More Questions about 911, Street Addressing, Process and Consultation
M. Anderson’s e-mail posted on Mar 1st at 19:37:38 has raised several additional questions that we wished to summarize in advance of Monday’s meeting:
Continued from <http://lasqueti.ca/node/4875>
8. It was stated that our fire department is being run deficiently today, and that allowing it to run deficiently is a mistake and is part of the problem as to why everyone thinks it (what we do today) is acceptable right now.
a) Is the measure of deficiency based on the 2008 Review of Fire Protective Services For Fire Insurance Grading by the Fire Underwriter’s Survey?
b) Is there “one size fits all” for fire departments that does not take into account the needs and abilities of sparsely populated rural areas?
c) What do other rural areas in B.C. do where there are no house numbers (general delivery, etc)? Are they deficient too? Are they being moved over to 911 and civic addresses?
d) If an paging option is found that is equivalent to what is used today, why is maintaining the status-quo now being deemed unacceptable? Why now? Why are we not wait until the province addresses other areas that have the same challenges?
e) The 2008 document also highlights building codes and road/driveway standards as being deficiencies. Should we expect these to be mandated the same as 911 appears to be being mandated?
9. We noticed that for the first time, there were references to legal risks and liability risks. Some examples of this language include:
“…told by the courts…”
“…assuming that were even legally advisable…”
“…avoided any litigious events…”
“…leave themselves at maximum exposure…” (to a lawsuit)
This adds a new dimension to this issue, and raise the following questions:
a) Is the PRRD legally at risk if a court finds their provisioning of fire, medical or other emergency services to be substandard (or not following "best practices”)? Are there any presidents of this?
b) Are our first responders and firefighters legally at risk? Aren’t they covered by the Good Samaritan laws, since they are volunteers?
c) To which level are the various standards mentioned mandated by the province?
d) What does it mean for an emergency system or service to be “recognized by the province”?
Answers to these questions will help the community assess the degree to which the PRRD has a choice in these matters, and the degree to which the community has a say in these matters.
Note 1: We are not the only areas in the province that do not have 911 service, and do not have civic addresses:
Quote: “Three areas in the province lack any 9-1-1 service: Central Coast Regional District (“Central Coast”), Northern Rockies Regional Municipality (“NRRM”) and the Stikine Region. The permanent population across the three regions is about 11,000 people.” Furthermore, “Six regional districts which returned surveys reported that one or more First Nations areas within their jurisdictions did not have 9-1-1 coverage.”
Many of these areas in the province also do not have civic addresses.
Source: UBCM 9-1-1 Services in British Columbia: Background Review in Relation to a Province-Wide Call Answer Levy
http://www.citig.ca/Data/Sites/1/newsfiles2013/9-1-1-services-in-british-columbia_sept-2013.pdf
Note 2: Upon reading the above document, there is clear evidence that the province (and country) is moving towards mandating 100% coverage, where 911 service and civic addresses will be forced for every building in the province, including buildings on First Nation land (which is a blatant violation of their sovereignty). We find this one-size-fits-all model to be very saddening. Can there not be any of Huxley’s Falkland Islands?
Peace,
David & Laura
Comments
Post new comment