Firefighters Watch Home Burn To The Ground

ZoZo wrote:

So basically, I think we can all agree that a fee-paying-or-watch-your-house-burn scheme is a bad idea and a bureaucratic nightmare.

Exactly.

Penguin wrote:

Yeah. It should be especially terrible by the standards of anyone considering themselves a libertarian, because you already have to pay for the service but you won't necessarily get it.

The system is in place, it is fully functional, you're already forced to pay for it... yet if you're in the wrong group of citizens, you have to pay extra or get nothing at all in return. If that's not an example of taxes being theft, I don't know what is.

OK, unless I badly misread this, the problem stems precisely from the fact that this isn't true. What's happening is that the city FD is being called to cover areas outside the city limits, AKA "the zone where the city can't tax." As a result, the city has started this protection racket opt-in program to recover costs while staying within the limits of their authority. The people outside the city limits don't pay city taxes, they pay county/state/federal/whatever, and those don't fund a fire department.

ZoZo wrote:

Or it stands as an argument to tax everyone a little bit more, making it a negligible amount shared by many, all of whom would appreciate a functional fire service that puts out fires when they happen.

ZoZo, you magnificently ignorant slut. That is exactly the problem. If it was simply a matter of levying a tax to pay for a fire department (you know, like exactly what's being done inside the city limits as we speak?) this idiotic system would never have been implemented in the first place. The problem is that the city doesn't have the power to levy a tax on the people it needs to tax in order for it's revenues to cover an acceptable part of it's obligations to the fire department. As far as the county, state, and so on? This whole business is no skin off their asses (they're not the ones who have to pay for a fire department) and they're perfectly willing to let the city take the heat, if you'll pardon the expression, over the consequences of this particular jurisdiction problem and the financial consequences.

gaijinguy wrote:

ZoZo, you magnificently ignorant slut.

What the fuck.

*watches video*

Nope, still 'what the fuck'.

Lady Anne wrote:

So...if someone can't afford $75 for something that might happen, they're out of luck? WTF?! I thought firefighting was paid for by taxes, anyway.

Haven't you heard? Taxes = NEO MARXIST SOCIALISM

Sutremaine wrote:

*watches video*

Nope, still 'what the fuck'.

That video is pretty much this thread.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

This isn't the first time this has happened in that county, either.

It most certainly is not. Last year, another family's house caught on fire. They hadn't paid their $75 dollars, for whatever reason (I never heard why), but because their property was so close to the adjacent property, of people who had paid their fee, the fire department put it out anyway. Cherry-picking situations? Oh, hell yes.

Spotts1701 wrote:

And BTW, he had 2 pets in the house. Those pets died.

Four. Three dogs and a cat.

Aggie wrote:

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.

You're correct on the first point; they weren't legally allowed to. But was standing by the moral thing to do? To let your neighbors' house burn? Those firemen will have to look the Cranicks in the face, whenever they might cross paths (which will be often because this town is fucking tiny), and they will have to remember how they let these folks' house burn to ash, along with their animals.

The second point. The Cranicks have paid their fire protection fee every year since this policy has been in place. They just happened to be late on their payment this year. So, yeah, that's several years worth of fees paid, but the one time their house actually DOES catch fire, they happened to not have paid it yet and they lost everything they owned.

rachel wrote:

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

Yes. People around here do it all the time. Especially if your family happens to be rich or in a political office and you wanna cross the state line to get away from shitty Fulton County schools. As if Obion County's got anything better.

You should see the fucked up system South Fulton has running their school. Which, technically, is under Obion County jurisdiction.

I wonder why letting our kids go to school in a mold-infested facility hasn't made national news, hmm?

Aggie wrote:

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...

People have been bitching about this policy ever since it's been in place. They just happen to bitch more when someone's house burns. I personally don't expect a damn thing to change. At least, not for the better.

Aggie wrote:

Do we even have any information as to why the fire service has been instituted in such a way (i.e. not an automatic part of property taxes)? Until such information comes out, I reserve my right to hold to the opinion that deliberately choosing not to opt in for important services such as fire maintenance without having a backup source of protection (like fire extinguishers) is extremely unwise.

Why? Because people around here are deeply conservative Republican. Why must you assume that the couple deliberately didn't pay their fees? That's awfully presumptuous of you and extremely unfair.


Now, some local accurate news articles:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cheers.

Sutremaine wrote:

*watches video*

Nope, still 'what the fuck'.

Gaijinguy is a sexist piece of shit, Sutremaine. I thought everyone knew that by now.

Damnit Spotts you beat me to it.

Sutremaine, it helps if you see more of those "Point/Counterpoint" segments; "Jane, you ignorant slut!" (usually without the "magnificently") was Dan's catchphrase. Early on, she wasn't as fiery as he was, making a calmer speech before he launched into a tirade with those four words. As you can see, by the end she was pretty free with the insults herself.

The Alien from Uranus wrote:

The Cranicks have paid their fire protection fee every year since this policy has been in place. They just happened to be late on their payment this year. So, yeah, that's several years worth of fees paid, but the one time their house actually DOES catch fire, they happened to not have paid it yet and they lost everything they owned.

Now see, that information was not in the article I read. Where did you get this from?

Quote :

People have been bitching about this policy ever since it's been in place. They just happen to bitch more when someone's house burns. I personally don't expect a damn thing to change. At least, not for the better.

Sorry to hear that. Then I guess there's really nothing to hope for. I was trying to see if there could possibly be any good that could come out of it, but there's no hope whatsoever to be had.

Quote :

Aggie wrote:

Do we even have any information as to why the fire service has been instituted in such a way (i.e. not an automatic part of property taxes)? Until such information comes out, I reserve my right to hold to the opinion that deliberately choosing not to opt in for important services such as fire maintenance without having a backup source of protection (like fire extinguishers) is extremely unwise.

Why? Because people around here are deeply conservative Republican. Why must you assume that the couple deliberately didn't pay their fees? That's awfully presumptuous of you and extremely unfair.

Not unfair at all. The quote given in the article I read stated that he thought that they'd come and put it out even if the fee hadn't been paid. The tone inferred a rather blase attitude toward the fee and it seemed that he had chosen not to pay it. If I was mistaken, I apologise.

Quote :

Now, some local accurate news articles:

With all due respect, the article I had read was also accurate. It simply lacked the glut of information that later articles seem to have gleaned.

Drabbler wrote:

Sutremaine, it helps if you see more of those "Point/Counterpoint" segments; "Jane, you ignorant slut!" (usually without the "magnificently") was Dan's catchphrase. Early on, she wasn't as fiery as he was, making a calmer speech before he launched into a tirade with those four words. As you can see, by the end she was pretty free with the insults herself.

Context does not absolve the inappropriateness.

Aggie wrote:

The Alien from Uranus wrote:

The Cranicks have paid their fire protection fee every year since this policy has been in place. They just happened to be late on their payment this year. So, yeah, that's several years worth of fees paid, but the one time their house actually DOES catch fire, they happened to not have paid it yet and they lost everything they owned.

Now see, that information was not in the article I read. Where did you get this from?

I know he said it in at least one interview. Here's a video.

Aggie wrote:

Quote :

People have been bitching about this policy ever since it's been in place. They just happen to bitch more when someone's house burns. I personally don't expect a damn thing to change. At least, not for the better.

Sorry to hear that. Then I guess there's really nothing to hope for. I was trying to see if there could possibly be any good that could come out of it, but there's no hope whatsoever to be had.

Yeah, I wish it would lead to change. I'd love for our community to get better. I just hope to God I'm wrong.

Aggie wrote:

Quote :

Aggie wrote:

Do we even have any information as to why the fire service has been instituted in such a way (i.e. not an automatic part of property taxes)? Until such information comes out, I reserve my right to hold to the opinion that deliberately choosing not to opt in for important services such as fire maintenance without having a backup source of protection (like fire extinguishers) is extremely unwise.

Why? Because people around here are deeply conservative Republican. Why must you assume that the couple deliberately didn't pay their fees? That's awfully presumptuous of you and extremely unfair.

Not unfair at all. The quote given in the article I read stated that he thought that they'd come and put it out even if the fee hadn't been paid. The tone inferred a rather blase attitude toward the fee and it seemed that he had chosen not to pay it. If I was mistaken, I apologise.

Ah, okay. But still. It just pisses me off how people are all automatically jumping to the conclusion that he's some kind anti-government freeloader who wants something for nothing. I went to school with his grandson, and I know his family are all nice people. They paid their dues every year before this one, and just happened to be late the once. And I know the fire department has put out fires for other people that didn't pay fees before, fires that this family's fees in years past have covered. But, by god, when the Cranicks miss their payment and need help, "Fuck them! They got what they deserved!"

It makes me so fucking sick.

Aggie wrote:

Quote :

Now, some local accurate news articles:

With all due respect, the article I had read was also accurate. It simply lacked the glut of information that later articles seem to have gleaned.

Sorry, I didn't mean that one in particular. I've just seen so many pundits trying to twist the story into something it's not and... urgh. >.<;

Verandering wrote:

Drabbler wrote:

Sutremaine, it helps if you see more of those "Point/Counterpoint" segments; "Jane, you ignorant slut!" (usually without the "magnificently") was Dan's catchphrase. Early on, she wasn't as fiery as he was, making a calmer speech before he launched into a tirade with those four words. As you can see, by the end she was pretty free with the insults herself.

Context does not absolve the inappropriateness.

Bless me, Verandering, for I have sinned?

When did we become the forum of Those Who Shall Not Offend?

Seriously.

Treating people with respect is so hard.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Treating people with respect is so hard.

Expecting to be treated with respect on WGW is a new thing, though.

TheHermit wrote:

Expecting to be treated with respect on WGW is a new thing, though.

Expecting not to be personally attacked is a right, not a privilege. Or do you always go around calling people derogatory names?

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

TheHermit wrote:

Expecting to be treated with respect on WGW is a new thing, though.

Expecting not to be personally attacked is a right, not a privilege. Or do you always go around calling people derogatory names?

You have a right to hold expectations, yes. No right to have them met, though.


Dumbass.

Psy-4 wrote:

You have a right to hold expectations, yes. No right to have them met, though.


Dumbass.

Your neck beard must grow 1 more centimeter before you meet the prequest to become a level 5 Internet Tough Guy.

Derogatory, sexist terms.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Your neck beard must grow 1 more centimeter before you meet the prequest to become a level 5 Internet Tough Guy.

So it has to be one centimeter total? Gotcha.

No, I gotta agree with Mikey. When the fuck did we become the politically correct police on here?

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

TheHermit wrote:

Expecting to be treated with respect on WGW is a new thing, though.

Expecting not to be personally attacked is a right, not a privilege. Or do you always go around calling people derogatory names?

You're a member of a forum dedicated to mocking 13-year olds that write Twilight slashfiction.

Surely you're noting the irony of this.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Or do you always go around calling people derogatory names?

This one.

Problem?