Peabody Fire Fighter James Rice Dies in House Fire. Fund for Rice family and displaced residents established.

Veteran Peabody fire fighter James Rice died tragically when he was overcome by toxic fumes fighting a house fire on Hancock Street Friday.  I join my fellow Peabody residents in mourning for the loss of a great public servant.

Salem News Coverage:

• http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1818099849/Rice-mourned-as-help-pours-in-for-family-victims
• http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1666051697/Firefighter-dies-in-blaze 
• http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1666052086/Fatal-Peabody-fire-Photos
• http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1666052036/Arson-ruled-out-in-Peabody-fire

Lynn Item Coverage:

• http://www.itemlive.com/articles/2011/12/24/news/news01.txt

Three funds have been established to assist both the Rice family and the residents displaced by the blaze.

• Firefighter James Rice Memorial Fund, North Shore Bank.
• Local 925 James Rice Fund:   [James Rice Fund, PO Box 4313, Peabody MA 01960]


• City of Peabody Fire Victims Relief Fund, North Shore Bank.
  
  North Shore Bank Donations are being accepted at any North Shore Bank branch office, or can be mailed to the North Shore Bank, 32 Main Street Peabody, MA 01960.

Water Tower... was Dearborn responsible?

I have been looking into this matter a bit. I can't find anything available on the web, or in discussing this with a few people who might recall, that shows that the property developers promised to install a new water tower. The best explanation I heard was that during the discussions and negotiations concerning the development that many different options were brought up but that the only one set into the contract was the (around) $350k that was to be used for "area improvements" and that was earmarked for installation of the pumping station.

The Salem News: Liacos: Peabody shouldn't have to pay for water tower
Peabody Weekly News: Mayor looks to bond for water tower, library repairs
Remember Peabody Weekly web stories do not remain active very long

This development is one of the unfortunate artifacts of the State 40B "snob zoning" rules that allow a developer to circumvent local rules and regulation to build large, multi-family housing developments in Cities and Towns that do not meet State requirements for affordable housing.

The original proposals (I believe) were turned down, and then the developer came back with the ultimate threat... work with us to make our project happen (and have a little bit of say in the matter) or we will go to the State and get permission to build whatever we wish up on that site. It was blackmail pure and simple.

And blackmail that was sanctioned by the State in its zeal to force snobbish communities like Concord, Boxford and Weston to allow ANY multifamily development. However, like many "good deeds" the new rules had a different affect - one that affected more modest communities that often already had quite a bit of affordable housing... but just didn't meet the very high standards set by the State.

So ultimately it comes down to the fact that the City decided to play ball with the developers in order to get some say in (and some concessions from) the development.

I guess there is a bigger issue here, well two actually.

The first is the issue of who really should be paying for public improvements in a City like Peabody? I mean when my house was built, the original owner did not need to pay for a water tower or treatment plant in order to construct this house. He rightly so assumed his taxes would be his contribution to the systems that service all the homes in Peabody.

Likewise, if the City decides it needs to widen a portion of a road in West Peabody, I would assume that my taxes (I live in Ward 4) would be used to pay for this action... and that the City would NOT bill only the homes along the stretch of road being widened.

So why do so many people think that when someone else wishes to use their property (for a single house, or a business or a development) that they should be responsible for footing the entire bill for the City services that will be needed to accommodate these new additions?

Is this just another iteration of the NO NEW DEVELOPMENT mentality? You know... the one that says... "It was OK for me to build MY HOUSE... but now that I live here... there are too many other people! SO NO MORE HOUSING!" This is the main attitude I hear from many Peabody folks... sadly they forget that their neighbors didn't want them to build their house either!

The second issue revolves around who we elect to be the stewards of our City. I mean, and I can't say this any other way, but why do we elect stupid people? I call someone stupid when they agree to, and then sign a contract, WITHOUT READING IT TO KNOW WHAT IT SAYS???? Now, maybe Councilor Liacos wasn't personally responsible for signing the contract (or maybe even approving these conditions) but if he was so adamant about protecting the citizens of Peabody (and he is sure screaming about this quite loudly right now) WHY DIDN'T HE READ THE FINAL LANGUAGE IN THE AGREEMENTS??

And to come back now years later and say, "but that's what I thought I heard" is not an act of good governanace, it is an excuse... and a poor one at that.

Rehab Five - Something you might not know about Peabody

Rehab Five - - - - http://www.rehabfive.org/

I came across a quick reference to Rehab Five in someone else's blog (sorry, I really can't remember where it was) and I was curious about what it was. And if you don't already know, this might be of interest to you as well.

Rehab Five (more officially known as Community Service Emergency Rehab LTD) is a non-profit group of 25+ volunteers (all current or former fire fighters, dispatchers or EMTs) who show up at major fire locations with the sole intent of helping to REHAB the working men and women on the scene.

While I will not do them justice here (and I strongly suggest you visit their website) they are not just handing out bottles of water - although they certainly do that as well. Part of their formal mission involves setting up tents where fire personnel are given medical assessments and given a calm environment where they can intake fluids and cool body temperatures.

There is also a glove exchange program where fire fighters can get a dry pair of gloves to continue working in a safer and more comfortable environment. Rehab Five collects, cleans, washes and dries the gloves and makes them available at the next fire event.

Rehab Five covers the entire Southern Essex County Area (District Five) and serves the needs of 21 cities and towns from Nahant to Essex, North Reading to Rockport.

From what I understand, this seems like one of those local groups of people we should be proud to call our neighbors. I believe they even started right here in Peabody and that is where their mailing address is still.

And speaking of that... If you find this to be a worthwhile cause you might just consider a donation. Their Donations page is here:___ http://www.rehabfive.org/donate.php

Disclaimer: I have absolutely nothing to do with this organization nor do I even know the people running it... they just seem like good folks.

Should a 9-1-1 call bring ALL the rescuers all the time?

This question arose during a discussion on the Peabody Patriot concerning the purchase (or refurbishing) of a Peabody Fire engine.

Currently (I believe) when someone calls the 9-1-1 Emergency line the operator dispatches all three help and rescue groups to the location - Police, Fire and Ambulance.
Please correct me if I am wrong on this point.

So the question for discussion is...
Does it make sense to send all three responders to each call for help?

I would say that I can easily make a case for both sides in this case.

1) ASSESS THE SITUATION AND SEND ONLY WHAT IS NECESSARY:
This is called triage in the emergency rooms of every hospital (or if you remember that TV show M.A.S.H.) - where by someone listens to the person making call for help, asks questions to determine the need and then they send those services that they see as being necessary to solve the problem.

This would probably work in 99% of the cases involving a call for help to 9-1-1. A professional who is trained in emergency triage would need to be on duty 24/7... and maybe not just one. This might be yet another good reason to consider regional 9-1-1 emergency call centers (but that is yet another debate/discussion topic).

The worry is in that 1%... nobody is willing to have the dropped ball happen when it is your spouse or child's life on the line. In that case... send them all... send the Marines too!

However, as a cost saving move it might end up reducing the need for so much redundancy as well as reducing the load on all members of the 'rescue' teams (only sending 1 or 2 when needed, instead of all 3 all the time.)

2) SEND ALL THREE ALL THE TIME:
When someone calls 9-1-1 it is usually in an emotionally charged state. Something is very wrong, someone is hurt or dying, someone just crashed into their car, the house is on fire, etc. etc. etc. They may or may not be fully aware of the severity of the situation... they may be confused or simply not know how good or bad the situation is.

Also, there might be a large time delay if the wrong rescuer is sent when another is needed. What if the car accident simply looks minor, but in fact, someone is hurt badly or fuel is leaking out in an obscure location that no one sees... until it is too late? Or a smell of smoke in an apartment might bring the fire fighters, only to discover the apartment next door has an unconscious occupant due to smoke inhalation.

Lives are precious and can not be replaced. Vehicle engines, transmissions, tires... these can be repaired or replaced.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Perhaps the best solution is a middle ground... where we do some minor level of triage in order to reduce the time, effort and expense on all three groups... but we also lean towards sending MORE rather than less in any case that possibly warrants it. This would probably only reduce the number of responders in 10-20% of the cases... so the question is would this small savings be worth the additional risk of harm to the public in need?

And... what happens when a call is made and someone later sues the City for not sending all 3 in the first place and they suffer some horrible loss?

I look forward to your comments and thoughts.

Peabody's Top Stories of 2008

A quick recap of what the Salem News (and a few others) considers to be the Top Peabody Stories of 2008

The Salem News: The top 10 local stories of 2008.

Dearborn Fire: May 29, 2008
While it has been stated by several officials that a single cigarette caused this blaze, there are others who see something sinister in the construction of the complex itself. I myself am satisfied with a State Fire Marshall’s report, but there are some who find official reports simply smokescreen when they get in the way of a good old fashioned conspiracy theory. Ahh where are the X-Files when you need them?

The Long saga of John “Jack” Brophy might have finally come to an end in 2008. The story, and the story of the story were interesting to follow. I will not bore people with all the details, but simplify it to this: For missing a 9-1-1 call and other issues Brophy was fired from the Peabody Fire Department, ultimately winning back his job, but then losing it again in a prolonged series of I got YOU… NO, I got YOU between the Mayor, the Chief and Brophy (and the lawyers, of course). The more interesting story to me was the horrendously slanted version of the Dozing Dispatcher played out almost daily in the Salem News. They were the ones to make up this silly name and then they REPORTED that people were calling him that! If I had any doubt about the journalistic integrity of the Salem News, I lost it then. By the way… I have known they have no integrity for a very long time.

Then came Lt. Edward Bettencourt, and another unhappy story. This time of a Peabody Police officer who used his authoritative position to spy on his fellow officers in a seemingly nonsensical action that netted him nothing but I know something you don’t know! Oh, and lost him his job and pension to boot. I was a bit dismayed by the reaction to the courts findings from blog readers. Many people were simply unwilling to consider that the courts were correct in their findings. Lt. Bettencourt could simply NOT be guilty because he coached kids baseball (or somesuch) was the general response. I find that so sad when many of these same people are all too ready to convict other public servants who they disagree with on little or no evidence... simply because they don’t like them.

Peabody Police Officer Justified in Fatal Shooting. This is certainly a sad tale for all involved. While the family might have lost a man dear to them, the officer who was responsible for his safety (and the safety of all of us) will carry this tragic action with him the rest of his life.

Peabody public services director resigns amid rumors. Dick Carnevale resigned as Director of Public Services. He has been a much unloved figure on most of the Peabody blogs for his actions/inactions concerning many issues, but chiefly over his handling of the water treatment waste overflows into Spring Pond. This story has fallen off the pages of the local media… but it is still on the minds of most of the folks who participate in these public forums. I must admit I too am of the opinion that we will never know the true extent of any of these issues.

So those were the big five (or so) as reported. What do you think? Are there any stories that should be included on this list? Please feel free to comment and tell us all how you feel.