No Fee Paid -- No fire department help

[GoodWitch58]

http://wpsd.bimedia.net/content/SouthFulton.pdf

International Association of Firefighters Condemn the Decision to let the house burn.

 

[Will B]

Here's another angle. It creates a precedent as awful as it may be. If the fire department agreed to let him pay the fee only after his house was on fire, it would it open it up to a whole mess of freeloaders who would simply quit paying because they know, now, that they can just produce 75 dollars if they have a fire.

It's more of an insurance policy. You may pay for car insurance your whole life and never need it, but if you don't have it and have a wreck, you can't go back and decide, then, to pay for it. It costs a whole lot more than $75 to fight a fire.

 

[GoodWitch58]

Pay-to-Spray Firefighters Watch as Home Burns - By Daniel Foster - The Corner - National Review Online

Oy, this is bad for the libertarians:

OBION COUNTY, Tenn. ? Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won?t respond, then watches it burn. That?s exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn?t do anything to stop his house from burning.

interesting take from the National Journal...maybe Daniel Foster actually has some compassion in that libertarian heart of his...

 

[GoodWitch58]

I lived in the country 13 miles from the nearest town for 21 years and never had a problem with loose fires. I used an outside burn barrel for trash, which is what it looks like is where this fire started. Unless they had a wood pile or lumber or additional buildings, why would it take two hours for the fire to spread to the home that the homeowners couldn't put it out. Maybe it was just that far away from the home, I don't know, but it didn't add up.

I read both stories and watched both videos. I never saw anywhere where it was stated that the homeowner "forgot" to pay his fee. I believe they "chose" not to pay and therefore accepted the potential consequences of their choice. Like any other service, if you "forget" to pay, you get reminders. These folks chose this destiny.

Likewise, I never saw anything in the stories available about pets going up in the fire. If it took two hours to get from the barrels to the home, was there not time somewhere in there to get those pets. The pets did not belong to the city, county or fire department. I don't think the well being of the pets was a priority to the owners. Glenda, where'd you get information about pets in the fire?

This whole story wreaks of he said, she said and way too much ego and it's just sad that it has to have happened at all and that it's being used to further divide otherwise very caring people.

here it is: http://www.breakingbig.com/tennessee-fire/
even sadder: he says he had paid the fee in previous years.

 

[Douglas the Intrepid]

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.

I watched the video on the news link and it is hard to tell when the firefighters actually showed up. It did clearly state that it took two hours for the fire to slowly travel from the burn barrels to the house. I was expressing my distaste for the morals and ethics of the situation in general, not against the firefighters whos hands were tied from helping. I can imagine it must have been very difficult for them to witness something that they could fix and not being allowed to do so. I also take issue with the cavalier attitudes of some people who shrug off someone losing their home and all of their possessions as if it is a minor issue like having your cars fender scratched. Something of this magnitude should not hinge on 75 dollars and a petty bureaucrat's compassionless decision. Was it legal? Yes. Was it the right thing to do? Hell no.

 

[Bob Wells]

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.

Much like the aftermath of the Rodney King trials in California.

 

[LuciferSam]

Much like the aftermath of the Rodney King trials in California.

I don't see how that in any way fits in to the discussion.

 

[LuciferSam]

Here's another angle. It creates a precedent as awful as it may be. If the fire department agreed to let him pay the fee only after his house was on fire, it would it open it up to a whole mess of freeloaders who would simply quit paying because they know, now, that they can just produce 75 dollars if they have a fire.

It's more of an insurance policy. You may pay for car insurance your whole life and never need it, but if you don't have it and have a wreck, you can't go back and decide, then, to pay for it. It costs a whole lot more than $75 to fight a fire.

Especially if you sit on your hands for a few hours waiting for the fire to spread to eligible property before you finally decide to do something.

 

[LuciferSam]

I watched the video on the news link and it is hard to tell when the firefighters actually showed up. It did clearly state that it took two hours for the fire to slowly travel from the burn barrels to the house. I was expressing my distaste for the morals and ethics of the situation in general, not against the firefighters whos hands were tied from helping. I can imagine it must have been very difficult for them to witness something that they could fix and not being allowed to do so. I also take issue with the cavalier attitudes of some people who shrug off someone losing their home and all of their possessions as if it is a minor issue like having your cars fender scratched. Something of this magnitude should not hinge on 75 dollars and a petty bureaucrat's compassionless decision. Was it legal? Yes. Was it the right thing to do? Hell no.

I don't let the firefighters off the hook. All they had to do was say that they were protecting the interests of the other residences in the neighborhood by extinguishing the fire at its source. They just deserve a higher rung in hell than the bureaucrats, that's all.

 

[scooterbug44]

Glenn Beck agrees with my original position, so I know it must be wrong. :roll:

But how do you solve the problem? People won't pay if they fight your fires anyway, and we've all seen how well mandating people pay for things like this works.

I'd suggest the fire fee is still optional, but they will still fight your fire if necessary - at a high cost!