Stick A Fork In It
ByFor those who missed the meeting regarding the recent fire, don’t fret, the Olympian published coverage in Tuesday’s edition.
There are two revelations cited. The first was that the 9-1-1 dispatcher sent Lakewood units before realizing the error and dispatching the DuPont Fire Department. Human error happens and it would be easy to point fingers at the dispatcher, but the fact of the matter is the town has been at risk for quite a while now.
The confusion was caused because the DuPont and Lakewood departments are talking about merging, and the dispatcher thought the departments used the same tone, Merritt said in an interview. Twenty-one firefighters eventually responded to the blaze.
Any reasonable assessment of the situation would reveal that it would not have mattered. By the time any units arrived the fire propagated to the attic and a ladder truck was needed.
The other big reveal was that a discarded cigarette was the likely cause of the blaze. This one is a little more difficult to conceptualize, but evidently there was a bucket of butts and “mulch” (beauty bark?) smoldering for hours before creeping from the ground to the attic. Photos of the front porch suggests the plausibility of this finding.
Human error is mundane but it is often the answer.
Not everything goes to plan, of course, and that is often the case in a planned community. Some disciples of the plan in this community will begin to point to the maneuvering issues the responding units had getting to the fire. It is theorized that the number of cars parked in the vicinity hindered the fire crews accessing the site. Worse, some are pointing fingers at the street parking scofflaws who have insufficient space in their garage to park. Evidently, parking on the street wasn’t park of the plan.
This is a waste of energy.
And it is also a fated strategy if the city hopes to pass an upcoming levy. Don’t blame the voters at the curb. While presumably unsightly, it is still legal to park on a city street. If people were parking illegally, then it is incumbent that the city enforces the parking laws for precisely this type of event.
Some time now needs to pass, cooler heads need to prevail, and the facts need to be considered.
Who is blaming street parking on the delay? Anybody heard this bunk? What rumor monger is now advocating a ban on parking in the streets? What a crock of shit if it is true.
If you look at the photo link below that shows the photo of Forrest street DURING the response, you will not see any cars in the way of the emergency vehicles.
http://picasaweb.google.com/thesubtimes/FireInDuPont72508721AM/photo?authkey=MMcz4piMNNA#5226956825903782658
Whoever is spreading this BS, they need to wise up, and stop telling people to clean up their garages etc, it is just not true.
I hate these rumor clowns in our city – Anything to make a buck or spread a rumor, I really have to agree with that comment.
Those are really nice photos..
The comment from Palisade is in error. There were no cars parked on the street because according to the Fire Department and some residents at the meeting who live on that street, the Fire Department went around getting people to move their cars so the ladder truck could set up. So it’s not a crock of anything. Even one of the neighbors on that block admitted during the meeting that he had to move his SUV off the street and others were having to move their cars. That ladder truck takes up nearly the entire width of the street once it’s in place and the support arms are extended to raise the ladder. I think it will be prudent for the City to get out there and look at the more narrower streets and see what problems it causes for a ladder truck that size and start making no parking zones so emergency vehicles can navigate the roads and set up their fire parameters in a more efficient and timely manner.
Good info, CrazyD. People are starting to see that the plan is not all that it was cracked up to be when they bought here.
What plan? You think Quadrant or Weyerhaeuser is going to pay for all city services?!? Come on!!! DuPont was a sleepy town of 700 before Quadrant came to town. If you live in the Northwest Landing portion of town, you have to know that sooner or later we have to pay for our services. The builders are pretty much done. The money coming into the general fund via those builders – permits, etc. is drying up. AND thanks to Tim Eyman, Cities have not been able to raise property taxes above 1% to try to cover their rising costs. If you lived in Washington when his initiative passed, and you voted for it, then you contributed to the problem. Stop pointing fingers and take a look in the mirror.
Did the “plan” call for such narrow streets or did the city fathers only care about whether Haskell opened or not?
Palisade Res, the narrow streets in this City have nothing to do with Tim Eyman. They were planned and constructed way before that initiative. So the pointing fingers comment is out of context. It won’t cost anything for residents to use their garages or the City to set up no parking zones, except for maybe some paint and some effort from Public Works, and garages used for cars rather than household storage. Taxes have nothing to do with this fire or the Fire Department having access for their vehicles. It’s about people using their heads to make a narrow street safer…and that takes both cooperation from the residents and the City.
Isn’t the problem that the streets in Palisade Village are too narrow? Sounds like no one ever foresaw the need for a ladder truck and its need to negociate the narrow streets. Don’t blame the homeowners, the city always had the power to address and enforce parking. If you haven’t noticed, they let the fire department fall apart, why do you think they would concern themselves with parking?
Wiseblood – My error – I mistook your idea of the “plan” as being financially related. The planning of city streets is the same everywhere. McNeil is just as narrow and gets more traffic than Center Drive, yet it’s only a 2 lane road and not a 4 lane. Who knows if the City could have pushed back when these things were being developed. But the City doesn’t have the man power (ie – money) to enforce parking. They painted the curbs yellow in Palisade neighborhood long ago, but never enforced them to my knoweldge. Cars parked on the streets all over DuPont is a problem. But it’s up to council to approve funding for such things like extra police patrols for illegal parking. They’ve been talking about it for some time, but still no action.
Hylander, every one who lives in a city must take responsibility for how well that city runs, from the resident to the top dog in the government. So I think our residents do need to take some responsibility for what is immediately a solvable problem on the streets. What’s the old addage, “if you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” One solution to narrow streets is make them safer and use the garage for the car. The Fire Department hasn’t fallen apart, they have the new building on Hoffman Hill and a newer one for both Police and Fire is being started on Center Drive. So they are working on the issue. But those improvements take money and we’ve got some residents who do all they can to beat down any mention of a tax increase to make those improvements happen.
Palisade Res, granted the City allowed the developer to create narrower streets. Bad mistake. Where the curbs have been painted for no parking, I notice people don’t park, so enforcement doesn’t seem to be the issue. But we need the City to maintain those no parking zones with the appropriate signs and upkeep on the painted curb. But we also have many taxpayer lobbiests in this City who think we don’t need to pay any more in taxes, even though we are the lowest taxed city in Pierce County. Where do these people think we are going to get the money from to make appropriate improvements? Taxes help make inprovements and maintain them. Again, this is where the citizen comes in to play. Vote and vote wisely and with forward thinking…and then also make the City, by your presence at meetings, stick to the financial commitments of a growing City. And as for McNeil being as narrow as Forrest and McDonald and other narrow streets in the City. McNeil is actually a whole lot wider than where the fire took place. But we do have way too many narrow streets that is agreed!
CrazyD,
The reason the house burned down on Forrest was due to the nature of the fire starting outside the living structure, and the fact that the ladder truck had to come all the way from Lakewood. It was not because of cars parked in the streets.
You can wish for people not to park in the streets all you want. Even if it becomes law, you will still have parking in the streets. What your wish will bring is neighbor fighting neighbor for parking spots. It will be a lot of trouble for a lot of people, and why? Because there was a rumor that the house on Forrest burned down because of cars parked in the streets.
Let’s get a ladder truck. A ladder truck and quicker response time is what we need. It is what we don’t have. Parking in garages is a wish you have. I think the skate park started as a wish by someone back in 2002, look where that has gotten us today.
How about we ban smoking in the city of DuPont? Similar wish, with similar results…
Stay focused people, DuPont needs a Ladder Truck and quicker response times.
I think reasonable parking restrictions are in order, but I get put off when people say it is because garages are used for storage and not cars. Please don’t point fingers and say the residents on this street bear some responsibility for this event because of a cluttered garage. They were within their legal rights to park on the street.
In fact, after looking at the street again, I would say one side of these narrow palisade village streets should be reserved as a fire lane. One step at a time, though, as we need to fund the fire department properly.
CrazyD, I disagree that the fire department wasn’t in shambles until the recent interlocal agreement. It was a wreck. I do not think the city would argue with that. Thankfully, now there appears to be progress thanks the task force.
This unfortunate fire aside, we all need to really look at the dollars involved with the proposed levy lid lift of $1.80 per $1,000 assessed value. If it’s going to “free up” some $600,000 in the general fund, then where is THAT money going to be spent? And is this really a property tax increase for fire and EMS? Or is it just a city-wide property tax increase? How can council come up with a dollar amount needed for Fire when they haven’t officially decided yet as to what their intentions are for the Fire Department? Are we going to continue partnering with Lakewood, or go at it alone? Also, is the proposed amount of $1.80 going to cover equipment to fight warehouse fires? If so, why should homeowners be burdened with that financial obligation? That cost should be passed directly to the developer or the company that owns the warehouse, like Pier One or Fed Ex. These are questions residents need to be asking council. Money is money, and it appears all they are going to do is shift around the dollars. I don’t think people mind paying more to fund Fire and EMS, but lets do this legally and with respect to everyone’s pocket books. Otherwise, DuPont, hold on to your wallets.
If you read your sample ballot recently, you can see that fire and EMS levy issues are everywhere in Pierce county. Palisade Res, those are good points you make about the diversion of dollars from the general fund. I don’t mind paying but think there needs to be a plan for the money at all times. However, don’t forget Pier One, Fed Ex, and all the new buildings will also be paying property taxes too. The fire fighting equipment is in all of our best interests as a community. The developer will have impact fees they pay also. It is a shared burden.
I don’t think they looked at the impact fees. Before council decides to raise property taxes so that I’m paying an additional $500 to $600 a year, they had better turn over every stone, and look at all possibilities before asking ME or my neighbors to foot the bill. Last year they tried to create a Metro Parks District to pay for DuPont’s parks and greenways becuase they too were underfunded and eating up $$ out of the general fund. Again, by creating a Metro Parks dist., they would have created a separate account (sound familiar?) and freed up money in the general fund. No one wanted to get specific as to how freed up money in the general fund was going to be spent. Residents didn’t feel comfortable with giving the City a blank check to spend tax payers dollars, and the ballot measure failed. One year later, Council is again putting a measure on the ballot to create a separate fund, specifically for Fire and EMS. Residents need to have ALL the facts – exactly how much will it cost for DuPont and Lakewood to continue this interlocal agreement for the long term. Lakewood I guess is also asking it’s residents for more money for it’s fire dept. How much would it cost if DuPont was a dept. by itself? What are we paying for? What kind of equipment?
Most importantly, who is going to receive the freed up $600,000 in the general fund?!? Parks and Rec. Maintenance? Salaries? Beneifts? No one denies that costs are rising. But council and the city go on acting as if all is well. But it’s clear that all is not well. Lets be honest with each other and clear the air. What projects aren’t getting done in Public Works because the money isn’t there? The special council mtg. on Tuesday night indicated that there is a laundry list of maintenance issues the city has that aren’t getting done due to lack of funds. If that’s the case, then I ask again…is this a levy lid lift for fire and EMS, or is it a general property tax increase. Lets be honest folks. Get rid of the white elephant in the room…and ditch the skate park plan. We don’t have $250 or $500 K to spend.
I wrote an email to Penny and John to get more details. Penny did respond to my concerns, which was nice.
Penny Coffey eluded to some rough details how the council MIGHT spend the surplus general fund dollars. Nothing for sure which is all the more concern:
“The freed up dollars in the general fund will and/or possibly:
1) maintain the current level of service.
2) address the shortfall in maintaining the parks and greenways; we have taken over quite a few parks this and next year.
3) we need to address street maintenance-crack sealing so that we can stretch the life of our streets.
4) possibly hire another police officer.
5) possibly hire more workers in the public works dept.
6) do maintenance on current facilities-take a look at the trim on the city hall and museum.
7) convert the current city hall to a community center
add enhancements to parks.
8.) add enhancements to parks.”
At this point, we are rolling the dice. I would rather that the new levy on the ballot specify where the $600,000 will be diverted so there is no ambiguity or pet project at work in this deal.
Wiseblood…regarding the fire department being in shambles and my answer. Oops, I thought you meant the building, equipment, etc. Yes, I agree we have had a poorly lead Department. The new Interim Chief and the training from the very professional Lakewood Fire District #2 have brought great changes and hopefully better morale.
I understand the mayor played a role in forming the fire task force but she appears too behind the scenes. I think it is time she emerges as a leader regarding this issue.
I think Interim Chief Merrit has done a fantastic job of bringing reality back into the Fire Department. Lakewood is very professional, and if our guys have training opportunities via Lakewood, then the interlocal agreement would be a wise choice. Adults who choose being a career firefighter want to work in a place where there is training and leadership. We haven’t had that here…sounds like ever! Fire protection can be looked at two ways. For a homeowner, we all want the quickest response times and enough guys on deck to be able to respond. But as a profession, our community just doesn’t see the action that Lakewood does. To give our firefighters the opportunity to cross train would be a benefit for both the community and the firefighters who serve here.
But again, what are the costs involved? Has anyone on Council really said what this will cost us? Or did they pick a number out of the sky?
Well, they probably did not pick it out of the sky, but it sounds like they fell in love with the idea of getting more money to fund their other needs. But you are correct, how much is really needed.