At the very least, they should have put out the fire at that man's house and billed him for the

[Tony_FLADEM]

service.

If how they decide to handle that type of service is through a prepaid prescription, fine.


But it makes no economic sense to let that house burn to the ground. The fire department isn't saving anything by allowing that.


They should have worked to stop the fire and billed him the full cost later.

[aquart]

1. They let animals die.

They stood there with equipment and let animals die for $75.00.

They let animals die.

[Tony_FLADEM]

2. I didn't know that

That's awful.

[EFerrari]

4. This country is devolving right in front of my face.

I feel like apologizing to my children.

[itsrobert]

35. Please provide the link on letting animal die that weren't dead already

Waiting.

[DainBramaged]

68. The owner of the house said it during the interview with KO last night

I broke down and cried. Over $75.

[mainer]

62. The homeowners did, too.

The people got out safely. They left behind their own pets. And they expect firefighters to risk THEIR lives to save the pets that the owners didn't bother to get out of the house?

[Pithlet]

3. I might as well make everyone hate me at DU even more

But that's a really great deal if you're going to have a prepaid subscription if the city is just going to show up and put out the fire and save your house, whether you paid or not. I thought the whole point was so they didn't have to support the city's fire department? If they have to show up and fight the fires anyway, then they should have to actually pony up the money for the fire department. I though I remember reading that they were putting out the fires anyway and it wasn't working, and that's what led to this drastic scenario. They let this guy's house burn down because they were having problems getting people to pay, if I remember correctly. If the county insists on having this stupid Libertarian type arrangement - an arrangement that I think is ridiculous and in no way support and think they should just pay their damn taxes already - then I think the fire department should hold them to it. Otherwise they should vote to fund the fire department. Call their bluff, in other words.

[itsrobert]

6. Excellent Response

They gambled and lost.

[Tony_FLADEM]

9. I see what you are saying but if there is an opportunity to save the house

the fire department should still make the attempt.

They can put a tax-lien against him and sue him in court if he refuses to pay later on.

[itsrobert]

12. A tax lien on a house that is half burned down?

that'll work.

[Tony_FLADEM]

22. I'm sure the property itself is still worth something

[Pithlet]

17. Why should the city incur those expenses?

I know how harsh my position sounds. But I'm considering the city and its people. It isn't their fault the county voted the way they did. Why should they suffer? And they will if the county is allowed to get away with it but want to have their cake and eat it, too. The county can simply do the right thing and vote to fund its share. If they refuse, then that's their problem. It's harsh, but if Liberbaggers want to live in that world, as much as we sane people think it's crazy and wrong, then the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer with them. As harsh as it is and as sympathetic as we may be when the consequences make the news.

[Bluebear]

11. They let animals die for 75 dollars.

[itsrobert]

14. How do you know the animals were not already dead?

before the fire department got on scene?

[EFerrari]

15. Stay classy, itsrobert.

[Bluebear]

16. Impossible.

[itsrobert]

19. So you want firefighters to risk their lives for animals that maybe already dead?

Maybe you should stay classy?

[EFerrari]

27. So, do you have any other strawmen you want to trot out?

Get them in now.

[itsrobert]

28. I'll like a link to the story about the animals in the fire

Do you have one?

[uncommon]

56. S/he has a point - I don't expect firefighters to risk their lives to save pets, and I love my pets.

But my pets lives are just not as valuable as a human life.

[sabrina 1]

38. They knew there were animals in the house. They did nothing

to try to save them, to try to find out if they were trapped, injured, they just sat there. Heroes, aren't they?

If I were a fireman, and my SO IS a volunteer fireman, I would have grabbed a hose and if they stopped me, at least I would know I did the right thing.

I do not know a single Fireman who would have sat there the way these jerks did.

Please don't bother telling me about the fee, I don't care about fees. Nor should anyone who calls themselves a Fireman.

I cannot believe there are people here arguing about this. There is NO excuse, none, for what they did. At some people people have to stop just 'following orders' when those orders cause harm to others. Once upon a time, the excuse that someone was 'just following orders' was not acceptable. But I hear it more and more in this country these days.

[tsuki]

61. I wish we could recommend posts. +1

[uncommon]

54. I have to agree. If there is no consequence to NOT paying, people will not pay. And there is no wa

y to make them pay the bill after the fact.

They should just be paying in via taxes like everyone else to support the fire department and get rid of this ridiculous opt in/opt out system.

[Dorian Gray]

58. That's what I don't understand

Why is this service not covered by local taxes?

[itsrobert]

5. Let it burn. They wouldn't pay the fee, they live with the results

They made their libertarian choice, they need to live with it.

As for animals, I'm not for men and women risking their lives for an animal.

[Tony_FLADEM]

8. When there is a tragedy unfolding you can't make it a philsophical issue

It's best to take the action that will have the best result.

They should have put out the fire and saved the animals and billed him for the full cost of having to do this.

Having the person lose his home completely does no good for anyone.

[itsrobert]

10. What guarantee do you have that the homeowner would pay or has the means to pay

Someone in distress would say anything to get help. Should the fire department take their word for it?

[Tony_FLADEM]

20. Lets assume the cost to the city of putting out the fire was $500-$1000

I have no idea but that seems like a reasonable amount.


Is it wise to let a house that is worth perhaps $30,000-$40,000 burn to the ground over $1000?



If he refuses to pay, a court can force him to do so and can even put a lien against his home.

That is the best route to go, not this libertarian mindset that he gambled and lost.

[itsrobert]

23. $500 to $1000 to put out a fire?

It takes more money than that to just get out of their fire house. Not too mention they leave the city residence vulnerable as the fire department is out in the county fighting a fire.

[Tony_FLADEM]

29. I have no idea what it might cost

I just know that looking at things philosophically is not how things work in real life. When you fail to prevent something tragic simply on the notion the other person gambled and lost, it leads suffering that people should try to avoid.

[shimmergal]

74. They should have

asked the owner to write them a check or a promissary note when they arrived at the house.

Then they'd have the potential to get the money later, one way or another.

As I've said before on health-care mandates, it works for AAA (letting people join/pay when they have the emergency).

[shimmergal]

75. They should have

asked the owner to write them a check or a promissary note when they arrived at the house.

Then they'd have the potential to get the money later, one way or another.

As I've said before on health-care mandates, it works for AAA (letting people join/pay when they have the emergency).

[TheMadMonk]

25. Strangely enough it might just be good for YOU!

As you, and others are pointing out "libertarian arrangements" don't benefit people, just the participants.

If you give people a choice (as per The American Ideal of ultimate independence) then people MUST abide by and live with the consequence (ALL consequences) of that choice. If there are to be prosecutions under animal cruelty laws then it should not be the fire department who faces the music, it should be the owners who made the choice not to properly protect their pets.

Where am I going? Esential services levies SHOULD NOT BE OPTIONAL.

A few more examples like this and rugged individualists might actually catch a clue.

[divideandconquer]

47. The best result was to force to the county to end this insane system or force everyone to subscribe

Why would anyone ever subscribe if they would put out the fire or let you pay afterwards.

[superduperfarleft]

57. Such a typically american response. n/t

[LanternWaste]

64. When Dogma Attacks...

When Dogma Attacks...

[TexasObserver]

71. Ridiculous and mean spirited.

[Bold Lib]

7. Yep!

[jobycom]

13. They are lying to us about this story.

Obion County is a middle class county of Republicans who have repeatedly refused to pay for a fire department or to pay other fire departments to cover their county. South Fulton is a poorer city within the county that does pay taxes despite having a significantly lower median income and a significant higher percentage of people living in poverty.

The Republicans in the county want the poor people in the city to pay for their fire department without them paying a cent towards it. The city refuses, but allows county residents to contract for fire protection individually for a very low fee.

The victim either decided not to pay or forgot to pay--he seems to have said both at different times--but he still expected the fire department he pays nothing to support in a city he pays no taxes to drop all of their local responsibilities to put out his fire. Sound anything like the same mindset that wants tax cuts but then wants bailouts for their businesses when they are broke?

You're right, they should have put out the fire then sued the county and the victim for expenses. But the real issue isn't the individual homeowner, the real issue is the Republican sense of entitlement.

[EFerrari]

18. You're right about the sense of entitlement but for some people

the real issue is the individual home and the dead animals.

Yeah, I can see exactly how better off people leach off of working people in the city. That's how this whole country is run. But you don't use emergencies where property and lives are at stake as an object lesson. That's simply sociopathic. You work it out politically.

[itsrobert]

21. Work it out politically?

Like how? If the homeowners expect service without paying, how are you going to work that out?

[EFerrari]

24. Do we still have courts or have they been privatized, too?

[itsrobert]

26. What is the court going to do?

?

[EFerrari]

32. If this situation is what we think it is, the city should be able to show

that the county is negligent and leaving residents at risk. The threat would be the withholding of state funds to the county or the reallocation of those funds to the city. The Superior Court could do that in California, anyway. I don't know about liability for individual officers of the county but they might also bear liability.

I live about a few feet from the San Jose city limits where unincorporated Santa Clara County is and there are constant issues like that one here.

[jobycom]

37. The city can't do that.

They aren't the ones damaged. The county is the ones who would have a right to bring a case, and they haven't. They don't want to change it. In 2008 they rejected a plan that would have cost a very minor tax increase. This is what the county wants.

The city can only file a case in court if they are damaged or have something to complain about. They don't have anything. The city isn't at risk from the county's decision. Only the county is. If the city goes to put out a fire they haven't been contracted for, they can't sue for payment because the county told them ahead of time they don't want the service, so the city would already know it was doing it for free. What if they file in court and lose? Then the city has spent even more money because the county doesn't want to pay taxes.

I still say the FD should have put out the fire and tried to collect. But the entity most to blame for this is the county.

[EFerrari]

40. The city likely can do that because of the arrangement

that the county has made with them. That is the basis.

[jobycom]

30. They already worked it out politically. This is what they worked out. Both sides.

It's a policy the citizens of the county wanted. It's a policy they continually approve through elections. The city FD has had the same policy since 1990. This has happened before. The county has voted on this before, and has always decided to not pay any taxes towards supporting a fire department.

The fire department should have done something, but the real blame isn't the fire department, it is the county and the residents who don't want to pay for a fire department but want a fire department to respond anyway. That's what's sociopathic.

[EFerrari]

33. If firefighters are watching homes burn down, it clearly hasn't been worked out n/t.

[jobycom]

36. Again, blame the county. They got what they demanded. nt

[LanternWaste]

65. Same justification used after the Volstead Act.

Same justification used after the Volstead Act.

[NuttyFluffers]

50. to recap: "the sociopathy is county residents who want a FD for free."

The fire department should have done something, but the real blame isn't the fire department, it is the county and the residents who don't want to pay for a fire department but want a fire department to respond anyway. That's what's sociopathic.

You are absolutely right. People can have all the compassion they want, but some things are economically untenable. The city cannot endlessly afford stepping out of its jurisdiction to save others who CHOOSE to live in "big L" libertarian selfishness. They've tried for years before, but with the economy as is, it can no longer be done. South Fulton doesn''t have the resources to be forever altruistic, period. Doesn't make them evil, it makes them limited -- as in part of a world with finite limits. If they were all-powerful creators, sure, they have the responsibility to save everyone, all the time. But they're not, so they can't.

And thus the onus falls back upon the county gov't and the residents to get off their ass and fund a county FD. But they have chosen not to... for years and years. And supposedly they like it this way. So who are we to point fingers? Every human involved got what they wanted. Sadly, what they wanted doesn't always work, and bad things slip through. Therefore any efforts complaining about compassion are better served to educate the county residents that this is not the best method of governance. However I will not hold my breath for them to understand the lesson. And since it's their county, and their gov't representation, I and most of us here have little to no say on the matter.

[LiberalAndProud]

39. How do you work it out politically?

Earnest question. How do you change hearts and minds if there is no downside to the voluntary system? The system is flawed, and the city and the firefighters are being vilified for it.

If you get by for years, even decades paying no part of the public cost, then the year your luck ran out still get service, what's the down side? And why would the system ever change?

[EFerrari]

41. That was addressed upthread. n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

42. Fees after service?

Are you are aware that the fire department hasn't been able to collect on after-service fees when the property owner chose not to pay? The voluntary subscription is an entrenched practice not likely to be legislated out of existence.

And when stupid policies are enacted by stupid politicians, tragic things happen.

[NuttyFluffers]

51. what was addressed upthread was also addressed in article as no longer tenable.

putting out the fire and then billing was not working. let me repeat that again: putting out the fire and then billing was not working. the city has finite resources; they were being drained dry by 75% of the fires being outside their jurisdiction, but receiving help and being billed later. however, 50% of such bills were never collected. therefore, 50% of 75% = 37.5% unfunded drain was hitting this city year after year. it doesn't matter how much you care, at some point you have no more money to DO what you desire. and with economic times as it is, the city WAS FORCED to change from the failing solution mentioned.

the solution suggested was tried for years. it was failing and leaving the city exposed financially -- so much so that if they did not switch they would have to cut services. therefore that would mean even less or no fire department for everybody. which would mean being altruistic to the point of exposure and death. the city was forced to choose survival over altruism -- that's nature, not evil. these are the circumstances as laid out per article.

and thus that altruistic solution argument can no longer work. it has been done, it has failed. any more pursuit in that solution would have left more people exposed to fire death -- it was voluntary fees for survival or "drown gov't in a bathtub" and everyone gets hurt. this is the last alternative left due to the stubborn insistence of county gov't, as elected by unincorporated county residents.

people can feel all they want, but doing requires resources. resources are finite. if they are constantly drained and not replenished, altruism -- and even basic survival -- cannot continue. this is the end game of the political climate in the area. our disappointment and outrage means nothing because this is how they want to live, as all other options have been tried.

[EFerrari]

55. Right. My suggestion was for the city to bring suit in the superior court.

It wasn't for the situation to be resolved by my widdle feelings. I understand that the residents of the county are essentially being abusive, you don't need to explain it again. If the county is putting its residents at risk and also the residents of the city at risk with its policy and behavior, the city should be able to show that in state court and especially because they have this subscription arrangement with the county. At that point, it would seem to me that a state judge would be able to arrange orders that would help the two parties come to a more equitable solution, with the added incentive of the reallocation of state funds or even the threat of fines by the state.

[NuttyFluffers]

60. a useful solution, but one that would take years...

and then think of the political climate in TN. could this even raise its way through the state courts? we take it for granted in CA, but TN is a whole other story.

it's worth the shot, but in the meanwhile there are no other clean solutions. this is what they have, and until the non-incorporated county people agitate for a FD -- or the courts mandate one from the county -- nothing would have prevented this or others from happening. it's tragic and unavoidable until the people in the area, or the courts, choose otherwise. we can only look on and lament that these people are hurting themselves unduly.

we never have enough power to save people from themselves. that, only they can do.

[EFerrari]

63. I respectfully disagree. Because we are social animals

we intervene between people and their judgment all the time. We ask them to inoculate their dogs and we limit how much they drink in public and we regulate how they drive their cars. We tell them where they can build safely and we try to protect children from adult sexual behavior. This idea that we can't or shouldn't, is, as far as I can tell, a libertarian one at bottom and doesn't work in human society.

There are always outliers that won't respond to social contracts. But that isn't a reason not to have one.

[NuttyFluffers]

73. Perhaps I am not clear. We can do nothing now from where we are.

This is their local governance. we would have to either completely educate the people to change their ways OR move there and vote in the change ourselves. Just like " nation building" in Afghanistan, we have no immediate say on how they conduct their affairs. I understand your sentiments, but understand you have no imediate power over the situation there. That's just a fact, there is no political statement involved.

In fact, the only thing you can do directly is email a recommendation to the county and offer pro Bono legal services to the city to move forward your litigious plan. If you are a lawyer and can do so, it would be a good deed on your part to try to bring your ideas and convictions to these people. All the best success to you to actively bring change to a people and region that for years have actively behaved that they do not want such progressive ideas.

Bless you if you can change the hearts of those who willfully hurt themselves and those around them.

[EFerrari]

76. Whether we can change them or not, we have to deal with these people.

Isn't this the direction the country is trending to, at bottom? I'm listening to Thom Hartmann debating the sterility, the destructiveness of libertarian ideology and he's talking about the country, not about that one venue.

We don't have to live in South Fulton to have a stake in sorting out these issues because that is the direction our political class is taking the nation. South Fulton is really just all of us in little.

[NuttyFluffers]

77. yes, yes, exactly yes. that is the position of DUers who are pointing to county/citizen liability.

i have yet to see anyone here who is pointing out the ridiculous policy, as sourced and nurtured from county/non-incorporated citizenry selfishness, ALSO being in favor of "big L" libertarianism. it's just not happening. and yet DU is whipping itself into another needless emotional frenzy, attacking itself internally, when instead the entire community here is in mutual agreement. this is from bad governance and selfish attitudes -- we all agree on that (but we prefer emotionally engaging pogroms instead).

the ONLY difference is one section of DU is ENABLING "big L" Libertarian philosophy by attacking the victim and unconsciously supporting "drown gov't in a bathtub" tactics, and the other is asking other DUers to read with more attention to detail to find the real culprit -- and learn how to spot this RW tactic before it comes to one's own home. some situations are untenable, hence "drown gov't in a bathtub" philosophy. but you have to know WHO is screwing WHOM before you can STOP THE CYCLE.

the minority cannot altruistically support the majority in perpetuity. this has zero to do with politics, morals, or anything. this is completely about the hard reality of resource management -- a.k.a. logistics. these forces, the power of finite limits in a material world, do not care about thoughts or opinions; it is just the factual basis of what can be done with naturally limited resources available. to blame those hamstrung by logistics is like blaming gravity for being so strong to hold us down. it makes absolutely no sense, and in fact plays into the hands of callous RW manipulators.

now how do we deal with these people? do we support them in their selfishness? or do we point out their selfishness as the real source cause of their suffering? we both have zero real power over their immediate governance, so all our talk of ideals and better governance is merely pissing in the wind. especially so since they have repeatedly shown zero understanding of the situation and zero desire to learn. so how does ENABLING their folly by emotionally getting lost on how to solve the problem help anyone? blaming the desperate -- i.e. impoverished city gov't and its weakening Fire Dept. -- is always the wrong way to start. particularly so since IT CANNOT BE THEIR FAULT for being finite beings in a finite world.

so, how do you convince the brats to share? not by supporting their selfishness, nor by supporting their blame game, is a good start...

[mainer]

67. So now the city has to pay lawyers to go to court?

Talk about an expensive proposition. The city would be in court all the time, and draining city coffers, just to collect from deadbeats.

[EFerrari]

69. Not on this issue if their suit was against the county

and the aim of the suit was to correct the process, not to collect from individuals. The judge could also order up attorney's fees. But you're right. Most cities are in court all the time. That's why they have legal departments and City Attorneys.

[Lyric]

31. What they did was the equivalent of deliberately letting a puppy drown

in order to teach the neighborhood kids a "lesson" about how important lifejackets are. It was a lesson that COULD have been taught in the abstract, but instead, someone stupidly decided that this would be a great time for some "zero tolerance" tough love.

When did we become such vicious and spiteful people?

[itsrobert]

34. Let me get this straight. You want firefighters risking their lives for a puppy?

A puppy that may have been dead before they arrived on scene to begin with?

But I'm still looking for a link that animals died in the fire.

[Ineeda]

43. Isn't this the exact thing we mock and ridicule

rethugs, teabaggers, and libertarians about when they rail on about Socialism and not wanting to pay taxes? We tell them, "Hey, so don't use public roads, public water supply, public schools, public parks, public transportation, law enforcement, FIRE services, etc." We tell them that they'd be singing a different tune if they were being robbed or their house were burning down. They don't want to see the hard facts, and this is about as hard as it gets. I guess it's different (for both sides of the argument) when a face --a real person-- is put into the picture.

[USArmyParatrooper]

44. You know.... that's a good solution!

I can honestly see both sides of this argument and this is a good solution. If you live outside their jurisdiction and you don't pay the dues, the fire department will still save your home but YOU pay the cost.

[WVRICK13]

45. This Is Absolute Proof

of how selfish and ignorant Americans have become. We are so focused on our own needs and wants that we turn a blind eye to others in need. I am a gay male, I will never have children but I vote every year for the school tax bonds because that is what we should do in our society. I want educated people in the future. Fee or no fee, I could not stand and watch someones home burn without trying to help. My cousin had been listening to local tea party members. We were riding down the interstate and he started on government involvement and taxes and those people. I pulled off the next exit and turned off the car. When he asked what I was doing I told him if what he wanted came true he needed to get out and walk home through the woods since the interstate no longer existed. Then I told him to forget TV, water, fuel etc. I reminded him when he got home not to visit his 96 year old mother in the nursing home because she was living on the streets if she were still alive. But not to worry since she had probably already died from lack of health care under his scenario. Then I told him to forget paying any bills because he wouldn't be getting his unemployment check. He looked at me and said WOW. I replied WOW and drove back onto the interstate.

[NuttyFluffers]

53. exactly. to some swept away w/ emotion, occasionally you have to be cruel to be kind.

your cousin thought that we can all be an island to ourselves. no, it is not possible. but sometimes you have to really lay it all down and smack these people with all the things they can lose if they choose to dismantle civilization. you can be nice and mollycoddle them, but in the end they learn nothing. in fact, they'll be a danger trying to spread this madness and destroy anything they can touch. civilization cannot withstand that.

sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind -- some people speak no other language.

[PA Democrat]

46. I agree. It makes sense both ethically and financially.

First, clerical errors do occur and it would be tragic to let someone's house burn down if they had paid the fee and the record-keeping was inaccurate.

Second, in the confusion of a fire, people often are mistaken as to whether there are people in the house. My neighbor's house burned down when I was a child, and for a full half an hour after the fire department arrived, no one was sure that everyone was out of the house.

Third, if a neighbor's house was damaged or destroyed because the original fire was allowed to burn uncontrolled, you better believe there would be a lawsuit. It is reckless to assume that a fire can be prevented from spreading. Dry brush, an uptick in the wind or a shift in the wind may be all it takes to turn a single fire into a bigger catastrophe.

Did this guy have homeowners insurance? When I applied for insurance, the company wanted to know how far the nearest fire department was, how far the nearest fire hydrant was to my house. Maybe insurance companies will start requiring proof that your fire department will actually fight a fire in your house instead of letting it burn. If this guy's policy pays to rebuild his house, the cost will be passed along to other policy holders.

Then there are the taxes on the house itself. The county won't be collecting property taxes on a house that doesn't exist.

Everyone loses. If people don't care about losing their humanity, they should at least see that there are other financial costs that are borne by all with this type of libertarian mindset.

[hayu_lol]

48. The fire did spread to a neighbor's property...

the neighbor was a subscriber. The fire department did put out the fire that had crossed property lines. Had they saved the unsubscribed house while a subscriber's house caught fire they would have been liable for the loss.

The guy who started the fire(had two trash barrels burning)was the guy who would not subscribe. He did this to himself.

[PA Democrat]

49. You are jumping through hoops. The chance of a neighbor's property being damaged

increases by not fighting the original fire.

[Romulox]

66. Wouldn't it be a lulu if skipping out on fire protection was a breach of the insurance policy?

:shrug:

[lynne]

52. Homeowners insurance policies normally will pay Fire Dept. service fees -

- incurred during a covered loss so the likelihood is that the insurance company would have paid the Fire Dept.

Really very sad and I hope that they make some kind of adjustment as to how they handle such situations in the future.

[Baalath]

59. I think there will be an adjustment

in how many people pay the 75 bucks

[TexasObserver]

70. Agreed. Their decision was heinous.

[mstinamotorcity]

72. Yes it was pretty f--ked up

for the firemen to sit and watch the family's house burn to the ground, in the spirit of humanity they should have tried to save their home. But everyone wants the cheap way out. People complain about higher taxes and county fees all the time. Especially when things are smooth sailing. But as soon as they need the service of one of those entities, and doesn't get it, now its a problem. Now they would have paid the fees. It doesn't make it right, but sometimes we make choices that we must live with. Maybe he was like the people who say they want limited Government until they have a tornado come through and wipe out their town and they then scream Where is the Government? Thats when someone should shout out its limited to the people who don't mind paying their fair share in taxes.:P :P :P

[shanti]

78. exactly

they should have put it out and if he didn't pay, put a lien on his house.