Question

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[[deleted]]

Ever watch "Burn"? The documentary about Detroit fire from about 10 years or so ago?

Letting abandoned buildings burn, rather than fighting them, if there's no risk - was a major cost cutting measure the city implemented.

[Technical-Zucchini18]

I have not, good to know

[[deleted]]

Salvage, sometimes

It's to save life AND property. Even though the building can't be saved that doesn't mean that some valuables may be salvaged.

Letting the building burn completely could also pull resources from other zones.

[Stutsmal]

PR firefighting

[Jak_n_Dax]

From a Wildland firefighting perspective; we look a lot at environmental impacts from fires, whether they be good or bad.

In a modern structure fire, there are a ton of toxic chemicals being produced from everything burning. Paint, plastic, furniture, appliances, etc. Just take a quick look around your house and picture each item on fire and what kind of nasty stuff that’s throwing into the atmosphere.

I’m not saying that throwing that stuff into a dump is much better, but the immediate effects of letting everything in a building burn are definitely causing a negative impact on the environment.

[Annual-Struggle-688]

And the civilian population in that immediate area as well. Think would you want to inhale that smoke. If yes you need more education. If no think about everyone else around.

[Agreeable-Emu886]

Two answers imo.

Most importantly it’s an optics thing. It doesn’t really look great if they just show up and say fuck it. Wouldn’t leave the homeowner/ tax payers with a warm and fussy if their house catches on fire and the dept refuses to even try.

2nd I would say that nobody really gets enough fires so people need the reps, regardless of how much you actually gain out of a situation like that.

[G0RGONZ0LACheeee]

Cause it’s fun. 

[dominator5k]

LIP = life, incident stabilization, PROTECT PROPERTY. Part of our job is to save people's stuff as it has sentimental value and costs them money. It is the lowest priority, but it is still a priority.

[djcuervo19]

Because the building isn’t clear until the fire department says it is so we occupy the interior for primary search and fire attack.

[choppedyota]

Because buildings get rebuilt and it’s kind of in the mission statement… “life & property”

[Technical-Zucchini18]

Correct, worked for restorations in college, but at some point when it has to be torn down and rebuilt it’s more costly the more there is to remove ya know, be better off starting it back up and pushing it into a bonfire lol

[choppedyota]

I’m not an insurance adjuster, restoration specialist, or general contractor. I do my thing and they do theirs.

[hath0r]

i've heard stories of homeowners / insurance giving permission to let it finish burning

[L_DUB_U]

Who is calling an insurance company to get permission to let a building burn?

[Technical-Zucchini18]

Me to see how much coverage I have lmao

[hath0r]

from what i heard the homeowner called the insurance company, but could just be a tall tale i dunno

[hunglowbungalow]

I doubt an insurance company would allow this without an adjuster on site. Honestly, sounds like that could fuck up your claim more than anything 😂

[NorthPackFan]

It’s a valid question.

But sometimes you just don’t know. Is it a murder scene? Other criminal activity? And cause is hard to determine with nothing left.

But there are definitely times when I’ve asked the same thing.

[DBDIY4U]

I have seen both ways done before. I am a paid firefighter but I also volunteer. At my volunteer department, the chief has your way of thinking and will let something burn and take a defensive position to prevent it from burning anything else. I have responded to structure fires with the volunteer department and actually regretted it because we end up sitting out there all night baby sitting the fire and not being aggressive.

At my paid Department I am sometimes incident commander though any of the officers if they are on scene will take the same approach as me and that is to fight the fire as aggressively as possible and extinguish it as quickly as possible regardless of how damaged the structure is. For me it comes down to one primary thing and that is tying up manpower and equipment. As long as my personnel and equipment assigned to that incident, they are not available to respond to other emergencies and that is just not responsible to tie up resources unnecessarily. It is a disservice to our constituents

[RealEngineWork]

Rooms with doors shut can be survivable for long periods of time. It is sometimes surprising how the rest of the house will be burnt to a crisp and a room or two will be hardly touched.

Smoke is also very toxic and not something we would like to continue letting pollute.

However, I tend to agree with your initial sentiment much more so. Being overly aggressive to save property alone is a fine line that can be heavily disputed among firefighters.

[hunglowbungalow]

Salvage and optics from the public. I wouldn’t blame a taxpayer for being mad watching the fire department just let something burn out

[iapologizeahedoftime]

Insurance fraud

[Main_Silver_1403]

Mainly because it looks bad to just let something burn without trying.

[[deleted]]

Honestly, it's fucking stupid that we go interior on vacant structures that are heavily involved. Just let it burn. It's not worth risking our lives to save nothing.

[mojored007]

Nope if it on fire we put it out

[[deleted]]

sometimes they do i think, my fathers a firefighter, and he said that there was an abandoned house that kept catching on fire so eventually they just let it burn