Awesomeness

The fire department could have decreased amount of fire damage. The city has decreased fire personel from 4 on most engines to only 3 firefighters. The problem being that when an engine pulls up to a burning structure, they can't go in or put the fire out until another engine arrives. By this time, the fire damage has gone from moderate to severe. Most of the time the other engine comes from across the city to assist.

The present fire chief has never fought a structure fire in his life. The deputy chief has terrible judgement, and has the department tied up in multiple lawsuits due to his decisions.

The MAYOR and CITY COUNCIL need to open their eyes and fix this problem.

Stop worrying about 40oz. beers.....put your effort into saving lives and protecting propery.

If anyone of my family experiences injury due to the fire suppression cut backs in this city, I will come after everyone involved.....FULL FORCE!

The firefighters are only worried about one thing - their overtime pay to fund their toys.

It is in the Firefighters Union best interests to fight for these positions - more dues.

If Chief Conrad says that things are managable then the public needs to trust him. After all he has the education and experience to make these decisions, not some "arm chair quarterback" that has no experience.

This city can not AFFORD more. The housing market is in a slump, tons of houses in this city are abandoned and foreclosed on, so where is the money for these 12 positions supposed to come from? My house was just reassesed which means I'm paying less property tax.....and so is everyone else. All sorts of companies are laying off, and cutting back compensation. It's the reality of today.

All departments in this city are feeling the cutbacks but the firefighters don't want to look at the reality of the situation. Keep on pushing guys and when this city goes into bankruptcy then your cushy contract is null and void. Awww....too bad, so sad. Better sell your toys boys.

OK...The City Council gambled and won this one, but what about the next time with YOUR home?? Hard to believe I sent this to SB SUN Voice on April 21st...

Council Gambles With Public Safety

It appears that the SB elected Council has decided the City can no longer provide for the safety and well-being of neither the residents, nor the firefighters who are charged with ensuring that margin of safety is there when the situation calls. Our Council has elected to tie these dedicated firefighters hands by limiting the truck crew size to just three (3) individuals when nationally accepted standard calls for four (4) individuals per truck.

For those who are unaware and as an example, if there is a structure fire and the first crew to arrive on seen is a crew of three (3), they are not to enter the building if they know no one is inside. They must wait until the second truck arrives to enter the building and try to put out what WAS a simple grease fire that has now consumed the kitchen and attic or adjacent room as they waited for the second truck. As many of us know throughout SB, when it comes to fire, it is the seconds that count much more than the minutes. Experience has proven that things burn up very quickly in SB.

This situation is preventable if the Council would restore the eight (8) positions that are desperately needed to adequately staff the identified fire stations from three (3) positions to (4) positions. For whatever reason, this sitting Council would not even entertain a motion to put the matter before a full Council's vote. Our some of our "elected" in their wisdom have dealt a death blow to the matter without a single vote. I must ask WHY?

Can the citizens of SB afford to gamble with fire safety in our town? This is strictly a public safety issue and it CAN NOT be gambled with. The Council has acted on this matter and now during this election year, the citizens of SB it is your turn to act. We must send a message to this Council that public safety is paramount, never to be gambled with and always JOB #1. If they think differently (and it is apparent they do) then they are the wrong persons representing the voters of SB as well as the safety of those who are dedicated to our wellbeing, the courageous firefighters assigned through our City.

Please reference The Sun article of April 21, 2009; "Two blazes stretch SB fire resources".

Concerned:
What you are doing is "fearmongering" and creating hype for the fire fighters union.
How is the city supposed to pay for these 12 or 8 positions?
Should the garbage collectors that lose their jobs start a campaign about the dangers of trash sitting out and how we will be over-run with typhoid?
You ask "Why?!?" Maybe because there is NO MONEY to pay these firefighters that y'all want to hire.
The unions in this city need to stop with their strong-arm tactics.

When are people going to wake up and view fireman for what they are. They constantly talk as if there are numerous structure fires in the city but there are none. 95 % of their calls are medical aid where most of them stand around watching the paramedics from AMR do all the work. Then they stand around and watch the police fight with family members who are trying to get to their loved ones. Dont forget about the 500 homes that burned down in 2003. Where were fire heros then!

For Fluer said...

Look, all I said at the beginning of the month was exactly what happened last week. How can that be fear mongering? Anyone could see it coming and I just put it in print before it happened. Should it happen again and "the gamble" the City is taking is lost and there is lost of life, the law suit the City will pay will more than pay for 8 positions now needed for the FD. But that is NOT the point. What IS the point is why should it take the loss of a life or two before proactive actions are taken instead of reactive action? Next time there may not be a bold neighbor who can think quick on his feet and save those who are trapped and the FD must wait for an inexcusable amount of time (again)for the second truck and fourth man to arrive to go in and find or confirm who is or who is not inside?

Balancing the City budget is a tuff task under normal conditions and today's conditions are far from normal. However, there MUST be priorities and public safety has to be at the top. I don't think you nor do I see all the issues that impact the City budget process. As such, I do not feel I can comment on the budget. We place our faith in the elected to do this task and we must trust them to do it in everyone's best interest. I am NOT sure that is happening as there are personal agenda's that are influencing some of their decision making AND lets not forget it is a (re) election year for some and they are focused only on one thing now...and it is NOT on public safety unless they get something in return. THAT Sir, is a sad but true fact in the politics of San Bernardino.

SB Residents,

Did Wendy McCammack not repeatedly say that instead of cutting departments and positions the City should "borrow" or "increase revenue." Yet, she voted against the recent fee increases that would have raised revenue. What's up with that? If I were the other council members I'd get wise to her little game, don't vote for anything, (cost cutting or revenue raising). Just let the burden fall on the other council people to make decisions, that way she can sit back and point the finger and say she didn't vote for anything..."not me".

When is the Sun going to put her on the spot and get some details on her grand plans...borrow..from where? Remember her comment, quoted in the Sun "sometimes when you are living paycheck to paycheck, you have to use the credit card." Sounds like she should be a State politician.

How about her never ending mantra about "raising revenues?" She suggested that $1,000 fines should be in place for illegal sign offenses. Sounds serious, yet when she had the chance to raise fees she voted it down.

SB residents...get involved...listen for yourselves. Of course everyone wants to keep the levels of public safety and city services the same, and everyone wants to keep our public safety officers safe, but we need our leaders to actually try to come up with ideas, not continue to create circus scenes at the Council meetings...the residents voted her in, not the unions!!!

Concerned:
I agree that Public Safety should be at the top of the priority list however when you have social programs like Operation Phoenix draining the city budget other things (like 4 man fire engine crews) have to fall by the wayside if there is no money to pay for it. I do have a pretty good idea what is going on with the city budget because I have attended many of the meetings.

If the citizens of San Bernardino want 4 man fire engine crews then they need to let their ward representatives know and expect raised taxes - and pass the initative when it's time to vote (if they bother to go to the polls).

I don't want higher taxes - its not like the city is doing what they need to with the money anyway - in my neighborhood the trees are overgrown, the sidewalks are crumbling, potholes, grafitti.....
and it is an election year and I hope that the residents take the bad mangement of funds into mind when voting - and the waste of taxpayer monies on fluff like Operation Phoenix.

sad sacks of s**t....trying the best they can to get their overtime reinstated......taking your sad tale of how 3 firemen stand around while a building burns is a pathetic excuse for a so called professional...sounds more like a bunch of cry babies trying to prove their point....maybe if one of you bastards burned up going it alone would prove the point better...LOL

To Get A Clue: Do you work for a governmental agency, cause it sounds like it? The games being played are with your tax money. Games like Operation Phoenix, a million or so worth. Games like when the hearing officer gets $1000 citation per illegal sign (junking up your city), yet they place an $80 fine (per illegally placed sign) in a jammed packed increased fee resolution...the games being played are inside city hall. Why would you fine for LESS than it is worth before a hearing officer? Sorry, but I am no hypocrite and call them as I see them. If my constituency wants me out, believe me, they will vote me out. There are millions of dollars in many set-aside funds in our city budget. If services are required that the public demands and the public does not want higher FEES or taxes, then where do YOU suggest we get the money? I am assuming you then must not own a credit card either. That is what city hall recently suggested they extend to departments, credit cards. I will vote NO on that one, too! When I vote no on things, I almost always offer other suggestions or plans, which is what I did on that increased fee resolution, over and over again. But not the Mayor or the City Manager or any other bureaucrat listened. Why? Because they want your money, all your money, to spend as THEY see fit. Are you okay with that?

Your inconsistencies and generally vague and inflammatory rhetoric only validated what I previosly said. Thanks for the help.

About your voting, how did you "vote" on Councilman's Kelley's request to discuss the issue of the 3 man vrs 4 man fire crew? Did you second his notion to just discuss it? No, I do not think you nor the other Council members would even discuss this matter let alone put it to a vote and go on the record for not supporting the 4 man crew. As a result, one high end home was lost and a child almost died. That is this Council’s legacy for which you will be remembered and was recorded on TV for all to see.

Sorry, your actions (or lack of) have spoken louder than your words. We can only hope the voters actions will speak loudly this election year for those who are up for re-election. It is time for change and redirection to those who have the public safety and wellbeing in mind for the residents of San Bernardino. We can not afford to gamble with homes and lives as you and this sitting Council feel it necessary to do.

To Get a Clue: How about answering the questions instead of hurling "inflammatory" insults? Explain the inconsistencies and vagueness you claim. The record and public documents are clear, but it's obvious who you are and who's actions and directives you have to defend. It's okay to disagree but until SB residents elect you three times, your advice is unhelpful, and so is your temper all in city hall have witnessed. Your advice to councilmembers hasn't worked so far, why should it now? The voters will take care of them as well.

Well, those comment made no sense...obviously you think I am someone else...but, sorry to say, that is your M.O., instead of focusing on the issues, you can't believe that someone would actually disagree with you and that is your focus.

Here is a chance to redeem yourself....if the residents have been prevented from hearing your ideas as you claim then get with Andrew and explain them in detail, I'm sure he'd be willing to listen. We all want to know what this cure is that you have that will save SB from the nationwide recession that has terribly impacted every City, County, and our country.

get a clue...Jimbo...answer the questions McCammack asked you in the previous posts. McCammack has explained herself in detail to the newspapers and to anyone that will listen but your Dad shuts her down at every turn everytime he disagrees with her. But your Dad must own stock in the papers. They won't print enough of her position in enough detail or any anti-daddy letters to the editor to send the message. Too bad for this town when those with true passion have no voice, but the big money and good old boys like you and your family rule the roost with fear and intimidation under the cover of "get a clue". It is you guys who need to get the clues and truly listen to the mass majority. It won't be long.