No Fee Paid -- No fire department help

[LuciferSam]

I might also add, think of the wasted manpower as firefighters stand around with their hoses up their asses "protecting" neighbors' homes as they watch the source of the fire burn out. How would you like to be the neighbor, knowing that the firefighers won't do a damn thing until the actual fire, not merely the threat, extends over some property line? Sounds like some of you posting on this thread would want to call in a surveyor to determine where that line is.

 

[futurebeachbum]

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.

Following that thought to its logical conclusion would be to also question if any state or federal grants were used by the city FD? If so, then some some of his state use taxes or federal income taxes might also have been used to pay for some of them.

Would that somehow entitle him to the protection he didn't want to pay for?

 

[futurebeachbum]

Something tells me that in the future the county government will make residents pay for the subscription service whether they want it or not.

Or another simple solution would for the City to stop offering this service outside the boundaries of its franchise. Then controversies such as this won't happen.

 

[poppy]

Following that thought to its logical conclusion would be to also question if any state or federal grants were used by the city FD? If so, then some some of his state use taxes or federal income taxes might also have been used to pay for some of them.

Would that somehow entitle him to the protection he didn't want to pay for?

I didn't read where "he didn't want to pay for protection" but maybe you know him better than I do.

 

[LuciferSam]

Fire protection, like police protection is a public service regardless of the means used to acquire funding. This privatized means of collecting money for such services is without a doubt legally and morally wrong in my opinion. If this fire department is in any way connected with state or local government any way then I would say they have a legal obligation to indiscriminately provide public services. If they don't provide such services this is akin to the police standing around watching you and your family getting raped and bludgeoned to death.

 

[Will B]

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.

He lived in an area outside of South Fulton's city limits that did not have a fire department. As a courtesy, the city of South Fulton offers to provide fire department coverage to those who pay a fee for it. They pay a fee because they are not in the City of South Fulton's tax base. The fire fee policy is 20 years old. The only debate in this is whether he forgot to pay the fee or just didn't do it. I've seen it reported both ways.

It's not that tough folks. Go out there and find the articles rather than getting your info from the snippets here. It's very cut and dry.

Cut and dry, though, has no bearing on whether or not it sux. Does it? Sure.

 

[Will B]

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.

I might also add, think of the wasted manpower as firefighters stand around with their hoses up their asses "protecting" neighbors' homes as they watch the source of the fire burn out. How would you like to be the neighbor, knowing that the firefighers won't do a damn thing until the actual fire, not merely the threat, extends over some property line? Sounds like some of you posting on this thread would want to call in a surveyor to determine where that line is.

Please see my previous post about it sucking. Yeah, it sucks, but it's not new. It's a 20 year old policy for Pete's sake. Nobody has an issue with it until somebody gets burned by it (no pun intended).
That's just a tad hypocritical isn't it?

I can guarantee you nobody will forget their 75 dollar fee next year!

 

[LuciferSam]

He lived in an area outside of South Fulton's city limits that did not have a fire department. As a courtesy, the city of South Fulton offers to provide fire department coverage to those who pay a fee for it. They pay a fee because they are not in the City of South Fulton's tax base. The fire fee policy is 20 years old. The only debate in this is whether he forgot to pay the fee or just didn't do it. I've seen it reported both ways.

It's not that tough folks. Go out there and find the articles rather than getting your info from the snippets here. It's very cut and dry.

Cut and dry, though, has no bearing on whether or not it sux. Does it? Sure.

No it's not cut and dry. There is huge room for disagreement onb this issue from both a legal and moral standpoint, and I think you are dead wrong and haven't given this issue much thought.

 

[Will B]

Fire protection, like police protection is a public service regardless of the means used to acquire funding. This privatized means of collecting money for such services is without a doubt legally and morally wrong in my opinion. If this fire department is in any way connected with state or local government any way then I would say they have a legal obligation to indiscriminately provide public services. If they don't provide such services this is akin to the police standing around watching you and your family getting raped and bludgeoned to death.

So riddle me this, Batman. If I live in Cobb Co. GA, and the county line for Fulton Co. is on the other side of the street, who is going to get the call if I dial 911? There may be a City of Atlanta cop three doors down sitting in his car eating a donut, but Cobb Co. is going to get that call. Not the cop eating the donut. How is this any different except one municipality has a fire department and the other does not?

 

[Will B]

No it's not cut and dry. There is huge room for disagreement onb this issue from both a legal and moral standpoint, and I think you are dead wrong and haven't given this issue much thought.

There's no legal standpoint. That's the only argument I'm making. Morally, it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, but legally, it's another story.

Morally, it's reprehensible that a whacked Imam wants to build a mosque at Ground Zero. Legally, there's nothing wrong with it.

The two don't go hand in hand. You have to separate them.