Some Answers about 911, Street Addressing, Process and Consultation
In an e-mail posted on Mar 1st at 19:37:38, M. Anderson provided answers to eight of the twenty-eight questions we summarized at <http://lasqueti.ca/node/4875>. We have attempted to summarize these answers below, and we welcome any corrections and clarifications:
Questions & Answers:
1a) Q: Has this “more open minded address model” been communicated with the community?
A: No, because there is no “more open minded address model”.
Quote: “NI911 has been clear that a proper house numbering system is mandatory for their fire dispatch service to function properly. Other fire service providers have been told by the courts that we must provide accurate mapping info for dispatching our fire service - so a proper house numbering system is the correct answer.”
(commentary from David and Laura: a "proper house numbering system" is one way to provide accurate mapping information for dispatch, but not the only way. Carmel-by-the-Sea provides a proof by counter-example.)
1b) Q: If not, is there a plan to communicate this new option with the community before it is adopted?
A: No, because there is no “more open minded address model”.
1c) Q: Will there be a process by which the community is involved and will able to influence what this “more open minded address model” means?
A: No, because there is no “more open minded address model”. Accepting 911 means full civil addresses, with all the ramifications and consequences therein.
1d) Q: Will the community have any say over whether this “more open minded address model” is adopted?
A: No, because there is no “more open minded address model”. Accepting 911 means full civil addresses, with all the ramifications and consequences therein.
1e) Q: What does “mitigate the tax increase” mean?
A: Quote: “I told the CAO that the huge tax hit would be a real hardship for some land poor Lasquetians, those with high assessments and low incomes. He suggested the Board could borrow the $70K through the Municipal Finance Authority and spread the tax over 5 years to pay it off.”
2b) Q: We are concerned that people are being being called “protesters”, since we view ourselves as participants in our democratic system of government. Protesting is typically reserved for when we are denied all other means by which to participate. Do you feel this is the case?
A: Quote: “Was the petition not a protest as well as a demand?”
(commentary from David and Laura: It turns out that this is actually a surprisingly complicated question, and one that goes to the heart of how people perceive their relationship with their political system, their means of involvement with that system, their avenues of expression, and how they are treated by those in power. The threshold for when people consider something to be protest and themselves to be protestors varies from person to person, and to try to formalize on a common definition and apply it to all Lasquetians would be not appropriate for us to do.)
2c) Q: The petition was about the lack of consultation, and clearly outlined an alternative to the bylaw (“Alternative paging systems exist to provide interim emergency communications while longer‐term emergency communications systems are explored by the Lasqueti Island community”). Is this alternative not acceptable? If so, why not?
A: Quote: “"The adherence to standards is one of the hallmarks of modern emergency services" - for anyone to ask us to make up our own standards, assuming that were even legally advisable, would be wilfully blinding ourselves to the greater knowledge out there and possibly putting our firefighters and public at risk as we "go it alone” and learn from out own mistakes.”
Quote: “your Manager of Emergency Services cannot recommend anything short of the appropriate standards - in this case we can meet the standard by simply extending NI 911 service to Lasqueti and doing proper house numbering.”
So, to summarize, no. Our alternative does not appear to have been deemed acceptable to the PRRD, because it does not meet standards, which only 911 and proper house numbering appear to meet.
2d) Q: In the absence of criteria describing what is and is not acceptable, it is difficult for alternatives to be created and evaluated. This is typically part of the consultation process. Are there plans to communicate the evaluation criteria for alternatives to the RD proposal?
A: The evaluation criteria have now been communicated: All alternatives proposed must “be recognized by the province”.
(commentary from David and Laura: While not explicitly stated, it is implied that any alternative must meet NFPA standards 1061 and 1221. In order to meet these standards, one would have to replicate NI911's facilities, staff, training and certification. It is clear that that is an unachievable bar, and given those criteria, the only option would be to adopt 911 and house numbering.)
It also also implied that continuing our existing dispatch system with another pager provider is not acceptable:
Quote: “If the Board wants to operate at risk, that is their choice. But there should be a milestone set because it would be false hope to think the fire department could run deficiently forever. That mistake has already been made. That is part of the problem as to why everyone thinks it is acceptable right now."
We encourage everyone to read Mr. Anderson's e-mail in its entirety, since it is the definitive source for this information. We hope that we have not misrepresented anything in our summary above, and again, please let us know if anything does not appear to accurately represent what was said.
Peace,
David & Laura
Comments
Post new comment