First, let me say that I am an honorably discharged veteran who served weekly on a part-time firefighting crew for 4 years of active duty. This post has nothing to do with the profession of firefighting or the good people who serve our country in a civil service position.
Local city officials proposed a bond to pay for a new fire station and other buildings.
Many people have expressed concern about this bond because of the current tough economic season.
I heard the argument on the news that firefighters feared their building would collapse in an earthquake. Using the same logic, many homes are in the same condition.
Should families, take on a larger mortgage and more debt to buy a new home?
Considering the current difficult economic season, most families are tightening their budget vs buying a new home. Is it unreasonable for firefighters and city officials to be conservative in these tough economic conditions?
When times become prosperous, some wise families keep a very tight budget and save up the money to pay off their house in 10 years or less. They save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest debt ... and are better prepared to survive the next economic low. Would it be impractical for firefighters and city officials to plan likewise? Conservative financial practices like these would save families millions of dollars in interest debt paid by taxes.
Should fathers and mothers who are firefighters be required to purchase new homes for their families if it is older and has a higher risk of collapsing in an earthquake? What if the firefighter is unable to afford the purchase of a new home right now? Should we double their pay so they can buy a new home?
Perhaps anyone in a home that does not meet the latest earthquake building codes should be given a tax break to buy a new home, regardless of their financial ability to pay for it. In addition, old cars are not as safe as new cars - so we should all have new cars. Firefighters deserve a safe place to work and live, and a safe vehicle to drive home, and so does everyone else. Where does this logic stop?
On the other hand, the fire station may be absolutely terrible and unsafe.
If my house was that bad, I would sell it and move into a newer used home – within my budget. If my sister's house were terrible and unsafe, we would work together as family and friends to get her a newer house.
Since newer fire stations are not readily available, a new building may be required.
Perhaps retrofitting the existing building would make it adequately safe until a prosperous economy returned. Alternatively, if a new building is required, can we be much better about competitive bids and conservative with cost? How about contracts with cost “not to exceed”. We hate to hear the final results cost $X million more than the original bid.
As a public service - the architecture office that I work at would probably offer a significant discount to the city, compared to other architecture firms. Perhaps other builders and suppliers would also pitch in to help.
It sounds like a healthy discussion – as long both sides maintain their self-respect and exercise genuine kindness to every person with an opposing argument. We do not want to be rash and irresponsible, buy a new fire station and a new car for everyone, and bankrupt the city like so many other states and public organizations around the country.
Michael Rybin~۩~
Architecture is a wonderful life ™
Copyright© 2014 Michael Rybin All Rights Reserved.
Local city officials proposed a bond to pay for a new fire station and other buildings.
Many people have expressed concern about this bond because of the current tough economic season.
I heard the argument on the news that firefighters feared their building would collapse in an earthquake. Using the same logic, many homes are in the same condition.
Should families, take on a larger mortgage and more debt to buy a new home?
Considering the current difficult economic season, most families are tightening their budget vs buying a new home. Is it unreasonable for firefighters and city officials to be conservative in these tough economic conditions?
When times become prosperous, some wise families keep a very tight budget and save up the money to pay off their house in 10 years or less. They save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest debt ... and are better prepared to survive the next economic low. Would it be impractical for firefighters and city officials to plan likewise? Conservative financial practices like these would save families millions of dollars in interest debt paid by taxes.
Should fathers and mothers who are firefighters be required to purchase new homes for their families if it is older and has a higher risk of collapsing in an earthquake? What if the firefighter is unable to afford the purchase of a new home right now? Should we double their pay so they can buy a new home?
Perhaps anyone in a home that does not meet the latest earthquake building codes should be given a tax break to buy a new home, regardless of their financial ability to pay for it. In addition, old cars are not as safe as new cars - so we should all have new cars. Firefighters deserve a safe place to work and live, and a safe vehicle to drive home, and so does everyone else. Where does this logic stop?
On the other hand, the fire station may be absolutely terrible and unsafe.
If my house was that bad, I would sell it and move into a newer used home – within my budget. If my sister's house were terrible and unsafe, we would work together as family and friends to get her a newer house.
Since newer fire stations are not readily available, a new building may be required.
Perhaps retrofitting the existing building would make it adequately safe until a prosperous economy returned. Alternatively, if a new building is required, can we be much better about competitive bids and conservative with cost? How about contracts with cost “not to exceed”. We hate to hear the final results cost $X million more than the original bid.
As a public service - the architecture office that I work at would probably offer a significant discount to the city, compared to other architecture firms. Perhaps other builders and suppliers would also pitch in to help.
It sounds like a healthy discussion – as long both sides maintain their self-respect and exercise genuine kindness to every person with an opposing argument. We do not want to be rash and irresponsible, buy a new fire station and a new car for everyone, and bankrupt the city like so many other states and public organizations around the country.
Michael Rybin~۩~
Architecture is a wonderful life ™
Copyright© 2014 Michael Rybin All Rights Reserved.
