Letter: Future of Town(s) Fire/EMS Services

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

For generations, Berkshire County's fire departments have served their communities with pride. We all respect that history. But history alone cannot answer today's emergencies.

I write this as a son of Berkshire County. I grew up in West Stockbridge and remember the small-town fire service culture of the 1970s and 1980s. But those days are gone. The demands on fire and EMS today are greater, more technical, and more constant. We have got to change.

Massachusetts law sets real standards for firefighter retirement, safety, and training. Public employers must comply with workplace safety rules, and fire-service training is not optional or informal. These are legal and moral obligations. Ignoring them is not tradition. It is failure to the community and first responders.

That failure is sad, yet all too common. And it dismisses our obligation to the people who call 911 expecting a competent response.

We all love volunteers. They are a community necessity and always will be. But volunteers should not be the entire daily operating plan. Most calls now are EMS-related. Everyday response requires an essential core of professional, dually trained firefighters and EMS personnel, with volunteers strengthening the system when resources are strained.


The truth is already in front of us. Mutual aid exists because no town can do it alone. Some Berkshire communities are already moving toward shared-service models with full-time staffing, shared equipment, and regional planning. That is not a threat to local identity. It is the future of effective community safety.

We also need to be honest about waste. Small departments cannot keep spending limited tax dollars on redundant equipment, duplicate apparatus, and layers of administrative overhead while service gaps grow. The public deserves readiness, competence, and accountability.

The real question is simple: are we protecting today's communities, or preserving a bygone era because elected and appointed officials are afraid to think differently?

Berkshire County does not need less heart. It needs more honesty, more professionalism, and more regional leadership.

The path forward is clear. Towns must work together under one umbrella of care. Everything else risks becoming a defense of the status quo when the public deserves better.

Christian Tobin
Naples, Fla.

 

 

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Pittsfield Reviews Financial Condition Before FY27 Budget

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The average single-family home in Pittsfield has increased by more than 40 percent since 2022. 

This was reported during a joint meeting of the City Council and School Committee on March 19, when the city's financial condition was reviewed ahead of the fiscal year 2027 budget process.

Mayor Peter Marchetti said the administration is getting "granular" with line items to find cost savings in the budget.  At the time, they had spoken to a handful of departments, asking tough questions and identifying vacancies and retirements. 

Last fiscal year’s $226,246,942 spending plan was a nearly 4.8 percent increase from FY24. 

In the last five years, the average single-family home in Pittsfield has increased 42 percent, from $222,073 in 2022 to $315,335 in 2026. 

"Your tax bill is your property value times the tax rate," the mayor explained. 

"When the tax rate goes up, it's usually because property values have gone down. When the property values go up, the tax rate comes down." 

Tax bills have increased on average by $280 per year over the last five years; the average home costs $5,518 annually in 2026. In 2022, the residential tax rate was $18.56 per thousand dollars of valuation, and the tax rate is $17.50 in 2026. 

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories