Where There's Smoke There's Fire: Whose Decision is it to Provide Fire Services to Milton/George's Brook
Co-contributer Paul Tilley wrote an excellent posting about the issue of the Clarenville Fire Department providing fire protection services to the Local Service District (LSD) of Milton/George's Brook. I didn't think there was much to add to the topic until I read this week's Packet. The story doesn't seem to be posted on the website, however, the article is about the request of the LSD for a tanker truck from the provincial government. The LSD had requested that Clarenville Fire Department provide them with services and one of the conditions was a tanker truck to be stationed in the area to ensure adequate water supply. The Minister responsible indicates that should Clarenville become the regional fire department, an analysis would then have to be completed to determine the necessary resources required. Fair enough.
What caught my eye, however, was the last few paragraphs. The article indicates that "while the final decision to negotiate comes down to council, it's whether or not the Clarenville fire department would be willing to take on the risk." The article then goes on to quote the mayor: "Our decision has to be based on the fire department and if they are willing to accept the responsibility of fighting a fire in Milton/George's Brook without an adequate water supply."
There's so much wrong with that statement, I hardly know where to begin but since I'm up for a challenge here are a few thoughts:
1) It's an elected town council that has responsibility for deciding on what services are offered to its town, and consequently, any impact on those services.
2) A volunteer fire department needs to be consulted about its thoughts but cannot be used as a scapegoat for why services are or are not offered to a Local Service District.
3) How can you say in one breathe that there's an inadequate water supply but in the same breathe wonder if a fire department would be willing to accept the additional responsibility?
What caught my eye, however, was the last few paragraphs. The article indicates that "while the final decision to negotiate comes down to council, it's whether or not the Clarenville fire department would be willing to take on the risk." The article then goes on to quote the mayor: "Our decision has to be based on the fire department and if they are willing to accept the responsibility of fighting a fire in Milton/George's Brook without an adequate water supply."
There's so much wrong with that statement, I hardly know where to begin but since I'm up for a challenge here are a few thoughts:
1) It's an elected town council that has responsibility for deciding on what services are offered to its town, and consequently, any impact on those services.
2) A volunteer fire department needs to be consulted about its thoughts but cannot be used as a scapegoat for why services are or are not offered to a Local Service District.
3) How can you say in one breathe that there's an inadequate water supply but in the same breathe wonder if a fire department would be willing to accept the additional responsibility?
Comments
Post a Comment