Home burns while firefighters watch, again

By jnelsoninjax
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mentor

Gladiatorus

Posted
Posted

A) This all sounds like local Mafia selling protection and "Want/need my help? what's in it for me then...?

B) Fire departments should be run entirely by the government nationwide (in every country on Earth) and funded all the taxes people pay.

Grand Master

Rippleman

Posted
Posted

A) This all sounds like local Mafia selling protection and "Want/need my help? what's in it for me then...?

B) Fire departments should be run entirely by the government nationwide (in every country on Earth) and funded all the taxes people pay.

the "tax" you speak of is the monthly fee these people refused to pay... it was a choice they made to pay or not to pay. And mafia protection is not a comparison here, the fire department does not go starting fires, it stops them after they have started.
Grand Master

DocM

Posted
Posted

The basic question is if a municipal government can force you to buy a service you don't want, especially if you aren't residing in their or any other municipalities jurisdiction.

The answer is "no."

There is no wide move to change this, it would likely not stand up in court, and most rural folks would probably be up in arms if you tried because they don't particularly like being told what to do. Give them a local vote and maybe, but force them? Bring your body armor.

Grand Master

+Gary7 Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted

the "tax" you speak of is the monthly fee these people refused to pay... it was a choice they made to pay or not to pay. And mafia protection is not a comparison here, the fire department does not go starting fires, it stops them after they have started.

We pay for our Fire and Police Departments. It is called taxes. Some rural communities can't tax so they charge. These people refused to pay. Their house burned down. What is the problem?

Grand Master

Nick H. Supervisor

Posted
  • Supervisor
Posted

I can't read through all 21 pages of comments, but here's my 2 cents.

I remember reading about this last time and thinking it was crazy. Over time my thoughts have changed slightly on the matter. As many have said, these people were aware of the fire protection fee and they chose not to pay it because they thought they wouldn't need the fire department. It's a fair enough point of view, and it just so happens that for this family that gamble didn't pay off.

There are a couple of things that could be changed. The most obvious would be nationwide fire protection. But as the article says, this isn't a viable option due to the cost. Neobond's idea would also work, giving people the ability to pay on the spot. But this also doesn't really work because if that were to happen then people wouldn't pay the protection fee until there was a fire in their house. Finally, have the firefighters put out the fire, and then chase the families through the court until they pay up. This doesn't really work either though, as the cost of court fees will outweigh the amount getting claimed which doesn't help anyone.

If you're going to have an optional fire protection fee, this seems to be the only way to do it. If you don't want to pay then fine, but you can't complain if a fire does start in your house.

Obviously though, mandatory fire protection fees should be brought in to effect to stop this kind of thing from happening in future. I can't imagine watching my place burn down while firefighters stand next to me doing nothing.

Mentor

Salgoth

Posted
Posted

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

No they shouldn't - then you would have people pay ONLY if they have a fire. That isn't enough revenue to support and maintain a standing fire department. The fact that you have to pay up front is why they call it a "subscription". Those folks might have thought the same why: "Why should I pay on a steady basis if I can just pay the one time I have a fire?".

Grand Master

Dinggus

Posted
Posted

My nephew was killed in a house fire, he was playing with a lighter and caught his bedroom on fighter. He hid in one of his closets and his little brother went to get my step sister for help. She seen flames coming from his room, ran in the bedroom yelling his name, but he was scared that he was going to get into trouble, so didn't respond. She runs outside to see if he's outside, doesn't see him. Comes back inside and his room and hallway is in flames. Fire department refused to go inside because it was to dangerous, they had to listen to their 5 year old child scream for help and they couldn't do anything.

So, a fire department fee in my opinion is retarded and I never heard of one either.

Grand Master

Nick H. Supervisor

Posted
  • Supervisor
Posted

My nephew was killed in a house fire, he was playing with a lighter and caught his bedroom on fighter. He hid in one of his closets and his little brother went to get my step sister for help. She seen flames coming from his room, ran in the bedroom yelling his name, but he was scared that he was going to get into trouble, so didn't respond. She runs outside to see if he's outside, doesn't see him. Comes back inside and his room and hallway is in flames. Fire department refused to go inside because it was to dangerous, they had to listen to their 5 year old child scream for help and they couldn't do anything.

So, a fire department fee in my opinion is retarded and I never heard of one either.

For what it's worth, regardless of whether there was an optional fee or a mandatory one, it probably wouldn't have changed the firefighters decision in your scenario. Firefighters aren't immortal, and they have to analyse the situation and decide if it is too dangerous to enter or not. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the firefighters were just as upset about the decision as the family.

Grand Master

Dinggus

Posted
Posted

For what it's worth, regardless of whether there was an optional fee or a mandatory one, it probably wouldn't have changed the firefighters decision in your scenario. Firefighters aren't immortal, and they have to analyse the situation and decide if it is too dangerous to enter or not. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the firefighters were just as upset about the decision as the family.

Guess I have a different mind set. I seen the house after the fire, it didn't even look bad, the only damage done was to the room.

Just like being a cop, or in the military, our job puts our life out on the line and if I was one of those fire fighters, I would have tried and go in which none of them did. But, I'm not mad at them or placing judgement on them, I'm sure theres more to their side of the story than what I've been told.

Grand Master

Southern Patriot

Posted
Posted

Obviously though, mandatory fire protection fees should be brought in to effect to stop this kind of thing from happening in future. I can't imagine watching my place burn down while firefighters stand next to me doing nothing.

Yes, that sounds reasonable, until you think about what DocM and I have repeatedly stated: who exactly would they be paying these "mandatory" fees to? People who don't live inside the city limits are not bound by the laws of that city. And a city (usually) can't and won't force a rural area to be included inside the city limits. It simply wouldn't make financial sense for the city since they would then be forced to provide infrastructure for other city services such as gas, water, police, firefighting, garbage collection, etc. to those areas. You'd be talking about adding 100+ square miles to the area of responsibility of the city, with only a tiny increase in the tax revenue generated by the new citizens of the city that live in those areas. Look back a couple of pages to the map I posted of the county I used to live in and see just how much extra area those cities would have to cover (and that is a fairly typical county in my state). The added financial burden of incorporating those areas would mean that the city would have to raise taxes on everyone in the city. The city council members who voted to do that would be committing political suicide. No way in hell that the 40,000 people who live in the city limits would allow their taxes to be doubled (or more) just to build city services out to an area with maybe a couple hundred people.

Grand Master

Nick H. Supervisor

Posted
  • Supervisor
Posted

<text>

As I said, I didn't have time to read all 21 pages worth of comments. You're right though, such a thing wouldn't realistically work given size and density of areas. In an area like the UK or Switzerland it is expected to have fire coverage wherever you are. I need to remember that given the size of the U.S. and the fact that there are towns in the middle of nowhere, people there can't have such expectations.

Grand Master

Allan

Posted
Posted

In Ontario, most rural communities have "Volunteer Firefighters". It's disgusting that a town would stoop that low. If you can't pay the wages of full time staff, make it volunteer - I guarantee that you'll have more people offering their services as a Volunteer than as a paid person, because it's their neighbours, friends, and family, and they WANT to help.

If that town can't afford to pay their staff, then reduce the wages of the council.

Grand Master

Southern Patriot

Posted
Posted

As I said, I didn't have time to read all 21 pages worth of comments. You're right though, such a thing wouldn't realistically work given size and density of areas. In an area like the UK or Switzerland it is expected to have fire coverage wherever you are. I need to remember that given the size of the U.S. and the fact that there are towns in the middle of nowhere, people there can't have such expectations.

Yeah, it seems a lot of people outside the US have trouble with understanding the relatively low population density of the US. For example, my state (Mississippi) is roughly the same size as England, yet has a population density that is about 1/16th of England's (almost exactly the same population density as Brazil and lower than the Congo!). And Mississippi is about average for the US (32nd in area, 31st in population, 32nd in population density). I think a lot of the misunderstanding about it comes from the fact that most depictions of the US on TV show areas like New York, Los Angeles, or other large cities, which are actually very atypical here.

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
Posted

To put a fine point on it; the US in spite of having 312 million people -

Monaco: 16,933 persons per sq/km

>

>

China: 363 per sq/km

UK: 255 per sq/km

Germany: 229 per sq/kmS

France: 116 per sq/km

>

>

US: 33.7 per sq/km

Not much of a tax base to provide full coverage fire service over 9,826,675 sq/km.

Grand Master

Rippleman

Posted
Posted

To put a fine point on it; the US in spite of having 312 million people -

Monaco: 16,933 persons per sq/km

China: 363 per sq/km

UK: 255 per sq/km

Germany: 229 per sq/kmS

France: 116 per sq/km>

>

US: 33.7 per sq/km

Not much of a tax base to provide full coverage fire service over 9,826,675 sq/km.

even worse for canada :) 9.27 per square km
Mentor

myxomatosis

Posted
Posted

"But that's hard to stomach when you've just lost your home and everything you've worked for."

When you're stupid enough to not pay a small fee to protect "everything you've worked for" against fire, you deserve to lose it.

Grand Master

Southern Patriot

Posted
Posted

even worse for canada :) 9.27 per square km

Yeah, but something like 75% of Canada's population is concentrated within 100 miles of the US border. The northern half of the country is almost completely unpopulated. It isn't quite as bad as that statistic makes it sound.

population_map.gif

Vs:

USpop1990.gif

Grand Master

Southern Patriot

Posted
Posted

Totally off topic, but one neat little bit of trivia: if the entire world's population were moved to the continental US, the population density would be about 2311 people per square mile, somewhere between Jersey in the UK and Bangladesh, and nowhere near as dense as even some of the smaller cities in the world. Crowded by some standards, but livable. And people actually think that the world is "overpopulated"?

Grand Master

Seizure1990

Posted
Posted

Totally off topic, but one neat little bit of trivia: if the entire world's population were moved to the continental US, the population density would be about 2311 people per square mile, somewhere between Jersey in the UK and Bangladesh, and nowhere near as dense as even some of the smaller cities in the world. Crowded by some standards, but livable. And people actually think that the world is "overpopulated"?

There's no such thing as over population. Just gross mismanagement of resources.

Rising Star

Auditor

Posted
Posted

$75 for yearly insurance is pretty cheap.if u can afford a house then u can afford to pay $75 a year which is $6.25 a month less than what it cost to buy a burger. and no you can not buy insurance after accident. if city is short of budget and you dont want property tax to go up and give fire protection as voluntary policy rather than making it mandatory then it your fault to not have any insurance.

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