To the Bulletin:
A few weeks ago, I had a bike accident resulting in a pelvic fracture and a trip in an ambulance.
One of the EMTs mentioned that the Amherst EMTs are, on a per-call basis, the most understaffed response team in the state. I noticed that mine was one of 74 ambulance calls that week. It was a pretty straightforward case - strap me to a back board, schlep me to the ER, no resuscitation on the way, no messy clean-up afterward - yet more than an hour after arriving at the hospital, one of the EMTs was still completing paperwork and retrieving gear.
So, by the time the ambulance and its crew were back to the "ready to roll position" in Amherst, the call took a minimum of 3.5 or 4 hours. Multiplied by 74, that means the Amherst EMTs were on the road a minimum of 259 hours that week. It would seem the network is being pushed to the limit.
Apparently the "No" voters want every system - emergency response, maintenance, school, you name it - functioning at the absolute break-down limit. And I have a suspicion that many of the same voters will shriek in protest, or maybe just sue the town, when the current budget fiasco results in something more tangible than a drop in school performance, impacting directly upon their lives.
I hope this uncharitable assessment is wrong, but I hope even more that we never have a chance to find out. Perhaps "No" voters can ignore larger class sizes and fewer courses and activities for the town's children. But if their car ever breaks an axle in an unfilled pothole, if their home is ever ablaze and the Fire Department doesn't arrive pronto, if they are once left waiting, lying in pain on an unswept roadside for an ambulance to arrive, my guess is they will rethink every single "No" vote.
John Varner
Amherst
Source: Amherst Bulletin, April 27, 2007 - Letters
