Pittsburgh, like other cities, has gotten good at preventing fires. Improved building codes, new sprinkler systems and wide use of smoke detectors have all combined to cut the number of structural blazes. Credit is also due to a well-trained and well-equipped fire department.
In 1992, for instance, the city had 578 structural fires. In 2002, however, the number was only 352 -- a plunge of 39 percent. Not only that, but there are fewer city residents to start fires these days. What was the nation's 40th-largest city in 1990, with 370,000 people, now ranks 52nd with 334,000.
Yet, while other cities have reaped the savings from modern fire safety standards, prevention and readiness, Pittsburgh rejects the opportunity.
A landmark competitiveness study in 1996 showed that while Pittsburgh has 24 firefighters for every 10,000 people, cities of comparable size had only 16. While Pittsburgh has 35 fire stations, the average in comparable cities at the time of the study was 22.
In short, Pittsburgh taxpayers are paying to fight the fires of yesteryear, fires that no longer occur. What's worse is that city residents can no longer afford it.
If Pittsburgh doesn't find a way to quickly and sensibly close a $60 million budget gap, it could be bankrupt by the end of the year. Much of that gap is due to economic decisions -- like cutting the number of fire stations -- that were put off and and put off. It's time for the city to reckon with reality.
The Murphy administration has proposed closing nine fire stations, as part of a plan to merge the city's fire and emergency medical service units. The overall combination could save the city $7.5 million this year.
While the measure is only one of many steps that Mayor Tom Murphy must take to change the city's perilous financial course, closing excess fire stations is not new. It was most recently proposed last November when the PGH 21 task force developed an action plan for the city's fiscal survival. And it was one of the recommendations seven years ago of the Competitive Pittsburgh Task Force headed by Paul O'Neill, then Alcoa's CEO and later U.S. secretary of the treasury.
Although the numbers demonstrate that both fire stations and firefighters could be cut in Pittsburgh without compromising safety, some residents aren't swayed by rational arguments. They don't want to lose the firehouse around the corner and they believe that their home's very security hinges on close proximity to a stable full of fire wagons. If only every city resident had that luxury.
Not everyone lives across the street from a park or down the block from a police station or up the hill from a swimming pool, yet the quality of life they have in this town is good, despite some challenging economics. They are well-endowed -- no, make that overly endowed -- with fire protection, too.
It's time to end the battles against right-sizing the number of fire stations. Citizens who wage them only become tools of the firefighters union and obstacles to their city's survival.
Pittsburgh is well past the day when it can afford such fat in its operation. When unneeded fire stations stay open, it's public money that is being burned.
E-mail this story 
