Home burns while firefighters watch, again

By jnelsoninjax
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Veteran

Richteralan

Posted
Posted

But we aren't talking about any of these services, we are talking about fire fighters.

Anyway, why is the idea of expansion a bad one? More people need more homes. Suburbs and city are filling up, the only way to provide to to develop more communities. But that is going way off topic.

They do have fire fighter service. So what are you asking for?

The idea of expansion is not a bad one. Simply that as a city planner you have to be careful about the speed of the expansion. It does not mean expansion = good. There's A LOT to considerate and calculated.

Proficient

BillyJack

Posted
Posted

I admit. I stopped reading on page 5 but wanted to get my 2 cents in.

It does not matter what country you live. Any western country is all the same and even non-western countries are probably the same. Taxes from somewhere pay for the fire departments equipment, pay etc. People who don't own a house do not realize this. People who are not politicians or vote do not realize this. People who live in large cities where the laws have been in place for a long time and have not changed do not realize this either.

In the United States we have freedom and are a democracy. Every local area is different and some cities include the costs for fire service in the taxes. Others do not but might have a fee. They are coming up with the revenue some way or another and it was voted on by the people. It was their choice. Then some locations can't afford full time services so to minimize costs they have volunteers. Once again that is the people's choice.

If you live out in a remote location there is no one to pay for these services and they can't afford to pay someone to provide this service full time. That is when volunteers come in. That minimizes the cost. If you are really remote you will have nothing at all. You volunteer for your own self.

Now back to the incident. If the fire station decides to help the people that chose not to pay for the services then all of the other tax payers are paying more in taxes to pay for someone who has opted out. How is that fair? Financial problems arise all of the time. If one city responds for another city and that other city starts to not respond to their own crisis then the city responding is paying for the non responding city. Lines start to get crossed and people take advantage of this.

That is why they stand firm to their rules. Its not that they don't give a ****. They cared and people take advantage. Eventually they create rules and hold to them for these reasons. The people had a choice and voted for what they wanted. Then they did not participate. If the service is ran and paid for by the federal government then everyone including the rest of the world starts to cry too much government. When the services are ran locally everyone cries not enough government.

There are lots of other factors I have not mentioned but they do not matter since most of these things I mentioned cover the other factors. Life insurance, danger to the firemen for someone who is not paying for the service, etc. They did respond and were there hopefully to rescue the people if they needed the rescue. Which is paid by local taxes by the way.

How do you think things are paid for? Fire service, police services, parks, street lights, and so on. It all gets paid with taxes and every area pays for these costs within their boundaries.

As I always mention in other posts. You can always point a finger and say that city, that country, but if you turn around you have the same problems in your own neighborhood, people, country. Don't be a fooled.

Mentor

giantsnyy

Posted
Posted

What really sickens me tho, is where this money goes.

The fee isn't there to pay the firefighters, or get them supplies, at least not in my town. Here's why:

First off, the fee in my town goes up, every year, a pretty significant amount too.

We have 3 firehouses in my town, one paid, two volunteer. One of the volunteer houses was just rebuilt... again... when they just rebuilt it 3 years ago prior. Now, it's massive, includes a car wash system for the trucks, and a second floor with individual rooms that could be almost described as hotel-like.

Is that really necessary? Not at all. This should be covered by property taxes, which, in my area are incredibly high... I pay $12,800 yearly for less than a half acre of land, and then we have the fee for the fire protection on top of that. Ridiculous.

Grand Master

majortom1981

Posted
Posted

I admit. I stopped reading on page 5 but wanted to get my 2 cents in.

It does not matter what country you live. Any western country is all the same and even non-western countries are probably the same. Taxes from somewhere pay for the fire departments equipment, pay etc. People who don't own a house do not realize this. People who are not politicians or vote do not realize this. People who live in large cities where the laws have been in place for a long time and have not changed do not realize this either.

In the United States we have freedom and are a democracy. Every local area is different and some cities include the costs for fire service in the taxes. Others do not but might have a fee. They are coming up with the revenue some way or another and it was voted on by the people. It was their choice. Then some locations can't afford full time services so to minimize costs they have volunteers. Once again that is the people's choice.

If you live out in a remote location there is no one to pay for these services and they can't afford to pay someone to provide this service full time. That is when volunteers come in. That minimizes the cost. If you are really remote you will have nothing at all. You volunteer for your own self.

Now back to the incident. If the fire station decides to help the people that chose not to pay for the services then all of the other tax payers are paying more in taxes to pay for someone who has opted out. How is that fair? Financial problems arise all of the time. If one city responds for another city and that other city starts to not respond to their own crisis then the city responding is paying for the non responding city. Lines start to get crossed and people take advantage of this.

That is why they stand firm to their rules. Its not that they don't give a ****. They cared and people take advantage. Eventually they create rules and hold to them for these reasons. The people had a choice and voted for what they wanted. Then they did not participate. If the service is ran and paid for by the federal government then everyone including the rest of the world starts to cry too much government. When the services are ran locally everyone cries not enough government.

There are lots of other factors I have not mentioned but they do not matter since most of these things I mentioned cover the other factors. Life insurance, danger to the firemen for someone who is not paying for the service, etc. They did respond and were there hopefully to rescue the people if they needed the rescue. Which is paid by local taxes by the way.

How do you think things are paid for? Fire service, police services, parks, street lights, and so on. It all gets paid with taxes and every area pays for these costs within their boundaries.

As I always mention in other posts. You can always point a finger and say that city, that country, but if you turn around you have the same problems in your own neighborhood, people, country. Don't be a fooled.

The problem is that these people were not allowed to pay the fee by law. They were uninsurable so that means the counties law stated they could not pay the fee by law. They could not have paid the fee . That is dumb

Proficient

BillyJack

Posted
Posted

I do think it is absurd if the tax dollars are going to waste. Now days there seems to be too much of this and it is out of control.

majortom1981, that is dumb but the law was voted on by the people. I am not sure why they would not want insurance anyway. Not paying the fee for the service is one thing but insurance is another. If you pay for the fee and not insurance then I guess you are splitting the costs and odds hoping that if you did have a fire that the fire department would be able to put the fire out and minimize damage and you can save on insurance costs. Good bet.

Talking about local laws. If you move to an area there is no way someone might not know the local laws which are different everywhere. You can really get into some trouble for stupid reasons. For example, in Texas you can get the death penalty for stealing a man's horse. The law was created in the past because a horse was a man's ride, work machine, etc. Last I heard that law still exists today even though the time is now different. Better not steal a horse in Texas. lol

Experienced

RiverCampher

Posted
Posted

It's an odd issue. You'd think they'd pay in full for the fire service cost of their time, etc. So instead of the $75 they are charged $5000 or something and lessons learned.

Not sure if UK has it right that it's included with the council tax, which pays for roads, lights, rubbish collection, fire and police cover.... Around ?120 per month per household (varies massively on where you live and value of the property you live in).

Proficient

BillyJack

Posted
Posted

In my city here in Florida it is included in my property taxes. I do not get an overall break down of what the money gets divided up to be used for although there is a small break down. If you rent then you do not pay for it. The owner of the property pays for it in their property taxes too. It does vary for each location. Florida has low property taxes due to money generated by tourism. I know other states have higher taxes. Taxes can fluctuate too. If the city needs to build a new fire station then taxes will rise to pay for the costs and later on should fall back down. It all depends on how elected public officials manage the money. Larger cities bring in so much money that they do not have to raise taxes to build a new fire station. Instead money gets allotted to build the fire station and something else gets less money. People are more aware in the smaller cities because the budget is so tight and there are few things to spend money on. It all depends how involved you get in your local government.

I can't imagine how they handle it in remote villages. Maybe the rotate the task among the men and share food since he is occupied. lol

If there is no monetary value and they share responsibility then there are no problems.

I keep thinking about this song while reading this thread.

I feel bad for the people. I really do, but hell they should no better.

Grand Master

majortom1981

Posted
Posted

I do think it is absurd if the tax dollars are going to waste. Now days there seems to be too much of this and it is out of control.

majortom1981, that is dumb but the law was voted on by the people. I am not sure why they would not want insurance anyway. Not paying the fee for the service is one thing but insurance is another. If you pay for the fee and not insurance then I guess you are splitting the costs and odds hoping that if you did have a fire that the fire department would be able to put the fire out and minimize damage and you can save on insurance costs. Good bet.

Talking about local laws. If you move to an area there is no way someone might not know the local laws which are different everywhere. You can really get into some trouble for stupid reasons. For example, in Texas you can get the death penalty for stealing a man's horse. The law was created in the past because a horse was a man's ride, work machine, etc. Last I heard that law still exists today even though the time is now different. Better not steal a horse in Texas. lol

They cant get insurance because they have a trailer. Nobody will insure them. So the local county law states if you do not have homeowners insurance you cannot pay the fee to get fire coverage.

The homeowners had no choice in the matter. Thats whats dumb about this and i can see them winning a law suit.

Proficient

BillyJack

Posted
Posted

Hmm, yea. I never knew you can't get insurance on a trailer. I had a trailer one time and I am pretty sure I had insurance. Yep! I remember now. I had to build steps to the back door to satisfy the insurance company. That sucks though.

Apprentice

schubb2003

Posted
Posted

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.

Ok, let's do some math here. Let us say there are 2000 people in the rural area. That is 150,000 per year collected...over ten years it is 1,500,000. Now if even 25% of those people decided to take their chance, and the FD responded and billed after the fact, that is $375,000. That is a lot of operating expense that isn't covered. Assuming 5 fires per year, many people would take that chance. Let's make up some numbers, 6 firefighters at $1000 per(insurance, personal equipment costs, pay), $2000 for fuel, water, wear and tear on the vehicle...yep, paying the $75 after is fair, makes perfect sense to me.

Good luck getting them after...$10,000 in lawyer fees to gather the larger fee for not paying before hand, it just doesn't make sense.

They responded to protect people's lives, the didn't protect their possessions, plain and simple.

Look at the number of uninsured drivers in the US...there are always those who want to save a buck, and let everyone else carry them.

Grand Master

TCA

Posted
Posted

Glad to be in Ohio...remind me never to move to TN....god only knows the police dept would probably charge people too....don't pay, we'll watch while people steal your stuff. I feel the family should prosecute, because they just lost everything they've worked for. Good to know that MONEY is more important to the mayor then a person(s) lives in this type of situation.

Veteran

Richteralan

Posted
Posted

Glad to be in Ohio...remind me never to move to TN....god only knows the police dept would probably charge people too....don't pay, we'll watch while people steal your stuff. I feel the family should prosecute, because they just lost everything they've worked for. Good to know that MONEY is more important to the mayor then a person(s) lives in this type of situation.

Another one didn't bother to RTFA.

Grand Master

TCA

Posted
Posted

Another one didn't bother to RTFA.

Wrong. I read it thank you very much. I don't agree with the fire subscription fee period...It's not right! So your statement is irrelevant GTFO to you sir.

Grand Master

Astra.Xtreme

Posted
Posted

Wrong. I read it thank you very much. I don't agree with the fire subscription fee period...It's not right! So your statement is irrelevant GTFO to you sir.

Well if you read the article, you clearly didn't comprehend it very well...

Mentor

pack34

Posted
Posted

Welcome to Capitalism at its best! governments just like corporations are ONLY after money to waste and keep the current system alive, and generating more business for their partners/sponsors.

Volunteer firefighters. They need the money to pay for upkeep on facilities and equipment. They trailer in question is outside of city limits so they aren't paying local taxes. For those unincorporated there is a 75 dollar fee. The fire department will still come by to save your life and prevent the fire from spreading to other people's houses but they won't save yours unless you pay to help keep the station up and running. So they can afford to save others in case of fire.

Wrong. I read it thank you very much. I don't agree with the fire subscription fee period...It's not right! So your statement is irrelevant GTFO to you sir.

The department has to be funded somehow. Fire departments are local entities funded by the cities. The trailer in question was outiside their jurisdiction so they do not pay taxes to support the fire station. So they ask for a small yearly fee to provide services to outlieing areas.

Experienced

andrewbares

Posted
Posted

Wrong. I read it thank you very much. I don't agree with the fire subscription fee period...It's not right! So your statement is irrelevant GTFO to you sir.

No, you didn't really read it..... You're paying a "fire" fee right now! It's called taxes. They don't have city taxes outside the city, so they're not paying for fire service. Therefore, they can chose to pay for the fire service.

The only difference is you are FORCED to pay while they had the choice.

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
Posted

And, for the umpteenth time, these people live in an unincorporated area where there is no municipality to pay taxes to. The FD in question is from an incorporated municipality that's offering the subscription as a courtesy, they don't really have to.

They will show up to do lifesaving and prevent it spreading, but aren't obliged to put it out (not that you can put out a trailer fire anyhow.)

Grand Master

Ryoken

Posted
Posted

I got about 8 pages in before I hit last page so forgive me if this has been covered.

Fire Department shows up to house that hasn't paid and puts fire out because it's the right thing to do.

Other residents see that they will do that. Many continue to pay their fee, but many don't, thinking that they will put it out anyway, why bother. Can use that money for food, kids, gas, etc.

Revenue drops for the FD, after a few years the City can't afford to continue sending it out to the rural areas. They keep them inside the City boundaries.

Now these rural areas have no FD. They are **** outta luck.

Congrats.. they put out a fire at no risk to anyone, only to, a few years later, put peoples lives at danger because there is no support anymore.

Also, as for these peoples insurance.. they are probably SOL there too.. many require you pay your fees for stuff like this.

It was a gamble they played, they lost.

Do I feel bad for them ? Yes. Of course. But I fully understand the Fire Department. Why should they risk their lives to put out a fire for someone who doesn't fund their service, and basically said for all the years they didn't pay " I decline the services of the Fire Department ".

Grand Master

Charisma Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Ryoken! I haven't seen you in ages. Was wondering what happened to you.

On topic, thanks for looking at it reasonably. I agree with your point of view. And.. it's refreshing to see someone who isn't American still be able to comprehend what happened and why, without the blind finger pointing and superiority complex so prevalent around here. (Y)

Grand Master

neufuse Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I always thought fire departments where paid for through volunteer orgs or part of your local taxes..... until a town near us wanted $100 a year for "fire" support per building per property..... if you had a detached garage its $200 per year ugh

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.