We're trying something new. Please post comments to this blog entry as to why you think Consolidation would be a bad thing for West Haven. (I've also added some posts from others - my apologies if I haven't attributed these ideas properly.)
You'll notice that we've set up a separate blog post for "Why Our Readers Feel Fire District Consolidation is Good."
Unless you can show that something is flat-out untrue, please do not argue points in these comments as they will not be posted. In comments to this entry, only post your thoughts on why consolidation is bad. I will pull these entries up into the main post.
Once we have compiled a list of thoughts on why Good and why Bad, we will start a new topic entitled "Weighing the Pros & Cons of Fire District Consolidation" to discuss and debate both sides of the issue, and hopefully to come away with a better understanding of the issues.
Summary of Points in Comments:
- BAD: Response times would increase should firehouses be closed.
- BAD: Should City Hall be in charge of the fire departments, taxes may be unfairly attributed to fire district consolidation.
- BAD: Should fire houses be closed, people would likely lose jobs.
- BAD: City has had a hard time managing its own finances; should they mis-manage fire department finances, it could mean people's lives, not just their homes and livlihoods.
- BAD: Previous studies have shown no significant cost savings and no improvement in service by consolidation.
- BAD: Consolidation will move control directly from taxpayers to City Council.
- BAD: Consolidation would create a huge incase in pension costs as longtime firefighters would retire en masse ahead of consolidation.
Feedburner
7 comments:
BAD: Should firehouses be closed, response time would likely be longer.
BAD - Though unproven since city will take control, any cost increases would be pushed onto the taxpayers.
BAD: Should fire houses be closed, people would likely lose jobs.
BAD: City has had a hard time managing its own finances; should they mis-manage fire department finances, it could mean people's lives, not just their homes and livlihoods.
BAD: Previous studies have shown no significant cost savings and no improvement in service by consolidation.
BAD: (From CTWestie)Consolidation will only result in a change in control, away from taxpayers who can vote budgets and mil rates up or down, to a City Council who can and does do whatever it pleases, regardless of what the public has to say at City budget meetings.
BAD: (from whfdff) Consolidation would bring on mass retirement at the top end of the current departments, meaning a huge increase in pension costs.
Post a Comment