Sorry for lagging on getting my arguments posted. Here's the argument against the measure mandating the city to keep firehouses fully open.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starhcild >>>
“Some fire stations only respond to a couple calls a day, mostly simple medical calls, to which they usually send an engine with four firefighters – only one of whom has paramedic training. And these stations stay open even though one city study found a nearby station could answer those calls in the same four-minute response time.”
-Bay Guardian, June 30, 2004
Controller Ed Harrington reported that up to six stations could be closed without affecting response times. The only beneficiaries of the wasteful status quo are well-paid fire department employees. That’s why some of them are trying to scare the public into passing Proposition F.
But Proposition F is about paycheck safety, not public safety.
“Change is something that is not in the cards for the fire department. If there’s going to be change, it needs to be forced on them.”
-Retired firefighter Jim Corrigan (18-year SFFD veteran)
“We have made the conscious decision as a society to significantly increase the cost of construction to promote safety (including fire safety). At some point we should be able to reap the dividend of that investment by spending less on putting out fires.”
-Gabriel Metcalf, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association
If the city is prohibited from making responsible, money-saving changes to its fire department which have been made in other cities and recommended by numerous studies, less money will be available for things like:
• health care
• arts funding
• senior programs
• youth programs
• street maintenance
• public transit
• pedestrian safety
• bicycle lanes
San Francisco needs every one of its firehouses about as much as the U.S. needs every one of its military bases. Please vote NO on F.
Outreach Director, San Francisco Libertarian Party