Home burns while firefighters watch, again

[Seizure1990]

Works fine in my city and county. We've never had to deny someone from putting a fire out.

Well that's great for your city and county! In case you haven't noticed, local governments in the US are allowed to function at least somewhat autonomously, and that's for a reason! If the entire nation could be ruled with a "one size fits all" mentality, then sure. But I seriously doubt it can be, and so every city and state makes its own laws according to its own needs. Before asking why they don't just funnel it through general taxes, how about asking why they chose to do it this way in the first place? Personally, I don't know myself, and also, as I said, I fail to see how it matters - $75 is $75.

[DrJohnSmitherson]

So they had to pay $75 that year for fire protection, which they knew.

They didn't (knowing the risks)

Their house burns

Fire dept. does nothing

Tough ****

[Astra.Xtreme]

I pay for fire protection through operating levies and taxes. Why TN doesn't do that is beyond me. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

You brought up home insurance, which bares no relevancy to the conversation. Again, what's your point?

[majortom1981]

So they had to pay $75 that year for fire protection, which they knew.

They didn't (knowing the risks)

Their house burns

Fire dept. does nothing

Tough ****

Read another link that was posted. They where not allowed to pay the fee by law. They are not able to get insurance due to it being a trailer, so the law states they cannot pay the fee . The county itself stated they would not be able to pay the fee. Why send the fire dept down knowing that its a trailer and that legally they could not pay the fee in the first place?

[mudslag]

They should at least give them the option to pay on the spot :/

Or send them the whole cost to come out after the fact. My guess is it cost a few grand to come out and put out the fire, so charge them. That way when others see a 1000+ bill for the cost, then the 75 doesnt look that bad. Either way, the home still gets saved and the firefighters still get the cost covered.

[ArialBlue]

You Europeans pay for fire service as well. It's included in your taxes and guess what? If you don't pay your taxes you get fined on top of the taxes or go to jail unless it's Italy or Greece where it's ok to not pay taxes.

Yeah you Europeans are so compassionate compared to us evil Americans.

One thing I will say is that this should not be a flat fee for everyone. The amount should be based on the size of the home so it's actually fair for everyone.

Firefighters is one of the social safety nets that should be covered by taxation distributed based on income.

I am not a European, but I regard European as a better model of society.

[leedogg]

They really should just do what ambulances do. If they dont pay the fee, they get the full bill for the cost of going to the fire. I mean wtf, they went out there anyway right? The cost was already incurred, might as well make them pay for it. Otherwise in this example, both sides lose lose.

[Seizure1990]

They really should just do what ambulances do. If they dont pay the fee, they get the full bill for the cost of going to the fire. I mean wtf, they went out there anyway right? The cost was already incurred, might as well make them pay for it. Otherwise in this example, both sides lose lose.

They might have to be there to make sure the fire doesn't spread out of control.

[Blackhearted]

It's shameful how many people are trying to justify this kind of thing. It really is. I guess it's no surprise though, as in todays world people can't see a damn thing beyond money.

[ShiZZa]

I also bet there insurance will not cover it, because they didn't pay for the fire fighters fees.

[majortom1981]

I also bet there insurance will not cover it, because they didn't pay for the fire fighters fees.

The article states its the otherway around. Isnurance wont cover them so the county law states they cannot pay the fee so they cannot get fire protection. Basically its the county saying we refuse to fight fires on your property.

[Slammers]

Absolutely retarded. Any idiot mayor or council could realize that if a fire engine is required and the owners haven't paid they "fire fees" they could just charge a fee of say $150 for saving the house. This way they would actually make more money off people who didn't pay and there would be no backlash as no ones going to mine paying off $150 in return to getting all their possessions and possibly their house saved. Retards...

[perochan]

stupid policy and stupid home owner who doesnt want to pay $75 firefighter fees per year.

the firefights could charge on site fee X amount of times than $75.

[Seizure1990]

How exactly would that work? Sign some papers or cut a check while watching your house burn down? And what if the check bounces? Do the firefighters need to bring a credit card swiper too, and a cash register? Sounds like a hilarious scenario to me.

Everyone in the county knows the rule, and if they didn't pay, given the option, then it's their own fault.

In this case though, they never had the chance, which is a different subject entirely, and is pretty bad.

[NoLiMiT06]

Pay the $75 and have the possibility of some stuff being saved or be greedy and lose everything, not that difficult....

[shockz]

You brought up home insurance, which bares no relevancy to the conversation. Again, what's your point?

You brought up car insurance... so yes... what's the point.

[compl3x]

There are plenty of countries, mine included, who have rural or remote communities. I have never heard of this kind of policy being put in place anywhere except in the US.

I think it is really easy to say "These people live in remote or rural areas so let's punish them with extra fees". If people in the city were all told because of a ****ty budget they had to pay extra money for basic services, they'd be up-in-arms screaming how they were getting screwed and their safety was being put at risk.

Why do the fire fighters bother turning up at all?

Victim: My house if on fire!

Operator: Is there anyone in the house?

Victim: No. Everyone is safe outside, just my house is on fire!

Operator: Hmm, seems you haven't payed your fire protection, so we aren't going to waste the time or resources even coming out. *click*

Victim: Hello...? Hello!?

[farmeunit]

Sorry but that is ****ing bull****. They need to get off their high horses and do their jobs. They can collect the fee afterwards.

It's called INSURANCE. You can't pay AFTER an accident. It's to take care of the accident when you have it.

[osm0sis]

they aren't doing it to make a point. they are doing it because then EVERYONE would expect to pay just $75 when they happen to need the service instead of likelyl paying it for decades without ever needing it. It's bascially an insurance policy. You can't insure a valuable against damage AFTER it's been damaged.

That is proving a point, either because they didn't pay or even the way you've just explained it. That's why I also quoted/agreed with the guy who said they should be charged more (way more, for all I care), either on the spot or billed afterwards. Hell make it like calling an ambulance when it's not needed ($500 or so?). It's still a better solution than letting a place burn to the ground when it could be saved, and implementing it wouldn't be very logistically difficult either.

[PsyOpWarlord]

Absolutely retarded. Any idiot mayor or council could realize that if a fire engine is required and the owners haven't paid they "fire fees" they could just charge a fee of say $150 for saving the house. This way they would actually make more money off people who didn't pay and there would be no backlash as no ones going to mine paying off $150 in return to getting all their possessions and possibly their house saved. Retards...

Thats just stupid. I can't believe people would actually think that would work. First off no one would ever pay the fee for fire department services every year because it would be cheaper for them to just not pay unless there was an incident. Then since no one would be paying into the system the lack of funds wouldn't cover the operating costs and the city would just be forced to not provide any services to the county at all leaving them all without services.

Not even charging the full amount would work in most cases as most people wouldn't be able to afford the full payment of a response (especially after a home fire) that would total on the thousands of dollars. And that is not a fee home owners insurance would cover. Homeowners insurance will rebuild their home (unless they refused to insure their home).

So there are really only three choices. The pay the fee and get the protection from the cities resources (fair since they are not paying city taxes that pay for those services); they refuse and get no service (which they did); or the county approves a tax hike that everyone has to pay for fire services and everyone would be covered.

They were offered a service and they refused to accept it. That was their choice and their mistake.

I fully support the hard stance to not provide them the service.

[Shea J]

There are plenty of countries, mine included, who have rural or remote communities. I have never heard of this kind of policy being put in place anywhere except in the US.

I think it is really easy to say "These people live in remote or rural areas so let's punish them with extra fees". If people in the city were all told because of a ****ty budget they had to pay extra money for basic services, they'd be up-in-arms screaming how they were getting screwed and their safety was being put at risk.

Why do the fire fighters bother turning up at all?

It's that wonderful conservative thinking. The less taxes the better. Forget social services we dont need them.

There's a reason stupid **** like this happens only in the south of this country. It's things like this that make this country look bad.

[I am Reid]

Really it shows the people who are willing to support their community and those who are not. Its basically a "tax" but they leave the option up to you of whether or not you want to pay it. Sure, they could make it a mandatory fee(which im not sure would be legal), but they leave the option up to you. The are the same people who if it was up to them they wouldnt pay taxes for schools, roads, ect..., but then will complain when they are not up to a good enough standard. When you belong to a modem society you need to do your part to maintain that society, and taxes are a big part of that, and these are the types of people who feel like they shouldnt have to pay them. In a society where the people in the community dont support each other things like this happen, your house burns to the ground and no one is there to help.

[abysal]

I thought fire and police were part of your local / municipal taxes each year?

[c3ntury]

Good thing we Brits don't have anything of the sort.

[DocM]

I thought fire and police were part of your local / municipal taxes each year?

Please read upthread - these people live in an unincorporated rural area outside the municipal limits and therefore pay no city taxes. As such, they are outside the fire depts jurisdiction and area of responsibility.

As a courtesy the closest city and FD offers fire protection to these non-residents at a $75 yearly fee, which is used to cover expenses, extend the firefighters liability & workers comp insurances etc.

These people rolled the dice, didn 't pay the fee, and lost the bet.

I guess many people both in and out of the US still don't understand that vast tracts of the US don't "belong" to a city, town or village - their "address" is just the name of the local Post Office. There are none of the usual local services save for arrangements like these.

Police coverage is by larger entities like County Sheriff's and the State Police/Rangers/Highway Patrol, and neither Counties or States offer fire services.