Fire Union Takes Side Against Veterans

Veterans do not want this to become a conflict with firefighters—we’ve always stood shoulder to shoulder. Many first responders are veterans themselves, and we’ve supported one another through shared service and sacrifice.

Unfortunately, Fire Union leadership—specifically President Vince Wells—has chosen a different path. In a meeting with our Board, Mr. Wells said that if we did not stand down, he would organize a protest against our veterans hall. We told him, as we tell all firefighters, we’d rather invite them in for a beer.

This isn’t about firefighters versus veterans. It’s about the County weaponizing the fire union to pressure veterans off land dedicated solely to their use. The rank-and-file firefighters have not been told the full story. This is about honoring legal commitments, not bullying veterans or the City into submission.

Text String

DH (BVMB Board Member)

I want to be clear—we’re not against firefighters, and we’ve said that from the start. This is a sincere question: Do you believe placing Station 94 downtown was a well-planned decision? MacAlister is on record saying it was “inherited,” based on a decade-old report that excludes 25,000 Brentwood residents, overlaps Station 92’s 4-min response zone, and leaves most of Brentwood outside that critical window. In your professional opinion—yes or no—is that good planning?

VW (Union President)

Don, as I shared with you, we obviously have nothing against Veterans being veterans ourselves but as I shared with you since 2006 I have represented the East Contra Costa Firefighters who are now Con fire Firefighters and in 2014 when that station closed we always planned to reopen it It wasn't until the property line got drawn and then I heard you guys were upset about it and offered to help before it came to this. Yes in my professional opinion that is the right location and as far as planning that was always the plan. We just needed the money. We sold measure X to East county community that it would reopen 54 and add more stations. I'm not sure about any conversations you've had with Chief McCallister, but all of my conversations with them have always been rebuilding that Station once we agreed to let them tear it down. I don't know how it ever got considered the wrong location. In our conversations, I recall you guys saying you didn't mind the station being there. You just wanted some land issues resolved and improvements made,and things escalated. We would do anything to defend your hall to assure you don't lose it but as far as rebuilding that Station once again, that's always been the plan since it closed. Lots of changes in board members, chiefs, and council members. Im the only one constant.We always wanted that station back. Relocation would set us back 3 to 4 more years before building a new station and occupying it. Finding a new site, CEQA requirements, contractor,not to mention the cost are skyrocketing, specially now with these tariffs. Hope this helps.

DH

I really appreciate your response and your service—not only as a firefighter but as someone who's been a consistent advocate for East County for many years. I want to reiterate that our issue has never been with firefighters, and we absolutely support the need for more stations. What we are questioning is the planning process that led to placing a critical public safety asset on land that, by state law (Mil. & Vet. Code § 1262(f)), was dedicated to veterans' use when it was purchased through a voter-approved tax in 1923.

You mention that rebuilding Station 54 downtown was always the plan. I respect that, but respectfully, plans—even long-standing ones—should be re-evaluated when conditions change. Since 2014, Brentwood has added over 15,000 residents and is expected to add 10,000 more. The downtown site, as you know, overlaps Station 92’s 4-minute response zone and still leaves much of Brentwood—especially the northwest—underprotected. That’s not just a land issue. It’s a service equity issue.

The Sand Creek lot was bought and set aside precisely for this purpose. It's build-ready. Deputy Chief McAlister acknowledged in public meetings that the site was never evaluated in the Citygate report. Why? If we’re trying to make the best long-term decision for public safety, why wasn’t a fair analysis ever done?

We’ve consistently said we are not opposed to a new fire station—only that we believe the best solution, in light of current realities, is being overlooked for bureaucratic convenience. We’ve also said we're willing to work together on land improvements and even recognize shared heritage with firefighter veterans.

Let’s not pit firefighters and veterans against each other. We both serve the same community. But good planning means updating assumptions, not clinging to inherited plans when facts have changed. I’d welcome a real conversation with you and others at the table to find a solution that meets public safety needs and honors legal commitments to veterans. That said do you think in your professional opinion was this good planning? 

On further reflection, I’d also ask: Are we really saying that because a decision was made a decade ago—even with flawed or incomplete assumptions—that we should now just stick to it no matter what? Even when it involves taking land dedicated to veterans? That doesn’t seem like sound reasoning to me. Does it to you?

VW

As I said before, I've been out there since 2006 and this is the first time that I've heard all this discussion about Sand Creek. The same argument that is being used about a decade of time passing and growth in Brentwood , why is looking at a site that was considered in 2005 not under the same Skepticism?The Fire district has sophisticated software as they call a "heat map" that shows the downtown station is a good location for improved response times in the area and with all due respect I'll take the word of the fire adninistration on determining the best location. If Sand Creek was being considered the fire district does not own that property and once again we would be starting all over with environmental reports, CEQA,hiring a contractor it would be 3 to 4 years before a Station would be occupied. As far as the veterans rights to that land, I get different information from the county and it's my understanding that the property has been deeded to the Fire district. Not being a land use Attorney I cant speak to that. That is where the discussion should've remained instead of being about the station location. Seems like determining the ownership of the land could have been resolved legally. There are people bringing up all kinds of past information when the decision makers have all changed since any of those reports were done. When Con Fire took over the jurisdiction, they became the decision makers regarding staffing and stations in my opinion.They weren't part of 2005, they weren't part of 2014. They took over July 21 and should have the right to make decisions regarding The Fire district from that point on. As I told you when we met, we did not want to see this become a firefighter versus Veterans and I still feel the same way. You would never hear me making the argument on your entitlement to that land or not; that discussion as I said, would be between you and the county and what I'm being told is they don't share the same opinion as you do, but that's not my argument to make. I'm just disappointed that your group has started putting out information such as the Sand Creek location availability, issues with traffic and other areas that are in "our" lane and not accurate, causing delays in the station. That's what's disappointing. We are always willing to sit down to discuss this more if that would help. As far as we're concerned, our focus now is the appeal to the Brentwood City Council of the Planning Commission's decision to reject the permit based on design review. Will you be speaking against the building of the fire station Tuesday night on issues "your" issues related to the land or will you be speaking against the Station based on "our" issues related design review?

DH

Vince,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate the years of commitment you’ve shown, and I know your intent is to do what’s best for Brentwood and East County. But after further reflection, I don’t think you have all the facts—and I say that with respect, not accusation.

The Sand Creek lot wasn’t some hypothetical idea from 2005—it was specifically designed and designated as the replacement site for Station 54. That’s in the development agreement. So no, we’re not saying to blindly accept a 20-year-old plan—we’re saying, why didn’t the Fire District at least evaluate it? Isn’t that what sound planning demands?

The City of Brentwood formally offered to reopen discussions on the Sand Creek site, and Deputy Chief McAlister turned that down. CEQA has already been completed for the property—it is literally shovel ready. How does that not concern you?

As the union rep, do you really want to hang your hat on the fastest and cheapest route being the best solution? Because that’s what this looks like. We’re not pulling arguments out of thin air—we’re citing Citygate’s own maps and data, which show the downtown location overlaps the 4-minute response zone of Station 92 and leaves most of Brentwood outside that threshold. That’s not conjecture. That’s from the very report being used to justify this build.

I can’t understand how, with Brentwood adding over 25,000 new residents since that 2016 report, you think building where it serves fewer people is good planning. Frankly, I think you're too close to the Fire District to see they dropped the ball here.

And let’s be honest—a half-million-dollar salary for leadership should come with the expectation of better planning than this. If your concern is getting more firefighters and better service for East County, then why aren’t you holding the Fire District and Chief McAlister accountable for what has become, frankly, a planning disaster?

You said we’re spreading false or misleading claims. Okay—show me one. We’ve been citing the Citygate report and public records. If you can point to a single falsehood, I’ll own it and correct it publicly.

But I’d also ask: why should we have to sue the County to get them to do what’s right? If this station were going in Walnut Creek or Danville, do you think this would be how it’s handled—bulldozing past public process and land dedicated to veterans, ignoring better alternatives, and pressuring other jurisdictions to apply political heat? I don’t think so.

Again, I believe you want the best for the community. But leadership sometimes means stepping back and asking hard questions—even of the people and agencies you’ve worked closely with.

Don

Hi Vince,

I understand your perspective, but let’s be clear—this isn’t just between the County and us. By supporting their position, you’re siding against veterans, not for public safety.

We told you we have case law supporting our claim. What legal basis did the County provide you? Did you consult with the union’s attorney before choosing sides in what is clearly a legal dispute? That would seem like a prudent step.

To this day, the County hasn’t produced a legal opinion backing their position. We’re willing—right now—for our attorney to speak with yours. Will you take us up on that?

Also, did you fully brief your membership on the land issue? Do they really support taking land long dedicated to veterans? More importantly—do you?

Let’s make sure we all know what we’re standing for.

VW

I'm not ignoring you, but I'm working on a reply, but can you give me some clarity of what or why the Veterans are opposing this project? Is it about the design review  or the land issue? You opposed the project at the planning commission, which is specific to design review and they don't have anything to do with the land dispute so please provide some clarity.

DH

Vince,

Thanks for your continued replies. I want to make something clear in simple terms: when money is collected from the public for a specific reason—like to build a fire station or a veterans hall—it must be used for that reason. That’s the law. You can’t take money raised for one thing and use it for something else, even if you think it's a good idea. That would be like passing a tax to build a fire station, then turning it into a dog park. People would rightfully be upset.

Now imagine this: what if the County started taking land from fire stations and gave it to veterans groups for storage or parking? You’d probably be the first to stand up and say that was wrong. And you'd be right.

That’s what we’re saying here. Land that was bought and dedicated only for veterans use can’t just be handed off to the fire district. That transfer was against the law. You don’t have to take my word for it—there’s case law backing it up. And yet, the County has refused to provide any legal basis for what they’ve done.

So my question still stands: Are you going to let your members know you’re supporting the County in violating a land dedication meant for veterans? We’ve said from the beginning—public safety can be achieved without taking veterans land. Why not support that path?

Why fight for a lose-lose when a win-win is still possible?

VW

Please feel free to send me your legal opinion but to be clear there's been a fire station there my entire career. That fire station was closed in 2014. It was torn down in 2021 with the plans to rebuild it. It is now a vacant lot with a fence around it and has been since it's been torn down. I was involved in the conversation to make the decision to tear it down to build another one so this not hearsay or just in some report. I've never heard from the Veterans until right before were ready to rebuild the new one and now we have the money. It puts us off another four years. When we met with you, you told us you did not have a problem with the Station being in there so that is not hearsay either. You had other issues with the county regarding that land. Speaking of use of tax dollars we worked to pass measure X based on the promise that the county wide sales tax money, which is not part of fire district or city money would be used to reopen closed fire stations and rebuild station 54 and build another station in Brentwood. That's how we passed that tax and now the money is being wasted on paying contractors and extending this construction project. Your campaign has been about why that station doesn't fit in the downtown lot based on roads and turns and in farmers markets and schools and has been with the city council of Brentwood, which has nothing to do with your land issue. Your members should be at the Board of Supervisors meetings which I attend and have heard a comment or two but nothing like what you've been doing in Brentwood. So my members are upset with the fact that the veterans are trying to run our fire district  and that the downtown station is a good location, despite your experts opinions. We have members who worked in that station when it was open and who respond to the entire community of Brentwood and support the Station being in it's old location. They are upset that you are using our fire station to gain something which is the sentiment I've been trying to avoid this entire time. It is not us that have been putting misinformation out in the public pitting our members against yours. They feel we are being used to our detriment. Our focus will be on the design review and the importance of having a fire station downtown, which is the only issue that can be resolved by the Brentwood city Council. Your issues regarding the land does not belong in the Brentwood city Council Chambers it belongs in the Board of Supervisors. again, we are willing to support you on other issues regarding that land that doesn't  mean we lose a fire station that's been in that lot again my entire career. If you're successful in convincing the council to deny our permit, it does not mean anything else will change regarding that land other than it won't have a fire station on it so I'm not sure what your end game is on fighting against us on that fact.

DH

I think this link will works:

Burgis Letter 2025-03-10.pdf

Download PDF • 11.55MB

Vince,

I believe you've been misinformed.

Veterans have sought to recover the Brentwood property since at least 2005. At that time, the County provided misleading information about how the land was originally funded. Over the years, various veterans have continued that advocacy. More recently, we discovered documentary evidence confirming that the County was wrong—this property was indeed acquired with funds exclusively for veteran use. We brought this to the County’s attention. They’ve chosen to ignore it.

Let’s also clarify: the veterans have not supported the fire station plan. Chief McAlister once proposed a straight lot line and a new structure, and some veterans were willing to consider that if it honored the historical use. But in 2023, the County claimed records didn’t exist—we easily found them. Then the Deputy Chief stopped talking to us and pushed for an L-shaped lot line that took even more land than previously discussed.

We met with Supervisor Burgis and made one simple request: show us we are legally wrong. The response? Silence.

This entire situation is due to the County and Fire District leadership making poor decisions and avoiding accountability. We will not be bullied into silence—by them or anyone else.

As for the station itself: this is not a good location. Many of us are taxpayers and longtime residents. Even former fire commissioners and firefighters who worked in Station 54 agree—this is the wrong spot. It overlaps Station 92’s 4-minute response zone while leaving most of East County’s current and future residents outside that response window.

So I’ll ask again—and would appreciate a direct answer:

In your professional opinion, is this the best placement for a fire station to serve East County?

If so, how do you justify:

Overlapping response times with Station 92?

Ignoring 25,000 new residents outside the coverage area?

Relying on a decade-old study that doesn’t account for the current street layout or Downtown Specific Plan?

Failing to properly engage in community-specific planning?

This isn’t political for us—it’s about law, duty, and good governance. Someone must be held accountable for the disregard for legal restrictions and the failure to plan responsibly.