Thursday, April 24th9.8°C
21104
21195

Fire plan too rich for taxpayers

Kelowna and Joe Rich topics.

Moderators: Jo, ferri, Merry, Triple 6

Re: Fire plan too rich for taxpayers

Postby Queller » Dec 12th, 2012, 11:11 pm

And yes, in 2013, still no money for staffing a firehall in Glenmore. No improved fire protection for residents of McKinley Landing or North Glenmore. Do these residents pay less taxes than others? Is it cheap to live in Wilden? All these areas are getting substantially lower levels of fire protection than those living in, say, the Orchard Park area or Downtown, but their taxes are certainly not any less! :200:
Queller
 
Posts: 29
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Jan 13th, 2009, 5:52 pm

Re: Fire plan too rich for taxpayers

Postby theyeti » Dec 13th, 2012, 8:23 am

our fire dept is certainly busy ! i see those guys on the roads every day ! they r always responding to something !
theyeti
Übergod
 
Posts: 1360
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 9:01 am

Re: Fire plan too rich for taxpayers

Postby phasyluck » Dec 13th, 2012, 10:17 pm

8% here 4% there......no big deal!
Sure do love Rutland!!
phasyluck
Board Meister
 
Posts: 595
Likes: 3 posts
Liked in: 5 posts
Joined: Jan 12th, 2011, 8:54 pm

Re: Fire plan too rich for taxpayers

Postby Queller » Dec 14th, 2012, 10:38 am

A lady I know in Glenmore recently had to call the Fire Dept. for assistance (her fire alarm was going off). She said it took the Fire Dept. about 9 minutes to get there and they said they came from the firehall on Enterprise. This is a pretty long time when you are waiting for help. What has happened to the plan to put full-time firefighters in the Glenmore firehall? :137:
Queller
 
Posts: 29
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Jan 13th, 2009, 5:52 pm

Re: Fire plan too rich for taxpayers

Postby Kel6508 » Dec 18th, 2012, 9:00 pm

Maybe you should go down to city hall and ask Walter why the city doesn't seem to think that a new hall in the Glenmore area is important. I would think the people in these outer areas have a real concern and it should be addressed.
Kel6508
 
Posts: 10
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Oct 31st, 2008, 5:08 pm

Re: Fire plan too rich for taxpayers

Postby callotto » Dec 19th, 2012, 9:56 pm

I've been looking into this. There are lots of modern technologies available to people to reduce the risk of fire damage
In passive ways. There are intumescent paints, non-toxic dry extinguisher systems etc, all available (and in some cases mandated) in Europe.
Building codes have changed housing for the better over the years and if some of these new products were introduced it seems like the downward trend in fire calls will continue if not accelerate.
It would be a wonderful future where we need fewer firefighters instead of more and it looks like we can get there.
callotto
Fledgling
 
Posts: 137
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 6 posts
Joined: Oct 19th, 2009, 12:36 pm

Re: Fire plan too rich for taxpayers

Postby Queller » Dec 20th, 2012, 9:30 am

callotto wrote:I've been looking into this. There are lots of modern technologies available to people to reduce the risk of fire damage
In passive ways. There are intumescent paints, non-toxic dry extinguisher systems etc, all available (and in some cases mandated) in Europe.
Building codes have changed housing for the better over the years and if some of these new products were introduced it seems like the downward trend in fire calls will continue if not accelerate.
It would be a wonderful future where we need fewer firefighters instead of more and it looks like we can get there.


That might not be a bad start. The problem in North America is lightweight construction and the massive use of synthetics in home furnishings, furniture, electronics, etc. These materials burn hot and fast and produce toxic smoke. Most people die from smoke exposure, not the fire itself. They have tried to use fire-retardent material on some of these furnishings, the problem is most of the retardents seem to be carcinogenic in daily exposure (there was a story on CBC Marketplace about this a while ago). ALso, here in BC, the building code now allows 6 story wood-frame structures to be built with no real improvements to existing fire protection systems.
Most buildings in Europe are of masonary/heavy timber construction, and certainly don't burn like the matchbox houses we build in North America!
Queller
 
Posts: 29
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Jan 13th, 2009, 5:52 pm

Re: Fire plan too rich for taxpayers

Postby zoo » Dec 20th, 2012, 10:43 am

The last fire hall I've seen built in Kelowna was 40 yrs ago. So Watching this city grow the rate it has since then it should have been a warning to our council how to prepare for these requests.
Its not like counsel should be surprised by the need of better service including halls. Does counsel actually believe that 40 yrs of no fire dept. growth is acceptable. Lets see, UBC is massive, airport one of busiest in Canada, superstructures 20 storeys taller, massive population growth etc, etc. Really, you didn't see this coming. You didn't think of planning and saving money over 40 years to prepare for these requests. And now your still not ready for the building of a fire hall even 8 yrs from now.
Funny one counsel member has grown his business to many stores around the valley only because of the growth of this valley.
City counsel, very poor planning on your part. We do not get to enjoy all these new developments and growth without providing better service than fire halls built 40 yrs ago.
zoo
Board Meister
 
Posts: 430
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 14 posts
Joined: Jan 12th, 2006, 4:53 pm

Re: Fire plan too rich for taxpayers

Postby theyeti » Dec 20th, 2012, 10:45 am

that same council member left his huge election sign in a ditch on my rented property for about a month after the last election too . cant remember wanting his sign there to begin with
theyeti
Übergod
 
Posts: 1360
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 9:01 am

Previous

Return to Kelowna

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 50-YEARS-in-Ktown, parent123, sanfish and 20 guests