I bet he would not pay the fire fighting bill.
Didn't Pay Annual Firefighter's Fees? Burn, Baby, Burn!
- Thread starter ThatNickGuy
- Start date
- Status
C
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 house
M
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 house
[/QUOTE]What house? It burned dow...
Ooh, vicious circle.
C
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 house
[/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.
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.
That's what I'm thinking. Charge him 2 grand and actually do something.
M
Matt²
He didn't *choose* to. According to interviews, he just forgot. And the firefighters dishonored their calling by standing there.
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.
C
Chibibar
He didn't *choose* to. According to interviews, he just forgot. And the firefighters dishonored their calling by standing there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Man, I didn't realize this would be such a hot topic.
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.
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.
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]
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?
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]
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?
and the home owner destroyed his life's work by letting his son play with fire.
Is there anyway to stop saying Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk with every post?
C
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.
R
Reboneer
And they failed to do this too.
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.
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?
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.
M
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.
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]
I bet if their lack of action resulted in an uncontrollable wild fire that destroyed the town they would be.
C
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.
C
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.
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.
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.
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'.
C
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 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.
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".
- Status