4 ms·
That's the part of this story that's not being told. A little over a decade ago, there was a political power grab wherein the fire department took over all emer
by curun1r 11y ago
That's the part of this story that's not being told. A little over a decade ago, there was a political power grab wherein the fire department took over all emergency calls. Prior to that, SF had EMTs that would respond in ambulances. This has increased the cost of these programs because firefighters often respond in fire engines instead of ambulances and all responders need to be trained as both fire fighters and EMTs. It's a horribly wasteful policy that makes no sense beyond increasing the political power of the fire department.
Source: I had a friend who was an EMT at the time of the switchover who had to leave the city to work in a nearby area because he didn't want to train for and fight fires.
- larrik 11y agoIronically, a similar policy was put into effect in a nearby city to me (Waterbury, CT), and it wasn't a power grab so much as a "we're paying them anyway" thing. (They became mandatory first responders, but EMTs were still a separate thing.) Of course, Waterbury has a habit of fatal accidents involving fire trucks (including hitting each other!), so that made me feel like everyone loses in that one.
- 1024core 11y agoCame here to say this. It is a waste of SFFD resources, but since when did "waste" become a concern in SF? I remember one of the folks at Stamen design wanted to plot where SFFDs responders were going, and for what purpose. But he was stonewalled by SFFD and denied the info. SFFD does not want you to know that 90% of their calls are for homeless-related issues.
- techdragon 11y agoFOIA request ? Not sure how they could actually block that given the banality of the data in question.
- 1024core 11y agoI've heard they refused, citing HIPAA.
- sanderjd 11y agoYeah I kept looking around in the article for the part where it talks about what vehicles they use for this instead of fire engines, which are clearly wasteful and disruptive when used for this. What a shame.
- GoodOldNe 11y agoIt's a horribly wasteful policy that makes no sense beyond increasing the political power of the fire department. According to one higher-up in the SFFD EMS, this has to do with the software used to dispatch apparatus to calls. It was designed for a two-tier response (ALS v. BLS, as is used in many other cities) but since we don't do that sort of bifurcation of dispatch, it just sends the closest rig which is often fire. Beyond being noisy, can you imagine the damage done to the SF streets by having pumpers filled with water driving on them every day, and the damage done to the apparatus which are by no means cheap?