Fires need to be put out in the interest of public safety. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

[Dappleganger]

We live in a highly flammable state (FL) with frequent lightning strikes, houses close together and when the underbrush is dry a small fire can quickly go out of control and turn into a whole world of trouble for the entire community. It's a SAFETY hazard for everyone. The answer to someone not paying the bill isn't cutting off service, but establishing a needs-based fund for people who can't pay.

Why is this even up for question on a democratic forum? Good Lord in heaven.

:shrug:

[derby378]

1. Exactly - end of fucking discussion

http://www.thecorporation.com

[Rex]

2. Because some people will argue common sense into the ground

and still tell you how wrong you are. That is exactly what I thought too, the FD was ONSITE F'r Fs sake! They just watched it burn.

[LiberalFighter]

4. I'm wondering if they are in legal trouble for allowing a fire to continue.

[Rex]

8. I don't know, I would think the people that ordered the FD not to do anything

would be more responsible. I'm wondering if the insurance company is now going to fight this and claim negligence on the FDs part.

[Duer 157099]

3. Disagree. That isn't the primary reason

If that's truly the basis, then explain why homeless should be sheltered, hungry fed, ill be treated. No, it's not because of the interest of "public safety."

It's because it's the HUMAN, DECENT thing to do. Period.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Agreed. We're being trained to accept increasing attacks on The Commons....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9260920

[Bluerthanblue]

5. k&R

:hi:

[Pithlet]

6. And the fire departments need to be paid for with tax dollars.

They can go bankrupt and disapearif they aren't. Why should those of us who pay for ours let neighboring communities leach off of and potentially bankrupt them? If those who don't want to pay the taxes to support those infrastructures, why are we morally obligated to suffer the consequences along with them? Why is that? Why should the city of South Fulton stretch their fire department thin because the neighboring county, which isn't even in the same state, refuses to pay? Showing up to fight fires anyway is financially hurting them. And the county refuses to do anything about it.

[TexasObserver]

9. I thought this concept was accepted by all 100 years ago.

Like you, I can't believe we have to fight this fight on a Democratic board, of all places.

Of course, if you look at the poll of the event, you'll see the "let it burn" contingent really isn't very many people.

[LiberalFighter]

10. What would be wrong with fining a homeowner if they have a fire without paying the fee?

I would suggest a fine based on their property taxes. Maybe 35% of their property taxes. Or 10 ten times the fee.

[Pithlet]

11. Because funding after the fact isn't fair either.

Either they're city/county, and they have the funding and resources for both, or they're just for the city. The county voted not to fund them. It's ridiculous to exepct them to just show up piecemeal whenever county has a fire, and then MAYBE they'll get paid if the homeowner decides to pay them the fee, or they can maybe chase them in court and get the judgement. A tex levied on the county payers would be much better. But they vote it down every time.

[MadMaddie]

12. Thank-you! Besides the possibility he may have needed help

maybe he has mental issues who knows. That still doesn't matter as you rightly point out.

[aikoaiko]

13. The case in Obion Countyhad nothing to do with the cost of service -- opting out was freely chosen.

I hope this easily avoided tragedy wakes up a lot of people about the importance of social goods and proper taxation.

edited for correct place.

[lostnfound]

14. I agree and I would also add

that human decency sometimes leads to good things. People who think "Oh, if they put out the fire at the house of a man who didn't pay the fee, then won't everyone else decide to stop paying the fee" aren't seeing the possibilities of life. The story could just as easily have ended with the man being so grateful that the fire department saved his house that he made a big donation and talked in the papers about learning his lesson that we all need to support the fire department.

But fees are a dumb way to do it anyway.

[Pithlet]

17. Or, the people who think it are familiar with the story

because they know that only about half the people in the county have even paid the fees to begin with. That the fire company was showing up to put their fires out anyway (yeah, the firefighters who are just so awful. Them). And not getting paid. That their budget is so stretched thin because of this that they just might fold altogether.

I'd like to know if people who are just so outraged at these firefighters think that they're just some rare special breed or something. That all other firefighters everywhere would put it out anyway and that these are just some unusual asshole firefighters. And if they think about it does it even make sense? Then maybe if they realize what's really going on, they can put the blame where it really belongs. With the idiots who voted for this system and tried to take advantage of those good, hardworking firefighters.

[Xipe Totec]

15. Epic Fail...

That's all there is to say about them; Epic Fail.

[Dappleganger]

16. Classic.

[arbusto_baboso]

18. Precisely. And for much the same reason why you immunize the children of undocumented aliens.

Because your house doesn't care if the house which set it alight has had its fire fees paid. And a disease doesn't care if the child who gave it to your kid isn't in the country legally.

Plain fucking common sense.

[Dappleganger]

19. Dead on.

At least a few people on this board get it.

[TexasObserver]

20. thank you!

[Odin2005]

21. Because according to the DLC-lapdogs promoting the public good isn't "pragmatic"?

[Canuckistanian]

22. Damn straight

Good Lord in Heaven, indeed.