Firefighters Watch Home Burn To The Ground

Spotts1701 wrote:

They chose to risk nothing instead of working to protect 'savable' property. Forget the legal ramifications - there's a moral or ethical obligation here. To paraphrase FDR, if your neighbor's house is on fire you don't dicker over the cost of him using your garden hose. You put the fire out and then worry about the cost.

Look at this lieberal pansy quoting a communist. Doesn't he realize that when you refuse to fork over seventy five bucks, you deserve anything you get? This compassion shit is how the Hitler regime started, you know. No, you see, fuck you, got mine.

In all fairness, maybe they're not legally permitted to offer services to a house that has not paid the fee; problem being that if the firefighters accepted payment after the fire was started, it would look like an extortion racket.

I'd actually like to know why the homeowner opted not to pay the $75 fee in the first place. It sounds like he was aware of the fee beforehand and this didn't just suddenly come up out of nowhere.

Aggie wrote:

I'd actually like to know why the homeowner opted not to pay the $75 fee in the first place. It sounds like he was aware of the fee beforehand and this didn't just suddenly come up out of nowhere.

Perhaps he didn't want to pay for it out of political reasons, because he is against this sort of fire protection. Perhaps he was stupid and not paying for his fire protection because he figured he could cut costs and didn't think his property would catch fire. Perhaps he flat-out didn't have the money to spare. What the fuck does it matter?
A society has (or should have) the basic obligation to ensure that everybody in it stays safe, well-fed and well-cared for. You can't exclude people on the basis of their income or their IQ. Wilfully not putting out a fire because the home-owner didn't pay the fee... that's nonsense. Not only are you ruining a man's life, you're also all but robbing him of his property, which makes it a lot more difficult for him to repay his debt to society.

Is there any reason why they can't make this fire protection fee an obligatory tax for all those living out of town?

Shh, you socialist Eurocrat.


BOOTSTRAAAAAAAAAAAAAPS

Oh, it gets worse. At present, this scheme is used by three cities in that county, but the county is expanding it to the other five as well. Basically, only the taxes of those living within the cities go to their fire departments, and the county's using this "optional" fee racket to cover those in rural areas, abdicating its responsibility.

So you're bitching about the rural areas outside of the cities not paying taxes to the cities for the firefighting then not getting the firefighting?

God damn it, how do you not see how that's retarded? It's one thing if they're already paying for the firefighters, but they don't seem to be. If society has a responsibility to babysit everyone (it doesn't), people have an obligation to pay the babysitter.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

So you're bitching about the rural areas outside of the cities not paying taxes to the cities for the firefighting then not getting the firefighting?

Do I have to skywrite it? He already paid for firefighting service as part of his county property tax (a portion of property taxes are used for public safety functions such as police, fire and EMS). This was an additional charge on top of those taxes for service.

Not to mention that firefighters have a moral and ethical duty to safeguard lives and property in their community if it is within their power to do so. It's even in the Mission Statement and Code of Ethics for the South Fulton Fire Department:

Quote :

The mission of the South Fulton Fire Department is to protect the lives and property of its citizens, and provide good public relations through fire safety education to all businesses and schools.

I don't see anything in there saying "protect the lives and property of its citizens, so long as their fees are paid up". Do you?

You know what this reminds me of? Crassus, the guy that was in the triumvirate with Caesar and whatshisface. He was the chief of the firefighting services in Rome and when houses burned, he would offer the landlord to buy the burning house at a "bargain" price. If the landlord refused, firefighters pulled back and he was left the owner of a smoldering ruin.
Crassus was killed in a hapless military expedition, and his vanquisher had him beheaded and molten gold poured in his mouth. How fitting is that?

Drabbler wrote:

Oh, it gets worse. At present, this scheme is used by three cities in that county, but the county is expanding it to the other five as well. Basically, only the taxes of those living within the cities go to their fire departments, and the county's using this "optional" fee racket to cover those in rural areas, abdicating its responsibility.

I'd like to live in a suburb where I could get all the services the city provides and not have to pay for any of them through the city taxes (or by any other method). It's such a great deal!

...of course, the city will then have to jack up the taxes on its citizen to cover my and my neighbors freeloading, but that's not my problem! They could move out to the suburbs, too.

rachel wrote:

Drabbler wrote:

Oh, it gets worse. At present, this scheme is used by three cities in that county, but the county is expanding it to the other five as well. Basically, only the taxes of those living within the cities go to their fire departments, and the county's using this "optional" fee racket to cover those in rural areas, abdicating its responsibility.

I'd like to live in a suburb where I could get all the services the city provides and not have to pay for any of them through the city taxes (or by any other method). It's such a great deal!

...of course, the city will then have to jack up the taxes on its citizen to cover my and my neighbors freeloading, but that's not my problem! They could move out to the suburbs, too.

What moron dreamed up the system where the suburbs are not under the jurisdiction of the nearby city?

Psy-4 wrote:

rachel wrote:

Drabbler wrote:

Oh, it gets worse. At present, this scheme is used by three cities in that county, but the county is expanding it to the other five as well. Basically, only the taxes of those living within the cities go to their fire departments, and the county's using this "optional" fee racket to cover those in rural areas, abdicating its responsibility.

I'd like to live in a suburb where I could get all the services the city provides and not have to pay for any of them through the city taxes (or by any other method). It's such a great deal!

...of course, the city will then have to jack up the taxes on its citizen to cover my and my neighbors freeloading, but that's not my problem! They could move out to the suburbs, too.

What moron dreamed up the system where the suburbs are not under the jurisdiction of the nearby city?

It depends on whether it split off to form its own jurisdiction or not. Some suburbs do that in order to give easier access to the police, fire department, paramedics and the like* because the city itself has become too large making the existing resources too far away, inconvenient, and turning the area into a ghetto because nearby amenities jack housing costs and taxes up. Housing associations then team up because they see what might happen- illegals and other nonwhites encroaching on their land. Dumb and ironic considering the service wasn't provided.

Rachel, look at the government entity I was blaming here. It's the county, which should be getting taxes from everyone, including those in the rural areas, that is not providing the essential services. Instead, it's pushing the responsibility onto the cities, which are only funded by the taxes of a portion of the population. For those outside the cities, well, just charge 'em this fee, and if they don't pay, too bad for them. No, it wouldn't be fair for the cities to have to provide services for outlying areas without compensation, but they should be looking to the county for that (and if the county has to raise taxes to do that, then it needs to bite the bullet and do so, not make an optional fee). Firefighting has generally been seen as an essential service, like police protection or education, something local governments must provide. It's like saying, "Well, you didn't pay the fee, so your kid can't come to school."


Unoriginal, I've seen one or two bloggers make the same Crassus connection today. But the one key difference is that these guys wouldn't even accept money on the spot. The owner offered to pay them whatever they wanted, and they turned him down.

Man, Mikey, did you take stupid pills today?

Drabbler wrote:

Unoriginal, I've seen one or two bloggers make the same Crassus connection today. But the one key difference is that these guys wouldn't even accept money on the spot. The owner offered to pay them whatever they wanted, and they turned him down.

Yeah, I know the anecdote did not apply in this case: and not accepting the money on the spot, in the absence of instructions, makes sense - services that are costly and rarely needed are to be paid for equally and in advance. You cannot create a case where one guy pays just when he needs it, or everyone will want to do the same (wouldn't you want to pay auto insurance only after you've had an accident?)

Still, this is not the way you do it. I know the US are the country where you're rushed to the ER with a severed artery and the doctors asks to see your health insurance, but outright refusal of service, I still had not heard of it. Make the guy pay for the full cost of sending X trucks and Y firefighters is a lesson hard enough - like in this country if you use the ER when there's no immediate danger: you pay for the full cost of the X-rays/ultrasound scan/CAT/blood samples/whatever. Usually people don't do it twice.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Aggie wrote:

I'd actually like to know why the homeowner opted not to pay the $75 fee in the first place. It sounds like he was aware of the fee beforehand and this didn't just suddenly come up out of nowhere.

Perhaps he didn't want to pay for it out of political reasons, because he is against this sort of fire protection. Perhaps he was stupid and not paying for his fire protection because he figured he could cut costs and didn't think his property would catch fire. Perhaps he flat-out didn't have the money to spare. What the fuck does it matter?

Matters to me, honestly. If he refused to pay for political reasons, that's fine. He simply gets to accept the consequences of his actions. It's like if you decide to protest a law you find unethical by breaking it: you know you're going to get arrested for breaking the law so don't complain when it happens. Also, if he chose not to pay it for political reasons, why didn't he purchase his own fire extinguishers or other fire-containment systems of his own? No one expects things like these to happen; you hope they don't but prepare in case they do.

If he couldn't afford it, that's another matter entirely. There should be some sort of program or whatnot put into place to help assist people that simply cannot pay the fee (perhaps a payment plan?).

Drabbler wrote:

Rachel, look at the government entity I was blaming here. It's the county, which should be getting taxes from everyone, including those in the rural areas, that is not providing the essential services.

This situation has been going on for the last 20 years. Less than 10 years ago some people of the county managed to get an initiative on the ballot (I think it was in the 2002 elections.) to raise taxes for their own fire department, but the majority voted "Nay". They chose this, and more than once.

Quote :

Instead, it's pushing the responsibility onto the cities, which are only funded by the taxes of a portion of the population. For those outside the cities, well, just charge 'em this fee, and if they don't pay, too bad for them. No, it wouldn't be fair for the cities to have to provide services for outlying areas without compensation, but they should be looking to the county for that (and if the county has to raise taxes to do that, then it needs to bite the bullet and do so, not make an optional fee). Firefighting has generally been seen as an essential service, like police protection or education, something local governments must provide.

I agree, but the majority of the citizens of Obion County didn't, and since they live there, what they say goes--even if it's as stupid as all Hell.

Quote :

It's like saying, "Well, you didn't pay the fee, so your kid can't come to school."

Can people living outside a school district bus their kids inside it, and expect the schools there to admit their kids no questions asked?

Aggie wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

Aggie wrote:

I'd actually like to know why the homeowner opted not to pay the $75 fee in the first place. It sounds like he was aware of the fee beforehand and this didn't just suddenly come up out of nowhere.

Perhaps he didn't want to pay for it out of political reasons, because he is against this sort of fire protection. Perhaps he was stupid and not paying for his fire protection because he figured he could cut costs and didn't think his property would catch fire. Perhaps he flat-out didn't have the money to spare. What the fuck does it matter?

Matters to me, honestly. If he refused to pay for political reasons, that's fine. He simply gets to accept the consequences of his actions. It's like if you decide to protest a law you find unethical by breaking it: you know you're going to get arrested for breaking the law so don't complain when it happens. Also, if he chose not to pay it for political reasons, why didn't he purchase his own fire extinguishers or other fire-containment systems of his own? No one expects things like these to happen; you hope they don't but prepare in case they do.

If he couldn't afford it, that's another matter entirely. There should be some sort of program or whatnot put into place to help assist people that simply cannot pay the fee (perhaps a payment plan?).

While you're countering my points with excellent arguments, I still haven't heard why his intent matters to you. It makes it seem as if you're blaming the home-owner more (for not taking enough precaution), instead of the inherently flawed system.

rachel wrote:

Quote :

It's like saying, "Well, you didn't pay the fee, so your kid can't come to school."

Can people living outside a school district bus their kids inside it, and expect the schools there to admit their kids no questions asked?

In a few cases, yes. Typically the situation is that the person lives significantly closer to the schools in an adjoining school district than they do to the schools in the district where they live. The adjoining district may have to bus the students in and then haggle with the state for the money to be transferred over.

Spotts1701 wrote:

rachel wrote:

Quote :

It's like saying, "Well, you didn't pay the fee, so your kid can't come to school."

Can people living outside a school district bus their kids inside it, and expect the schools there to admit their kids no questions asked?

In a few cases, yes. Typically the situation is that the person lives significantly closer to the schools in an adjoining school district than they do to the schools in the district where they live. The adjoining district may have to bus the students in and then haggle with the state for the money to be transferred over.

So your "In a few cases, yes," is actually a "No, not really."

rachel wrote:

Quote :

It's like saying, "Well, you didn't pay the fee, so your kid can't come to school."

Can people living outside a school district bus their kids inside it, and expect the schools there to admit their kids no questions asked?

If they were living in an area outside any school district, then... well, okay, no county would ever be allowed to have areas unserved by some school system. And that's what we're talking about. These are services that must be provided to everyone wherever they live, whether the people there vote for them or not. If the opt-in's survived twenty years, is that because the courts have ruled in favor of it or because it just hasn't been challenged yet?

Drabbler wrote:

rachel wrote:

Quote :

It's like saying, "Well, you didn't pay the fee, so your kid can't come to school."

Can people living outside a school district bus their kids inside it, and expect the schools there to admit their kids no questions asked?

If they were living in an area outside any school district, then... well, okay, no county would ever be allowed to have areas unserved by some school system. And that's what we're talking about. These are services that must be provided to everyone wherever they live, whether the people there vote for them or not. If the opt-in's survived twenty years, is that because the courts have ruled in favor of it or that it just hasn't been challenged yet?

I'd like to see this challenged in court somehow. These kinds of services should really not be on an opt-in basis because crap like this will happen when they are.

Hmm. On one hand, you don't pay your water bill, you don't get water. On the other hand, running the fire department, of all fucking things, as an enterprise unit is just begging for corruption, extortion, and so on.

On the other other hand, this is being run poorly even for an enterprise unit. Generally speaking, if someone wants to avail themselves of a business's services and offers to pay "any price," a business will be on that like a starving dingo on a pound of minute steak. Saying "you didn't pre-pay, so we're going to send people out to you, but they're not actually going to do anything" is an extraordinarily dickish move from any perspective.

I realize this is a minor point, but how is the fee supposed to be paid? Do they send you a bill, or are you supposed to just know and take it upon yourself to show up at City Hall with a check? It seems like an opt-in plan is a really inefficient way to go about this, even if you ignore the part where bullshit like this is involved.

Jay/Cris wrote:

While you're countering my points with excellent arguments, I still haven't heard why his intent matters to you. It makes it seem as if you're blaming the home-owner more (for not taking enough precaution), instead of the inherently flawed system.

Because ultimately it *is* his fault. He chose not to pay the fee for whatever reason and he got caught in an unfortunate situation. The system may be unfair but he knew what the consequences were when he failed to pay said fee. I may not approve of the whole 'opt in' aspect of firefighting but it was made plain as day to the homeowner that if he didn't pay the fee, he would not receive assistance if his home caught fire.

As bad as this sounds, maybe this incident and the bad press it's receiving will be the catalyst to promote change in this community...maybe. Maybe making these fees mandatory is the way to go...or simply adding them to the already-required property taxes would work out better. The firefighting squad needs to get money to operate from somewhere and they're clearly not being funded by the government in charge.

Aggie wrote:

Because ultimately it *is* his fault. He chose not to pay the fee for whatever reason and he got caught in an unfortunate situation. The system may be unfair but he knew what the consequences were when he failed to pay said fee. I may not approve of the whole 'opt in' aspect of firefighting but it was made plain as day to the homeowner that if he didn't pay the fee, he would not receive assistance if his home caught fire.

What about the property owner next door whose house was damaged? He paid the fee. Had the firefighters put out the fire when they arrived, his home would not have been damaged. As it is, now he has suffered an economic loss because of this policy. Should he get his pound of flesh from the neighbor who didn't?

I'm sorry, but that isn't going to fly with me. Bill the guy after you put the fire out, or accept whatever he wants to pay you right then and there to do the job you swore an oath to do. But don't give me that codswallop about "rules". There are rules, and then there is basic common sense. And common sense says if a fire is burning don't stand around and dicker over who should pay and who shouldn't. Put the damn fire out and deal with it later.

Spotts1701 wrote:

What about the property owner next door whose house was damaged? He paid the fee. Had the firefighters put out the fire when they arrived, his home would not have been damaged. As it is, now he has suffered an economic loss because of this policy. Should he get his pound of flesh from the neighbor who didn't?

As I recall, since he had paid his fee the firefighters were legally permitted to provide aid to his home. Non-issue there.

Quote :

I'm sorry, but that isn't going to fly with me. Bill the guy after you put the fire out, or accept whatever he wants to pay you right then and there to do the job you swore an oath to do. But don't give me that codswallop about "rules". There are rules, and then there is basic common sense. And common sense says if a fire is burning don't stand around and dicker over who should pay and who shouldn't. Put the damn fire out and deal with it later.

I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree, then. If you choose not to pay into a service and know exactly what you will be depriving yourself of, you have no right to complain when the services are not rendered. There is no guarantee that the homeowner would be willing or able to pay the fee after his home was tended to; that is why fees are required before any such incident can occur.

And if anyone was allowed to only pay their fee after something happened, why should anyone pay their fee at all? And with no fees, how would they get the funding to even provide firefighting services in the first place?