Fire at top-dollar estate

Fire at top-dollar estate

There are 13 comments on the Berkshire Eagle story from Jan 2, 2009, titled Fire at top-dollar estate. In it, Berkshire Eagle reports that:

A fire at a local estate believed to be part of the most expensive residential real estate deal in Berkshire County history took more than three hours to contain Thursday and caused tens of thousands of dollars ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Berkshire Eagle.

Ex-Firefighter

Lee, MA

#2 Jan 3, 2009
Just heard from some of my ex-Firefighters that only 3 guys showed up from the Town's Fire Dept. They had to call mutual aid from W. Stockbridge,& Hancock. What's going on down there, that they did not have many Firefighters respond, rumor is that the Guys can't respond/use their lights outside of Richmond, I have seen the Chief & Assistant Chief from Hancock respond from Pittsfield to Calls to Hancock with their lights & Sirens, If the Chief and Assistant Chief can respond from Pittsfield to calls in their Town then why Can't the Firefighters from Richmond do the same as their counterparts. The Fact that only a handful of guys responded,showed up it is NOT good. It's time to leave these Volunteer Firefighters alone and let them Respond to calls with out any issues or hassles from trying to help their Communities.
If there is rules in Place for these guys then EVERYONE needs to follow them. As the old saying says, There's a set of rules to follow and then theres a another set of rules for others".
Let these guys Respond to calls for help !
adamswoman

Gansevoort, NY

#4 Jan 3, 2009
thank god we have a better dept in Adams! They put out a huge fire and prevented it from spreading to buildings just 3 ft away!
And all of them are volunteers!
I am glad I live in Adams!
Ex-Firefighter

Lee, MA

#5 Jan 3, 2009
2MuchTimeOnMyHands wrote:
<quoted text>
The above is a poor excuse for members not showing up. The article states that it took more then three hours to contain. You could have drove from Boston at normal speeds and still made it. If a member works in Pittsfield he could have made it there in 10-15 minutes while driving safely. Kudos to the members of the RVFD who showed up. Sounds like some guys like the "Whaker" lights on their POV's. Same guys that wear the "I fight what you fear" "T" shirts. The dedictaed Firefighters showed up!
To the Guy that replyed to my Posting,
You missed the whole Concept of my reply, There's rules for some of the guys and then there's a Different set of rules for others. If other Firefighters in other Dept's can respond to a call in their respected town from outside of their Town, Example being the Hancock Fire being able to respond from Pittsfield, I have seen them do it all the time, then it's OK for the other guys that are in the RVFD to do it too. Like I said if there's going to be rules then they need to APPLY TO EVERYONE, not just to a Selected Few!. So you had missed the whole concept, to boot theres some Firefighters that dont go to any calls but are still in the Dept. So why do they belong in the Dept. then, if they pick & choose what calls they are going to go to!.
I support the guys that go to "all" the calls, not just the ones they pick and choose to go to!
Whats good for the Goose is good for the Gander!
Ex-Firefighter

Lee, MA

#6 Jan 3, 2009
2MuchTimeOnMyHands wrote:
<quoted text>
The above is a poor excuse for members not showing up. The article states that it took more then three hours to contain. You could have drove from Boston at normal speeds and still made it. If a member works in Pittsfield he could have made it there in 10-15 minutes while driving safely. Kudos to the members of the RVFD who showed up. Sounds like some guys like the "Whaker" lights on their POV's. Same guys that wear the "I fight what you fear" "T" shirts. The dedictaed Firefighters showed up!
Also, from what I hear from WSFD and Hancock, they don't get harrassed or told they can only respond from their respected towns, if they have a call they respond, as they should. From what I hear thru the grapevine, theres alot of guys that dont show up for majority of the Calls but want to be on the Dept, if ya not going to show up then dont bother being a member of that Dept. Guys like you want all the Glory but dont want to do the Dirty work that comes with it.
Ex-Firefighter

Lee, MA

#8 Jan 3, 2009
Are you kidding me wrote:
<quoted text>
Be serious! You know that it's a given that a structure fire is going to generate a mutual aid response. You state that that three guys (from Richmond) showed up? Get your facts correct and stop supporting your position with BS. Based on the number of PC's that were at the fire house and the others on scene; your number is incorrect.
As to the use of red emergency lights...if EVERY individual with a permit to display red/blue lights used them responsibly; it wouldn't be an issue. BUT...we've had a few overzealous youngsters out and out abuse the use of those lights. There is no reason, I mean NO REASON, for a firefighter (or anybody else) to think that a used 20 dollar "dashmaster" gives them the right to drive irresponsibly. That's what made the "policy/procedure" that members are prohibited from using them out of the local jurisdiction. The permit is a state permit that gives the issuing authority (local jurisdiction) to do as they wish. The liability factor of not having a P/P as stated is an open door to getting somebody killed or getting the fire company sued. The idea of emergency lights on an unmarked personal vehicle, for the purpose of speeding to a fire, is bad.
Last point. And you should already know this if you get your head unstuck out of your backside. The number one cause for low enrollment in a small, south county FD (especially this one) is there are no locals left. And what locals are still hanging on in this town don't have the time to commit due to having to support a family and eat. God bless the few that can do it...but there numbers are shrinking.
Get your facts straight and stop stirring the pot.
First of All the Permit that is issued by the Registry of MV is a "Permit that allows a Member of a Police Dept., Fire Dept. or Ambulance Squad to Dispaly & use a Emergency Light, being a Red or Blue light on your personal Vehicle to respond to Calls, this permit that is Issued by the Registry of MV is good throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it is NOT restricted just to the Community that the Member belongs to, so you need to go back and look up the Law/Chapter of the MGL. As far as a Member speeding to a call, I know many Firefighters that respond and DON'T drive Recklessly to calls!
Furthermore, if you state that a Member cause's an Accident responding to a Call, the Dept. that he belongs to is NOT responsible, as this Firefighter is in his own Personal Vehicle and it would be his or Her insurance Company that would be sued, if It was in fact his or her fault that had caused the accident.
To further state: If your agruement as regards to causing an Accident while Responding to a Call is Caused in Pittsfield, then it could very well happen while responding to the Call in Richmond, so that theroy is wrong, cause an Accident can HAPPEN ANYWHERE, and in that Case if the Fire Company would be responsible if this Member had caused an Accident while responding from Pittsfield then they would be responsible too if the Firefighter had an Accident in Richmond!.
As far as 3 members had shown up to this Fire, this is what I had heard from someone in the Fire Service, so it was just a remor at that, if I was wrong then I take that back.
My whole point is, if guys are not to use lights while responding to calls, then it needs to be enforced to EVERYONE! And this Applys to other Dept's too!, Cause they dont need to respond to the Call with lights & Sirens, RULE SHOULD APPLY TO EVERYONE!!!!
yamon

Fort Myers, FL

#9 Jan 3, 2009
Sounds like the fire chief from Richmond should be replaced............

Since: Aug 08

Richmond, MA

#10 Jan 3, 2009
Unfortunately, I had to call the RVFD last month, 8AM on a weekday. I was very, very impressed with the response time of the Chief, truck, and 5+ other individuals that showed up in their own cars (there may have been more, I didn't count). I was also impressed with the thorough job that was done on site. I hope I never have to call them again, however, if I do, I am confident I'll have the same response (God I hope so). Thanks RVFD.

Gerry

Stoneham, MA

#11 Jan 4, 2009
[Chapter 90: Section 7E. Display of red or blue lights on vehicles; permits; revocation; violations]

Hmm I believe ch90 7E gives you permission to operate the red light in your own community, although it is vague in the description.

That being said, it isn't an excuse not to go to a fire. I personally know towns that don't have redlight permits issued at all, Not that I agree with that thinking.

The big picture. The days of volunteerism (I am one) are not like the old days. Both members of the family work, at least one member works 2 jobs. And in many cases your place of employment doesn't allow you to leave or your work responsibilities make it so you can't leave. Just keep that in mind.

In Richmond, I believe most work out of town, and if only 3 personnel did show up, thats probably why and is why a mutual aid system was created; especially in a volunteer community.

Go regionalization- thats what will make the system work. Shared personnel and not duplication of equipment. Seems eveyone has their own equipment. duplicating every other dept., which is good. But in times when money is tight, lets work together to meet the common goal. Don't have to agree, just an opinion for 23 years of volunteering.
Gerry

Stoneham, MA

#12 Jan 4, 2009
PS - Forgot to add this: Richmond is a good department.
eddie

Savoy, MA

#13 Jan 4, 2009
If my house caught fire would the headline be "Fire at Low Dollar house"?
Richmond Firefighter

Houston, TX

#14 Feb 12, 2009
I was at that call, and I know for a fact that there were more than three members present, seeing as how there were 4 peices of aparatus there, as well as the chief's car.

But, the reason that I am posting here is to alleviate an argument. The policy of not responding to a call with a red light outside of the town of Richmond's boundary has nothing to do with the MGL's. That policy was created, voted on, and accepted by the membership of the Richmond Volunteer Fire Department. That is how we want it to be.
Greg

Lee, MA

#15 Feb 26, 2009
Richmond FD sucks
Ex-fire

Lee, MA

#16 Jul 29, 2009
Richmond Firefighter wrote:
I was at that call, and I know for a fact that there were more than three members present, seeing as how there were 4 peices of aparatus there, as well as the chief's car.
But, the reason that I am posting here is to alleviate an argument. The policy of not responding to a call with a red light outside of the town of Richmond's boundary has nothing to do with the MGL's. That policy was created, voted on, and accepted by the membership of the Richmond Volunteer Fire Department. That is how we want it to be.
Well the policy sucks and so does RFD!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

West Stockbridge Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Valleyhead, a school for girls, closes (Mar '09) Jun 22 Valerie A Hotte R... 283
News Del Gallo running for Senate as a 'Sanders prog... May 31 John Harrison 4
News Challenge in Berkshire drunken driving case cou... May '16 Chris 12
News Four potential Berkshire County legislative can... Apr '16 cops are liars an... 8
Abram Antone aka Abraham Antoine (Nov '12) Mar '16 dclark 4
News 2016 Made in the Berkshires Festival Seeks Subm... Mar '16 one fish two fish 1
News Baker sees GE move, ties to Housatonic as 'sepa... Feb '16 DCF CPS DSS are ... 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

West Stockbridge Mortgages