Yesterday, we responded to the op-ed by Glen Byrns, the Davis resident who recounted his story about the garage fire.
“There’s been a lot of talk about reducing staffing levels for the Fire Department. During the discussion, it was often mentioned that Davis doesn’t get a lot of fires, as fire calls apparently amount to 1 percent of the call volume,” Mr. Byrns writes. “Well, here I am, the 1 percent. The 1 percent who always thought of firefighters as a group of people who live down the street from me and are there for other people.”
Mr. Byrns makes an emotional appeal, based on anecdote and assertion, as to why his experience shows we need four on an engine. He recounts the story of how he found his garage on fire. By the time he got out there, the garage was filled with flames and he and his family watched for minutes before the fire engine arrived.
Mr. Byrns writes, “I’m one citizen who knows what fire protection is worth. I’m glad two council members felt the same way. I dread the inevitable day that a three-person crew shows up at some desperate neighbor’s door and is forced to wait those critical few extra moments that will destroy someone else’s precious memories.”
Mr. Byrns dismisses the Kenley plan as a “shuffling shell game they have presented to justify the reductions may improve service somewhere for someone.”
When we responded yesterday, we had several points which we noted, including the fact that the new plan will allow a more flexible response and prevent the problem of simultaneous calls which, as often as not, would have delayed the response to Mr. Byrns’ fire.
Our second point was based on the fact that, even with a three-person crew, Mr. Byrns’ fire could have been attacked from the house as the garage would be considered a separate unit.
It is indeed ironic that, in a way, Mr. Byrns’ good fortune was somewhat luck. As we have shown hundreds of times each year, the portion of town Mr. Byrns lives on – the west side – could have had its engine moved to the central fire station to backfill.
As it so happens, the first engine was in quarters at the Arlington fire station and therefore on scene a mere minute forty-five after leaving Station 32. Truck 34 was on the scene two minutes and thirty-one seconds later.
What that means is that Mr. Byrns would have been all right under the new model, but the current system, the one he defends, is more problematic for him.
Let us suppose that Station 31 had a call right before his. That would mean that Station 32 would have had to respond not from nearby Arlington but from downtown. That means they would have been delayed about three or four minutes, arriving perhaps four or five minutes after the call, rather than one minute forty-five.
With Station 32 not on the scene yet, Station 34 could not have been the first responder and therefore would have been delayed, as well.
In reality, the new model hardly would have affected Mr. Byrns’ fire as it actually played out.
First, it would have ensured that the response would come from Station 32 not Station 31, ensuring that the first engine would have arrived in less than two minutes.
Second, by the time Truck 34 arrived – and under boundary drop, Truck 34 and Engine 34 would have been on scene as well – it would have been roughly four minutes after the call.
That means there would have been nine or ten people on the scene within four minutes after the call. There is no way that the crew from Engine 32 would have been able to set up and enter the building before the second units arrived.
So the reality is that Mr. Byrns’ situation would have been unimpacted whatsoever by having a three-person crew on the initial engine. In fact, he was quite fortunate that his garage caught flame when there was a crew at Station 32; otherwise, who knows what would have happened.
He is actually quite fortunate that the current staffing arrangement worked out for him and his family. But that is not the story he wants to tell.
Instead, he argues, “I sat in the back and listened to the discussion. Interim Chief Scott Kenley used the fire at my house as an example of how four firefighters might have made a difference as far as property damage is concerned. He went on to explain how if there were three firefighters on that engine, they may have to apply water from the outside and risk more property damage.”
He adds, “Not only do I agree with him, I will take it a step further and say that the four-person crew made all the difference in the world. If there had been the slightest extra delay awaiting the arrival of a fourth firefighter before entry could be attempted, the gas tanks in both burned cars would have gone off and the entire house and contents lost. The loss of the garage contents would have paled next to the total loss of all our belongings.”
“Unfortunately, despite many other professional experts’ convincing analysis and citizens’ personal testimonies on the importance of keeping four firefighters, the city manager went ahead and recommended to cut the staffing level and in the end, only Council members Dan Wolk and Lucas Frerichs stood up for what’s right,” he writes. “To see their motives for their votes questioned angered me. I would suggest that perhaps they are two council members who have carefully thought through the consequences of the intended reductions on the residents of Davis.”
So, while Mr. Byrns is understandably grateful to the firefighters, unfortunately, the water he carries for them on the staffing issue cannot hold its own water.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Why would Chief Kenley have used this fire “as an example of how four firefighters might have made a difference as far as property damage is concerned” when you’ve made the case that Kenley’s own proposal would have had a better potential outcome? I’m confused.
Another day another hit piece.
I will have to watch the video again, but my recollection here is that Mr. Byrns raised the issue during public comment and Mr. Kenley attempted to address the issue. I don’t recall him making the case that this was an example where four would have made the difference.