Libertarian Utopia - Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground

[swag]

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

[leveymg]

1. Welcome back to Rome under Caligula and Nero. eom

[LostHighway]

259. As a history buff, I resent this

Caligula and Nero were genuinely cruel and liked to be cruel and to enjoy their cruelty. These people are just f*&^ing stupid and insensitive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

270. You are a second person that makes that allusion

congrats, you are the FIRST american to make it though.

I thought about it, but feared would be ahem too foreign to a people that don't like to read no damn history. (And I was not born or raised in this country)

What comes to mind though is what I am reading on right now, Scott Borderer culture.

[Cirque du So-What]

2. I hope this family can find a good lawyer

one who will take their case pro bono and proceed to sue the mayor on down for this travesty. If it results in bankrupting the town, so be it. Maybe it'll prompt the citizenry to elect officials who are not such blatant sociopaths in the future.

[PoliticAverse]

16. These people apparently lived outside the city...

I'm not sure what obligations a city fire department has to people that don't live in the city limits.

The supreme court ruled that police have no obligation to provide any protection to the average citizen
(even those that paid taxes that support police department):

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

[Caliman73]

275. That is a different concept.

No police agency has the obligation to protect citizens because that is not their mandate. They are sworn to uphold and enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. Supposedly they make the community safer through policing, but they have no legal obligation to protect individual citizens.

I don't think the city fire departments are necessarily obligated outside their city limits, but the county is usually responsible for unincorporated areas like the county sheriff is for law enforcement.

[LiberalAndProud]

25. Why? The family didn't think fire protection was worth $75 this year.

They opted out, didn't they? It seems to me that it should be too late after the house is already on fire.

You can't buy insurance after the loss in our world.

[Cirque du So-What]

39. Man, that's harsh!

Does the possibility of paying a stiff fine for receiving services without paying the fee even register? Obviously not. I don't know what to make of people who advocate letting the motherfucker burn without doing anything! What if children had been trapped in their rooms? Would you still insist that they had transgressed the fucking law, so let the little ones die? I'd really like to know, so please weigh in on this one. Prove to me that we haven't degenerated into Sociopath Nation!

[LiberalAndProud]

44. How?

The stiff fine part ... there was no provision for it. There should have been, I'll grant you that. The city should have a provision that a homeowner not opting into the expense of the commons could pay for the entire cost of an incident plus an additional (hefty) fine. But they didn't. If (and maybe it's a big if) the homeowners were aware that they were choosing not to have access to the volunteer fire department, how is this not a foreseeable consequence of that choice?

This wasn't an issue of endangerment of life, as far as I could tell from the article. This was a loss of property. It's sad, but they chose to take the risk upon themselves, didn't they? I suspect that trapped children would have been an entirely different can of beans, so I'd rather not speculate on what may or may not have happened if that had been the case.

Edit to add: If left to people like the home owner in question, there would have been no fire department to call.

[Cirque du So-What]

45. Thanks for helping make my point

by admitting that the municipality *should* have a provision to go ahead & put out the fire, even for those who didn't pay the fee beforehand, then assess a hefty fee afterward. But should-hood is shit-hood. They didn't have such a provision, so they allowed someone's property to burn to the ground over a relatively paltry fee. I contend that their policy is malevolent & antisocial.

I realize that fire departments don't pay for themselves, so there must be some means in place to fund this service, but I'm appalled by municipal leaders who deny these services outright to those who don't pay the fee for whatever reason. They can just as easily assess a fine, but I consider it wrong to allow a family's house to burn in order to make a point.

[LiberalAndProud]

47. Is it to make a point?

The likelihood is that any given property won't experience a fire this year. The city has no legal avenue to assess a tax on out-of-city homeowners.

If a homeowner has access to services when the worst happens, even at a sizable monetary risk, the likelihood is that annual revenues to equip and prepare the fire dept. for the inevitable accident will be absent. It's not like you can run out and buy a fire truck when the fire is already burning. The equipment and the manpower have to be already in place.

If the city cannot assess taxes, can they impose fines? Somehow I think that may be precluded as well. The whole mindset of the structure of this law is libertarian. And isn't personal responsibility an underlying principal of that mindset?

[Cirque du So-What]

50. Thank you for proving another important point

Libertarianism sucks! It's a greedy, self-centered philosophy fit only for a sociopathic mindset - conservatism on steroids IMO.

[LiberalAndProud]

57. On that we can agree heartily. Libertarianism is vile.

But I don't live in Obion County, Tennessee.

I am positive that my county has an agreement with the city I live in. Property taxes are assessed and fire protection is provided. It's an arrangement with which I am very pleased. It works for us in this city, in this county.

I elect representatives to my City Council and to my County Commission. If my County Commissioner couldn't reach an agreement to provide fire protection to every resident in the county under every circumstance, I'd elect a different Comissioner. I'd make sure that happened -- here where I live.

I don't live in Obion County, Tennessee. I don't elect the Commissioners there.

I wonder if the resident who didn't have $75.00 a year to help pay --
* for the initial purchase and continued maintenance of the emergency vehicle,
* for the insurance (accidental death, workmens' compensation, emergency vehicle) --
votes. Do you think he may be a Libertarian?

Because sometimes you get what you vote (or fail to vote) for.

[Cirque du So-What]

59. Yes, that would be the height of irony

to discover that the homeowner was a libertarian. I think it's more likely, however, that the homeowner decided to roll the dice & refuse to pay the fee for some other reason. Still, it's an exorbitant price to pay for being sofa king cheap.

[LiberalAndProud]

64. The man says he thought they would come without paying.

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.


Why would anybody bother to pay the fee if that were the case?


"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.

[bettyellen]

79. the same thing happened two years ago in that area, he was just being cheap

now he offers to pay, but it don;t work that way.

[Statistical]

291. Yeah it would be like offering to pay Geico for car insurance AFTER the accident.

I would imagine Geico would say "no". I mean you could pay but your effective coverage date would begin the next day.

Not a hard concept to understand.

Pay life insurance premium after the covered person dies.
Pay for travel insuance when you miss your flight.
Purchase extended warranty when your TV dies.

[boppers]

150. On facebook, my political status is Socialist Libertarian.

I'm happy to pay for a fire department.

Predator drones, and research to benefit pharmaceutical companies.... not so much.

[LWolf]

52. Didn't their property taxes already include money for fire protection?

Mine does, and I live outside city limits.

Sounds like the health insurance scam to me: pay taxes for fire protection, then pay copays.

[petronius]

55. I would guess not, if the city is offering the fire protection fee to non-residents

It's not uncommon for cities to contract to a county for police and fire services when the city doesn't have those departments, but in this case I assume there is no county FD...

[LWolf]

63. It would be good to know for sure. nt

[petronius]

65. Call them up and ask

There is certainly no suggestion in any of the articles linked here, or in any site I've found, that county residents are assessed a fee or tax for fire protection by the county or any other agency. If the county tax bill or budget contained items for fire services, it sure seems like someone would have mentioned it...

[LiberalAndProud]

67. I am so glad you asked.

http://troy.troytn.com/Obion%20County%20Fire%20Department%20Presentation%20Presented%20to%20the%20County%20Commission.pdf

As of March 18, 2008, it would appear that there was a Obion County Fire Department on paper that was never funded

On January 19, 1987, the Obion County Commission passed a resolution establishing an
Obion County Fire Department, but no action was taken to implement the resolution.
Therefore, Obion County has a county fire department on paper, but is unmanned,
unfunded and not operational.
Currently there are 8 municipal departments in Obion County which are providing fire
protection for most of Obion County’s rural areas. These departments are
• Hornbeak Fire Department
• Kenton Fire Department
• Obion Fire Department
• Rives Fire Department
• Samburg Fire Department
• South Fulton Fire Department
• Troy Fire Department
• Union City Fire Department

-snip-

Three (3) of the municipal departments are offering services on a subscription basis, and
five (5) municipal departments are offering services on an as needed basis without
subscription or ability to pay for response. The municipal fire departments which utilize a
subscription service are not bound to and do not respond to fires on rural properties which
do not have a subscription for fire service. The only rural property owners guaranteed to
receive fire protection services are those who choose to pay for it. It they choose not to
purchase an annual subscription and require fire protection services, they fall on the mercy
of a municipal department who provide services on an as needed basis. When such
occurs, the responding fire department normally provides those services without
compensation.
According to survey information, over 75% of all municipal fire department’s structure calls
are rural. All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas,
but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally
collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal
tax payer.

Evidently, things haven't changed.

Edited to add: I recommend reading this article. Certainly puts this incident in context.

[LWolf]

74. Wow.

So who, exactly, is responsible for the non-action on the resolution?

[LiberalAndProud]

77. Ultimately, these folks.

The Honorable Benny McGuire, County Mayor
Commissioner Danny Jowers
Commissioner Jimmy Seals
Commissioner Cloney Taylor


It was a whole step closer by July, 2009.

http://www.ucmessenger.com/news.php?viewStory=29228&FORM=ZZNR2

• Countywide fire protection program
It has moved a step closer to becoming a reality, according to county commissioner and fire protection committee chairman Dean Jowers. Committee members are Obion County commissioners Tim Doyle and Paul Albright, Obion mayor Wes Miller and Troy Fire Chief Mark Watson.
Dean Jowers is the brother of county commissioner Danny Jowers.
Dean Jowers said county attorney Steve Conley is writing “a rough draft” of a proposed contract between the county and the various municipalities.
“Once we get the rough draft, we’ll have a meeting of the committee,” he said. “We’ll go over the draft. Then we’ll present it to the full (commission) in August. Then we’ll meet with the cities and have them sign off on it and we’ll sign off on it, too.”

[LiberalAndProud]

78. dupe

[LiberalAndProud]

83. It just gets richer.

(emphasis added)

http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=25587
Seals said he favors the fee system. The county “does not need” to get into the business of hiring a fire chief and building new stations, he added. The subscription plan calls for appointing a county fire chief and building a fire station in Clayton and Cloverdale communities. Seals asserted that a rural fire protection plan passed by the commission in the 1980s had similar provisions. “They never put a penny into it, and they’re not going to this time,” he said. “As far as a county fire chief goes, what’s he going to be chief of? We don’t have a (county) fire station. No equipment, no fire station, no nothing. And how do you hire somebody for nothing? You got to pay ’em. “That’s why I was so upset about this whole thing. We don’t need to be in the firefighting business. The cities are already in that. We just need to contract it out to them, and let ’em go.” And finally, Seals said, he feels “beat to death” by the whole issue. “There’s no end to it,” he said. Barfield County commissioner Perry Barfield said he’s in favor of a subscription plan that allows citizens to make a decision on their own “without being forced to.” “There’s some things that need to be worked out,” he said. “I think it’s best for everyone concerned that cities receive funding they need and allow citizens to make a decision whether they want fire protection or not.” Jowers Jowers said that Reavis has said he wants to study the subscription program more. “I don’t know what their problem is,” Jowers said. “We’re offering, offering, offering. Well, you can’t have everything in life.” But at last the commission adopted a plan, and it’s one “we’re going with. A decision has at last been made.” There may be some minor changes made, but they won’t affect the cities. “The basic thing they need to know is that we’ll collect the (subscription) fees for them and we’ll return the money to them,” he said. “I think we’re making great progress.” Published in The Messenger 4.21.09

[LWolf]

86. Privatization of fire safety services. What a concept.

I live rurally. If a fire started here, and nobody came to fight it, it would move on to the public lands that abut my home and we'd have a forest fire.

Which would then have to be fought by firefighters, but it would be bigger and need more resources.

I wonder what happens when one house in a neighborhood doesn't choose to pay the fee? Their house burning puts their neighbors', who DID pay fees, homes at risk.

Do they wait for a neighbor's house to actually catch fire, and then fight only THAT fire?

[lysosome]

155. according to the article, that's what they did.

[newspeak]

235. yeah, something that was done about one hundred years ago

at the time of the old "robber barons." Homeowners had a nifty metal plate of the company who would service their home in case of a fire. If you didn't pay, (or could not afford to pay) all of your things and the house were SOL. Those little signs are collector's items now.

[PoliticAverse]

111. Thank you for performing additional research on the issue n/t

[TheEuclideanOne]

148. So, in 50% of the cases, the fee was uncollected, which means that 50% of

the fees were collected. So, charge $1,000 (or charge $2,000) and you will basically recoup the money that would be charged to make up for the folks that didn't pay.

[Hannah Bell]

157. the hike would likely increase the percent of uncollected fees & piss more people off

about paying double so that others can free-ride.

[TheEuclideanOne]

159. Ah, you mean paying double on the penalty after the Fire Department

put the fire out in your house? Besides, it is only double if you start with telling everybody that the fee would normally be $500 but because of the deadbeats you have to double it. A more intelligent approach would be to start with $1000 by doing some research on the topic and know ahead of time that half the people will not pay even after their house was saved. If you start with $1,000, you will have no complaints because people will realize that they can avoid it by simply paying the $75 fee. The math works itself out because you have already realized that 50% of the people won't pay, so in the end, the fire department will actually be ahead of the game. I will even argue that by taking this approach you could convert the people who don't pay into a profit center and avoid having the fire department sitting around watching their house and families and pets burn to a crisp.

[Hannah Bell]

172. no, because the people who opt not to pay the $75 are likely to be the same ones

who won't pay for the costs after the fact. So you still have half the county residents paying $75 & half paying nothing and whining when their houses burn down.

The city has no jurisdiction over the county residents -- that's the part you're not getting. It has no authority to tax them or levy fines on them or try to collect those fines.

It would have to be the county levying fines -- & this is the county whose reps voted 19-1 for the "libertarian" solution of allowing individuals to contract as individuals with the city. So I don't see them levying any $1000 fines.

[TheEuclideanOne]

189. Your math is wrong

It is not 50% of the residents not paying the $75, it is half of the people who did not pay the large fine, once they were charged with it. Big difference. Also, you point out that the city has no jurisdiction over the county residents, which is correct, yet 50% of them pay anyway even without Jurisdiction. Can't speak for them as to why some pay and some don't. I know I would pay if somebody saved my house. Nevertheless, 50% of them do pay and they would likely pay $1000, since that article showed that they paid when the charge was $500. So, if we know that 50% pay, if you double the cost, you make up for the rest. You don't have to say "Just so you know, you are paying twice the price to make up for a bunch of deadbeats". You simply set the charge to incorporate these people. As another poster pointed out, $1000 is much less than the price of replacing a house.

[Hannah Bell]

243. there's no math in my post. if more than half didn't pay $500, they won't pay $1000,

& the city has no way to enforce or collect the money. the city went to subscription because they couldn't collect the money. nothing has changed. anyone likely to pay a $1000 fine is already paying the $75/yr.

[uncommon]

192. Or have a tax funded fire department that serves everyone equally - that is how this should

work. Fire departments were made public in order to keep this kind of shit from happening. What they have done here is take a big step toward privatization.

[PoliticAverse]

201. No...

They took a step up from having no fire service.

The people in the county outside of the cities had no fire service.

The cities with government provided taxpayer financed fire service offered
to cover residents in the county currently without fire service if they would
pay a fee to help cover the cost.

It has nothing to do with privatization.

If anything it's a step towards extending government provided fire service via
taxes.

[hendo]

261. Wait, so you want to punish the people

who are willing to pay? As the first response to your post stated, raising the fee from $75 to $1000 would see a drop in the number of people who were willing to pay it.

[TheEuclideanOne]

272. No, I did not mean to raise the $75 fee to $2000

It was in response to the earlier post that said that if you charged somebody a fine of $500 for the cost of putting out the fire out by the fire department, you would not recoup your costs because 50% of the people who just had their house saved would refuse to pay the fine. My point is that if you raise the fine from $500 to $2,000 for the people who didn't pay up front, you could not only make sure that the fire department got paid, but you could also end up making money even if you factor in the 50% that would not pay.

[snooper2]

296. It's a good thing you don't hold any government positions

or do you :rofl:

[TheEuclideanOne]

297. Why do you ask?

To me, it seems like a good idea to charge people $500 as a penalty instead of letting their house burn. I know I would pay it. If I was hit with a penalty of $2000 I would pay it too. Still better than losing your youse, don't you think?

[rhett o rick]

126. You aint "liberal and proud". nm

[LiberalAndProud]

133. Why, because I believe in representative government?

These people have the system they voted for. If services are provided by the commons and people willfully refuse to contribute to the commons, why should they not live with the consequences of that choice?

First there is the matter of the county commission and the contract between the munipalities and the county. They specifically provided for the opt out option. They didn't want to force property owners to pay for fire protection through mandatory fees.

If you have read the background information, you will understand that this is a long-standing issue in the area. Also, the property owner received mail and was called regarding the fire protection fee. I am reasonably certain that somewhere in the course of that conversation, he was informed that unless the fee was paid he would not be entitled to receive service.

If those who contribute are forced to pay for services for those who refuse to contribute, we end up with unsustainable government. And we all lose.

[rhett o rick]

134. I rest my case. How do you sleep at night with such a cold heart? nm

[LiberalAndProud]

136. Are you assuming the property owner is destitute?

If that is the case, then whoever made the decision to withhold services made a huge mistake, and that would change my opinion.

But if he had the means yet refused to pay, doesn't the narrative change? Because that's the image I have. Some guy who just hates taxes because of the "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" mindset. In that case, this is just deserts.

[orleans]

149. "this is just deserts"

not to change the subject but...
the expression is "just desserts"
the word to express a sweet after dinner treat begins "dess" (two s's because you always want more than one dessert!)

[KamaAina]

239. No, it is "just deserts"

seriesly. "Deserts" here means not the Mojave or Sahara but "that which one deserves", and is pronounced like "desserts".

[Chulanowa]

154. He could be Dick Cheney and the fire department should have still put out the fire

Not that I imagine Dick minds sitting in the middle of an inferno too much, but just making hte point.

[lysosome]

156. If he's Dick Cheney...

Then the fire department has to apologize to him too. After he shoots them in the face.

[LiberalAndProud]

244. Enabling:

Enabling refers to the process by which family members, such as partners, parent and children, "enable" an addicted person to continue in their addiction, by failing to set appropriate boundaries, failing to recognize the problem, providing money etc.

[rhett o rick]

253. So letting their house burn down teaches them a valuable lesson?? You aint a liberal. nm

[LiberalAndProud]

255. Actions have consequences.

I teach my kids that all the time.

They didn't say how the fire was started, what if starte as a trash fire in a barrel, or a controlled burn?


This is what I believe.

From each according to his ability
To each according to his need.

It's a two sided equation.

I guess you have one definition of liberal and I have mine. The man's property is assessed at $85,000. If it's not worth $75 to him to protect it, it isn't worth a buck to me.

[rhett o rick]

266. I agree. But let's keep it in prospective. A $75 error doesnt deserve the loss of a home. nm

[LiberalAndProud]

285. Error. So he says. I wonder how many years he's made the same mistake.

I suspect this isn't the first year he "forgot" to pay. Because, after all he thought the fire department would come anyway.

As it turns out, it was trash fire in two barrels that started the blaze. So he neglected to subscribe to fire protection service, started a fire and then failed to tend it. But it's the fire fighters' fault that his house burned down, despite the fact that this is the published policy.


Mother Jones has this article.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/firefighting-obion-county

Kevin Drum articulates exactly what I'm thinking.

[rhett o rick]

300. If a man ends up in the river because of his own stupidity, whould you just let him drown? nm

[LiberalAndProud]

301. No, but if he threw his house in the lake, I'd let it sink.

[Chulanowa]

282. And what point are you getting at here?

I'm making the point that I don't give a fuck if he's Scrooge McDuck diving through a tower full of gold, the fire should have been put out.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your response.

Of course you seem to be starting with the notion that this policy is acceptable i nthe first place. So long as you do that, I suppose you can defend and justify to any length.

[rhett o rick]

252. Listen to yourself. The fire dept should figure out if you paid your taxes or if not if you may be

destitute. Then they can make a decision if they put out your fire. So you would say that if the police had a special fee, that if you dont pay the fee then if you were being raped the police should just stand by and watch.

I guess you agree that if someone doesnt have health insurance, they should be allowed to bleed to death.

You aint liberal my friend.

[hendo]

260. Ever heard of taking responsibility for something?

This guy failed to do that. He made a conscious decision to not pay a fee, and he suffered because of it.

Does it suck? Yes.

Would he have paid if he knew the consequences of not paying? Probably.

We need to support individual responsibility, not attack it.

Arguably though, the fire department should have offered the guy the chance to pay the fee with an added fine for not paying by the original due date.

But back to my point, if promoting individual responsibility is not your idea of liberal then sorry man, but a lot of us aren't liberal by your definition.

[rhett o rick]

267. I agree with individual responsibility. But when someone is in need, I think we should help. Maybe

they will learn the lesson. I believe in helping your neighbor, even if he is an asshole.

[hendo]

268. Yup, even an asshole needs help every so often

but does a belligerent asshole deserve help? What about after he actively refuses it.

I have a friend who never calls unless he wants me to pick him up for jail.. Or rather, I had a friend. Turns out he wasn't much of a friend and I was just enabling him. Now when he calls, I chose to let him wait there for some one else to come and pick him up.

[rhett o rick]

299. I agree this individual should have been punished. Maybe $5000 or even $10,000, not his home. nm

[hendo]

302. Perhaps you are right.

And yes, I do think it is unbelievably sad that this happened.

[PoliticAverse]

137. Cold heart?

Suppose instead of an opt-in fee it was mandatory and implemented via property tax.
And suppose the person didn't pay their property tax?
What do you think would happen to that person's property?
The county likely would have eventually seized it and auctioned it for the unpaid taxes.
Is that cold hearted?
What do you think should happen to people that don't pay their taxes?

[rhett o rick]

257. Yes COLD HEART. I am surprised to find such in a Democratic site.

The man made a $75 mistake and you want him and his family to be homeless. We dont know why he didnt pay the $75. But even assuming he was just tight with his money, save his house for him. He will be a better citizen for it.

And I thought only Republicans and Libertarians were this heartless.

[uncommon]

194. They didn't have to pay the taxes that would normally pay for this - they had to pay a whole $75 a

year and refused. The point of these discussions is to show what happens when we privatize important public services.

[PoliticAverse]

135. I think you are fighting a losing argument.

There is no personal responsibility anymore.

People want government services but don't want to pay taxes for them.

[LiberalAndProud]

139. I guess that's it. Landed gentry should be exempt, clearly.

[theHandpuppet]

176. Bingo!!

You just hit the proverbial nail on its head.

[Chulanowa]

153. Let no one say you ever rocked a boat, sir

In fact I imagine you spend most of your time crammed facedown into any watercraft you find yourself on. A grade-A bilgesucker, something to be proud of.

People could die in a fire while the firefighters suck beer and watch and your response is "fuck 'em, they didn't pay $75."

I believe in representative government, too. But I also believe that there are mandatory services that a government should provide its citizens - else, why have a government at all? if you think putting out fires without a $75 fee is what's going to tip this township into fiscal anarchy, you are completely fucked in the head.

The mayor could take a couple hundred off his yearly salary and pretty much every "unpaid" fire would be covered. But hey, bilking people is hard work, he deserves that cash, right? he deserves an affluent life, while these people have to pay a fee to protect their own lives and home.

This is why someone is questioning your liberal views. You stink of libertarianism, and deserve far worse than you'll get here.

[Hannah Bell]

158. they live in the *county,* not the city. the county doesn't offer fire services, apparently because

the residents didn't want to pay for a fire department.

instead, they opted to let everyone "choose" as individuals whether or not to contract with the city.

this individual chose not to pay a lousy $75/year to get fire service.

i don't really feel sorry for him either.

i see no reason why the mayor of the *city* should reduce his salary, which is paid by the taxpayers of the *city,* in order to give free fire service to *county* residents who are too cheap to pay for them & specifically chose *not* to pay for them.

and you're quite wrong about "a couple hundred dollars" covering the city's cost to put out fires in the *county*. The link says 75% of municipal fire calls are rural, i.e. *outside the city*.

http://troy.troytn.com/Obion%20County%20Fire%20Department%20Presentation%20Presented%20to%20the%20County%20Commission.pdf

it's the folks who chose to leave the decision about whether or not to pay for fire services to individuals, & the individuals who chose not to pay for them, who are the libertarians, not the discussant you're reaming.

[LTX]

231. Wait a minute -- who's the libertarian here?

You say -- "The mayor could take a couple hundred off his yearly salary and pretty much every "unpaid" fire would be covered. But hey, bilking people is hard work, he deserves that cash, right? he deserves an affluent life, while these people have to pay a fee to protect their own lives and home."

So government is "bilking" people by levying taxes and fees? That's a classic libertarian argument -- taxes are theft, government bureaucrats are free-loading thieves, and government services are not needed because they are inherently inefficient and could better be provided by the private sector.

But, granted, you add your own bizarre twist to this libertarian argument -- (1) citizens should not have to pay taxes or fees to greedy, thieving government bureaucrats, and (2) citizens should nevertheless get the government services they refuse to pay for. In the strange world of modern politics, I guess with this twist (no taxes, and government for free) the libertarian position becomes the liberal position.

[Chulanowa]

283. Tigger doesn't leap as far or as hard as you

bravo sir. You have managed to twist a perfectly understandable statement into something that, even though it is completely made of your own words and opinions, is probably still unintelligible to you. That's quite a feat.

[LiberalAndProud]

238. Your argument that people will die is nonsense.

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/More-fallout-following-house-fire-104113489.html

"If somebody is trapped in the house we're going to go because life safety is number one but we can't give the service away," Edmison said. "It's not South Fulton's problem. It's not Union City's problem. It's the county's problem. There is no county fire department."

Again, if the fire situation is life threatening, fire departments will respond. However, that was not the case with the fire in South Fulton Wednesday.

What if this was a prescribed burn that burned out of control? Still Mr. Crannick should get service for free, I suppose?

[Chulanowa]

284. Can you explain why he shouldn't?

All I've seen from you is "lol Republican deserve it." I'm of the sound and unswerving opinion that there are no circumstances where anyone deserves to lose their home and everything in it - apparently in this case including several pets - to something like this. Doubly so when the measures needed to protect the place are right there. Moreso when, on top of it all, the man fucking begs and offers any price for the service.

Your position is ridiculous and inhumane.

[TheEuclideanOne]

147. Absolutely true. And any family members and children inside should burn alive.

Don't you think?

[seabeyond]

177. they probably went out there to ensure people were out. why else would they go out and watch?

just a guess. but as much as your guess.

gotta side with.... s hould have paid for the service. they risked, and lost

[TheEuclideanOne]

195. So you agree, Let the family burn. Very nice!

Should have paid for the service, right? They risked and lost.

[seabeyond]

197. what a disgustingly dishonest poster you are. people like you are not worth interaction. nt

[TheEuclideanOne]

199. Disgustingly dishonest? Okay, make your case.

Doesn't it suck to have your own logic used against you? Well, let me make it easier for you.....At what point do you draw the line? You seem really gung ho about taking this hard line stance that they guy should have paid the $75, no mercy for the guy and no other option, so I am extending your own reasoning to the logical next step.

[seabeyond]

200. a sentence is "really gun ho" fail, dishonest. i stated fire dept there to ensure no one in house

you say i want dead people....

and you lack logic. you argue like a kid. grow up

[TheEuclideanOne]

203. Actually, I made a logical argument. So logical, in fact, you can't really answer the questions

without being intellectually dishonest. You must be a libertarian, actually, since your arguments fall apart with once you dig deeper. I guess this thread is perfect for you, eh? :) You can call me a kid and name call, but it still doesn't make your position any less ethically challenged.

[seabeyond]

205. i have answered three times. and you ignore three times. then you make up unknowns about me

like you have in every. one. of. your. posts.

and you do it illogically.

as you keep touting you logical.

[hendo]

263. I dont think logical means what you think it means. NT

[TheEuclideanOne]

269. Okay, make your case

I think that my argument is perfectly logical. If you notice, the person goes into name calling mode because she wats to avoid responding to my argument.

If you support a guys house burning down because he didn't pay a fine, then you support his family dying and pets dying too. That is logic, pure and simple. It might be very ugly, but this is a very ugly position that you scumbags are taking.

What is NOT logical to me is to say that the guys house should burn down because he didn't pay his fee and therefore is not deserving of the services that the other people pay for , then hypocritcally follow it by saying that the fire department should save his family.

[seabeyond]

286. you scumbags

yes, do tell me about the name calling....

[TheEuclideanOne]

287. I have nothing against name calling

The only reason that I pointed it out in your case is that you were using it in lieu of arguing your point. You can call me every name in the book for all I care if we are debating something, but if your entire response is just a bunch of namecalling, it means that you really can not defend your position.

[seabeyond]

288. telling you that you are illogical is not name calling. you cant even get that right. nt

[TheEuclideanOne]

290. Arguing with you is like arguing with a 5 year old

It reminds me, at least in topic only, of a recent article named "When you are too stupid to know you are stupid". I really could care less about your position on this topic. You have to live with yourself, which is punishment enough. I think that I have wasted too much time here, so I am going to move on.

[seabeyond]

292. omg... thanks for the "lecture" on name calling. jeesuz... nt

[TheEuclideanOne]

289. Besides, on the use of the word "Scumbag" I call on the "Truth Defense"

:rofl:

[WolverineDG]

212. they responded to a neighbor's call about his house being on fire

and *surprise* that neighbor HAD paid his fee.

In an article linked to in this thread somewhere, they did say that if someone's life was in jeopardy, they would assist.

dg

[seabeyond]

213. "if someone's life was in jeopardy, they would assist." thank you. logic

would follow that statement.

but thank you for the other info too

[HughMoran]

277. no, they refused. They only came out when neighbor called

His 3 pets (2 dogs, one cat) are dead.

[rhett o rick]

303. Very sad commentary. He didnt pay his $75 so watch his home burn to the ground. That will teach him...

Sick and sad.

[dotymed]

184. That's one way to look at it.

Not the way I see it, but...
IMO, your point of view kinda sums up what is wrong with our country...if you can't afford it, die.

[joeybee12]

245. WHY? Why should they have to pay for this...aren't property taxes enough?

Jesus H Christ...this is what people pay taxes for, and to add a charge on top of that is an example of neo-capitalism gone wild.

[PoliticAverse]

246. Taxed Enough Already?

So you think the people in the county without fire service are taxed enough already and fire service should be provided them by the
taxpayers in the nearby city for free ?

[hendo]

264. and apparently joey is forgetting that the city taxes

are the ones that pay for the city fire department. Perhaps there should be a FD tax for the county as well. Oh wait, that's what the $75 fee is. And even better, its not a mandatory expense like taxes are.

[HughMoran]

276. His dogs and a cat are DEAD!!

You're one cold-hearted person.

I'd expect such talk from a libertarian, not a liberal.

[lapislzi]

294. I think you just paraphrased Mike Huckabee.

I am speechless.

[kerkes]

304. People make errors in judgment but there should be a contingency-even if a hefty fine

No one should be getting something for free, however there should be a backup contingency plan in place by the South Fulton Fire Department (and any other rural fire department), to allow for protection against total loss and life of animals or people. This South Fulton situation is not abnormal with fees, and anyone whose lived in mountain areas (or the like) is extremely familiar with this kind of potential hazard; odds are, the owner Cranick was probably well aware of the hazard but dumbly didn't foresee it occurring. There should be an emergency fire plan in place, even if there is a hefty fine instituted for receiving emergency services after the fact of an upaid bill; there should be SOMETHING in place that allows for service. The owner said he was willing to pay whatever necessary for the fire to be extinguished.

People make mistakes, apparently sometimes life-threatening ones. In regular economic times, people screw up or don't pay bills. Particularly in the current economy, people also don't pay every bill, particularly those they (maybe stupidly) feel are less vital at the time. Firefighters are in an emergency profession and there needs to be an emergency contingency in place, for situations like this, even if it means the city needs to attach billing (as police departments, other agencies do) to tax refunds, etc, to ensure being paid.

The world can only be glad that the view of South Fulton Fire Department is not shared by all firefighters, as leaders of firefighting organizations have said:

http://www.wacktrap.com/government/government-bodies/city-government/firefighters-watch-house-burn-over-75-four-pets-killed-

[mwooldri]

26. Regrettably the family don't really have a leg to stand on.

It's like the case of walking into Burger King and demanding to get a Big Mac.

Their county doesn't offer fire protection service. Unless they live in a city that provides fire service they have to buy it. The family had the option of purchasing the service, but declined to do so.

I am fortunate enough to live in a county where fire services are provided across the county and funded through property taxes. Although a lot of the rural stations are called "volunteer", they are more like "retained" fire-fighters, who have a normal day job, but if the pager goes off and there's an emergency (fire or medical), they drop everything and go. They do get some pay, and the taxes do appear to fund the stations adequately as far as buildings and equipment go - and if they needed more money I would have zero objection to see my taxes go up to support this.

Mark.

[Cirque du So-What]

40. Well, I guess I'm all wet for expecting the FD to actually put out a fire

What's wrong with assessing a hefty fine against those who refuse to pay the fee? It still 'punishes,' yet doesn't let people's houses burn to the ground. There's also the issue of hazards created from allowing a structure to progress into a fully-involved fire. I tell ya, if I was a homeowner whose next-door neighbor's house caught fire, and saw the FD outside sitting on their thumbs, I'd be plenty pissed! That fire could catch MY house on fire, and although I'd be in their good graces & they'd put out MY house, the idea that my property was put in jeopardy unnecessarily really rankles.

[Swede]

49. You're fine idea wouldn't work.

No one would pay any kind of insurance,so there would be no money to buy firetrucks etc.

[Cirque du So-What]

51. Not my idea at all!

MY idea is that a tax is levied - uniformly - on all property countywide, regardless of whether it lies within or without the municipality in question. Property taxes get paid, no matter what. Depending on a surcharge or fee just sets up the FD for a budget shortfall. Better to derive their operating budget from a dependable source instead of a fee that may or may not get paid promptly.

[Swede]

54. I have no problem with taxes,it is the "fine" idea.

Post claim underwriting for an insurance (in this case fire departement access) won't work. Why pay the $75,odds are you are never gonna need it,and if you do,you get to fine? So no money for enough equipement to cover both the city and the county.

[Cirque du So-What]

58. I see shortcomings in their system

And that's why I believe it needs to be funded with taxes instead of the fee system they have. Still, I see it as wrong to deny services to those who failed to pay the fee, and I hope it gets hashed out judicially instead of allowing the travesty of watching another person's house burn while firefighters stand by to occur again.

[LiberalAndProud]

69. May I recommend some reading?

There is history here.

http://troy.troytn.com/Obion%20County%20Fire%20Department%20Presentation%20Presented%20to%20the%20County%20Commission.pdf

And as I suspected, the fire department can assess fees, but have no way to collect them.

All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas,
but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally
collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal
tax payer.

[Hannah Bell]

160. How does the city have authority to fine residents of the county? And if less than half

of the folks who were charged for fire service after the fact never paid, why would they pay a fine?

The whole thing is unworkable because it's being left at the level of individuals in a multi-jurisdiction area.

Either the county should provide its own fire service, or it should assess a fee on all residents to contract with the city.

The sticking point is apparently that the residents don't want that.

In that case, this is what happens. They are the liberatarians, so this is the logical consequence of their "freedom".

[Gaedel]

295. Then band together with your neighbors

And demand that your county government raise taxes to either:

1. Create a county fire department

2. Contract with the city to provide services in return for an annual contribution from the county coffers to the city coffers to reimburse the city for providing fire protection to the county.


This is the fault of the libertarian, low tax, county voters and not the fault of the city who taxes themselves to provide their own fire Department.

[WolverineDG]

62. They'll get laughed out of court

he lives in the county, & doesn't pay city taxes. $75 is CHEAP considering how much city residents have to pay in taxes. Why should the city residents have to foot the bill for freeloaders?

dg

[JNelson6563]

3. Better than SOCIALISM!!!11

What a nightmare.

[eridani]

4. Why doesn't the town just collect the $75 by property taxes? n/t

[PoliticAverse]

8. Because they're apparently not part of the city.

It appears that the city can't collect the $75 as property taxes because these people apparently don't live within the city limits.

From the article:

"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.

It appears that this is a service the city is willing to provide for people who live outside the city and hence don't pay any taxes to it.
Since these people apparently don't live in the city they can't be compelled to pay the $75 to the city just as the city can't be compelled to
provide fire protection service to people outside the city limits.

[Obamanaut]

9. Where I live we have a city fire department, and for those of us outside

the city limits, there are volunteer fire department stations.

Sounds similar to yours if you have volunteer stations.

[PoliticAverse]

10. Volunteers funded by taxes or not?

Where I am the volunteer fire departments are staffed by volunteers but financed mostly
by property taxes.

[Obamanaut]

15. They get some grant money from the county, and the commissioners

vote on the amount annually.

When one of the stations needs equipment, it is an uphill struggle for them.

[TorchTheWitch]

138. we have volunteer fire departments, too

Once a year they send out a letter requesting a donation to help out with the costs of maintaining equipment, etc. and people DO donate since they appreciate that the firefighters are all volunteers. All the towns I've lived in around here do it that way, and it's only been in the last several years that I had any clue that it was done differently in other places that weren't big cities.

It's outrageous to have a flat fee for everyone for fire service... some can afford a hell of a lot more and some can't afford a dime. And some people like me rent their home and have no way of knowing if the landlord is paying the fee or not.

[mwooldri]

27. Exactly. This county doesn't provide fire coverage to all county residents.

Cities provide coverage for their residents, outside they offer a service that has to be paid for directly.

Apparently the county is "talking about it" but nothing is being done.

[TonyMontana]

32. Because they're (OMG!) TAXES!

Can't have TAXES...

[Lucian]

5. That poor family.

And the mayor should get in some sort of trouble for this. The fire department is there for all, not just those who can pay.

[Hannah Bell]

162. No, it's there for the people who live in the city & pay taxes, not for people who live outside the

city & don't pay taxes, & chose not to pay a lousy $6.25/mo to contract the service.

[uncommon]

196. Precisely.

[RandomThoughts]

6. heh, and not 'putting out the fire' on someones house.

Is to say that the fire must be deserved if it is there, what if the fire was free will choice of someone else, and then they say that can't happen to them ever because they are correct.

Then their house burns down, nobody helps them, and they think, 'it must be to late' for them also.



So if my neighbors house is burning I will try to help them, and when people say my house is on fire to justify their views, I will continue to tell them.

It doesn't burn.


Side note, Still due beer and travel money, and many experiences. :)

[COLGATE4]

36. What in the hell are you talking about? No, I mean really.

[RandomThoughts]

178. I am talking about the function not the data.

That story is not about some house in some state reported on some news article.

Do you really believe that is a true article? Why would you?

[alphafemale]

7. That's odd

I am familiar with the pay ahead fee which isn't much per year. But I thought you just paid actual costs if they actually came to a fire and you hadn't subscribed. Probably several hundred to a few thousand.

I imagine they'd "go in" if human life were in danger though.

That's why those fire fighters lost their lives in Charleston a few years back.

They thought there were employees still in the warehouse that was on fire and they went in to save them. The roof collapsed and five people died. Turns out the employees had gotten out fine and just left the scene without bothering to check in with anyone.

[geckosfeet]

11. Reminds of the Bob Newhart bit - anyone have the utube link?

[WinkyDink]

12. What about "Pay $75 for fire protection" did this homeowner not understand?

Would he be able to buy any other insurance post-disaster?

[Regret My New Name]

19. Yeah... It's similar to those who cry to have less and less taxes

then when they get their wish and services are cut, they cry about the road falling apart. :/ On the other hand, the fire department should have something in place that allows for the fire to still be put out even if the person didn't pay. Maybe have it so they have to cover the entire cost of the operation if they opt in at that point. That would keep people from holding out until it's too late.

[PoliticAverse]

20. There's no shortage in this country of people

that want something from the government but don't want to pay taxes to pay for it, from giant corporations
on down...

[cleanhippie]

89. Should we extend that same mentality to the public school system?

Pay a fee per child for education?

For Police service?

[uncommon]

198. NO, that's the point. These things SHOULD be paid for from tax revenues - but a large

percentage of Americans think things SHOULD work on a fee basis - and then they complain when something like this happens. Either they believe in public services or they don't. And public services have to be paid for somehow.

[aikoaiko]

13. Mixed feelings on this one. The homeowner chose not to opt into fire protection for a low fee

but of course was willing to "pay whatever it would take for the firefighters to put out the flames". So I'm not thinking money is a problem.

But there should be a better system to protect the stupid from themselves and allow for fire protection at cost plus penalty to punish the freeloaders.

[lostnfound]

24. It's also about protecting others from the stupid; and from the arsonist

If my neighbor doesn't pay and the fire is allowed to burn, it's possible that it can spread to other houses and get out of control.
AND
If one bad guy at the local fire protection service wants to make their revenues climb, there's always arson to prove a point and paint an example for others who don't pay. If I recall correctly, it actually has happened before where a firefighter was an arsonist.

[PavePusher]

75. If you believe at all in evolution...

the stupid should not be protected from themselves.

Edit: This is also how you get the creeping spread of the nanny state.

[BreweryYardRat]

113. Problem is, letting stupid people suffer sometimes means innocent people will suffer as well.

Children have a right to be protected from their parents' stupidity.

Neighbors of stupid people shouldn't have to worry that a fire will spread to their houses. Fires aren't necessarily easy to put out.

[boppers]

151. Depends on whether or not you believe in genetic stupidity.

It turns out to be fairly complex, as it's fairly rare that a 85 IQ couple will have more than a 95 IQ child.... but still possible.

That being said, I have *grossly* oversimplified, there's a ton of factors to it.... but, in general, idiocy is hereditary to a certain extent.

As far as spraying a neighbors roof for cinder protection, if the neighbor paid, that makes sense...

[tblue37]

102. There is--it's called *taxation* to support public services and infrastructure.

Unfortunately the American people think taxation is always bad, and they are unwilling to pay for the public services and infrastructure they think they have a right to.

[Angry Dragon]

14. A strange world we live in

[Hannah Bell]

17. I think it's the property owners who were the libertarians. They were outside the city & didn't

want to pay to fund its services, so they didn't.

Until they needed them.

I would have put the fire out & sent him the bill, though.

[PoliticAverse]

18. Many fire departments apparently would.

If you don't subscribe they will put out the fire but send you a bill (which can be in the multiple thousands of dollars
when they bill by the hour).

I don't think it has anything to do with 'libertarianism'. It seems they just thought they could get their house fire
put out even if they didn't pay the fee in advance:

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

[Hannah Bell]

21. so he was playing the odds instead of funding the service. if everyone did the same,

no service.

i call those libertarians. or free riders.

[BzaDem]

37. Slight difference here. If everyone did the same, the fire department would have to charge at cost

for putting out fires. That might be thousands of dollars. They might even have to double it, to deal with the loss of income from people who couldn't afford it.

But that is FAR less than the money it would cost for a new house.

[Hannah Bell]

53. um, there wouldn't be a fire department if the funding had to come *after* the fires were out.

[BzaDem]

95. My point is that they would not lose any money if they simply charged full cost to whoever did not

have insurance at the time (plus a possible premium to take care of expected defaults). That is what other cities do in this case, and the amount charged would be FAR less than the value of the home.

[LiberalAndProud]

119. They have lost money.

The municipal fire departments used to charge $500 per incident. More than half of the fees assessed were not paid. The "subscription" was the solution approved by the county commission in April of 2009.

[TheEuclideanOne]

161. Exactly. In my opinion, any city that would have a funding solution

to the Fire Department that includes an option where the Fire Department could sit around and watch a house burn down, is one that is headed by a heartless, vindictive, asshole. It would be the type of person that has to "Teach the residents a lesson" by showing that if they do not help to fund the Fire Department, their house will be destroyed. Somebody with an "I'LL TEACH YOU!!!!" mentality. The reality, as you demonstrated here by coming up with a sensible solution, is that there are probably a half-dozen solutions that take care of the cases of people who don't pay, without letting their houses burn and without the Fire Department going bankrupt. It really depends on whether they want to look for those solutions or not.

IMHO, anybody on this discussion board that is perfectly fine (even happy with) letting this guy's house burn down is a horrible human being. I could give a shit about any of the legal arguments, or examples of cases where this is somehow justified. This should simply not be an option for the fire department!!! When you are in school (kindergarten, elementary school), you learn that the Firemen and women are the heros that come and put the fire out in your house. Have we devolved so much as a society where we now need to teach our children that the Fire Fighter doesn't put the fire out anymore, but instead he asks us first if mommy and daddy gave him $75 at the beginning of the year and then maybe he will think about putting the fire out?

[Hannah Bell]

163. The city isn't obliged to provide *any* services at all to people outside its jurisdiction.

Seventy-five percent of fire calls are from outside its jurisdiction, & when they had a "pay per fire" system, more than half the assholes *never paid*.

Your position is apparently that the city should double taxes on its residents so they could pay for a fire department for a bunch of freeloaders -- who are likely richer than the folks living inside the city, the typical pattern with small rural towns surrounded by "unincorporated" areas.

[NutmegYankee]

34. That is usually how it works.

You get a large service fee. What frightens me is the absolute indifference in this case. What if children had been trapped in the house? They would die for a mere $75?

[Jennicut]

66. Or if there were houses nearby and the fire spread, or it spread to the woods if there

was a forest nearby.

[LiberalAndProud]

71. I suspect he wouldn't have paid the bill.

My spidey sense tells me that Mr. Cranick and the city of South Fulton some history.

:tinfoilhat:

[elias7]

22. more in depth article at this link

http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=46801

[PoliticAverse]

23. Thanks for the update.

This is sort of a microcosm of the health-insurance debate.

[mwooldri]

29. And for the family member to physically assault the fire chief?

Eurgh.

There's no need for this.

[NutmegYankee]

33. Huh. I want to thank the family member. (it was one of the man's sons)

The first step in fighting this Libertarian Bullshit is to remind them that their actions have consequences.

I live out in the countryside and the rule is a fire dept comes out and puts out the fire. If you didn't subscribe, you get nailed with a large service fee.


This case is absolutely frightening - What if there were children trapped in the house? They would have burned to death because the fire dept refused to respond.

[PavePusher]

76. Do you really think they would have done nothing if people were trapped? n/t

[NutmegYankee]

97. Given their actions on Wed?

Yes! I know they state otherwise, but just standing by and watching a house burn makes it obvious they do not care. It takes a very fucked up person to just stand around and watch when they have all the equipment and trucks right there.

[PavePusher]

118. Ufounded extrapolation through misplaced anger. Got it. n/t

[TheEuclideanOne]

146. I would argue that your position is unfounded.

If you can agree that it is okay to let a house burn down because the home owner did not pay his $75 fee, then you would agree that if the fire department did not receive their fee, they have a right to refuse their services. Saving the people who are in the house is part of their service, so based on that logic, how can you argue that they should save the people's lives inside. Remember, the guy did not pay the $75 to the guys that will stop the fire, he clearly does not deserve their assistance, so why in the world would you expect those unpaid fireman to perform any services?

[PavePusher]

232. There is a vast difference in property vs. lives.

At least, that's what everyone keeps saying in the "Gungeon".

I guess property is important when it's burning, but not when it's being stolen.

[WolverineDG]

122. Even more idiotic to blow off the numerous attempts by said fire department

to get the guy to pay his fee. Letters, phone calls, face-to-face contact.

He rolled the dice & lost.

dg

[rhett o rick]

128. YES

[PavePusher]

142. Heh. Well, thanks for playing... 8>) n/t

[TheEuclideanOne]

143. Do you really think they WOULDN'T?

I am surprised at all of the people here arguing in favor of letting the guy's house burn down. It is pretty disgusting IMHO to see all of the people here on DU taking this position. Sure, they would have let the children die and you would have the same people here arguing that it is great that their children are dead because, hey, he didn't pay the fee ahead of time and the death of his children is a small price to pay to show how important it is to pay your fees ahead of time. If children don't die, how else will the fire department be able to pay their bills, right? You have to send a message. I am sure that all of you heartless assholes would agree.

[seabeyond]

180. sure they would have let people dies? great that the kids are dead?

ridiculously assuming post in lecture. the department was there. probably to ensure all out of house and fire didnt spread. until you can prove otherwise, your post is the worst of hyperbole

[TheEuclideanOne]

190. Just applying the logic here that you and others are using

The guy didn't pay right? How do you draw the line at simply letting all of his families possessions burn? Why is it ridiculous to assume that it would end there. Can I prove otherwise....Yes I can.... they let the guy's house burn down. That is your precedent. If I was not involved in this discussion, I would find it even shameful that so many people would be so damn comfortable arguing that it is okay for the guy's house to be allowed to burn down because he did not pay $75. But it is what it is. So how can you make the argument about the house without making the same argument for the family? And let me reverse it, if you find it so wrong to let his family burn in the house, how do you not feel the same way about his house? You know, his house, probably every possession he owns and his family owns... and who even knows what his financial position is, he could be hit hard by the economy. But, that is all theoretical... the bottom line is that we all know how significant your house is.

[seabeyond]

193. well, see, i have not said anything, but that they would not let someone die.

things are not people. to suggest another person would let a child die and people on this board would be joyous about it is sick. it does not apply logic. if you exclude the difference between a thing and human in your thinking then you are illogical.

and irresponsible in your posting

[TheEuclideanOne]

202. It does apply logic. It applies YOUR logic.

Okay, so let's say that they would not be joyous, instead the would feel really bad that they did not put out the fire and a family died. Does that make you feel better? So, just to be clear, you can sleep at night if a man and his family lose all of their possessions because the fire department stood out front and watched the house burn. As long as nobody got hurt, right? But why would that be a consideration since the guy did not pay, he does not get their services. As another poster pointed out, court cases have sided on the police for not having to provide their service. The position that you are taking, like it or not, can lead to the family burning.

[seabeyond]

206. equating people with things is not logical. acceptance of things burned equating joy to death

of a person is not logical.

you fail

yet refuse to acknowledge you fail

[TheEuclideanOne]

271. So let me add two more things that you are wrong on

First, the Fire department did not come out to watch the house in case people were in danger. They simply did not come out because he "was not on the list". They just happened to be there because the next door neighboor's house caught fire as a result. The would not have come out at all if the neighbor's house did not catch on fire, so if the guy's family was trapped inside, their death would not be a concern of the fire department.

Second, he did lose 3 dogs and 2 cats. All of these 5 animals burned to death alive because the fire department refused to put out the fire. Does that bother you?

BTW, my equating people with things is perfectly logical in this case. The fire department does not ask if people are going to burn or if things are going to burn. Both are completely fair game here, entirely equal. In short, anything in that house will burn because the guy did not pay is $75.

[PavePusher]

233. I don't think anyone is "arguing in favor of letting the guy's house burn down."

It is simply that no-one feels particularly inclined to rescue his property from his own stupidity. At risk to the lives of the firemen, mind you.

Any hyperbole you extrapolate from that is purely your own invention.

[TheEuclideanOne]

240. I don't think anyone is "arguing in favor of letting the guy's house burn down."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Just wondering.... you have been reading the posts in this thread, right?

[rhett o rick]

258. If they can stand there and watch someone's home burn to the ground, who's to say? nm

[HughMoran]

278. Agreed

[rhett o rick]

127. I think under the circumstances I would have also. Asshole. nm

[annabanana]

28. k&r for all those "the government is the problem" people. . .n/t

[MineralMan]

30. Youse should pay up. We don't want anything should happen

to youse. I'm just sayin...

[Abq_Sarah]

82. It'snot like the FD torched the house

The homeowner wanted a free ride. They wanted a "free" service at the expense of the city taxpayers.

[jpgray]

31. This is why the millicents never go Galt in the speculative freeholds of fiction

Or something.

[Agony]

35. To have fire equipment, know how to use it, and stand by watching a home burn is wrong.

Put the fire out first and straighten the mess out later. It does not matter that this Cranick jerk did not pay his $75. Fer fucks sake I thought life wasn't a tit for tat deal if you have a progressive/empathetic world view. Do we really let people like Cranick drive the meaning of community? The guy may have had kids? Do they have to suffer because their father is a jerk?

This kind of bullshit makes me mad as hell can you tell?

Cheers anyway...
Agony

[Lorien]

99. Me too

they should have put the fire out then sent him a bill for it, but to stand by and watch it burn was criminal, imho.

[Hannah Bell]

164. 75% of municipal fire calls in the area are rural -- from outside the municipality.

A city fire department can't survive when 75% of its calls are from people who aren't paying for the service. When they tried charging for each fire they fought, more than half the jerks never paid.

They have no obligation to respond to *any* fire outside their jurisdiction.

[TorchTheWitch]

204. It's because he's a Libertarian

If he had been described as a Liberal the comments would be completely different. These "tough shit for him" type comments are only because of who the guy is not the circumstances and go against everything Dems are SUPPOSED to believe in... that fire service should be paid for through taxes on a scale determined by ability to pay. A flat fee is grossly unfair in that it's too much for poor people to afford while wealthy people can afford far more.

If I were in this guy's place right now I wouldn't have paid the fee either, not because I didn't want to but because I couldn't afford that "measly" $75. People like me in financial difficulty have to make these gambling decisions every day - pay for the car insurance or buy gas for the car; pay the electric bill or buy food; pay for the doctor or treat yourself and pray; pay for the fire service fee or buy your meds, etc. Most of my life I've had to make these gambling decisions, but those decisions only affected me. Not putting out this guy's burning house could have affected other property nearby, other people who may have been in the house; smoke damage to other property and neighbors, etc. Even if his house is isolated, fire can spread, and letting it burn unchecked is a far bigger gamble in that an uncontrollable forest/praire fire could be started than the gamble of this one guy not paying a flat $75 against the possibility that his house may catch fire. Pay a fee or let the house burn down is a 19th century Libertarian attitude that it makes me sick still goes on in this country and disgusts me that professed Dems here are perfectly ok with it.

The counties where I live outside the city have small volunteer fire departments that I believe are paid for through property taxes. Since I'm a renter, and don't pay property taxes, I don't actually know what local taxes are used. Once a year the local department sends out a letter requesting donations to help defray costs, and people DO donate especially because they know that the firefighters are all volunteers... but it's a voluntary donation - not a fee. This year I couldn't afford to donate, but because I couldn't afford it I still don't have to gamble that they'll let my house burn down because my community along with the surrounding communities with this same system are smart enough and compationate enough to realize that demanding a flat fee from everyone for fire service and letting their house burn down if they don't pay it is no way to run a community and that fire service like police service and other community services should be paid for through taxes.

[Agony]

281. Thank you for your very clear headed reply

I had no idea the waters here were SO muddy...

As a volunteer fire fighter with sixteen years of experience I thank you for whatever you donate to a volunteer fire company. You do what you can do.

I'm gonna put the witch out tho...

[BzaDem]

38. This makes no sense. What happens if people were in the house?

[Zax2me]

41. Doesn't make sense

If they didn't respond, how could they watch it burn?
Hard to imagine firefighters not putting out a fire. Don't they take an oath or something?!
Whatever local government set this up, if true, should be booted from office. Never heard of such a thing.

[Zax2me]

42. Just...silly.

Just read second link that was provided in thread.
If they can respond to house next door, which did pay, that means they can respond.
Didn't pay?
Fine.
You put out the fire, bill them the 75 bucks, and tack on an extra fee if you want for not paying in the first place.
Fire out, owner out less than a couple hundred bucks but house survives - you can then argue the way it was all setup but for gosh sakes, put out the fire if you can.
This isn't difficult, why make it so.

[TwixVoy]

43. GOOD

No sympathy for this guy. He is likely a right wing anti-tax nut who would just as easily watch a poor person die on the street than offer up a small fraction of his income to help them.

Chances are this guy will stop voting republican after this event.

[Junkdrawer]

46. Wonder if he had homeowner's insurance?

Would the insurance company be able to decline payment on the basis of negligence?

[Edweird]

48. $75/yr sounds like a bargain. I wonder why he elected not to subscribe.

[alfredo]

70. He might have been the Libertarian.

[Edweird]

90. If that's the case then the system worked. Maybe he's 'seen the light'.

[alfredo]

96. Don't put money on it.

[Greyhound]

56. Wow. tripping back to the 19th century...

and a few defend this...
:wow:

[LiberalAndProud]

84. Yes, I do defend it.

This didn't happen in a vaccuum. Responsible people have tried to address this problem. The subscription system was the system that prevailed in the vote by the County Commission. This was intentional. They didn't want to force it on people. No contest.

Seals was the only sane voice on the commission.
http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=25587

By JOHN BRANNON Messenger Staff Reporter By a lopsided majority vote of 19 yes, 1 no and 1 pass, the Obion County Commission decreed Monday that a rural fire protection program will be offered to property owners through a subscription system. County commissioner Jimmy Seals cast the lone dissenting vote.

[Greyhound]

236. That you don't see the insanity of this is truly scary. n/t

[WolverineDG]

85. Because we understand the difference between living in the city & living in the county

county residents aren't required to pay city taxes, which fund things like fire departments.

dg

[Lorien]

98. They're part of the "me first, screw you" culture that apparently is now full of

so called "Democrats". Sorry, but if I see ANYONES home on fire I want it put out, and if I can personally do something to help put it out I'll do it. We're supposed to be members of a society, after all.

[LiberalAndProud]

117. They voted for this system 19 to 1 with 1 abstention.

The only recourse the city has is to withhold services from those who refuse to help pay for it. The county commission didn't want to force anyone to pay. So they didn't. And the guy who didn't pay depends on people like you to cover his ass.

How is it fair that he pays $1.92 per $1,000 on his property and folks in the city pay that plus $1.32? And now the guy thinks he is entitled to the same protection as the folks who pay for it.

The city has been getting stiffed for years. 75% of fires are in rural areas. Less than 50% anted up after services had been provided. I'd be fed up if I were living in the city. Fed up, taking names and kicking ass.

[Hannah Bell]

166. The county residents are the ones who are part of that culture. The city residents are willing to

pay for a fire department. The county residents wanted to leave it up to individuals whether to pay or not. This guy didn't want to pay $6.25/mo. Too bad for him, he got what he paid for.

I live in a rural town surrounded by an unincorporated area. The people living outside the city limits are typically a lot more well-heeled than those living inside the city.

[Greyhound]

265. Which is exactly why when this dimwit, who probably counts himself among the "rugged individualists"

of the idiot parties (repuke or tea), asked to have the fire extinguished, they should have done so and billed him the cost.

[Greyhound]

237. OMG, you communist!

:rofl:

This is so indicative of the literal insanity that has gripped this nation for, how long now?

[opihimoimoi]

254. Capitalist system in play.....n/t

[TomCADem]

60. Must Keep Taxes Low! Fee for Service!

[WolverineDG]

61. So a county resident who doesn't pay city taxes

didn't pay the $75 fee for fire protection from the city. You don't get something for nothing.

That's not a "libertarian utopia." Living in the county, he doesn't pay city taxes, which is what pays for the fire department (as well as police & other emergency services). I'm sure he knew he had to pay $75 to the city for fire protection, but didn't. Sorry he had to learn his lesson the hard way.

dg--lives in a city whose emergency services have to cover a very large county full of moochers who don't pay their fees either

[TomCADem]

103. Not A Tax, A Fee For Service...A Tax Is Compulsory...

...But you can opt out of a fee, and avoid paying for a service you do not use.

[WolverineDG]

106. Yes, but people on this thread expect the city to provide fire service

to a county resident for free.

dg

[TomCADem]

107. The Vast Majority Of Cities Pay For Fire Protection With General Taxes

...But I guess this city decided to be entrepreneurial, and pay for fire protection through an annual subscription plan. It is one way to lower taxes is to make public services ala carte, but this shows the significant draw backs of such an approach.

[PoliticAverse]

109. Please read the posted article....

the home involved was _outside of the city limits_. The city could not collect taxes from them
because they didn't live in the city.

[TomCADem]

114. Well, Then That Is Like Calling A Los Angeles Fire Department To Respond...

...To a fire in San Diego. He should have called for fire from the service provider having jurisdiction over his home. It could just be a jurisdictional issue like calling the police department in a neighboring city, rather than your city's police department or the County Sheriff if you live in unincorporated territory.

[Hannah Bell]

168. The county doesn't have a fire department. They voted not to have one, & to allow individuals to

contract, as individuals, with the city.

This individual chose not to. Hence, he didn't get the service when his house caught on fire.

[tammywammy]

110. No, the fire dept in this article was from the city, the house was in the county outside city limits

The annual fee for fire protection is because the county residences don't pay city taxes.

[TomCADem]

115. But if you live in unincorporated territory, then you call the County...

...Instead of city police, you would call the County sheriff.

[tammywammy]

116. And there's no county fire dept here

They were offered fire protection for $75/year or you're SOL and it's been that way there for years, it wasn't a sudden change.

The city only has a population of a couple thousand. They cannot afford to keep raising their taxes to pay for fire service outside the city limits (the county has over 30k residences). When you live in a rural area this is one of the things you deal with. They should have paid the $75.

[14thColony]

152. Reading the entire article before commenting might be a big help. nt

[WolverineDG]

121. The homeowner did not live inside the city limits

Jeez, how hard is it to understand that very simple concept? :banghead:

The fee is not in addition to taxes already paid. It is a subscription service provided to those who live outside the city limits so they have protection from fire. This guy decided (after numerous letters & phone calls) that he didn't want to pay the $75/year fee. I bet that $75 is way less than city residents have to pay in taxes for the same service.

dg

[Hannah Bell]

167. No, the city assesses taxes to pay for its fire department. Those living outside

the city don't pay those taxes, & the city isn't obliged to fight their fires.

[Renew Deal]

124. You're making the libertarian argument.

And in theory this fee system is a libertarian wet dream. "Government shouldn't be putting out fires."

[WolverineDG]

209. No, I'm not making "the libertarian argument"

:eyes: :banghead:

It's a very simple concept that many here for whatever reason (reading comprehension problems, political bias, ignorance of how jurisdiction &/or reality work) can't or don't understand: the city can only tax those within the city limits. They cannot levy a tax on those who live outside the city. For whatever reason, the county has not made an agreement with the city to provide fire service & tax county residents for that service at the county level. They instead agreed on a yearly fee, to be paid by county residents to the city on a voluntary basis. The city then follows up with numerous letters, phone calls, & face-to-face contacts to make sure that everyone who wants fire protection gets it.

You can't expect or demand that the city residents to foot the entire bill for fire service. The money has to come from somewhere, & I just bet that $75/year VOLUNTARY fee is way less than what the city residents have to pay for the same service.

dg

[Renew Deal]

211. The county can contract the city fire service and tax their residents.

The county could have chosen to do that, and you know what... the service would probably be cheaper than $75 because you would have near 100% compliance vs. what it is now. They would also be doing the proactive thing to protect their residents instead of the quasi-libertarian "subscription" service you are defending.

[WolverineDG]

214. And did the county commissioners just decide one day to be county commissioners

or did people elect them? It's not libertarianism to expect people to pay for the services provided by their local governments, ffs. How else will the city cover the costs of providing fire protection to the county? And as for 100% compliance with people paying taxes--ha!

Stop being obtuse & learn a little about the different levels of government & the limits to their taxing authority.

dg

[Renew Deal]

218. You're exagerating the limits of their taxing authority to make your argument.

The county they live in can contract the fire service and bill some or all of their residents to cover the bill. Do you disagree with that?

[WolverineDG]

249. But the county didn't do that, & by an overwhelming vote, went with the subscription service plan

which this homeowner chose not to subscribe to. No point in arguing over what the county could do or should have done.

dg

[HughMoran]

279. Welcome to the 19th Century

:eyes:

[mainer]

68. The family declined both mail and phone offers of coverage

They made it pretty clear they didn't want the FD to serve them -- when they thought they'd never need it.

[bettyellen]

80. and this happened to someone else in the area a couple years ago, he knowingly risked it

[Rex]

72. America is full of Dark Age cities and towns that love to be regressive.

I think they hope for the End Times so the rest of us can die.

[Agony]

73. Maybe South Fulton should give back the federal grant they got to buy turnout gear

if they are not going to put out fires. I am assuming of course that the idiot who failed to pay the $75 fee is a taxpayer, but if he is, he paid for the turnout gear of the company that refused to help his family when they needed it. This whole situation is ridiculous. My country has become a republican joke!

[wtmusic]

208. Amen

$75/yr from every homeowner in the area doesn't buy trucks and pay for maintenance and salaries.

[jillan]

81. I think the firefighters should have put out the fire and then the city should've charged the family

whatever it cost for the firefighters to do so.

It's kinda like having insurance and not having insurance. They chose the later.

[LiberalAndProud]

87. Except it's not the same.

If the people of South Fulton didn't pay almost double in taxes, there would be no fire department to call. Read the link up above. The fire department used to charge $500 per incident. Less than 50% of the fees were paid. The fire department couldn't collect. It's not rocket science. If there is no money up front, there is no fire department.

[BlueCheese]

131. I understand all that.

But still, letting someone's house burn down is an awful penalty to impose.

I know the reasoning will be--hey, if we put this guy's fire out even though he didn't pay, then nobody will pay, etc. There's some validity to that. On the other hand, we don't say--gee, you guys knew that New Orleans is prone to flooding. Why didn't you buy flood insurance. It's just hard to imagine a fire crew sitting there and watching while all of their earthly possessions were destroyed.

[TNLib]

88. I can almost see not having a rural fire department but why not

use property taxes to pay for all the citizens in the county instead of giving them a choice to opt out. The fees should be spread among the populace.

[MrScorpio]

91. This "fee" poison is spreading fast

Property taxes are the fairest and most equitable way to ensure that public safety services are shared by all.

[depakid]

101. Watching the breakdown of the social contract in America really has been impressive

This is yet another story that will cause people in more sensible nations to shake their heads in disbelief.

[WolverineDG]

94. pray tell how the city can impose taxes

on residents & property that are not within city limits.

dg

[WolverineDG]

123. because not all the citizens in the county live in the city

why should the city residents foot the bill for the entire county?

dg

[tammywammy]

92. I hope they had home owner's insurance....

[Iggo]

93. I'm having real trouble drumming up respect for a fireman...

...who would just stand there and do nothing while a family pleads with them to put out the fire, simply because the family couldn't pay them.

I may feel differently later, but right now I'm disgusted.

[tblue37]

104. There is no indication that the family "couldn't" pay them. The

story is that the family didn't pay because they thought they could get away with not paying the fee.

First of all, like most people, they assumed their house wouldn't ever catch on fire. But secondly, and this is important, the owner said that he just assumed that even if he refused to pay the fee, the FD would still put out the fire if something did happen to his house. In other words, he didn't want to pay the extremely reasonable $75 subscription fee, because he figured he could still get protection for free if he didn't.

He was deliberately atempting to be a freeloader, because he thought he could get away with it.

[Iggo]

108. Sorry, I meant to type 'didn't.'

[tammywammy]

112. I would think when the annual notices and phone calls come

If you tell them that you cannot afford it right now, and ask maybe for a payment plan the city fire dept would work with you. When they send letters and call to make sure the rural residents have protection, doesn't seem like they want people to go without.

Considering what the homeowner said that he thought they would do it anyway, and there's no mention of a hardship, it sounds like he was just trying to be a freeloader.

[rhett o rick]

130. They must not follow the teachings of Jesus. "Pay or we dont help". Not very Christian. nm

[closeupready]

251. Exactly. I was trying to think of a nice way to say the same thing, but failed.

You succeeded. Thanks. :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

170. $6.25/mo, do you really think the family couldn't pay them? Residents of unincorporated areas

outside rural towns are typically much richer than the townies in my neck of the woods.

There were no firemen at the fire; they didn't answer the call because the resident opted not to pay for fire services. They didn't come until the fire spread to another person's property -- who had paid. They didn't come out to the fire & just stand there.

The city has no obligation to provide services for the county in the first place.

[Liberal_in_LA]

100. why didn't they pay the $75?

[tblue37]

105. They thought that even if they didn't pay the FD would still come out and put out

the fire if one happened. They were attempting to get the protection without paying for it.

[rhett o rick]

129. It doesnt matter. Libertarians are heartless. Help your neighbor, even if he is an asshole. nm

[ZenKitty]

280. Meanwhile don't you think they deserve the

$75.00 ??! What the heck where they hinking other than "it won't happen to me so I'll save a few bucks/screw the local VFD".

Signed,

A cowgirl that has lived in the country her entire life knowing that our selfless volunteer firefighters have our backs. I gladly pay my $110.00 every year (plus a bit more at the annual open house/fund raiser). These are young men and women that put themselves in harms way protecting life...worth the $75/$110??? Hell yes!! and I think Oreo agrees. :)

[Stinky The Clown]

120. Many, many years ago I lived in Hixon, TN, just north of Chattanooga. That's the way it was.

Fire protection was "by subscription." Our mortgage required that we subscribed.

I'm sure Mr. Cranick remains glad he saved that $75 "tax."

[BlueCheese]

125. Horrifying.

Yes, the homeowner should have paid for fire protection. But the real culprit here is this primitive system in which you have to pay a fee for vital services. There will always be people who either try to game the system, or are too disorganized to pay the fee, or whose fees get lost in the mail, etc. If the local government won't even put out fires, what the hell is it for?

As for what the firefighters should have done, given that that county has this ridiculous system, lets think about an analogy to health insurance. Suppose someone decides not to buy health insurance, thinking he won't get sick. Then he develops cancer. Fortunately it's early enough that it can be treated. But now he has a pre-existing condition, and insurance companies won't cover him without charging him enough to cover his treatment. He can't afford that. We don't say, hey, let the guy die? He had his chance to buy insurance, and he didn't.

It's hard to believe that firefighters stood around and watched a house burn down.

[BlueCheese]

132. The son who punched out the fire chief is 44.

I'm guessing then his parents are 70 or so. Probably retired. Watched their house burn down as firefighters stood by.

What a country.

[a2liberal]

140. And this is how conservatives/libertarians want everything to be

Why do people think some of these sound absurd but yet accept the last one as normal?

Want fire protection? Buy fire insurance.
Want police protection? Buy crime insurance.
Want to not starve to death when you lose your job? Buy your own unemployment insurance and food stamp insurance.
Want to not die because you get sick? Buy health insurance.

[LiberalAndProud]

141. Gene Cranick and government subsidies.

USDA Subsidies
1996 $265
1997 $323
1998 $422
1999 $542
2000 $2,044
2001 $666
2002 $818
2003 $115
2004 $214
2005 $339
2006 $365
2007 $214
2008 $214
2009 $209
Total $6,750



http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=007236505

[PoliticAverse]

145. Same Gene Cranick in the article?

"Tobacco Subsidies $19"

Was that paid to grow it or not to grow it?

[Hannah Bell]

173. commodity subsidies = paid when market price is low. conservation subsidies = paid not

to grow (when price is high or just to bank acreage available as cropland).

He got both, mostly commodity subsidies.

In two states.

I think he's not some impoverished backwoodsman.

[Hannah Bell]

171. which supports the theory that the twit could have easily paid $6.25/mo

for fire protection & is a libertarian free rider.

subsidies from two different states, corn, wheat & tobacco = he owns more than a few acres.

[JVS]

144. As much as I dislike libertarian public policy, I can't help but feel that these assholes got what..

they deserved. They didn't want to pay for the city's service and as a result they didn't get the service.

[PoliticAverse]

174. <deleted>

[cartach]

165. Put it on the tax bill

I live in a rural area and we don't pay anything extra over our regular taxes for fire hall services. However if I don't cut or control my weeds the municipality will, after a warning letter,cut them and charge the cost to my tax bill. In a case like this if people don't pay the extra for fire services but at the last minute want same because a fire is happening then they should be charged the actual cost which of course would be much higher than $75. A bylaw could be passed to this effect and include that failure to pay would mean the amount would be added to taxes.Something like this would avoid a lot of grief. Prior payment should not be a reason for people to stand by and do nothing especially if the cost of doing something can eventually be collected as I doubt that anyone would want to lose their house through foreclosure by refusing to pay. The best way is to include fire protection costs in the overall taxes and leave it at that.

[Baalath]

186. But these people don't pay taxes to the city with the fire dept.

A county and a city are different things. If the City A has a fire department, paid for by the taxes from its citizens, the fire department can't be responsible to put out fires outside of City A for free. It is stealing money from the people who live in City A. If you obligated a fire department to go to fires outside their city and put out fires for people who don't have a fire department, no city could afford a fire department.

The county has some responsiblity here. One option would be the county could contract with City A and they could collect the fee from the county residents. The County could create their own fire department and pay for it themselves from taxes from their residents. I am surprised that mortage companies and insurance companies don't require their homeowners to purchase this fire coverage. Makes me wonder if this family had no insurance at all. I think the ultimate responsiblity for this falls with the family for not paying the fee. It was their home, it is their responsiblity to care for it.

It is become more common for one city to contract fire department from another city.

[kristopher]

169. This is an expected failure when a voluntary free market solution is used to provide a public good

Total voluntary spending on the public service will always fall short of what is deemed proper by the people when they independently assess how much should be spent by society on that good.

My second thought is how in the hell do people there get homeowners insurance?

[Baalath]

188. I posted about it already, but I wondered the same thing.

I don't think these people could have any insurance on their home or a mortgage. I guess that is their choice on how to spend their money, but they made a dumb ass choice if they chose not have ANY insurance.

[PoliticAverse]

175. Followup: More fallout following house fire

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/More-fallout-following-house-fire-104113489.html

(please watch the video or read the article before commenting on it).

[PoliticAverse]

298. Another followup article

Tennessee Tragedy: Family Had No Fire Service But Had Some Insurance.

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/southeast/2010/10/05/113824.htm

[chrisa]

179. Stupid. They could have just charged them later.

For their services.

[tammywammy]

183. That's what they used to do, charge $500

Only 50% of the people paid that, that's why they went to an annual fee. The city sent a mailer and followed up with houses that didn't enroll in the fire protection.

[spicegal]

181. How much you want to bet that the folks who made those rules

were Republican. This is where the GOP is taking us......keep cutting taxes, cut more vital services, and privatize everything, including fire, rescue, law enforcement. Where does it end? People better wake up before it's too late. I wonder if the people who's house burned vote Republican. I bet they do, and I bet they still haven't connected the dots.

[Vinca]

182. I bet the town immediately collected a whole lot of $75 payments.

[reggie the dog]

185. here in france fire service is a right

just like health care, if you live in the city or the countryside or even in the suburbs you just call the 18 emergency number and they come out, if you own property you pay a proterty tax if you rent you pay a renters tax but our socialized system keeps all firefighting as a public right but i live in france and we like chocolate and cheese....so what do i know?

[Baalath]

187. I assume they evict people who don't pay their property taxes there.

So I am not sure it is a right, but it is certainly an obligation of the local governments that they must provide. I think it is more a requirement on government than a right of the citizens.

Which I think is a good idea.

[reggie the dog]

191. eviction is very hard here

even if you havent paid rent for a year it is hard to get evicted, they fine you over unpaid property tax but evictions are almost unheard of, they will just garnish your wages... i consider it a right to have fire service as it is something everyone benefits from be they owners, renters, or neither (think of kids ect living in parents houses) you pay your taxes and have a right to certain services amongst them, firefighters

[Renew Deal]

216. It's a right in most of the US too

This is one ugly exception.

[seabeyond]

224. like in france, most of the u.s. pay for this service thru taxes. it isnt the right to service, it

is right to service paid for.

[cynatnite]

207. No one ever thinks they need it until they need it...this family did NOT deserve this. n/t

[WolverineDG]

210. So we should protect someone who is too cheap to pay $75 a year

to protect property that is worth thousands? No, sorry, don't think so.

Penny wise, pound foolish.

dg

[Renew Deal]

215. Yes, because that's the moral thing to do.

Do you also oppose food stamps, welfare, etc? The people that need it are probably getting more out than they paid in. You would let them starve right?

And what if someone was in that house? Should they be allowed to burn to death because the bill wasn't paid?

[WolverineDG]

217. You really are being obtuse

or live in some weird reality where you can get something for nothing. :eyes: Everyone somehow pays into the system that provides food stamps & welfare. But in this particular county, only the city residents are required to pay taxes for fire service. Do you expect them to pay double or triple taxes so county residents can freeload? Nope, sorry, doesn't work that way.

dg

[Renew Deal]

219. Everyone doesn't somehow pay into the system

There are people that get more than they give. It happens in all levels of government. This case is the responsibility of the county not the city. The county can bill some or all of their residents to get service from the city. And I bet if they billed all their citizens, it would be even cheaper than $75. Now why would you do that? Because it's the moral thing to do.

I just want to know. If someone was in that house should they have been rescued or would you permit them to die?

[cynatnite]

225. The county should send them a bill if they insist on this stupid system..

Sue them if they don't pay it or whatever.

There is no excuse for this family to lose their home and everything in it. None.

The neighbors knew it was wrong, too. They tried to help put out the fire with water hoses. I hope this county and fire department are sued over this.

[WolverineDG]

248. They used to do that & it didn't work

$75 a year for fire protection is a bargain.

dg

[seabeyond]

226. not for things. someone doesnt have car insurance, we do not pay to have car fixed

cause it is the "moral" thing to do.

someone in the house burning, they would get him out. that is the moral thing to do. it is a person.
someone need care from an vehicle accident without insurance, we would pay for the medical treatment because it is the right thing to do.

[cynatnite]

223. It's an idiotic system. That's what taxes are for. No family should lose everything like this. n/t

[seabeyond]

227. when they moved out there, they knew they did not have the service.

it was their choice to live there. it was their choice to remain without service.

[Renew Deal]

228. Don't be so sure that they know.

There are a lot of places with hidden local issues like fire, water, or sanitation districts. Just move to Long Island and you'll learn all about that.

[seabeyond]

229. never having chosen to live outside city, i would absolute find out that info... and i dont

know shit.

and they were certainly asked a number of times about paying it. they were not uninformed. they knew the consequence of their choice to not pay.

[Renew Deal]

230. They were partially informed.

They were reminded to pay. They probably didn't know when they first moved there. I wonder what happens when the previous owner doesn't pay and the current owner hasn't had a chance to pay yet. I guess they let it burn.

The owner also admits that he didn't know the consequence of not paying. He thought they'd put the fire out anyway.

[seabeyond]

234. you cant say they probably did not know.... lol. nu uh. i think it more unlikely they did not know

than that they were well informed and made a decision, taking a risk.

i have bought many houses. people are informed.

[WolverineDG]

250. That's what the $75 fee was for

county residents living in unincorporated areas don't pay city taxes. :eyes:

why this incredibly simple concept keeps slipping the minds of people here is beyond me....

dg

[Love Bug]

220. Geeze, what's next? Fees for 911 calls?

My question is, will the homeowner's insurance cover this loss or will they try to weasel out of paying, claiming the homeowners were negligent?

I'm not defending this, by any means. This is the kind of thing we pay taxes for and first responders shouldn't be made to cherry pick who they help.

[PoliticAverse]

222. If only...

he had paid the $75 'tax'.

If only the county government where he lives had voted to tax him to make him
provide for his own fire service.

BTW: I once called 911 in NYC for an ambulance for my aunt. An ambulance run
by the city arrived and took her to the local hospital. Weeks later she received
a several hundred dollar bill for the service.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

274. The operative word there being "LATER". -nt

[dccrossman]

221. The Libertarian Fallacy at it's finest!

I hate to see anyone go through such a horrible experience, but hopefully someone, somewhere, will learn something.

I'm waiting for the subscription based police protection. Imagine the insanity.

[Flipper999]

242. Yeah, I seem to remember some other organization selling protection.

You'd pay a dude named Big Tony for "protection", and your store or home wouldn't get vandalized. Sounds like a great system!

On a related note, I once read an article a while back about members of a private fire department in Portugal being investigated for arson. It seems that they were trying to drum up new business. I wish I'd saved the link.

If you give someone a financial incentive to screw you, don't be surprised when you get screwed.

[Robyn66]

241. You know what, they should have paid

I am going to sound like a cold hearted bitch here. But I work for a municipality that is on its third default budget and has a fire department that works out of a fire house that should litteraly be condemned. These guys have to fight to have oxygen bottles every year and are going in to burning buildings and putting their lives at risk for cheap bastards every day who would LOVE to have the opportunity to completely opt-out of supporting the town, ESPECIALLY the fire department in any way. They say its GODS WILL that places burn down and are anti fire, police and town government UNTIL its THEIR house that burns or is broken in to, or THEIR road that is falling apart.

Sounds like there were no lives in danger here, these people got what they paid for and what they wanted which was NO fire department.

[txlibdem]

247. Privatizing all government services is the Republicon's ultimate goal

If you can't pay then you are SOL. Police? Not for you. Fire Dept? Too bad. Education for your kids? You didn't pay so you don't get to play.

I guess folks in that part of the country should install a sprinkler system or build out of non-flammable materials. Or both.

[mikeSchmuckabee]

256. Did he offer perhaps $150?

Certainly, a private company would have a price. Has he priced competing fire departments?

[Bonobo]

262. I'm a volunteer firefighter.

"Volunteer" as in "I do it for no compensation".

Want to guess what I'd like to see happen to those "firefighters" that watched the house go up in flames cause of $75?

[MisterP]

273. thing is, liberts can't even comprehend why you and I would be outraged by the scene:

"so? they refused to pay, they don't deserve some goddamn do-gooder's water"

"Atlas Shrugged" is explicitly psychopatic, and encourages people to be such--no have no heart, to not care

all their Heinlein and survivalist fantasies are variants of "the and and the grasshopper," and they simply can't concieve of the "ants" getting screwed over by the more powerful; they can't see themselves as victims of individuals or of circumstance (which to them doesn't exist). if they have their Kalashnikovs, GoldLine, and canned beans they think that nothing, not even the Bomb, can really affect them

[Burma Jones]

293. My Mom's side of the Family hails from Obion County, TN

Many still live there. It was a completely dry county until the folks in Union City got tired of not having a fine dining establishment such as Ruby Tuesday in the county, so since about 2002, you can get Beer and Wine. We used to have to drive up to Kentucky to buy beer and wine. There's the Dixie Gun and Antique Car Museum in Union City, a movie theater with four screens and a WalMart, that's about it for entertainment - Church is the main form of entertainment in Obion County.

I have a cousin there that builds and rents out houses. He pays fees for all of his properties. It's basically letting people pick what taxes they want to pay and, if they don't want to pay up, they suffer the consequences. For Cranick, I hope that his insurance company doesn't refuse to pay because he did not pay for fire protection.