No Fee Paid -- No fire department help

[30ashopper]

Seriously? Is this what conservatives want for America?

I'm libertarian. I think the important point here is that if a community wishes to run things this way, they have every right to do so. Mr. Cranick chose to live in this community, he knew the rules, and he neglected to pay his bills. So his house burned down. If he feels he's been wronged he can seek redress through the courts.

I find it hard to realize that you and some others share this feeling. The family's dog and cat perished in the fire...as the man stood offering to pay any amount to save them and his home. He said he had forgotten to pay the fee.

I am glad that I live in a community that would not let this happen; and that I surround myself with people who show more compassion for their felllow humans and the animals.

I am too, I wouldn't live in a community like Mr. Cranick's. I have no issue with taxing people to pay for basic services like fire service.

As far as the pets go, that's unfortunate. Local police should consider citing Mr. Cranick with animal abuse. After all he's the one who was keeping his pets locked up in an unsafe area.

 

[Douglas the Intrepid]

Failure to prevent the house from initially igniting and then allowing it to burn to the ground when you are there already with all the proper equipment over a 75 dollar fee is morally and ethically bankrupt. If you don't see a problem with this, I an glad you are not my neighbor.

 

[scooterbug44]

I don't think letting someone's house burn down is okay - but on the flip side, if the fire department puts out fires for free, there wouldn't be a fire department.

Human life trumps all - so this fire department has a policy that no matter if you paid the fee or not, they will still save you - just not your property.

I know Scooterbro's fire department is constantly frustrated because people won't implement basic fire safety practices, build in an area w/ high fire danger, nickel and dime funding for the fire department, and then they pitch a fit if the fire department exhausts itself and has to draw the line at only saving lives.

 

[Will B]

It's not like he forgot. He never paid the 75 bucks; therefore, he made his bed and was forced to lie in it. He lived in an unincorporated area that did not have a fire service. If a person wanted fire department protection, they had to pay for it. He chose not to.

 

[LuciferSam]

Real smart, just let fires burn and perhaps spread to other houses and wooded areas.

 

[Bob Wells]

Failure to prevent the house from initially igniting and then allowing it to burn to the ground when you are there already with all the proper equipment over a 75 dollar fee is morally and ethically bankrupt. If you don't see a problem with this, I an glad you are not my neighbor.

I am not sure that is what happened. As I understood the article I read, they responded after the fire was spreading to a home that did pay. As for the morals and ethics of the situation, it seems to me you have an issue with the politician who sets the rules not the Firefighter who has to abide by them.

 

[Will B]

Real smart, just let fires burn and perhaps spread to other houses and wooded areas.

No...the fire department dutifully protected the homes that were threatened. Those home had paid their 75 bucks.

Before anybody says "I don't pay for fire services"...well you do. They are called property taxes. The difference is that most people do not have a choice. This guy had a choice, and he made very unwise one.

 

[futurebeachbum]

Real smart, just let fires burn and perhaps spread to other houses and wooded areas.

That's what the city FD came out to prevent.

The homeowner's next-door-neighbor felt like the $75 payment to the city was a good investment and made it. In return, they came to protect his home.

If no one around him had paid the $75, then they wouldn't have rolled. Most municipalities don't feel an obligation to cover problems that occur in other territories.

When I was a kid, folks out in the county could pay a fee to have their kids attend the city school system. Those who chose not to pay sent their kids to county schools. I don't recall people complaining that their kids couldn't go to city schools for free.

This city is extending a courtesy to county residents for a minimal fee (since the county has chosen to not fund an FD of its own.) They have real costs associated with fighting fires out in the county where there are no hydrants.

Now they are being criticized for not providing services to people who don't live in the city and who have chosen to not pay for the city's help. This is like complaining that the new auto policy you bought today, won't cover you for the accident you had last week. No one in their right mind would sell such a policy..why should the city. If they started letting people pay after a fire, then the only fees they'd collect would be those paid during the fire.

 

[poppy]

No...the fire department dutifully protected the homes that were threatened. Those home had paid their 75 bucks.

Before anybody says "I don't pay for fire services"...well you do. They are called property taxes. The difference is that most people do not have a choice. This guy had a choice, and he made very unwise one.

You have to question if a portion of Mr. Cranick's county property taxes might have been used to pay for any of the city's fire fighting equipment.

 

[LuciferSam]

No...the fire department dutifully protected the homes that were threatened. Those home had paid their 75 bucks.

Before anybody says "I don't pay for fire services"...well you do. They are called property taxes. The difference is that most people do not have a choice. This guy had a choice, and he made very unwise one.

Yeah right, I guess it would have been too dutiful to put out the fire at the source. Give me a break. It doesn't take much imagination to see that a small house fire could all of a sudden erupt into an explosive fireball destroying lives and large amounts of property in an instant. Their firefighting tactics fall into the category of reckless endangerment.