private firefighters?

[guyton]

We had a nasty fire here recently, and then this comes to light ...

Among the more than 1,000 firefighters and 100 engines that responded to the Fourmile Fire, which broke out Sept. 6 in the foothills west of Boulder, was a contingent of 13 fully certified wildland firefighters whose mission it was to save a select group of homes.

They drove five fully equipped engines loaded with fire retardant up Sunshine Canyon Drive and Sugarloaf Road, easily passing through heavily manned checkpoints and down smoke-shrouded roads, to their customers' homes.

The homeowners getting the extra protection weren't secretly paying off local fire departments or federal officials for the special treatment. Rather, they were customers of Chubb, an insurance company that focuses on writing policies for high-end customers with high-value properties.

This seems ... greatly disturbing. I guess soon we'll need "premium" fire insurance to get 1st class response when a fire fight breaks out?

I guess it's nothing new. People have long hired private doctors, private security, private teachers, private lawyers. But when I'm being evacuated ... told I can't stay and defend my house ... to have the people who do show up include folks who couldn't care less about saving *every* house ... this just seems wrong.

http://www.dailycamera.com/fourmile-canyon-fire/ci_16129301

[Hannah Bell]

1. it's not entirely new, but it's a growing trend. please see here too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9172531

[COLGATE4]

2. Oh, Good. Maybe we can go back to the 'good old days' when

fire departments competed and only put out houses on fire that had the appropriate Insurance company plaque on display. If your neighbor's house was also on fire, well, tough luck. That's capitalism at its finest. Something to be proud of.:puke:

[drm604]

3. That is disturbing.

I can imagine a situation where extra personnel and equipment from private companies may cause congestion when combined with the regular responders.

I wonder if there's any coordination between the public firefighters and the private? Do the public firefighters have instructions to avoid the privately protected properties? If they do and the private company fails to respond or doesn't respond in a timely matter is the municipality liable at all? What if, in such a case, it spreads to other properties? Suppose the private company fails to respond, it spreads to another property and a resident or residents of that other property dies? Can manslaughter charges be brought?

Is there any coordination as to who goes up the road first when there's limited access to multiple burning properties?

What's the liability if the private companies do a substandard job the and fire spreads to unprotected properties? Suppose it's just a privately protected property that catches fire and then while they're fighting it the fire spreads to neighboring publicly protected properties. Does the private company have any obligation to try to put it out or do they simply have to call the public department (with the flames spreading further the whole time)?

Do the public firefighters have the right to tell the private ones to get the hell out of the way and let them do their job? Can they have them arrested if they refuse? If the public FF do make them go away could the homeowners then attempt to sue the public FF for a real or perceived substandard job?

Very disturbing.

This country, and most others, went to the public system of fire fighting for very good reasons.

[guyton]

5. traffic congestion ...

congestion was a big reason quoted for not letting residents back into the evacuation zone for a long time. We had to stay out of the way and let them get their work done. Fair enough ... until you realize that not all of them are working in your best interest.

[drm604]

7. Best interests indeed.

If a private company has to decide between two ways of fighting a particular fire, one that minimizes the risk to neighboring properties but may result in a little more damage to the paying property, or one that protects the paying property to the maximum extent possible regardless of risk to the neighbors, which do you suppose they'd choose?

[alittlelark]

9. That is a really good point.

I hadn't thought about that.

[drm604]

11. Like I said in a previous post

there are very good reasons we went to a public model for fire fighting in this country. The people who are fighting a fire should always have the best interests of the overall public in mind.

Fire fighters need to be able to coordinate their activities with each other. You can't have some other group with different interests in the middle of a wildfire.

[Hannah Bell]

17. think about who gets access to the water supply, too.

[drm604]

19. Excellent point.

You can't have private and public fire companies quarreling over hydrants or over the rationing of water during a major fire or a drought, or a major fire during a drought!

[Statistical]

31. Not really. No private company (or individual) has access to fire hydrants.

Period.

If your house is burning and you open a fire hydrant to put out a fire you can (and likely will) be arrested.

Private firefighters are required to bring their own water which is why the usually use fire retardant foam. Pound for pound it is more effective than pain water. It costs more but it maximizes the effective power of each truck.

[Statistical]

29. How could any such selection be worse than no private firefighter.

Of course a private firefighter would seek to minimize "contracted" losses. At worst unprotected homes are no worse off at best maybe contracted home not catching fire results in that home not burning down an uncontracted home.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

4. Expect more of this.

As we further cut services to appease tax haters, the rich will make damn sure that they and theirs are well taken care of. We already saw this in NOLA after Katrina. :(

Mark my words, we will one day see a story about a "private" emergency service contractor bypassing someone in need on the way to a job, resulting in that persons death. :(

[guyton]

6. 3rd world status

I guess such things are only needed by a middle class. Get rid of that and we don't need public services anymore, the rich can buy their own and the poor can go jump.

I just wish Obama was half the socialist that the right believes him to be :-(

[littlewolf]

12. as far as bypassing someone in need

it is like that now ... if an ambulance is on a run and sees another accident ... they can not stop all they can do is call it in
and report to where they were dispatched ....

[drm604]

13. This misses the point.

If a regular fire department is attending to a burning building and the flames jump to an adjacent property they can immediately turn some of their resources towards that.

If a private company is there instead they may simply call the regular fire department and let it burn meanwhile. If they weren't there then the public one would already have been there.

[Statistical]

30. Why wouldn't public fire dept be there?

Having extra supplemental insurance/protection doesn't relieve the govt of it's obligation to provide services.

Some people have body guards, armed security however that doesn't alleviate the requirement for Police to respond to that location when called.

[Regret My New Name]

35. I think it's more likely that neither the pubic nor private firefighters would have been there

The article clearly states that they do not interfere with normal firefighting operations. Also, it states that these ones do not fight structure fires, so even if a house catches fire, they cannot do anything anyway. Also, if they are out clearing brush and installing sprinkler systems in adjacent properties, then that's going to protect even non-covered properties. I wouldn't mind living next to a homeowner who had such coverage, because it just means that I known for sure that there will be resources dispatched near my home, and that they would be clearing brush (and whatever else they do) in the areas surrounding where I live.

So long as they do not get in the way of public firefighters and are not viewed as a replacement, then I fail to see the harm in this. If anything, it just throws more resources toward the fire at no cost to the tax payer.

[anarch]

8. seems like the ideal capitalist solution would be purely for-profit firefighters

That would be awesome...no fire-protection-club membership, no firefighting for you!

And I'm sure nobody would ever, ever stoop so low as to start fires in order to drum up business. Never ever.

[davepc]

23. That's exactly how it used to be.

Everything old is new again.

[kag]

10. Wow. Scary. k&r n/t

[merqz]

14. I support it, just like I support people who want to pay extra for alarm systems or private patrol

Many corporations have their own fire departments - Boeing comes to mind. They have specialized training in fires specific to Avgas fires, and can be fully equipped and have a shorter response time to deal with potential incidents on Boeing property.

Public servants necessarily have a different criteria for which houses to save (essentially a fire triage system) that will differ from private firefighters who will protect what they were paid to protect.

Just as people should be able to own firearms for their own protection (and that's also a constitutional right), they should be able to hire people to protect them - whether that be private doctors, firefighters, security guards, etc.

The president, fwiw, is protected when he a is on the road by a publically paid for crew of medics/doctor. Their SOLE responsibility is him.

[drm604]

15. Boeing is a different situation.

They have special hazards. Also, their fire department is probably right there on their property and wouldn't be interfering with the public fire department.

The problems with private companies operating in residential neighborhoods are as I described above. They could interfere with public firefighters since presumably there would be little or no coordination between public and private since, as you say, they have different priorities.

I don't see how the President is relevant to the discussion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. And the President's medics are Navy or Army

and the doctors are navy or army as well.

Oh and the SS that does the Presidential Security ARE public servants.

You are correct.

[merqz]

20. right

And I don't begrudge the President that protection. It comes with the office. I don't begrudge any private individual or corporation extra protection that they pay for. I don't begrudge somebody who chooses to own/carry a firearm either.

The previous poster was correct. Private fire does have different obligations. They also don't have access to public sources of water (like hydrants). Heck, if I wanted to pay extra and have my own fire dept. to protect me and my loved ones, I should be able to. I could build them a loft over the garage :)

I'm just saying that people hiring private resources actually means that the public resources are LESS burdened.

[drm604]

21. Some public resources can become more burdened.

Read some of other responses by myself and others. In a wildfire near a residential neighborhood, for example, roads can become congested and water use may need to be carefully planned. Decisions may need to be made about the most efficient use of limited resources. There needs to be coordination without another group with a different agenda in the middle of things.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Have you ever worked in the field?

I have. And I can tell you right now that in a disaster zone I do not want want the added problem of private yahoos in an emergency scene.

In the zone I want people that have drilled with me, know communications protocols and will NOT take space I might need to task resources to critical areas in the zone. But that is just me, who actually has done this for real.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Truly started in San Diego

and yes we are moving in that damn direction.

I expect private security forces as well.

We will soon have very wealthy areas closed off to the people, and patrolled by private armed guards. This happens all over LatAm already... and this will be the new normal... unless...

Oh never mind... Americans will not do this... why keep dreaming.

[LWolf]

22. If people don't quit voting for neoliberals, every public service

will be privatized. There will be no recourse for those who can't afford to hire such services.

[Canuckistanian]

24. And I'll bet they don't have a union, either

In fact, I'd say they were paid a whole lot less than regular firefighters.

[AngryAmish]

25. Normal procedure, historically

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus>

[Erose999]

26. This brings to mind the ancient Roman statesman Marcus Linicus Crassus

the "patron saint" of modern "libertarianism".


He commanded a private "fire department". He would basically buy burning buildings and surrounding properties at lowball prices, and then have his army of slaves and workers put out the fire (by destroying the buildings). Then he would sell the vacant lots at tremendous profit.

[Statistical]

28. While pretty sick I don't see it much different than private alarm company or private mail service.

If people want to pay for additional protection then why shouldn't they have that option.

The reality is in large fire many homes will be lost. It isn't because public fire dept is bad or incapable it is simply impossible to protect thousands of homes spread across miles of land.

If some people want to pay a fee for a private service & insurance I don't see a problem.

I mean FedEx & UPS compete with Postal Service.

[ManiacJoe]

32. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

If the private firefighters are protecting one area, the public firefighters are freed up to be elsewhere.

[Regret My New Name]

33. I agree. So long as they do not get in the way of public

firefighters, then it should be viewed as positive thing. If there has been issues with them causing these services to interfere with public firefighters, then address those issues specifically. Seems foolish to be against the entire concept...

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. This is no different than a gated community having its own security guards

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. There's a private forest fire fighting company not to far from me.

Every year there are forest fires somewhere in the west. Some years are bad, some years are fine. Every year there are lot of "seasonal" workers that are quickly trained to do a lot of grunt work, often they're college students out for the summer. On the other hand, they are often supported by highly skilled professionals who do it year after year. Sometimes, if they fire is particularly bad, it overwhelms the capabilities of the locals, and they have to bring in people from other states, which depletes service in those areas, and often at great expense. I think this private company sort of fills in the gaps where local government firefighting has trouble finding resources.