Re the TN fire: What happens when the city can no longer afford a fire department?

[Fumesucker]

Because that is what will eventually happen if the city keeps providing fire protection to people who refuse to contribute even after the city fire department has saved their asses. Less than half of those Obion county residents whose house fires were extinguished by the city fire department paid the bill for services rendered.

Eventually the city will just have to close its fire department and no one will have fire protection services.

What is your solution to those who flatly refuse to pay either before _or_ after the fact of having a fire on their property?

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Essential services need to be funded by taxes

And people who flatly refuse to pay their taxes get into trouble with the tax people.

[Fumesucker]

2. A tax to fund fire services was voted down by a 19-1 margin..

Next argument.

[joeybee12]

9. Essential services are not subject to a public vote...essential services are

provided for the common good...the essence is this place is going about it in a very fucked up way.

[WolverineDG]

17. So where's the money going to come from if you don't want to tax people for it

or have those that aren't required to pay taxes pay a fee. The Money fairy?

dg

[Hannah Bell]

95. yes, in reality they are, which those who live in and around unincorporated areas know.

next caveat?

[Freddie Stubbs]

165. Then how exactly does society decide what are essential services?

Reading the entrails of sacrificed animals?

[FiveGoodMen]

16. See, that was the mistake.

You just can't do that.

[Fumesucker]

24. They can and did..

[seabeyond]

27. now what. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

29. We're nearly always on the same side of issues, but not this time.

Some things really are for the common good.

No one should be allowed to opt out of them.

[Fumesucker]

38. I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation..

The county can and did vote down by public referendum having a tax to pay for fire protection..

Because it's a fact doesn't mean I agree with that vote.

[Xithras]

50. The problem is that you're talking about Tennessee

This is a state that is proud of the fact that it has no income tax, and some of the lowest property tax rates in the nation. Tennessee is a state where voters mount recall drives if local politicians even DISCUSS tax increases.

The county isn't going to support a tax increase. Even for something as important as firefighters.

[FiveGoodMen]

68. Then, I guess the situation there is as good as it's going to get.

[tnlefty]

149. yeah, well, thanks...

I never got to vote on accepting the local, volunteer (with subscription fee) fire dept., nor on absorbing the city schools (while the city got a tax break and ours were hiked) into the county school system...

Items that people don't want to consider while just passing judgment:

The upper management of TVA cut corners to cut costs and the result was an enormous ash spill occurred, but no one who is paid very well at TVA was fired, nor was the now privatized TVA having to pay for what thy did...it falls to us ratepayers. More and more those ratepayers have lost their jobs, been laid off, working shorter hours, but they're still having to pay those higher rates (this is one of many examples of this kind of crap), and folks are feeling more and more squeezed.

People pay taxes, but they don't like feeling screwed by corruption for what they're paying. In my county, the county mayor, Claude Ramsey (R-shithead) spent $89K on office furniture...
taxpayer money that could've been spent on moving the project for the homeless forward or on the volunteer fire depts. schools.

A lot of people feel as though they've been screwed over by members of both parties. The fucking crazies in the state are the ones who brag about not having an income tax, the sane wouldn't mind a progressive tax without the corruption, but our current 2 term supposedly Dem Gov. ran on a platform of no state income tax, in other words, enabling the beast.

I live in one of the four largest counties in the state, and we have higher property tax rates than other counties. I wouldn't mind if the rich folks in other counties had their tax rates hiked to pay for their schools, communities. etc.

But it's so simple and in no way complex when one doesn't live here.

[Hannah Bell]

102. "should" has nothing to do with the facts on the ground. the county has repeatedly refused to fund

fire service, over at least 10 years. 2 proposals to start up a volunteer county service shot down. the cities got sick of fighting their fires -- 75% OF ALL CALLS -- for free, & demanded some money. the county opted for the "individual choice" model -- because they didn't want to "force anyone" to pay.

wtf does "should" have to do with the facts on the ground?

the city has only 2500 residents. the county is bigger, and richer. wtf is the city supposed to do when the county won't pay? with budget cutbacks i can only imagine how close to the margins such a small city is.

[FiveGoodMen]

107. The OP was: What happens when the city can no longer afford a fire department?

Do you think that was merely a request for predictions, or was it a way of asking what should be done?

[Hannah Bell]

119. your suggestion completely ignores the facts on the ground.

[FiveGoodMen]

167. "Facts on the ground" is a phrase the army uses when they want to keep a war going

or crooked cops use when they want to cover up illegal activity.

The facts -- wherever they appear -- are that the opt out was a mistake that should be corrected.

Suppose everyone in your town doesn't support the wars currently going on and votes not to pay the IRS that portion of their taxes that goes to the military.

Do you think this would be allowed?

[Hannah Bell]

97. evidentally you can, because they did. next caveat?

[activa8tr]

85. So was slavery among white plantation owners so what? Are you

this illogical in real life?

[Hannah Bell]

103. it's your remark that appears absurd. the city has 2500 people. the county has 32K.

how do you propose the city force the county to pay for service?

[JVS]

112. I salute the job you're doing in these threads.

This mooching stuff does not help liberals at all. It harms our communities.

[Hannah Bell]

122. yes, it does, & i personally suspect that's why it's being spun.

[Swede]

3. They should just stay in city limits for their tax payers benefit.

Too bad to those outside their district.

[seabeyond]

8. that is what i say. county does not get service from city and county has to figure out how to meet

their peoples needs. without charging the anything. and stopping fires. will be an amazing feat.

[TwilightGardener]

4. I've never seen cities and counties not collect what is due--

but regardless...if services are provided, collect the money. If the homeowner says no, demand payment from the county, and the county goes through legal channels to extract payment from the homeowner. If you don't pay your community's ambulance bill, they'll come after you. If you don't trim your trees and the city has to, they'll come after you--hire their own workers and charge you out the wazoo. All sorts of ways to collect payment.

[Fumesucker]

6. In this case the city isn't even in the same state..

There appears to be no legal mechanism for the city to collect..

[TwilightGardener]

14. Then the city needs a more competent attorney and a way to collect.

What happens when a trucker gets into a fiery hazmat wreck on a highway where he doesn't pay taxes? That community either eats the cost, or they bill him or his company or the trucker's insurance company for services rendered (ambulance service, fire, hazmat, etc.) This is not a new situation--people needing help when they didn't pay taxes or fees beforehand.

[seabeyond]

18. so now raise city taxes to cover the costs of more lawyers and court cases? nt

[TwilightGardener]

32. City, county, and state need to address the situation of reimbursement.

Cities always have to use threat of legal action to get people to pay up or take care of their properties or pay taxes. Nothing new. The "list of shame" is a weekly feature in my local paper: those who either need to clean up stuff or are in violation of zoning and owe fines, properties taken for non-payment of taxes, liens placed, etc.

[Fumesucker]

41. The city isn't even in the same damn *state* as the county..

[seabeyond]

43. 50% of the county refuses to pay. council passed 19-1 opt out.

the county really does not give a shit about the city, across state lines.

[martymar64]

113. In that case, the City has no obligations to the county to fight any county fires.

Let the county residents form bucket brigades if they don't want to pay for fire protection.

This is the anti-tax hysteria taken to its logical end.

[seabeyond]

118. i agree. nt

[Hannah Bell]

the "city" has only 2500 people. they're already funding a fire department, 75% of calls to which

come from county freeloaders.

now you propose they hire an attorney to make the freeloaders pay.

i think they should just refuse any & all calls outside their service area & tell the county to suck it, since they've had the problem for over a decade and every attempt to address it has failed.

[Lars39]

134. Cities can and do sue counties and visa versa in TN.

[Hannah Bell]

106. that was the previous system. more than half the people whose fires were put out refused to pay.

there was no mechanism to collect, as county was outside the city's jurisdiction. the city had no enforcement or fining authority over county residents.

the city has only 2500 people. 75% of fire calls were from outside the city.

legal actions cost money & don't necessarily bring in money.

[JVS]

5. Then the same libertarian assholes who decided to not pay for services but expected their houses...

to be put out anyway will decry the inefficiency of the public fire department and insist on a for profit system.

[Hannah Bell]

110. exactly. & that, i believe, is why the publicity around this case tends to support

the freeloaders & attack the publicly-funded fire department.

easy to bankrupt a city of 2500 people & destroy the public service.

[MiniMe]

7. The fire occurred outside city limits

The city taxes pay for the fire department, people outside city limits don't pay city taxes. I do think that there should be some kind of fire department available to everybody in the county. That should come out of county or state taxes.

[WolverineDG]

10. they just have to keep providing it for free, of course

I'm sure some here will argue that. Well, the ones who don't or don't want to comprehend basic civics & economics & just want to sit around holding hands writing up wish lists & demanding services that no one should be required to pay for somehow.

dg

[JI7]

11. Why have such a stupid system of paying for something like this in the first place ?

[Fumesucker]

15. Because that's the way the citizens of Obion county want it..

Essentially paying for fire protection via property taxes means that the more expensive properties are going to pay more than the less expensive ones.. A $75 flat fee is highly regressive because a ten million dollar home will pay the same amount as a ten thousand dollar single wide trailer.

[FiveGoodMen]

22. Perhaps they'd like to legalize murder, or bring back slavery as well.

But they should not be allowed to do so.

[JI7]

30. that's what i'm wondering, how was this allowed at all

i had never heard of this for fire, police, etc before.

[JVS]

33. Because while there is an amendment against slavery there's no amendment against stupid

[Zoeisright]

155. [phone]

Thank you. That's exactly right.

[freebrew]

162. Where do you live?

I grew up in rural Missouri. Volunteer FDs were the rule. We were paid by fees from each home-owner.
Many did not pay. Fires were handled regardless, because we coulod afford to do it. We were volunteers.
But, there came times when it was realized that those not paying were the higher percentage of fires.
They were careless with burning and the use of fire. It also seemed that they were the ones that had higher paying jobs.

One reason I stopped volunteering.

[gmoney]

168. Why does none of that surprise me?

Very generous of your company to put out the deadbeats' fires...

[JI7]

31. that's what i'm wondering, how was this allowed at all

i had never heard of this for fire, police, etc before.

[JI7]

25. i never heard of such services being funded in this way before

it's like it's cable tv or something.

[Xithras]

77. It's not uncommon.

A number of years ago I lived in a part of the Sierra foothills in California that had no fire department. Well, technically that's not true. It had one, but the closest truck was 20 minutes away on a good day, and 45 minutes away during bad weather. We're talking boonies here.

A couple of enterprising neighbors bought a used CDF engine at auction, registered a volunteer fire department, and started offering it as a service. For $10 a month, they'd come out if your house or land caught fire. If you didn't pay, they didn't respond, and you had to wait for the county trucks. There are small departments like this all over the country.

FWIW, my dad lives in a part of Oregon with no fire department at all. The county has a 1950's era truck and a water tender sitting in a garage on the side of the highway. Most of the residents have a key to the garage. When a fire starts, they race down, grab the truck, and try to put it out themselves. TECHNICALLY it's a volunteer fire department, but there is nobody on call, and no 911 response. If there's a major structural fire, he has to wait for a truck from the closest town, which is about 30 minutes away. Goodbye house!

[Hawkeye-X]

12. May I point to Colorado Springs as a fine example of Liberterian paradise?

It's a dump.

FotF loves that place.

(sorry to my fellow residents of Colorado Springs - may I suggest a move to Manitou Springs ASAP?)

[seabeyond]

13. i know... RAISE the already city paying taxer to an extremely high cost to cover deadbeat county

folks ass cause they think the whole system is socialistic and voted down having to pay any part of a service they expect.

[Pithlet]

19. I guess that's what they've got to do, huh?

Because being against the deadbeat county is apparently amoral and unethical. Crazy, huh?

[seabeyond]

26. isnt that the shits. du defending the non tax paying, lyin, teabaggers and well hell

we are the amoral and unethical.

[Pithlet]

35. I know! But we're the freepers. It's insane.

And it gets crazier. Now I'm seeing that we're agreeing with Glenn Beck! Never mind that this is twisted and convoluted. We're not supporting the fee for service. Just saying that it's what the people wanted, and it's crazy to think that the city should support them and fight their fires for free anyway at their expense. This is certainly NOT what Glenn Beck is saying. But whatever!

[seabeyond]

39. yup. lol. nt

[Pithlet]

36. I know! But we're the freepers. It's insane.

And it gets crazier. Now I'm seeing that we're agreeing with Glenn Beck! Never mind that this is twisted and convoluted. We're not supporting the fee for service. Just saying that it's what the people wanted, and it's crazy to think that the city should support them and fight their fires for free anyway at their expense. This is certainly NOT what Glenn Beck is saying. But whatever!

[Hannah Bell]

114. and calling the public fire department "libertarian". orwellian.

the county chose this pay to play system. but apparently even though they *chose* it, the city should *still* put out fires for those who deliberately chose not to pay. unreal.

[seabeyond]

117. it is weird. and good point only city of 2500. straining the dept as it is. nt

[Fumesucker]

20. Yep, and then of course there's always the danger..

That a home in the city will burn down because the FD is off in the county fighting a fire that they won't get paid for either in taxes or after the fact fees.

A win-win for the city taxpayers.. :eyes:

[seabeyond]

34. isnt that the truth. not to mention, i understand this is a poorish city. but wtf, fuck them

and defend that lyin teabagger

hey

i am now thoroughly pissed we been empathizing to the lost pets when i realize how stupid i am. fire way out in yard. pets dead, he wanted them dead cause no reason he could not save them.

[Hannah Bell]

115. good point. it's a small department -- only 2500 people in the city.

[WolverineDG]

23. Oh that will go over well

we're in a similar situation here in my city. The county wanted us to fund fire protection for the county for free because they couldn't reimburse the city (edited who was getting reimbursed) this year. The city told them to pound sand. It was amazing how quickly the county organized & funded a volunteer FD.

dg

[seabeyond]

46. that really is what i would do as the city... tell them to fuck off and figure it out amongst

themselves.

[Hannah Bell]

116. agree, it would be the best solution. let the neighbors who *do* want fire service fight it out

with the idiots who only want it when their house is on fire -- and don't want to pay, even then.

[MineralMan]

21. Glen Beck agrees with you on this.

Imagine that...

[Fumesucker]

28. In what respect, Charlie?

[seabeyond]

49. what is your solution MM. FD goes under? raise city taxes? easy to say

they should give 75% of there time in an area only 50% pay....

[MineralMan]

75. Gosh...how do most places manage to fight all the fires?

I don't know about the place you live, but I'm betting that any house on fire gets that fire fought by firefighters. Are they bankrupt? Is your local fire department closed?

The solutions are in place all over this nation. Check your local situation. Then get back to me.

[Hannah Bell]

121. 2500 city residents, 32K county residents. city median income lower than county median.

10 years of problems over this issue, ten years of county residents refusing to tax themselves for fire service, ten years of fighting their fires on a "pay when the fire's out" basis, ten years of having more than 50% of them never pay a thin dime.

THE COUNTY CHOSE THIS POLICY, NOT THE CITY. Because they didn't want to "force" any of their residents to pay for fire protection if they didn't want to.

you're asking the city to commit suicide.

This guy didn't want to pay. This is the reward of his free choice.

[Hannah Bell]

126. they manage to fight the fires because the citizens fund them & they don't have to fight fires

for a group of teabagger freeloaders 12 times their own population.

who also have a higher median income.

you offer no solutions except to bankrupt the city of 2500 to save the kitties of the freeloaders.

[PVnRT]

157. In most places, county residents pay for fire protection via property or county income taxes

But don't let that get in the way of your continuing ad hominem attacks. I know that's easier than actually having an argument for your side.

[Hannah Bell]

120. no, glenn beck agrees with the tax-hating libertarians in the county who expect the

publicly-funded fire department in a town of 2500 people to fight their fires for free.

75% of the calls to the fire department come from outside the city.

how long do you think those 2500 people can fund free fire service for county residents who outnumber them 12:1?

and who are richer than them, to boot?

idiotic.

[uncommon]

163. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And his "agreement" comes from a very

different place.

[JuniperLea]

37. Looks like Glenn Beck agrees with you! Aren't you proud?!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9261426&mesg_id=9261426

[Fumesucker]

40. In what respect, Charlie?

[JuniperLea]

44. Pretty simple...

I'm surprised even you can't get it.

[Fumesucker]

48. If you can't explain it perhaps you're not as correct as you think you are..

Spell it out in words of two syllables or less, I'm pretty stupid.

:crazy:

[Hannah Bell]

127. but *i'm* not surprised you can't explain it.

[JuniperLea]

101. This is about compassion...

Not money...

[Hannah Bell]

129. oh, bullshit. it's about a city of 2500 being expected to provide free fire service to a bunch

of cheap-ass libertarians who outnumber them 12:1, and are richer than them.

[seabeyond]

53. but you didnt answer. raise city taxes to cover 50% of county, or go under and all lose.

what is the answer.

[JuniperLea]

98. Oh for fuck's sake...

This is about compassion, not money!!!

Jesus God where the fuck am I?

[Hannah Bell]

130. i know where you are. ooooh, compassionnnnnnnn! save the kitties of the freeloaders!

never mind that the county is bigger & richer than the city & has repeatedly voted not to fund fire protection, either by setting up its own department or paying as a body to contract with the city.

the city should bankrupt itself out of compassion for these idiots? the city's fire personnel should put themselves in danger to save the little pets of these idiots, who aren't going to be funding firefighters medical care if anything goes wrong?

the city should put itself in danger by sending its fire dept out of calls to the county & leaving itself unmanned or undermanned for in-city fires?

the county is 13 times bigger than the city (pop 2500). the county has a higher median income than the city.

that's not compassion, that's suicide.

the county chose the policy. the city has no obligation to compassion when the assholes specifically *chose* this route to avoid taxes.

they wanted fee-for-service, they got it.

fuck them & their kitties.

[Fumesucker]

131. Should the city FD be disbanded when they can no longer afford it?

Given that 75% of their calls are to a county that's not even in the same state and said county refuses to raise taxes to support the city FD?

[PVnRT]

158. Apparently, we're in teabagger country now

Where people shouldn't have to pay fees or taxes for essential services they rely on.

[Wednesdays]

160. And the better services go to those who can afford them.

Sounds fair to me.

[Rex]

42. Dunno, but it is really really stupid to let a house burn down if you can

prevent it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Quite simple if the city is having those issues

DO NOT respond, PERIOD. CANCEL the mutual aid agreement.

Now that MIGHT wake up the county up...

Like the solution? That way there is no problem with them responding cross state lines, and you know what? That will be the solution.

Of course there could always like raise taxes and do this like civilized people do...

You and I are 180 from each other by the way.

[JVS]

47. You would let a whole county burn instead of only the houses that don't subscribe.

That's seems harsh.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. You are the one making the case of moral hazard

well that is the way that this libertarian thinking leads.

We pay for it, We don't have to cover your ass.

We call this reductio ad absurdum...

[JVS]

59. You are the one that is advocating a more destructive policy.

Is this some kind of "One house-fire is a tragedy, several hundred a statistic" logic?

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Nah this is the logic at work here

the COUNTY don't want to pay for a FD...

And by the way I am not advocating it. I prefer you know TAXES funding the full coverage.

But this is what the libertarian thinking inevitably leads to. You are on your own. I hope you can afford the Engine...

[Hannah Bell]

133. the libertarian policy is the county's, not the city's.

The COUNTY chose the fee for service policy, not the city.

The city just choses to get paid, after ten years of fighting the county's fires on a "pay after the fire's out" program where more than half the beneficiaries never paid a red cent.

[Rex]

51. That was my real gripe, why show up if you are just going to watch it burn down.

Talk about STUPID.

[seabeyond]

57. to put it out when it spreads to the home that paid. the owner put his neighbors in danger

in a number of ways... and supposedly didnt get animals out of house regardless of all the time he had and let them die.

[Rex]

66. No the fire fighters put his neighbors in danger by not putting the house

out in the first place. Regardless of all the time they had to save the animals. The people are immaterial by that point in time or would be in a sane world.

If this is all over $75, then it is the stupidest argument in the history of DU.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Why I just took it to the extreme

Which is... you don't want to pay as a county. Fine, no fire protection from a socialist fire department.

[Rex]

78. Yeah I've been watching you post on this and agree 100%

If the vocal minority here wants to take it to silly lenghs...then we can go there. I think you trying to educate people on the Common Good is falling on deaf, free market, ears.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Yep

[divideandconquer]

93. It's not over $75, it costs thousands to respond and endangers lives

These rural moochers don't want to pay their fair share, they are just as bad as professional panhandlers on highway exits!

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. The neighbor's house was a subscriber

this is so 18th century...

Of course they could all have solved it with a TAX not this FLAT TAX, but hey, what would I know?

Redutio ad Absurdum... but it got some folks thinking I think.

[Rex]

79. I believe you have, the point is so absurd that it is hard to argue

on a certain level. 18th century lol, I said 20th! :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

135. They didn't come until the paying neighbor called.

[Pithlet]

52. Well, if they let one house burn down.

Imagine if they just ignored the whole county and never responded at all. DU would just explode!

It seems they were trying to do the right thing by making the arrangement they did. They were trying to help the county. This is why I can't figure out why they're getting blamed so harshly here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. As a former rescue worker I cannot justify it

but this is the end result of the libertarian thinking at work here.

[Pithlet]

71. Indeed it is.

I can understand where someone in the field would look at this and just be appalled. I do. But I'm sure that fire fighters at the scene felt tremendous distress. I do not think they were some unusual breed of responders. This was the absolute wort thing that could have happened. If anyone thinks I'm arguing otherwise, I'm not. I don't support such things. But it was the extreme result that came about from libertarian thinking. My position is it wasn't those responders that brought it about. It wasn't their fault. It also wasn't the city's, who's ultimate respnsibility is to its own citizens. The fault lies with those who brought it about. The people who didn't want fund the infrastructure required to have such services. Basically? They wanted to take advantage of those firefighters, IMO. In order to save that fire department, the ultimate unfortunate incident had to happen. Essentially that community had to learn some harsh lessons. They may not care. They may think "Oh well, that neighbor learned their lessson". If that's the community they want to be? Oh well. The city shouldn't have to pay the price.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. If this goes to court

they are liable... at least under every code of conduct I am familiar with.

Why they should plain out refuse to respond.

Yes I could put in a sarcasm. But at this point I just took it to the logical end. and it horrified a few folks. GOOD.

[Pithlet]

76. What laws hold them responsible? They aren't even in the same state.

In fact, this scenario has played out many times across the country. I don't know why this has garnered the outrage in the news cycle it has. This is nothing new.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Here

http://www.emsneeds.com/ShowCourseMaterial.aspx?courseid=5

That is the simplest intro.

IN short, if you respond and sit by, you could be liable for a slew of issues.

Why risk it? A long legal case could do just as much damage to your budget?

By the way I don't have ice in my veins. After all I have risked life and limb as a rescue worker. But as I said, I am just taking this to the logical, Atlas Shrugged, Mr Galt is on his own, conclusion.

As is this whole thing could be easily be happening in China... since it is THAT foreign to me.

[Pithlet]

84. That's EMS.

Show me a law that states that fire companies have to respond and provide service outside of their jurisdiction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Here

http://www.minnesotafireservice.com/pub_lmcit_mutual_aid_agreement_extra_incidents.pdf

http://blog.firechief.com/mutual_aid/

And since Fire does a lot of EMS functions it applies.

I could also include international mutual aid, but why bother?

By the way for MULTIPLE reasons, including attitudes involved I doubt this will end up in a court, but IT SHOULD...

[Pithlet]

90. I must have missed it. Where's the law?

The first link is to Minnessota state law, but even then it states it has to be in a written agreement beforehand. The second one is just a blog, someone's opinion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. As I said, where I DID EMS

we had to act.

Different values, different strokes, alien foreign country.

It is... but that's ok.

John Galt is correct. I hope you can afford the fire truck. They run 3 million to operate annually.

And they cannot be run by a single person either. You need at minimum three.

[Pithlet]

100. Yes, I agree. EMS should act. But this is not the same thing.

Fire companies should not have to bankrupt themselves by going and fighting fires in a neighboring community that refuses to pay them. It isn't the same thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Why they should just plain out CANCEL the mutual aid

agreement. Then they are NOT legally bound to respond.

Let Obion Co sink or swim...

[Pithlet]

108. You'll get no argument from me there.

Although I would think there could be an argument that that's even harsher. I think the city was trying to do the right thing by providing them with a service, even though the county didn't want to fund them. They might have thought just letting them sink with no service at all was way harsh. But you're right. IT might have been best to just let them sink to begin with. THen maybe they would have got their act together and done something about it. But I still contend that those who are blaming the city and its firefighters are misplacing the blame. I don't think they had any choice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Harsh? That's libertarian paradise

and the end result of that logic...

[Hannah Bell]

139. when 75% of calls come from the non-paying county, it ain't harsh.

[Hannah Bell]

138. There IS NO "MUTUAL AID" agreement. The county doesn't have a fire service.

They have no aid to "mutually" give.

There is a fee for service contract arrangement at the individual level.

Which the county chose, not the city.

[smokey nj]

146. THANK YOU!!!!!

[Pithlet]

91. I must have missed it. Where's the law?

The first link is to Minnessota state law, but even then it states it has to be in a written agreement beforehand between the two companies. The second one is just a blog, someone's opinion.

[Hannah Bell]

137. they didn't respond to the non-payer's call.

[Hannah Bell]

136. not liable for putting out fires outside their jurisdiction.

if i'm in seattle, can i sue if tacoma's fd doesn't come put out my fire?

bullshit.

[Fumesucker]

54. In what respect, Charlie?

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. That is the logic in Obian county

so this is the end result.

The city cannot afford the LEGAL hazard. So easy, cancel the mutual aid agreement.

This is the logic. The end result, charlie.

[Hannah Bell]

132. there is no "mutual aid" agreement. the county has NO fire service, because they don't want to pay

for one.

the county chose the fee-for-service policy for the same reason. didn't want to "force" their precious teabagger constituents to pay any nasty taxes. county officials who voted 19:1 for fee-for-service said this *explicitly*.

[stray cat]

58. For years there have been volunteer fire fighters for rural areas and small towns

The community shares in property taxes for equipment and in the work load sharing in providing service.

Communities and people taking responsibility and making sacrifices for the good of everyone

[seabeyond]

62. they voted that down first. they didnt want responsibility let alone shared

responsibility.

[Fumesucker]

63. I'm aware of that fact..

Obion county actually has a VFD on paper but it's never been funded..

Something to do with the voters resisting a tax increase.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[seabeyond]

65. who... FD that will go under. city tax payers that will have to have increase to cover 50% county

teabaggers not paying?

but the teabaggers, ah... they are grand now, arent they.

[Fumesucker]

69. In what respect, Charlie?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Fumesucker]

125. I asked a question..

What happens when the city can no longer afford to keep its fire department open?

Just because you don't like the answer is no reason to sling insults.

[Hannah Bell]

140. no, glenn beck loves *you*. glenn beck loves the teabagging county leeching off publicly funded

services they refuse to pay for, too.

[TexasObserver]

67. Bogus premise.

The penalty for failing to pay the annual fee of $75 should be the loss of that bargain, not the loss of the home on fire.

Your message has no basis in reality. Volunteer fire departments all over America operate with no paid employees at all. They do so without a taxing mechanism. They do so without assessing $75 for an annual fee. They do it without telling someone just outside the jurisdiction "sorry, but you didn't pay." That's the reality, not your alarmist fantasy.

[Hannah Bell]

141. The county has twice shut down proposals to fund a volunteer fire dept.

& contra your opinion, volunteer fire depts *do* require funding, fire equipment, gasoline, firehouse, utilities, medical care aren't free.

the only thing "volunteer" in most volunteer fire depts = salaries.

[TexasObserver]

147. Of course they require funding.

I'm very familiar with the funding of such units, helping them do so in this area. Our local one has two primary fundraising events per year. They get grants I've worked with them on. They get partial funding from a city.

What they don't do is follow the very program you advocate and embrace. They put out fires they can get to, and there's no subscription charge. Every year I write checks to three volunteer fire departments within ten miles of my home. None of the three requires any subscription. All three respond to major home fires, if they can get there, whichever area the fire occurs. They are bound by a sense of community and dedication to public service.

[Hannah Bell]

148. i live in a small rural town surrounded by a larger unincorporated area.

the unincorporated area has a volunteer fire service funded in part by federal monies & in part by a levy on residents.

because there is such a service, the city is willing to aid the unincorporated area when possible & vice versa -- it's a mutual arrangement.

the county in the tennessee case has NO fire service for its 32K residents, 557 square miles of territory, & has repeatedly refused to fund one. unincorporated county residents prefer to leech off publicly funded small town fire departments -- in the case of south fulton, 2500 residents.

the county & its reps chose the "free choice" subscription system rather than assessing a charge on every resident.

those are the facts. what other places do has nothing to do with the facts in this case. nor does your own personal willingness to fund volunteer fire depts.

THE COUNTY IN QUESTION HAS REFUSED TO DO SO, TWICE.

WHEN THE CITY PROVIDED FIRE SERVICE TO ALL & THEN CHARGED ONCE THE FIRE WAS OUT, MORE THAN HALF OF COUNTY RESIDENTS NEVER PAID.

The city has no authority to collect money or fines from county residents.

The city has a tiny tax base: 2500 people.

The county chose to have its residents contract as individuals for fire service rather than assess a tax on everyone & pay the city for universal service

Yet still DUers such as yourself demand that the city pay for the assholes who refuse to pay.

[PVnRT]

159. If you are writing checks, they are getting funding somewhere

Presumably from taxes, in addition to donations.

Of course, if people can find money to donate to a fundraiser for a volunteer fire department, why can't they pay a little extra in taxes to fund them completely?

[freebrew]

164. That's BS.

The 'volunteer' part is the fireman's labor, only. Fire 'tags' or membership dues are what pays for equipment, fuel, repairs, etc.
Otherwise, you just have a bunch of folks with buckets. Buckets that they must furnish themselves, I guess.

[SargeUNN]

72. nice try but

The guy offered to pay even more but was rejected. This was a moral outrage and simply shows the intent had nothing to do with need but more to do with we will teach you.

[Earth_First]

80. self delete

[petronius]

86. Easy! The next town over will have to pick up the slack. And when they fold,

the adjacent county will step in. And so on down the line.

Eventually, all the US town and county FDs will be shuttered, and we'll be calling in Canadian and Mexican departments. But they're all nice folk, so they won't mind...

[Hannah Bell]

142. no, the for-profit fire corps will step in. which i believe is the intention, & the reason

the media is painting the public fire dept as the villain.

[ncteechur]

88. Either everyone gets fire protection or none do. The OP's argument is utter bullshit.

[activa8tr]

92. True.............fine I agree.........

If I didn't pay my fee, I would have to pay the actual cost of the fire protection, which would be cheaper than losing everything in my house, and my pets lost.

But a fee-based policy for fire protection is basically unsound from a fire protection perspective, and from a logical perspective.

ALL fires are threats. If a forest fire broke out, would they refuse to fight it because the trees didn't pay a fee?

Such an absurd policy! Fire those who passed it

[divideandconquer]

105. So the Kentucky city should go broke to support the Tennesssee rural area?

[Fumesucker]

124. What argument?

I asked a question.. What happens when the city can no longer afford to keep it's fire department open?

[Hannah Bell]

143. the op isn't making an argument. the op is asking what happens when the publicly-funded

city (population 2500) fire department is bankrupted putting out fires for freeloaders in the county (population 32K)?

tell the county to fund a fire service for "everyone" instead of voting 19-1 to allow its residents to contract with the city as individuals, which is what it chose to do.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. First off you are thinking Texas

second off, as a former medic in MEXICO, I can tell you we would not have stood by while a house burns.

It is just not done...

But thanks for the racism implied in that post.

[Freetradesucks]

94. I think that what's going on here is that..

people are just now realizing that public services are not free, that they are actually funded by real money that comes out of peoples pockets. There is not some bottomless pit of money to support those who do not wish to participate. When it is broken down into very clear terms, that if my neighbor doesn't pay but I do, why should they get the benefit?

I think that this could be a study of other issues, particularly health care.

[Hannah Bell]

144. no, i think the issue is that the wealthier residents of the county are freeloading off a poorer &

much smaller city, because they're teabaggers.

and then crying in their beer because they don't like the consequences of the "freedom" they love so much.

they chose to let individuals decide whether to contract for service -- or not.

[aquart]

99. Ever heard of taxes? A .13% increase would pay for the fire department.

But Glenn Beck and Rand Paul don't think taxes are a good idea.

[Fumesucker]

128. The county is in an entirely different *state* than the city..

The county voted 19-1 against a tax for fire protection..

Next argument please..

[Canuckistanian]

123. Call in Blackwater?

Because that's EXACTLY where this is heading - absolute privatization for massive profits.

Some here on DU would be fine with that. I'm not.

[Hannah Bell]

145. yes, that's where it's heading, & that's why the city is being painted as the villain of the piece.

[Lyric]

150. They make a deal with the county government to lobby a tax?

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

151. shot down 19 to 1. nt

[Lyric]

152. But we're talking about the future, not the past.

The OP asked what should be done when the city can't afford a fire department any more. The problem with ALL of this is that the city decided to offer a "subscription service" at ALL. That never should have been an option. The city should have told the county, "Look, you have two choices--either all of your residents go without fire protection, or all of your residents pay a small tax to cover it for everyone." If those are the only two options available, then people will have to accept the tax. If the county government balks, then it's time for the state legislature to step in and fix the problem. A state government has LOTS of weapons in its power arsenal, including (if all else fails) the possible "nuclear option"--dissolve the entire county as a political entity and divide it up into sections that are then annexed onto neighboring counties that actually have COMPETENT government. Counties are generally chartered just like cities are. That charter can be revoked by the state if the county government is grossly incompetent and/or corrupt to the point that there's a public safety crisis--which is indeed the case here.

You do whatever it takes, but in the end, you make sure that EVERYONE is covered, whether they like it or not. Uncontrolled house fires can send out sparks to neighboring homes. They can cause grass and forest fires. Lives of people and animals can be lost. Public safety MUST come first, and if the voters aren't willing or able to take care of it themselves, then the state needs to step in. That's the duty of government.

[hayu_lol]

153. Obion county uses 5 fire departments...

3 are yearly fee(like this one)and the other two are tax supported.

I guess that the town can fill the fuel tanks of the truck from the pump named GOOD INTENTIONS...unless the pump tank is empty because no one will pay for fuel.

Dunno about some of these posters...they seem to believe someone else should pay their expenses.

What happens if you don't pay your water bill?

What happens if you don't pay your electric bill?

What happens if you don't pay your phone bill?

Hmmmm...starting to get the idea?

[Wednesdays]

161. I know...I forgot to pay my water bill once

and so my house burned to the ground.

[theHandpuppet]

154. How about insurance companies offer discounts to homeowners...

... who have paid taxes/fees for the services of the local fire departments? Such discounts could more than offset the nominal fees asked for by fire protection services. I would think this a win/win scenario for everyone involved, including the insurance companies.

[malaise]

156. Let me see

Burn, baby burn!! That's the free market way.

[TheKentuckian]

166. Our city should never have accepted the model at all, forcing the Randroid Co to get real

While I understand the visceral reaction to the OP, the point made must not be ignored. We can't just sit with our thumbs up our asses as we simultaneously wring our hands in response to wealthy teabagger types to refuse to support the public sector, suck up the benefits on the free despite being prosperous, and make the poor languish to maintain the tax base.

The question is not libertarian ideology or promotion of such. It's basic math. Eventually the smaller and less affluent city will not be able to maintain services and certainly not on a scope to support Randroidland.

The only solution is to let the teabaggers have it as they demand. If they want pay for play then a private corporation will come in, if the price is right. Socialism attempting to bail out greed is the cause of the multitude of moral hazards here. As soon as a few of those that have money and/or were good with paying the stupid fee burn to the ground then a more enlightened view would spread fast, quick, and in a hurry.

The instant capitalism doesn't have a shit ton of socialism to take its downside the wheels come right off. Accepting the ludicrous funding model was an error on the part of the city, they accept a huge moral hazard the very moment they commit to covering an area but will let some burn. The precedent that only those with money deserve aid is putrid. Let the rich (that are behind the whole notion anyway) burn with the poor until one group or the other gets basic fucking society into their heads.