportion to what they contribute. They probably get a better return per dollar sent to Washington than the big cities do. It may not go to fire protection, but that is decided by the politicians representing those areas.

    YOU SAID EXACTLY THAT IN YOUR FIRST POST! You said that the states, not the feds, should provide fire protection to rural areas unable to fund it on their own. Only after I challenged you on that did you miraculously change your mind. Seriously, while New York City is a vital part of the United States, there are over 300,000,000 of us that don't live there, and while we believe you should be protected and get your share of federal money you have no right to tell anyone else they don't have the right to apply for money to support local services under those very same grant programs.

    I'll repeat: I NEVER said that big cities should get money and rural areas shouldn't. I did not miraculously change my mind. After you pointed out my failure to fully communicate, I clarified my position. That being that the state should be the entity to provide fire service in rural areas WITHOUT A SUFFICIENT TAX BASE TO FUND IT FOR THEMSELVES. And yes, federal money could and should supplement the state money when needed.
    Where exactly did I state that rural areas have no right to apply for money? I'll make it easy for you. NOWHERE. Another total mis-characterization on your part.

    For reasons unknown to me you are trying to paint a picture where I am unfairly targeting smaller towns and rural areas as being undeserving of federal money while big cities are deserving of those same monies. You are way off base. A careful look at my posts will make my position quite clear. Maybe it is YOU who has a bias.


  16. #16
    Forum Member
    conrad427's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Just south of Canada
    Posts
    536

    Default

    I would really like to know the ins and outs of how the Cal Fire system works. As near as I can work out the communities can contract with Cal Fire to provide protection if the local government can't or if the local contracts are more expensive than the proposed Cal Fire contract. My state has a firefighting service that protects wildland areas not so much structure fire. The counties get by with PILT money, which is money that is provided in Lieu of taxes on government land within the county that cannot be taxed by the counties.
    I pay a lot of property taxes to help fund the more populated areas. The eastern two thirds of my state pay a lot of taxes so the western third with all the population can get the services they need. I pay state taxes for roads that I have never driven on. Seems like the State could do a better job of funding the rural volunteer outfits. But what the hell do I know, my state does not even have a million residents.
    The fire service is about service to our fellow man.
    There is a trust that must not be broken and we are the keepers of that trust.
    Captain Dave LeBlanc

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    conrad427's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Just south of Canada
    Posts
    536

    Default

    Why the hell not. I would rather the money be spent here than over seas. The money is going to be spent somewhere, might as well be the US.
    Better than spending millions of dollars on WTO extortion.
    The fire service is about service to our fellow man.
    There is a trust that must not be broken and we are the keepers of that trust.
    Captain Dave LeBlanc

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    GTRider245's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Augusta,GA
    Posts
    3,059

    Default

    Comparing the financial needs of a three structure fire a year rural department to those of Detroit is simply dumb.

    Is it their own faults? Sure. Does "they" include the guys riding the apparatus? Probably not. So bu a t shirt, provide a little equipment and go on with your life. Not that big of a deal.

    When the shirt program for Podunk VFD floats around buy one from them too.
    Career Firefighter
    Volunteer Captain

    -Professional in Either Role-

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    I don't mind fire rolling over my head. I just don't like it rolling UNDER my a**.

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTRider245 View Post
    Comparing the financial needs of a three structure fire a year rural department to those of Detroit is simply dumb.

    Yeah, it is. The 3 structure fire a year volunteer fire department's local government more than likely doesn't have a 50 year history of corruption and mismanagement that destroyed the entire city, and is decimating the fire department. They just work hard, pay their taxes, fund raise and pinch every penny to keep their community running. But hey, maybe somene losing their house, or a loved one, out in rural America doesn't matter because it didn't happen in a big city.

    Is it their own faults? Sure. Does "they" include the guys riding the apparatus? Probably not. So bu a t shirt, provide a little equipment and go on with your life. Not that big of a deal.

    This discussion went off track from the T-shirt program a dew posts back. Is it the fault of the line firefighters? Nope, and it seldom is. Not relevant to the discussion that this has morphed into. To my mind the small rural vfd that has funding issues and staffing issues has just as much right to that federal money as Detroit and the process for getting those grants is a competitive one. The major difference is corruption and mismanagement destroyed Detroit, simple demographics is the issue with rural communities and fire departments.

    When the shirt program for Podunk VFD floats around buy one from them too.

    I spend plenty of money every year supporting my neighboring FDs at their pancake breakfasts, festivals, raffles, banquets, fundraiser sales, and more. I despise having to fund raise, but it is a necessary evil that we do because we have to.
    You are entirely missing the point.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    snowball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Just North of South Central
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by conrad427 View Post
    I would really like to know the ins and outs of how the Cal Fire system works. As near as I can work out the communities can contract with Cal Fire to provide protection if the local government can't or if the local contracts are more expensive than the proposed Cal Fire contract. My state has a firefighting service that protects wildland areas not so much structure fire. The counties get by with PILT money, which is money that is provided in Lieu of taxes on government land within the county that cannot be taxed by the counties.
    I pay a lot of property taxes to help fund the more populated areas. The eastern two thirds of my state pay a lot of taxes so the western third with all the population can get the services they need. I pay state taxes for roads that I have never driven on. Seems like the State could do a better job of funding the rural volunteer outfits. But what the hell do I know, my state does not even have a million residents.
    CDF or CalFire as they like to call themselves now, has several different matrix's in place for whatever you can afford. If all you can spring for is an unstaffed tender in a pole barn, then they are more than happy to plaster their logo on the side of it. The plus to that is they have resources that will respond to incidents. CDF claims to be the largest fire department in the US, when in reality, they are just a series of really small departments staffed by state employees. They are like assisted living for struggling towns, not really too concerned with making a huge profit, but they'll take every spare penny you have. Just spreading their empire like the Romans did. If a community receives more service than they pay for, the excess is slung around the neck of the already over taxed Californian.

    I had to edit this:
    No disrespect to the CalFire brothers, they are a stellar group of firefighters dedicated to providing excellent care to the citizens they serve.
    Last edited by snowball; 12-02-2013 at 03:51 PM.
    Here and there likes this.
    IAFF

  21. #21
    Forum Member
    GTRider245's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Augusta,GA
    Posts
    3,059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    You are entirely missing the point.
    The point is by no fault of their own, DFD firefighters respond to more fire than all of the departments in this thread combined with worn out gear, broken or missing tools and less than proper staffing. You buy a shirt, they get a saw. Or boots. Or whatever.

    As usual the same crowd caused the discussion to veer off track with political BS that has nothing to do with the point of the thread.
    Career Firefighter
    Volunteer Captain

    -Professional in Either Role-

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    I don't mind fire rolling over my head. I just don't like it rolling UNDER my a**.

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTRider245 View Post
    The point is by no fault of their own, DFD firefighters respond to more fire than all of the departments in this thread combined with worn out gear, broken or missing tools and less than proper staffing. You buy a shirt, they get a saw. Or boots. Or whatever.

    As usual the same crowd caused the discussion to veer off track with political BS that has nothing to do with the point of the thread.
    In my opinion the "political bs" is an important part of this thread. Its not like Detroit was hit by a one time tsunami and that is why they are in the straits that they are in. A large part of the problem is the corrupt government. I fully understand that the guys in the trenches are the ones suffering, but myself personally , I hate to see federal government go to prop up a "banana republic" -And GT just for the record, the first fundraiser the organization had was a patch quilt, I sent the FIRST patch in to them, and guess what ? I have also purchased a shirt.
    ?

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    In my opinion the "political bs" is an important part of this thread. Its not like Detroit was hit by a one time tsunami and that is why they are in the straits that they are in. A large part of the problem is the corrupt government. I fully understand that the guys in the trenches are the ones suffering, but myself personally , I hate to see federal government go to prop up a "banana republic" -And GT just for the record, the first fundraiser the organization had was a patch quilt, I sent the FIRST patch in to them, and guess what ? I have also purchased a shirt.
    So let's get right down to it. If it was your call would they get the money or not? I'm not asking if you LIKE them getting the money. Forget about the REASONS they need the money. (I'm assuming we all agree they do need it) But, plain and simple, SHOULD they get the money?

    Anyone else care to answer?

  24. #24
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    So let's get right down to it. If it was your call would they get the money or not? I'm not asking if you LIKE them getting the money. Forget about the REASONS they need the money. (I'm assuming we all agree they do need it) But, plain and simple, SHOULD they get the money?

    Anyone else care to answer?
    I'll answer the question. Although I already did a few posts back. If the money they got is a SAFER Grant, and they filled out the application properly, made it past computer scoring, made it past peer review, and were deemed a valid grant request, then YES, they should get the money. That is the same process anyone else applying for that same grant would have to do.

    The down side is in 5 years, at the end of the SAFER Grant funding, they will most likely lay off the same number they hired because unless some radical change occurs there the city's money problems will not end.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    So let's get right down to it. If it was your call would they get the money or not? I'm not asking if you LIKE them getting the money. Forget about the REASONS they need the money. (I'm assuming we all agree they do need it) But, plain and simple, SHOULD they get the money?

    Anyone else care to answer?
    If you are talking about the safer grant --- if they are judged on a level playing field, they should have just as good a chance as any other department. Do I agree with how the safer and the fire grant operate --no, but I feel like most federal programs benefit either under achievers and or agencies/people that know how to play the system.
    ?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Detroit Fire Department
    By orlando_Watkins in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-29-2013, 07:34 PM
  2. An ode to the Detroit Fire Department
    By DeputyChiefGonzo in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-09-2012, 05:49 PM
  3. detroit fire department?!?!?!?!?
    By Fire_Fighter_Tom in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-28-2011, 07:42 PM
  4. Detroit Fire Department
    By detroitfire1552 in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-13-2009, 10:42 AM
  5. Detroit Fire Department
    By ChiefOne2004 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-12-2002, 10:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register