unless there is more to the story than initially revealed, it seems rather petty to let the house burn down.
Fire department lets house burn down over 75 dollars
- Thread starter Rett Mikhal
- Start date
unless there is more to the story than initially revealed, it seems rather petty to let the house burn down.
Guess you didn't read the whole thread.
Whether or not the guy is an idiot is not the point-- the point is that a system like this should not exist. I wonder if there are any nooks and crannies out in the boonies with fee-based law enforcement.
"911. What is the nature of your emergency? Home invasion? I'm sorry, but your account appears to be past due."
"911. What is the nature of your emergency? Home invasion? I'm sorry, but your account appears to be past due."
What a Dick.
Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel about it.
It sucks that a system like this exists in the first place. The county should've gotten its act together to prevent things like this.
That said, it's not like this guy wasn't aware of the fee. He was paying out nothing and yet got the assistance of the city FD multiple times in the past. I would think his sense of personal ethics would've compelled him to start ponying up the $75 after the first incident. But he was content to mooch the city's resources, gambling that he would continue to get a free ride. His mistake.
My preference would've been for the FD to show up when called, put out the blaze, then bill him for the whole thing. But let's be realistic here: he was a known troublemaker (repeated trash fires getting out of control, requiring FD assistance), had never shown any inclination toward paying the fee, and lived in what sounds like a rather poor area. Even if they billed him it's highly unlikely the city would've ever been reimbursed.
The fire department was well within their rights not to respond when he called. He took that gamble and he lost. Life's a bitch. I hope this case spurs both this county and others to get their shit together and not let something of this nature happen again.
But I won't hold my breath.
^^^ You sum up my feelings exactly.
(Reposting my post from TNZ)
Yes, the guy was a stupid douche for thinking he could not pay the $75 dollars and still get the fire department to show up multiple times, especially since they seemed pretty careless about fire safety at the house.
That being said, there has to be a better way of handling this than to not respond to the call and let the house burn down - with pets inside (whether they could have arrived in time to save them or not). I mean, Jesus, that's fucking cold, regardless of the fact that the guy had been a cheap bastard in the past or whether he should have grabbed the pets himself (he should have).
On the spot they could have accepted the payment he and I believe some of the neighbors offered and dispatched the trucks accordingly. They could have offered to set up an automatic yearly fee withdrawal from his bank and collected twice the fee the first time.
Thinking ahead to this potentially happening when they proposed the fee for rural county residents, they could have changed the law so they could legally bill the resident the full amount and charge interest, garnish wages, and/or hit credit ratings if someone failed to pay.
Furthermore, the county's own study in 2008 said fire services could be provided for all for a mere .13 cent tax increase on all households.
The idea that if one person refuses to pay and firefighters still respond that means that it's going to start a wave of people not paying the fee is dubious. People by and large do the right thing even when technically they could get away with not doing it. The vast majority of residents would pay the fee; at least enough to cover the likely costs of responding to rural fires.
Yes, the guy was a stupid douche for thinking he could not pay the $75 dollars and still get the fire department to show up multiple times, especially since they seemed pretty careless about fire safety at the house.
That being said, there has to be a better way of handling this than to not respond to the call and let the house burn down - with pets inside (whether they could have arrived in time to save them or not). I mean, Jesus, that's fucking cold, regardless of the fact that the guy had been a cheap bastard in the past or whether he should have grabbed the pets himself (he should have).
On the spot they could have accepted the payment he and I believe some of the neighbors offered and dispatched the trucks accordingly. They could have offered to set up an automatic yearly fee withdrawal from his bank and collected twice the fee the first time.
Thinking ahead to this potentially happening when they proposed the fee for rural county residents, they could have changed the law so they could legally bill the resident the full amount and charge interest, garnish wages, and/or hit credit ratings if someone failed to pay.
Furthermore, the county's own study in 2008 said fire services could be provided for all for a mere .13 cent tax increase on all households.
The idea that if one person refuses to pay and firefighters still respond that means that it's going to start a wave of people not paying the fee is dubious. People by and large do the right thing even when technically they could get away with not doing it. The vast majority of residents would pay the fee; at least enough to cover the likely costs of responding to rural fires.
After looking over the news stories and considering the situation the guy was in, this is what I BELIEVE happened:
It seemed like he had plenty of time to get the pets out, so when he knew he was screwed, he deliberately left the pets in his house so he would get some leverage to force the Fire Dept. to save his house.
