No Pay, No Spray: Firefighters Let Home Burn

[Kr_Treefrog2]

This story came across the news ticker on my desktop, and I thought it was worth reading. What interested me most was the poll at the bottom of the page. It's a sad statement of this country's mentality when people expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter without any cost to them personally. People don't want to pay for services, but boy do they pitch a fit when they need them but haven't done what it takes to earn them. Also take note that the fire department in this story is not a county tax-funded establishment, but a city-funded department that offers their services to people outside their district for a very small annual fee.

No Pay, No Spray: Firefighters Let Home Burn
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

 

[samot]

Thats BS !!!! All FFs included should be held accountable for arson & be put in the pokey with the mayor.
They let thier pets burn...?
This is inexcusable

 

[bigus_D]

At least the guy isn't blaming the insurance company for not offering to pay more than he was insured for!

 

[IndyMonkey]

I have no problem with it. Part of rural life is not having a fire department 2 minutes away.

Its not like they let a person burn to death. Majority of time in rural settings its a complete loss anyway.

I wish I could opt out of a lot of social services.

 

[IndySSD]

Look, I'm all for people being responsible for themselves, but I have a tendency to agree with this quote:

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

I'd suggest that people who haven't paid their annual dues be required to pay the actual cost of the fire service whereas those who maintain their dues are not billed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for "handing everything to everyone on a silver platter" but to let a family's home burn to the ground because of a lapse of their "fire service annual subscription" is pretty crappy IMO, especially since when he called in and was informed he hadn't paid his subscription fee he offered to pay for all incurred expenses.


This just seems to me like another political red tape perversion of what a fire department aught to be.



Sad thing is, if the call was routed to an actual fireman instead of a glorified receptionist this probably would never have happened because I've known quite a few firemen over the last 10 years and spent quite a bit of time in firehouses and I've yet to meet one who would let a mans home burn over an annual subscription fee of 75$.



Firefighters are generally some of the bravest most selfless people in the face of danger that I've ever seen. Now when they are back at the house..... well.... we don't talk about what goes on back at the house now do we?

 

[IndyMonkey]

we don't talk about what goes on back at the house now do we?

Like porn stars and pics by the equipment that clearly shows IFD's logo.

 

[22lr]

Im very torn here. Ya he didn't pay his fee but id think that you could always put the fire out and bill him later. Personally I think he ticked off the wrong person in the past because no firefighter I know would have let it burn. Kinda a real poor move on the chiefs part but if you dont pay then dont go crying to momma when something bad happens. Fire services cost a lot of money (even more so when your trucking in all the water), and if your not going to pay the fee then at least prepare yourself to fight it yourself.

Personally I would have put it out, and just sent him a bill for 100% of the cost (which would have been way more than $75). Not sure why they didn't do that, but my guess is the dude really ticked off the chief somewhere down the line.

 

[IndySSD]

Not sure why they didn't do that, but my guess is the dude really ticked off the chief somewhere down the line.

I'd say it has less to do with him ticking off the Chief and more to do with political red tape requirements that some bureaucrat put in place to "optimize revenue". Well, I'd say the Chief is probably pretty ticked at his family now since one of his sons went after him but in all honesty... who could blame him?


This is really a very unfortunate example of how politicians want to "make examples" of people who don't follow their every edict.

 

[bigus_D]

Personally I would have put it out, and just sent him a bill for 100% of the cost (which would have been way more than $75). Not sure why they didn't do that, but my guess is the dude really ticked off the chief somewhere down the line.

You would have incurred costs in the thousands and would have recovered squat. Maybe after several months of court (including additional costs), you would have received a judgement in your favor... with said judgement, you would have still recovered squat.

This is a simple case of personal responsibility... In America, people just don't seem to believe in it anymore.

 

[christman]

I have no problem with it. Part of rural life is not having a fire department 2 minutes away.

lol, ya, its only 30 seconds away.

 

[IndySSD]

You would have incurred costs in the thousands and would have recovered squat. Maybe after several months of court (including additional costs), you would have received a judgement in your favor... with said judgement, you would have still recovered squat.

This is a simple case of personal responsibility... In America, people just don't seem to believe in it anymore.

Well, Bigus I'm all for personal responsibility but there are some services that don't really fall into the "either you paid or you didn't" category.

1. Police and Fire response - I don't think 911 operators or dispatchers should be required to verify your property or income tax status before sending help.

2. Ambulance / Medical - I don't think it's OK for a 911 operator to verify your health insurance status before sending an ambulance to help you?

Personally I keep my tax status pretty well up to date and I always have insurance on my family, but what if something happened and I wasn't able to pay a premium on time, does that mean I should be left on the side of the road to bleed out even if I offer to pay the costs out of pocket?

 

[IndyMonkey]

lol, ya, its only 30 seconds away.

We dont live in a rural setting. Well we are surrounded by corn, but the city wanted the tax dollars so they extended the border of the town. So now we have a million dollar bldg that sits quiet. Actually I dont know if I have ever heard them make a run in the past 4 months.

 

[jd4320t]

Surely there is more to the story. I find it hard to believe they would let a house burn over $75. Maybe I'm wrong

 

[bigus_D]

Well, Bigus I'm all for personal responsibility but there are some services that don't really fall into the "either you paid or you didn't" category.

1. Police and Fire response - I don't think 911 operators or dispatchers should be required to verify your property or income tax status before sending help.

2. Ambulance / Medical - I don't think it's OK for a 911 operator to verify your health insurance status before sending an ambulance to help you?

Personally I keep my tax status pretty well up to date and I always have insurance on my family, but what if something happened and I wasn't able to pay a premium on time, does that mean I should be left on the side of the road to bleed out even if I offer to pay the costs out of pocket?

See... this is where the rubber meets the road, so to say.

I agree, there ARE some services that (usually) don't fall under the "you paid or you didn't" category... Government services.

So... We should either have universal health care, or people should have to PAY FOR WHAT THEY USE. In a perfect world (IMHO), if you don't have insurance, expect to provide payment up front (or try to get services from a charitable organization). In today's world, people get free treatment and the rest of us pay for it through increased medical costs. Just not right.

Police and Fire response are traditionally funded by tax payers. All citizens then get use of those services. As the fire department in question was part of the city government, they didn't provide services to the county. County folks had the responsibility to contract with somebody to provide fire protection. This guy failed in that respect. I'm sure, he would have railed against a county wide TAX to fund a fire department!

 

[IndyMonkey]

Surely there is more to the story. I find it hard to believe they would let a house burn over $75. Maybe I'm wrong

Truck and men are paid by the city, this house was not in the city.

For 75.00 per year the city would provide you with fire service outside of there tax base.

 

[IndySSD]

I find it hard to believe they would let a house burn over $75. Maybe I'm wrong

South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

 

[bigus_D]

South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

Its just like insurance.

Example:

Me... I'll go to the store to get some milk
Other Driver... I'll go to the store to get some cheese
Me... Oh crap, I didn't see that stop sign
Other Driver... Oh crap, that guy didn't see the stop sign
Me... I just got t-boned. It was my fault too! My car is totalled, how am I going to pay for it. (get out phone), Hey Mr. Insurance agent, would you like to sell me auto insurance?
Agent... sure, That'll be $50.
Me... great... by the way, I was just in an accident. I'll forward you my $15,000 car replacement bill.
Agent... sounds like a great deal!

The world doesn't work like that.

 

[Bendrx]

He either bought into the service or he didn't. Simple as that, he admitted he knew the rules. Sounds like he should have got out his own hose instead of trying to subscribe on the fly. Which the city doesn't allow, and for good reason. Could they have saved his house? Yes. Did they have any obligation to save his house? No. It is a shame, but it could have been prevented with a little fire safety in the first place, and it could have ended better if the fee was paid. It sucks, it's sad, it's not fair (depending on POV) and it's life. Deal with it or....

 

[IndySSD]

See... this is where the rubber meets the road, so to say.

I agree, there ARE some services that (usually) don't fall under the "you paid or you didn't" category... Government services.

So... We should either have universal health care, or people should have to PAY FOR WHAT THEY USE.

I agree, isn't that what this homeowner tried to facilitate? Offering to pay for the costs?

In today's world, people get free treatment and the rest of us pay for it through increased medical costs. Just not right.

I agree, but again this isn't the case, homeowner has insurance, offered to pay all incurred expenses.

Police and Fire response are traditionally funded by tax payers. All citizens then get use of those services. As the fire department in question was part of the city government, they didn't provide services to the county. County folks had the responsibility to contract with somebody to provide fire protection. This guy failed in that respect. I'm sure, he would have railed against a county wide TAX to fund a fire department!

There's no arguing that the homeowner failed/refused/neglected to pay his 75$ fire association fee, my problem is with the towns mayor and fire chief deciding (and I quote) that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

I have a big problem with the bolded statement. Sorry.

 

[jd4320t]

I heard the story on Bob and Tom this morning. The guy seemed like a good old boy who just forgot to pay...according to him. The fire department still showed up just to watch it burn and make sure it didn't spread to the neighbors.