In a recent Davis Enterprise article, Davis Fire Chief Rose Conroy defended the four person fire crew. The article cites the 1998 OSHA “two in, two out” rule as a safety regulation for firefighters.
One question that comes to mind is what does this rule mean exactly? Are we required by this rule to carry four person engine units, or are there alternatives available for smaller departments like Davis to be safe but to be fiscally responsible at the same time?
“”Two-in, two-out” is strongly supported by an analysis of information from the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and existing OSHA standards and interpretations. OSHA’s respiratory protection standard codifies recommended practice.”
It continues:
“It does not require fire departments to hire additional firefighters; it does not require four-person fire companies; it does not require four persons on a fire truck. Most fire departments have more than four firefighters and can assemble the numbers required on the scene by waiting for others to arrive. During this time the fire may be attacked from the outside, sizing-up operations may occur, and emergency rescue necessary to save lives may take place. Additional staff can be assembled by such means as calling for a second fire company at the scene, calling in additional firefighters who are on standby, and calling on other nearby fire departments when necessary.”
Furthermore the acknowledges hardship and limitation for smaller fire departments:
“It is anticipated that small fire departments may rely on “mutual aid” agreements with neighboring jurisdictions to supply additional firefighters to assist with interior structural firefighting, if that is necessary to ensure compliance with “two-in, two-out.” The intent of the “two-in, two-out” rule is a worker safety practice requirement, not a staffing requirement.”
In the Enterprise article, Chief Rose Conroy argues that there is often not enough time to assemble the second team when emergencies arise:
“Conroy disagreed, citing a recent house fire on Arthur Street that benefited from a four-person crew.
The fire, which began in a terrarium but spread to nearby furnishings, was extinguished quickly when the first crew on scene made an immediate entry, Conroy said.
Had they waited several minutes for a second crew to arrive, the fire could have grown significantly, increasing both the damage and the risk to firefighters and others, she said.
‘What I’m trying to do is provide an effective response force that can handle and reduce the effects of a fire quickly,’ Conroy said. ‘It provides safety for firefighters and residents, and it saves residents and the city money in the long run.'”
But data suggest that the number of such structure fires in Davis is extremely rare. For such a rare incidence, it would seem there might be an alternative arrangement that might allow for immediate entry in such cases in a quick and expedient manner. We are talking about roughly 34 fires per year, one wonders how many times firefighters actually have to run into a burning building.
The article cites economic considerations but does not do the broader comparative study that the Vanguard did with regards to staffing levels.
The Enterprise article cites Woodland phasing out their four men engine unit, but the Vanguard found that only two other comparable cities among the 12 cities examined still had exclusively four men teams–Folsom and West Sacramento. The others including Berkeley, Fairfield, Napa, Palo Alto, Roseville, San Luis Obispo, Vacaville, Woodland, and Chico now all primarily rely on three person teams.
It would have been interesting to hear how these cities have managed with three person teams.
The fire department will counter that they have to staff for the larger and more unusual emergency. I would argue they have to have contingencies for the emergency. However, it may be that given the rare event, the four person team in this economy and given these compensations, is a luxury that we cannot afford.
The fire department would claim this puts us at risk. I argue that we are at risk already due to high levels of compensation and a fiscal budget that was problematic long before the current crisis has forced us into a sort of reckoning.
The Enterprise polled members of the Davis City council on this issue.
Councilmember Greenwald:
“At this point, I think we have no choice but to explore options. There are many technical factors to consider, so this is one case where I think we could benefit by hiring a consultant to help us assess the effects of any proposed changes on the quality of the services.”
Mayor Pro Tem Saylor:
“Public safety is an essential, core function of city government. Rapid response capability with sufficient staffing available is an essential element of public safety. We should look elsewhere for budget reductions and we are.”
Souza cited severe financial constraints in calling for the city to make “the most efficient use of our resources”:
“In determining the size of our fire crews we must use a reasoned approach which enables us to determine the level of resources needed based on an analysis of our local fire and life-safety risk within our community. This deployment standard also needs to be based on empirical data methods that allow us the ability to determine our acceptable level of service and risk as long as we balance it by properly providing for fire department employee’s health and safety.”
At this point it would be irresponsible not to look toward alternative modes of staff arrangements given our economic crisis.
There is much made about the fact that 80% of the fire fighters do not live in Davis. Some may believe this does not matter. And for some things it clearly does not.
But not living in the city of Davis means that these individuals do not have a broader stake in our community. They have a stake in getting a paycheck. They have a stake in protecting their paycheck.
However, it does not matter to them if their paycheck and providing public safety in one aspect, endangers the community in other aspects.
Public safety does not begin and end with police and fire. As we have cited numerous times, public safety extends to safe roadways and other infrastructure. The city has a deficit of unmet needs, much of which extends to those very roadways and infrastructure.
It is ironic that the city’s central fire station sites in the middle of the most dangerous stretch of road in the city on Fifth Street. It lies smack in the middle of the stretch between B and G that has become a hazard . The city lacks the funding at present to make the kind of upgrades that would enhance the safety.
The city is preparing to cut to the bare bones on basic services that threaten perhaps not public safety in the classic sense, but the quality of life. There may be a public safety aspect to them if we cutback on youth recreation programs that occupy young people and keep them out of trouble, if we cut back on swimming and mediation services, perhaps people are less satisfied with life in Davis and more conflicts arise. The unintended consequences can spring from many different corners.
On Tuesday night, the city council failed to address the glaring issues of staffing, employee compensation, pensions, and retirement health and instead looked to nickle and dime their savings that may not in the end amount to a hill of beans and may more dangerously prove pound wise and penny foolish.
I do not pretend to have the exact answer to the fire staffing issue. I, like Councilmember Greenwald, would call for a consultant or outside expert to look at our unique setting, our fiscal condition, the layout of the city, and make recommendations about innovative approaches that will save us money while continue to keep us safe. I do not see how that can be anything but a good thing for this city from both a fiscal and a safety standpoint. If it turns out that the only way to keep us safe is to keep four men teams, then we can look elsewhere. But somehow, I believe there is another way that the other nine cities have found that will accomplish our goals.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I think we could benefit by hiring a consultant to help us assess the effects of any proposed changes on the quality of the services.”
Why not just pick up a phone (or flip it open) and call one of the other communities, like Palo Alto (Chief Marinaro 650-3292424) and ask how they get it done?
Also ask how they managed to consolidate the University (Stanford) and City departments and how they implemented ambulance service (funded with patient insurance money).
Great job David. I couldn’t agree more. It’s obvious Don Saylor would rather protect the huge fire employee compensation packages rather than what’s best for the city and its residents. Don needs to go!!
Remy and David you’re both right. Saylor straddles the fence and speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Out of one side of his mouth he talks in the slow monotone voice saying that he wants to come up with solutions and out of the other side he is giving away huge fire employee compensation packages and not doing what’s best for the city and residents.
I’ll hold the door open and you can lead him out. Don Saylor definitely needs to go.
Need I remind you that he was the top vote getter and will be our mayor…..there needs to be bigger effort (or an effort) to defeat him next time but I wouldn’t lay odds. The next race will be for Ruth and Lemar’s seats. Any idea if they will run?
“But data suggest that the number of such structure fires in Davis is extremely rare.”
Rare they may be, but when it’s YOUR home on fire, and YOUR life and family’s life at stake, you’re going to want the whole world coming to your aid and you’ll be grabbing on to their legs to drag you out…dollars and cents aren’t going to matter then will they?
The more likely event that the city cannot provide vital services because it lacks the money and therefore leaves road repair around and someone unfortunately gets killed on 5th street or another dangerous stretch of road. There is a whole host of things that could happen.
I don’t see the harm in looking into alternative structures. Other cities are doing that, maybe even a majority of them, perhaps they know something you don’t.
“pound wise and penny foolish”
The correct expression is “penny wise and pound foolish”! But this expression exactly fits what Asmundson and Saylor are trying to do – save pennies, while vast dollar amounts go to waste. Souza is babbling, trying not to take a definite stand.
“I, like Councilmember Greenwald, would call for a consultant or outside expert to look at our unique setting, our fiscal condition,”
Why the hell does a consultant have to be called in, every time the City Council is hesitant to make a decision? Political CYA, that’s why! A consultant is not needed. I agree w a previous poster. City staff needs to do the job of a little research, come up with some solid suggestions. But guess what – our city staff are too stupid or self interested to do so. Bill Emlen and Paul Navazio are a joke, and need to be fired as the incompentents they are.
We all know what needs to be done – tough labor negotiations at the employee contract table. But it is not going to happen, and we all know it. So when the opportunity arises, the community better rise up and be heard on this issue – big time!!!
“Consultant Fees”:
I think you raise fair points but I disagree with you on the consultant idea. We’d essentially spend $10K or whatever to save potentially millions. That seems like a good investment to me.
Here’s why:
1. We need an expert who can help us devise a staffing system that will work
2. We need someone outside of the city because I do not trust the chief or city manager to do it properly
3. I am not unconcerned with the safety issues of firefighters or city residents
4. I do not think we have internal expertise to what is required adequately and in an independent manner
“””””””I do not pretend to have the exact answer to the fire staffing issue. I, like Councilmember Greenwald, would call for a consultant or outside expert to look at our unique setting, our fiscal condition, the layout of the city, and make recommendations about innovative approaches that will save us money while continue to keep us safe. I do not see how that can be anything but a good thing for this city from both a fiscal and a safety standpoint. If it turns out that the only way to keep us safe is to keep four men teams, then we can look elsewhere. But somehow, I believe there is another way that the other nine cities have found that will accomplish our goals.
—David M. Greenwald reporting”””””””
Maybe David since your the self appointed savior of the City of Davis , with Rich Rifkin , Lamar Haystack , your mom Sue Greenwald ,and Davis Enterprise , as your bullhorn of political and vengeful slander , you could at least go to the source of information the Fire Chief , for some correct info .
Because until you do , you and your gang are just ordinary people talking about jobs that you know nothing about .
“you could at least go to the source of information the Fire Chief, for some correct info”
I guess you missed his point AGAIN, he said that we need an expert who doesn’t have a vested interest in the staffing arrangement that is reached as the Fire Chief clearly does. That makes her an [u]interested[/u] party. We need a [u]disinterested[/u] party to weigh in. Perhaps you could pull your head out of the city and city staff’s hindparts long enough to actually read what is written here in an accurate manner. I suspect that is too much to ask. But certainly you can spare the rest of us your juvenile banter and apparent jealousy of this blog.
Watch for the fire fighters to twist this around to say that someone is accusing them of cowardice over their fire fighting practices – needing 4 people on site before entering a house, waiting for more help to arrive if there isn’t. They did just this to prior council members with 50 angry fire fighters appearing at a city council meeting. I think this is the real reason that the present council members are being so cautious about what they say.
[b]”… this is one case where I think we could benefit by hiring a consultant to help us assess the effects of any proposed changes on the quality of the services.”[/b]
The chief was clear and direct to the council in declaring we must continue to have current staffing levels. She was unambiguous in her opinion. Thus, the call for a consultant is another way of saying, [i]I don’t trust the conclusions of Fire Chief Rose Conroy.[/i]
Whether it is completely accurate or not, there is widespread belief in our city (including among top-level people in the city manager’s department who have told me this) that conclusions of the fire chief are not always credible, because her actions and words suggest she isn’t always acting as an agent on behalf of the city, but rather her views are shaped by the needs and desires of her personnel. When they come into conflict, she sides with her guys. Of course, that may just be human nature. She works every day with the firefighters, so naturally she will go to bat for them. But the job of the fire chief is not to serve as defense counsel for the interests of employees in her department. The fire chief’s job is to do what is best for the City at large.
“I think you raise fair points but I disagree with you on the consultant idea. We’d essentially spend $10K or whatever to save potentially millions. That seems like a good investment to me.”
Get real! There is no way such a consultant will be had in this town for $10K. For a simple “Are parks being utilized in the best manner possible?” issue, that elicited a simple “yes” answer, the city spent $75K. Think about it, before you go suggesting a consultant. We need a consultant to tell us the city needs to get tougher in labor negotiations? I think not.
You took my $10K a bit too literally, the point is that if we have to spend tens of thousands to save several million it is worthwhile.
The parks issue is not nearly as complex as fire fighter and if you do it wrong it doesn’t have near the downside.
I am not talking about labor negotiations here. The staffing issue is separate and distinct.
Some 10-15% of ALL fire calls are actually involving something burning or ablaze?? Is that correct?? Certainly the # is not even close to 25% yet the FD is always, at all hours, staffed just as if they were going to a fully involved structure fire. Yes, you CAN be too safe(makes you lazy and complacent)and you can WASTE money–quite easily too!
David, just the facts please. How many vehicle wrecks, bike verses vehicles and people verses vehicles have occurred on 5th Street between B&G in the last 6 months or the last year? When have pot holes or crumbling streets caused injuries anywhere in the City of Davis in the last year or five years?
Rich, I’m glad to see that the top city management is sharing their beliefs about the honesty of the fire chief with you. It makes me warm and confidant to see that they are willing to tell the “Artist of Words” about the internal workings of the city rather than doing their job and working with the fire chief to support her or correct her when she is wrong.
Speaking of firefighters living in the city. If you went to any fire academy in the state and asked the student firefighters why they want to become a firefighter, the overwhelming majority of them would say it’s because they love to help people. That doesn’t change when they get a job. Ask any of the City of Davis firefighters why they do the job and they’ll tell you it’s because they love helping people. That’s what firefighters do, they love helping people. So don’t try to paint the firefighters who don’t live in the City of Davis as bad and only there for a pay check. It doesn’t matter where they live. They care about helping people, period.
Let’s get back to the same thing I’ve asked before. Please, please identify to us what the Vanguard or Rich Rifkin or The Enterprise thinks is a livable wage in the City of Davis or the Sacramento Area. Give us what a livable wage is including benefits and retirement. If someone would step up and identify that, then we could have an honest discussion on a level playing field. David, would you mind sharing how much you and your wife make every year?
Sorry, I’m on a role. How effective are these comparison city fire departments? How many houses do they burn down every year? Not how many fires do they respond to, but how many houses burn down after they arrive? How many stations do they have? How many fire engines do they staff? How many ladder trucks do they staff. How many ambulances to they staff with firefighters? Yes, ambulances with firefighters respond to the fires and fight them. How many battalion chiefs? What is their total staffing? How many support staff do they have. What is the fire prevention staff like? Take a whole look at each of these departments to get a real picture. How much overtime to these other fire departments spend compared to the City of Davis? What kind of risk do these city’s have? Do they have a major train track, major freeway or university in their city. A little know fact: over 750,000 people travel through the City of Davis per day on the train and freeway.
City of Davis Facts: 3 Stations Staffed with 4 Firefighters Each. 15 firefighters per shift x 3 Shifts = 45 firefighters total. Maximum Firefighter Staffing per day 15, Minimum Firefighter Staffing (Firefighters on Vacation or Sick Leave) 12. One fire chief, three division chiefs, one fire prevention captain and three administrative staff. Department equipment consists of 3 engines, 1 rescue, 1 squad, 2 grass/wildland units, 1 water tender and 2 reserve engines and two antique fire apparatus. The fire department uses the four firefighters (1 captain & 3 Firefighters) to staff 1 fire engine and other additional apparatus as needed for the type of call. At the fire station down town, they staff one fire engine and one rescue at all times. They can have four firefighters (1 captain & 3 firefighters) staffing those pieces of equipment or if no one is on vacation or sick, they can have as many as 7 firefighters staffing the two pieces of equipment. The extra firefighters are used to cover behind vacation and sick leave in the department to save overtime. So, That’s 12-15 firefighters protecting 65000 citizens. The City of Davis relies on Automatic Aid for the Ladder Truck.
I hope I’m not too punchy but I’m just sick of no one having the facts. David, I know you came out and stated that your just trying to make people aware and only discuss what’s in the political circle of Davis but you could do so much more if you would really try to help. Look at the City of Davis as a whole. How many different job positions does the City of Davis have compared to other cities. How many positions do we have in each department of the city and how does that compare to other cities. The fire department is actually behind in their staffing levels as compared to other cities. The police are right at normal. How does parks compare? How about planning and community services? Public works? Has the Vanguard ever looked at each department within the City of Davis? Please take a look at the whole city, not just the fire department. Analyze how each department compares. I know you can to it David, maybe Rich could help too. Thanks!
[i]”Some 10-15% of ALL fire calls are actually involving something burning or ablaze?? Is that correct??”[/i]
No. It’s much lower. For the exact number, look here ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/fire/stats/[/url]).
The DFD’s website says they responded to 4,270 9-1-1 emergencies ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/fire/generalinfo.cfm[/url]) in 2008. Of those, 35 were structure fires. A current Davis firefighter told me that of those 35 structures, only “a few” had to be entered while aflame. If you are very generous and take “a few” to mean 15, then 0.35% of the time the DFD answered a call, the OSHA regulation called “two-in, two-out” applied. (That’s zero-point-three-five percent, not thirty-five percent.)
The reason the City of Davis in 1999 moved from our old staffing structure of 3 per station to 4 per station was because of the adoption of the 2-in, 2-out standard by OSHA in 1998. That regulation still applies. Yet 99.65% of the time, it’s irrelevant. That’s the reason most cities don’t follow Chief Conroy’s plan and have 33% extra staffing per station at all times. When a building is on fire in Davis and the DFD has to enter it, the Chief simply needs to send two trucks. With the millions of dollars we save, we can fix our roads and thus prevent the unnecessary deaths of bicyclists who are thrown after losing control in a pothole.
In a recent article in the Davis Enterprise, Chief Rose was quoted in defense of her department’s overtime that a house fire was a crisis that triggered the need for overtime to provide coverage for the city while crews were battling the fire. So even with 4 people per crew – 12-16 fighters on duty, it is still not enough when there is a fire at a house. With each truck costing the city $500,000 a year in salaries alone, it makes it really difficult to build and staff the needed 4th fire station in Northeast Davis. It has gotten too expensive to even think about.
Al,
If that truly is your name, I have a question for you. For all we know your name could be Chief Rose Conroy or union president Bobby Weist.
You seem to confuse the fact that having good, responsible, well compensated, and well respected fire fighters means that the city of Davis has to go bankrupt to support their insatiable desire for us taxpayers to fund their lifelong health care, retirement and overtime.
Guess what? We do appreciate and respect them, just like we respect teachers, professors, police officers, doctors, nurses, etc., but that does not mean that any city or institution needs to go bankrupt over their GREED. Stop confusing the two.
Then again, if you keep crying, “they don’t like us…poor us,” then may you think you’ll get some pity. Sorry, no pity from me and my tax dollars. If you don’t like it go to another city or get another profession. It’s a simple solution.
Just call me Unpaid Consultant of Davis. Below are simple suggestions that will save the city a lot of money.
1)Stop paying overtime to:
a. All managers should be salaried employees and NOT GET PAID OVERTIME OR COMP TIME FOR THE OVERTIME THEY WORK. I believe salaried employees, but they get paid overtime which costs us, the tax payers and voters of Davis extra money. In the real world managers who are salaried do not get overtime, because it’s part of being a salaried employee, supervisor / manager.
b.Captains, battalion chiefs, and other managers that get paid overtime should not be paid overtime since they too are salaried.
2)Stop paying the 3% at 50 for Don Saylor all REAL public safety employees. 2% at 60 or 2.5% at 60 is more reasonable.
3)Require negotiation to be held publicly, because we are taxpayers and voters and we have a right to know what is happening with our tax dollars.
This is just a start but more importantly it did not cost any money and it is something that council can implement right away if the majority of 3 had a backbone.
If not, then hire an independent negotiator who does have a backbone and can be tough when they need to.
Good to know asks “Let’s get back to the same thing I’ve asked before. Please, please identify to us what the Vanguard or Rich Rifkin or The Enterprise thinks is a livable wage in the City of Davis or the Sacramento Area.”
The living wage (not poverty line) for the Sacramento area needed to support 2 adults and 2 children is $28.77 per hour = $59,841.60 annual income.
(http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/places/0606764000)
The local fire fighters making over $100,000 per year are in the wealthy category.
I just read a depressing article in the New York Times, Cities Turn to Fees to Fill Budget Gaps ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/business/11fees.html?ref=business[/url]), which suggests that a growing trend across America is for cities and counties to make up new fees and increase old ones to cover their budget deficits. While Davis has been doing this for a while — our utility rates have increased, not because we are getting more or better service, rather because salaries and benefits and pensions paid to city workers have risen so fast the city raised the rates to cover the added expense — I suspect that more new fees are on the way. One city mentioned in the story sends a bill to anyone involved in a car accident. Counties are tripling and quadrupling the fees they charge for dog and cat licenses. States are increasing by two-to-four times how much a driver’s license renewal costs. And many cities are issuing far more parking tickets, all to raise revenues. The bottom line of all of this fee raising is that it hurts those of us with the lowest incomes the most — all so we can enrich “public servants.” If the fees for water and sewer and so on are increased for a landlord, be certain that he will (in time) pass that expense on to renters.
Ryan Kelly – I went to the site you posted and the evaluation of what things cost is just slightly off. It showed housing costs at $982 and medical at $302 for a family of four. Is that a fair evaluation of what the real costs are? I appreciate that you identified a starting point but I think the numbers presented at that site are not realistic.
Sure, it is realistic. This is what many teachers in the Davis School District are making. City of Davis employees get full health benefits. Paying $302 out of pocket expenses per month for health care costs is not out of line. People may be paying more for housing costs, but that’s their choice and then they most likely have a spouse who also works or they pay a greater percentage of their income in housing.
Just a reminder – a fireman’s salary is based on 40% more hours than a typical employee – 2912 hours versus 2080. Remember to factor that into the thought process.
Just a reminder – a fireman’s salary is based on 40% more hours than a typical employee – 2912 hours versus 2080. Remember to factor that into the thought process.
oops
“Just a reminder – a fireman’s salary is based on 40% more hours than a typical employee – 2912 hours versus 2080.”
Just a reminder – a fireman’s salary is based on 2912 gross hours. Gross hours are not the same as working hours. A fireman gets scheduled 9 days on, 18 days off. Gross hours are calculated as 9/27 x 7 days x 24 hours x 52 weeks.
The 9 duty days on are 24 hour days. A fireman is paid for the 72 hours he is asleep in 9 days. A fireman is paid for the hours he is eating, watching TV, and doing nothing waiting for a call. If you credit a fireman for “working” 12 hours of the 24 he is on duty, his gross hours decline by half to 1456 hours per year, or 70% as much as someone who works 8 hours per day, 5 days per week.
Gross hours for a fireman include 12 paid holidays each year, up to 20 days of paid vacation, 12 days of sick leave (all unused sick leave is paid), family leave, bereavement leave, jury leave and injury leave.
If a fireman takes no days off for family leave, bereavement, jury or injury, his 1456 working hours decline by 748.8 hours (holiday and sick leave are calculated at 11.2 hour days) to 707.2 net hours. Not a bad gig for a firefighter-2 making $161,016 per year.
$161k for 707 hours is $228/hr. Holy crikees!
which three fires was rich referring to?
$161k for 707 hours is $228/hr. Holy crikees!
No , the hourly rate for a Firefighter 2 is a range of 26.27 to 31.93 per hour. Those rates are not out of line.
You can argue that they are not “working” 100% of the time, but it is a complete distortion tho assume they spend most of their nights just blissfully counting sheep. Most fire fighters get very little sleep on Friday and Saturday nights. You have to look at Fire like an insurance policy – I have paid home insurance for the past 28 years and I have never filed a claim, however I will continue to buy it. I will also support the fire department and actually I used their service once for a medical emergency.
I agree the the 3 at 50 pension policy and the four man crew policy should be reviewed. All State an Local pensions need to be reviewed and probably reduced. Tax payers must take back their state/local governments. As we go through the process it is important to leave out personal bias – focus on the real issues and real numbers. There are no villains out there, this is only about balancing long term revenue with long term costs of services (including all costs like pensions).
How much should that insurance cost and should it come at the expense of other necessary expenditure? And bottom line, can we get the same level of service if we paid the average firefighter what we pay our average police officer?
nd bottom line, can we get the same level of service if we paid the average firefighter what we pay our average police officer?
the hourly rate for a Firefighter 2 is a range of 26.27 to 31.93
the hourly rate for a Police Officer is a range of 29.65 to 36.04
Fire duty is longer per week 56 hours versus 40 hours and there is much more overtime. The overtime should be looked at but it may save on pension cost because there are fewer pensions
“How many different job positions does the City of Davis have compared to other cities. How many positions do we have in each department of the city and how does that compare to other cities.”
When we as a city (Davis) start trying to keep up with other cities, that is when we will end up like Vallejo – bankrupt! We need to be concerned about the needs of the city, rather than worrying about what other cities are doing. Why would we want to follow the example of fiscally irresponsible cities?
“Sorry, no pity from me and my tax dollars.” –David Greenwald
Can anyone tell me how much money David Greenwald makes for having this blog? Oh, and how much local taxes does he pay from that income?
“Although very few blogs have followed my lead by publishing their site earnings, I did participate in some interesting offline discussions with bloggers who didn’t want to publicly share their earnings but were stunned by how much I’m making from Google Adsense.
I always knew that my theme was good for Adsense, but I didn’t realise just how good. For instance one well known site that has nearly 3x my traffic is only making 1/3 of what I do via Adsense.
What I did find interesting is that some sites didn’t want to share their earnings as they don’t declare their blogging income i.e. they aren’t paying their taxes. It made me wonder – are a lot of other bloggers doing the same? Do you declare your blog earnings on your tax returns, or do you hide it all away in your paypal account?”
http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/03/02/do-you-declare-your-blog-income-and-pay-taxes/