As usual the editor is all for more and bigger government, more rules, more cost. This subject is no different. So much of the fire department merger editorial is without substance.
“Each department has a chief” — said as though after a merger they won’t, but actually they will. Sure the title will be a little different, but the position will have to be there for each area to have a “fire boss.”
“Each department has a fire board” — as though the board of volunteers is paid and won’t exist after a merger.
“Each department strains to get enough training” — as though the same amount of training will be easier/cheaper after a merger when training cost is pretty much per person cost.
“Each department scrounges to get enough equipment” — What? Are you saying that somehow with even more areas — Rye, Deer Creek, Gisela, etc. — that there will be enough equipment for everyone and that it won’t require higher taxes to get it?
It is mentioned in an article in this paper that the merger will save us $200,000 to $500,000. Well it might in management and office staff, though that is doubtful, but total costs will have to be much greater if the merger takes place and the people in charge move on to expand into unserved areas.
I live in Pine/Strawberry and I am sure many of us don’t want our fire department budget, staff, and equipment merged — taken away from us and degrading the level of service we pay so much to have.