So, it is better to 'make a statement' then to try and save a burning building?

[Rex]

So we go from $75 to $75,000 (after damages), because, you know, that is how we roll as a society now?

If you are a fire fighter and refuse to put out a fire over the value of a property, well hmmm...maybe you shouldn't be in that line of work. Maybe insurance agent is more your line of work.

Just my 2 cents.

[Egnever]

1. Its the choice the county made and....

they have been making it since at least 1987.... this is not new to them and calling this guy a victim is silly.

Not only did he chose this he started the fire himself!

[Rex]

4. So then it is okay to let the house burn down then.

Er, no. This is Repuke thinking at its very WORST. I am almost ashamed people think this way here. This is why we have a huge deficit in this country and still skyrocketing.

$75 dollars into tens of thousands over 'a statement'...stupid, wrong and evil.

I don't give a shit if this is small town USA or NYC.

Total loonie toons.

[Egnever]

25. Actions have consequences

These teabagger folks need to learn this lesson before none of us has a fire department.

And this guy has done this before aparently and refused to pay the charges after the fact.

Nope sorry I dont have any sympathy for people that put themselves in this kind of situation because they think they dont need guberment. To make it worse aparently the fire didnt reach the house for two hours yet this tool wants to blame the fire department for not saving his pets....

Nope this is exactrly the sort of ass hats that needs a cold dose of reality. Before all of us who are willing to kick in our share are left with no choice to do so.

[MadMaddie]

11. Okay then why wouldn't the fire department put out the fire and thenn

charge him $75.00? They could have sent bill collectors if he didn't pay. There were more options but I guess that takes too much effort to try to think about things long term.They stood outside and let those animals burn to death is that what America is about? Or are we to become some 3rd world piece of shit country that is not advanced enough to know better?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadMaddie]

69. Sorry, I don't buy that example

When a society does not care for basic humanity then it is not a society worth saving.

America (was) a great nation because as a whole country we cared about our neighbors and we did what we had to do to watch out for each other.

To say that this is acceptable in America is pathetic. We are supposed to be the shining beacon in the world and with every act like this we continue to move backwards.

When and if you ever need help I hope no one stands idly by while you suffer. I wouldn't stand by and do nothing and money would never enter into my decision. Would you?

Further more if they are going to use this excuse how much does $75.00 per household actually put into the coffer? Does it really sustain a fire engine and firefighters? I am guessing not, they used this man as an example to extort money from anyone else who might forget to pay.

Welcome back 1900's.....whooo.....hoo...there is a reason why communities got away from this practice.

[asjr]

23. I am really upset about this. I know the

owner should have paid it. But a fire department going to a fire that is burning down a house and just become onlookers while it burns is unreal. The "firefighters" should just have stayed at the firehouse. It is bad enough that animals were killed, but what if there had been a human being in that house? This is not simply a matter to complain about someone getting what they deserved about not paying a fire tax.

[Egnever]

28. they came because

the owner of the house next door who had paid for the service called them when the fire was getting close to his property.

The owner who wasnt saved has aparently been saved from himself before 3 years earlier where they did exaclt what you sugested and despite that he refused to pay the fee upfront again. This guy in my opinion was asking for exactly the service he got.

[Egnever]

27. Because they have been doing that for years and

Not getting paid even after they saved the peoples house. This is not a new thing in this county and has been a problem for years at some point you have to cut people off or are you of the opinion they should never have to contribute to their own protection cause other people will support the services for them?

[thelordofhell]

63. They've been trying to collect from him for 3 years

since the last time they put out a fire for them

[struggle4progress]

75. Why can't the county provide fire service for all county residents? Instead of doing that,

the county worked out a sucky agreement with a city where county folk can opt into city fire protection for $75 and then pay an additional $500 for every fire service call

The city used to do what you suggest: put out the fire and send the bill. But the cheapos who wouldn't opt into the fire plan usually refused to pay the bill too, and it seems city residents got tired of subsidizing them

[mediaman007]

2. I think that its not quite as easy as that.

The people in the community are taxed for fire services. Rural neighbors may buy into the community for $75.00.

Maybe the person didn't think it was worth paying for something that would never effect him. Of course, maybe he was too poor or forgot.

If they put out his fire, then why should the other people pay the $75, when the fire department will put your fire out anyway. If you could pay them on the spot, the community would only get paid by the people who had fires. Wow, fire coverage for only $75!

Maybe they should offer on the spot protection for $15,000. Would you pay that much to have them save your house?

[Rex]

6. If a fire fighter walked up to me and said he would save my house

for $15k I would ask him just why he became a fire fighter in the first place and so would most people.

You just don't get the point and that is okay because we all think different, but this kind of thinking is dangerous toward society.

Think about it.

[mediaman007]

13. Who buys the fire truck? Who pays for the safety suits?

Who pays for the training?

Everything isn't free. Fire safety is expensive.

[MadMaddie]

70. This is true but do you expect me to believe that $75 per

household sustains the fire department?

[mediaman007]

74. A lot of people not paying $75 a year would have an effect.

Of course we would need a lot more information about the finances. If state and federal monies helped to obtain equipment, then I think the fire should have been put out. Obviously everyone pays state and Federal taxes, so this home owner would have some small stake in the department. Just as schools who get Federal money cannot be discriminatory, other government agencies would also need to abide by those standards.

This is the slippery slope that we are on. The "no new taxes" mantra taken by Republicans and Teabaggers have caused schools to do fundraisers, and police and fire departments to bill for their services. (If you knock over a stop sign, you will be billed!) I think that in most areas of the country the fire would have been put out, but in small rural areas things like this will continue and get worse.

For example, Indiana has sold a section of freeway to a private investor. The investor is responsible for maintaining the road, but is allowed to charge tolls. The logical extension of this will be paying someone to drive on a city street. Just wait until a private agency takes over your sewer and water department. You'll pay more then.

Just remember who took us down this road: Greedy Republicans enabled by short sighted teabaggers.

[MadMaddie]

78. Hey we end up at the same point

We know how the country got to this point, this is the Republican way.

[jonnyblitz]

3. people are also implying it was a good thing because it

illustrates how fucked libertarian philosophy is and maybe NOW everybody will vote DEM in November. :crazy: :D

[JVS]

5. That guy should be kissing the fire department's ass.

They put out a fire for him 3 years ago and he didn't pay the fee that time either.

This time it finally catches up with him. They gave him a home for 3 years.

[Rex]

7. Time shouldn't have anything to do with it nor should the individual.

We are talking about first responders not doing their job over 'a statement'. Goodluck with that notion.

[Juneboarder]

14. Yea! He got what he deserved!

:puke: :sarcasm: :puke:

You have to be joking here. No democrat would say what you just said. The fire department could very easily put the fire out, being the civil servant they are, and then simply bill the home for services rendered. And if they don't pay their bill? Simply put a lien on the property until it gets paid.

[JVS]

18. "civil servant" does not make you a servant to those who are not a civis

This guy had no standing to expect services.

[Juneboarder]

21. Oh really?

He wasn't a human being living in that home? I would help my enemy neighbor if their home was burning down, issues pushed aside at the time of the emergency. There is such a thing as being a mature adult versus being an adult that has the mindset of a child.

[JVS]

24. It's not a question of him being a human being, it's a matter of him not being a citizen...

of the area covered by the fire department. I'm a human being, but if I call on the employees of an adjacent county or state to come over and keep my home from burning, I'm barking up the wrong tree.

[Juneboarder]

29. Really?

So, fire issues put aside, let's look at this on a larger scale. Should we tell the people in New Orleans and around the coastal gulf states to eff off simply because they are citizens of where we live? Should we not do what we can to donate to help clean up the gulf, because it's not in our city or county? It's also probably not BP's fault since they're from another country...

I SOOOOOO do not agree with your argument. I did everything in my power to help the gulf relief efforts. I do everything in my power to help when I am called upon. When there is a fire here in California, you should see how many different cities send their firefighters to help fight a fire (GASP!) in another county, and sometimes (GASP!) in another state. I feel you need to try a little harder to support your argument.

Juneboarder
~a humane person that would even help JVS if their home was burning down, even though he has no clue who the person is...

[JVS]

31. How many times are those firemen supposed to save his house without any payment from him?

They already did once. You say they should have done it twice. How many more times? Or should that guy finally start pulling his weight?

[Juneboarder]

37. I say they help every time.

Bill him every time. If he doesn't pay, lien him every time. But to refuse service over $75 and make him watch his house while it burns to the ground is completely unaccpetable in a civilized, humane society. I guess we're far from a society as such...

Why not address my questions above, as this is all relative to the topic at hand?

[JVS]

39. Then you go do it. Give up your life and go be your brother's keeper.

[Juneboarder]

50. JVS... your colors truly show

I'm not my brother's keeper, but I am a humane individual that would most definitely help a fellow human whose home was burning down (without a question or doubt in my mind). To help a fellow friend, neighbor, human out, you don't need to give up your life. Maybe just spreading the news is all you can do. Maybe making some phone calls to line up some support is all you can do. A little something to help is better than nothing at all. The fact that there is debate over this topic is sickening.

[JVS]

51. So you have no problem telling a town to give free service to a county, but it's not for you?

You can fight fires in TN if you really think it's important.

[Juneboarder]

53. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but I never said anything about free services.

Remember what I said about about the difference between a mature adult and an adult that acts like a child?

[JVS]

55. This whole discussion is about free services.

[Juneboarder]

61. Oh really I missed that...

must have been in between all the posts that describe how the fire department can recoop their money.

[frylock]

71. the fucking firefighters got paid regardless of whether they doused this fire or not..

your post implies that firefighters are piece workers; getting paid by the job. come up with another example, because this is fucking weak sauce.

[JVS]

72. I'm not talking about the wages of the firefighters, I'm talking about the funding of the entire...

department.

[COLGATE4]

33. They have no legal right to bill him or put a lien on his property.

[Juneboarder]

54. Oh no?

Please do explain, as you can most definitely charge for services rendered. What about car accidents? Must you pay for police services before they come to the scene? What about a 90 year old man that just had a heart attack? Must he pay the for the ambulance and paramedics prior to them giving him oxygen and rushing him to the ER?

[jobycom]

8. So it's better to make poor black people pay for what rich white people get than to make rich white

people pay for it?

Hey, if you can boil it down to a ludicrous caricature of the discussion, so can I.

And for the record, I think they should have put out the fire, too, but the people who are blaming just the fire department and letting the freeloading Republicans who didn't want a fire department skate are pissing me off. The county voted repeatedly for the policy rather than agreeing to pay taxes. Now they are mad that the city fire department followed the policy the county voted on? You know if the Fire Department had put out the fire the resident would have sued them for water damage claiming they had no authority to hose his house.

[Rex]

9. Not the same at all, this is a question of doing what is right when you can

at the moment needed. Think first responders.

Should a doctor refuse to help a man dying of a heart attack on the subway, because he is not a patient? Yes, but still not the same thing.

[jobycom]

12. Exactly. Like, not setting a fire during a burn ban when you have no fire department to save you.

No, a doctor should not let someone die if he or she can save them. But there was no life involved here. There was no one in the house. The only lives that would have been at risk would have been those of the firefighters if they had tried to fight the fire for a man who set the fire.

[gratuitous]

10. So they save the house that didn't pay the assessment

And every homeowner in the area thinks, "Hey, they'll come put out the fire whether I pay my seventy-five bucks or not. Cranik got service for free, why shouldn't I?" And a financially-strapped fire department loses some more money. Why pay for protection you can get for free? The county will just make it up from somewhere else. Roads, maybe. Or schools. And shit, you don't have kids going to PS 138 anymore, so fuck 'em.

Then, two years from now, some Republican asswipe will tell you that you're paying too much in taxes. And since nobody's paying for the fire department anymore, and they're still putting out fires, it sounds pretty good.

[Zax2me]

26. But they don't get the service for free, potentially.

What they should do - after house is saved, the homeowner is charged the 75 plus a fine. Say, 2,500 dollars. A small fee considering you potentially save houses costing in the hundreds of thousands.
Now homeowners must weigh a 3,000+ dollar risk versus 75 and piece of mind.
I doubt the fire department would then lose money. Most likely it would encourage those not paying to pay, increasing the departments revenue.
Whatever it takes to cover the departments costs from homeowners not paying the 75. Somewhere is a fine cost that will encourage paying the minimal 75 to begin with and/or cover operating costs.

End goal should be avoiding a FIRE department watching a house burn - which everyone I believe can agree is not in anyones best interest.

[gratuitous]

35. And if they don't pay?

My understanding is that the Cranicks' house caught fire three years ago, too, and it doesn't seem to have influenced their decision-making ability toward paying for fire service. Yes, it's far better to have the assessment for the fire department just put into everyone's property taxes, or some such thing. For one, property taxes are deductible on Schedule A. For two, collecting the assessment through a unified district tax means that an additional layer of bureaucracy doesn't have to be maintained to keep track of who has paid and who hasn't. The system where the Cranicks live is muy fucked up, but it's a system that the citizens there cobbled together all on their own.

The culprit here is the Republican/Libertarian mindset that all taxes are evil, and if you don't benefit directly from some public service, you shouldn't have to pay taxes for it (one notable exception is military contracting, which must always be paid for, on an unbreakable cost-plus contract basis, with immunity from suit for the contractors). Millions of people have bought into this nonsense, the Cranicks just being a recent example. In this case, they're going to have to wait for their insurance company to rebuild their house, so hopefully they learned something about the value of some of the taxes they pay. Better, maybe some of their neighbors will learn that by sharing the cost, they also spread out the risk, and even if their homes never catch fire, it's still worth the cost of the tax.

[DURHAM D]

15. His insurance company will make him whole.

What is the problem?

Further - the fire department doesn't set policy. The City and the County, by default and failure to act, did. Stop blaming the fire department. Just makes DU look stupid.

[Juneboarder]

17. How do you know he has insurance?

[DURHAM D]

22. He said so in the interview. nt

[thelordofhell]

66. Unless he "forgot" to pay for that too.

:shrug:

[struggle4progress]

16. City employees follow city policy. Citty policy is set by city government, accountable to

city voters and taxpayers. If city residents don't want to subsidize fire service for county residents who refuse to opt into the city program, that's their right

Pointing fingers at the firefighters is a nasty distraction

The problem is that the county has refused to set up any uniform fire coverage for county residents not living in the cities. Point fingers there: it's their responsibility

[Pithlet]

20. So better to make the fire depart keep working for free and going bankrupt

because the county won't pay its fair share then making the county pay up. Because that's what the "Oh, it's so cruel to let their houses burn! They're morally obligated to fight those fires!' contingency is really saying. If a fire department is always morally obligated to fight a fire no matter what, then how in the hell can this situation ever be resolved. They are a city department. Not a city/county. If the county wants them to be city county, they need to pay. If you and others making your argument insist they have to put the fires out anyway, then the county will never pay. This department will eventually bankrupt. They're almost there already. It's not making a statement. It's serving the community. They can't do it if they let the assholes in the neighboring community bankrupt them.

[Juneboarder]

30. It's not cruel; it's IN-HUMANE. nt

[Pithlet]

34. Okay, so if the taxphobes leach off my communities serves and we lose them.

You guys will be perfectly fine with it. Because we will be powerless to do anything about it. Because doing anything about it would be cruel and IN-HUMANE. We have to keep giving it to them for free.

That makes absolutely no friggin sense. And it supports those taxphobes to boot! Wonderful.

[Juneboarder]

45. Who said anything about free services?

Just bill them for it and lien their home if they don't pay. You are the one not making sense when everyone is trying to point out how they wouldn't get a free service yet you choose to accept what people say.

[Pithlet]

49. Basically, anyone who insists that there's a moral obligation to fight fires

for those who don't want to fund the fire company. That's what those who insist they had to put that fire out anyway are arguing. They may be doing so because they don't have all the facts. But the facts are this fire company had been trying to work with this county to come to an arrangement, and they were being bled financially. They were left with no choice.

[Juneboarder]

52. In your example, a fire company is a business.

A business has the means to bill for services rendered. A business has the means to take a debtor to court and sue for judgment if the outstanding bill is not paid. I am missing how this is a free service.

[Pithlet]

56. They've tried billing them. The county members weren't paying their bills.

A business suffers when its customers don't pay, right? That's what led to this mess. They aren't merely a business. THey are a service paid for by tax members of the city. Why should the taxpayers of the city have to deal with their service being bled financially and likely bankrupt by those county members who don't want to pay taxes to fund such a basic service of their own or help fund theirs?

[Juneboarder]

59. Court.

Judgments don't get released until they are paid, especially if the creditor refiles the judgment every 10 years to keep it on the books. Eventually they will get paid...

[Pithlet]

64. Court? Okay. Court costs time and money. And then you have to chase them for the judgment.

And again. They already tried this. They already showed up for fires even though the people didn't pay those 75 dollar fines. It wasn't working. They were still losing money.

[Juneboarder]

73. Small Claims

I believe it's $55 to file a claim, at least here in my local area. Time, maybe a few hours. At some point, they'll want to refi their home, sell it, or convey it in some fashion. If and when that time comes, the judgment will be there ready for a payoff.

[Pithlet]

57. They've tried billing them. The county members weren't paying their bills.

A business suffers when its customers don't pay, right? That's what led to this mess. They aren't merely a business. THey are a service paid for by tax members of the city. Why should the taxpayers of the city have to deal with their service being bled financially and likely bankrupt by those county members who don't want to pay taxes to fund such a basic service of their own or help fund theirs?

[rbixby]

32. The idea is to wrap the firefighting costs

into the county property taxes. Then everyone is covered.

[Pithlet]

38. Yes! Exactly. But the county doesn't want to do that.

The city can't because they don't have the authority. They're powerless to do anything about this. But apparently they're morally obligated to bankrupt themselves continuing to fight the fires in the county :shrug:

[rbixby]

77. I guess the city should play hardball then

and say that fire service for the county from the city costs xxx dollars, and send them a bill. I know that there are a lot of small communities around here that have to pay larger communities for police and fire protection. The city shouldn't go bankrupt, but it seems to me that law enforcement and other emergency services are something that should be provided by your community, be it urban or rural, as part of the deal for living there and paying taxes. If funding fire protection isn't a good use of tax dollars, I don't know what is. I feel sorry for people who live in that county and are stuck under that 'libertarian utopia' system, it sounds to me like every man (or woman) for himself.

[Zax2me]

44. That's the answer.

The system here is faulty to begin with - that, I think, most in these threads can agree on.

[Zax2me]

36. Fines...!

I don't know if they are in place or not, but why is this situation so difficult?

You save, say, someones 200,000 home. They didn't pay the 75 dollars?
Okay. They are now charged the 75 plus a several thousand dollar fine for saving their butt and 200k house.
After a few homeowners that didn't pay get house calls from the fire department and then billed a few grand for services rendered, word will spread.
Pay the 75.
Fire department is protected by fine-covered costs for dispatches to homes that did not pay.
Not cool?
Well, come up with something else other than a fire department watching a house burn! That is not an answer nor does it solve the problem. It's just an ineffective response, to say the least, with possible horrific outcome.

[Pithlet]

40. The city doesn't have the authority.

The city has basically done all it can. It enacted this fee system. But people weren't paying it. This was basically the drastic last step. This is why I think the calls of "Cruelty!" are unwarranted.

[Zax2me]

62. Well, that sucks!

What would give them the authority then? A vote/referendum?

If they could not get it passed, then they need to ditch the system all together.
You have to be able to provide a public service without this much conflict/tragedy, because communities all across this country somehow manage under similar circumstances.

My guess is a reasonable answer will be found soon.

I can't imagine anyone involved wants to continue using fire depts watching houses burn as a tool to get people on board their program.

[Pithlet]

65. Yes. But this is what happens when you have taxphobe yahoos vote in Repubs.

This is what they wanted. I don't think anyone outside the county wants it. And I don't think the fire dept wanted to do it either. I think their hand was forced.

[JVS]

43. You know what spreads better than news of a few fines (which can't be enforced anyway)?

News of a few $200,000 houses burning to the ground.

[Pithlet]

46. As harsh as that sounds, it basically came down to that.

They were charging people after the fact because they didn't want to just watch people's houses burn. They aren't heartless assholes. No one going into firefighting would ever want to do that. But it just wasn't economically feasible anymore. They really had no choice anymore if they wanted to keep afloat. I'm sure it was very hard for them to do.

[Zax2me]

48. True! but...

If that can be avoided it should be. I just don't like the idea of people losing homes to teach lessons, there has to be another way.

[COLGATE4]

41. You're wasting your breath,. It's much more fun to play the "if I were there

I damned well wouldn't have not fought the fire" or variations on the same. In fact, about 1/2 of the outrage isn't about the house, it's because the animals burned (after the owner had over 2 hours to get them out). It's all emotional, until the circumstances that you describe actually arrive. Then everyone is bitching about the increased taxes they have to pay to have fire protection that "the gubmint better damned provide me with, it's in the Constitution".

[Pithlet]

42. I know and it hurts my heart.

I've been at DU since the beginning. I'd hate to think that some here think I'm some cruel heartless asshole. I'm trying to explain why my position isn't heartless. But I guess it isn't going to fly :(

[Uzybone]

47. Isnt that what many here say?

statements are more important than progress.

[RC]

58. Didn't the fire dept respond to the fire, then did nothing once it got there?

What was the cost of that?

[thelordofhell]

67. They responded to keep the neighbors safe

The neighbors who paid for a Kentucky City Fire Services in their unincorporated Tennessee County.

[stray cat]

60. Will you pay your neighbors property taxes

[elehhhhna]

68. yeah that's the point.

rarely unrec but couldn't help myself

[TexasObserver]

76. Letting it burn was immoral and very, very stupid.

It's bad environmentally. A home burning means burning toxins that foul the air for miles around.

It's bad economically. Tens of thousands of dollars go up in smoke that need not have.

It's bad locally. Be assured that insurance companies are reviewing their policies for that area, and factoring in the uncertain fire department situation for their coverages in the area.

It's bad for community. It sends a message to citizens that is Ayn Randian.

[leeroysphitz]

79. Right is right. Talking about money makes you look like a whore. n/t