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

[twa]

I am sure it has something to do with costs and policy, but as another poster indicated (in a detail that really doesn't support neither his nor your view), other rural townships and counties are able to provide broader coverage without instituting a direct fee that can result in this sort of "no pay, no spray" situation.

Funny that three others in that area have "no pay, no spray"

I certainly agree that a competent county govt would not let a policy such as this stand and would find a better solution (as most ares do)

The entire arose when they responded to his neighbor's house and did nothing to help the non-paying customer. By the way, your point is still contrary to how other firefighters feel about this issue.

Firefighters (be they volunteer or professional) would most certainly not like it,but I bet they don't like those that take advantage of them either....ain't nobody happy in this situation

The issue arose because the county does not fund fire protection and the city is tired of being abused.

That's an irrelevant point. Are against public firefighting departments that cover even those who don't pay? Did you just throw out this slogan for the heck of it and so you can introduce "socialism" into the argument?

Do you pay for all of the roads that you use when you drive? Really? Well, that is being rather socialist with your obligations, isn't it?

The point is people expecting services and not wanting to pay for them....it don't work

[Baculus]

Funny that three others in that area have "no pay, no spray"

I certainly agree that a competent county govt would not let a policy such as this stand and would find a better solution (as most ares do)

Are you referring to the other neighbors or counties?

At least we can agree on something, though, so it's a start!

Firefighters (be they volunteer or professional) would most certainly not like it,but I bet they don't like those that take advantage of them either....ain't nobody happy in this situation

The issue arose because the county does not fund fire protection and the city is tired of being abused.

We had a firefighter respond to this thread just before your last post, so ask him. He didn't seem happy, at all, though, with the situation.

Do we really know how much the city has been abused? Because I haven't seen anything about that or how much money they have lost.

The point is people expecting services and not wanting to pay for them....it don't work

Again, do you pay for all of the services that you use, especially in areas outside of where you pay taxes or direct fees for such services? Do you know how many services a lot of us every day without realizing it was possibly paid with some other person's tax money?

[twa]

Do we really know how much the city has been abused? Because I haven't seen anything about that or how much money they have lost.

Again, do you pay for all of the services that you use, especially in areas outside of where you pay taxes or direct fees for such services? Do you know how many services a lot of us every day without realizing it was possibly paid with some other person's tax money?

Why do you think a city would make such a policy that clearly is gonna put them in a bad light?

What of those that actually pay for the service and equipment if limited resources are unavailable due to responding to those outside the city?....if one of their houses burn down it's just too bad?

A sensible program allows both personnel and equipment to be available to meet the needs in advance(which is why fees or taxes need to be paid in advance rather than when a fire breaks out)

as to the other I live in a donor state,so we give daily, and I try never to leave.

What I do travel I figure they still come out ahead by virtue of my presence and largess

[Bang]

Why do you think a city would make such a policy that clearly is gonna put them in a bad light?

What of those that actually pay for the service and equipment if limited resources are unavailable due to responding to those outside the city?....if one of their houses burn down it's just too bad?

A sensible program allows both personnel and equipment to be available to meet the needs in advance(which is why fees or taxes need to be paid in advance rather than when a fire breaks out)

as to the other I live in a donor state,so we give daily, and I try never to leave.

What I do travel I figure they still come out ahead by virtue of my presence and largess

What if one of their houses burns down while the fire department is busy out of district watching a guy's house burn down to make sure it doesn't set his neighbor's house on fire?

seriously,, the more i read your stance the more ridiculous becomes.

$75. To watch a house burn down.

Thinking in absolutes like this is no different than the stupid assed "no tolerance" rules that allows schools to slap sexual misconduct charges on five year old kids for hugging their teachers. The rules have a purpose, but when a situation arises, no one bothers to think. And because they use the absolute, they are absolved of being really dispicable human beings, because the rules ($75 annual fee) allow them to hide.

I wonder how many other times this happened? i bet their town is just rife with deadbeat houses burning down..

I have no problem charging the guy, punishing the guy even. Put his ass in county lockup for 30 days. give him 90 if you want. Take his driver's license. No problem with it whatsoever. But damn, put the fire out and THEN haul his ass downtown and make an example of him.

~Bang

[stevenaa]

Fellow conservative here. People need to be resonsible for themselves and their actions, but: If my neighbors house is burning down, I pour buckets of water on it if need be. If I'm standing next to a fire truck full of water, I darn sure spray the fire. The costs to the public for letting it burn will far exceed $75 bucks. Every claim like this affects insurance rates. He'll likely be receiveing some government assistance in some form or other, cause there's assistance for darn near anything. And then theres plain on simple common decency. I've had times when I couldn't pay a $75 fee. Doesn't sound like much when you've got it, but when you're literally scraping together change to buy bread, it's a lot of money. And I'm sure no one supporting this nonsense has ever forgotten anything.

A house is not just a structure of 2x4's and sheetrock. My grandparents lost their home to fire when they were visting us. A lifetime of memories gone in an instant. Irreplaceable. To argue that this house should have been left to burn is hard to fathom. No amount of rationalization makes this acceptable. There are any number of ways the failure to pay could have been dealt with after the fact.

[twa]

What if one of their houses burns down while the fire department is busy out of district watching a guy's house burn down to make sure it doesn't set his neighbor's house on fire?

seriously,, the more i read your stance the more ridiculous becomes.

$75. To watch a house burn down.

~Bang

Then you need to look at changing the policy on accepting fees and why you didn't expand capabilities

You may find my stance ridiculous, I find the ones there ridiculous as well....as I do no tolerance policies.

Now why do we have such ridiculousness running rampant?

[sacase]

Why would it be "stretching" for the county to have a better plan? That is a really curious remark to make.

Maybe you should read the letter from the President of the firefighters' organization to better understand my POV.

Why is that a curious remark? The plan worked for 20 years and with 80% of the calls from the county, seems like things worked just fine until someone decided to roll the dice. The president is probably from a Big city and doesn't relize the challenges that a small town of 2500 faces with funding. I doubt he has ever had to deal with those issues. Infact he is from Fairfax county. Yeah big difference in challenges faced.

Ok let’s look at the facts and why its unfair to the city. The City is 3 Sq miles and has 2500 people.

The county is 550 sq miles and has 32,000 people.

Those numbers by themselves are why the city requires the $75 fee, so they can maintain the equipment. You can’t expect 2500 people to support 32,000. Then again, you are a liberal so that is fine with you as long as the 2500 are rich, which these probably are not. There is probably more money in the county than there is in the city.

Wonderful. So you get the coverage you need, but in the case of Obion County, where South Fulton is located, it's "stretching it" for them to provide better coverage for rural citizens?

Once again it worked for 20 years....

This doesn't provide a solution at all. Even worse, you're trumpeting your region's fire services while acting as if the citizens in Obion county don't deserve the same sort of service.

No I am just comparing it to where I am from becuase the challenges that they face are different. Even my home town is 10 times the size of South Fulton. So I am sure the challenges they face are even worse.

Fact of the matter is you are acting like South Fulton is like the DC metro area....its far different. Look at the trucks they use? These things are at least 30-40 years old. Someone has to pay the maintenance costs on these things, so I suppose its supposed to fall to the City to maintain them and provide service to the nonpaying county.

[Bang]

Then you need to look at changing the policy on accepting fees and why you didn't expand capabilities

You may find my stance ridiculous, I find the ones there ridiculous as well....as I do no tolerance policies.

Now why do we have such ridiculousness running rampant?

No, i don't need to check a policy to help out a guy who's house is burning down. In fact, if the policy insisted I stand there as a firefighter and watch, i'd break the rules and put the man's house out. I wouldn't even think twice about it. And if I had to do it again, i'd do it again.

Why do we have such ridiculousness running rampant?

Because we have people who insist that $75 is enough to warrant letting a man's house burn down as a lesson to him about being personally responsible.

~Bang

[twa]

No, i don't need to check a policy to help out a guy who's house is burning down. In fact, if the policy insisted I stand there as a firefighter and watch, i'd break the rules and put the man's house out. I wouldn't even think twice about it. And if I had to do it again, i'd do it again.

~Bang

Sounds like they need more of you in the neighborhood, but I guess it still comes down to if you would support paying for it too.

Them garden hoses only do so much.

[Bang]

Life is about more than money.

Besides, I already said twice I'm all for punishing the guy. Even putting him in jail.

He'd pay, quite a bit. But before that I'd try to put his house out.

It's the only decent thing to do.

~Bang

[twa]

Life is about more than money.

Besides, I already said twice I'm all for punishing the guy. Even putting him in jail.

He'd pay, quite a bit. But before that I'd try to put his house out.

It's the only decent thing to do.

~Bang

This is what I do not get,you are perfectly fine with heavily fining or jailing a homeowner that either forgot or was willing to risk skipping the fee.

Yet simply not responding is too harsh.

[Bang]

This is what I do not get,you are perfectly fine with heavily fining or jailing a homeowner that either forgot or was willing to risk skipping the fee.

Yet simply not responding is too harsh.

"Simply" not responding is too harsh? really? I cannot believe I need to explain this.

Because fining him doesn't ruin his entire life.

Putting him in county lockup for 90 days doesn't destroy his entire life. When he gets out he has a home to return to. And a harsh penalty serves as a deterrent for people in the future.

Again, we're not talking about 10s of thousands of dollars he was delinquent.. it's $75.

You just don't allow that to happen over $75.

Id be willing to bet the government is about to spend those 10s of thousands on him now. He'll apply for all sorts of assistance and become another welfare case because they "simply" wouldn't respond.

Punishing him, making a point and teaching him his lesson is easy enough to do without... and i repeat WITHOUT allowing his home and all it represents to go up in smoke.

~Bang

[twa]

so would ya fine or jail him if his house was partially saved despite the fee being voluntary?

The govt is gonna give someone with ins coverage 10's of thousands?...Why?

It's a bizarre world

added

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2010/10/more_on_the_sou.html

Essentially Obion county expects a small minority of citizens living in incorporated areas to foot the bill for everyone else. Must be nice to be a county resident - your commissioners vote to create imaginary unfunded county fire departments and then freeload off incorporated areas and citizens who understand that services cost money.

Now let's apply this to the "city" of South Fulton, a sprawling metropolis spanning a truly impressive 3 square miles. South Fulton boasts a population of 2500 residents whose median household income amounts to the princely sum of $27,500 a year. I'm not sure what egalitarian theory of social justice would require this tiny, not terribly well off group of taxpayers to shoulder the burden of maintaining a fire department that fights 3 times more fires OUTSIDE the city limits that it does INSIDE the city limits, but undoubtedly it has something to do with the well known inability of conservatives women to handle complex mathematical problems.

http://www.ucfdtn.com/

Firefighters turn their backs?...Not so...

The Truth about Subscription Fire Service in Obion County TN.

Due to the large number of information requests and emails from individuals who have only heard one side of the story from local and national media, we have included a statement from the Union City Fire Chief to try to educate the public on the situation with the rural fire subscription service in Obion County. The following is that statement:

The events of the Cranick fire in Obion County Tennessee on Wednesday September 29th, 2010, have with no pun intended; created a “media fire storm.”

So much “finger pointing” has ensued, that the true facts of the incident have been blown out of proportion. The firefighters in this county are taking a beating when it is not their fault; nor is it the cities responsibility. It’s a county problem....more at link

[Smoot Point Really]

seriously,, the more i read your stance the more ridiculous becomes.

$75. To watch a house burn down.

~Bang

If this double-wide trailer home wasn't paying for insurance on the home, would they be able to create a policy after it burned down and would the insurance company be despicable human beings for turning them down?

Should fire fighters risk their lives when this home owner wouldn't risk $75?

[Drew_Fl]

If this double-wide trailer home wasn't paying for insurance on the home, would they be able to create a policy after it burned down and would the insurance company be despicable human beings for turning them down?

Should fire fighters risk their lives when this home owner wouldn't risk $75?

my whole point is not only should the firefighters risk their lives, but should they risk their JOBS for some idiot who:

1: Refuses to pay $75 to insure his home

2: Under-insures his home

3: Leaves an open trash burn un-attended while he showers.

if the firefighters are under orders to not put out the fire, they can be "fired" if they do. How many of them have wives and kids??? Yea it may seem noble to risk all of that for this guys house, but what about the next guys? And the next???? How many idiots' fires do you have to put out before you realize it's not worth your family losing your income???

People have forgotten this side of the argument. Everyone is so quick to say "What the hell are those firefighters doing? Why won't they put it out?!!!?

Put yourself in their shoes. This isn't the first or last time this will happen so why should they put their lives/income/family at risk for some idiots' house??? I say they should only if their is someone trapped inside. But if not, well, we saw what happened.

[Bang]

so would ya fine or jail him if his house was partially saved despite the fee being voluntary?

The govt is gonna give someone with ins coverage 10's of thousands?...Why?

the government won't give him money? No public assistance now that he's homeless? No welfare that he'll qualify for? No public money will go to this guy now that he has nothing? Sounds pretty naive to me. He's heading for some form of welfare to help him out of this jam, I'd bet.

Yes, i would fine him even if the house is partially saved. I'd fine him . even if he calls the fire dept out for a grease fire on his stovetop, or a smoldering butt in an ashtray. If the fire dept shows up at his house for any sort of fire call, I'd hit him and anyone else who does it without paying their fee with the max penalty. If he has not paid his fee then fine the hell out of him, punish him, possibly even a jail term (nothing harsh.. 90 days max I'd say.) Fine him $5000 bucks, 10,000 even. But put out the fire.

I think our mutual disconnect is happening because you're assuming that everyone would just decide not to pay and then call the fire dept. and cry "unfair" if it happens to them. That everyone will hop on board with the 'free service with no strings" bandwagon. I think this particular case would be enough to scare most of them into paying. And I also think this case should allow for some changes of policy so people do not lose everything over $75.

I'm saying there will always be people (like this guy most likely) who don't pay because they think it won't happen to them, or any number of reasons. And if it DOES happen, then they pay the price.

I don't think it happens often enough to be a major problem, or we'd have heard this sort of story before.

Question: Is the rescue service there done the same way? Are ambulances under the same fee? Just asking because I don't know and am curious.

~Bang

[Bang]

If this double-wide trailer home wasn't paying for insurance on the home, would they be able to create a policy after it burned down and would the insurance company be despicable human beings for turning them down?

Should fire fighters risk their lives when this home owner wouldn't risk $75?

I don't buy the insurance analogy because the insurance company in this scenario is being asked to pay out what could be well over $100,000 or more to rebuild the house.

Of course they won't pay if the guy didn't buy a policy or has a severely delinquent policy. That is reasonable, and that is the foundation of their business.

In this case we're talking about putting out the fire first.. not nearly as expensive a proposition.

As far as the firefighters risking their lives,, isn't that what they do? Isn't that their job description? They do it for people who have paid $75, but not for those who won't.. so it would sound to me like the price of life in this county is $75. That is how much it costs to have a firefighter risk his neck to save your home, and not paying it will result in your house being allowed to burn to the ground.

I think this guy should have paid his fee. I'm not for absolving him of his responsibility, but I think that once the fire is out, then the county can exact their retribution on him and teach him his lesson.

I think that blaming him for a house fire is pretty dumb, (Not that you did, SPR, but some have.) since most house fires start over someone being careless... be it an unattended trash burn, a cigarette in bed, a dirty oven or stove.. etc. Most housefires are caused by accidental acts of stupidity. Accidents happen, and even the smartest people can be careless. It's part of life.

I'm not for nanny-stating him or anyone. I'm not for just letting him off. But put the fire out. I'm for that. Put the fire out, then wring him out.

~Bang

PS.. off topic, but I should clear something up.. I have a new chair, and it gets in my way when I type. So for everyone that has noticed my severe increase in typos.. I have not become an alcoholic or had a stroke..

[PeterMP]

Yes, i would fine him even if the house is partially saved. I'd fine him . even if he calls the fire dept out for a grease fire on his stovetop, or a smoldering butt in an ashtray. If the fire dept shows up at his house for any sort of fire call, I'd hit him and anyone else who does it without paying their fee with the max penalty. If he has not paid his fee then fine the hell out of him, punish him, possibly even a jail term (nothing harsh.. 90 days max I'd say.) Fine him $5000 bucks, 10,000 even. But put out the fire.

Can they legally fine him?

Can a town pass a law saying that if you call out their fire company without having paid the $75 that you have to pay a fine, if you don't live in the town?

I'm not sure the town would have the authority to enforce such a law.

[twa]

The problem I have with that is the county population has endorsed allowing risk.

As much as I believe fire protection should be a basic provided by community taxes,I can't see imposing my beliefs on the majority there that obviously do not.

Fining or jailing for being irresponsible should only be done if it is supported by those it effects as a whole.

[Bang]

above

Well, I'd say that if he calls out the fire dept, and uses their resources without having paid his fee, he's subject to action by the county, city, state, whoever has jurisdiction. Even though I may sound like i'm contradicting myself from the insurance analogy, putting out a fire and using all those trucks and equipment plus the risk to the firefighters ain't cheap. (it's just not as much as replacing a house and the life that it represented and contained.) So it does affect the whole, and like you've also said before, what if a taxpayer's house has a fire while they're out dousing the deadbeat's home? There's a hundred ways not paying the fee is detrimental to the whole that multiply considerably if there's a fire. But still, put out the fire, then settle up with the guy.

Peter, not sure who could make such a law, that seems on the surface a semantical issue that can be resolved. obviously it's not something that can be done for this case, but I'd have to believe that seeing how this has turned out they can come up with some sort of reasonable law.. be it on a county wide level, or even a state level to prevent this from happeing again. It can be done while also insuring that the people in the outlying areas know if they shirk their $75, the cost of calling the fire dept is significantly higher..both monetarily and in a possible jail sentence, maybe a few thousand hours washing fire trucks for the city might be appropriate.

Make it so it is obviously a much more attractive option to just pay your 75 at the beginning of the year.

~Bang

[twa]

They apparently have a county wide rescue /EMS service done by volunteers(not much of one,not to disparage these fine gentlemens efforts)

http://www.obioncountyrescue.com/

[Bang]

Well, that's good. Thanks

~J

[Smoot Point Really]

I understand the dilemma the firefighters were under and I do not believe they enjoyed watching the house burn. The family burned trash in their yard and lit an aerosol can... That started the fire... They didn't support their community... What if everyone didn't pay? What if everyone was forced to pay? They had the freedom to choose and they accepted certain risks (the can that started the fire and the withheld payments to the fire fighters). It is a shame it happened.

[Baculus]

Why is that a curious remark?

Because the city already has changed its policy to a degree after this story took place, so I don't think it was as much of a "strech" as you were claiming.

The plan worked for 20 years and with 80% of the calls from the county, seems like things worked just fine until someone decided to roll the dice.

Just because the plan -- the city's fire department policy -- has worked for twenty years (which we really don't know if it has or hasn't) doesn't mean it doesn't have to be modified from time to time to reflect new realities.

The president is probably from a Big city and doesn't relize the challenges that a small town of 2500 faces with funding. I doubt he has ever had to deal with those issues. Infact he is from Fairfax county. Yeah big difference in challenges faced.

Harold A. Schaitberger is president head of an organization, the International Association of Fire Fighters, with 298,000 firemen and paramedics as members and covering 85% of the country. It is the largest fire fighting union in the world. I am sure he is aware of challenges facing both big city and small town departments. In fact, twenty years ago, Fairfax county was more rural then it is now, so it's possible he's seen all sorts of department changes over his career.

BTW, just after I wrote my previous sentence I looked at Mr. Schaitberger's background, and he indeed started his career in Fairfax county during the 60s. I would guess he is probably familiar with the challenges faced by smaller fire departments.

Ok let’s look at the facts and why its unfair to the city. The City is 3 Sq miles and has 2500 people.

The county is 550 sq miles and has 32,000 people.

That doesn't mean much since other rural counties don't have the same policy as South Fulton. BTW, where I live in Oregon only has a couple of thousand of people. It isn't as if I live in a big city myself, and it isn't as if I am simply trying to push my "big city" ideas to be adopted by a small town.

Those numbers by themselves are why the city requires the $75 fee, so they can maintain the equipment. You can’t expect 2500 people to support 32,000. Then again, you are a liberal so that is fine with you as long as the 2500 are rich, which these probably are not. There is probably more money in the county than there is in the city.

Yes, me and my "liberal" desire to ensure that citizens, even in rural areas and poor, are afforded public safety. That is just so evil liberal of me, isn't it? That's one step away from a bloody communist revolution! After all, I should have confidence that the Hidden Hand of the market would swoop over burning houses and put it out with its finger water hose.

Of course the $75 is to maintain equipment, but TWA, in a previous post, linked to government programs that would assist rural communities with fire safety.

Once again it worked for 20 years....

That's a spurious argument.

No I am just comparing it to where I am from becuase the challenges that they face are different. Even my home town is 10 times the size of South Fulton. So I am sure the challenges they face are even worse.

When I was growing up in Frederick County, it was a pretty rural place. But the various department had overlap of coverage and areas of response so that citizens may receive help when needed. Is it possible that this region needs more of that, in spite of your assertion that their policies have "worked for twenty years"?

Fact of the matter is you are acting like South Fulton is like the DC metro area....its far different.

I disagree. I haven't proposed any new taxes, or buying new equipment, or whatever that you believe would be Big City policy. I haven't proposed anything different then you'd see from other rural counties who don't have a subscription based fire service.

Look at the trucks they use? These things are at least 30-40 years old. Someone has to pay the maintenance costs on these things, so I suppose its supposed to fall to the City to maintain them and provide service to the nonpaying county.

They don't look that old to me.

I never presumed South Fulton was a wealthy town, but that doesn't mean they can't get assistance from the county, from other fire departments, from the state or even federal government to ensure that local residents can receive help when needed, in spite of a $75 fee. I don't think that is an unusual nor an unreasonable objective . . . unless, of course, you are a conservative that believes in survival of the economic fittest, and that your neighbor's home burning down is none of your business nor something you should care about. Then I don't know what to tell you.

[twa]

I never presumed South Fulton was a wealthy town, but that doesn't mean they can't get assistance from the county, from other fire departments, from the state or even federal government to ensure that local residents can receive help when needed, in spite of a $75 fee. I don't think that is an unusual nor an unreasonable objective . . . unless, of course, you are a conservative that believes in survival of the economic fittest, and that your neighbor's home burning down is none of your business nor something you should care about. Then I don't know what to tell you.

Where is that assistance?...sure as hell not from that county,unless you count them allowing subscpriptions

The links I gave you are programs to help start and equip,train fire depts and are not w/o costs and responsibilities(which is what this problem boils down to,the lack of responsibility and the unwillingness to cover costs)