Export thread
Didn't Pay Annual Firefighter's Fees? Burn, Baby, Burn!
#1
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Firefighters watch as house burns to the ground: owner had not paid annual firefighting fees - Boing Boing
Some men just want to watch the world burn.Homeowners in the region outside the town limits of South Fulton, TN, have to pay $75 to come under the protection of the town's firefighters. Late in September, the house of Gene Cranick, who had not paid his $75 for the year, caught fire. When the fire department arrived, they announced that since Cranick had not paid his fees, his house would be allowed to burn to the ground. Cranick offered to pay the $75, but the firefighters weren't having any of it. They eventually acted to put out the fire when it spread to the home of a neighbor who had previously paid. As the mayor said, " if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck."The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house. "When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.
It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.
We asked him why.
He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.
We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.
"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.
#2
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
... WHAT THE FUCK TENNESSEE?
#3
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
Jesus Christ, that is fucking madness.
#4
bigcountry23
bigcountry23
Hey, Dats a nice house you have there. Would be a shame if "something" were to happen to it, kapice? /cracksknuckles.
#5
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
#6
Matt²
Matt²
That's a lawsuit.
#7
Hylian
Hylian
If his family had been trapped inside would they have bothered rescuing them?
#8
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Pfft. Of course not. That $75 coulda paid for the fire station's dalmation's puppy chow for a year!
#9
MindDetective
MindDetective
That's some cheap puppy chow. Or an anorexic puppy.
#10
Piotyr
Piotyr
Actually, yes, the fire department would have rescued any people trapped inside.If his family had been trapped inside would they have bothered rescuing them?
#11
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Welcome to the Libertarian Paradise.
#12
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Yeah, well...your FACE is an anorexic puppy.That's some cheap puppy chow. Or an anorexic puppy.
#13
strawman
strawman
Well, perhaps the residents will vote for a tax increase to pay for fire services for all, right?
On the other hand, it merely points out the need for a private fire company that will accept a larger one-time fee. Then people will at least have the choice of the $75/year "insurance" or pay $$$ when they actually do have a fire.
The insinuation that fire protection is a human right, though, is face-palmingly stupid. Fire rescue (ie, saving people from burning structures) yes - but to pretend that there's a human right for one's possessions to be protected is silly.
On the other hand, it merely points out the need for a private fire company that will accept a larger one-time fee. Then people will at least have the choice of the $75/year "insurance" or pay $$$ when they actually do have a fire.
The insinuation that fire protection is a human right, though, is face-palmingly stupid. Fire rescue (ie, saving people from burning structures) yes - but to pretend that there's a human right for one's possessions to be protected is silly.
#14
bigcountry23
Ohhhh Burn!!!!!
bigcountry23
Yeah, well...your FACE is an anorexic puppy.[/QUOTE]That's some cheap puppy chow. Or an anorexic puppy.
Ohhhh Burn!!!!!
#15
Adammon
Adammon
Not really feeling too bad for the guy whose house burnt down.
1) For 20 years, this fee has been in place.
ii) Prior to that, there was none, zip, zero, nada fire coverage for the area he lived in.
Tres) He lived outside of the township so he didn't pay taxes towards the fire department either.
100) The fee was introduced so that people living in the county would have some kind of fire protection versus none.
V) 3 years earlier, his son had a brushfire and the fire department responded. He still hadn't paid the $75 but as a kindness, they allowed him to pay the fee after the fact.
Sex) Despite the previous brushfire, despite being asked repeatedly to pay $75 to support fire services on his house, he still refused.
7) His house burned down, which it would have before the fee was introduced.
8) You can't buy car insurance after a crash.
NEIN!) If people can pay after a fire, people will only pay after a fire - thus making fire protection services economically unviable.
10) No fire protection services means his house burns down regardless.
1) For 20 years, this fee has been in place.
ii) Prior to that, there was none, zip, zero, nada fire coverage for the area he lived in.
Tres) He lived outside of the township so he didn't pay taxes towards the fire department either.
100) The fee was introduced so that people living in the county would have some kind of fire protection versus none.
V) 3 years earlier, his son had a brushfire and the fire department responded. He still hadn't paid the $75 but as a kindness, they allowed him to pay the fee after the fact.
Sex) Despite the previous brushfire, despite being asked repeatedly to pay $75 to support fire services on his house, he still refused.
7) His house burned down, which it would have before the fee was introduced.
8) You can't buy car insurance after a crash.
NEIN!) If people can pay after a fire, people will only pay after a fire - thus making fire protection services economically unviable.
10) No fire protection services means his house burns down regardless.
#16
sixpackshaker
That is where I get a little nervous living as far out in the country as I do. If there is ever a fire in my home, I'll have to call 911 and fight it myself for 30 or so minutes for the volunteers to show up to fight the fire. By time they would get there they will basically be doing a containment drill to be sure the fire does not spread to the neighbors.
sixpackshaker
Not a right, but a basic governmental function.Well, perhaps the residents will vote for a tax increase to pay for fire services for all, right?
On the other hand, it merely points out the need for a private fire company that will accept a larger one-time fee. Then people will at least have the choice of the $75/year "insurance" or pay $$$ when they actually do have a fire.
The insinuation that fire protection is a human right, though, is face-palmingly stupid. Fire rescue (ie, saving people from burning structures) yes - but to pretend that there's a human right for one's possessions to be protected is silly.
That is where I get a little nervous living as far out in the country as I do. If there is ever a fire in my home, I'll have to call 911 and fight it myself for 30 or so minutes for the volunteers to show up to fight the fire. By time they would get there they will basically be doing a containment drill to be sure the fire does not spread to the neighbors.
#17
tegid
tegid
How is this any different to not getting healthcare unless you pay?
What about the police? Why is it fine for healthcare and firefighting to be privatized but not for police (if it is)?
What about the police? Why is it fine for healthcare and firefighting to be privatized but not for police (if it is)?
#18
Shakey
Shakey
The problem I see is that, even with supervision from the fire department, they run the risk of the fire spreading out of control and potentially causing a lot more damage. You never know what flammable materials people could be storing in their house. They were there, just put it out and send them a bill for the whole expense of fighting the fire. Do the police sit and watch a burglery go on as long as no one is in danger?
When I was a kid we got to spend nearly an hour trying to fight the neighbors brush fire that got out of control before firefighters showed up. Trying to put it out with wet gunny sacks and sprayers didn't work real well. Lucky for us it never made it over to our house.That is where I get a little nervous living as far out in the country as I do. If there is ever a fire in my home, I'll have to call 911 and fight it myself for 30 or so minutes for the volunteers to show up to fight the fire. By time they would get there they will basically be doing a containment drill to be sure the fire does not spread to the neighbors.
#19
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
It's notWhy is it fine for healthcare and firefighting to be privatized
#20
figmentPez
figmentPez
By the neighbor, who did pay, whose house caught fire because they didn't act sooner.That's a lawsuit.
#21
Chibibar
heh, this is what I was thinking.
still pretty crummy that the firefighters let the guy house burn
They could just bill the guy full price since he didn't pay.
Chibibar
By the neighbor, who did pay, whose house caught fire because they didn't act sooner.[/QUOTE]That's a lawsuit.
heh, this is what I was thinking.
still pretty crummy that the firefighters let the guy house burn
They could just bill the guy full price since he didn't pay.
#22
figmentPez
figmentPez
You don't have to pre-pay to get care. If someone comes into an emergency room (or calls for an ambulance, I think) they get treatment. They'll have to pay afterwards, often more than they can afford, but emergency rooms aren't legally allowed to leave someone untreated just because they don't have health insurance (which has recently led to at least one hospital in Houston closing because they were getting too many patients who were unable to pay).How is this any different to not getting healthcare unless you pay?
#23
Mountebank
Mountebank
Kinda difficult to be too sympathetic towards the guy here. He chose not to pay for the fire cover, and then surprise surprise, wanted the firefighters to save his property anyway.
Then again it's difficult to imagine a situation where you're standing outside a burning building, you've got the equipment and training you need, and you're not going to put the fire out.
But I'm going to come down on the firefighter's side. It's a dangerous job, and they should be paid for the work they do and the risks they take. If the state isn't paying them, but essentially their customers do, then they are beholden only to their customers. If they're putting life in danger by not acting, thats another matter; but putting your life on the line to save the property of someone who wanted to save $75 is a bit more of a stretch. I think they should have put out the fire and charged him the full amount for the call-out, firefighter's time, equipment used etc.
I think the fire service, along with healthcare & the police, should be paid for out of the public purse, no strings attached. But as that's not the case here, the homeowner is getting what he paid for.
Then again it's difficult to imagine a situation where you're standing outside a burning building, you've got the equipment and training you need, and you're not going to put the fire out.
But I'm going to come down on the firefighter's side. It's a dangerous job, and they should be paid for the work they do and the risks they take. If the state isn't paying them, but essentially their customers do, then they are beholden only to their customers. If they're putting life in danger by not acting, thats another matter; but putting your life on the line to save the property of someone who wanted to save $75 is a bit more of a stretch. I think they should have put out the fire and charged him the full amount for the call-out, firefighter's time, equipment used etc.
I think the fire service, along with healthcare & the police, should be paid for out of the public purse, no strings attached. But as that's not the case here, the homeowner is getting what he paid for.
#24
MindDetective
MindDetective
Hypothetical question, just for clarification: If a guy robs you, should you have the right to invoke a government sponsored entity (the police department) to help you?Well, perhaps the residents will vote for a tax increase to pay for fire services for all, right?
On the other hand, it merely points out the need for a private fire company that will accept a larger one-time fee. Then people will at least have the choice of the $75/year "insurance" or pay $$$ when they actually do have a fire.
The insinuation that fire protection is a human right, though, is face-palmingly stupid. Fire rescue (ie, saving people from burning structures) yes - but to pretend that there's a human right for one's possessions to be protected is silly.
#25
Gusto
Gusto
We didn't start the fire.
#26
sixpackshaker
The area is not served by any government entity. At least for fire fighting. A nearby fire department said they would add individuals to their protection for $75 a year. This guy does not pay and calls to be saved from fire, they say no.
sixpackshaker
Hypothetical question, just for clarification: If a guy robs you, should you have the right to invoke a government sponsored entity (the police department) to help you?[/QUOTE]Well, perhaps the residents will vote for a tax increase to pay for fire services for all, right?
On the other hand, it merely points out the need for a private fire company that will accept a larger one-time fee. Then people will at least have the choice of the $75/year "insurance" or pay $$$ when they actually do have a fire.
The insinuation that fire protection is a human right, though, is face-palmingly stupid. Fire rescue (ie, saving people from burning structures) yes - but to pretend that there's a human right for one's possessions to be protected is silly.
The area is not served by any government entity. At least for fire fighting. A nearby fire department said they would add individuals to their protection for $75 a year. This guy does not pay and calls to be saved from fire, they say no.
#27
MindDetective
The area is not served by any government entity. At least for fire fighting. A nearby fire department said they would add individuals to their protection for $75 a year. This guy does not pay and calls to be saved from fire, they say no.[/QUOTE]
No, I get it for this situation. I'm just asking about the ridiculousness of it being a right to have your possessions safe.
MindDetective
Hypothetical question, just for clarification: If a guy robs you, should you have the right to invoke a government sponsored entity (the police department) to help you?[/QUOTE]Well, perhaps the residents will vote for a tax increase to pay for fire services for all, right?
On the other hand, it merely points out the need for a private fire company that will accept a larger one-time fee. Then people will at least have the choice of the $75/year "insurance" or pay $$$ when they actually do have a fire.
The insinuation that fire protection is a human right, though, is face-palmingly stupid. Fire rescue (ie, saving people from burning structures) yes - but to pretend that there's a human right for one's possessions to be protected is silly.
The area is not served by any government entity. At least for fire fighting. A nearby fire department said they would add individuals to their protection for $75 a year. This guy does not pay and calls to be saved from fire, they say no.[/QUOTE]
No, I get it for this situation. I'm just asking about the ridiculousness of it being a right to have your possessions safe.
#28
DarkAudit
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
DarkAudit
He didn't *choose* to. According to interviews, he just forgot. And the firefighters dishonored their calling by standing there.Kinda difficult to be too sympathetic towards the guy here. He chose not to pay for the fire cover, and then surprise surprise, wanted the firefighters to save his property anyway.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
#29
sixpackshaker
---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------
sixpackshaker
It may be that his house burned down.a message left at a phone listing for Gene Cranick was not immediately returned.
---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------
is this conjecture, or is there a news story listing these happenings?Not really feeling too bad for the guy whose house burnt down.
1) For 20 years, this fee has been in place.
ii) Prior to that, there was none, zip, zero, nada fire coverage for the area he lived in.
Tres) He lived outside of the township so he didn't pay taxes towards the fire department either.
100) The fee was introduced so that people living in the county would have some kind of fire protection versus none.
V) 3 years earlier, his son had a brushfire and the fire department responded. He still hadn't paid the $75 but as a kindness, they allowed him to pay the fee after the fact.
Sex) Despite the previous brushfire, despite being asked repeatedly to pay $75 to support fire services on his house, he still refused.
7) His house burned down, which it would have before the fee was introduced.
8) You can't buy car insurance after a crash.
NEIN!) If people can pay after a fire, people will only pay after a fire - thus making fire protection services economically unviable.
10) No fire protection services means his house burns down regardless.
#30
Adammon
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
They've been 'forgetting' for 20 years, even though his son had a fire at his house only 3 years earlier AND they were gracious enough to allow him to pay the fee afterwards as a caution to not do this again.
This is why some people can't have nice things - they don't appreciate what they have until it's taken away.
---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------
http://troy.troytn.com/Obion County...tation Presented to the County Commission.pdf
House allowed to burn over $75 fee Video
Tempers flare in SF after house allowed to burn; fire chief hit on NWTNTODAY.COM
"Vowell said people always think they will never be in a situation where they will need rural fire protection, but he said City of South Fulton personnel actually go above and beyond in trying to offer the service. He said the city mails out notices to customers in the specified rural coverage area, with coverage running from July 1 of one year to July 1 the next year.
At the end of the enrollment month of July, the city goes a step further and makes phone calls to rural residents who have not responded to the mail-out.
“These folks were called and notified,” Vowell said. “I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to get it and be aware it’s available. It’s been there for 20 years, but it’s very important to follow up.”"
Adammon
He didn't *choose* to. According to interviews, he just forgot. And the firefighters dishonored their calling by standing there.Kinda difficult to be too sympathetic towards the guy here. He chose not to pay for the fire cover, and then surprise surprise, wanted the firefighters to save his property anyway.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
They've been 'forgetting' for 20 years, even though his son had a fire at his house only 3 years earlier AND they were gracious enough to allow him to pay the fee afterwards as a caution to not do this again.
This is why some people can't have nice things - they don't appreciate what they have until it's taken away.
---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------
More fallout following house fire | WPSD Local 6 - News, Sports, Weather - Paducah KY | LocalIt may be that his house burned down.a message left at a phone listing for Gene Cranick was not immediately returned.
---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------
is this conjecture, or is there a news story listing these happenings?Not really feeling too bad for the guy whose house burnt down.
1) For 20 years, this fee has been in place.
ii) Prior to that, there was none, zip, zero, nada fire coverage for the area he lived in.
Tres) He lived outside of the township so he didn't pay taxes towards the fire department either.
100) The fee was introduced so that people living in the county would have some kind of fire protection versus none.
V) 3 years earlier, his son had a brushfire and the fire department responded. He still hadn't paid the $75 but as a kindness, they allowed him to pay the fee after the fact.
Sex) Despite the previous brushfire, despite being asked repeatedly to pay $75 to support fire services on his house, he still refused.
7) His house burned down, which it would have before the fee was introduced.
8) You can't buy car insurance after a crash.
NEIN!) If people can pay after a fire, people will only pay after a fire - thus making fire protection services economically unviable.
10) No fire protection services means his house burns down regardless.
http://troy.troytn.com/Obion County...tation Presented to the County Commission.pdf
House allowed to burn over $75 fee Video
Tempers flare in SF after house allowed to burn; fire chief hit on NWTNTODAY.COM
"Vowell said people always think they will never be in a situation where they will need rural fire protection, but he said City of South Fulton personnel actually go above and beyond in trying to offer the service. He said the city mails out notices to customers in the specified rural coverage area, with coverage running from July 1 of one year to July 1 the next year.
At the end of the enrollment month of July, the city goes a step further and makes phone calls to rural residents who have not responded to the mail-out.
“These folks were called and notified,” Vowell said. “I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to get it and be aware it’s available. It’s been there for 20 years, but it’s very important to follow up.”"
#31
Mountebank
People "forget" to pay bills all the time. Whether it's through their own absentmindedness or an excuse to put off/avoid payment, it's still their responsibility and they have to live with the consequences.
As for firefighters dishonouring their calling, they would only have done that if people's lives had been at risk. It's not a great situation that they and the homeowner have created through their actions/inaction, but they had no more responsibility to put out that fire than anyone else at that point.
Again, I'm not agreeing with the situation at all, as I think that the fire service should be available to all, but that's not how this area seems to run things.
Mountebank
He didn't *choose* to. According to interviews, he just forgot. And the firefighters dishonored their calling by standing there.[/QUOTE]Kinda difficult to be too sympathetic towards the guy here. He chose not to pay for the fire cover, and then surprise surprise, wanted the firefighters to save his property anyway.
People "forget" to pay bills all the time. Whether it's through their own absentmindedness or an excuse to put off/avoid payment, it's still their responsibility and they have to live with the consequences.
As for firefighters dishonouring their calling, they would only have done that if people's lives had been at risk. It's not a great situation that they and the homeowner have created through their actions/inaction, but they had no more responsibility to put out that fire than anyone else at that point.
Again, I'm not agreeing with the situation at all, as I think that the fire service should be available to all, but that's not how this area seems to run things.
#32
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
Guys you gotta pay the firefighters somehow. My area does it through taxes. This area does it via yearly fees. The firefighters were obligated only to save lives, not property.
#33
General Specific
General Specific
It's pretty heartless to sit there and watch someone's house burn to the ground. I understand the firefighters not wanting to risk their lives, but at least try to contain the fire. No one was inside the building, so there was no need to enter it, just hose it down from the outside. Then, bill the guy the full amount of the operation, including the water used, firefighter's wages for the time spent, etc. Yes, the guy is an idiot for not paying the $75, but the firefighters are also wrong for doing nothing. They risked the fire getting dangerously out of control and turning into a much bigger issue. After all, this was in a rural area.
#34
fade
fade
Right. When I hear things like this, my first response is, "Where is the decency here?" Was the point worth the price paid? Feel good about watching that man's life burn away to make your point? It cost you $75 and a little piece of your metaphorical heart. And this stuff usually comes from people who talk out of the other side of their mouth about charity and goodwill and virtues. Fill dem collection plates, son! Or you don't get no Heaven!
Also, let me see YOU (the general you) arbitrarily divorce yourself from your "property". It's your life as much as your arm, and you know it.
Also, let me see YOU (the general you) arbitrarily divorce yourself from your "property". It's your life as much as your arm, and you know it.
#35
Chibibar
The guy was stupid NOT to pay it, but I figure, since he is not "insured" the firefighter will still come and do their job BUT send you a bill later like emergency room.
Chibibar
I don't think I can. It is my house. The content of the house has a ton of memories between my wife and I. I don't think I can sit back and watch it burn. If there was a membership fee, I would pay it.Right. When I hear things like this, my first response is, "Where is the decency here?" Was the point worth the price paid? Feel good about watching that man's life burn away to make your point? It cost you $75 and a little piece of your metaphorical heart. And this stuff usually comes from people who talk out of the other side of their mouth about charity and goodwill and virtues. Fill dem collection plates, son! Or you don't get no Heaven!
Also, let me see YOU (the general you) arbitrarily divorce yourself from your "property". It's your life as much as your arm, and you know it.
The guy was stupid NOT to pay it, but I figure, since he is not "insured" the firefighter will still come and do their job BUT send you a bill later like emergency room.
#36
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I bet he would not pay the fire fighting bill.
#37
Chibibar
Chibibar
Well, at that point, it will go into collection and his credit record. I'm sure they will collect one way or another. Heck, put a lien on the houseI bet he would not pay the fire fighting bill.
#38
Mountebank
[/QUOTE]
What house? It burned dow...
Ooh, vicious circle.
Mountebank
Well, at that point, it will go into collection and his credit record. I'm sure they will collect one way or another. Heck, put a lien on the houseI bet he would not pay the fire fighting bill.
[/QUOTE]What house? It burned dow...
Ooh, vicious circle.
#39
Chibibar
[/QUOTE]
What house? It burned dow...
Ooh, vicious circle.[/QUOTE]
heh. If the fire fighter saved the home, then bill the guy, if the guy won't pay, then put a lien on the house (people can do that in Texas not sure in TN). So unless they guy abandon the property, he has to pay it before he can sell the house/land.
Chibibar
Well, at that point, it will go into collection and his credit record. I'm sure they will collect one way or another. Heck, put a lien on the houseI bet he would not pay the fire fighting bill.
[/QUOTE]What house? It burned dow...
Ooh, vicious circle.[/QUOTE]
heh. If the fire fighter saved the home, then bill the guy, if the guy won't pay, then put a lien on the house (people can do that in Texas not sure in TN). So unless they guy abandon the property, he has to pay it before he can sell the house/land.
#40
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
I think the truth of the matter is that the fire department could have done anything other then sit back and watch a guys life go up in smoke. There are many other options, like billing him for work plus fees for not paying his dues.
In the end they won't ever get anything out of him now, since he is probably going to move out and leave his charred house remains sitting there for the city to clean up, wasting them more money.
In the end they won't ever get anything out of him now, since he is probably going to move out and leave his charred house remains sitting there for the city to clean up, wasting them more money.
#41
phil
phil
That's what I'm thinking. Charge him 2 grand and actually do something.I think the truth of the matter is that the fire department could have done anything other then sit back and watch a guys life go up in smoke. There are many other options, like billing him for work plus fees for not paying his dues.
In the end they won't ever get anything out of him now, since he is probably going to move out and leave his charred house remains sitting there for the city to clean up, wasting them more money.
#42
Matt²
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
Skimming thread, I agree.
I'm 37... things may be different in other parts of the country, but growing up in the Northwest, I have NEVER heard, in my entire life, of a firefighting tax/fee/mobbing tax. It's always been a city/state/county service, and paying a separate fee, like a garbage or sewer service, is ludicrous in my mind. Sure it is not free, but the firefighters, at least in my part of the country, are paid by the government, not the individuals.. If this had happened here, I think the firefighters would have been strung up by their testicles.
Matt²
He didn't *choose* to. According to interviews, he just forgot. And the firefighters dishonored their calling by standing there.Kinda difficult to be too sympathetic towards the guy here. He chose not to pay for the fire cover, and then surprise surprise, wanted the firefighters to save his property anyway.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
Skimming thread, I agree.
I'm 37... things may be different in other parts of the country, but growing up in the Northwest, I have NEVER heard, in my entire life, of a firefighting tax/fee/mobbing tax. It's always been a city/state/county service, and paying a separate fee, like a garbage or sewer service, is ludicrous in my mind. Sure it is not free, but the firefighters, at least in my part of the country, are paid by the government, not the individuals.. If this had happened here, I think the firefighters would have been strung up by their testicles.
#43
Chibibar
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
Skimming thread, I agree.
I'm 37... things may be different in other parts of the country, but growing up in the Northwest, I have NEVER heard, in my entire life, of a firefighting tax/fee/mobbing tax. It's always been a city/state/county service, and paying a separate fee, like a garbage or sewer service, is ludicrous in my mind. Sure it is not free, but the firefighters, at least in my part of the country, are paid by the government, not the individuals.. If this had happened here, I think the firefighters would have been strung up by their testicles.[/QUOTE]
Well. Garbage and Sewage is part of Water utility bill (a small fee) but I live in a suburbs so fire and police are paid by city taxes.
Chibibar
He didn't *choose* to. According to interviews, he just forgot. And the firefighters dishonored their calling by standing there.Kinda difficult to be too sympathetic towards the guy here. He chose not to pay for the fire cover, and then surprise surprise, wanted the firefighters to save his property anyway.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
Skimming thread, I agree.
I'm 37... things may be different in other parts of the country, but growing up in the Northwest, I have NEVER heard, in my entire life, of a firefighting tax/fee/mobbing tax. It's always been a city/state/county service, and paying a separate fee, like a garbage or sewer service, is ludicrous in my mind. Sure it is not free, but the firefighters, at least in my part of the country, are paid by the government, not the individuals.. If this had happened here, I think the firefighters would have been strung up by their testicles.[/QUOTE]
Well. Garbage and Sewage is part of Water utility bill (a small fee) but I live in a suburbs so fire and police are paid by city taxes.
#44
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Having the house burned down because an underfunded fire department didn't have the manpower would have been one thing, but standing there and watching it burn seems grossly negligent, especially since they allowed the fire to start burning down another house.
I'm with the "charge him non-coverage fees" crowd. That's kind of the whole point of fines.
I'm with the "charge him non-coverage fees" crowd. That's kind of the whole point of fines.
#45
Officer_Charon
Officer_Charon
In rural areas, some fire departments provide service via volunteers only, and charge a nominal fee for servicing their equipment. These guys don't get paid for what they do.
They ensured that lives were not at risk. Were there other ways to handle this? Most certainly! But insofar as I can tell, they did not act inappropriately. When they set up their service, they mail a notice to the new tenants/ newly covered residences. The guy new what the deal was.
Tragic? Sure, but don't place the blame entirely on the hose-draggers
Food for thought.
They ensured that lives were not at risk. Were there other ways to handle this? Most certainly! But insofar as I can tell, they did not act inappropriately. When they set up their service, they mail a notice to the new tenants/ newly covered residences. The guy new what the deal was.
Tragic? Sure, but don't place the blame entirely on the hose-draggers
Food for thought.
#46
Null
Null
I live in a suburban/urban area. Our taxes pay for fire services - equipment, training, etc - though most of the firefighters are volunteers. Since this guy wasn't in an area that was directly serviced, however, I can kind of see how this happened.
I don't like the idea that fire protection be a prescription service, but rather should be covered by the county/district out of county/district taxes. However, since that was not the case.... watching it burn, though? That's cold.
I don't like the idea that fire protection be a prescription service, but rather should be covered by the county/district out of county/district taxes. However, since that was not the case.... watching it burn, though? That's cold.
#47
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Man, I didn't realize this would be such a hot topic.
#48
SpecialKO
Charge the guy a monster non-coverage fee, I am totally fine with. Put a lien on his house if the doesn't pay, totally fine with. As you say, the guy knew what the deal was. But these guys endangered other property and potentially lives by letting the blaze go on in the way that the article describes.
SpecialKO
They allowed another person's property to be set on fire through their deliberate inaction. That doesn't sound like they did much "ensuring" of anything.They ensured that lives were not at risk. Were there other ways to handle this? Most certainly! But insofar as I can tell, they did not act inappropriately.
Charge the guy a monster non-coverage fee, I am totally fine with. Put a lien on his house if the doesn't pay, totally fine with. As you say, the guy knew what the deal was. But these guys endangered other property and potentially lives by letting the blaze go on in the way that the article describes.
#49
strawman
Completely different situation.
When a robbery occurs, a crime has been committed, and a law broken. The police aren't there to get your things back (although if they get them they will return them) they are there to find and turn the criminal over for prosecution.
No laws are being broken when a fire occurs (and if they are, this is a case for the police, not the fire department).
I find it funny that so many are saying the fire department should have put the fire out and then charged him for the costs. In that case, no one would pay the $75 fee, and very few would ever reimburse the fire department (think - they just lost everything. It'll be easier to declare bankruptcy and save yourself another few grand in not paying the fire department). Contrary to popular belief, a house "saved" by the fire department is left in terrible, horrible shape, and everything inside is either burned or smoke damaged to the extent that very little is worth recovering. So the homeowner already faces tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage, and they will ignore the fire department's bills.
Quite frankly, the reason fire departments exist is to prevent fires from spreading. This is the benefit to the community which demands a publicly funded fire department. There is no significant benefit to the community to saving one individual home, so there's no reason to pay for a fire department that covers everyone, except for the fact that in putting one fire out when discovered, it won't spread and cause wide-spread community damage.
There is no need for a residential fire department for rural areas - they are covered by state and national guard units that respond to forest and large-area fires. This is community-required and publicly funded to prevent widespread damage.
However, a nearby fire department decided that, for a low yearly fee, they would still come out and do residential fire fighting on an individual basis for those that wanted that service.
They sent out letters.
They called people who didn't respond to the letters.
They told them that if a fire occurred and they hadn't paid, they would not fight the fire.
This family found themselves in this situation before, and the fire department said, "Ok, we'll fight the fire for you as long as you pay the $75 fee now. But if you want protection next year, you're going to have to pay for it in advance."
They didn't pay for it.
They had a fire.
Why is fire fighting considered a basic human right? Is getting your tire repaired due to a nail in it a basic human right? Where do we draw the line, and why? Why is fire on the "basic human right" side of the line?
strawman
Hypothetical question, just for clarification: If a guy robs you, should you have the right to invoke a government sponsored entity (the police department) to help you?[/QUOTE]Well, perhaps the residents will vote for a tax increase to pay for fire services for all, right?
On the other hand, it merely points out the need for a private fire company that will accept a larger one-time fee. Then people will at least have the choice of the $75/year "insurance" or pay $$$ when they actually do have a fire.
The insinuation that fire protection is a human right, though, is face-palmingly stupid. Fire rescue (ie, saving people from burning structures) yes - but to pretend that there's a human right for one's possessions to be protected is silly.
Completely different situation.
When a robbery occurs, a crime has been committed, and a law broken. The police aren't there to get your things back (although if they get them they will return them) they are there to find and turn the criminal over for prosecution.
No laws are being broken when a fire occurs (and if they are, this is a case for the police, not the fire department).
I find it funny that so many are saying the fire department should have put the fire out and then charged him for the costs. In that case, no one would pay the $75 fee, and very few would ever reimburse the fire department (think - they just lost everything. It'll be easier to declare bankruptcy and save yourself another few grand in not paying the fire department). Contrary to popular belief, a house "saved" by the fire department is left in terrible, horrible shape, and everything inside is either burned or smoke damaged to the extent that very little is worth recovering. So the homeowner already faces tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage, and they will ignore the fire department's bills.
Quite frankly, the reason fire departments exist is to prevent fires from spreading. This is the benefit to the community which demands a publicly funded fire department. There is no significant benefit to the community to saving one individual home, so there's no reason to pay for a fire department that covers everyone, except for the fact that in putting one fire out when discovered, it won't spread and cause wide-spread community damage.
There is no need for a residential fire department for rural areas - they are covered by state and national guard units that respond to forest and large-area fires. This is community-required and publicly funded to prevent widespread damage.
However, a nearby fire department decided that, for a low yearly fee, they would still come out and do residential fire fighting on an individual basis for those that wanted that service.
They sent out letters.
They called people who didn't respond to the letters.
They told them that if a fire occurred and they hadn't paid, they would not fight the fire.
This family found themselves in this situation before, and the fire department said, "Ok, we'll fight the fire for you as long as you pay the $75 fee now. But if you want protection next year, you're going to have to pay for it in advance."
They didn't pay for it.
They had a fire.
Why is fire fighting considered a basic human right? Is getting your tire repaired due to a nail in it a basic human right? Where do we draw the line, and why? Why is fire on the "basic human right" side of the line?
#50
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
They let a house burn to the ground and let the family pets die over 75 fucking dollars. Screw your "basic human rights" horseshit.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
#51
MindDetective
Completely different situation.
When a robbery occurs, a crime has been committed, and a law broken. The police aren't there to get your things back (although if they get them they will return them) they are there to find and turn the criminal over for prosecution.
No laws are being broken when a fire occurs (and if they are, this is a case for the police, not the fire department).
I find it funny that so many are saying the fire department should have put the fire out and then charged him for the costs. In that case, no one would pay the $75 fee, and very few would ever reimburse the fire department (think - they just lost everything. It'll be easier to declare bankruptcy and save yourself another few grand in not paying the fire department). Contrary to popular belief, a house "saved" by the fire department is left in terrible, horrible shape, and everything inside is either burned or smoke damaged to the extent that very little is worth recovering. So the homeowner already faces tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage, and they will ignore the fire department's bills.
Quite frankly, the reason fire departments exist is to prevent fires from spreading. This is the benefit to the community which demands a publicly funded fire department. There is no significant benefit to the community to saving one individual home, so there's no reason to pay for a fire department that covers everyone, except for the fact that in putting one fire out when discovered, it won't spread and cause wide-spread community damage.
There is no need for a residential fire department for rural areas - they are covered by state and national guard units that respond to forest and large-area fires. This is community-required and publicly funded to prevent widespread damage.
However, a nearby fire department decided that, for a low yearly fee, they would still come out and do residential fire fighting on an individual basis for those that wanted that service.
They sent out letters.
They called people who didn't respond to the letters.
They told them that if a fire occurred and they hadn't paid, they would not fight the fire.
This family found themselves in this situation before, and the fire department said, "Ok, we'll fight the fire for you as long as you pay the $75 fee now. But if you want protection next year, you're going to have to pay for it in advance."
They didn't pay for it.
They had a fire.
Why is fire fighting considered a basic human right? Is getting your tire repaired due to a nail in it a basic human right? Where do we draw the line, and why? Why is fire on the "basic human right" side of the line?[/QUOTE]
So you say you don't have the right to solicit their help? You are just doing your duty to help catch and punish a bad person by calling the police?
MindDetective
Hypothetical question, just for clarification: If a guy robs you, should you have the right to invoke a government sponsored entity (the police department) to help you?[/QUOTE]Well, perhaps the residents will vote for a tax increase to pay for fire services for all, right?
On the other hand, it merely points out the need for a private fire company that will accept a larger one-time fee. Then people will at least have the choice of the $75/year "insurance" or pay $$$ when they actually do have a fire.
The insinuation that fire protection is a human right, though, is face-palmingly stupid. Fire rescue (ie, saving people from burning structures) yes - but to pretend that there's a human right for one's possessions to be protected is silly.
Completely different situation.
When a robbery occurs, a crime has been committed, and a law broken. The police aren't there to get your things back (although if they get them they will return them) they are there to find and turn the criminal over for prosecution.
No laws are being broken when a fire occurs (and if they are, this is a case for the police, not the fire department).
I find it funny that so many are saying the fire department should have put the fire out and then charged him for the costs. In that case, no one would pay the $75 fee, and very few would ever reimburse the fire department (think - they just lost everything. It'll be easier to declare bankruptcy and save yourself another few grand in not paying the fire department). Contrary to popular belief, a house "saved" by the fire department is left in terrible, horrible shape, and everything inside is either burned or smoke damaged to the extent that very little is worth recovering. So the homeowner already faces tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage, and they will ignore the fire department's bills.
Quite frankly, the reason fire departments exist is to prevent fires from spreading. This is the benefit to the community which demands a publicly funded fire department. There is no significant benefit to the community to saving one individual home, so there's no reason to pay for a fire department that covers everyone, except for the fact that in putting one fire out when discovered, it won't spread and cause wide-spread community damage.
There is no need for a residential fire department for rural areas - they are covered by state and national guard units that respond to forest and large-area fires. This is community-required and publicly funded to prevent widespread damage.
However, a nearby fire department decided that, for a low yearly fee, they would still come out and do residential fire fighting on an individual basis for those that wanted that service.
They sent out letters.
They called people who didn't respond to the letters.
They told them that if a fire occurred and they hadn't paid, they would not fight the fire.
This family found themselves in this situation before, and the fire department said, "Ok, we'll fight the fire for you as long as you pay the $75 fee now. But if you want protection next year, you're going to have to pay for it in advance."
They didn't pay for it.
They had a fire.
Why is fire fighting considered a basic human right? Is getting your tire repaired due to a nail in it a basic human right? Where do we draw the line, and why? Why is fire on the "basic human right" side of the line?[/QUOTE]
So you say you don't have the right to solicit their help? You are just doing your duty to help catch and punish a bad person by calling the police?
#52
sixpackshaker
Is there anyway to stop saying Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk with every post?
sixpackshaker
and the home owner destroyed his life's work by letting his son play with fire.They let a house burn to the ground and let the family pets die over 75 fucking dollars. Screw your "basic human rights" horseshit.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Is there anyway to stop saying Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk with every post?
#53
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
I guess I might have led some misconception with my answer.
Yeah, the fire dept. was in their full right not to help the guy.
YES, they're assholes for not helping the guy.
Yeah, the fire dept. was in their full right not to help the guy.
YES, they're assholes for not helping the guy.
#54
Reboneer
Reboneer
And they failed to do this too.Quite frankly, the reason fire departments exist is to prevent fires from spreading.
#55
blotsfan
blotsfan
Man, I didn't realize this would be such a hot topic.
#56
strawman
strawman
#57
@Li3n
@Li3n
Wow, those are some retarded firemen... what exactly did they gain besides a potential lawsuit from the neighbours for endangering their properties by letting the fire burn?!
Put out the fire then bill the guy up the wazoo... you make money and a point at the same time...
Put out the fire then bill the guy up the wazoo... you make money and a point at the same time...
#58
MindDetective
MindDetective
The police references were not with regards to this specific example. It was a more abstract discussion about what is considered a societal right and what is not.
#59
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
The damage done isn't just the hundreds of thousands to the property. There's the loss of face and the negative publicity on the community. The potential loss is far more than that $75.
Is political purity so important that you have to appear so relentlessly heartless to the public at large?
Is political purity so important that you have to appear so relentlessly heartless to the public at large?
#60
Adammon
Adammon
I'm sure all of the 2,517 that live in the area are VERY concerned about the loss of one nutbar's house out in the boonies...or not.The damage done isn't just the hundreds of thousands to the property. There's the loss of face and the negative publicity on the community. The potential loss is far more than that $75.
Is political purity so important that you have to appear so relentlessly heartless to the public at large?
#61
makare
makare
My entire state is basically the boonies and we do take an interest when people's houses burn down. If the house burned down because the firefighters refused to act... I'm pretty damn sure they wouldn't be firefighters anymore regardless of an petty fee dispute.
#62
Shakey
I bet if their lack of action resulted in an uncontrollable wild fire that destroyed the town they would be.
Shakey
I'm sure all of the 2,517 that live in the area are VERY concerned about the loss of one nutbar's house out in the boonies...or not.[/QUOTE]The damage done isn't just the hundreds of thousands to the property. There's the loss of face and the negative publicity on the community. The potential loss is far more than that $75.
Is political purity so important that you have to appear so relentlessly heartless to the public at large?
I bet if their lack of action resulted in an uncontrollable wild fire that destroyed the town they would be.
#63
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
I just want to know at what point did our society tip the scales and decide that bureaucratic red tape is more valuable than being a decent human being?
Like I've stated. They were well within their right not to put out the fire, and should not be punished as such, but the decent thing to do would have been to save the guy's house.
Like I've stated. They were well within their right not to put out the fire, and should not be punished as such, but the decent thing to do would have been to save the guy's house.
#64
Chibibar
Chibibar
here is a question : (I can't find the answer) at which point 911 was called? was the fire burning a single room? Did the firemen watch the place burn from room to room? when we were debating on the lost of a home, if the fire start at the living room or bedroom and the firemen arrive and will not put it out. Putting out in one room can still save the rest of the home and possession, but if the whole house was on fire, then might as well let it burn to the ground and rebuilt since it is much harder to save the whole house vs rebuilding a room.I just want to know at what point did our society tip the scales and decide that bureaucratic red tape is more valuable than being a decent human being?
Like I've stated. They were well within their right not to put out the fire, and should not be punished as such, but the decent thing to do would have been to save the guy's house.
#65
Adammon
Morally, saving the house is the right thing to do - in the short term. Longer term, this story will likely save fire protection services for small counties across the US because of the attention brought forward on this issue.
I see everyone's points about "the right thing to do", etc. but that's an emotional reaction to a pretty cut and dry issue.
*I know some people say "He should have just been forced to pay the actual value of saving his house". Two problems with that: 1) He refused to pay $75, I'd imagine he'd have a little bit of a problem with $5000. And he could use the defense that the decision to pay was made under duress and the whole thing gets drug through the court system. 2) What's to stop enterprising 'firefighters' from taking advantage of those who didn't pay the fee and helping little fires along in those areas - essentially extortion.
Adammon
If his house was saved, who pays for the cost to save it?* Where's the incentive to pay $75 for the fire protection services? If no one pays, there is NO fire protection services so suddenly no one's house can be saved.I just want to know at what point did our society tip the scales and decide that bureaucratic red tape is more valuable than being a decent human being?
Like I've stated. They were well within their right not to put out the fire, and should not be punished as such, but the decent thing to do would have been to save the guy's house.
Morally, saving the house is the right thing to do - in the short term. Longer term, this story will likely save fire protection services for small counties across the US because of the attention brought forward on this issue.
I see everyone's points about "the right thing to do", etc. but that's an emotional reaction to a pretty cut and dry issue.
*I know some people say "He should have just been forced to pay the actual value of saving his house". Two problems with that: 1) He refused to pay $75, I'd imagine he'd have a little bit of a problem with $5000. And he could use the defense that the decision to pay was made under duress and the whole thing gets drug through the court system. 2) What's to stop enterprising 'firefighters' from taking advantage of those who didn't pay the fee and helping little fires along in those areas - essentially extortion.
#66
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
Where's your proof that he "refused" to pay? He has said in multiple TV interviews that he never "refused" to pay.
If you're going by the word of that mayor, he's just talking out his ass to defend his position to the wingnut base.
If you're going by the word of that mayor, he's just talking out his ass to defend his position to the wingnut base.
#67
Adammon
Adammon
He's said so himself in earlier interviews that he 'didn't pay, but thought they would come out anyways'. Only after media attention became larger did the story change to 'forgot to pay'.Where's your proof that he "refused" to pay? He has said in multiple TV interviews that he never "refused" to pay.
If you're going by the word of that mayor, he's just talking out his ass to defend his position to the wingnut base.
#68
Chazwozel
I think we're ascribing motives or character flaws to the firefighters on the scene without knowing all of the facts. Sure, they could have just been douchebags, but they coulda also been guys who'd just been told by their boss to not put out the fire on that property and didn't wanna get fired.[/QUOTE]
I speaking in regards to the fire cheif and the mayor.
Chazwozel
I dunno that the individual firefighters made that determination, or if they made it out of malice. If I was a firefighter, and my boss told me not to put water on the guy's house, I'm not sure I'd put my livelihood and my family's well-being on the line and risk being fired because some guy only wants to pay the $75.00 if it turns out he needs it. Especially if he's been given a pass once before and told in no uncertain terms that it was the last time they were going to come out for him if he didn't contract the service. Have you read the articles and watched his interview? Would you get fired over that guy? I wouldn't.I just want to know at what point did our society tip the scales and decide that bureaucratic red tape is more valuable than being a decent human being?
Like I've stated. They were well within their right not to put out the fire, and should not be punished as such, but the decent thing to do would have been to save the guy's house.
I think we're ascribing motives or character flaws to the firefighters on the scene without knowing all of the facts. Sure, they could have just been douchebags, but they coulda also been guys who'd just been told by their boss to not put out the fire on that property and didn't wanna get fired.[/QUOTE]
I speaking in regards to the fire cheif and the mayor.
#69
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
Yep. Political purity trumps common sense and basic human decency.
#70
Adammon
Adammon
There's no political purity issues here, other than with the homeowner. If anything, it's the Spock test. "The goods of the many, outweigh the goods of the few, or the one".Yep. Political purity trumps common sense and basic human decency.
#71
makare
makare
Their inaction will probably bite them in the ass in the long run. Maybe not legally but socially.
#72
Covar
Covar
I'm sorry someone "forgot" to pay a fee to the government? That's about as silly as someone forgetting to pay their taxes.
#73
Chazwozel
It already is making an impact. It seems like the community is pretty pissed at the fire station over the whole thing.
Chazwozel
Their inaction will probably bite them in the ass in the long run. Maybe not legally but socially.
It already is making an impact. It seems like the community is pretty pissed at the fire station over the whole thing.
#74
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Well the son did put the Fire Chief on his ass the next morning.
#75
DarkAudit
Like makare said, the negative impact of the incident will affect far more than this one homeowner, and will add up to far more than one paltry $75 fee.
DarkAudit
There's no political purity issues here, other than with the homeowner. If anything, it's the Spock test. "The goods of the many, outweigh the goods of the few, or the one".[/QUOTE]Yep. Political purity trumps common sense and basic human decency.
Like makare said, the negative impact of the incident will affect far more than this one homeowner, and will add up to far more than one paltry $75 fee.
#76
Chibibar
Chibibar
Tin: I thought the firefighter were at the house and let it burn. They were there to put out the fire if it spreads to the neighborhood.
#77
Adammon
Like makare said, the negative impact of the incident will affect far more than this one homeowner, and will add up to far more than one paltry $75 fee.[/QUOTE]
The impact will be more people will pay for fire protection because they'll recognize the risks associated with not paying. That's not a negative. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only negative that came out of this whole ordeal is that a man, quite sadly, lost his house and a few pets over his conservative philosophy of avoiding "big gub'mint".
Adammon
There's no political purity issues here, other than with the homeowner. If anything, it's the Spock test. "The goods of the many, outweigh the goods of the few, or the one".[/QUOTE]Yep. Political purity trumps common sense and basic human decency.
Like makare said, the negative impact of the incident will affect far more than this one homeowner, and will add up to far more than one paltry $75 fee.[/QUOTE]
The impact will be more people will pay for fire protection because they'll recognize the risks associated with not paying. That's not a negative. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only negative that came out of this whole ordeal is that a man, quite sadly, lost his house and a few pets over his conservative philosophy of avoiding "big gub'mint".
#78
makare
makare
People sympathize with people not businesses. Especially in instances of disaster like fires. The outcome for that fire house is going to be, let's just say, not good.
#79
Adammon
Adammon
It appears that the town has little sympathy for Mr Cranick. At last report, no one had set up a fund to help him out.People sympathize with people not businesses. Especially in instances of disaster like fires. The outcome for that fire house is going to be, let's just say, not good.
#80
makare
makare
That doesn't mean they don't hold the fire fighters responsible.
#81
strawman
One can hardly hold the firefighters responsible for Mr. Cranick's actions.
However, I'm sure that when the county asks voters to pass a tax increase to ensure universal fire protection across the county, the residents will readily pass it, right?
strawman
The guy was burning trash in barrels near flammable bushes and near the house. He almost burned down his house three years ago doing the same thing. It was a double-wide manufactured home, which does not burn slowly.That doesn't mean they don't hold the fire fighters responsible.
One can hardly hold the firefighters responsible for Mr. Cranick's actions.
However, I'm sure that when the county asks voters to pass a tax increase to ensure universal fire protection across the county, the residents will readily pass it, right?
#82
Adammon
Adammon
Maybe they'll realize that their conservative utopia isn't as great as they thought it was. It's often said that a 'conservative is a liberal mugged by reality'. Now a liberal is a conservative who was too cheap to pay a fee.That doesn't mean they don't hold the fire fighters responsible.
#83
@Li3n
@Li3n
They really should have implemented some giant one time fee thing, and just make the guy have to agree to it if he wanted them to come.
Otherwise you're teaching someone a lesson by lowering yourself to their level when you don't have to...
Otherwise you're teaching someone a lesson by lowering yourself to their level when you don't have to...
#84
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Yeah, I'm not sure why people are so against the one-time monster fee thing. It's kind of how an ER works for the non-insured.
Will the fire department collect the entire monster fee? Doubtful, but they'll collect enough through collection agencies that it will be more than the $75 that the guy would have paid otherwise, and if the kept his house, even damaged, it would have had some value which could have been cashiered, re-financed, or at least sold at land-value which would have netted far more than the annual fee.
Either way, they'd get paid.
Will the fire department collect the entire monster fee? Doubtful, but they'll collect enough through collection agencies that it will be more than the $75 that the guy would have paid otherwise, and if the kept his house, even damaged, it would have had some value which could have been cashiered, re-financed, or at least sold at land-value which would have netted far more than the annual fee.
Either way, they'd get paid.
#85
Mountebank
And as for a theoretical negative impact on the firefighters, I don't see it. As far as I know, they're not voted into their jobs. The mayor may suffer in that regard, but I would hope that the community would see beyond a single case where someone set their own house on fire, and then expected a service they had refused to pay for (and I'll use the word refuse, because it's difficult to forget something for so many years in a row - especially when your house nearly burning down should have reminded you 3 years ago) to come out and save their stuff.
Mountebank
A contract signed under duress would be extremely easy to dispute in court.They really should have implemented some giant one time fee thing, and just make the guy have to agree to it if he wanted them to come.
Otherwise you're teaching someone a lesson by lowering yourself to their level when you don't have to...
And as for a theoretical negative impact on the firefighters, I don't see it. As far as I know, they're not voted into their jobs. The mayor may suffer in that regard, but I would hope that the community would see beyond a single case where someone set their own house on fire, and then expected a service they had refused to pay for (and I'll use the word refuse, because it's difficult to forget something for so many years in a row - especially when your house nearly burning down should have reminded you 3 years ago) to come out and save their stuff.
#86
SpecialKO
The county/city could easily bill him without a contract. That he called 911 would be indisputable. There might be wrangling about size of the fine, but it would be considerably more than $75.
Or they could chalk it up to the cost of doing business, since they were there already.
SpecialKO
Eh, the guy might have difficulty retaining a competent lawyer.A contract signed under duress would be extremely easy to dispute in court.
The county/city could easily bill him without a contract. That he called 911 would be indisputable. There might be wrangling about size of the fine, but it would be considerably more than $75.
Or they could chalk it up to the cost of doing business, since they were there already.
#87
Shakey
And as for a theoretical negative impact on the firefighters, I don't see it. As far as I know, they're not voted into their jobs. The mayor may suffer in that regard, but I would hope that the community would see beyond a single case where someone set their own house on fire, and then expected a service they had refused to pay for (and I'll use the word refuse, because it's difficult to forget something for so many years in a row - especially when your house nearly burning down should have reminded you 3 years ago) to come out and save their stuff.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how it would be any different than paying for an ambulance ride. Charge them for the fees incurred by dispatching a fire truck and putting out the fire, those that pay the $75 get fire service for free. Even if they don't get all their money back, they prevent the fire from spreading to other areas.
Shakey
A contract signed under duress would be extremely easy to dispute in court.They really should have implemented some giant one time fee thing, and just make the guy have to agree to it if he wanted them to come.
Otherwise you're teaching someone a lesson by lowering yourself to their level when you don't have to...
And as for a theoretical negative impact on the firefighters, I don't see it. As far as I know, they're not voted into their jobs. The mayor may suffer in that regard, but I would hope that the community would see beyond a single case where someone set their own house on fire, and then expected a service they had refused to pay for (and I'll use the word refuse, because it's difficult to forget something for so many years in a row - especially when your house nearly burning down should have reminded you 3 years ago) to come out and save their stuff.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how it would be any different than paying for an ambulance ride. Charge them for the fees incurred by dispatching a fire truck and putting out the fire, those that pay the $75 get fire service for free. Even if they don't get all their money back, they prevent the fire from spreading to other areas.
#88
Mountebank
And as for a theoretical negative impact on the firefighters, I don't see it. As far as I know, they're not voted into their jobs. The mayor may suffer in that regard, but I would hope that the community would see beyond a single case where someone set their own house on fire, and then expected a service they had refused to pay for (and I'll use the word refuse, because it's difficult to forget something for so many years in a row - especially when your house nearly burning down should have reminded you 3 years ago) to come out and save their stuff.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how it would be any different than paying for an ambulance ride. Charge them for the fees incurred by dispatching a fire truck and putting out the fire, those that pay the $75 get fire service for free. Even if they don't get all their money back, they prevent the fire from spreading to other areas.[/QUOTE]
Because as others above has said, then more people would be willing to make the gamble. Less people paying for coverage, less firefighters, less fire trucks, more people burn.
Mountebank
A contract signed under duress would be extremely easy to dispute in court.They really should have implemented some giant one time fee thing, and just make the guy have to agree to it if he wanted them to come.
Otherwise you're teaching someone a lesson by lowering yourself to their level when you don't have to...
And as for a theoretical negative impact on the firefighters, I don't see it. As far as I know, they're not voted into their jobs. The mayor may suffer in that regard, but I would hope that the community would see beyond a single case where someone set their own house on fire, and then expected a service they had refused to pay for (and I'll use the word refuse, because it's difficult to forget something for so many years in a row - especially when your house nearly burning down should have reminded you 3 years ago) to come out and save their stuff.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how it would be any different than paying for an ambulance ride. Charge them for the fees incurred by dispatching a fire truck and putting out the fire, those that pay the $75 get fire service for free. Even if they don't get all their money back, they prevent the fire from spreading to other areas.[/QUOTE]
Because as others above has said, then more people would be willing to make the gamble. Less people paying for coverage, less firefighters, less fire trucks, more people burn.
#89
Chibibar
Chibibar
After reading this thread, I will have to side with the fire fighter.
This is not the first time (thanks to everyone for the links) and thus, other people will pay the fee so THEIR home won't get burn to the ground or figure out a way to get everyone covered (assuming there are others who don't pay the fee)
This is not the first time (thanks to everyone for the links) and thus, other people will pay the fee so THEIR home won't get burn to the ground or figure out a way to get everyone covered (assuming there are others who don't pay the fee)
#90
Shakey
Shakey
The fire department is already funded by the city, this would just cover the cost of fighting a fire they normally wouldn't. I'm guessing they're not making much at all by charging the $75 anyways.Because as others above has said, then more people would be willing to make the gamble. Less people paying for coverage, less firefighters, less fire trucks, more people burn.
#91
strawman
And as for a theoretical negative impact on the firefighters, I don't see it. As far as I know, they're not voted into their jobs. The mayor may suffer in that regard, but I would hope that the community would see beyond a single case where someone set their own house on fire, and then expected a service they had refused to pay for (and I'll use the word refuse, because it's difficult to forget something for so many years in a row - especially when your house nearly burning down should have reminded you 3 years ago) to come out and save their stuff.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how it would be any different than paying for an ambulance ride. Charge them for the fees incurred by dispatching a fire truck and putting out the fire, those that pay the $75 get fire service for free. Even if they don't get all their money back, they prevent the fire from spreading to other areas.[/QUOTE]
Because as others above has said, then more people would be willing to make the gamble. Less people paying for coverage, less firefighters, less fire trucks, more people burn.[/QUOTE]
As it is, $75 seems overly generous. I don't know the number of homes they are covering outside the city, the distances involved, or the operating budget of the FD, but it costs more than a few thousand dollars just to do one fire run. This includes amortization and maintenance of all firefighting equipment, pay for the team (travel, during the fire, and the equipment restocking/storage/cleaning/drying/etc after each run), benefits for the team, fees for the various communications systems in place (phone, radio, alarms, etc), etc, etc, etc.
Over twenty years, if this dude had been paying, he would have paid only $1,500 total, and would have had the fire department out twice to cover his inability to control fires he himself started.
I strongly suspect that the city is providing this service significantly below cost. It would only take a few responses to completely eat up the $75/resident charge for a few hundred residents.
If the county enacted a county-wide fire protection program and taxed everyone the actual cost of operations it may well end up costing more than $75 per residence.
Which is likely the reason the people haven't been clamoring for it for the last 20 years.
strawman
A contract signed under duress would be extremely easy to dispute in court.They really should have implemented some giant one time fee thing, and just make the guy have to agree to it if he wanted them to come.
Otherwise you're teaching someone a lesson by lowering yourself to their level when you don't have to...
And as for a theoretical negative impact on the firefighters, I don't see it. As far as I know, they're not voted into their jobs. The mayor may suffer in that regard, but I would hope that the community would see beyond a single case where someone set their own house on fire, and then expected a service they had refused to pay for (and I'll use the word refuse, because it's difficult to forget something for so many years in a row - especially when your house nearly burning down should have reminded you 3 years ago) to come out and save their stuff.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how it would be any different than paying for an ambulance ride. Charge them for the fees incurred by dispatching a fire truck and putting out the fire, those that pay the $75 get fire service for free. Even if they don't get all their money back, they prevent the fire from spreading to other areas.[/QUOTE]
Because as others above has said, then more people would be willing to make the gamble. Less people paying for coverage, less firefighters, less fire trucks, more people burn.[/QUOTE]
As it is, $75 seems overly generous. I don't know the number of homes they are covering outside the city, the distances involved, or the operating budget of the FD, but it costs more than a few thousand dollars just to do one fire run. This includes amortization and maintenance of all firefighting equipment, pay for the team (travel, during the fire, and the equipment restocking/storage/cleaning/drying/etc after each run), benefits for the team, fees for the various communications systems in place (phone, radio, alarms, etc), etc, etc, etc.
Over twenty years, if this dude had been paying, he would have paid only $1,500 total, and would have had the fire department out twice to cover his inability to control fires he himself started.
I strongly suspect that the city is providing this service significantly below cost. It would only take a few responses to completely eat up the $75/resident charge for a few hundred residents.
If the county enacted a county-wide fire protection program and taxed everyone the actual cost of operations it may well end up costing more than $75 per residence.
Which is likely the reason the people haven't been clamoring for it for the last 20 years.
#92
Officer_Charon
Officer_Charon
Comparisons have been drawn between charging for a fire run and charging for an ambu,ance run, ex post facto. One very salient point: in general, EMTs and Paramedics aren't putting their safety at risk when they make their (admittedly more frequent) runs. More food for thought.
#93
Necronic
Necronic
I wouldn't quote safety with regards to this situation, because what they did was far more dangerous than putting the fire out. Who's to say the guy didn't have a propane tank in the back yard? By letting that fire burn they increased the risk of the situation. That's part of what I find inexcusable. Here's my list of the idiocy that sprang out of this
1) Guy should have paid his fee
2) City should have expected a situation like this and created an ex-post facto rule
3) The County and City should have worked together to find a better solution to this
4) Letting the fire continue to burn, when they were on the scene, is inexcusable.
The latter is what bites my ass. I'm not necessarilly saying this from a 'that poor dude' perspective, because you can look at it either way. But what is indisputable is that wild fires are insanely destructive, and clearly this city barely had the resources to maintain service to the county. By letting the fire continue to burn they were increasing the risk of a wild-fire.
It's kind of like helping your roommate get viruses off his computer. You keep telling him to stop going to those russian websites, and to keep his anti-virus up to date, but when he gets a virus it is in your interest to get it off, because you share a network.
But yeah, please please please don't quote safety as any part of this. What they did was very dangerous.
1) Guy should have paid his fee
2) City should have expected a situation like this and created an ex-post facto rule
3) The County and City should have worked together to find a better solution to this
4) Letting the fire continue to burn, when they were on the scene, is inexcusable.
The latter is what bites my ass. I'm not necessarilly saying this from a 'that poor dude' perspective, because you can look at it either way. But what is indisputable is that wild fires are insanely destructive, and clearly this city barely had the resources to maintain service to the county. By letting the fire continue to burn they were increasing the risk of a wild-fire.
It's kind of like helping your roommate get viruses off his computer. You keep telling him to stop going to those russian websites, and to keep his anti-virus up to date, but when he gets a virus it is in your interest to get it off, because you share a network.
But yeah, please please please don't quote safety as any part of this. What they did was very dangerous.
#94
Mountebank
Mountebank
Their job is very dangerous.But yeah, please please please don't quote safety as any part of this. What they did was very dangerous.
#95
strawman
strawman
They weren't on the scene until the neighbor called because their house was being threatened by the fire. By that time there was likely nothing they could have done anyway for the trailer home this guy owned that had already been on fire for some time.4) Letting the fire continue to burn, when they were on the scene, is inexcusable.
#96
Cajungal
Cajungal
Huh. While I understand their reasoning, it kinda takes the nobility out of one of the few professions that remain pure in many people's eyes long after childhood ends. Chaz and Tin pretty much said what I'm thinking. I understand, but I don't like it. And it would be a good idea to either get the whole area on board--all or nothing. That way we don't have any more of this, "we'll save your home and precious memories, but not yours because you owe us the equivalent of a Pizza Hut's petty cash box.
#97
tegid
If you are in risk of immediate death the firemen will also come to your aid. But if you aren't, they won't if you don't pay, just like you won't get healthcare.
What about policemen? Shouldn't they stop protecting people from robberies and only protect their lives?
I understand the difference is the police is payed through taxes, and I have two angles on this: Apply the previous question only to people who don't pay taxes. The other one is: why is it right to pay for the police and sometimes firefighters with taxes, but it's wrong if you do that with healthcare?
---------- Post added at 06:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 AM ----------
More directly on topic, I guess what they did was right in their context, but I think (as some people have already said) they should have put out the fire and charged the guy later.
tegid
You don't have to pre-pay to get care. If someone comes into an emergency room (or calls for an ambulance, I think) they get treatment. They'll have to pay afterwards, often more than they can afford, but emergency rooms aren't legally allowed to leave someone untreated just because they don't have health insurance (which has recently led to at least one hospital in Houston closing because they were getting too many patients who were unable to pay).[/QUOTE]How is this any different to not getting healthcare unless you pay?
If you are in risk of immediate death the firemen will also come to your aid. But if you aren't, they won't if you don't pay, just like you won't get healthcare.
What about policemen? Shouldn't they stop protecting people from robberies and only protect their lives?
I understand the difference is the police is payed through taxes, and I have two angles on this: Apply the previous question only to people who don't pay taxes. The other one is: why is it right to pay for the police and sometimes firefighters with taxes, but it's wrong if you do that with healthcare?
---------- Post added at 06:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 AM ----------
More directly on topic, I guess what they did was right in their context, but I think (as some people have already said) they should have put out the fire and charged the guy later.
#98
@Li3n
[/QUOTE]
Actually i was thinking more along the lines of an officially offered one time service costing a fixed fee, which should be perhaps 20 or more times then the monthly thing...
@Li3n
A contract signed under duress would be extremely easy to dispute in court.They really should have implemented some giant one time fee thing, and just make the guy have to agree to it if he wanted them to come.
Otherwise you're teaching someone a lesson by lowering yourself to their level when you don't have to...
[/QUOTE]
Actually i was thinking more along the lines of an officially offered one time service costing a fixed fee, which should be perhaps 20 or more times then the monthly thing...
#99
Docseverin
Docseverin
From what I can understand the fire house never got the call as it didn't make it past dispatch. I don't see why everyone is so upset with the firefighters for not using their spidey sense and going to fires they never got called to.
#100
Necronic
Necronic
I get that part, the only thing I am upset about is that when they arrived on the scene, they should have extinguished all of the fires. Letting it burn to prove a point was unnecessarily dangerous.
#101
SpecialKO
Now it appears that only the dispatch was fiddling.
SpecialKO
I think that part of it is that it was reported as if the firefighters had been called out when the fire started, checked his paperwork when they got there, and then fiddled while his house burned down.From what I can understand the fire house never got the call as it didn't make it past dispatch. I don't see why everyone is so upset with the firefighters for not using their spidey sense and going to fires they never got called to.
Now it appears that only the dispatch was fiddling.
#102
strawman
strawman
There are no fire hydrants in the country. If you're lucky there's a pool, lake, or pond within 100 feet. In other words, if they spent the remaining water in the tanker on a house that didn't pay, and someone else's house caught fire but they ran out of water, they'd be in even hotter water both publicly and legally than they are right now.I get that part, the only thing I am upset about is that when they arrived on the scene, they should have extinguished all of the fires. Letting it burn to prove a point was unnecessarily dangerous.
#103
GasBandit
GasBandit
Let me get this straight... There's a city. That city has firefighters. They put out fires in that city, like normal firefighters. If you DON'T live in the city, say, you live way out in the country... the CITY firefighters will take SPECIAL PAINS to come out to your rural McMansion so long as you pay an annual fee of $75, which probably doesn't even come close to mitigating the added expenses incurred to the fire department for fighting fires out in the boonies. Guy doesn't pay his $75, firefighters don't come.
I don't see the problem. In fact, I have a problem with the guy whose house burned down.
I don't see the problem. In fact, I have a problem with the guy whose house burned down.
#104
@Li3n
@Li3n
Because we didn't pay all those radioactive spider taxes so they can ignore their spider sense dammit...From what I can understand the fire house never got the call as it didn't make it past dispatch. I don't see why everyone is so upset with the firefighters for not using their spidey sense and going to fires they never got called to.