Kim Kardashian hired ‘private firefighters’ to save her home & her neighbors’ homes

Kim Kardashian gets a helping hand from her man Kanye West while they grab ice cream

At various times, I stopped keeping up with Kardashian real estate. I suspect that Kim Kardashian and Kanye West still own several homes in Los Angeles, and I know that they have one main home which is sparsely decorated, and that’s where Kim and the kids stay most of the time. I think that’s the Hidden Hills mansion, the one Kimye spent years renovating. Well, because rich people are rich, they can afford things like… private firefighters?!?!? Apparently, that’s a thing. And after reading this, I can’t really hate on the private firefighters?

Kim Kardashian and Kanye West are getting major props from their neighbors for staving off the devastating Woolsey wildfire … with the help of their private team of firefighters. TMZ broke the story, the blaze started to creep up on Kim and Kanye’s Hidden Hills mansion Friday after a mandatory evacuation of the area. The couple’s home sits at the end of a cul-de-sac and borders a field — meaning if their place went up in flames, it would start a domino effect on the whole neighborhood.

Sources tell us Kim and Kanye hired a private team to battle the flames on their property. The team was armed with hoses, and also tirelessly dug ditches to create a fire break. Ultimately, they successfully saved the Wests’ $60 million house… and countless others on the block. We spoke with a few neighbors who are thanking the Wests for putting a team on the front lines and saving their homes. As we reported — Kim posted video of the fires as she flew into L.A. Thursday — the family stayed at a nearby hotel during the evacuations.

[From TMZ]

I live in a area with a bare-bones fire department of only a handful of full-time firefighters, but there are neighborhoods full of voluntary firefighters. You know? Those are the guys that have other jobs, who are always on call and will pick up a fire hose at a moment’s notice. I get that California is different, and there are always so many fires, so of course the LAFD is probably huge and fully-staffed full-time, and in addition to that, they have volunteer firefighters. My point is that… where do you find private firefighters when it seems like all of the salaried and volunteer firefighters are already working? Other than that, good for Kim for hiring them and taking it seriously and saving the neighborhood.

Kim Kardashian and Kanye West arrive at the Louis Vuitton Menswear Spring/Summer 2019 show in Paris

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

97 Responses to “Kim Kardashian hired ‘private firefighters’ to save her home & her neighbors’ homes”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Loopy says:

    How does insurance work with these fires, i am sure a lot of insurance companies knowing the fires break out all the time must have put some restrictions?

    • Lola says:

      My understanding is either the insurer will not insure that risk in high risk zones such as flood plains. Or the insured will have to purchase insurance with a specific rider that will cover for additional risk ie fire or flooding but the premiums are high due to the increased risk. The insurers have actuarial team to figure out risk and the corresponding premium an insured should pay.

      Edited for spelling

    • Lambe says:

      You need fire insurance separate from homeowners’ insurance, and it’s REALLY expensive. My parents have it, and I’m glad, as their house nearly burned down.

    • bananapanda says:

      Fire insurance is sky rocketing in California and becoming a real issue. The combination of climate change and lax fire control has combined to make the past few years disastrous.

  2. RBC says:

    I just can’t wrap my mind around a house costing $60 million dollars.

  3. Louise177 says:

    I don’t know why Kim and Kanye have been getting so much criticism for hiring a private team. This is a huge fire and resources running think. Any kind of help should be appreciated not attacked.

    • skipper says:

      I agree. I see nothing wrong with what they did. They paid good money out of their own pockets not just to protect their own home but the homes of their neighbors as well. I don’t understand how people have a problem with this. They had the means to help and I feel that they went above and beyond what they had to do. Good for them!

      • Loopy says:

        The complaints i read were they were using tax payers water??? I am not from the US so i have no idea what that could mean.

    • skipper says:

      @loopy, I don’t know what that means. Tax payers water? I live in the US but I don’t even know what that means. What other water would they use other than what was immediately available? Did the public expect them to ship in their own water or use water from their own taps at home? I don’t get it.

      • AnnaKist says:

        I don’t know what it means, eitter. I do know that in my country, where we have very similar issues with bushfires, all fire-fighting services – state-run, volunteer and the Rural Fire Service – are all shared, coordinated and deployed from a central command, run by the commissioner. I’ve never heard of anyone hiring private firefighters, or even if they actually exist here. Even if that were possible, doing so would be roundly criticised, mocked and likely investigated.

      • LahdidahBaby says:

        I agree–what Kim and Kanye did for themselves and their neighborhood was great. What water were they supposed to use–Perrier?

    • Lizzy says:

      I would think that hiring their own private firefighters meant that no government/volunteer firefighters were needed to save their home and neighbors, thus they were freeing up any nearby forces to focus on saving other homes.

      I don’t see why taking the initiative to save your own home is a bad thing, particularly when the firefighting forces are spread so thin? Help is help, whether it is volunteer (from other counties/states) or paid, so good for them for using their own money to get help.

    • Veronica S. says:

      I wouldn’t call it bad, per se, but it highlights the extremity of the wealth disparity in this country. Somebody who owns a $60 million home could afford to replace it – in fact, they have several. So could all of their neighbors. They were able to get additional help because they were rich and could access resources other couldn’t.

      The people of Paradise, on the other hand? Have lost everything. There were no “private” firefighters coming to aid the taxpayer funded ones to rescue their homes, and they don’t have spare McMansions lying around. The 40+ people who have died won’t ever be going home. So while it’s not bad, it just highlights the fact that you should never waste your sympathy on the ultra-wealthy in this country. They will be fine. Worry about the rest of us – because they certainly don’t care.

      • TW says:

        Well said

      • Lula says:

        This. And the fact that they can afford to pay astronomical insurance rates, and then hire a squadron of lawyers to come after said insurance. They can afford to stay in hotels indefinitely . No one’s place of employment burned down, so no one’s prevented to earning a desperately needed paycheck. I don’t know. I think it’s gross, and I just wonder, who are these “private” firefighters? How can they leave all their fellow fire to go take care of the Kardashians? Also not to be hysterical but THIS IS THE WAY DIRECTION OUR COUNTRY IS GOING IN. This is what privatization looks like.

      • Jessica says:

        Great post Veronica! 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

      • BB says:

        But if insurers have to pay out to replace a bunch of $15-60 million homes, doesn’t that end up increasing rates for everyone?

      • greyate says:

        Yes!!! WEll said. I also wonder, WHERE did these private firefighters come from? Were they already fighting fires and if not, why not?

    • Littlefishmom says:

      Yes. I would do the same not only for myself but for all those around me. The price of their home is incidental. It’s their HOME.

    • Bell456 says:

      People are upset because a couple of millionaires used public water supplies to protect their mansions. The destruction of the commons has been going on in America for over a generation and things like this are indicative of a future where the rich hire private forces to protect themselves from climate change while the poor suffer and die. You should look up historical examples of why private police and firefighting forces should be illegal.

      • Nic919 says:

        Yes this is the danger. The water used should be charged to them in addition to the cost of the private force. They have the money for it.

      • Veronica S. says:

        Especially since they all just got their hefty tax cut, meaning they’re paying significantly proportionately less of their income toward public good than the rest of us. People who aren’t keeping themselves educated about the larger economic picture unfolding as a result of climate change are in for a very ugly reality check in a few decades as the gap widens.

    • BchyYogi says:

      I just had NO idea there was a surplus of firefighters. Where do they get people that aren’t already working? This may NOT be a popular opinion, but if a firefighter can work privately for MORE, what’s the incentive to save my trailer park? Does this “privatized” career spell a deficit for poor folks like me. Serious question.

  4. Enough S Enough says:

    They didn’t hire private firefighters to save their neighbor’s homes. They did it to protect themselves and their belongings. Let’s not play games here.

    While it’s understandable to want to protect your own house, knowing what the public firefighters are going through and how stretched are their resources, it is simply macabre that private firefighters would respond to this, rather than help their brothers and sisters killing themselves to save thousands of people.

    Which is why it’s worth noting that the GOP have tried putting forth bills to FULLY PRIVATIZE services such as the Fire Department. That means the government would no longer be involved in fighting fires that break out. No longer involved. At all.

    More simply: if houses A and B catch fire and house B hasn’t paid the appropriate fee for private firefighting care (with no cap on the cost, as it’s a private for-profit business, no longer a government service paid by taxpayers), only House A would be protected by the private firefighters — no matter how dangerous B’s fire was to the area.

    • minx says:

      Agree with everything you said.

    • Snowflake says:

      Wow, I didnt know that

    • Hollz says:

      Agree, although I’m wondering if she perhaps flew the private firefighters in from another area?

      • jwoolman says:

        I immediately assumed she did just that – flew in a team of experienced firefighters from some other place who would act as an addition to the firefighters already there. This did save other resources for fighting the fires and certainly they did save their neighbors’ homes in the process. All this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

        It’s not surprising that there are firefighters for hire – for example, any movie or tv show that involves blazes might need to hire people to control the fire. There also might well be other instances where it makes sense to hire your own firefighting team rather than burdening the local fire department.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        This doesn’t make sense to me. The fires in her area came up really quickly, I don’t know how they’d have the time to fly people in.

        Firefighters from other states are coming to CA to help the legitimate fire departments, but they didn’t arrive on Friday when it was the worst.

      • BchyYogi says:

        I’m not buying this. Our airport was CLOSED to private jets (and we Iive near Saudi royalty, lots of those ’round here) DURING OUR FIRES, to make way for planes that doused EVERYONE’S HOMES, not just the mansions. We had just as catastrophic and imminent, and trust me, there was no WAY a private team w hoses etc could get into a rich person’s home.

    • Mari Me says:

      @Enough…a situation like that happened in TN. A small municipality was on the verge of bankruptcy during the recession and began charging citizens for fire protection in order to keep protection in the county, as the next closest volunteer department was in the next county several miles away. When a house caught on fire, the volunteer firemen showed up, but because the people had not paid for services, the firemen watched it burn. I’ll see if I can find the story…

      • BchyYogi says:

        No. Just NO> Firefighting is a civic duty, I”m pretty sure it’s akin to an hippocratic oath. Privatization of a moral obligation. NO. My brain can’t go there.

    • adastraperaspera says:

      If you wanted to make private fire fighting companies look good, what better way than to have them contract with Kim Kardashian to protect her home? And what, she just had their number on speed dial? Seems convenient.

    • Kitten says:

      I mean, we have privatized ambulance companies so this is jus the next step, right? Sigh. This country is shit.

    • Ronaldinhio says:

      I’m glad they had the means to save their property and by extension the property of others.
      As a private fighter you have the right to work for any paying customer. Their taking this work saved the property of many families.

      I don’t find it macabre. I find it another example of how money in a capitalist country can buy results.

    • Leigh says:

      The GOP is the worst! And I agree, it’s obscene that these firefighters would take money to save a handful of Uber-wealthy people’s homes, when thousands of average income Americans are in danger of losing everything.

    • Cranberry says:

      I’m in California. I’ve never heard of private firefighters in CA. I don’t think CA allows that kind of system for these very reasons. If a municipality doesn’t have their own fire department then their community falls under county and state jurisdiction. Furthermore every communities fire department is probably required to adhere to state requirements and protocols. Meaning they can’t rent out their services. Aside from their communities, they are apart of county/state fire response jurisdiction. They are required to work in conjunction with county and state efforts. They are considered agents of the state and they cannot work as private fireworkers.

      With all the fires in CA people are looking for any help they can get. People with firefighting knowledge like how to access high pressure water are probably offering some type of independent service for a fee. Then all you need are industrial hoses and workers. These are not professional fighter fighting outfits. It’s great when things work out like in this case. The problem is they do not work in tandem with acting FFs, and can get in the way of real ff efforts and possibly put people in real danger.

      • +1,000,000 Everything you said, cranberry.

      • BchyYogi says:

        Now that I think about it, maybe they hired basic workers, but SOMEONE was directing the show. Plus- let me get this straight- Kim’s “workers” had access to firetrucks and high pressure hoses…UH. NO. Correct me if this is wrong, but aren’t fire trucks owned by prospective counties? Something is fishy.

      • Cranberry says:

        According to @CandyKat down stream there are extremely expensive private fire fighting services with trucks and even planes that are utilized by the very, very rich with expensive estates like k/k’s. I don’t know if this is what k/k used. I’ve heard different accounts.

        While these private ff units are professionally trained, they are likely not considered part of Ca active fire force. Furthermore, they absolutely are required to comply with and differ to Ca state fire agencies. And to be sure there are Not a bunch of private fire stations in Ca.

    • jwoolman says:

      This is exactly what happens in communities that have a fee that needs to be paid for fire protection. A friend comes from a small place in upstate New York that has this arrangement. He said one guy didn’t want to pay the fee. So when his place caught fire, they let it burn down.

      Privatization of police and fire protection has already been tried in the past. Doesn’t work all that well. It’s much better to have it paid by tax revenues. Then people pay according to their ability to pay.

      That’s why we need a tax-based health care system as well. Basically today, the hospitals have to gouge the sick and the injured to get their operating expenses. People can’t afford doctor visits when money is tight, even if they are insured. The deductibles can be very high — $5000, $6000 or more are typical. People avoid medical care when possible because they will go into debt even with insurance, since they have to first pay that deductible before insurance takes over. The Emergency Room can easily spend that much in the first few minutes. Takes $100 just to say hello to my doctor. The Affordable Care Act was intended to make that situation less likely, and did make a significant difference, but instead of being strengthened and improved it is being sabotaged by President Tweeter.

      Anyway – limiting fire protection only to people who pay separately would be extremely dangerous in a more densely populated area. If the fire department refuses to put out my neighbor’s fire, then my house is next along with all the other houses in the neighborhood and beyond.

      And if by privatization they mean hiring private companies rather than maintaining our own for departments – be prepared for costs to skyrocket.

      • Bit, it’s not that way here in California though we don’t have privatized firefighters here in California, I don’t know about other states. We have hundreds of fires every day here. Taxes should and do pay for fire protection because they don’t just go out, they spread and would burn down the whole state. And now winter is on its way and if we have rains anything close to last year there WILL be mudslides as well. This stuff is devastating to people who live here and the effects are felt long after the fire is gone.

        If they were able to hire actual firefighters, I want to know exactly who they were and why they weren’t on the lines with their brothers and sisters.

      • BchyYogi says:

        I’m so w you SSE<, you can't "let a house burn down" because it could logically speed to dry grass or a neighbor's property, to the forrest, etc. A fire is everyone's obligation, so "paying a fee" is moot. I would seriously like to know how these "private FF" can live w themselves knowing they are truly needed elsewhere.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I totally agree the Fire Department should not be privatized. Some entities should exist solely to serve a public need, not to make a profit. Look how well privatized prisons turned out!

  5. Louise says:

    This is what this type of thing having money is for. Who woudln’t do it if you had the cash, the connections to arrange it and the chance of saving your home?

    • CharliePenn says:

      Exactly what I was thinking. Anyone who had the means to protect their home and their neighborhood would do so. I know I would. It doesn’t mean there’s no compassion and care about others all over the state. But it’s her home and she did what she was able to do. We all would want to protect our homes by any means necessary

    • BB says:

      But apparently it’s innapropriate for them to do because they have enough money to replace their home. So they should have just let it burn. And they should have let the fire in that area continue to spread and kill more animals and people.

  6. CanadianGirl says:

    It’s kind of weird this is a thing by of all the ways they can spend their money, this is a pretty good one. And yes, their priority was saving their own home, but in doing so, they saved the entire neighborhoof and if I lived there I’d be pretty grateful.

    Also, they did it without adding to the burden happening with the state fire departments and without using scarce resources because i’m pretty sure the paid firefighters weren’t about to jump in for free and hiring them saved a neighborhood. So even if her motives were selfish, her actions wer3 good.

    • Gigi La Moore says:

      I like your comment overall, but the selfish motives part confuses me. Don’t we all operate off of selfish motives? I know when I make decisions in my personal life, I am not thinking about the community-at-large. Are you? I mean I try to operate legally and ethically, but if I needed cancer treatment, I’m not operating by thinking about what someone else who has cancer can afford or might need. I’m thinking of myself first off and once that’s covered maybe then, I would think about someone else.

      • CanadianGirl says:

        The selfish was more for the people above who said she was only thinking about herself. Even if she was, there was still good resulting from her actions so who cares about the motive?

    • Gigi La Moore says:

      Thanks! Makes sense, CG.

  7. Gigi La Moore says:

    I don’t see a problem with this. The company exists to be hired. It’s not K and K’s fault that the private firefighters are not going around offering their services for free. Would I, as a private firefighter help the community at large, yes, but that’s not how the company is choosing to operate. I’m not going to criticize people for trying to save their home and if the neighbors benefitted from that, that’s fine too.

    • Mela says:

      Agreed. They saved their house and probably their neighbors.

      A family displaced by the Camp Fire has moved in with neighbors next door. Their story is truly horrific. They lost everything (including their dogs and cats) but their pick up truck and a small trailer with some tools. They saw skeletons in burned out cars, and people jumped onto their truck to escape as they drove out of Paradise. These people held on until the outside Of the truck became too hot to hold onto. They saw an Elderly family running for their lives behind their truck and then they suddenly didnt see them running anymore. This isnt a time to nitpick how people managed to survive.

      No shade on Kim and Kanye on this at all.

      • Veronica S. says:

        I mean, it’s fine if you ignore the ethical implications of them doing nothing without pay while people are literally dying, lol.

      • Gigi La Moore says:

        Love your comment, Mela. You get it.

      • Gigi La Moore says:

        Veronica, the ethical implications are on the private firefighters who wanted to be paid. Even if K and K hadn’t hired them, doesn’t seem like they were going to go around putting out fires for free. Surely, K and K are not responsible for the ethics of the private firefighters. I agree that it’s not ethical and even said I would be out there for free if I was a private firefighter. But then again, the private firefighters also need to get paid and eat which might explain why they are not out there for free. Either way, still doesn’t change the fact that I can’t get pressed about K and K saving their property.

      • Veronica S. says:

        I was talking about the private firefighters, not K and K. Although, now that you’ve said it, why not challenge the wealthy as to why they only care to pay private companies when their property is threatened when they know people are dying elsewhere?

      • Gigi La Moore says:

        Veronica, why not challenge ourselves? I’m not wealthy but have more than some, so why aren’t I doing more, why aren’t you, why isn’t everyone on this site? I’m not a big believer in telling people what to do with their money but if we are going to go that route, then let’s all step up.

      • Veronica S. says:

        I actually donate monthly to 3-4 different charities and work for a nonprofit, personally.

        But frankly, your argument posits a false equivalence at best. Expecting Suszie Q. of Mississippi making $25,000 a year and supporting three kids to have the same time, money, and opportunities to perform charitably to somebody in a celebrity income bracket is just farcical. The vast majority of Americans do not have millions of dollars of discretionary income available, and therefore their ability to contribute meaningfully is significantly restricted in comparison to people like Jeff Bezos and K and K. The rich could be doing far more for this country as a whole – especially considering our legislators just gave them a tax cut – and they hold the majority of the resources, therefore they hold the majority of the burden for inaction.

      • Alarmjaguar says:

        Gigi, if you are voting to support politicians who advocate for funding social programs, then you are doing your part. The problem comes when rich people pull up the ladder b/c they have theirs, they can afford to hire private firefighters and then refuse to pay their share of taxes to help the entire community. When everyone only cares about their stuff and doesn’t share the responsibility for an entire community, that’s where the problem comes in.

      • Gigi La Moore says:

        No, Veronica, it’s not false equivalency. Someone making $25,000 still has more than the homeless person on the street and we all can do as something. I never said equal output, I said let’s all do something. Sounds like you support the redistribution of personal assets. I’m a liberal but I will never advocate telling anyone how their money should be spent. I don’t have respect for the Kardashians but they earned their money legally. They are under no legal, moral or ethical responsibility to make sure the have nots have. We need to work on policy to bridge some of these gaps.

      • Cranberry says:

        @Mela

        I’m sure these amateur ffs are taking great risks, but the actual fire conditions are what determines if aggressive property protection is manageable or not. For example this kind of private fire fighting would likely have made no difference in Paradise. It would likely have just gotten those people killed. The Paradise fire was driven by strong winds and grew too fast for people to get out much less try to save their homes.

        I don’t think this “company” is an actual fire unit recognized by any state municipality. I think to be considered a “firefighter” in ca you have to be employed and accredited by county and state agencies. It’s likely a company of workers offering service to make homes more fire resistant by digging trenches, cutting trees, shrubberyand wetting down houses, etc.

      • Veronica S. says:

        Using a homeless person as the basic yardstick for personal social responsibility is fairly inane and frankly hurts your arguments more than supports it – especially since a medical incident or missed payment could easily put $25K/year Suzie Q. on the street herself. There are dozens of studies out there showing how income inequality is becoming a increasing significant issue in industrialized nations, particularly in the era of climate change when drought and other climate factors are increasing environmental damage and decreasing resource availability. What situations like this suggest is a foreboding image of what’s to come if the economic discrepancies aren’t addressed now.

        I don’t particularly care for the details of how millionaires became millionaires, though I do find it highly unlikely that anybody gets to that position without some level of exploitation down the line. Nor do I care for the “distribution” of their superficial and materialistic gains throughout the population. (Although, being accused of being a functional Communist in the negative is pretty funny). I honestly don’t care that Kim K. has a sixty million dollar mansion. I do care that America prioritizes access to healthcare, housing, safety and general public services to people like them over the general populace in contrast to literally every other industrialized nation in the world. Especially when it comes to people *literally dying.*

        Cranberry -
        I feel like that actually makes it worse, non? They’re using unlicened individuals to do it, placing both the “professionals” lives at risk and that of others if they aren’t doing the properly. What’s the legal fallout if they screw something up? Because I guarantee the wealthy people who hired them won’t be suffering the long-term legal fallout.

      • meme says:

        Veronica – The point was that when faced with life or death/loss of home, who cares how one survives through it as long as they survived and not at the expense of someone else?

        The stories I have heard in the past year (I live North of Sacramento and have been surrounded by and witnessed fires ALL YEAR), are absolutely awful to hear. People’s cars are MELTED from fleeing fire. We can’t go outside for months on end because of the smoke we are inhaling – quite frankly, we don’t give a SH** about your petty opinion of private contractors helping save families and their homes. Why don’t you get out there and dig some ditches, donate your time, take in some displaced people/animals, hear their first hand accounts that make you cry and only then would I even consider your opinion. These survivors are TRAUMATIZED. I would not wish these experiences on my worst enemy, rich or poor.

        It’s been clarified these were private independent contractors that provided these services, not licensed firefighters so the Kardashians didn’t take away resources from the general public and in fact they used their wealth to help themselves and others in their neighborhood. You can question their motivation but at the end of the day, they helped their family and others from the devastation of wildfires. Even I am a pessimist but how cynical do you have to be to find fault in that?

      • Cranberry says:

        @Veronica,

        It all depends on the timing and whether an area has a mandated evacuation. If there’s only warnings and not evacuation then a hired team might have enough time to come in an dig a fire interference ditch and hose down the roof tops.

        But honestly things like that should have been done months ago when it was safe to do so. If volunteers or hired workers try to take big machinery (like tractor) up to properties being threatened by near by fire they likely would not be allow to get through if the fire department is already on the scene. And if they got vehicles or machinery up there before fire dept. then they risk losing that machinery if they are overwhelmed by fire.
        So yeah, it’s not recommended and usually leads to more problems and loss of life. It all depends on how fast you can get a crew to the property and how quickly they can work and whether the fire conditions will favor them or not. If not then those crews would have to know when to get out and have frequent updates that roads are still safe. So dangerous.

      • Lula says:

        The idea that someone needs to get out and fight fires personally in order to pass judgement on someone else makes no sense. When the wealthy elect government officials who favor tax cuts for said wealthy that means less resources for the poor. If firefighters are encouraged to work privately rather than publicly that could mean less fore protection for those who can’t afford to pay for their own private protection. I am absolutely passing judgement on anyone who participates in this system, as I am on anyone who thinks that your ability to do something is reason enough for doing said thing. Do I think it’s great the Kardashians were able to save their home? Nope. Do I have a ton of sympathy for those individuals who lost their second or third or fourth homes? Not really. I don’t think sympathy and empathy are one-size-all blankets that just everyone equally and the upcoming days and months and weeks and years are going to be much harder on some individuals than others, and this is not just because things are the way they are it is because of our current political and economic systems, which benefits the few at the expense of the many.

      • Mela says:

        Actually until you live in fire country in California, you should take a seat. Take two actually. Youre missing the point here- would you rather the Kardashians house burned down or their family pets die so you feel better? Should people not hire tree trimmers now either? Since that is out of budget for some people? Your arguement is ridiculous. People should protect their property however they see fit and under the threat of fire- why are you so judgemental about these people having independent contractors come in and take fire precautions? Are you saying they should should have just let their home burn down? So that it could become fuel for the fire to burn down the rest of the neighborhood?

        Do you have no humanity or compassion for people? I think you pretty much summed it up when you said you have no sympathy for people who have their homes burned down if they have multiple properties. (People inherit family properties that become second homes, own rental propeties to make a living or worked hard to have multiple properties…). Again, the fact you proudly boast about lacking empathy for fire victims is so sad. Fires are awful traumatic events. Keep in mind many animals were lost in these fires but you probably dont care about the owners heartbreak or the suffering of the animals if these animals lived on a second or third property right?

        The issue here is not the private independent contractoRs that offer these services for the rich. These are not “off duty” firefighters or firefighters shirking their civil service. And to be honest, if these guys save some lives, homes and help prevent houses going up in flames—— what is the problem here? The rich are essentially subsidizing the cost of firefighting for their neighborhoods out of their pocket when they choose to hire contractors.

        The real issue here is we have too many dead trees on our land, PGE is slacking on their maintenance and is going to probably go bankrupt andah hem – global warming! we need rain badly. We need ALL the help we can get to fight these fires when they happen.

  8. me says:

    The TMZ story is a bit misleading. They saved their own home…saving the neighbors homes was a result of saving their own. TMZ made it seem like Kim paid to have firefighters hose down all the houses in her neighborhood, which was not the case. Well when you’re rich you can hire private firefighters I guess. I wonder where these firefighters came from? Surely all the ones in the LA area were busy? I wonder how much it cost to have them drive to Calabasas with their firetrucks from some other city. I wonder if she can write this off on her taxes?

    • Gigi La Moore says:

      If you were one of the neighbors, would you honestly quibble if your home was saved by their actions even if they didn’t set out to save your home? I know I wouldn’t. This was a positive trickle down effect.

    • Gigi La Moore says:

      I guess I am saying so what that it’s misleading. I don’t think under the circumstances the neighbors care either.

    • Cranberry says:

      Actual professional fire fighters are not allowed to be “hired out” for private use. KK would’ve hired private citizens maybe with ff experience which is fine as long as they don’t get in the way of professional ff efforts, or put their selves or any body in danger.

      But what happens If they can’t save their client’s home? Do they still get paid? Or worse, if they’re injured or killed by the fire? It’d be a guaranteed law suit which is why only rich people can afford to cover the liability costs if something happens. I’m not sure a private ff service contract would even be legal if it put non-professionals in mortal danger.

      • me says:

        Very good points. I do wonder why the Kardashian family gave this story to TMZ? I mean we all know PMK is the one who probably called TMZ to let them know how wonderful Kim is for saving her whole neighborhood. Kim’s a Saint lol ! It’s still about pr for them.

      • Lynne says:

        This…..and I believe the TMZ article said that the ‘private’ firefighters used the garden hoses.
        Do the ‘real’ firefighters let the private ones just drive up the road when an area has been evacuated and is blocked off?
        Doesn’t that impede the firefighters working the area and make it more dangerous for all?
        Sounds like the employees got to stay and fight the fire, lol lucky them.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “the TMZ article said that the ‘private’ firefighters used the garden hoses.”

        I don’t believe a garden hose would have saved anything. The fires were too large & intense to saturate anything with garden hoses.

        One of my family friends stayed in Malibu to save his home (so risky), and was posting to Instagram. It was terrifying to watch! You can pour TONS of water on a smoking bit of wood, and it will still smoke and eventually burn. The drying nature of nearby fire can make small amounts of water useless.

      • me says:

        @ Tiffany

        Wow does your friend think his home is more important than his life? I don’t understand why people don’t leave during an evacuation. Your LIFE is more important !

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Yes, I agree. I don’t know why he chose to stay! We were so worried for him for days!

        He owns a company that does defense contracting, and he’s lived there for years, so he had a plan and a lot of extra supplies. He had a fire style water hose to pump from the pool, he had a fire jacket, oxygen tanks and masks, etc. I was still terrified for him and for his family. I can’t imagine taking that risk, especially when you have kids.

        I think some people see their homes as the tangible result of their life’s work.

    • BchyYogi says:

      This is a fundamental lesson. Whilst NO one quibbles over “why” lives were saved during a disaster, it is an horrific precedent that firefighters may NOW not save my rental because they are getting a cash payout from a mansion. We are in this together, WTF people! My rental may be your cash cow, and all our rentals together make up a work force for said mansion folks, etc. Not only is is f’ing EVIL to let the poor DIE- it’s fiscally irresponsible. Yeeesh. So let’s just not be gross capitalists and realize, we are one country with moral obligation to all lives. Bich slap y’all, serious.

  9. me says:

    @ Veronica S.

    I agree with you that the media is way too concerned about celebrities and their homes, while the majority of the people impacted are not rich and famous.

  10. lucy2 says:

    As long as the “hired” people didn’t interfere with LAFD operations or resources, I don’t see an issue with it.
    I also hope Kim and all donate to help those not as fortunate who have been affected by this.

    • BchyYogi says:

      Yeah let’s just “hope and pray” that wealthy folks leave enough fire fighting force for peasants like me. Worth so much. Thanks.

    • I have definitely heard that Khloe was shopping for supplies for the firefighters. And I saw they made some SM posts letting people know where they could donate to the LAFD. So, that was nice.

  11. candykat says:

    For those who haven’t heard of private fire protection, it’s very much a thing here in CA. It’s not financially accessible to regular folks, and it requires contracting in advance. But if you’re a gazillionaire with property in a fire zone, you can pay a retainer fee in advance to have private firefighters available in case of fire, similar to the concept of buying extra insurance. I don’t know where the firefighters come from, or who trains them, or how they live with themselves protecting big estates while entire neighborhoods burn; but I do know they’ll swoop in with fully equipped aircraft to guard your perimeter.

  12. Yes Doubtful says:

    I found this to be tacky to be honest. A true firemen would be out on the front lines – not kissing a celebs ass and watching over her mansion. She most likely paid her security or some innocent civilian good bucks to do this – not a fireman.

    • Olivia says:

      Exactly this, the idea of a privatised fireman makes me feel sick. What a mess of a country

    • Pandy says:

      Totally! Of course it was some labourer/security who was paid to hose down there house … her clothes! Her shoes! Her purses!! All must be saved. For everyone on K/K side – how ethical is it to get someone who needs the $$ to put THEIR butt on the line for your well-insured possessions? If there was an evacuation order – SHAME ON THEM for getting people to stay for material possessions.

  13. BBeauty says:

    There is nothing negative about this story. Nothing. They not only saved their home but the homes of neighbors and possibly even prevented the fire from spreading deeper into LA. People need to stop complaining.