Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAnother Way The Rich Are Different: 'Concierge-Level' Fire Protection
RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF. - Bryce Carrier's cellphone rang at 3 a.m.: Help! The fire is almost to my house.Carrier hopped into his heavy-duty red Ford F-550 and sped to northeast Poway, dodging fallen eucalyptus and heading straight toward the wind-whipped blaze. He arrived to find flames marching up an embankment toward the multimillion-dollar home.
Yanking out the hose in the back of his truck, he began applying Phos-Chek fire retardant along the perimeter of the property, the shrubs and the roof. When the flames hit the milky white liquid, they stopped.
Another home saved.
Carrier is a certified firefighter, but he doesn't work for a government agency. He's an employee of Firebreak Spray Systems, which partners with the insurance company American International Group Inc. to protect the mansions of the moneyed.
AIG's Wildfire Protection Unit, part of its Private Client Group, is offered only to homeowners in California's most affluent ZIP Codes -- including Malibu, Beverly Hills, Newport Beach and Menlo Park -- and a dozen Colorado resort communities. It covers about 2,000 policyholders, who pay premiums of at least $10,000 a year and own homes with a value of at least $1 million.
Carrier and his 15 crew mates sprayed retardant on and around more than 160 homes in Malibu, Lake Arrowhead and the hardest-hit areas of Orange and San Diego counties this week. They claim to have saved a dozen homes.
Jim Moore of Malibu, for one, was grateful for their services.
"Just picture it," said Moore, whose house was sprayed by Firebreak early Monday. "Here you are in that raging wildfire. Smoke everywhere. Flames everywhere. Plumes of smoke coming up over the hills. Here's a couple guys showing up in what looks like a firetruck who are experts trained in fighting wildfire and they're there specifically to protect your home. . . . It was really, really comforting."
For the insurance company, it's also savvy business. One saved home covers the cost of the program.
"We are saving homes that may average $3 million to $5 million," said Firebreak Chief Executive Jim Aamodt. "Those are the hard dollars, money the insurance company is not paying out."
AIG says the service is not a replacement for public fire departments; after all, the insurer did lose some houses. But like an air bag in a car crash, the company says, it's better than nothing.
Others say that it's just another way for the wealthy to buy their way around cash-strapped, understaffed public services. Firefighters across the region have complained this week that they simply did not have enough trucks, helicopters and airplanes.
"What we have is a dangerous confluence of events: underfunded states, increasingly inefficient disaster response, a loss of faith in the public sphere . . . and a growing part of the economy that sees disaster as a promising new market," said Naomi Klein, whose new book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," looks at, among other things, the response to Hurricane Katrina.
Klein said AIG offers a glimpse into the future of what she calls "disaster apartheid," in which the affluent are better equipped for emergencies.
"You can't fault businesses for seeing an opportunity, and you can't fault individuals for wanting to protect their property. Pretty much anyone who could afford it would want it," she said. "But survival shouldn't be a luxury item."
AIG said it did apply fire retardant to homes of some standard policyholders if they happened to be nearby, because it made financial sense. Though AIG is the only insurance company to provide emergency fire response teams, there are other fire prevention businesses that cater to the elite.
As blazes raged in Malibu this week, camera crews captured a groundskeeper at movie producer Jeffrey Katzenberg's mansion coating the building with foam using a system installed several years ago.
Firebreak sells similar retardant systems apart from its work with AIG and says sales have tripled over last year. Installation costs about $10,000 for a device that can be activated remotely or deployed automatically when sensors detect fire approaching.
More-frugal homeowners can spend $1,000 to buy Phos-Chek, the same retardant used by the U.S. Forest Service but without the red coloring. The concentrate is mixed with water and applied with a hose.
AIG's private fire service approach isn't exactly new. In the 1800s, many firefighters worked for for-profit companies and would battle blazes only for those with insurance. Insurers in places including Richmond, Va., gave their clients plaques to alert crews that their homes had coverage.
AIG began its Private Client Group insurance in 2000, and it has since grown to almost $1 billion in gross premiums.
Besides specialty fire protection, in Florida AIG offers a similar service for hurricanes, dispatching pre-disaster consultants to assess shutter protection, property storage and landscaping. Home restoration teams head in after storms to help with immediate repairs, even before claims are reported, said Todd Triano, vice president of loss prevention for AIG Private Client Group.
On Thursday, AIG and Firebreak teams fanned out across San Diego County, returning to homes they had sprayed to assess saves and losses. On one block of Zumaque Street in Rancho Santa Fe, with homes all around burnt to the ground, Aamodt surveyed two surviving homes bounded by blackened mountainside and singed trees.
"This is a classic use of Phos-Chek," Aamodt said, pointing at shrubs that were half blackened and half green. "It chars at the edge of the Phos-Chek line and then it stops. . . . This is a great feeling. We're ecstatic."
One of the houses is owned by Kerry Roland, who returned home Thursday feeling lucky. Three houses to the south and one just north were gone.
Roland said she believed a number of factors contributed to the save, including firefighters who had put out a flare-up on her roof before AIG arrived; sprinklers she kept running; and the location of her house, on the crest of the ridge.
"When I packed up and left on Monday morning, I didn't think our home would survive," said Roland, 51. "It's amazing, isn't it? My property and the one opposite me, we both had fire retardant used."
Local firefighters have mixed opinions about the value of services such as Firebreak.
Capt. Dan Froelich of San Diego Fire and Rescue said he was concerned what could happen if private companies sent undertrained, ill-equipped crews into fire zones and the crews got trapped and needed rescuing.
But Maurice Luque, a spokesman for San Diego Fire and Rescue, said fire retardant could be effective.
"The stuff works really well," he said, noting that private companies are used more in eastern San Diego County.
In such places, he said, there are not many fire agencies and response times can be long. "The residents have to fend for themselves in these mountain or remote areas," he said.
Times staff writer Tami Abdollah contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Los Angeles Times
24 Comments so far
Show AllHere's what those wealthy millionaires can do for their communities: hire private firefighters for the whole community so that both the rich and the middle class and poor receive the same benefits. I mean do the rich really have to own more than one house, fly their own jet, and actually the rich own more than one house usually. A sane society is one that cares for all peoples alike.
the rich loot public services and then use the money for their private 'public' services. free market at work.
One does not have to take on an adolescent misanthropic mantle to talk about the diametrical difference of response by the White House between Katrina and California fire damage. Commenter Paris says a lot of truth but so does restive. I can only hope that when it comes time to vote, Republicans and their buddies will not be the winners, again. Rich then would be relative, ezeflyer, it is "ut est via res es." Anney, you just make too much sense. And BTW, WmC, do you know how many properties fire fighters gain ownership of during their tenure? It is staggering. This really ought to be a 60 Minutes investigation. Nevertheless, firefighters are definitely heroic in fire disasters. Uh, thevideoqueen, two of the rich blast Bush, who do the rest support? But you are right on about corporations. That is the greatest message Nader can keep harping about if he really wants to do the nation a service.
Fire protection, health care, cleaner environment, schools, lots of things with a similar characteristic.
That is, the more Democrats you have in government, the more of those things you have available to all classes of society, not just the "rich."
Rich people oppose Bush and his neocon agenda as much as regular people. Trump blasted Bush on business show The Big Idea" in March 2007 calling Bush "the worst president ever." Host and billionaire Donny Deutsch jumped right in and agreed. It was a dramatic couldn't hold themselves back moment.
I've had the pleasure of meeting many many rich people and they all agree that Bush is an embarrassment and they will celebrate when Bush is gone.
In contrast, I'm not aware of any antiBush sentiment coming from large corporations. Large corporations are the ones that need to be controlled and regulated into behaving humanely.
Ah yes. Shades of Marcus Crassus, who rushed to a fire with a crew of 500, but didn't douse the fire until he had negotiated a (sale) price. Now there was a real enterprenuer! (Not to mention the source of the word "crass.")
I used to live in a wealthy community 20 years ago, that levied a $300 annual subscription to cover fire and ambulance services, because residents were so opposed to having their taxes raised. The program was discontinued after 2 years, and taxes were raised. Why? Because their were many elderly residents, living in multi million dollar homes, who were on fixed incomes, and were the most frequent users of these services. I do understand the issue of insurance companies prioritizing reducing losses on the most expensive homes, and other insurees do benefit from less rate hikes from insurance companies taking proactive care in financially risky areas.
Privatizing fire and rescue services do drain resources from the public at large, and make it more difficult to coordinate services. Think of all of the private security companies operating in Iraq. Remember Fallujah happened because our armed forces were drawn in because some Blackwater contractors got themselves strung up on a bridge.
Paris,
"Oh yeah! I can just hear the fire fighters swearing "Those dirty(*&%$#$# rich people saving their million dollar homes, leaving me here to protect the unfortunates when I could be ignoring them and saving a million dollar home…just like those dirty%^&%$#rich!"
Stop with the knee jerk reactions that rich people are bad and poor people are good…"
Now, where exactly did I say that? What I said was, if you took the time to read the all of three lines I wrote, "Also, the public services that remain tend to be much more stable in wealthy areas than in poor ones." I did also say "The issue isn't saving property - it's whose property gets saved and who doesn't," but looks like, all due respect, you're the one who needs to do the thinking here. I was *advocating* for firefighters as a free social service *for all*, not for cutting their funds because they prioritize houses. lol I mean, honestly. I have been around, I know that public firefighters don't auction themselves off to the highest bidder. I'm sure firefighters who don't get the same level of response equipment that they do in rich neighborhoods would love the support, just as teachers that work in poor school districts would love more resources.
Inferred in what you're saying though seems to be "it's not the problem of rich folks, but it's the government". Last time I looked, the government acted and behaved like a plutocracy, so there's there's more than a little bit of overlap between "the rich" and "the government". This administration would not be able to function if it were not for the corporations - or more exactly, the corporations they have partnerships with, which last time I looked, were run by very rich people indeed. Are all rich people like this? No, but the system they support benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. Does it have to be this way? I suppose that depends on whether or not you think capitalism is a rigged system. I think it is, and I have a ton of evidence to back up that claim. What say you?
You see there is no getting around paying "taxes" just because you call it pay for private and elite services. If the Elite Providers are racking up billions in profits then that is billions that was redirected away from fully funding the public's services.
The Scam is on the "Rich" as much as on "The Rest."
If the rich just paid the fees as taxes to the common democratic government and it was run not as a sarcasm by treasonist who use their media and school system to confuse and set up the "Rich" to believe they are pulling a fast one and getting one over the "Masses" there would be the funding for a responsive sufficient emergency, safety resources for everyone. That is the whole point behind the social contract; it puts the civil in "civilization."
The "Rich" don't even get away from paying taxes they are merely scammed into redirecting it toward a private, non representative system of "governance."
Of course in the mean time the Rich get the Goodies and are told they deserve it. And they so want to believe it too. And the poor will suffer.
iowarish...if Jim and his daughter lived close enough to see the rich mans house....they could affort the service too
they dont let the poor anywhere near the area.
Homeland Security distributes millions of dollars, some of it through FEMA. Why isn't that money used to beef up fire departments so they can actually prevent fire damage? Fires are natural disasters, just like hurricanes, and FEMA was established to offer aid when there are natural disasters.
Bash the "rich" all y'all want and with many good reasons, but the more Blackwater Fire Depts they employ, the more public resources are available for the public. State and local firefighters do not, normally, risk their lives based on class or income level - they are one of the few categories of Americans who still take their oath seriously. If the obscenely wealthy wishes to spend obscene amounts of money to protect their obscenely huge home which is built in the least accessible of areas, God bless 'em.
We should all be rich. The super-rich keep us poor.
Oh yeah! I can just hear the fire fighters swearing "Those dirty(*&%$#$# rich people saving their million dollar homes, leaving me here to protect the unfortunates when I could be ignoring them and saving a million dollar home...just like those dirty%^&%$#rich!"
Stop with the knee jerk reactions that rich people are bad and poor people are good...I have been rich and I have been poor and Rich is much much better, and I was putting my money into the National Resource Defense Counsil, Move On, Animals Rights, and a variety of organizations that I could afford to support...in short I put my money where your mouth is!
Did it every occur to you that the rich probably think they are being ripped off paying $10,000 annually for a service they may never have to use...
Katrina was the governments fault not the rich! If we weren't in Iraq maybe there would have been personnel and resources to save lives and propery ~ including pets!
Paris,
"Personally, I'm on the side of saving property ~ the less destruction the better! Why condemn people who love their homes as much as the rest of us rich or poor"
The issue isn't saving property - it's whose property gets saved and who doesn't. Remember Katrina? The rich got out, and the poor were left to drown or be shot by the cops, when in fact *none* of that needed to happen. Also, the public services that remain tend to be much more stable in wealthy areas than in poor ones.
Incorporate We the People and we will all be rich.
This is just a another regression to the robber barron days when firefighting was privatized. Fire companies would make the homeowner pay them their customary fee before they would reach for the hoses.
It may be "concierge" service now, but that will be followed by defunding of public fire fighters, until fee-for-service fire fighting is the only thing left.
It's easy to hate the rich, but if you had the means wouldn't you want to protect your property ~ it only makes sense,and it's not the rich to set the price it's the businesses who know they can charge outrageous prices because the rich can afford to pay them!
Personally, I'm on the side of saving property ~ the less destruction the better! Why condemn people who love their homes as much as the rest of us rich or poor>
Looks like firefighting is going the way of healthcare: if you have money, you're covered.
The "rich" have sealed their doom. The tsunami of the "not-rich" will roll over them and destroy them when the time comes.
No mercy.
"Just let me know, Jim, what really really comforting words you would share with your daughter."
Not to worry, Jim lives in one of those "proper kinds of neighborhoods"; I'm sure the only people he comes in contact with that aren't insured up to their eyeballs are the people he pays to clean his floors.
To Jim Moore, quoted in the article, "Just picture it,. Here you are in that raging wildfire. Smoke everywhere. Flames everywhere. Plumes of smoke coming up over the hills. Here's a couple guys showing up in what looks like a firetruck who are experts trained in fighting wildfire and they're there specifically to protect your home. . . . It was really, really comforting."
Just picture this: You are a father, holding your terrified 3-year-old daughter, watching the plumes of smoke, feeling the intensity of the heat as the fire consumes your neighbor's house and is on its way towards yours. Your daughter looks up through her tears to see men doing something to protect the house on top of the mountain. Your daughter asks you, how come those men aren't protecting our house Daddy? Our house is closer to the fire. Are they going to come here next, Daddy?
Just let me know, Jim, what really really comforting words you would share with your daughter.
Oh wait. I forgot. Jim, you're one of the wealthy who is entitled to comfort. The unwealthy Joes, and their daughters, aren't worthy of such a thing. After all, if they were worthy, they'd be wealthy, just like you.
Guess what, it is better to be rich and it sucks to be poor, is this a real newsbreaker for anyone?
While it does seem unfair, what is the alternative? Before these companies were created, weren't there still the same workload on firemen? And haven't the fires increased drastically (fourfold?) in the last 5-10 years? They are filling the niche that wasn't going away thanks to the state or federal government.
Would it be 'okay' if the company offered 'normal and low priced' fire protection insurance with the same services, for average and lower priced homes?