Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

budget scissors

East Lansing: Fire dept. cuts could be devastating

By Ed Brayton | 04.20.11 | 8:10 am

East Lansing City Manager Theodore Staton writes on his official city website that GOP-proposed cuts in state grants for local fire protection could have a devastating effect on his and other municipalities as well.

Fire Protection Grants, as they are commonly known, were first authorized by Public Act 289 of 1977. Essentially, this funding is allocated annually to support fire protection in communities that house state-owned facilities such as public universities, prisons and government buildings. This funding is needed because state-owned properties, like Michigan State University, are exempt from local property taxes that would typically pay for fire protection. Don’t misunderstand me; having MSU located in East Lansing gives a tremendous boost to the local economy and adds to the vibrancy and quality of life residents enjoy. However, its tax exempt status necessitates alternative funding sources for fire protection.

In our particular case, at least half of East Lansing’s fire resources exist to protect University structures, faculty and student residents. The high rise dormitories and other significant structures require special equipment and staffing needs that include a Haz-mat team, an aerial truck and a confined space team. We are required to provide for the “health, safety and welfare” and as such, have made significant investments over time to prepare for whatever fire suppression or hazardous cleanup needs should arise. We take seriously our responsibility to protect students as we have been entrusted for their safety.

What do the proposed cuts mean for East Lansing?

The proposed 22% cut to fire protection grant funding would have a tremendous and devastating impact on our Fiscal Year 2012 budget. Of our proposed $7 million budget for the fire service (only a slight increase over last year’s), the 22% cut would result in a $280,000 reduction.

Staton said that he hopes those cuts, already passed by the state House, will be restored by the Senate in further budget negotiations.

Comments

  • http://twitter.com/Hank_Reardon_ Hank Reardon

    Why would we put this type of strain on our communities’ safety AND purposefully and knowingly retard our own growth as a community if we’re not simultaneously enacting laws requiring that all commercial buildings (like hotels, motels, apartments, high-rise settings, etc…) SAFER? We need to order, by law, that building owners are all “required to update their fire safety building systems to current standards. If we give tax incentives to wealthy property owners and it detracts from our ability to provide for safety, the burden of that should be shifted to those that received the benefits!

    For instance, there is a new device out, the emergency doorway identifier that can drastically change evacuees capabilities to escape fire and smoke in a building in peril which should be “mandatory”. This thing is easy to put in, is very inexpensive and most would agree that ALL apartments, hotels motels and multi-story office buildings should be “required to install it”. People, we have to shift the burden or people are going to die as a result. A Battalion Chief friend of mine in another city showed this to me on FireRescue1; it’s called a LightSaver. You can go to YouTube and see it work by searching for “LightSaver L-100″ or you can see it on a website: http://www.TheLightThatSavesLives.com

    Anyway, for whatever its worth, if we’re going to cut back on the resources for those that save people from peril, then we should require the commercial owners of the buildings where this happens to pick up part of the cost and to install systems that will pick up the slack! Holding them accountable is imperative if we’re going to be strapped to do without because of their incentives.

    -Capt. Hank

  • http://twitter.com/Firemarshalbob Bob Pratt

    Capt. Hank,
    As Fire Marshal for the City of East Lansing I feel an obligation to clarify a few points and ask a few questions.
    First and foremost; East Lansing is very lucky to have a forward thinking manager and council: our financial situation is less dire than many communities. The department has tremendous support from the city manager. We have seen less reductions than many of our brothers and sisters in other communities. None the less, these cuts to funding involve cutting firefigher positions: there are no “systems” that will “pick up the slack” of eliminating firefighters.

    Regarding your background:
    You imply with your title and reference to your friend the Battalion Chief, that you are affiliated with a fire department. By inference one might wrongly assume you are with the East Lansing Fire Department. Call me a skeptic but I wonder if you have a financial interest in the product you so enthusiastically endorse.

    Regarding the product:
    It looks promising and may have positive applications in some cases, however there are a few problems I could foresee:
    1. The device is dependent on a working smoke detector to operate. We know that nearly 30% of smoke detectors have dead or missing batteries or fail to operate in the event of a fire. If the smoke detector is missing or fails to operate (as it does in most fatal fires) your device will not operate. Having a working smoke detector doubles your chances of surviving a residential fire. If we could ensure working smoke detectors in every sleeping room AND outside every sleeping room, on every level of the residence we could drastically the number of fire deaths. A WORKING SMOKE DETECTOR IS YOUR BEST DEFENSE!
    2. It appears that the device is located at the top of the doorway. At that height it might be exposed to temperatures in excess of 1200′F. This could happen in a short period of time. Have there been any tests conducted to see how the unit withstands high heat?

    The article is about funding for fire departments, monies that are desperately needed to avoid staff reductions. Your post is at best off topic and at worst a poor attempt at product placement.

    Bob Pratt
    Fire Marshal
    City of East Lansing
    Home of Michigan State University