Fire department lets house burn down over 75 dollars

[Sheep]

-The firefighters absolutely should have put out the fire, it's crap that they didn't. Yes, all their rules say not to, he's not covered, but still gotta do it. They should have then presented him a bill for a couple thousand dollars worth of service charges though, to cover the labor, gas, water, fire truck rental, etc. Sends the same message that you should REALLY pay your bills, but without burning the guy out of his house...

El cheapo wouldn't pay $75 and admitted to assuming the FD would come out in the event of a fire anyway. What makes you think he'd pay the thousands of dollars that it cost to get a team out to put out a fire? If everybody who didn't pay the $75 fire fighting fee realized they'd still get services, no one would pay the fee and the FD would be even more up the creek serving the city that is actually paying for its services as well as the unincorporated county.

EDIT: Guess I should've read the rest of your post, as you essentially pointed out the same things.

 

[Chaos Descending]

I posted this at another forum:

Ironically, we wouldn't be talking about this at all if the guy lived a few hundred feet farther from his nearest neighbor.

The whole brouhaha is over the fact that the Fire Department did show up for his neighbor while this guy's house was still burning.

If he lived just far enough away that his fire wouldn't have affected his neighbor, the Fire Department would not have come out at all. They wouldn't have even gotten into the truck to drive out.

I highly doubt "Fire Department fails to respond to fire that's not in their jurisdiction" would have made the headlines.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I wonder though, would they just stand there and watch it burn if there had been people inside?

No. As has been reported, the only way they respond to calls from non-paying customers is if there's a life at risk.

Reported? By who? None of the links in the OP mentioned that.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Sorry, I'm mentally conflating this thread with the one in TNZ and the other at Wordforge.

Here's a link that states this:

http://www.ucfdtn.com/

The policy, of these cities is that if the fee isn’t paid, then the fire department does not respond. The only exception being; life endangerment. (A report that someone may be inside the home.)

 

[Rett Mikhal]

To those of you saying the 75 dollar fee is necessary to fund the station, you're wrong.

This happened in a small county, a county too small for its own fire department. So they "rent" a larger county's fire coverage, for the 75 dollar fee.

So fee or no fee the fire department gets tax money from the state, enough to function fully. The 75 dollars is just to get more money. Perhaps for new equipment, or perhaps to beef up pensions. Who knows.

Point is, that argument falls flat.

Also, I do know someone who lost all their possessions in a fire. That was my uncle, along with my cousins, and they live in Tennessee as well. An electrical wire was incorrectly installed and lit the insulation. It was later determined that the electrician they hired let his little brother, who had no experience OR LICENSE, install that wire. The insurance company, however, still felt it was my uncle's fault because he should have known a wire behind a wall was sparking, since it was installed a few months before the fire. He got basically nothing out of it and that part of my family has been broken and turbulent ever since.

So, having seen all that first hand, there's really nothing you can say that would convince me this guy or anyone deserves his home destroyed.

Then there's the obvious logic about it. Burning down a house does terrible things. There's chemicals that burn, the smoke causes property and lung damage to everything and everyone around it, and there's danger of pipes rupturing which would be bad news to every house nearby. Did they ever consider THAT?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And Fahrenheit 451 creeps ever closer...

 

[Lonemagpie]

This is how US fire departments used to work at the turn of the 19th century. Of course in those days, they'd also set the fires...

 

[Chaos Descending]

This happened in a small county, a county too small for its own fire department. So they "rent" a larger county's fire coverage, for the 75 dollar fee.

I'm going to be pedantic, basically because I want to.

The county is not "too small" for it's own fire department. The county simply does not provide its own fire coverage for reasons unknown. Presumably because the county residents did not want to pay for it.

The county consists of the following:
1. Several incorporated cities, each with their own fire department.
2. Unincorporated county land, NOT belonging to any of the individual cities.

Some (not all) of the cities in the county offer subscription based fire service to the non-city residents of the county.

There is no second county involved.

So fee or no fee the fire department gets tax money from the state

Says who? You may be right, but I don't see anything that says that. I was under the assumption that the cities pay for the city fire departments.

enough to function fully.

Yes, for the residents of the covered city.

The 75 dollars is just to get more money. Perhaps for new equipment, or perhaps to beef up pensions. Who knows.

Understandably so.

Anyway, the link in my post above gives more details on the pay system.

The $75 annual fee only buys the right to have the fire department respond. If the fire department is actually called out, you have to pay $500 for the call.

It's like having an insurance policy with a $75 annual premium and a $500 deductible.

 

[Sheep]

To those of you saying the 75 dollar fee is necessary to fund the station, you're wrong.

This happened in a small county, a county too small for its own fire department. So they "rent" a larger county's fire coverage, for the 75 dollar fee.

So fee or no fee the fire department gets tax money from the state, enough to function fully. The 75 dollars is just to get more money. Perhaps for new equipment, or perhaps to beef up pensions. Who knows.

Your logic makes no sense. Most FDs (and PDs for that matter) aren't swimming in so much money that they can $20 bills as toilet paper like you're implying. In many cases, they're barely funded enough to serve the actual people who pay taxes in the city proper, let alone those in surrounding counties who don't contribute directly.

This city's FD is providing a service to a rural county that didn't have the ability or the desire to set up its own FD, and asking $75 per year per household for it. Considering the city residents likely pay more than that for FD services through their property taxes, $75 per year is a small price to ask the people in the boonies to pay.

 

[sbk1234]

I agree that people should face consequences, but the consequences should be reasonable. After putting the fire out, the man could have been subject to additional fines, far in excess of the $75. These could pay for the use of the services, insurance for the firefighters, salaries, whatever. It would still give people the message that they better pay their $75, but it wouldn't be inhumane in the way they go about it.
It's like that episode of Star Trek:TNG where it was death penalty for stepping on the flowers. Of course, that was fiction....

 

[RJDiogenes]

This is like something out of one of Heinlein's alternate universes.

The Police and Fire Department should be there for everybody, no matter what.

 

[Sheep]

The Police and Fire Department should be there for everybody, no matter what.

Even those who specifically voted to NOT fund fire services through taxes?

http://troy.troytn.com/Obion County...tation Presented to the County Commission.pdf

From that same document, here's why putting out the fire and then dealing with the financial consequences later doesn't work:

According to survey information, over 75% of all municipal fire department’s structure calls
are rural. All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas,
but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally
collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal
tax payer.

Basically the idiots who didn't want to pay a $75 fee AND didn't pay after the FD showed up to do their jobs screwed things up for everyone else. There are no free rides in this world--all the useless asshats mooching off the system ruined it for everyone else.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Not even "useless asshats" deserve to lose their homes, possessions and pets.

 

[doubleohfive]

It's the same problem that most of the dopey Star Trek nerds on this board have. They get hung up on the letter of the law and let it conveniently allow them to ignore the spirit of the law. "ZOMG Picard has a different office chair in his ready room in Redemption Part II!!! THE DRAMA! THIS EPISODE SUX!"

Who cares if people voted against the option to have a firehouse cover them in an emergency? Those same people probably never thought they'd have to deal with their own homes burning to the ground when they filed that vote. Leaving them to hang now, after the fact, isn't right or fair or justified. It's douche-y. And if you support it, you're being a douche in my opinion because we as a society are already competing with insurance companies, job markets, hospitals, and a dozen other entities that are trying to stamp us down. Why add this to the fray? Are people so petty and insecure that the only way they can feel better about themselves and their civics is to basically stand by and say "I told you so" ?

Fuck that noise.

 

[Dream]

The one good thing that has happened because of all this is that more people in the county will be paying the $75 fee, which is what they should have been doing in the first place.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

In such instances they should have been legally required to put out the fire. The fire department should then be entitled to a large fee for their services and a penalty for not having paid the annual subscription fee. As occurs with real estate taxes and services provided by repair/remodeling/expansion contractors, transfer of the property title should be blocked until payment is made.

This would work...hit them with a much worse bill AFTER their house is saved and their animals are out safe (or the best attempt was made to get them out).

It would be like what happens if you don't carry health or car insurance...you have to pay out of pocket. It would certainly be a sharp deterrent, which is what I think they intended by letting the house burn down, but for me, what galls me most is that they knew that there were living creatures in there who know enough to understand that they are dying in pain and terror. Letting them die to make a point was hideous.

Not being able to save animals because of the risk to human life...it's sad but I understand, if the attempt was made. But just letting them burn up, KNOWING full well that you could've done otherwise...sick.

 

[Brolan]

It's the same problem that most of the dopey Star Trek nerds on this board have. They get hung up on the letter of the law and let it conveniently allow them to ignore the spirit of the law. "ZOMG Picard has a different office chair in his ready room in Redemption Part II!!! THE DRAMA! THIS EPISODE SUX!"

Who cares if people voted against the option to have a firehouse cover them in an emergency? Those same people probably never thought they'd have to deal with their own homes burning to the ground when they filed that vote. Leaving them to hang now, after the fact, isn't right or fair or justified. It's douche-y. And if you support it, you're being a douche in my opinion because we as a society are already competing with insurance companies, job markets, hospitals, and a dozen other entities that are trying to stamp us down. Why add this to the fray? Are people so petty and insecure that the only way they can feel better about themselves and their civics is to basically stand by and say "I told you so" ?

Fuck that noise.

Where does this stop? I never thought I would get in a accident when I stopped paying for my auto insurance, the tow truck and repairs better be free. I never thought I would get a heart attack after I cancelled my health insurance and ballooned up to 300 lbs. I better get my air ambulance ride, hospital treatment, and home care for free.

 

[sidious618]

It stops at human decency I'd imagine. Personally, I don't think I could watch someone's house burn down knowing I could help. But that's just me, I guess. I'm a loving guy like that.

 

[Capn Flukie]

^ I'm not a firefighter but I would've helped.

 

[Sigh]

I don't understand though the idea of not accepting the call because a fee wasn't paid for a service when it is potentially this kind of life-or-death situation.

Reasons? Could the fire company (not department because that would imply they were a part of the civil service units paid for by taxes) be held liable IF they responded to the call and then could not put out the fire and there was damage and/or deaths as a result?