When is a vacant.....not a vacant?

[x129K 1,393]

There are plenty of vacants in every township and city across the US...and in most urban areas, they account for a large portion of work for fire and police....

With the current economic crisis, the proliferation of buildings of all styles and sizes becoming vacant is astounding...and many are in severe disrepair. That will not be changing anytime soon sadly, so we must adapt to it - we meaning suburban and more rural departments...as you urban fireman have been dealing with these for..well, forever.

In a class, the slide show had some vacant buildings on it, and I found some of the remarks and responses to be concerning...

One pic showed a vacant with windows and doors covered in plywood...fire had good control of the attic and there were guys on the roof near the dormers..."Why? It's just an abandoned building". Why indeed.

Looking at the pic, I pointed out how the boards on 2 of the 3 basment windows were removed. I stated "That's where the squatters are getting in. The guys by the dormers just VES'ed."

No, I don't have three heads...but the looks said otherwise.

But that cant happen here in the sticks...this isnt the Big City....right?

What about the hardowrking guy who works all of his life to pay a mortgage and loses his job due to the economy..the house is forclosed on, but his proud, stubborn, self "breaks back into" his own house for a plce to stay...(I know if I were in that situation, I WOULD!)NO heat or elctric, he does what he needs to for warmth...a fire starts.

What about the local teens who break into a vacant house in the neighborhood to partake in the latest craze....heroin..(it's the new weed around here sadly!)..they may overdose or nod off for a while..smokign materials fall to the trash laden floor...a fire starts.

What about the group of "undocumented immigrants" that seem to take over areas...they work for peanuts, and spend those peanuts on beer...so maybe they take up residency in a local vacant...a late night of partying, they pass out..a fire starts.

What about the scrappers...they break into a vacant to steal any metal they can...cutting out pipes with a torch...a fire starts.

Far fetched in suburbia? You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think a vacant is 100 percent vacant 100 percent of the time. Food for thought.

While I respect the opinions of the guys involved in that class, I just want to point out that it CAN happen around here...to expect it..to prepare for it. Will it happen? I hope not...just keep your mind open.

Am I advocating rushing into and on every vacant building on fire? Hell no, I dont want to die for a vacant...I don't want to get hurt on a vacant. But if there is even a slight indication that there is a life inside that building, we need to be prepared to fight that fire aggressivly..like any other house fire.

Edited February 26, 2012 by x129K

[wraftery 1,275]

A Vacant is not a vacant once the Primary and Secondary searches are completed and negative.

But be careful when operating in a possible vacant.

[NJMedic 96]

Wish it was that easy. Our last greater alarm fire took two 2.5 WFDs with it with damage to a third. Started by squatters, who were luckey to leave before anyone got there.

Edited February 26, 2012 by NJMedic

[x129K 1,393]

Wish it was that easy. Our last greater alarm fire took two 2.5 WFDs with it with damage to a third. Started by squatters, who were luckey to live before anyone got there.

Was this in an urban or suburban area?

[ny10570 745]

Every time people try and write off a structure as just a vacant my immediate question is how'd the fire start? Generally when a building is boarded up the utilities are shut off.

[x129K 1,393]

Every time people try and write off a structure as just a vacant my immediate question is how'd the fire start? Generally when a building is boarded up the utilities are shut off.

Bingo.

All too often we get in the mindset that the fire MUST be an arson job and the suspect is long gone. Not the case alot of times.

[x129K 1,393]

While Camden is a FARRRRRRRRRR cry from where I am from, this is, as always, a good read from Gabe;

http://cmdfd.blogspot.com/2012/01/some-vacants-episode-1.html

[FireMedic049 597]

Am I advocating rushing into and on every vacant building on fire? Hell no, I dont want to die for a vacant...I don't want to get hurt on a vacant. But if there is even a slight indication that there is a life inside that building, we need to be prepared to fight that fire aggressivly..like any other house fire.

I sort of disagree.

We should be prepared to fight any fire that we respond to in an aggressive manor regardless of the life safety status, however we also have to consider the big picture once we arrive and see the battlefield at hand.

There is a big difference between an unoccupied house (as in when the building is not in disrepair, but doesn't have a current occupant) and an abandoned/derelict house (as in the building is in disrepair, boarded up, structural damage, etc.). Both are theoretically "vacant" buildings, but should not be handled in the same fashion - even if there potentially is a victim inside.

There is also a big difference between a well involved fire in an early 1900s residence and one of modern lightweight construction.

Another part of that big picture that needs to be considered is what is the realistic chances that there is an actual occupant inside? Are you in an urban setting with a large number of vacant building in which squatters and other unauthorized occupants is common or in a rural/suburban area in which vacant buildings and squatters are not commonplace?

If the fire/building conditions are marginal for interior operations and all you have regarding somebody being inside is speculation, then the risk/reward profile in the second setting may not be high enough to justify the same aggressive tactics that may be appropriate for the first setting.

[x129K 1,393]

I sort of disagree.

We should be prepared to fight any fire that we respond to in an aggressive manor regardless of the life safety status, however we also have to consider the big picture once we arrive and see the battlefield at hand.

There is a big difference between an unoccupied house (as in when the building is not in disrepair, but doesn't have a current occupant) and an abandoned/derelict house (as in the building is in disrepair, boarded up, structural damage, etc.). Both are theoretically "vacant" buildings, but should not be handled in the same fashion - even if there potentially is a victim inside.

There is also a big difference between a well involved fire in an early 1900s residence and one of modern lightweight construction.

Another part of that big picture that needs to be considered is what is the realistic chances that there is an actual occupant inside? Are you in an urban setting with a large number of vacant building in which squatters and other unauthorized occupants is common or in a rural/suburban area in which vacant buildings and squatters are not commonplace?

If the fire/building conditions are marginal for interior operations and all you have regarding somebody being inside is speculation, then the risk/reward profile in the second setting may not be high enough to justify the same aggressive tactics that may be appropriate for the first setting.

Agreed..I just didnt want to come across looking like a 'cowboy" who rushes into any fire without thinking or doing a proper size up.

[FireMedic049 597]

Bingo.

All too often we get in the mindset that the fire MUST be an arson job and the suspect is long gone. Not the case alot of times.

What do you consider "a lot of times" to be? What is your source for that statistic because that is not my experience?

I work in a economically distressed small city. We have one of the highest arson rates in our County - excluding the one large city there. I can say without a doubt that for all of our arson jobs in vacant buildings over the last 10 years, there have been no victims inside the building.

I would suspect that nationally the total number of times the person(s) who caused the fire are still inside when the FD arrives would amount to "a lot of times", however I would also suspect that the number of times this happens in the vast majority of jurisdictions is rather infrequent.

[NJMedic 96]

Was this in an urban or suburban area?

Urban.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I for one do not feel that a vacant by any stretch should be tackled with a same level of aggressiveness as any other type of incident. Incident priority 1 is life safety. Yes ensure there is no one in there. Once you do you become the life safety risk. Why put members on the roof? I can think of several departments that wished they hadn't. I'm not saying not to do what is second nature but I for one would rather be on a short leash and have my personnel on a short leash. My life nor yours is more important than a vacant structure. They will be watching tv 2 months later in a new place where you died.

I place vacant and unoccupied in 2 separate categories and none of my co workers would be confused by it. If it's in business or lived in and no one is inside...it's unoccupied. If it has no furniture, boarded up, has no current business owner, no one living in the space...it's vacant. Dilapidated or not. It's sad to say but we are dealing with more and more "throw away" buildings built cheap and fast and replaced even faster.

[sfrd18 360]

While Camden is a FARRRRRRRRRR cry from where I am from, this is, as always, a good read from Gabe;

http://cmdfd.blogspot.com/2012/01/some-vacants-episode-1.html

Mr. Angemi is the man. He really advocates for firefighting in vacants, especially what to watch out for.

Vacants, in my opinion, should never be underestimated, and can exist in both urban and suburban areas.

[squadstuff 11]

Mr. Angemi is the man. He really advocates for firefighting in vacants, especially what to watch out for.

Vacants, in my opinion, should never be underestimated, and can exist in both urban and suburban areas.

This is from a 4th alarm fire in New Haven CT. The buildings on this block were preplanned and vacant. The woman in the 3rd floor window showed about 14 minutes after arrival. We were in defensive mode until she showed up.

Also, this building was exposure 4. The main fire building was fully involved.

[mstrang1 213]

A mouse started the fire...