Firefighters idly watch as blaze destroys non-member's property

[donsu]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-rural17.html


Rural firefighters stood by and watched a fire destroy a garage and a vehicle because the property owner had not paid membership dues.

Bibaldo Rueda -- who was injured battling the flames Monday -- offered to pay the dues as the fire blazed away, but the Monett Rural Fire Department does not have a policy for on-the-spot billing, Sheriff's Detective Robert Evenson said.

Fire Chief Ronnie Myers defended the no-pay, no-aid policy, saying the membership-based organization could not survive if people thought the department would respond for free. The department said it will fight a fire without question if a life is believed to be in danger.

Rueda used a garden hose and buckets to fight the flames while firefighters stood by on the road, watching in case the blaze spread to neighboring properties owned by members. The fire eventually burned itself out.

Rueda said no one told him about the dues policy when he moved in 1-1/2 years ago.
------------------------------------

bunch of mean shits - guess what state

america is a crime scene

[sui generis]

1. don't you just love living in a free market?

If I were him, I'd put up a roadblock in front of his house and charge a toll for maintaining the scenery.

In fact, I'd go maintain the scenery right outside the fire station.

[-..__...]

2. That sort of situation happens more often than you might think.

As far as the FD not putting the fire out... if you want to play, you gotta pay.

[dysfunctional press]

5. how come they'll put out a burning church?

when those institutions are tax-free?

[northzax]

7. this isn't a tax-payer supported department

they'll put out anything, this is a subscription based department.

[Lars39]

61. If they received any type of state funding or matching federal funds

or grants it is tax-payer supported.

[Coastie for Truth]

17. With Rescue Medics-

they'll leave a bill with the ER admitting/insurance paperwork - and your health insuranc carrier gets billed.

[tyedyeto]

137. Isn't that what you pay property taxes for> n/t

[populistdriven]

3. I thought this was a metaphor for the Dubai Ports deal

[shoelace414]

4. We need to privitize more fire departments.

[meganmonkey]

6. That's really fucked up, man

And they sat there and watched. That's what makes them assholes - I know, they were there in case it spread, blah blah blah.

Assholes.

:(

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[MadHound]

12. Exactly right

Except I do find it rather odd that they didn't let the man pay on the spot. Most fire depts around here will indeed bill you later if you wish them to fight the fire, though damn, you'll pay through the nose.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Don Claybrook]

what's this about shooting your mouth off?

Welcome to Democratic Underground. We've really been suffering here without your wise counsel.


(edited to make bad words go away)

[piobair]

32. care to employ an arguement? n/t

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[piobair]

72. Post envy

Sorry I don't suffer from post envy. I don't think putting up big numbers makes your words any more valid than mine. I at least have some knowledge of the subject matter.

[Don Claybrook]

95. no post envy required

You know, I'm not terribly interested in the original post, although I do have an opinion. But you were rude walking in the door, and you shouldn't have been.

I'm sure you know much more than I about firefighters standing around while watching homes burn to the ground. I only stopped by to take exception to your attitude toward another poster.

[piobair]

121. my attitude

My attitude was directed at the original posters calling a group of volunteer firefighters "asshats" for simply following the SOP of a subscription FD. In my opinion the poster doesn't deserve a courteous response.

[eggman67]

132. Welcome

Welcome to hell, Blofeld.

Oh, sorry wrong board :)

Welcome to DU :beer:

[elehhhhna]

89. Who exactly is attempting to "employ an argument"?

lol.

If you are what you eat, you had Crab for lunch.

[Misunderestimator]

100. You say potatoe I say potato

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[MadHound]

28. Oh it's beyond a one year membership fee

I can't remember exactly now, it's been almost a quarter century since I voluteered for that fire dept, but I do know that it was in the low thousands range, one or two thousand for a non-subscriber, a fairly hefty amount in those days. What it is today:shrug:

For many counties out here in the rural Midwest, it is the only way that a fire dept can exist. Not enough tax base to support even a volunteer fire dept., and if you subscribe to the fire debt, you do get a break on your insurance premium. And if you can't afford to pay the subsribtion, you could volunteer for the fire dept. and be covered that way.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. Yes, yes, we know, the old American love thy neighbor goody two

shoes is dead. So much for all that love of country that they claim country music is all about.

[havocmom]

19. They need to get & maintain equipment ALL THE TIME

If people only paid a fee if/when a fire broke out on their property, there would be no funds for keeping equipment working and ready.

[MadHound]

31. True that, but most people would rather pay the couple of hundred

A year in subscription fee, rather than paying a few thousand while they watch their house burn. Also, subscribing to the local fire dept usually lowers your insurance premium also.

[havocmom]

134. Yep. A bit of a fee for service when it is not provided for by tax base

works for most of us. For some, they just figure they will take their chances. In this case, the woman wanted to pay the fee while the fire was going on. That is sorta silly.
Insurance companies won't sign you up after the accident.

[Gormy Cuss]

33. It's truly said that we still have communities paying for essential

services this way. Equipment and insurance costs ought to be paid as part of the property tax even if volunteers are the only staff for fire and rescue. The relative cost is still low and no one need worry about whether the house is on the list before they do what comes naturally, namely aiding a neighbor in trouble.

I know there is a long history of pay-to-play for fire service but it seems to me to be a bizarre and no longer quaint way to handle it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. Yes, but we should give those cheap Libertarians a chance to pay

before they lose everything.

[sui generis]

66. that's what taxes are for

But somebody has to tax and allocate first. Fees are voluntary, taxes are not. It might even reduce the "fees" that subscriptioners are paying by spreading out the responsibility.

[havocmom]

83. Small, rural populations often do not have the tax base

to allow for that sort of expense. There are less than 300 people in my town. We have to take care of water & sewer, some road maintenance, a school, a nursing home, a little law enforcement, and a couple of parks.

There are not enough people in some places to pay for all the 'services' larger populations with more people chipping in can provide.

Many rural counties are having trouble explaining it to new folks moving in because they wanted to escape the urban life. Lots of those new neighbors expect all the perks of the urban life they left, just none of the problems. Well, every area has good points and bad points. Life in the real world is full of compromise and those compormises vary greatly with all the variables.

When we were faced with devastating fire in our county, everybody worked to beat it back. Urban populations generally don't get that sort of total community participation. In some areas, the only help you get is that which you provide. There is not big coffer to divvy up for services.

I guess we could have a REAL FIRE DEPT if we threw the old folks out of their beds locally, where their family can visit daily, and shipped them a couple hundred miles away for care. But the folks here don't have fires as often as they have old folks to tend and visit. They decided to spend what little tax money there is on the things that are required more often.

Different areas/lifestyles mean different problems. Life for me is not just like life for you. Anthropology is a good hobby. Good to see that reality for others is not the same as what you have to work with. ;)

peace
hm

[sui generis]

99. I get what you're saying

but the reason the small town is dying is exactly because what's been barely good enough for them in the past is only just letting you guys survive in the present.

Water finds its own level and it's where it needs to be right now for a smaller town without shifting the landscape, in many cases, but the landscape is clearly shifting if your small town is actually getting bigger.

The real tieback is values, as you've said. The values that allowed subscription public safety to exist are based on property ownership. It's much harder to tax subscribers who don't own property to pay for fire trucks - in 1890. You value the old folks home more than universal fire safety, and given a choice it's easy to see that people would rather "get by" than work to ensure fire safety for everyone. I couldn't sit on your city council or your county commissioners board without pushing to incorporate fire into public safety. The old "landowner" values no longer apply and it's not wrong to want to have your old fogies nearby where they can be around friends and family more often, so I would work on those tax issues.

The current system will continue to work until some fatal horrible thing breaks it for good, and then it will be long past time to begin amending the "way things are" to the "way things should be".

Anthropology would have nothing to study if we didn't change, if we didn't improve, or collapse.

[Mandate My Ass]

13. This is a message board

everybody is welcome to come here and run their mouths as they see fit. Research isn't mandatory IIRC, neither is lockstep. :hi:

[piobair]

20. sorry

Sorry, I guess thinking a little research was in order before calling a volunteer an "asshat" was asking to much of some of the posters around here.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[wicket]

46. LOL

:rofl:

[Swede]

88. Welcome piobair.

When things get hot in GD go to the lounge.

[meganmonkey]

14. Read the article before you run yours, please.

according to the homeowner, he didn't know about the policy. He hadn't lived there long. He offered to pay them, and they just sat there and watched it burn. They don't allow "on-the-spot" payment. You'd think there would be an exception for that.

I hope your car never breaks down in the middle of the night where your cell phone doesn't work. Because maybe if no one is getting paid to help you they'll just leave you to the coyotes, dude.

Peace.

[piobair]

18. closing documents

All the info regarding the subscription fire dept. would have been disclosed when he bought the house. It also would have been apparent when he tried to get fire insurance.

[-..__...]

23. That's what has me a bit puzzled.

Assuming he has a mortgage on the house, the lending institution would have required that the homeowner
pay the yearly fee as a condition of the loan.

[meganmonkey]

25. Okay, as far as insurance you may have a point

and I don't have time to research it right now. But I will tell you this, I have a firefighter in the family, and ANYWHERE HE GOES if there is a fire he helps. He spends a lot of time in a rural community upstate and he has no affiliation with the FD there but he has helped in countless fires - helping them set up pumps in lakes, and in various other ways.

He isn't concerned about work comp or insurance or getting paid, he just does what he considers his duty to help, regardless of the temporary risk to himself.

Unless you can explain to me (with sources) a really good reason why they can't do some sort of pay-on-the-spot thing, the is NO excuse for this extortion. And that is what this is.

[piobair]

38. kudos

Kudos to your relative in the fire service. I'm also a firefighter who has worked on fires being fought by other departments that I was not affiliated with. I was put to work, much like your relative, in support positions such as setting pumps or traffic control. In effect, not actually fighting the fire. All departments have the policy of not letting an unknown entity go interior or actively engage in fire suppression, once again, due to insurance considerations. As a firefighter I would not hesitate to try to save someone from a burning home but I would not risk any one elses life without kmowing their training or qualifications.

[MadHound]

103. And frankly, I think that the homeowner is either forgetful

Or outright lying, because whenever you buy a home in an area that has subscription based fire protection, you are informed, up front by both the bank and the insurance company that you have to pay for fire protection.

Now I don't know why these firefighters didn't bill him for putting out the fire, that does seem odd. The fire depts. that I know all did so, and this one is an exception to that rule.

As for breaking down in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere, quite frankly I would rather do it out in the wilds of Missouri rather than in St. Louis, KC or any other urban area. Because I could reasonably predict that the next person who came along would stop and help you out, take you to their home to use the phone, and get you something to eat, drink etc. and if need be, put you up for the night. Break down in an urban area and the person who stops is just as likely to rob or kill you, if they stop at all.

[sui generis]

29. bad choice of fightin' words

The very fact that there is such a thing as subscription fire services is a sign of piss poor government and local management.

Supporting it is just saying you don't think you can do any better, and that's how you got it to begin with.

[MadHound]

36. Sorry, but that's just not true

Many of your rural counties are sparsley populated, with few businesses and little industry. Thus their tax base is extremely small, and it does well enough to fund the local schools and law enforcement, usually one full time sheriff and a part time deputy. Trying to fund a fire dept is prohibitively expensive, even when it is all volunteer. That's what gives rise to these subscription fire depts. They are filling a need in the community, and the choice is between a subscription service or none at all. Which would you rather have:shrug:

[Cronus Protagonist]

58. False dichotomy - error in logic (ignoring the tertium quid)

There are more options than the two you state.

[MadHound]

76. And what would you have those other options be?

Taxing everybody, sorry but the tax rate needed to fund a decent rural fire dept. would be quashed at the ballot box. Hell, this is the rural Midwest, they don't even fund their teachers here, even raising taxes 1/8th of a percent. Do you honestly think these anti-tax folks are going to vote for the .01-.05 it's going to take to fund the fire dept. Please, if you do, I've got some land you want to buy.

[FatDave]

60. Have there always been subscription fire services?

I've lived in cities and suburbs all my life, so I don't know. Is this a new thing or has this gone on for years?

[piobair]

70. FDNY

The FDNY was originally a private subscriber service. There is an interesting discussion about this in the book, "Gangs of New York"

[sui generis]

73. interesting observation

yes, and they blackmailed people, "union busted" non subscribers, and kept other fire assistance from showing at the scene too, if I remember correctly.

That's why they're not subscription any more. . .

[piobair]

79. I agree

I agree completely but it doesn't change the dynamics of this situation.

[sui generis]

90. I've done analytical work in nearly every segment

of industry, including government, taxation, and even commercial marketing analysis etc.

In that contract we tied consumer data to geographical "geocodes" and there is software out there that maintains effective taxing jurisdictions, effective rates, combined rates, rate fluctuation statistics, etc.

That data is not complete even for the U.S. - Florida has different laws about how state, county and city tax are assessed than Texas, and Louisiana with parish law is utterly cuckoo insane. Most states out in the boonies don't have distributed taxing jurisdictions because much of that has only been made feasible by use of computer, specialized software and expertise to determine how much of your local tax revenue is truly local or backed by state tax allocations and federal tax allocations.

Departments like Wildlife, Fish & Game, Parks, are often underwritten by license fees, punitive fines and other addenda to licenses, but government services that should be grouped under "public safety" should likewise always come out of some combination of those tax allocations.

The original idea behind subscription fire services is that property is private and if everyone, landowners and serfs alike pay to cover fire protection for private property, it's a tax on people who will never require a fire truck. That may have been true before fire safety was combined with EMT services, and before people living in an apartment have just as much right to their belongings as landowners do to the houses built on their land, but today it's all moot.

There are archaic counties out there who don't or won't figure out what it takes to incorporate fire safety with police/public safety budgets based on what they collect in taxes or what would be reasonable to levy in taxes so that the fire departments are public departments, and are operating to the highest standards and with the best equipment.

In this day and age if a government official charged with public safety isn't addressing this with an eye to changing it, they're not doing their job.

[MadHound]

78. Yes, all fire depts started out as subscription depts. at one time

And they're still prevalent here in the Midwest, for better or worse.

[sui generis]

65. subscription police, subscription firemen, subscription emergency room

of course. It IS true. You may disagree, but "truth" has nothing to do with it.

What a progressive idea, to make positively everything subscription. If you accept that's the way it is, then that's the way it will ever be. Anyway, "funding" a fire department should not be done on an individual basis. If a third party can set up shop then we can as a city or county pay that third party for public safety, and if we can't, IT'S TRUE that we aren't doing our job at good governance.

How about this one: you live in the county you pay taxes your taxes cover the damn fire department! Everybody gets taxed, it's not voluntary, and you might even be able to afford to give your guys equipment.

So, John's house next to mine burns to the ground and they don't do anything to put it out. My house burns halfway to the ground because I paid my subscription but it wouldn't have burned at all if he had paid his and hadn't caught my house on fire too. Who does my insurance company sue?

My kids have to walk past a burnt out hulk with who knows what kind of toxins thrown in the air for miles from that burning house, and I have to breathe it in, walk through it, or have it fertilize my garden with heavy metals. Bad government, starting from the top.

[MadHound]

82. Hey, I'm not saying that I like this, OK, so don't kill the messenger

I'm just saying that this is the way it is in many rural counties throughout the Midwest. You talk about taxing people to fund the fire dept, frankly I think that is a great idea. But good luck on selling to the rest of the people out here. They won't up the tax 1/8 cent to alliviate overcrowding at their elementary school, what in the hell makes you think that they're going to go for the .01-.05 tax it takes to fund a decent fire dept.?

Another thing is that by offering free coverage, these rural fire depts. are able to staff their stations. But if you stop the subscription service, and make fire protection readily available to all, where are you going to get your firemen then? They will have no incentive to work for "free", and thus you will start having to pay them. Even more taxes. Good luck with that one.

[sui generis]

93. sorry madhound

that was "passionate voice" not insane mad voice.

DAMN THESE LIMITED KEY CLICKS!!!

:hi:

[coalition_unwilling]

71. I grew up on a farm right outside Lamar, MO (close to Milford)

and I don't think we had anything like this. In fact, a few years after we left the farm, a neighbor's brush fire got out of control and burned down all the buildings on our farm.

I don't remember how far Monett was from Lamar, but I know it was in our athletic conference.

Lamar is in Barton County.

[ieoeja]

86. So the cost per subscriber is less than the cost per property owner?

This doesn't make any sense.

Givens:
$1,000,000 annual cost for volunteer fire dept
10,000 property owners
8,000 subscribers

Then your choices work out to:
$120.50 fee / subscriber, or
$100.00 taxes / property owner (average; actual cost would vary by property value)

If there are more property owners than subscribers, then the fees will always have to be higher than would be the taxes. The only way taxes would be lower than fees is if you have people subscribing to this service who have no property. Which would only be true if you have a lot of amazingly stupid individuals in the region.

Not to say that every individual saves. I can think of three categories who lose by property tax funded fire departments:

1. those whose property is worth more than the average property owner's,
2. those whose property consist solely of farmland and would not subscribe because they would never, ever have the need, and
3. those who gamble on not subscribing and win.

[MadHound]

104. It wouldn't/isn't a property tax,

Most likely it would be a hefty hike in the local sales tax. And being how poor many rural areas are, and how regressive a sales tax is:shrug:

[eggman67]

105. The problem with that is

that cost is not a constant. See post #92 for details.

[Taxloss]

63. I thought this was meant to be a left-wing website?

The thing about fire services is that they not only save property, they stop fires from spreading. If they left this fire to get out of control, it could spread.

Subscription fire service? What a fucked-up system.

[Missy M]

9. That is totally wrong in my opinion. How can they call...

themselves firefighters. I wouldn't think too many people want to live there.

[havocmom]

15. They aren't firefighters. They are shop keepers, teachers, bus drivers

and such who VOLUNTEER to pull together in emergencies. There are lots of small communities which do not have the tax base to fund luxuries like real firefighters.

What costs many rural VOLUNTEER fire fighting groups have is generally paid for by community subscribers.

There are legal risks involved in working in NON SUBSCRIBER properties. And sometimes non-subscribers are community mal-contents or real trouble makers who simply will not participate in group ventures for the common good.

There are a lot of variables in volunteer fire fighting districts. Condemnation not always deserved.

[China_cat]

10. We have several small communities here who

couldn't afford to offer fire service without a subscription plan. They are obligated to do their best to save lives but if you haven't paid the subscription they will try to keep your neighbor's property from catching but yours will burn.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. Lots of areas that have this "Pay to play"-

Your VFD Receipt has to be submitted with your "Homeowners" renewal check, or -it's a surcharge on your Homeowners and the insurance company forwards it.

Years ago, the insurance companies owned their own FD's - no insurance, they'd just stand there and watch.

[unblock]

21. to those who defend this extortion, THINK FIRST

this is extortion and vindictiveness, plain and simple.

they are doing a disservice to PAYING members by letting these fires burn. BY FAR the best way to protect the house of a paying member is to put out the raging fire next door before it can spread. if i was a paying member i would NOT want them to let my neighbor's house burn until they thought it might jump to my house, and only then spring into action.

nevermind the cost saving b.s. if they have the money and resources to MONITOR the fire IN CASE it spreads, then they have the resources to put the fire out, or at least make an effort.

as a former member of a volunteer emt squad, i totally sympathize with efforts to increase contributions. but this is not the way.

[piobair]

22. who pays?

Ok. If they fight the fire and one of them gets hurt or killed, who is going to pay their bills? Workmans comp won't because it's not a subscribers home. The only exception is life safety.

[Cronus Protagonist]

59. Prove to us that worker's comp won't pay if they put the fire out

And how would they get injured if they just sprayed the house with water in a minimal intervention? I think you need to do some research before shooting your foot off.

[unblock]

67. i'm willing to concede to him that it's not fREE

to fight a fire vs. to simply monitor it. extra wear and tear on the equipment, for example. you can also count on using up a few oxygen tanks for the firefighters. that sort of thing.

but my point was that this expense is very small compared to the moral problem of watching a fire burn and having volunteers to nothing.

[piobair]

77. well

First off, your'e not going to put the fire by just spraying it from the outside. That's called a defensive tactic and is meant to stop it from spreading but the original involved structure will be lost. If no one is hurt, no comp claim. No harm no foul. The only proof I could offer re:comp is our own districts insurance policy and I doubt they would allow me to post it here. There are only a couple of companies that offer this kind of coverage and the policies are basically the same. We are now a combination dept. that started life 80 years ago as a subscription service and are now funded by tax dollars and impact fees. If we go to a fire in another jurisdiction that we don't have a mutual aid aggreement with our coverage is not in force.

[sui generis]

74. Let me answer this.

Our health, wellbeing, public safety are paid for out of taxes. That's who pays. We all pay. It's part of the social contract of taxes.

If they're not paying at the very least for public safety, then what in the bleeding hell are their taxes paying for? Roads for the subscription firemen to drive on? If you equalize the burden of fire safety maintenance across a larger population, you reduce the cost for the few subscribers who are paying.

I'm certainly not denying that it exists or that it exists for a reason, but I also strongly disagree with just bending over and saying it's all right like that.

[WI_DEM]

24. I'm not educated enough on this subject to give a reasonable

answer. At first my total sympathies were for the homeowner, but then I read a couple of responses regarding subscription volunteer-only rural fire deptartments. If they fight a fire and one of their members is hurt they will not be compensated because it was not a subscription home. Furthermore, I don't buy the story that the homeowner had no idea he had to pay dues--they obviously want people to subscribe to support the fire dept. and I don't think that they would have not mentioned it to him in the past. Still, I think of ordinary citizens who have come to the aid of their fellow man in times of crisis with no thought of what would happen to them if they got hurt and I can't help but still feel some sympathy for this lone homeowner trying to put out the fire with a hose and bucket while a bunch of firefighters are standing around watching.

[mainer]

26. It's a matter of simple neighborliness. He should move out.

People who would stand by and watch a new neighbor's house burn down without lifting a finger to help (He's only been there 1 1/2 years!) are not people I'd want to live around. They better not dare call themselves Christians.

[mainer]

27. Monett, MO. Motto: "We don't care if your house burns down!"

This'll really make people want to move there.

[gratuitous]

30. Let's go behind this "fee for service"

It's called "taxation," and it's gotten a real bad name lately. You know who the culprits are, and I don't plan to repeat their names.

But you see it everywhere: Taxes are bad. Taxes are too high. Why should I pay all these taxes for a bunch of freeloaders? Well, the plain fact of the matter is that sooner or later, in some situation or another, we're all freeloaders of one kind or another. For example, the school you attended as a kid was built by someone else, the administrators, teachers, classroom assistants, custodial staff, and the physical plant and school supplies were all paid for by someone else, whether you went to a public school or a private one. Were you a "freeloader"? No, this was a choice made by society to educate their children because someone or a group of someones looked down the road and knew that in order to maintain the society they had inherited and built, the children would need to be equipped to do it. And part of that equipment was education.

I don't know anything about the area of Monett where this happened. But I'd be willing to bet they had their little "taxpayers' revolt" some years ago where they gleefully installed a bunch of know-nothings to run their local government, who promptly cut all kinds of taxes and curtailed services that a minority of citizens used. There was some squawking, but because the people affected couldn't muster a majority and couldn't demonstrate to the rest of their community what kind of negative impact this tax cutting mania was going to have, nobody much cared. The local populace was also having it drummed into their heads from a variety of sources that they'd all benefit from keeping more of their money in their pockets rather than pooling some of that money to pay for road maintenance and improvement, a professional fire-fighting department, or their schools or the rest of their society.

So Mr. Rueda watches his home burn to the ground, and we blame him for either failing to pay his membership dues or not knowing he had to pay his membership dues. Or we blame the volunteer fire-fighters for acting just as their community wants them to act -- remember, this fee for service arrangement probably didn't originate with the fire-fighters, who I'm sure would prefer to have and maintain a professional department of full-time, paid fire-fighters.

Who is the real author of this tragic mess? It's not Mr. Rueda, and it's not the fire-fighters.

[Mandate My Ass]

34. A-men

:applause:

[mainer]

35. good post!

What this situation means is that impoverished people who can't afford to "subscribe" to private police and fire coverage will just have to watch their houses burn down, and go without police protection.

This is the end result of drowning government in the bathtub. Only the rich will be able to afford government services.

[donsu]

37. kicking - truth to power

nt

[BiggJawn]

40. Sounds like a Libertarian's wetdream to me.

Something one a them dope-smoking ReTHUGs would wank-off to while smoking-up and dreaming of his "I got MINE, fuck YOU-topia".

[mitchtv]

54. thank you

Taxes=service

[Xithras]

56. It's not always a matter of greed.

Many urban people simply don't understand the realities of rural living. About 10 years ago I had a home out in the Sierra foothills, and our fire department was pay for service. That arrangement had NOTHING to do with greed. Where I lived, my nearest neighbor was three miles up the road. Another two miles would bring you to three more homes. There simply are NOT enough people in these kinds of areas to support an expensive full time fire department. Our fee for service department had less than 40 homes in it's entire service area, and nearly half of those were leased.

Out there, EVERYONE was a firefighter. The equipment sat in a shed on the main road, and all fee payers were given training and access to it in case of emergency because there were so few of us that we couldn't even find regular volunteers! The equipment was vintage 1950's CDF hand me downs, maintenance was handled by one of the local ranchers kids, and the "communications" system consisted of one Channel 9 handheld CB that was stashed in the glove box. If there was a big fire or someone was injured, we would dial 911 and either the CDF or the closest city would dispatch EMT's or professional firefighting equipment our way, but the delay on those calls was usually 45 or more minutes.

The cost of establishing a professional fire department in rural areas like that is simply too prohibitive as there are too few property owners to divide the costs between. In areas of the midwest, you still find many areas where "towns" only have a couple hundred people in them, and property values are still so low that property taxes are practically nonexistent. What kind of taxes are you going to levy against homes in a town where the average assessed value is less than $30,000, and there are only a few dozen of them in the entire area? Can those taxes reasonably fund the purchase of a half million dollars worth of equipment, purchase and maintenance of a modern building, training and salaries of firefighters, AND workers comp? The answer is almost always no. Most rural fire departments are doing well just to maintain their equipment and cover their workers comp costs.

[ladjf]

84. There is a global epidemic of narcissism and it is centered in

the U.S.

[MadHound]

98. Well no, you don't know a damn thing about Monett, and it shows

Living a little closer to the area, and having experienced the rural wringer in Missouri all of my life, let me correct you.

First off ALL fire depts, from NYC to LA were at one time or another subscription services. Some later became taxpayer funded, though some didn't, here's why.

Some remained subscription services because the people didn't want to raise taxes. People here have a phobia about raising taxes, and will not do so unless absolutely, positively neccessary. As an illustration of this, I give you the county of Randolph Missouri, population a little over diddly squat. Seven years ago their jail was housed in an old(100 plus year) converted house that was badly in need of replacement. Inmates broke out on a regular basis, blind spots etc. etc. It was a nightmare. But the good citizens refused to raise their taxes in order to get a new jail(including my father in law). Then, one night an inmate's buddies broke into the jail, killed one deputy, injured another, broke their buddy out and escaped. Sure, they were later captured, after a trailer park shootout that killed one of them, but the damage was done. Well that woke up that sleepy little county, and VOILA, next election they upped their taxes to pay for the bright, shiny new jail facility they have today. However their teachers are still paid diddly squat, their roads are in bad shape and their schools are overcrowded. But hey, those things haven't reached crisis proportions yet:eyes:

However there were and are some enlightened counties that did go to a taxpayer funded fire dept. The trouble is that their taxpayer base shrank over the years. Rural areas have been seeing a drastic loss of population for the past thirty five years. Kids have succumbed to the attractions of the big city, but in addition, corporate farms have taken over and driven out the family farmer, thus driving down the tax base. Rural manufacturing plants have gone the way of other manufacturing, outsourced, and thus more people leave, moving to find jobs. And pretty soon, some counties found themselves with a tax base so small that they're barely able to fund their schools and roads, much less things like law enforcement and fire depts. So, they're formerly taxpayer funded fire depts. became subscription again out of neccessity.

And why are a lot of these people against taxes? BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR AS FUCKING DIRT AND CAN'T AFFORD ANYMORE EXPENSES! Rural poverty is one of the greatest unknown problems in this country, and you folks in the city just glaze it over, thinking that everything is hunky dory out on the farms, where the birds sing and deer play. WAKE THE FUCK UP AND LOOK AROUND! People are dying for jobs out here, dying from lack of work, dying slowly and silently. Rural areas without the tax base of urban areas are forced to take on the same burdens as urban areas, like NCLB, homeland security measures, all this unfunded mandate CRAP, and on a budget thinner than a hair. And you wonder why they revolt at taxes, it is because they can't afford it, especially when you urban folks come out here to get away into your gated little exurbs and drive up the property values, and the property taxes.

So please, before you start jumping to assumptions of a place that you know zip, zero, nada about, find out what the fuck is going on before you start condemning out of hand.

[mainer]

111. If they're too poor to pay taxes, how do they subscribe to services?

I guess that's the bottom line. Since these people are as "poor as fucking dirt and can't afford any more expenses," then they can hardly afford to subscribe to a private fire fighting service, either.

[MadHound]

112. Quite frankly, a lot of them don't

Nor do they insure their houses, cars, health, lives, etc. etc. Insurance is a luxury for many many people

[gratuitous]

127. Calm down

First, I freely admit my ignorance of the Monett area, and I bow to your superior knowledge of all things rural. Grew up in a rural area myself, and I know how folks feel about taxes. Re-read my post; I wasn't blaming the folks in Monett or the homeowner. And if you want to see dirt poor, I would refer you to some former timber towns here in Oregon and Washington. The only advantage we have is that we live in the Pacific Northwest, a very beautiful place.

The point of my post is that there has been a concerted effort over the last 30 years or so to make taxes out as some sort of all-encompassing evil, to be avoided even at the cost of an area's roads, schools, firefighting services and so on. Who's put forth this effort? And who have been the main beneficiaries of this tax-cutting mania?

There used to be a time when we taxed the daylights out of corporate profits and capital gains. That gave large corporations an incentive to do something with their money other than keep it for their CEOs or distribute it to shareholders. Oddly enough, a lot of them (under pressure from unions) plowed that money into their employees and the company payroll. Employees who received a good wage also paid a goodly share of taxes. Federal money was often pooled with state and local governments in "revenue sharing." A metropolitan area like St. Louis subsidized all kinds of programs in the surrounding rural communities as tax money went from St. Louis to Washington DC and then back to places like Monett.

But the idea that some folks were getting "something for nothing" didn't set well with a certain segment of the population -- let's call them the short-sighted greedheads. "Why should the taxes from Budweiser (for example) pay for a shiny new fire engine in Monett? Or build a new jail in some other east bumblefuck town? That doesn't help Budweiser." Well no, not directly. But it really is in Budweiser's interest as a citizen of Missouri and the wider United States to help pay for infrastructure and services out in the hinterlands. In a small way, the stability and the well-being of folks in Monett helps Budweiser, just like it helps me way out here in Oregon.

Under the influence of the short-sighted greedheads, a lot of people all over the country (perhaps not in Monett, I don't know and you don't say) began thinking in funny ways about the national economy. Strongly aided and abetted by a certain national party, they began worrying about things that didn't concern them in the least. Activist Granny D, during her perambulations around the country ran into a garbage collector in Alabama, a man who made something like $16,000 a year. He told her that the estate tax was his biggest economic concern. The estate tax! Now, I don't know what sort of personal financial habits this man had, but it's highly unlikely that he's going to be leaving in excess of $2 million to his wife and kids when he dies. But the spectre of the estate tax was keeping him up nights, and this is just one example.

Proposals to raise taxes, even on the wealthiest citizens, are routinely shot down, and the good folks of Monett, convinced that they're taxed too highly already, endorse the short-sighted greedheads and would rather see their houses burn to the ground than see Exxon or Chevron toss a few extra dollars in the state and federal coffers. It's not their fault; they're the target of a very organized, very disciplined campaign that has for the past 30 years told them that there's nothing worse than taxes. For anyone. And unless they want to become commie socialists, they'll get behind that certain national party, and gladly put up with a converted house as a county lock-up or a crumbling strip of two-lane asphalt as the area highway.

[MadHound]

141. You didn't see my part about counties, towns and villages,

No longer having a tax base anymore, did you? There are very few high dollar, eminently taxable corporations, companies, or businesses of any kind, not just in rural Missouri, but rural America. These rural companies, shoe factories, fiberglass fabricators,etc. were some of the first outsourced manufacturing jobs, back in the seventies.

Corporate farms either aren't taxed by the county(since corporate headquarters are in another state) or they have done the devil's deal, forcing tax concessions from the county in exchange for desperately needed jobs.

Small family farms and rural homes do get property tax, but there are so few anymore that the rural tax base is doing well to fund the schools, much less things like a fire dept.

Let me give you another example from Missouri, another nationally notorious story from my state.

There once was a town called Mack's Creek. It was situated on highway 54, just south of the Lake of the Ozarks. All throughout the seventies and eighties, farms in this state were hit hard. Farms were bought up regularly by big players like ADM and PSF on the courthouse steps of counties throughout the Midwest. Fewer farmers meant fewer people shopping in the stores of farm towns like Mack's Creek. Businesses started to board up, and the town tax base dwindled drastically. Too far south of the Lake to pull in the tourists, Mack's Creek Board of Alderman were desperate for revenue to keep town services going, schools, police, fire. Finally, after much discussion and arguement, they came up with a plan.

They set up a speed trap in Mack's Creek, the vilest, most evil mean and dirty speed trap in the country. Mack's Creek is a typical Ozarks town, set down in a deep valley, with steep hills on both sides and roads snaking around curves on the way down, curves that hid what was at the bottom. A slowdown in speed from fifty five mph(seventy in the pre-Carter days) down to twenty five, all in the space of three hundred feet, going down a steep grade, around a curve that hid the speed zones until the last minute. In both directions.

My how the money flowed in! The town prospered mightily. While kindred farm towns were drying up and blowing away, Mack's Creek boasted immaculate roads, fine schools whose students regularly got full ride academic scholarships at colleges and universities around the state and region, top of the line fire protection, no subscription needed, along with an ambulance and trained EMTs. Oh, and that big, bright badass black and white Crown Vic, with the full rack of antennas, and the sweet 454 Interceptor engine with the Weber four barrel down draft carb for better time off the line. Great for catching speeders along the highways and byways of the Missouri Ozarks.

But sadly, all things must come to an end. After becoming the butt of national jokes on late night TV, exposes on 60 Minutes and other infotainment, and getting a nationwide rep, Mack's Creek finally reached the end of their rope. After several state investigations and court cases, it was deemed that Mack's Creek was getting entirely too large a portion of it's revenues from traffic tickets, and was thus creating a speed trap(d'uh), which is, believe it or not, technically illegal in most of the US. The Crown Vic was put in the garage, the fire dept. had to run off of subscriptions again, the school hemoragged teachers, the roads became potholes, then gravel, and the speed zone was upped to a more normal fifty mph, as one would do going through any other small Missouri town on a two lane blacktop.

Well, like every other Missourian who got popped there, I make it a point to whip through Mack's Creek at a brisk pace these days, generally five to ten miles over the posted speed limit. But as I glide on by, I look over the town and pity the place. Another sad, half abandoned farm town, with roads crumbling, buildings sagging, and houses gone dark. There's no police force to worry about anymore, they became too expensive to keep. Now Mack's Creek relys on the county sheriff for protection, and their average response time is aprox thirty minutes. Ambulance service is even worse, since the town sold theirs. Response from the nearest hospital is at least sixty minutes, thus most people these days take their injured and sick into Camdenton themselves rather than waste the time waiting. And all due to the loss of revenue, Mack's Creek dried up and blew away. Finally, a couple of years ago, Mack's Creek disincorporated itself as a town, and there is no more Mack's Creek, just a wide spot on the road.

So what's the point of this rambling tale of Missouri speed traps.

REVENUE!

Small town areas not just in Missouri, but across the Midwest simply don't have it. The towns have died and blown away, the few that are left are hanging on by their fingernails. There are a lot of counties who can, and do, fit their entire population into the local high school gymn for a hoops game. Not much to build a taxbase on, is there.

Thus, in order to have some sort of fire protection, they form a subscription service. It is better than nothing and they do a lot of good actually. Now I disagree with this particular fire service's policy of not billing the man in question here for their services, most rural depts do. Actually it is a great cash cow. Nothing to prompt a donation of a few thousand dollars like your house starting to burn right in front of you. Sure, it's mercenary, but it is a fire dept., and when push comes to shove, they will bail your ass out, and if your life is threatened, at no charge to you.

So I always cut rural fire depts. a break. They're doing the best that they can with old equipment, and not much help. But by far and away, most of them do a fine job of it, under some serious handicaps. Oh, and one other thing, virtually all of them are non-profits.

So please, don't be so quick to judge that which you don't know much about, OK. Thanks.

[progressivebydesign]

116. Some horrid woman is always getting signatures outside our P.O.

She is one of those "anti-tax" for everything ones. I always decline to sign her stupid ass petitions.. and loudly ask her WHERE she thinks that money will be made up that she is proposing we cut.... schools? Fire service? Police? Homeland Security? Then I ask her if she thinks the public works faeries will be taking care of the services and roads. I'm sick of people like that... sick to death of them. They got what they wanted (she has a big new expensive SUV), and their kids got thru school, now they don't want to help everyone else. reminds me of the scene in It's A wonderful Life.. where there is a run on the bank at Bailey's place. George Bailey has to explain to people that someone helped them get their house, and now they should help the others.

[tenshi816]

146. Beautifully put,

and it brings to mind the saying "taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society".

I remember once getting very angry with my mother for voting for an educational tax cut in the county where she lived. Her attitude was that since I was no longer in school, she shouldn't have to pay taxes to support education. Sadly, there are many people like my mother, who only want to fund the things that affect them directly and not for the greater good.

[jrandom421]

39. Hmmm..

Would these firefighters just stood by, if the guy or a family member was trapped inside? The way things are going in America these days, he probably would have been cited for unauthorized cremation without a license and then by the EPA for lack of hazardous material disposal licenses. :-(

[piobair]

41. already noted

The one exception is to save a life.

[eggman67]

42. No

They'll act to save life but not property.

[FlaGranny]

43. People used to be

much nicer when I was a kid. Neighbors volunteered as firefighters and always put out any fire in the community where I lived. Property taxes and fund raisers paid for equipment. Strange concept now, I guess.

[ladjf]

87. In19th Century America, volunteer firefighters were the biggest

heroes in most small communities because of their great and unselfish service. I don't think this group that stood around and watched the house burn down will qualify for hero status?

[piobair]

118. mostly volunteer

The largest percentage of firefighters are still volunteer. Something over 65%. Even large departments such as Prince Georges County in MD has a large number of volunteers who train and work alongside the paid staff.

[The Backlash Cometh]

44. Welcome to Bush's world.

Bush's world, bush's world, BUSH's world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. when did we travel back to 1700s philadelphia?

For god sakes this happened back then, this is ridicolous.. by the way, he should sue

[lpbk2713]

50. Question about the Workman's Comp issue....

I'm guessing that because these firefighters are called "volunteers" is because thet aren't paid for their services. And since they aren't paid does that mean they aren't "workmen"? And if they are not workmen in the sense that the law sees it, are they entitled to coverage under the Workman's Comp laws?

[newportdadde]

51. This must seem strange to people who have no concept of rural life.

As mentioned above this is not uncommon in rural areas. I grew up in a rural area, in Missouri actually, although not near this case. Personally I think the owner is full of shit about not knowing about the fees.

These fees aren't very high and help keep a volunteer firefighting force trained and somewhat decently equipped. Most of the time their firefighting will be grass fires from thrown cigarettes and the occasional house fire.

It would be interesting to know what the mans reputation was in town, most people who don't pay usually turn out to be the same people who are the town bums, alcoholics, in and out of jail types, wife beaters etc. Everyone knows exactly who they are. Rural life is so much different then the suburban life I have know.

[mainer]

52. So only "nice" people get their homes saved?

I live in a rural area, and I can't IMAGINE anyone here not doing all they can to help save a neighbor's house. Even if the neighbor's a jerk.

Should people stand around while the flames crackle, having a debate about whether the guy is "worthy" enough to be aided? "Oh gee, you know, he drinks too much. And he doesn't go to church. So forget it."

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Scene and patient abandomement comes to mind

I worked for a volutneer force, for ten years, as a ... volunteer. When the call came we responded, PERIOD. I guess life in foreign countries is more civilized than in the United States... remind me again, why did I move to the US?

[mitchtv]

55. Because Hispanics are treated so well?

I did notice the man's surname

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. There you go...

actually the cynic in me at tiems asks these questions from time to time, but roots are damn too deep, and that belief in that silly concept called the US Constitution...

[donsu]

143. me too - wondered the same thing

nt

[Xithras]

62. But who paid for your equipment?

Don't confuse volunteer fire departments with pay for service departments. Areas with pay for service departments, for all practical purposes, DO NOT HAVE FIRE DEPARTMENTS. There is no obligation for public service there, since FFS departments are private businesses no different than the corner dry cleaners.

When I lived in an area with an FFS fire department and volunteered, I would have run to the aid of any neighbor in a fire...but I would have only pulled the FFS fire equipment if the person was a member. If the equipment were used for everybody no matter what, paid memberships would have quickly dropped to zero, the equipment would have gone without maintenance, and soon there would be no fire department at all.

I've seen a couple of people mention that the department could have billed them, but those posters miss a couple of important points. First, FFS departments aren't government agencies and have no power to tax or establish liens against properties if the owner later refuses to pay. Second, commercial contracts signed in those situations aren't legally valid since the owner can easily prove duress in court. The owner merely has to state that he never would have signed that if he hadn't been panicked and pressured in that situation, and most courts would toss the contract as invalid.

Legally, these kinds of departments have little choice. If they want to be paid, they need to be paid beforehand.

[mainer]

75. If 100 private subscribers can fund the equipment --

Wouldn't 200 residents all paying taxes for it also be able to do the same thing?

I don't get the argument that sparsely populated rural communities have to do it this way. If you can get enough subscribers to cover the needs of those same subscribers, then surely you could spread out the fiscal responsibility to the much larger base of all taxpayers and have an even easier time funding a fire truck?

[Xithras]

92. No, because funding through taxes costs more.

Legally, in just about every state, you have to have some kind of oversight for taxes. Someone has to be in charge, and that person has to be answerable to the taxpayers. That means you need elections. You also need to pay people to track funds and keep them publicly available. Many states (including California) also impose minimum equipment and training requirements on taxpayer funded fire departments (even volunteer departments). If you have a taxpayer funded department, you're also obligated to tie in to the 911 system, which means dispatchers and communications equipment.

FFS departments are typically far cheaper to run than taxpayer funded departments simply because they don't have to deal with any of that. The department I volunteered for had two expenses...workers comp and replacement parts for the donated equipment...so it cost each of the residents only a few hundred a year to run. Even the property the equipment shed sat on was donated by one of the ranchers. Turning that into a taxpayer funded department would have required a huge outlay to upgrade the facilities, equipment, and training enough to meet legal requirements. It was something that was discussed several times, but would have cost each of the residents several thousand dollars a year. Nobody was interested in dealing with a tenfold increase in firefighting costs when the existing system worked fine. FWIW, 90% of the people in the district were paid members.

[Solon]

101. Wait a second here...

As far as I'm aware of, 911 dispatchers in most places are the police/sheriff's departments, they tie into the EMS and Fire departments when needed. Given that, and the average size of communities, it shouldn't be more expensive to run that versus a private system. I know of certain rural communities, even in Missouri, that have police dispatchers double as fire/EMS dispatchers as well. Also, as far as tax oversight, that totally depends on how the county/town government wants to manage it. As far as standards, I don't know, maybe lobby the State to ease standards for rural communities. Just an idea.

[Xithras]

129. The lobbying has been going on for a while.

The state of California generally pays attention to the bigger cities, so the small rural districts don't have much of a voice.

As for E911, we didn't have a police department, so E911 service was handled by the sheriffs office. Tying into it would have meant paying the county for the service, it would have required radio upgrades for the truck, and it would have meant some kind of local dispatching system to allow E911 to contact the volunteers. Since the "fire house" really was just a shed, that means calling everyone at home. Many communities tackle this by just giving out radio scanners to the volunteers, but we are in the foothills and would have needed a half dozen repeaters. Setting up that kind of infrastructure was just too expensive for 40 homes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Donations from the public did, any other stupid questions?

here is what we had to fund a full Trauma Unit, 15 rigs, one ICU with six beds an two wards with 20 beds each. On a good year we had 1 million bucks, on bad years... well lets just say I paid for a tank of gas more often than not.

Again when the call came in, we responded, we did not look up to see if that particular adress gave money or not.

[Xithras]

96. A million bucks? Wow!

The FFS department I volunteered for had a yearly budget of about $50,000, one 50 year old truck, one even older hand pumper, and an equipment shed that didn't even have a telephone. It was a very low budget affair, but it was all we had. We couldn't afford to risk that equipment to help people too cheap to even help us keep it all working.

As cold as this may sound, if someone won't support a fire taxing district and they won't pay for a private fire service, they have nobody to blame but themselves when they find themselves battling a fire by themself. I personally would have raced to the aid of any neighbor who had a fire, member or not, but I'd have done so as a neighbor, not a firefighter.

[Solon]

102. Dude, no offense, but I'm glad I don't live in your community...

A 50 year old fire truck, hand pump? How freakin cheap can you get?

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Very given that VFD can and do get donations

of hand me downs that are 20 year old trucks...

[Solon]

109. 20 year old or so I can understand...

But, seriously, actual antiques that belong to museums, plus hand pumps? How many houses are actually saved in this community he lives in? Given that they don't even have a tie in with the 911 service there, I would hate to know what response times are. I'm kinda lucky myself, we have a volunteer fire department station just up the street.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. That is a good question

the communtiy I volunteered at, the FD had some of those antiques... we helped the fire deparmnet back fit actual pumps to the trucks. Truth be told it sounds to me that the community just hates the idea of taxes... and the commons.

As to response times... I hate to think about it... I made a reference to the Caadilac we had for an ambulance, before she was FINALLY retired, we used her for low risk medical transports, and prayed every time nobody would raelly get sick... but the best ride you could ever get.

[Solon]

113. I know, in emergency situations, response time is critical...

A small fire can become a huge fire in a matter of minutes, and people within a house on fire can succumb to smoke within minutes as well. In addition to that, in many rural areas, there are fields and trees surrounding such houses and farms, and if the fire is left unattended for too long, a brush or forest fire can result, something that can devastate an entire community and then some.

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. Yep, taht is why they stood by

in case any of the subcribers got affected... I do hope they get sued silly...

[Solon]

115. I wonder if they sprayed around the house...

That I didn't hear about, but I bet the wetted anything even remotely combustable that surrounded the property.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. They probably did

and I do hope they can sleep at night.

[Solon]

119. Of course they did...

It was only a Latino needing help, not like he was a citizen. :sarcasm:

[Xithras]

130. 10-15 minute response times.

Totally unacceptable for any kind of professional or urban department, but really not all that out of line for an all volunteer force responding to and from up to 15 miles from the station. One of the volounteers lived a mile from the station, and he'd usually be the one to bring the truck to the fire. Everyone else just drove their own cars to the fire and suited up after arriving. The system usually worked very well.

[Xithras]

128. Donations generally go to the larger districts.

Actually, there are two problems with donations. First, most donated trucks come from taxpayer funded districts, and are given to smaller volounteer taxpayer funded districts. Many taxpayers would object to the idea of taxpayer purchased trucks going to Fee For Service districts, so that rarely happens. Secondly, when big departments donate older trucks, they usually give them to the most needy areas. It's hard to argue that a rural 40 home district needs a truck more than a thousand home town with a community fire department.

The truck they did have was actually a donation back in the 1970's. I was told that they'd had a trailer mounted pumper before that, and when they worked with the California Department of Forestry to put out a fire the CDF was so appalled at their equipment that they donated one of their older trucks (it would have been about 30 years old at that point). If it weren't for that, I'd bet that they'd still have the trailer pumper.

[Xithras]

125. Lol, I don't live there anymore myself.

I moved out of there about 10 years ago, partly because of the lack of services (fire wasn't the only thing lacking out there, police response often took several hours). My current home is supported by a volunteer fire department, but it's one we pay for with our tax dollars (and I'm very happy to do it).

Oh, as odd as this may sound, the hand pump actually DID have a legitimate use. There are no fireplugs in the boonies, so most of the water we used was pulled from cattle ponds and swimming pools. Our engine couldn't pump water to the hoses while it was filling its tank, and it's tank only held about 10 minutes worth of water. The hand pump kept the hoses running whenever the truck needed to be refilled.

But yeah, both of them should have been replaced long before I got there. As I understand it, the hand pump actually was replaced with an old diesel pumper a while back, but they still keep the hand pumper around for emergencies. As for the ancient engine, it works and it was donated by the CDF, so it's hard to argue with free. As long as it runs, I doubt they'll replace it.

[Solon]

135. I know that they don't have fireplugs...

Urban and Suburban fire departments don't even have to rely on their pumps and tanks in the engines too much if they are hooked up to the hydrants, usually enough pressure within that thing. If you have ever seen one burst, saw a car hit one once, it lifted the car up like 3 feet, and that water can almost at a high enough pressure to shear skin straight off the bones. Anyways, no, I was talking about a simple diesel pump like you describe, though more than one would help, hell, they could have at least had a steam engine pump, complete with a horse hitched to it, that would be an interesting, if a little dangerous, thing to use. :)

To be honest, the way you described this fire dept you volunteered in, I think if I lived there, I would have just shelled out the money for large tank of water on my property attached to a high pressure hose. I would have taken classes myself(already got a red cross card), but, for crying out loud, 10-15 minute response time? Hell that's like not having any fire department at all, it doesn't sound like its worth the cost to pay the fee.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. You realize that treating

a serious trauma patient can run 50,000 dollars from the first contact by the EMS crew all the way to that patient release from the hospital, and I am not even talking here about therapy after the fact or anything like that.

Yep, you have no idea what it meant to run that hospital on donations... all I can say is, if all you think is ... if my friend did not pay his dues the fire truck is not coming out... I hope that you are taken to court and that you can sleep at night.

Oh and please do preach to me about old ancient rigs. the oldest I worked from was a 1950s Cadillac ambulance that was all but fit for EMS response... she got plenty of TLC though.

Oh and we got Zero TAX money

[Xithras]

126. We did no EMS work.

Strictly fire suppression. Heck, of the 14 volunteers, only two of us even had Red Cross first aid training.

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. Well I was a certified Paramedic,

confined space specialist, auto extrication specialist and mountain rescue specialist... (also trained as a firefighter on the side, helping the fire department more than once) and yes we did that, and we ran out of a hospital that was the MAIN trauma unit for a large city, and we were volunteers.

No taxes... we also had other curtsy things that went with who or what we were (can you say Geneva Convention for I was part of a National Red Cross Society), but we ran on donations... and yes on a GOOD year we got that much, and it barely lasted, We also bought a lot of our own equipment. Hell I still have my ropes.

[Solon]

94. Sounds like a BS argument to me...

It sounds like the people in the area are simply too cheap to pony up in TAXES. If a "pay for service" fire dept can be supported from fees from members, a tax supported one could also be affordable to serve the community. Think about it this way, you have a community, sparsely populated, of about 500 people, now, you have let's say only half are members of the fire brigade, so to speak. That means, that for a "pay for service" fire department, they have 250 people paying in, out of 500 taxpayers. Now, let's say that those 250 people pay 200 bucks a month(probably low-balling here) to pay for the service. Why couldn't the community charge that in taxes so that ALL taxpayers to be covered?

If a community is too small to support a taxpayer funded fire department, it doesn't have to be full time, just a volunteer one, that maintains equipment, then how come they can afford a "pay for service" one instead? What am I missing here? Basically I'm asking why can't they change the structure of the pay for service fire department so that paying into it isn't voluntary at all? A fire tax, if you will.

[Xithras]

97. See my post #92

Taxpayer funded fire departments are more costly to operate. FFS departments don't have to meet the same training and equipment requirements than government fire departments do, so FFS departments can operate for far less money.

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. That is because you do NOT want to deal with all

the regulations, what your fire coats are 40 year old jobbise, and you guys don't even use Scott Air parks either (as required by OSHA) because we are REAL MEN here.

[Xithras]

131. More like we couldn't afford it.

We did actually have one volounteer who had his own relatively new SCBA, but the rest of us had powered respirators (fancy filters that only worked for about 10 minutes) and the rest of our personal equipment was all fairly new. The budget that we did have primarily went towards that sort of thing...equipment that the volunteers needed to keep themselves from harm when fighting fires. Oh, and new hoses. Some years, half our budget went to new hoses. Fighting grass fires in rocky foothills is hell on hoses.

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. If you knew how much gear I bought on my own

you would go nuts, and that included new Scott's for the rescue truch... we actually held a donation drive for that

[tyedyeto]

138. I lived in a rural area in CA for 25 years and NEVER paid blackmail

for fire protection

[PhilipShore]

57. Republicans oppose taxes -- but not fees?...

And Republicans oppose terrorists -- but will routinely cooperate, with nations that support terrorists?

[ima_sinnic]

64. so they can't have a fee structure for nonsubscribers?

ie, so much per hour plus so much per person fighting the fire, something like that that would factor in the cost of maintaining the equipment and all other associated expenses?

and why did these people even go to the scene if their overriding concern is money? they went just so they could stand around and make the homeowner feel like a criminal because he didn't "subscribe"?

gee, maybe I just don't "understand" life in the boonies. even though I grew up in a town of 1100 people with a volunteer fire department. when there was a fire the whole town showed up to help out, without concern for money.

this by the way is life the way "libertarians" would like it. no taxes, so any public services are by subscription only. next we'll have cops standing around watching "nonsubscribers" get mugged and murdered.

[ladjf]

91. Yes. They already had the equipment and were at the scene.

The only thing they saved was the price of the water and some use of equipment. They could have accepted his "one the spot" offer to pay the dues. That situation publicized would have helped their subscriptions. But, in their simple minded logic, it would have taught people to not pay the fee unless their house caught on fire. A majority of the citizens in such a small community would have wanted to cooperate with the fire fighting efforts.

[RayOfHope]

69. Monett=Roy Blunt's district. Southwest MO

and knowing the makeup of the area well, I'd say the fact this man was hispanic played no small part in not receiving help.

[ladjf]

81. It's easy to understand the firefighters logic. They were making

the statement that the owner should have paid his fire dues. In the first place, what kind of a community exists with no tax supported fire protection? That needs to be examined.

Meanwhile, as the firefighters stood by and watched as one citizen suffered thousands of dollars in damage. If they insisted on carrying out the hard line mercenary role, they should have billed the owner for the cost of fighting the fire.

This is another example of suffering caused by self-centered free market policies. Private schools, fire departments, libraries, medical care and many other services that could be better handled by public supervision and law. If the practice is carried far enough there will be no need for government of any kind. Even the military will be private as in feudal times.

[derby378]

120. This is how firefighters USED to operate...

You had to pay monthly dues for the local fire department to hang their medallion on your house. Back then, almost all fire departments were private corporations until someone got the bright idea that they should be socialized in order to serve the public trust.

I recommend watching The Corporation on DVD sometime soon. They discuss this phenomenon briefly.

[Kolesar]

122. Niles FD stood &watched a home burn because 911 sent the wrong crew

The 911 operator called the Niles City FD when they should have dispatched the township FD. The house was 2 blocks from the border and the the dispatcher did not figure out which one to call. The fuckhead firemen did not even bother to go get the township FD whose firehouse was about ten blocks away. This was about 2 years ago. Niles, Ohio sucks.

[nini]

123. Why did they even respond to the call then?

I guess just doing the right thing means nothing in this country any more.

[WI_DEM]

124. to protect the other homes nearby which did pay for the service

[XanaDUer]

133. I thought it was FL...

Looks like MO.

[tyedyeto]

136. Can you say 'blackmail'?

When I first moved to the town I live in....I had never heard of paying any additional fees for fire protection. I have always lived where fire protection was a part of the property taxes I had paid. Out of the blue, a 'bill' came in the mail, telling us that if this 'fire protection' invoice wasn't paid, the local fire department would not respond to any calls to our address. I was flabbergasted! I had never heard of this sort of blackmail before.

Who else lives in an area in which fire protection money is in addition to your property taxes?

[hopeisaplace]

139. I'll Play: Texas?

[killbotfactory]

140. Welcome to Dick Cheney's America

More money = better than

[gardenista]

142. Why don't they have a policy of billing for the service if they

must put out the fire of a non-dues paying member of the community?

I'm sure they could charge thousands of dollars.

[Texacrat]

147. These assholes need to be arrested.

Maybe a night with Bubba will change their attitude.

[Sgent]

148. This is Missouri's fault

In Mississippi the majority of the state is covered by volunteer fire depts or by paid services.

One of the smarter things the legislature did was pass a law which says essentially:

Fire departments may collect fees for non-member properties requesting immediate fire service by:

• charging a fee as determined by the bylaws of the department
  
• leveling a mechanic's lien against the property not to exceed the equivalent to all unpaid fees (from years past as will as this one), plus interest, plus a 200% penalty.
  
• such fee agreement shall shall not be voidable under contract law due to duress.
  
  Every once in a while a homeonwer would get a $3000 mechanic's lein leveled (which in my state meant auction in 90 days).