Firefighters watch home burn away since owner didn't pay fee

[ragincaucasian]

So...
What if that guy's kids were trapped inside the house?

FD would watch?

 

[larss]

This method of fire service is positively medieval

Local taxes should pay for a fire service, not a special payment to that service, that is ridiculous.
Two houses next to each other one has paid, the other doesn't. The house of the non payer catches fire - do the fire fighters wait until the second house catches fire and put that out, or do they make the more sensible move of putting out the first fire to prevent the fire spreading.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Because if you didn't pay your property taxes (for example) your home would be subject to seizure in lieu of the taxes you owe. Then they would sell your home to someone who would pay them like they're supposed to.

But only a portion of your property taxes go toward local services...that's what the city or local municipality collects taxes for. In the overwhelming majority of case they don't send you a bill to maintain your membership in the fire protection program. That's the reason why most of these services aren't subject to your decision to pay for them per se. What if your neighbor didn't pay to have his trash removed...or 5 of them didn't or couldn't??? You see where this is going? That's why you pay these things by way of some direct transaction tax. Be it attached on some water bill or gas bill or whatever.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, your house catches fire...fire truck shows up..puts it out and you report your loss to your ins. company..end of story.

Again, I want this type of service to be shared...you never know what circumstance your neighbor is in to where they may not be able to pay some fee irrespective of how reasonably nominal.

I don't want firemen checking some data base to see if they're going to show up to put out a fire...what if someone was in the house?? Or it was adjacent to your home and you didn't want the fire to jump to your property???

If my neighbors didn't pay their fee to have their trash removed and garbage started piling up, I would probably go over and ask them to clean up their shit. And, if they didn't, I'd call the city and have them handle it. Then, the city would force them to clean up their trash and, if they refused, then they would get fined for their insubordinance. So, either way...they're going to be paying something to have their trash removed. So, why wouldn't they just pay the initial fee and get it over with?

In the case of my neighbor's house catching fire...I'd be protected, because I would've paid my fee and I would receive the benefit of having fire protection. If the fire from my neighbor's house was effecting the well-being of my house, then the fire department would put out the fire, because they would protecting my house...not my neighbor's.

I can only assume that the fire wasn't a threat to the surrounding homes - meaning, the flames weren't close enough to the other homes to be considered an immediate threat. And, if that was the case, then no assistance from the firemen would be needed to protect the neighbors' houses.

What about the people that can't pay or at least have low enough income that they would have a hard time paying and it would be significant burden to them? That seventy five dollars might very well help them pay most of their bills for the month or by them food for that time when they are living on the edge. They would be denied something that is a necessary public service. I don't see this as any better than the police not showing up when somebody's trying to kill another person because some fee wasn't paid, schools not being put up buildings to educate kids because a large area is poor, or the postal service not coming to an area because there is no profit in it.


Something else that would happen is if fire departments were just another business or were privatized what's to keep them from not servicing an area or just not giving people the option of fire protection at all if they don't think there's enough profit in it? Businesses don't do anything out of the kindness of their own heart. The only two options would to be have nothing and let the whole neighborhood burn down, or have woefully inadequate, cheap, under funded, and unskilled force of firefighters that will probably let the neighborhood burn down anyway. In society to have it function properly and be ethical and fair often people might be required to pay disproportionately for something that doesn't benefit them, like having a neighbors child down the street be able to go to school or to help and try to have the neighbor’s house not burn down when it catches fire.

If a person doesn't have the income to pay said fee, then financial assistance (or a payment plan) is usually available in those circumstances. Just as people with low incomes can get financial assistance from the electric company or gas company, the same can probably be said for a fire protection fee (I can only assume, because I don't know that city's government or how it works).

But, if you just DON'T pay your fee, then you don't get fire protection service. Is it a necessity that people have fire departments? No, it's not. It's a public service, not a necessity. It's no different than having to pay for the electricity and gas that is supplied to your residence. It's not a necessity to have electricity, it's a convenience - a service that is provided to those who pay for it. It's not a necessity to have gas, it's a convenience - a service that is provided to those who pay for it. It's not a necessity to have professional firefighters keep your house from burning down, it's a convenience - a service that is provided to those who pay for it. Whether that payment be made via taxes or an additional, city-based or county-based fee, you only get fire protection service if you pay for it.

I understand the points that people are trying to make here - I do - but people seem to be failing to realize that this guy just straight up didn't pay his necessary fee (a fee which he knew he had to pay in order to receive fire protection).

I think it's silly that the city he lives in forces people to pay a $75 fee to have the benefit of fire protection and I don't necessarily agree with that strategy...but it's undeniable that this dude failed to do something that he had to do in order to have the benefit of firefighter assistance in case of a house fire. The fee itself might be ridiculous in concept, but this guy is 100% at fault for not having fire protection when his house was burning down.

 

[Hot Mega]

If my neighbors didn't pay their fee to have their trash removed and garbage started piling up, I would probably go over and ask them to clean up their shit. And, if they didn't, I'd call the city and have them handle it. Then, the city would force them to clean up their trash and, if they refused, then they would get fined for their insubordinance. So, either way...they're going to be paying something to have their trash removed. So, why wouldn't they just pay the initial fee and get it over with?

I don't know why a person wouldn't but maybe it's the case where they can't for some reason. But presumably if you called the city...who's going to pay for that visit, you? You're the one calling them right?

Again, if for some reason they couldn't you could fine them all you want but that still doesn't solve the problem you and your other neighbors are going to have.

In the case of trash pickup they usually bill you directly for it on some combination utility bill and if you don't pay it...they STILL (rightfully) come to get everyone's trash but simply discontinue your water or electricity or something.

In most cases fire and police depts. are paid for by municipal taxes so that the service is constantly maintained so the response isn't based on whether an individual paid some goofy fee or not.

In either case because of the interest to the community these services aren't interrupted because individuals fail to pay at some point. That would be stupid IMO

In the case of my neighbor's house catching fire...I'd be protected, because I would've paid my fee and I would receive the benefit of having fire protection. If the fire from my neighbor's house was effecting the well-being of my house, then the fire department would put out the fire, because they would protecting my house...not my neighbor's.

Well, let's walk through this practically and see how it would work. No one's at your house while your neighbor's house is burning. You come home to the charred remains of your home because neighbor "A" home caught fire but they didn't respond to his call because he didn't pay but there's no one to call on your behalf so they come put out the fire at your house.

I can only assume that the fire wasn't a threat to the surrounding homes - meaning, the flames weren't close enough to the other homes to be considered an immediate threat. And, if that was the case, then no assistance from the firemen would be needed to protect the neighbors' houses.

Actually it was...it did jump to someone else's property and the fire dept. came to put it out but the (preventable) damage was already done.

So now you or your insurance company has to take a (preventable) loss repairing collateral damage.

Let's assume the service was fully supported by these fees but the overwhelming majority of households took their chances and didn't pay it.

How could you pay/man the fire dept. for the 2 or 3 households that do pay?

Again, a dumb...not well thought out policy by this mayor.

All of these type of things have been tried before and these are some of the problems with it and that's the reason why sensible municipalities don't operate this way.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

They did not pay their $75 fire PROTECTION fee so they are not going to be PROTECTED in case of fire.

If they did not have home owner insurance or any kind of insurance to protect them from something that may or may not happen, what are they going to do? Call up a insurance company and pay for the previous six months worth of protection and make a claim?

Nice story about nothing and trying to make government/tax paid services look evil and a waste of money. I bet in your mind you were wishing a police officer came up and tase the people while they watched their house burn down, just so you have something else to bitch about.

Not like the firefighters came up to a burning house and said: Well tough shit I just sat down to eat dinner back at the firehouse. See you in fifteen minutes. What's your name again?

 

[Hot Mega]

They did not pay their $75 fire PROTECTION fee so they are not going to be PROTECTED in case of fire.

If they did not have home owner insurance or any kind of insurance to protect them from something that may or may not happen, what are they going to do? Call up a insurance company and pay for the previous six months worth of protection and make a claim?

Nice story about nothing and trying to make government/tax paid services look evil and a waste of money. I bet in your mind you were wishing a police officer came up and tase the people while they watched their house burn down, just so you have something else to bitch about.

Not like the firefighters came up to a burning house and said: Well tough shit I just sat down to eat dinner back at the firehouse. See you in fifteen minutes. What's your name again?

Uh, I think we all got that part of the shit being out of the horse ~~whim. The question is in the wisdom of such a policy when you consider the risks and the reasoning why the overwhelming majority of places don't do it this way.

The risks aren't only that the household that doesn't pay is not protected.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

Pay what you owe.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I don't know why a person wouldn't but maybe it's the case where they can't for some reason. But presumably if you called the city...who's going to pay for that visit, you? You're the one calling them right?

I'm going to be paying for it. So are you. So is everyone else in the city who paid their fee. They'll probably hike the price from $75 a year to $80 a year, just to cover the "extra" expense of offering fire protection services to cheapskates who don't pay for it.

The same goes for any public service that is offered to citizens of a city. If someone doesn't pay their taxes, they aren't helping to pay for police officers and firefighters. Yet, they still get to use their services? Thanks. I guess I'LL pay your share, you assholes.

Again, if for some reason they couldn't you could fine them all you want but that still doesn't solve the problem you and your other neighbors are going to have.

What problem do the neighbors have exactly? If I pay my fee, I get fire protection service - my neighbor does not. So, if my neighbor's house catches fire, the fire department will show up to protect MY house - not my neighbor's.

In the case of trash pickup they usually bill you directly for it on some combination utility bill and if you don't pay it...they STILL (rightfully) come to get everyone's trash but simply discontinue your water or electricity or something.

My girlfriend lives in a town in Michigan that doesn't have city-provided garbage pick-up. The citizens have to pay a monthly fee to have someone pick up their trash. If they don't pay to have their trash removed, then nobody is going to come pick it up for them. The city doesn't have a city regulation that offers free garbage pick-up for anybody, so if somebody doesn't pay for the garbage hauling service, then they don't get their garbage taken away. Same goes for the guy who didn't pay his fire protection fee. The city doesn't offer free firefighting services, so they're not going to offer that service to people who don't pay for it.

In most cases fire and police depts. are paid for by municipal taxes so that the service is constantly maintained so the response isn't based on whether an individual paid some goofy fee or not.

I agree the fee is goofy. I don't support it and I think it's kind of stupid. But, I'm not the mayor. I don't live there either. Unfortunately, Mr. I-didn't-pay-my-fire-protection-fee does though. So, he has to abide by the rules of the city. And, the rules state that you have to pay $75 a year to have fire protection service guaranteed for your house. Otherwise, your house burns down because you're too stupid to pony up $75 to have firefighters help you when you need it.

Well, let's walk through this practically and see how it would work. No one's at your house while your neighbor's house is burning. You come home to the charred remains of your home because neighbor "A" home caught fire but they didn't respond to his call because he didn't pay but there's no one to call on your behalf so they come put out the fire at your house.

They would respond to the call - just not to save my neighbor's house. They would respond to ensure that people who paid their fee - in this case, me - didn't have their homes burn to the ground.

 

[Member442]

This method of fire service is positively medieval

Local taxes should pay for a fire service, not a special payment to that service, that is ridiculous.
Two houses next to each other one has paid, the other doesn't. The house of the non payer catches fire - do the fire fighters wait until the second house catches fire and put that out, or do they make the more sensible move of putting out the first fire to prevent the fire spreading.

No that is why they were at the scene to prevent the fire from spreading. If it had start to threaten the other houses they would have taken action to prevent them from being burnt. Or that's why I would think as they bothered to show up. Though I don't understand why they didn't just bill the guy for the use of the trucks and everything. Fire protection is very expensive probably would have been a bill over 50 thousand but he'd still have a house.

If you don't pay your taxes you don't get things this guy learned a very expensive lesson. The hard way.

 

[Hot Mega]

No that is why they were at the scene to prevent the fire from spreading. If it had start to threaten the other houses they would have taken action to prevent them from being burnt. Or that's why I would think as they bothered to show up. Though I don't understand why they didn't just bill the guy for the use of the trucks and everything. Fire protection is very expensive probably would have been a bill over 50 thousand but he'd still have a house.

If you don't pay your taxes you don't get things this guy learned a very expensive lesson. The hard way.

According to the story, the fire did spread to someone else's property. And it was put out after the it already caused damage.:2 cents:

 

[nylo]

Granted the owner was a douche' by not paying the $75, but just standing around letting the house burn just shows that no one has any brains or compassion for that matter. This is a bad move on the part of the government and the firefighters, it like the mob forcing people to pay "protection" money. They could have at least saved the house and then dealt with these idiots later on.

I won't be surprised if we see more of behavior like that the worse the economic conditions get. There is teaching a lesson and then being a complete and total douche' about it. And this goes beyond being a douche' about it. This is part of the property taxes and should not be a separate charge....that I blame on the city or whathaveyou.

This just shows why I think most people can be real douche's and are just selfish and etc.

Here's what I would have done, I would have put out the fire and then told them, you can't go back in until you pay double."we saved your house, now pay the penalty"

The shame of it all.

 

[HELLRAISER]

Here's some details about the mayor and the fire policy of this county:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/04/county-firefighters-subscription/

A local newspaper further pressed Mayor Crocker about the city’s policy, which has been in place since 1990. Crocker, a Republican who was elected in 2008 and serves with a county commission where every seat is also filled by a Republican, likened the policy to buying auto insurance. The paper said he told them that, after all, “if an auto owner allowed their vehicle insurance to lapse, they would not expect an insurance company to pay for an unprotected vehicle after it was wrecked.”

Ironically, in the county commission’s latest report on its fire services, which outlines which parts of the municipal area will receive fire services only through subscriptions, the commissioners and fire service officials brag that the county is “very progressive.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/04/national-review-firefighters/

National Review Writers Defend County Whose Subscription-Only Firefighters Watched Home Burn Down

As ThinkProgress reported earlier this morning, South Fulton firefighters from Obion, Tennessee, last week stood by and watched as a family’s home burned down because their services were available by subscription only, and the family had not paid the $75 fee. As ThinkProgress noted, the case perfectly demonstrated conservative ideology, which is based around the idea of the on-your-own society and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well-off and privileged.

Now, leading conservative authors from modern conservatism’s bulkhead magazine, The National Review, have come out in defense of Obion County firefighters’ policy of servicing rural citizens by paid subscription only. The magazine’s commentary on the issue started with a blog post by Daniel Forster, one of the magazine’s staff writers. Writing on the National Review blog The Corner, Forster condemned the behavior of the county, saying that while he has “no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle,” he sees no “moral theory” under which the firefighters would be justified in watching the house burn down:

I have no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle — especially in rural areas where individual need for government services and available infrastructure vary so widely. But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?

Yet, Forster’s fellow conservative writers found it hard to tolerate his view that families shouldn’t have to watch their homes burn down as firefighters stand there with their hoses. First, Kevin Williamson responded, comparing the family whose home was destroyed to “jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates”:

Dan, you are 100 percent wrong. [...] And, for their trouble, the South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton’s firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives.

Next came Jonah Goldberg, who said that while the story is “sad,” it will probably “save more houses over the long haul” because more people will pay for the subscription fire service:

Here’s the more important part of the story, letting the house burn — while, I admit sad — will probably save more houses over the long haul. I know that if I opted out of the program before, I would be more likely to opt-in now. No solace to the homeowner, but an important lesson for compassionate conservatives like our own Dan Foster (Zing!). As Edmund Burke said, example is the school of mankind and he will learn from no other.

Finally, John Derbyshire joined in. The writer said he was “entirely with the South Fulton fire department” and then launched into a complicated analogy explaining that the firefighters’ actions inject certainty into the surrounding society:

Dan, Kevin: I am entirely with the South Fulton fire department here. In the terms of Nico Colchester’s great 1996 essay, they are being crunchy rather than soggy:

Crunchy systems are those in which small changes have big effects leaving those affected by them in no doubt whether they are up or down, rich or broke, winning or losing, dead or alive. … Sogginess is comfortable uncertainty. … The richer a society becomes, the soggier its systems get. Light-switches no longer turn on or off: they dim.

One of the duties of conservatives in this soggy fallen world is to stand up for crunchiness. For the fire department to have extinguished the Cranicks’ fire would have been soggy, even aside from the considerable degree of sogginess it would have left on the property.

It has been 28 years since conservative historian Doug Wead first coined the term “compassionate conservative.” It now appears that if any such philosophy ever existed, it has few adherents in the modern conservative movement.

 

[titsrock]

:sing: God bless America.... :sing:

:crying:

 

[larss]

Thank God I live in a country where the fire brigade will put out a fire and the health service will treat me without me having to prove that I have paid for the privilege. My taxes go to pay for these little essentials in life.

 

[Hot Mega]

Thank God I live in a country where the fire brigade will put out a fire and the health service will treat me without me having to prove that I have paid for the privilege. My taxes go to pay for these little essentials in life.

Most of us in America do too....but we do have backwards, shit-kicking enclaves like this place which apparently still have to figure out why it's in the town's interests not to allow accidental fires to burn.

The good thing is we still vote and if these shit-kickers want these type of jackwads running their town who still have to figure out why the rest of the world doesn't have policies like this anymore...they deserve what they get.:clap:

 

[ChefChiTown]

Dan, you are 100 percent wrong. [...] And, for their trouble, the South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton’s firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives.

Give this guy a prize for something. Well said. I still think the fee is stupid, but well said.

 

[HELLRAISER]

http://www.alternet.org/story/14840...se_burn_down_because_owner_didn't_pay_$75_fee

AlterNet / By Joshua Holland

Ayn Rand Conservatism at Work -- Firefighters Let Family's House Burn Down Because

Owner Didn't Pay $75 Fee

Talk of limited government is appealing until you see what it actually means in practice: a society in which it's every man for himself.
October 4, 2010 |

Thanks to 30 years of right-wing demagoguery about the evils of “collectivism” and the perfidy of “big government” -- and a bruising recession that’s devastated state and local budgets -- we’re getting a peek at a dystopian nightmare that may be in our not-too-distant future. It’s a picture of a society in which “rugged individualism” run amok means every man for himself.

 

[HELLRAISER]

Glenn Beck applauds Tennessee county and fire department that let family house burn down

http://www.trcommons.org/2010/10/gl...e-department-that-let-family-house-burn-down/

More than that, though, he and producer Pat Gray actually mocked the family (specifically the father, Gene Cranick), which lost three dogs and a cat in the fire, with Beck himself saying that it’s just the way it ought to be

 

[Ace Bandage]

Glenn Beck applauds Tennessee county and fire department that let family house burn down

http://www.trcommons.org/2010/10/gl...e-department-that-let-family-house-burn-down/

It's really this simple: pay your goddamn fees and your house would still be standing. The only difference between me and the other firefighters is that I would have brought a case of beer with me to watch it burn.

I applaud Glenn Beck. :clap:

 

[roronoa3000]

I hope their fire house burns down with them inside