Criterion 1: Improve the speed of response to more homes, particularly in the northern part of the Arlington (where data show we need to improve),
Yes - Keep
Particularly if you answered "No" above, please explain and provide any alternate criterion.
No response.
Criterion 2: The future site should improve the Fire Department's ability to serve the entire County with fire/EMS services without adversely affecting service elsewhere (relative to the national standard of 4-6 minutes).
Yes - Keep
Particularly if you answered "No" above, please explain and provide any alternate criterion.
No response.
Criterion 3: Site size of approx. 1.5 acres, preferably County-owned because of budget constraints. (Note: The minimum site of 1.5 acres includes 0.8 acre for a 4-bay fire station and related hardscape, plus a 0.7-acre buffer, if needed.)
Yes - Keep
Particularly if you answered "No" above, please explain and provide any alternate criterion.
No response.
Criterion 4: The site must be on/near an arterial street.
Yes - Keep
Particularly if you answered "No" above, please explain and provide any alternate criterion.
No response.
Share any additional input on the direction you think a community task group should take in helping determine a future location for Fire Station No. 8.
As an Arlington resident and taxpayer, I want to see appropriate consideration of construction requirements, budget, and timelines, and all of the priorities noted above. It is not practical to keep the station at the existing #8 location. I want to see Arlington preserving history, but the history can be honored without us being bound to old HVAC systems or other physical building characteristics that dont meet current requirements -- these are material things! As a taxpayer I want to see construction at a good value (NOT inflated price for being bound to old #8 building). As to the proponents of the alternative plan (keeping #8), would they want to raise taxes or cut other services to achieve their proposed priority? As we make decisions, please be mindful that there is a tendency to be opposed to change for its own sake, and this can lead to poor decisions.
Open Arlington is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open Arlington is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
Translate
Criterion 1: Improve the speed of response to more homes, particularly in the northern part of the Arlington (where data show we need to improve),
Particularly if you answered "No" above, please explain and provide any alternate criterion.
No response.Criterion 2: The future site should improve the Fire Department's ability to serve the entire County with fire/EMS services without adversely affecting service elsewhere (relative to the national standard of 4-6 minutes).
Particularly if you answered "No" above, please explain and provide any alternate criterion.
No response.Criterion 3: Site size of approx. 1.5 acres, preferably County-owned because of budget constraints. (Note: The minimum site of 1.5 acres includes 0.8 acre for a 4-bay fire station and related hardscape, plus a 0.7-acre buffer, if needed.)
Particularly if you answered "No" above, please explain and provide any alternate criterion.
No response.Criterion 4: The site must be on/near an arterial street.
Particularly if you answered "No" above, please explain and provide any alternate criterion.
No response.Share any additional input on the direction you think a community task group should take in helping determine a future location for Fire Station No. 8.
As an Arlington resident and taxpayer, I want to see appropriate consideration of construction requirements, budget, and timelines, and all of the priorities noted above. It is not practical to keep the station at the existing #8 location. I want to see Arlington preserving history, but the history can be honored without us being bound to old HVAC systems or other physical building characteristics that dont meet current requirements -- these are material things! As a taxpayer I want to see construction at a good value (NOT inflated price for being bound to old #8 building). As to the proponents of the alternative plan (keeping #8), would they want to raise taxes or cut other services to achieve their proposed priority? As we make decisions, please be mindful that there is a tendency to be opposed to change for its own sake, and this can lead to poor decisions.