Fire Services *should* be available for all, that is the point.

[uncommon]

I see a lot of DUers upset that some of us sided with the fire department in the now infamous case the other day.

Here is the thing - we (or at least I, and I assume the others) don't think it's okay for there not to be fire services. I don't think it's okay to sit by and watch someone's home destroyed when they could be helped.

I DO think that what we saw a tiny glimpse of where this country is headed however. According to the stories, this particular area of voters chose to implement this system of fee based service. According to the stories, this homeowner actively chose not to pay the voted for fees because he believed the fire department would help him anyway if he ran into trouble.

Can you imagine the future? As we privatize more and more services (i.e., go back to the good old days), this will happen at an increasing rate.

Over the long term, it will be the poor and middle class who won't be able to afford many of the now public services and will suffer for it. Because of people like this homeowner and his neighbors who would rather have optional services than true public services.

[Tunkamerica]

1. It's a 20-year-old procedure

I think the real failure is to not make it automated, or at the very least difficult to ignore or forget. The owner of this house says he forgot. If he had recurring payments drafted from his account that would not have happened. If more than one notice came it would not have happened. From what I gather the city calls county residents before their 'policy' (?) has expired to remind them. If that happened and he still didn't pay, then it's his fault.

Also, what's weird is that he said the insurance will cover the loss. He was insured for less than the value, but it will cover what he was covered for. I find it strange that they would LET him be uncovered by fire protection and then pay on fire damages. IT seems strange knowing how strict my homeowners insurance is. Of course, I have a FHA loan and every piece had to be in place before anyone would even think of allowing me to buy a home.

[Hannah Bell]

10. no, it's not a twenty-year procedure. the county voted in the policy in 2009.

http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=25587

April 21, 2009

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.

[Tunkamerica]

14. I was quoting the owner, he had it wrong?

maybe so... though it seems strange he'd be off by 19 years

[aka-chmeee]

22. Probably not wrong,

Near the end of cited article, Commissioner Seals noted that a plan with similar features was established in the 80s.

[Hannah Bell]

41. what cited article? i don;t see any cite in the op.

in the link i posted, seals is talking about the 1987 vote for a county-funded volunteer fire department, not a subscription system.

the commissioners voted to establish a volunteer fire dept in 1987, but never funded it or took any steps to establish it.

consequently, there is a volunteer fire dept on paper, but not in reality.

[aka-chmeee]

45. Okay, YAIB

I should have spent more time parsing the tangled english. I prostrate myself before your superior intellect, but still think the houseowner must have known what he was talking about.

[KittyWampus]

39. He did not forget. He was repeatedly reminded. He CHOOSE not to pay.

[dsc]

2. and if the city continues to serve the county for free

it won't be available for anyone. This is an undenaibley sad situation but the city and its firemen aren't the problem here, the county and its residents are.

[sybylla]

19. exactly

And what horrible people for putting caring firefighters in such a disgusting position.

[rustyd55]

3. lets cut more tax

There are more cases that have caused deaths.The cuts are doing this.If we cant support them with manpower how can we expect them to keep risking theyre lives.Its like suicide.They are closing firehouses laying off fireman and cutting tax on billionaires and big corp.It is only going to get worse.These rich people dont want to pay for the services they had when they grew up.This country is sick with greed and we will all pay the price,When something happens to them they wont hesitate to blame fire dept, police, teachers etc.

[Dash87]

4. Wasn't there also a private fire company in Spain under investigation for

arson, as in they would set fires, respond to them, and make money? It makes sense if you think about this. Now, apply this to the police and ambulance services. :yoiks:

♥

[Ganja Ninja]

5. I guess the fire department was making a point.

You get what you pay for. I can't say I agree with it but what other way do they have? You can't hit people over the head with a 2 X 4, although that seems to be what it takes.
:shrug:

[mazzarro]

7. Totally Disagree

The fire department or the city could have billed them for the full cost of responding to the 911 call. And even penalize the family by increasing their annual rate payment.

[Ganja Ninja]

8. I didn't say I agree with the fire department.

My point is the guy shouldn't have had an option whether or not to pay.

There are a lot of people out there that are buying into the "every man for himself" mentality. This is the result. Whether or not he was one of them I can't say, but clearly there are a lot of people in his area that feel that way. Billing for a service after it's rendered is not the way to pay for government.

[Hannah Bell]

11. that was the previous policy. more than half the rcounty esidents refused to pay, & the city

city had no authority to make them pay.

no authority to collect the bill, no authority to assess penalties.

and there was no "annual rate payment". the county has never assessed any such taxes to fund fire protection for its residents.

the city and the unincorporated county are separate entities. the county is the larger, richer and more powerful of the two.

[seabeyond]

12. they have tried in the past and cost were not paid. if the family does not pay initially, what makes

you think they will pay an increased cost. the son had a fire three years ago. non paying. he paid it after they put out fire and fd told them, not again. they didnt pay after that. what good does it do to increase payment if a person does not pay. when the county encourages (by opt out program) for citizens to not pay, .... this is what you get. city does not have recourse.

[Tunkamerica]

15. according to hannah bell this just started last year...

so this couldn't be true

[seabeyond]

26. they reassessed. there was a fire three/four years ago and let house burn

they reassessed and allowed stand.

this has been an issue for a while

the county took a vote like recently.... declaring 19 to 1 opt out.

[Tunkamerica]

27. I was being facetious. Hannah Bell was wrong with the air of being right.

As is her/his right.

[seabeyond]

29. .

:thumbsup:

[Hannah Bell]

42. what was i wrong about? can you link me to some evidence that i'm wrong,

or am i just supposed to believe you when you say so?

previous policy was that the city came to all calls & billed after the fact. more than half of county residents served never paid.

[KittyWampus]

40. Fire departments can't operate on pay as you go. Further, the family had a fire they put out and nev

never paid the bill for that service.

[stray cat]

6. And all should pay for it as part of their taxes -no opting out

Why would progressives be against workers receiving pay?

[Hannah Bell]

9. thank you for getting it.

[A wise Man]

13. What the hell is wrong with you people here...

The man's house was burning down and the fire department sit there and let it burn. Here... you all want to analyze burn or wet. What's wrong with you all??? Would the California fire department let California burn because they didn't have $75???? Damn wake up people...become human again

[Tunkamerica]

17. I think the disconnect stems from wanting the country to see

that libertarian policies don't work. The county decided to go with a libertarian model and it didn't work for this family. I think the posters on DU are mainly of the mind that a county that goes with this model deserves what it gets. In a hypothetical model I agree but animals died, this family wasn't insured for enough to replace their property and lots of intangibles were lost.

[sybylla]

21. Disconnect where?

I'm personally stunned that there is zero sympathy here for the firefighters who were ordered not to put out the fire because some fuckwit local electeds decided they didn't need to fund fire service for everyone through taxes.

I'm shocked that no one gets that a fire department insufficiently supported by fees paid only by a percentage of the population (rather than taxes everyone pays)is supposed to some how maintain equipment, a building to house it in and employ a sufficient number of people to safely put out fires for the whole community regardless. You can't hire fire fighters and buy the equipment you need to put out a fire after the house burns down and people finally decides to pay.

No one's life was at risk here. If the homeowners refused to pay the fire department to protect their property (and pets if rumor is true), it seems to me it's the homeowner who needs a giant DU kick in the ass. We buy insurance for everything else. This community decided fire protection should be treated no differently. And it's not like this yahoo didn't know how it all worked.

[Tunkamerica]

24. just to clarify the owner said 3 dogs and a cat died in the fire

[seabeyond]

31. yes. he said. the fire started well outside the house. took a while to get to house

i want to know, why the hell the owners allowed the animals to stay into the house and be burn to death. this part of the story does not make an iota bet of sense. and is the hugest part of the story that pisses me off. he lied about the dogs, he forgot about the dogs or he used the dogs for whateer reason. but there was more than enough time to get animals out and still wait for fire to hit house. so that makes no sense.

[seabeyond]

30. well, it isn't no one gets it, we do and are labeled libertarian, when we are arguing libertarian

policy which is the real hoot.

is an interesting discussion

[seabeyond]

28. for me, it is not deserves what they get. for me, its the destruction of the democratic safety net

we all want and have applied across the nation that is being destroyed so dammit, lets be aware of it and not just look at the house burning, but why the house is burning and what it is doing to our nation.

i am not into the individual case, or micro of the issue. for me, it is the macro... and the repercussions if we dont recognize.

but thank you tunk, for you balance

[Ganja Ninja]

20. What are you talking about?

I don't see anybody debating whether the FD was right or wrong. And this guy had $75.

The point is that you can't maintain a FD by paying $75 every time there's a fire. People have to ban together and everybody has to pay up front. I'm not going to emotionally invest myself in the lack of foresight or community spirit of this guy and his neighbors. Clearly this was their wake up call.

[uncommon]

36. You are missing the point. I agree with you - however, fire departments cost MONEY - money

that should be raised through property taxes.

If the citizens of an area refuse to fund it through property taxes, how the hell can a municipality maintain a fire department? If they institute a fee structure and then refuse to fund it via the fee structure, how the hell can a municipality maintain a fire department?

Public services cost money. Money that is best raised through taxes, not optional fees.

The opt-in/opt-out fee structure is the problem here.

[OneGrassRoot]

16. Is there a good, definitive article with all the details someone can recommend?

There are so many floating around now, with details being disputed.

Why did the FD show up? Was it in case it spread to another property, whose owners had paid the dues?

Thanks. :)

[OneGrassRoot]

18. I see they did show up in case it spread to the neighbor's yard. n/t

[seabeyond]

32. a subscriber called adn said had made it to their property. nt

[Bitwit1234]

23. I have two points to make and everyone should agree

first they should have gotten the pets out, the house can be replaced the animals could not. And second letting the house burn posed a threat to everyone. Suppose it started fires on the next door houses and then those house etc. If this had happened in fire ravaged states like California what would be the results. They would have lost a hell of a lot more than $75.

[Tunkamerica]

25. And the third that no one brings up is that the fire strated in a neighbor's corn field.

The neighbor had paid the fee and said that the water should be used to put out the non-paying neighbor's house but the firefighters refused.

[itsrobert]

34. Are you sure you have your facts straight

I read where the fire started when the owner's son was burning trash in an adjacent building on his property. The fire later spread to the neighbors field.

[seabeyond]

35. that is what i heard and read. nt

[JVS]

37. link?

[Hannah Bell]

43. completely false. the fire started in the non-payer's yard where his grandson was burning trash.

it spread to the paying neighbor's field.

the fire dept came out when the paying neighbor called.

they had to carry their own water in a pumper truck because there are no hydrants in the country.

i've seen no report the owner of the field suggested using the water they carried to put out the non-payer's house.

[seabeyond]

33. the fire started away from the house. there was more than enough time to get pets out. why

did the owner not get the pets out. that part of the story does not make sense. i am not believing it.

[gulliver]

38. Maybe it should work like the health care insurance mandate.

If you don't pay your county fire fee ($75) and you have a fire, then the fire department must still respond. Then the homeowner would have to pay a penalty, say the cost of putting out the fire plus a percentage of their income.

[RainDog]

44. this incident shows what happens with the breakdown of the idea of the common good

and this is why republicans are bad for American society b/c they pretend there is no such thing as the public good.