Kyle and her husband moved to Brookfield in 1986. She became active in local politics and started blogging in 2004. Her focus is primarily on local issues but often includes state and national topics, too. Kyle looks at things from the taxpayers' perspective in a creative, yet down to earth way, addressing them from a practical point of view.
Today's Journal article, Larger fire stations considered, brings us nearly full circle in the continuing EMS/fire station relocation saga. (My emphasis throughout.)
Update: I heard the Plan Commission meeting was well attended. If I hear anything more, I will post the info.
If we are following what the Task Force recommended, then why are not the other 3 possible Greenfield locations being discussed? I believe they should be brought to the table too.
I still strongly believe that our station is already in the right place. I can see that a location on Greenfield between Moorland and Calhoun might speed up dispatch to easterly district 7 locations and destinations to the west too. (It does not help the Brookfield Square/hot zone or interstate calls though.) There would not be any need to negotiate pulling out onto Moorland from Hackberry or from Moorland onto Greenfield, if it already was on Greenfield.The NW corner is really a mistake if we are trying to aid dispatch to the north via Calhoun. There is no easy way for a NW corner property to dispatch trucks northbound from a busy boulevard intersection! Since this was one of the main reasons that Chief Dahms gave for favoring the new alignment (when I met with him), the NW corner seems to be the most inferior station location for this purpose. Placing it on NW Calhoun would also cause some delay for calls to the east because the light/intersection must be taken into consideration as well as the greater distance. If we are truly trying to balance response times, these two locations, NW Calhoun and NE Calhoun, fail miserably.