MSNBC: No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

[Hubbs]

So if one of them was on fire and burnt to death right in front of the firemen...it would be cool if they did nothing?

No, if that's the case then the issue is saving a life, not preventing property damage.

[PokerPacker]

Personally I think this is pretty horrible. It's their job to put out fires and they did nothing to help this family save their home.

Fine or no fine, I don't see how they could just let it burn down, especially with those animals inside.

If they could have put out the fire they should have.

That said...why were these morons burning trash in the first place?

that's what you do out in the middle of nowhere. My grandmother lives out in rural Pennsylvania and she's got a burn-barrel for burning trash.

As for the story, it sucks, but you can bet people who didn't pay the fee before will now. You can' blame the fire-fighters for trying to make a living. If they save homes of people who don't pay, then what incentive is there for anyone to pay?

[Hubbs]

Cliffs:

The man in the story is stupid for not paying for optional firefighting service and expecting to receive it anyway.

The city is stupid for having a policy that doesn't have a fallback (even if it's much more expensive to the user) position that still allows for the delivery of this hot-button service.

Winner winner.

[twa]

I expect the local fire department to put out a car on fire with out of state tags. That way, the fire doesn't spread (at the very least).

Is that so hard to understand? Now, if my out of state tags cause me to get billed for putting out the fire, so be it. But atleast put out the damn fire. Otherwise, you are endangering everyone else who is a resident.

Local being the operative word...the city is not responsible outside the city.(which is where this was)

[RichmondRedskin88]

No, if that's the case then the issue is saving a life, not preventing property damage.

Its pretty bad they let 3 dogs and cat burn though. Don't punish the animals too.

[The Evil Genius]

Local being the operative word...the city is not responsible outside the city.(which is where this was)

Out of curiousity...does anyone know why the city residents get free fire service? Do they pay city only taxes for it? If so, then why not make it a county wide tax?

[MSJHWT]

that's what you do out in the middle of nowhere. My grandmother lives out in rural Pennsylvania and she's got a burn-barrel for burning trash.

As for the story, it sucks, but you can bet people who didn't pay the fee before will now. You can' blame the fire-fighters for trying to make a living. If they save homes of people who don't pay, then what incentive is there for anyone to pay?

I'm not sure that's true, the guy said he knew of 3 or 4 other houses that burned before, so people in the area knew this was the policy, and it had happened before, so even just forgetting to pay will screw you.

[gbear]

I can sort of understand not going to the house not on the list. It's an expense...but when you're already there? Seriously, why would you not put it out? I know in the safety courses I take every year, they show the video of how fast a fire can spread. If you are there, why would you not put it out to prevent its spread.

cost to put out fire in house $10k

cost to put out a 2 acre out of control fire threatening to go all northern CA on you? $1mil?

So maybe the 2 acre out of control fire only happens 1 in 150. That means the expected damage is $7,660 (got from 1,149,000/150 for average expense incurred). In that scenario, the fire dept. should have just put out the fire even if the get no money back just to avoid the potential expense.

Yes, it may be marginally more expensive on the basis of expected expenditures, but if it's only marginal is that something you wouldn't do out of human decency? What's more, as I stated above, is it really that much more? I know they're the FD, but my roommates in college would never play with a fire like that, letting it get big enough to burn a house down. The potential to spread and cost if it did, even in Southern MD, was way to high to risk.

[SnyderShrugged]

Read the article. The mayor says then no one would pay until they had a fire... lol

Sounds much like the circumstance with preexisting conditions for health insurance

[Hubbs]

Its pretty bad they let 3 dogs and cat burn though. Don't punish the animals too.

Agreed, that sucks. The punishment doesn't even make sense. Who expects a dog or cat to pay?

[Bang]

For $75?

Sure the people should pay, bill them. Just basic humanity says that you don't let a family's whole life go up in smoke over $75 measly dollars if you can help, and I'd say they were in position to lend some assistance.

Even for just fire control doesn't it make sense? What if it starts a forest fire?

~Bang

[twa]

Out of curiousity...does anyone know why the city residents get free fire service? Do they pay city only taxes for it? If so, then why not make it a county wide tax?

City services are paid for by city taxes...not free at all

If a city firefighter gets injured or killed or equipment gets destroyed it is the city that foots the bill.

I don't like the policy(nor the inaction) but I find it hard to blame the city in this case.

dear God, now the animal rights crowd is chiming in.

How about blaming the owner that locked them in and refused to provide fire response coverage?

[twa]

a update of sorts...the county decides to expand subscription area

WdB9sILXMg4

Now more people have the choice to pay or roast

[skinfan133]

I don't really know what to think about this... my initial thoughts:

a) the family was incredibly stupid for not paying the $75 fee. I don't think I need to elaborate any further.

what kind of county doesn't have some sort of fire fighting service? Not even a volunteer force? I mean, common. Can't the county use tax revenue to at least pay the city to provide firefighting services?

c) The lack of humanity on the part of the firefighters and the poor leadership of the fire chief. I think this infuriates me the most. A good leader is willing to break convention or regulation in order to do the right thing. That fire chief is utterly horrible in this regard. I guarantee the earful he would have gotten for putting out the fire from the city council, or whatever, is nowhere near comparable to losing an entire house, all possessions, and family pets. I don't know how that situation unfolded, but I can just imagine the family begging the firefighters to do something with them not responding at all. Maybe they all watched as the family desperately tried to do something themselves. My uncle is a volunteer firefighter for our community, I think if he were to hear this story he would be ashamed and furious.

[Enzo]

It is a stupid law & should be illegal. What is next the man gets robbed & the police won't show up because he didn't pay a fee. The man's neighbor offered to pay the $75 & they still wouldn't let the fire department put it out. I wonder if it had been a relative or friend of the mayor that had forgotten to pay the $75 would they have prevented the fire department of doing its job? I doubt it.

[Baculus]

This is another example of the right-wing social Darwinism trend at work. Now you have conservatives falling all over themselves to defend the actions of the fire department, and Glenn Beck and one of his radio sidekicks even openly mocked the family on his radio broadcast. Beck's deepest insight into this topic was this:

"BECK: This is the sort of argument that Americans are going to have."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/beck-producer-mock-firefighters/

What does that eve mean? What sort of conversation? "Fire departments are socialistic big government!" By the way, considering Beck's constant hysterics, I considered it high irony when Beck said, "Those that are just on raw feeling are not going to understand."

Oh really?

Even Ronald Reagan, in the Reason magazine article some of us have reference in the past, seemed to have support the idea of public fire departments over private ones. (Though, not surprisingly, he backtracked a little when the phrase "socialized" was introduced into the argument.

"REASON: Are you suggesting that fire departments would be a necessary and proper function of government?

"REAGAN: Yes. I know that there was a time back in history in which fire departments were private and you insured your house and then had an emblem on the front of your house which identified which company was responsible for protecting it against fire. I believe today, because of the manner in which we live, that, you can make a pretty good case for our public fire departments–because there are very few ways that you can handle fire in one particular structure today without it representing a threat to others."

So, I guess the new conservatism really is pushing an anarcho-capitalism, in which everything, from our roads, schools, health care, and fire departments are all privately run. In essence, such responsibilities, sometimes called "positive rights," will come down to your ability to pay -- if you can't, screw you. Don't drive, don't go to school, don't get sick, and burn, baby, burn. We'll laugh and compare you to "jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates," which were the words from the National Review. According to these people, if the firefighters would have put out the fire, the Cranicks would have been "free-riding" and "sponging" and off their neighbors.

I would say that compassionate conservatism is indeed, dead. It has been replaced by this nasty, mean-spirited conservatism, hateful of those they consider "jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates." Of course, I have to wonder this: I wonder how often these conservatives use public roads or public functions in localities and states other than their own? I guess they don't mind sponging and free-riding off the tax dollars of other citizens, which would make these right-wingers to be the hypocrites that many of us recognize them to be.

"Your '_insert_issue_here_' is not my problem!" says the Right.

I think individualism vs. the "greater good" is always a very important topic, but, in this case, letting a structure worth thousands of dollars burn down, along with the family's belongings and the family pets, for $75, a measly sum in the grand scheme of things compared to the damage caused by the fire, is wholly illogical and ruthless. It's the type of stubborn unreasonableness that is, at times and with good cause, associated with government. But I can guarantee you that the Right would be falling all over themselves to go on the attack -- "See! This is the problem with big government!" -- if this were a bad judgment call by the state or locality.

[luckydevil]

This is another example of the right-wing social Darwinism trend at work. Now you have conservatives falling all over themselves to defend the actions of the fire department, and Glenn Beck and one of his radio sidekicks even openly mocked the family on his radio broadcast. Beck's deepest insight into this topic was this:

Your transformation into a hack is sort of amazing. Do you just swallow every damn thing you read at a random progressive site? I swear the political left has lost its damn mind. It is government tax funded fire department. Some basic research shows this story is utter horse dung.

By the way, there are plenty of examples/stories of fire departments failing to respond ( in proper time or at all) . Some how these stories don't get near the attention. I wonder why.

[Mickalino]

Cranick, who is now living in a trailer on his property, says his insurance policy will help cover some of his lost home.

"Insurance is going to pay for what money I had on the policy, looks like. But like everything else, I didn't have enough."

So this confirms that the homeowner is the far bigger idiot in this case.

Not only did he not pay the fire protection fee, but he under-insured his home.

That's 2 strikes against him, so I have no sympathy.

He got what he paid for.

[PokerPacker]

It is a stupid law & should be illegal. What is next the man gets robbed & the police won't show up because he didn't pay a fee. The man's neighbor offered to pay the $75 & they still wouldn't let the fire department put it out. I wonder if it had been a relative or friend of the mayor that had forgotten to pay the $75 would they have prevented the fire department of doing its job? I doubt it.

Its not about just $75. If it were just about $75, then they'd show up to a fire and say "$75 please!". If you only pay when your house is on fire, then you aren't paying an insurance but rather an "oh ****, things DID go wrong." Everybody would just pay the $75 when their house caught fire and the firefighters would be broke. Everybody needs to pay their $75 whether or not their house happens to catch fire to subsidize the ones that do. That's what insurance is all about.

[desioreo87]

To every poster who thought this was the right action:

You are what is wrong with the world. And let me guess, you are probably republican/right wing.

I will never understand this way of thinking. How the **** can people like this live with themselves.

I thought this was supposed to be a "christian" nation built on "christian"principles, (totally bull**** btw.)

This is the same exact thing that is happening in health care. They couldn't give a **** if you are dying, its all about the bottomline.

**** you people, for real.

[desioreo87]

Its not about just $75. If it were just about $75, then they'd show up to a fire and say "$75 please!". If you only pay when your house is on fire, then you aren't paying an insurance but rather an "oh ****, things DID go wrong." Everybody would just pay the $75 when their house caught fire and the firefighters would be broke. Everybody needs to pay their $75 whether or not their house happens to catch fire to subsidize the ones that do. That's what insurance is all about.

How about this, they put out the ****ing fire and then charge these people a fine over the 75. That way they will collect more money and someones home didn't just burn to the ****ing ground while these ********s watched.

[PokerPacker]

How about this, they put out the ****ing fire and then charge these people a fine over the 75. That way they will collect more money and someones home didn't just burn to the ****ing ground while these ********s watched.

how does a private organization fine someone for something they did without a contract? I agree that the fine route is the better way to go, but the system needs to be in place to support it or there will be nothing to force the homeowner to pay.

[twa]

Then it would be ...My God the mans house is burning down and you are fining and extorting money from him?

Hasn't he suffered enough?

Progressives...always wanting to give from someone elses wallet ...It's your Christian duty dammit.

[Thiebear]

If your already there, and they guy has paid before why NOT?

I bet many firefighters wanted to and were told no.

If Fireman didn't put out fires based on Pay it would seem every house would burn down.

But i've said before: Police/Fire/ambulance should be default service for paying taxes working for free through July.

Not cutting those jobs should be default also.

[Smoot Point Really]

The problem I see is there is a moral dilemma... You want to save this deadbeats house, but you don't want to encourage other people to be deadbeat... Of course he would pay whatever he could to get them to turn on the hoses when his house was burning down, but then everyone would have the right to do nothing until their house burns down. There is no easy answer, even though it seems like the most easy to just hose the place.