Frank Boston opposes emergency repair bill at city council hearing

In the heart of Baltimore's City Hall, a heated discussion unfolded during the City Council Hearing on Public Safety, held on April 29, 2025. The atmosphere was charged as community members and officials gathered to address a proposed bill that would regulate access to fire scenes for emergency repair workers.

Frank Boston III, representing Platinum Services, took the floor to voice his opposition to the bill, arguing that it was unnecessary and would hinder vital services. He emphasized that emergency repair workers play a crucial role in mitigating damage after incidents, a point he supported with references to insurance policies that require homeowners to act swiftly to protect their properties. "If repairs to the properties are required, you must make reasonable and necessary repairs to the property immediately," he stated, underscoring the urgency of their work.

Boston also raised concerns about fairness in competition, suggesting an amendment to prevent city officials from referring specific emergency repair services while on the scene. He argued that such practices could lead to conflicts of interest and unfair advantages.

The discussion turned to the bill's provisions, particularly regarding the definition of "authorized persons" and the implications of loitering. Boston questioned the clarity of who grants permission for access to fire scenes and criticized the bill's language that could label emergency workers as loiterers. He firmly stated, "Our people do not loiter. They are there to give help," advocating for a more accurate portrayal of their intentions.

As the hearing progressed, Council members sought clarity on the bill's intent, particularly regarding access during active fire situations. The fire chief clarified that while the fire department maintains control of the scene, there are instances where emergency workers could be allowed to assist, depending on the situation. The chief emphasized that safety remains the primary concern, and decisions about scene access are made based on the specific circumstances of each incident.

The conversation highlighted the delicate balance between ensuring public safety and allowing timely assistance for homeowners in distress. Council members expressed concerns about the emotional state of individuals affected by fires, noting that soliciting services during such traumatic moments could be inappropriate.

As the hearing drew to a close, it became evident that the proposed bill would require further examination and potential revisions to address the concerns raised by both emergency service providers and city officials. The discussions underscored the ongoing challenge of navigating public safety regulations while ensuring that essential services remain accessible to those in need. The outcome of this hearing could have lasting implications for how Baltimore manages emergency responses and supports its residents in times of crisis.