Firefighters Watch Home Burn To The Ground

Aggie wrote:

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.

No, it is an issue because the only reason his property suffered damage at all is because the firefighters didn't fight the fire before it jumped the property line. That opens the fire department up to a humongous liability action.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Aggie wrote:

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.

No, it is an issue because the only reason his property suffered damage at all is because the firefighters didn't fight the fire before it jumped the property line. That opens the fire department up to a humongous liability action.

I think we're talking in circles here. They weren't permitted to fight the fire on the first home because he hadn't paid his fee. It's not their fault, it's entirely the fault of the homeowner where the fire started. Allow me to quote from the article:

Quote :

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

So it sounds more like he thought he didn't have to pay the same fee that everyone else does to get the same service. It is entirely his fault. If you want to blame someone, talk to the mayor:

Quote :

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

He knew he had to pay the fee like everyone else but chose not to, hoping that he'd be able to bluff his way out of this fee. If he was permitted to pay it only after his house was on fire, why would anyone else pay the fees that are required to fund the firefighting services (trucks, equipment, manpower, etc.)? I'm sorry he lost his home but it is entirely his own fault.

Aggie wrote:

He knew he had to pay the fee like everyone else but chose not to, hoping that he'd be able to bluff his way out of this fee. If he was permitted to pay it only after his house was on fire, why would anyone else pay the fees that are required to fund the firefighting services (trucks, equipment, manpower, etc.)?

You mean the costs that were incurred anyway because the fire department showed up anyway? Those costs?

How about you bill the people who don't pay upfront the full cost, and then slap a lien on their property when they refuse to pay? There's a "free-market" incentive to pay up rather than let pets die and irreplaceable things be destroyed in the name of "consequences".

How about you raise property taxes (a property tax increase of .13 for every dollar of assessed value would fund firefighting services for the entire county)?

How about you do a decent thing instead of being a obstructive bureaucratic asshole?

Aggie wrote:

I think we're talking in circles here. They weren't permitted to fight the fire on the first home because he hadn't paid his fee. It's not their fault, it's entirely the fault of the homeowner where the fire started.

Weren't permitted by whom? The guy wasn't denying them access; it was their own policy that was forbidding action. And their policy led to damage to the property of someone who had paid.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Aggie wrote:

He knew he had to pay the fee like everyone else but chose not to, hoping that he'd be able to bluff his way out of this fee. If he was permitted to pay it only after his house was on fire, why would anyone else pay the fees that are required to fund the firefighting services (trucks, equipment, manpower, etc.)?

You mean the costs that were incurred anyway because the fire department showed up anyway? Those costs?

The costs they incurred by needing to deal with a fire that was in imminent danger of spreading to other homes that had their fees paid up, you mean?

Quote :

How about you bill the people who don't pay upfront the full cost, and then slap a lien on their property when they refuse to pay? There's a "free-market" incentive to pay up rather than let pets die and irreplaceable things be destroyed in the name of "consequences".

How about you raise property taxes (a property tax increase of .13 for every dollar of assessed value would fund firefighting services for the entire county)?

How about you do a decent thing instead of being a obstructive bureaucratic asshole?

I don't know why they haven't done that. Like I said earlier, maybe the amount of attention this is getting will force the county to increase property taxes for all to ensure that everyone gets full coverage. Seems to me to be the more sensible way of doing this, but my point remains. Cranick knew full well about the fee and what it would entitle him to and chose not to pay it, thinking that they'd render services regardless. He found out the hard way that he was wrong.

Until (and if) such changes are rendered, however, citizens still need to pay their fees to receive service. He didn't, so he didn't receive it. Since he offered to pay the fee after they had arrived, it is safe to assume that he didn't fail to pay it out of an inability to pay. I am really, really sorry for the loss of his pets and property, but he made the decision to not pay the fee and not equip his home with fire-prevention equipment (like fire extinguishers). It's a painful lesson learned.

Aggie wrote:

I am really, really sorry for the loss of his pets and property, but he made the decision to not pay the fee and not equip his home with fire-prevention equipment (like fire extinguishers). It's a painful lesson learned.

The sincerity of your sympathy seems somewhat hollow.

I don't know why, let's just call it a gut instinct.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Aggie wrote:

I am really, really sorry for the loss of his pets and property, but he made the decision to not pay the fee and not equip his home with fire-prevention equipment (like fire extinguishers). It's a painful lesson learned.

The sincerity of your sympathy seems somewhat hollow.

I don't know why, let's just call it a gut instinct.

You should get that checked; it appears to be malfunctioning.

However, I suspect we should just agree to disagree since it seems neither side is budging from their respective positions.

Aggie wrote:

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.

Spotts is right on this one; if the adjacent property (which paid) was damaged because the firefighters' inaction concerning the property that wasn't paid for, that's a (presumably) unintended negative consequence of the policy that needs to be addressed. It also brings to mind a fairly unsettling thought property.

In this municipality, there's two properties next to each other, Property A and Property B. Property B has paid for services, Property A hasn't. A fire breaks out on Property A. Firefighters arrive and do fuck-all, since Property A hasn't paid. However, it is subsequently determined that the fire is spreading towards Property B, but will grow out of control before it reaches the boundary. What happens then?

Aggie wrote:

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.

Credit sales are a myth, apparently Guess that makes my job easier.

(And FWIW, I'd still like more details on the actual billing process for this whole bit.)

Aggie wrote:

And if anyone was allowed to only pay their fee after something happened, why should anyone pay their fee at all?

Oh, gee, maybe because they've incurred a liability? Last time I checked, the government's fairly good about extracting money from people who owe it to them (it's just in reversing the process where they can't find their ass with both hands and map.)

Aggie wrote:

And with no fees, how would they get the funding to even provide firefighting services in the first place?

The fire department is not an enterprise. It is not a for-profit business and does not function using a for-profit business model. It exists to provide a public service and is paid for by from public funds allocated for that purpose. While there is a particular jurisdiction issue here, it should be worked out at a higher level than this. If it's somehow crucial that this fire department keep functioning like this, the least they could do is do it competently; as previously noted, refusing money when people are offering to pay you "anything" is a fairly shitty business model.

I wonder what the guy's insurance company is going to say about it. I assume he had insurance--most people do. I can't imagine they'd let this go, and while the dude may not have the financial resources to sue the county, the insurance company sure as hell will. Of course, that's a moot point if he doesn't have insurance.

On the other hand, would the insurance company possibly refuse to pay out for losing his home since he did not pay the 75.00 fee?

Maximilia wrote:

On the other hand, would the insurance company possibly refuse to pay out for losing his home since he did not pay the 75.00 fee?

If they could, they'd deny because he signed his contract with the wrong color inkpen. So of course they're going to claim that they shouldn't be on the hook for this.

Aggie wrote:

However, I suspect we should just agree to disagree since it seems neither side is budging from their respective positions.

Yes, because that's what we're known to do when a libertarian prick comes along.

Good to know that when you neglect to pay 75 dollars, you deserve to have your house and pets burn down.

^
No. When you don't pay $75 dollars, have you house catch fire, and be unable to put it out without the help of the people whom you didn't pay, you deserve to have your house and pets burn.

EDIT: Apparently, before 1990, they didn't get fire service at all. Then they instituted this entirely fair and reasonable policy.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

^
No. When you don't pay $75 dollars, have you house catch fire, and be unable to put it out without the help of the people whom you didn't pay, you deserve to have your house and pets burn.

EDIT: Apparently, before 1990, they didn't get fire service at all. Then they instituted this entirely fair and reasonable policy.

I swear, it's like I'm speaking Martian or something...

Always relevant.

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

Everyone knows that any sane person in this country of ours has pulled themselves up to their middle-class position by hard work and dedication, allowing them to reap the benefits of our meritocracy. Work hard and get far, and only then will you deserve protection from the government because you could afford it by then. It's the American Dream, everyone!

We must aspire to be able to afford such amenities, or else people will start mooching off the system and start fires everywhere. Everyone knows the working-class are all pyromaniac by nature.

Psy-4 wrote:

Aggie wrote:

However, I suspect we should just agree to disagree since it seems neither side is budging from their respective positions.

Yes, because that's what we're known to do when a libertarian prick comes along.

Good to know that when you neglect to pay 75 dollars, you deserve to have your house and pets burn down.

Again, we have no information as to why he chose not to pay the fee. None whatsoever. We do, however, know that he was aware of the fee and had chosen not to pay it (as indicated by his quote from the article).

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.

Aggie wrote:

Again, we have no information as to why he chose not to pay the fee. None whatsoever. We do, however, know that he was aware of the fee and had chosen not to pay it (as indicated by his quote from the article).

That's fascinating, because why he chose not to pay is absolutely irrelevant. He made a mistake. One small(<$100) mistake should not cost you your entire fucking life.

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.

Victim blaming is victim blaming is victim blaming.

A douche is a douche is a douche.

Christ, if the $75 is REALLY that much of an issue, put out the fire and then put a lien on his house if he won't pay up. He had, after all, already paid taxes to fund the service, he just hadn't paid the additional "make this service actually useful to me" fee. Then you get the money, he gets to keep his property, and his fee-paying neighbors aren't put at risk through your douchebaggery. It's a win-win-win!

Psy-4 wrote:

One small(<$100) mistake should not cost you your entire fucking life.

Cheaper mistakes often cost people their literal lives every day. Trying to imply that some sort of karmic balance should work into human business is a waste of time.

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.

Actually, that's always puzzled me about libertarians. With all of these opt-in systems, you'd need a lot of bureaucracy and record keeping, and I thought libertarians were against all that?

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.

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.

ZoZo wrote:

Actually, that's always puzzled me about libertarians. With all of these opt-in systems, you'd need a lot of bureaucracy and record keeping, and I thought libertarians were against all that?

Nah. To the libertarian, the problem is being forced to participate in and fund bureaucracies that run things they want nothing to do with.

Aggie wrote:

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.

Oh yes, a fire extinguisher will totally put out a raging inferno that has spread throughout an entire house. I mean, that's how they put out bush fires in California!

Penguin wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Quote :

ZoZo wrote:

Actually, that's always puzzled me about libertarians. With all of these opt-in systems, you'd need a lot of bureaucracy and record keeping, and I thought libertarians were against all that?

Nah. To the libertarian, the problem is being forced to participate in and fund bureaucracies that run things they want nothing to do with.

Cheers for the explanation. How astonishingly naive.

money is more important than people's lives

Uh, I've thought about something...
What if it has been the hospital that demanded a fee before you're allowed there? Like, you get appendicitis or a stroke or something, you call the hospital, they say 'no, we won't come, you didn't pay'...

... and then you die.

Interesting system, isn't it?

Mafi: THIS.

Thanks to TheHermit, I now fully understand the crazy political demographic I always think of when I wonder how on earth someone could possibly hold together such baffling political ideas.

Libertarian.
Hmmm.




Man, I hate libertarians.