Security ... think about it!
Well, I'm glad he doesn't want to allow criminals to take over the city, but I find myself baffled over whether this is crime in the ordinary sense of the word. Sure, arson is a crime (a particularly awful crime, because fires can spread), but when arson is committed for a specific political purpose, it rises to another level entirely. I mean, if these fires had been started by animal rights activists who wanted to shut down a research lab, by anti-war activists who wanted to shut down a military recruiting center, or by a crackpot "Christian militia" group for some insane reason, there would be a huge uproar, but this story is being very selectively reported. Why is that? Surely, the goal of terrorizing a city into hiring back laid off firefighters no more justifies political arson than any other goal. Arson is a heinous crime, and if it is being committed to achieve a political purpose, that makes it more heinous. And even if we analyze it purely as crime, it resembles classic mob-style extortion; the old insurance racket. ("Pay up, or your building burns!")