Editor:
In the Township 2012 budget, passed on March 26, I was shocked to find out that all eight proposed full-time firefighters were added in this year’s budget.
Why was I shocked? I was shocked because this notion of adding them all in one year was never given public input. I did my due diligence (like many other Township residents), and filled out my budget questionnaire and attended the budget open house. What was brought forth to the public was bumping up the time frame for adding these members — the eight crew were originally slated to come in over a two-year period in the 2013 and 2014 budgets, but was now being proposed to move up to 2012 and 2013.
Residents were not asked if all eight should be added this year.
What frustrates me is how the need for firefighters has been presented to the public. The public is told that firefighters cannot do their job with a three-man crew, and that this does not meet WCB requirements.
This WCB regulation that the chief and union are talking about has been in place since April 2000. The first full-time Township hall was opened in 2006. In fact, we opened all four full-time halls, knowing the Township was not compliant with this regulation.
How have the firefighters been managing to this point with three-man crews? The full-time firefighters have been back-filled with volunteers.
I have yet to receive a direct answer as to how many times firefighters have had to wait outside a burning building with a person inside it, while they waited for a fourth member to arrive. Hopefully, they will never have to.
I was told the union favoured opening four full-time halls, without the compliant amount of staff, over opening fewer halls with a full complement of staff. This tells me that managing with volunteers is doable (although not ideal). I also learned that many municipalities are grappling with the same thing.
I was told that adding the last eight remaining crew was always in the plan. However, it was slated to start after the conversion of the last full-time hall. Well, the 2012 budget is still paying for the last remaining hall conversion. This is why the eight new firefighters were originally proposed for 2013 and 2014.
I was also told by the current chief that the eight new firefighters is just the beginning of what they really need.
Don’t get me wrong, I actually support the notion of adding the last eight full-time firefighters to fully staff the halls. I love my local firemen as much as the next grateful citizen, but what I don’t like is scare tactics and being given half-truths.
I also don’t think that letting the rest of the Township go to pot so that we can fall prey to these scare tactics is correct. And I definitely don’t like it when data from the public that the Township uses is stacked with union representation.
But I think that what infuriates me most is the perception that fire safety is the only form of public safety in this town. I dare council to tell the three kids hit by cars in Aldergrove this past year, or the driver of the car in the ditch from a tire blowout (due to potholes), that fixing our roads and infrastructure is not a form of public safety.
Ask the folks of Yorkson and Willoughby if they feel safe on 208 Street. The parents of kids who walk to school without traffic calming or sidewalks outside their schools, do their concerns about safety mean anything in this year’s budget? No.
In fact, council has decided to forego these public safety measures in 2012 so that we can hire all eight firefighters this year, without raising taxes too much.
Council and staff have done a good job in keeping the proposed tax increase to a manageable 2.95 per cent, but I am extremely upset that it is being done at the expense of other important concerns in Langley, while council bows to the wishes of one sector. Public safety comes in many forms, not just in a red truck.
My frustration begs the following questions:
- Why didn’t staff and council propose to the public adding all eight members in 2012? What is the point of asking for our input if you are going to do something completely different than proposed?
- Why the urgency in moving it up from 2013 and 2014? We knowingly chose to not have the full amount of staff when we opened our halls and we have been coping OK thus far.
- Since eight new firefighters is only the start of what the firefighters really want, what is to say that they don’t come forward every year or two and ask for more? And we all know the request for a fifth full-time hall is coming. And all in the name of public safety (and who can say no to that).
- How many times has a Langley resident been killed or injured waiting for a fourth firefighter to arrive at a fire?
- How many people have been injured or killed on dangerous parts of our road infrastructure?
- Why is there not a balanced approach to public safety represented in this 2012 budget? Why is 39 per cent of the tax increase going to one sector?
No politician wants to say no to the firefighters. They are part of a strong, influential union, which backed six of the nine people elected to council.
Saying no labels you as not supporting “public safety.” But I’m really getting the feeling that local politicians won’t ask hard questions of any union, for fear of not getting their support at election time. And this I feel is wrong.
Misty vanPopta, Langley