The Man Did NOT Forget To Pay The Fire Fee. He Deliberately Chose Not To.

[KittyWampus]

The guy was reminded by letters, phone calls from the fire department and the Fire Chief.

The same family "forgot" to pay the fee on another place that went ablaze and the fire department put out THAT fire, sent a bill and never got paid. Still haven't gotten paid.

It's a good idea not to switch blame from the gambling idiot house owner to the fire department personnel who cannot operate on a "pay as you go" service.

Or as Rocktivity wisely states below where he corrected me, it's the county for not levying a tax to pay for the service.

The fire personnel didn't create the fee system that pays for their salary, equipment and training.

[LaurenG]

1. So - many people in his district didn't pay. Some had fires and were allowed to pay the next day.

They wouldn't give him that option. It's morally reprehensible to allow a mans house to burn to the ground over $75.00.

edit: typo

[Romulox]

6. That's the problem with doing people favors--people use your kindness as a weapon against you.

"many people in his district didn't pay. Some had fires and were allowed to pay the next day."

Why should anybody pay under those facts? Sounds like the homeowner was crassly manipulating the system.

[LaurenG]

He was but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. nt

[Romulox]

13. There was no "punishment"--just cause and effect. nt

[LaurenG]

16. I call BS - his neighbor had a fire and was allowed to pay later

he was not. And it was a punishment.

[struggle4progress]

195. Cranik had an earlier fire, which was extinguished despite him being a non-subscriber

He was allowed to pay later for that fire. But he didn't pay. Why should anyone fall for that bullshit indefinitely? Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice: shame on me

[KittyWampus]

19. It's strange how many bring up the word "punishment".

[LaurenG]

25. It's also strange that so many (especially here!)would allow this to happen without a thought

about the person who was being irresponsible. The right thing to do would have been to help him. Hell I would have helped him even if he was my worst enemy and owed me $75.00.


How sad that the rules and authoritarian crowd has not learned a thing about being a human being...still

edit clarification

[KittyWampus]

33. Authoritarian? Again, interesting choice of words.

[LaurenG]

35. Why, you don't see it that way? It's OK with you?

I hope you're only asking questions and not telling us how you really feel.

[LiberalAndProud]

131. Please help me here.

Let's imagine that you are on the city commission in South Fulton. You've done a good job so you keep getting re-elected. You've been on the city commission for 20 years.

The town that you represent has fewer than 2700 citizens. You have a sister city in Kentucky (across the river) of approximately the same size. You have an agreement with the sister city that your fire departments will work together to provide fire protection service for the area. It is within your fire department's purvue to respond to fires within a radius of five miles. Your taxing authority is limited to residents within city limits. Your fire department can bill after service for residents outside of the city. Your fire department responds to all fire calls within your purvue and billed at the rate of $500 per incident. You think that the $500 fee is resonable, because we just saved the guy's property, didn't we?

At the annual budget meeting, you get a report that half of the people who received service didn't pay the after-service fee. So you fix the problem. You work really hard to get a law passed in 1987 to create a county fire department. The county fire department will absorb the urban fire departments and add a couple of rural fire stations to provide fire protection service to the entire county. The county will fund the fire department by raising property taxes at the rate of .013 per $100 in property value. You know this is a really good deal. You're very proud of yourself because this is an important law. But in the meantime, until the county fire service gets up and going, you continue charging $500 after service fees. And half of them remain unpaid. Oh well, the new county fire department will be in place soon.

So you wait and you watch for the county to accomplish what your brand new law provides. 1988 -- no funds, no equipment, no fire stations.
1989 -- no change. 1990 -- here we go again.

So in 1990, you get the idea that things aren't moving as quickly as you had hoped at the county level. You decide that you'll offer a subscription service, Then people who depend on your fire department can call the fire department any time they need to, and it won't be outside of their budget as the $500 incident fee seems to be. The subscription fee is implemented, but you continue to provide service to everybody, whether they pay the subscription fee or not, billing after the fact.

People in your county begin to realize that they will receive service whether they subscribe or not. Many -- even most -- decide that the subscription isn't really cost effective. Subscription fall off.

In the meantime, you deal with the city budget, increase city taxes, cut library funds, law enforcement funds and other essential city services.

1991 ... 1992 ... 1993 ... 1994 ... 1995 ... 1996 ...

In 1997, you get the county commission to form a fire protection task force and they produce a study in 1998. It's a really good study. And the county commission ignores it. In 1998 the county commission votes again to stay with the voluntary subscription and create (cough cough) a county-wide fire department, rather than impose a mandatory fee.

The only remaining weapon in your arsenal is to pull the trigger to create a standing policy -- no subscription, no service. What do you do?

[LiberalAndProud]

165. Caviat: no subscription, no service unless human lives are at risk.

This is the standing policy at this time in South Fulton.

[Romulox]

32. It's pseudo-religious thinking-- SOMEBODY (something) has to be to blame for this force of nature!

The fire was the proximate cause of all this man's suffering.

[whathehell]

111. Yeah...a "force of nature" called a fire department who chose

to let a house with innocent animals inside it burn. Hell of a "force of nature" shitty people are.:eyes:

[Bodhi BloodWave]

139. Don't blame the FD for the animals when the friggin owner of the pets had around 2 hours

to get them out himself before the fire spread to the house

[whathehell]

172. Link? n/t

[whathehell]

196. You're the second person here to say that but be unable to provid a link. n/

[Romulox]

245. Now it's LOGIC that's the big meany here, I guess.

When you study logic (or law), you'll begin to learn to trace things to their "causes" (that's what puts them in motion.) You might also learn that nobody has an affirmative duty to put a fire out on your property. So the firefighters are obviously not the logic nor the legal ("proximate") cause of the fire. :hi:

[Sheepshank]

174. your stance on this issue seems to be in conflict with your signature line

I suspect there are a lot of people that think that in many aspects of the civic community life, one should do as they want and when they want. And only when caught or a problem arises, when things come to a head, only THEN try to offer an after the fact fix and a 'sorry'. Are you saying that your signature line is how we all should participate in society with bills and community processes?

[Romulox]

243. Um, nonsense?

"Are you saying that your signature line is how we all should participate in society with bills and community processes?"

What I've said on this issue is clear and concise. I'm not going to agree or disagree with any views that you assume I "must" hold. If YOU have a position that you would like to put forward, do so; it's the more honest and straightforward thing to do.

[Sheepshank]

248. oooh you sound terribly noble

and I actually did say what I wanted to say. I also didn't say you were not entitled to your opinion, I just found your earlier comments to be a comical contrast to your signature line. Another opinion to which I'm sure you will agree, I am entitled. I suppose the logical outcome is tht you are also entitled to say two things that seem in contradiction with one another. Just makes for a nonsensical discussion.

[Romulox]

249. And you sound like a waste of time. nt

[Sheepshank]

250. hmmm dismissive, all important attempt at being the strong one

...nah, a giant, obnoxious, rude fail.

buh bye

[whathehell]

15. Agreed..The man was on KO last night and he said he offered to pay them right then!

Motherfuckers..They wanted to "teach him a lesson".

Right..and as MadFloridian said, "Then the animals really learned, didn't they"?:mad:

[hayu_lol]

24. Lauren...his grandson(the firestarter)has a place a few miles from this one...

had a fire 3 years ago. Same fire department put that one out even though he had NOT paid the 75/year fee. Sent them a bill for services and this guy has not yet paid the bill.

75% of the calls handled by this fire department are in this rural Tennessee county. People are not paying for the service.

It is morally reprehensible to not contribute to the fire department that puts out the fires too. Don't pay the light bill? Guess what?

[LaurenG]

31. No - I don't care what his grandson did. It's wrong not to pay your $75

but more wrong to be smug and say tough crap as his house burned to the ground.

[catbyte]

71. That's what TAXES are for

[fishwax]

167. which is why the county system is at fault -- they refused to fund a fire department

the county and its residents thought that avoiding a tax was more important than having fire coverage. So they don't have fire coverage. Meanwhile, a small town across the state line has done the civically-responsible thing and funded a local fire department through their tax dollars. But they don't have the resources to answer every call for a fire in the unprotected county from people who don't bother to help them stay afloat.

[mmonk]

81. I thought they had the fee waived because they agreed to pay

the next day.

[gmoney]

105. then if there's a fire the next day, they'll put it out

once the check clears...

[gmoney]

106. dupe

sorry

[madfloridian]

Well, then, that served his pets right. Didn't it?

I mean justice is now served. Isn't it?

[catbyte]

5. Absolutely right, madflor. Life was lost

and it's unconscionable. What's next? a "subscription" to 911? So the next time you're attacked in your home, the police won't come? NONE of this should have "fees". That's what taxes are for. It's just more evidence of the social Darwinism put forth by the Baggers and GOP. This will come back to bite them eventually. What will they do when all us drones are forced out of existence and they have to clean their own toilets?

They're breaking down the fabric of society and we're going to go the way of Rome and Egypt. It won't be long, folks.

[closeupready]

58. You see the beginnings of the breakdown in the fact that his son allegedly assaulted the fire chief

on the next day, IIRC.

This type of thing is what leads to the rise of organized crime.

[Corgigal]

176. subscription" to 911

We pay a subscription for 911 on my phone bill. I think its normal and its not a huge expense.

What I don't understand is the home owners policies. Why don't they force them to pay this 75 dollars yearly fee? We all know if we have car payments they force us to have insurance. I think that is the way to force compliance.

[whathehell]

9. Well said, Madfloridian.

How could one deliberately let those innocents burn?...Hideous, completely hideous.

[freebrew]

66. As pointed out on another thread yesterday...

the owners had plenty of time to get their animals out of the house, two hours. They chose not to.
These people not only owed $75, they owed for a previous fire that HAD been put out.

I'm not sure I would have let the house burn, but where does the responsibility lie?
When is enough, enough?

These people were not poor, just greedy.
I'd like to know how they voted when the issue of tax-supported fire departments were on the ballot.

[ChiciB1]

76. Okay, I FREELY Admit That I don't Know About How Taxes Are Levied Here

or not, but it seems to me that MY taxes include a fee for this type of thing. "Maybe" I should go and read my ad valorems again, but I KNOW we have "recycling fees" and "garbage fees" added to our taxes so everyone recycles and has thier garbage picked up on a certain day each week.

Does this place NOT tax for fire fighting? And IF THIS PERSON let his animals DIE... well that's inexcusable. I wondered about that when I heard it. Why couldn't the animals get out? Were they locked up or caged?

I have two dogs and a cat and I KNOW they would have run like HELL, but then I NEVER cage them, they are part of our family, just like our kids!

[JustAmused]

171. No they do not

The county officials voted 19-1 against adding to the property tax assessment. That is why the fire department, supported by a small, not rich town of 2500, chose to do the subscription. The county has 30,000 residents with a higher median income than the city, thus a significantly higher tax base. The thing people are ignoring here is that this situation has gone on for a very long time. The city was never under ANY obligation to provide service to the county. They could originally have said, we will take care the city and that is it. Instead they have tried, for 20 years, to work with the county to provide service, and not go broke doing it. But as we all know, no good deed goes unpunished. They are the ones being bashed, mostly by those who have neither read the article nor done any research themselves.

One benefit of this situation for me has been that my ignore has grown, and reading threads is much smoother, faster, and has little extraneous time wasting posts....lol.

[whathehell]

109. They "chose"

not to get their animals out of the house and let them burn?

That's hard to believe..I'd need a link to believe that.

I'm not sure as to how you know the economic status of these people. While they may not be "poor" they certainly neither look nor sound "wealthy".

[hedgehog]

132. Check the time line in the second half of this story:

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

[seabeyond]

36. mad, fire well out in back yard. took time to get to house. animals in house. do you get them out

i would.

why did those animals burn?

[madfloridian]

49. Your question shows me that our country may well have reached

the point of no return as far as humanity goes.

[seabeyond]

54. are you for real. basic common sense. listening to a man tell a story about dead animals

challenging the man on a story that makes absolutely no sense and you have the audacity to ignore common sense and cry uncompassioante.

un fuckin compassionate is leaving animals in the hosue to die and blaming someone else. or lying about dogs being in house

i fuckin want the answer. cause these animals matter

tell me how fukin uncompassionate i am that i actually use my brain to think, not buy a mans story and dare to question the animals death.

and you

ignore common sense.

[madfloridian]

62. I sense the deep compassion in your post.

Not really, I just sense anger.

I see the way people have changed lately here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

seabeyond brings up a good point

ie why, in a fire that took 2 hours to spread to the house from the barrel it was started in, are the firefighters held responsible for the deaths of the animals?

It's possible that the fire suddenly spread to the house so quickly that the owners didn't have the time to rescue their animals, but they would have had the time to inform the fire dept there were animals inside, and the firefighters would have had the extra equipment to rescue the animals at that stage. But the 2 hours timeframe makes that sound unlikely.

[seabeyond]

74. again, common sense. IF and that is a big IF the fire spread THAT fast, then

the fire fighters could have done NOTHING anyway. so why blame them.

[seabeyond]

72. i am angry that you have the audacity to point at me and cry uncompassionate as a man left his dogs

in a house to die.

damn straight.

[madfloridian]

75. Yeh, well I am angry also. Angry to see people become uncompassionate.

I am angry over all the anti-Democratic policies I am being asked to swallow to be a "good" Democrat.

[seabeyond]

78. anti democratic is embracing a libertarian agenda that GUTS the democratic

tax all/protect all FD at the destruction of the democratic safety nets. kinda exactly like what they are doing to our public schools

i, too, am damn tired.

and the stupid embracing it.

at the expense of my kids future

[catbyte]

89. Is this a generational thing?

I grew up in the 50's & 60's where government paid for fire & police protection. Now, we're a fee-based society, pay-per-view this and pay-to-download that. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

[seabeyond]

96. it is the anti tax movement that is taking hold. and it is destroying out infrastructure.

the county chose this fee based so those believing FD is socialist program di not have to participate. in the process, they still expect adn demand service. gutting out the city that is tax base, much smaller and much poorer.

[whathehell]

116. You might be right, Catbyte, because those were the days of Real Democrats..

Some of us remember them, but I think many here are too young.


Fee-based society..Right

How about a "fee-based" police department?


Citizen: "Officer, my address is...and I'm getting mugged!

Officer: I don't see a payment for that address.

Citizen: I thought I sent it in..

Officer: No, I don't see it...Looks like you'll have to die!:eyes:

[seabeyond]

121. so if we are attacking the libertarian county does that make us UNREAL dmeocrats?

you know. standing up for the democratic taxed FD of the small town against the libertarian county of 35k and wealthier. am i a faux democrat?

[whathehell]

123. Self-delete

[whathehell]

125. That's not what I'm saying..

but I don't believe they should have let that house burn.

That's just going a little too far to "set an example".

[seabeyond]

127. fine. i dont have a position because personally i could not make that decision, but

i understand that decision.

[madfloridian]

91. I have no idea what the heck you think I am saying.

:shrug:

[catbyte]

73. What?

[dionysus]

60. oh FFS.

:rofl:

[Mimosa]

182. This psychic squaw reads Cranick as a Republican tea party type

Look at the video!

[seabeyond]

184. i think. i think there is a county of em. i aint payin no taxes for no socialist govt run

org

[rocktivity]

2. The blame belongs to the county for not levying a tax

that would allow them to pay the cities that can provide fire protection to the cities that can't.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[KittyWampus]

3. Very good point. I stand corrected.

[Klukie]

4. [phone]

[Romulox]

8. This guy probably SOUGHT OUT a tax free haven in which to live

And then, once there, snubbed his nose at what little semblance of society existed in his community by refusing to kick in a paltry $75.

[Tempest]

17. A county wide tax would have been only pennies per house

I read somewhere that a tax of approx. $0.13 per parcel would have covered all the costs of the fire department for the entire county.

But that's what you get with conservative policies.

[w4rma]

45. Exactly. (nt)

[SidDithers]

59. Exactly...nt

Sid

[TreasonousBastard]

64. True, but never let the sensible answer get in the way of some righteous rants.

[freebrew]

68. Counties can't levy tax w/o a vote.

The people in the county voted against it. But they still want what they don't pay for, how republican.

[rocktivity]

79. Then either the state should levy it

Or they can do what the cities did and levy it as a fee!

:rofl:
rocktivity

[deutsey]

134. We've got to get over this fear of the "t" word

Taxes serve the public/common good.

[PVnRT]

137. FTW

[fishwax]

168. +1

[Mass]

203. [phone]

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. fee, tax same diff

rose still smells sweet.

While I would not have let his house burn, the man needs to pay his bills.

[mike_c]

10. in America, EVERYTHING has a price tag....

eom

[catbyte]

11. And the point is, it shouldn't

Basic safety and security should not be only for those who can pay. The almighty dollar more imporant than life. Absofuckinglutely great.

[mike_c]

14. exactly....

eom

[Little Star]

48. Welcome to Rand Paul’s kind of world. n/t

[janewin]

227. Thats bcos money doesn't grow on trees

These people will take advantage of the system and drain the services paid by others. These people clearly voted for lower property taxes ad they got exactly that. I imagine that the local politician who tried to force the fire dept on the county were voted out, so please let this people reap what they sowed.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. When you gamble, every now and again, you WILL throw snake eyes!

[catbyte]

21. And your pets die a gruesome death. great.

edited for spelling error.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. The penatly for gambling with the lives of others.

[catbyte]

37. Sorry, that doesn't wash with me.

[Behind the Aegis]

43. Of course it doesn't.

[catbyte]

61. False Equasion: $=Life

[LaurenG]

114. Is $75.00 worth that to you?

It's better to teach him a lesson over 75 bucks and allow his animals and his home to burn? What kind of a loving human being thinks this way?

[Behind the Aegis]

120. Logical fallices abound.

[LaurenG]

124. Don't talk to me about logic since you seem to think it's logical to allow a mans home

to burn to the ground over $75 bucks. That's not logical or compassionate!

[Behind the Aegis]

133. More logical fallices, at least these are more common.

But, I will take you at your request; "Don't talk to me about logic..." as it seems to escape you.

[LaurenG]

142. Good grief

I get the impression that you don't know what logic or common sense mean, or do you just play that way on DU?

And there is no substance at all to your posts just snarky crap that also seems to be quite arrogant. Why?

[Behind the Aegis]

143. Because what is the point? You clearly have no use for reason or logic...

...just knee-jerk emotion and logical fallacies. What your last post represents is called "projection."

[LaurenG]

144. Who is projecting?

What are you really trying to say? Are you just trying to insult people or do you have a valid point. I don't see any substantive posts, just insults. Are you saying it's OK that his house burned or not?
If yes, then we know that you go by the letter of the law, not the spirit of it and the human component means jack in this case.
If No then we have no debate.

[Behind the Aegis]

148. You are projecting.

It isn't difficult to see, but it seems so for you. He gambled, and he lost...big. The fault is his.

[LaurenG]

155. Ok so it was his fault that he didn't pay the bill.

Do we take into consideration that we are better than this and not allow his house to burn or do we say "f" him he deserves it.

It isn't the letter of the law that is up for debate here, we all know that he was culpable. It's the fact that as fellow human beings we sometimes have to take a hit for the good of others. At least that is the way I was raised. We help when others wouldn't because we care, not because he did or didn't pay.

[Behind the Aegis]

158. Good. You are starting to understand.

The fault lies with him, which is exactly what I said with my first post. If they had put out the fire I wouldn't fault them, they chose not to and I still do not fault them. Just because his house burned doesn't mean they are all sitting around saying "fuck him" or singing and roasting marshmallows. I don't know if they knew about the pets or not, if they did my preference would have been to save the critters as they are NOT responsible for sending in the check and shouldn't suffer because their owner was an asshole trying to cheat the system.

[LaurenG]

178. Fault? I thought the fault had been established. I thought this was a debate about

whether the fire chief should have just allowed the man's house to burn. The homeowner offered to pay them but they wouldn't take his money. The precedent for this was set when the chief allowed another homeowner to pay after the fact.

So you feel OK with the way this was handled and I believe to allow a home to burn over a $75 fee is a tragedy. :(

[Behind the Aegis]

235. The precedent?

Yours is the first and only post where I have seen such a claim. When and where did this occur? Same chief? What were those circumstances?

It is a tragedy, any way ones looks at it. However, criteria was set, the rules were known and ignored. This is is what happens. You and others are making it sound as if the firefighters were having a hoedown while the event took place. There is a reason we have taxes and there are reasons some try to do anything and everything to avoid them. Public services only work if the public actually supports them and it appears for many, if they aren't 'forced' to participate, then they don't; but, when the time comes, they expect service. The needs of the many over the need of the individual make for a stronger society.

[LaurenG]

251. It was stated on Keith Olbermann's show

"And so—and another thing about it, they have waived these fire fees before. They waived them at my son‘s house three years ago in December. They waived them over on another road over here in out of town and saved the guy‘s house. But I know they waived them before. So, therefore, they could have waived mine.

I would have paid it. My neighbor offered to pay them. I don‘t know if it was $500 or $5,000 to spray the house down, put it out. But, no, they sprayed the fence row."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39536373/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/ about 1/4 of the way down.



The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn’t do anything to stop his house from burning.
<snip>
The counterargument is, of course, that this kind of system only works if there are consequences for opting out. For the firefighters to have put out the blaze would have opened up a big moral hazard and generated a bunch of future free-riding — a lot like how the ban on denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, paired with penalties under the individual mandate that are lower than the going premiums, would lead to folks waiting until they got sick to buy insurance.

But that analogy is not quite apt. Mr. Cranick, who has learned an incredibly expensive lesson about risk, wasn’t offering to pay the $75 fee. He was offering to pay whatever it cost to put out the fire. If an uninsured man confronted with the pressing need for a heart transplant offered to pay a year in back-premiums to an insurer to cover the operation, you’d be right to laugh at him. But imagine if that man broke out his check book to pay for the whole shebang, and hospital administrators denied him the procedure to teach him a lesson.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248649/firefighters-watch-home-burns-daniel-foster




Oh and this should make you feel special, your opinion is shared by a pretty nasty commentator. "Radio and TV talk show host Glenn Beck defended the fire department letting Cranick's home burn down." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39535911/ns/us_news-life

[Behind the Aegis]

252. Thanks for the link.

So the info is coming from him. Got it.

You a vegetarian? Because I know special you'd feel knowing your lifestyle choice was shared by Hitler. :eyes:

[LaurenG]

253. Yeah I'm a vegetarian

and since I'm nothing like the ass I'm just going to say, well played.

[Behind the Aegis]

151. double post.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TwilightGardener]

18. It's a really good thing that the homeowner wasn't a sympathetic character--

I mean, how many times now have some posters here pointed to the income differences between the county and city residents in question, pointed to the fact that he burned trash, didn't pay this year or that, had a fire before, etc. Could easily though have been someone who really did forget, someone who is barely able to afford food and the electric bill, someone who remembered and had the envelope with the fee check sitting on the kitchen counter waiting to go into the mail just a day too late, someone who had a family member come home from work or school early and go to bed and no one realizes he or she is home. Lucky that the defenders of this action have a good villain here, and no charred body found in the rubble, or they'd really look like assholes.

[KittyWampus]

22. IF it was a matter or someone who "really forgot" they would have paid when reminded.

And when a similar story was posted a while back, it was state the fire personnel save human occupants in a burning house no matter what.

[TwilightGardener]

28. He offered to pay when he called, they could have billed, they could have

sued or placed a lien for nonpayment, same as anyone that you call to work on your house. End of story. Plenty of ways to not let a family's world burn down for $75. Oh, and like the example I used above, how is everyone confident that no one is in the house? Family members and roommates don't always know who is home, and the firefighters refused to come to the scene.

[Gaedel]

84. They can't place a lien.....

The fire department is run by a totally different government jurisdiction.

It would be great if the city could place a lien on the county government every time they respond to a fire in the county.

The county taxpayers are free loading on the city taxpayers.

[TwilightGardener]

87. Of course they can. LOL. Anyone who works on your house can

go after you for payment--what a fucking joke to justify this.

[COLGATE4]

152. You really don't know anything about the law. Don't keep

making categorically wrong statements. They only embarrass you.

[JustAmused]

175. Wrong

Actually tey can't . the city had no authority to tax, fine, levy or anything else, except to try to get people to subscribe. I think you may another who didn't bother to really read the article. Billing this family has not worked in the past. They still owe for a fire they put out for them at another home last year.

[COLGATE4]

149. We've been over this before. There as no basis to sue, or to

place a lien, or any other such mechanism. My guess is that he would have stiffed the Fire Department after they billed him the $500 or so which would have been appropriate.

[pipi_k]

I agree....and I believe it was wrong

for the fire department to not put the fire out anyway (and who knows if they were called in time to even save the pets inside).

If it's true that he refused to pay the fee, and he went on CNN claiming he "forgot", then he's a liar and is at least as responsible as, if not more than, the fire department.

Idiots. They don't pay the fee. Then they start a trash fire in the yard with friggen aerosol cans in it. The way he told the story it didn't sound like they were burning in a trash can or fire pit, but out on the grass, which caught fire and then spread to the shed and house.


Fire and emergency services should be available to all, but when they aren't, people shouldn't act like assholes and refuse to pay the fee, set fires, and then lie about having "forgotten" to pay.

Just knowing his innocent pets had to pay for his idiocy makes me wish he had been the one to be fried to a crisp instead.

[Mimosa]

183. The same family hadn't paid the bill for a previous call.

And there's no legal provision for the FD to collect.

[catbyte]

23. LOL

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. +++

[Gormy Cuss]

63. And it's nearly always possible to make someone unsympathetic

when it suits one's agenda.

I agree with you - arguing whether or not this particular person deserved the treatment is irrelevant.

[COLGATE4]

146. Yes, and it's a good thing that the house wasn't an orphanage

with 100 crippled children in it, but none of this is relevant to what actually happened here. The owner is a guy who for his own reasons decided to take a chance and go without fire protection, betting (and hoping) that if he ever got into deep shit the fire dep't would bail him out or maybe he'd try and pay the subscription fee THEN. Except this time he bet wrong. There's not too much to analyze here.

[SOS]

207. Re: the homeowner

It makes no difference if he was a libertarian, a marxist, a freeper, a Democrat, a tinker, tailor or cabinet maker.
It is irrelevant whether he paid the lousy $75 bucks or not.

He is a human being and a fellow citizen of the United States.
His house was on fire.

At the most basic level of human decency, he should have been helped in his time of extreme need.
The bureaucratic bullsh!t could have sorted out later.

This episode is indicative of an ill society in serious decline.

[TwilightGardener]

225. Agree completely.

[notesdev]

20. A nation in which people let each others' homes burn down

is not a nation at all but a powder keg ready to blow.

IMO the Fire Chief ought to be held personally liable for the entire damage done by the fire, as well as be subject to, at the minimum, criminal animal abuse charges.

I don't see how any thinking, feeling human being not only lets someone's house burn down and pets die a fiery death, but actually has firemen standing there with the equipment ready to stop it and issues a stand-down order.

That's fucked up to a degree I never want to ever see from a government official.

[catbyte]

30. The mean-spiritedness around here is stunning.

Maybe it the way I was raised, but I always thought the most important thing was to help each other. But I guess that's my problem. I was raised in an "inferior" culture.

Diane
Anishnabe in MI

[notesdev]

34. Sadly I've seen too much of it here

It seems that anyone who is not a loyalist is eligible for this kind of treatment, and the compassion that used to characterize the party is just a distant memory in the ruthless and relentless pursuit of ideology.

[Confusious]

215. If you need a helping hand to get back on your feet, or a shoulder, I'm there

I'm not going to be taken advantage of, or take advantage of others, like this guy was doing.

I swear, sometimes I think people around here want me to slit my own throat so the next guy can have my house, because it's "compassionate."

Sometimes you gotta look really hard to see the right road to take.

[SidDithers]

65. +1...

the whole situation is a fucked up mess.

Sid

[seabeyond]

86. a county allowed to gut the taxed base city FD dept is pretty damn sad too. nt

[theHandpuppet]

191. What kind of pet owner makes no attempt to rescue his animals?

The family had two damn hours to make at least some effort to rescue their pets. Where the hell was their responsibility in what happened here?

[baldguy]

26. The fire dept exists to put out fires, not to make a profit for the city.

If the city offers fire protection to the surrounding county, it must offer fire protection to ALL of it. When the city manager ordered the fire dept not to put the fire out, the proper response should've been "Fuck you!. I'm putting out that fire."

This is a prime example of a breakdown in govt promoted by brain-dead libertarians.

[WolverineDG]

67. Okay, so how would go about doing the budgeting for this city

if you're going to require them to provide fire protection to the larger, wealthier county in another state for free?

What services are you going to cut? Trash collection? Police? Libraries? Parks? Sewer? Roads? Public Transportation? How many city workers get pay cuts? How many get fired? How high will you then have to raise taxes on these folks who just got a pay cut or lost their job?

The money has got to come from somewhere, pal.

dg

[baldguy]

112. You've fallen into the libertarian failure trap.

Underfund essential services, cause them to fail, then eliminate them because they "don't work". That way lies disaster, as we have seen.

The idea that paying for ANY of the services you list - and I would add schools, environmental protections, and social services - is optional, or up for debate is Teabaggerism at it's worst. If you support the decision of the city officials at any level, you might as well just give up on America & vote for Sarah in 2012

In every state, emergency service agencies have mutual aid agreements with neighboring agencies; if a community has a situation that they can't handle they'll call on the appropriate agency nearby who can. The cost of such coverage is never questioned at the time of the emergency. If the city enters into such an agreement - which they did since they do off fire protection to the county - then it's their responsibility to budget for that coverage. If there needs to be a transfer of funds from the county to the city to help pay for it, then the county has to pay. If it refuses, then the city can take the county to court. That's the appropriate scenario.

Denying an essential service should never be an option. EVER.

In this situation, the first people who should be fired are 1) the Obion County officials who eliminated fire protection services from the county budget, 2) the South Fulton city officials who ordered the fire dept to NOT put out the fire and 3) the fire chief who followed that order. I think jail time for malfeasance shouldn't be out of the question either.

[Hannah Bell]

118. Obion County didn't 'eliminate' fire protection services. It has never had any fire protection

service.

The cities have covered the cost for rural fire protection for decades.

As budgets got tighter, they became less willing to do so.

The county chose this fee system as a solution.

[baldguy]

122. It's still the county's responsibility.

Budgeting for fire protection - including the taxes to pay for it - is between they city and the county. That's part of the job. Nobody's house should be allowed to burn down just because an idiot govt official refuses to do that job.

[Hannah Bell]

141. yes, everyone keeps saying they "should" do it. but they've repeatedly chosen *not* to.

for decades.

who is going to make them?

should the city bankrupt itself serving the larger, richer county that choses this irresponsible policy?

[baldguy]

162. The courts.

It wouldn't be the first time that an inept, incompetent or corrupt municipal govt was forced to spend money for public services.

[SOS]

219. The "city"

South Fulton is a "city" of 2500 people.
The South Fulton FD has a force of 17 volunteers.
They responded to a grand total of 23 rural calls in 2006.

You really think the "city" would be bankrupted by sending their volunteers on two or three extra calls per year?

[JustAmused]

177. Wrong

The city has tried to get the county to deal with this for 20 years. That of course has been mentioned before.

In the computer support field we have a handy acronym...RTFM

I will paraphrase it for you and others....RTFA

Hint: A stands for article

[PVnRT]

138. Yes, they should have budgeted for it

But they didn't. They voted down a paltry tax increase 19 to 1. So now what? You make the city residents pay even higher taxes so that everyone is covered? A progressive, liberal society recognizes that those costs need to be borne by all, not by a select few, based on the ability to pay.

According to you, though, the residents of the city - who have a smaller tax base and are less affluent than the residents of the county - must pay more. Do you think poor people should pay more taxes so that the rich can benefit? Because that's exactly what you're saying.

Furthermore, no one here is arguing that we should go to pay-for-service libertarian nonsense. It's a strawman and you and the others making the argument all know it.

[baldguy]

147. And the guy shouldn't have lost his home to uphold that misguided libertarian ideal.

So stop trying to make him the bad guy.

[fishwax]

169. the libertarian ideal is the one held by the county, not the city

The city is an example of providing for the common good--their residents are taxed so that the entire town can have fire protection. But the county, across the state line in Tennessee, pursued the libertarian ideal--resisting taxes even for essential services and expecting someone else to foot the bill when that didn't work out.

[WolverineDG]

150. Apparently, spreading the cost over all those who are covered is a libertarian idea

I remain appalled at the shocking ignorance of basic civics evident on DU.

dg

[WolverineDG]

145. so reality is a "libertarian trap?"

:wtf:

Have you ever heard of something called a "budget?" Do you even know what goes into prioritizing & planning how needed services get paid for & how taxes are assessed?

EVEN IN THE BEST COMMUNITIES, there is only so much $ to go around, only so much tax burden you can put on those who live there, and there is an almost bottomless need. *Nothing* gets full funding & *everything* has its own advocates who swear the world will end if they don't get everything on their list.

Fact remains there is only so much money available & if you demand that a small, poor community foot the entire cost for providing emergency service to a larger, wealthier county that pays NOTHING into the system, cuts in services will have to made somewhere & taxes will have to be raised, with the net result of people moving out of the small, poor community, leaving it with a tax base of ZERO.

dg

[Confusious]

217. It's the "you don't agree with me, so you must be a libertarian" trap

Seen it a lot around here. Also good for substitution, "republican, traditionalist, corporate shill" etc, etc, etc.

[WolverineDG]

218. Oh, you noticed that too, huh?

Remember, we're the crazy ones. :crazy:

dg

[Confusious]

216. Yes, the one where the poor pay for the rich.

That's what you're saying isn't it?

The poor city should pay for the rich county?

[baldguy]

224. "Everyonee deserves fire protection..."

"... because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities."

http://www.iaff.org/Comm/PDFs/SouthFulton.pdf

The time and place to discuss how to pay for an emergency IS NOT when it's in the process of unfolding.

If the rich refuse to pay for govt services for their community, they should be taken to court & tossed in jail if need be.

You'd have only the rich receive fire protection, since they are willing and able to pay for it (and therefore deserve it). Right?

[Confusious]

242. You don't read. Just react.

"You'd have only the rich receive fire protection, since they are willing and able to pay for it (and therefore deserve it). Right?"

Where did you get that, from this:

Yes, the one where the poor pay for the rich.

That's what you're saying isn't it?

The poor city should pay for the rich county?

"If the rich refuse to pay for govt services for their community, they should be taken to court & tossed in jail if need be."

They had a vote. The county didn't want to pay, so they don't have to. They're just parasites on the city.

The poorer city is paying for the rich county. This has been going back and forth for 20 years, with the county not wanting to pay, and the poorer city having to pony up the bucks to pay for the rich.

Allowing the junkie to rob you blind. That's what you're defending.

[Sheepshank]

180. huh?

So the County, that guts the City funds that supports the Fire department (in essence making all City home owners responsible for the fire protection of Country residents), is fair and equitable and all sorts of right? I don't understand that thinking. This almost seems like a case of the richer County residents stealing from the poorer City residents. That can't be right can it?

[Catherina]

29. Reaganism is alive and well in this age of hope. n/t

[HughMoran]

38. Still sticking up for the heartless killers

:eyes:

[whistler162]

41. I believe the OP is sticking up for the fire department

NOT the heartless killer/home owner!

[HughMoran]

44. OK

Off to ignore - I'm not going to have discussions with those who condone animal killing to make a point.

[itsrobert]

52. Are you sure the fire department would be able to save the animals?

Isn't the home in a rural area where it would take some time for the fire department to reach the home? The animals were most likely in hiding and chances are the fire department would not be able to save them anyhow without great risk to their own personal safety and lives.

[itsrobert]

47. Killers? You mean the homeownner who let his home burn down?

If lives were endangered the fire department said they would respond.

[whistler162]

39. reminds me of the parable

http://wellspringfellowship.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/an-old-joke-or-a-parable-in-disguise/

"A flood is expected to wipe out a small town and evacuation is begun. A jeep is driving through town and comes across a guy standing on his front porch. “Hop in,” they said, “The flood will be coming in any minute.” “Don’t worry about me,” the man replied, “I have faith that God will save me.” Unable to change his mind, they drove on without him.

Soon the flood waters began to roll in, and a rescue team drifted by this man’s house in a boat. “Hop in,” they requested, “We’ll get you out of here.” “Don’t worry about me,” was the man’s reply, “I have faith that God will save me.” Unable to change his mind, the rescue team continued on without him.

Not long after that, the flood waters had completely covered this man’s house, and he was hanging from the chimney. A rescue crew in a helicopter spotted him and dropped him a ladder. The man refused the ladder insisting that God would save him. Unable to change his mind, the helicopter went on without him.

The water continued to rise and the man drowned. On his way through the pearly gates, he met up with God and exclaimed, “You really let me down! I had faith that you would save me and look what happened!” “Well let’s see,” was God’s reply, “I sent you a jeep, a boat and a helicopter.”"

[HughMoran]

42. DIsgusting justification for killing

3 dogs and a cat. Vile.

[whathehell]

130. Agreed.

That little parable doesn't work for me...and frankly, I wonder if those who espouse it would apply it to the people who were stranded in NOLA during Katrina...They were "warned" too.

Not my kind of people at all:eyes:

[LiberalAndProud]

240. (OT) Please ...

please don't. It hurts my heart because to compare this man's misfortune to NOLA's Katrina -- it feels to me akin to invocation of Germany's Holocaust. It minimizes the epic scope of the disaster; it seems irreverent to me.

:dilemma:

[Romulox]

50. It reminds me of "The Little Red Hen"

Apparently the moral of the story is that the hen was a jerk, and should've just handed over the bread! :wow:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Hen

[pipi_k]

55. I've heard that one before, and it's true

that some of the crazier ones believe that God is actually going to come out of the sky and pluck them from danger with his own hand.

Really...what can ya do with nutcases like that...

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. Difference is, when the FD showed up, he didn't send them away.

They were there, and they watched it burn.

And the guy in the helicopter didn't ask if the man on the roof had paid a 'rescue' fee.

A funny joke, but no comparison to this reality.

[baldguy]

115. +1000

[NYC Liberal]

46. Then don't ever blame people who walk past someone in distress

on the street without helping.

Don't blame a doctor who doesn't stand up when one is asked for in an emergecy.

It's not their job and why should they work for free?

The attitude that this was OK is fucking sick.

[Maru Kitteh]

99. +1000 - Maybe we can get the Phelps family to protest around the smoldering ruins!

He probably deserves that too, right?


I do not understand anyone who thinks it's OK to watch a man's house burn to the ground while the power exists and is at the ready to stop it. It IS sick.

[SidDithers]

51. Regardless...

the Fire Department should respond and put out the fire.

If the owner doesn't pay, then the responding city should bill the county government for the cost of the response.

Sid

[Hassin Bin Sober]

103. And the county would crumple it up and throw the bill in the garbage.

I think the REAL villains here are the county commissioners. Saying "we shouldn't be in the fire protection business" and throwing their constituents to the wolves via some "chose to pay or not" system is, in my opinion, dereliction of duty that rises to a criminal level.

At the very LEAST, they should have mandated the $75 fee to all county residents and added it to county taxes. Why didn't they? Because they are a bunch of "NO NEW TAXES" fuck-wit republicans.

[Kalyke]

53. No one should have to pay the fee.

It should be part of the county's property taxes.

I live in Tennessee, though, so I know how backward peoples' thinking on this issue is. They'd rather have the country's highest sales tax, which is included on FOOD!!! - than to pay higher property or income taxes.

In a state where the average income is about $34,000 for a family of four, you'd think people would sit and study on the concept that the family of four earning $34,000 is paying basically the same sales tax as the family of four earning $134,000 (four people generally consume close to the same amount of food - of course, the higher-wage family is likely to have Fillet Mignon's whilst the poorer has hamburger meat, but the difference in taxes would be small). You'd think they'd realize that our state is going to shit because the richest among us aren't paying enough property and no income taxes - it's not because of welfare queens - of course, we'd have fewer folks on welfare if people would pay more taxes for better educations, safety nets and job training - but... nooooo... that makes too much sense.

[Mimosa]

57. Anybody who can afford it should choose to pay: it's the responsible thing to do.

Though I'd rather see fire protection costs rolled into property taxes.

[SargeUNN]

70. so let the freakin house burn is what you are saying?

I don't give a damn if he refused to pay or not, you don't let the house burn due to it. If you think that is excuse enough then you need to rethink where your sense of common decency is. There are better ways to punish but to let the house burn and pets die is cruel and unusual punishment which is AGAINST the 8th amendment. If you are trying to soothe favoring this cruelness then you failed.

[left is right]

92. This is the system that the county chose

All services have to be paid for either directly or indirectly. They voted (probably by a large margin) to NOT raise property tax to pay for the firefighting services. The home owner chose to gamble with his property and family’s well being. The out of state city that offers the services had already bailed this man out once and tried to bill him for. Three years later the man hadn’t yet paid the bill. The fire department showed up and ascertained that no human life was in danger and then were ordered to stand down. Choices have consequences, this wasn’t punishment just cause and effect.
The loss of the pets is tragic but it was probably too late to save them anyway

[SargeUNN]

98. OK then you think slavery should be brought back?

To show you the irrationality of your reasoning let me remind you that in the South in the mid 1800s it was legal to own slaves and in Jim Crow laws existed to keep blacks from being able to exercise rights that were so precious to the very ones denying them. However it was the will of the people so the nation was wrong to step in and correct this immorality according to your reasoning. Is that really where you want to go? Look at what else you promote, if you are accused of shoplifting and the majority of the people in the area vote that you should be punished by having your hands cut off do you think the eighth amendment should be ignored and chop off your hands? Seriously I have to ask the question have you become that cold and inhumane you can't see this?

[KittyWampus]

102. slavery is unconstitutional.

[left is right]

107. What a stupid thing to even suggest

FU, there is absolutely no moral equivalence here at all. Any one who would try to make a comparison about the morality of owning another human being to people having the right to gamble with their own land is too stupid to operate a keyboard. The guy gambled and he lost. If I could, I would rewrite their tax laws. The proper analogy here is flood insurance. As far as I can tell, FI may be required when the mortgage company holds the deed but not when the homeowner owns it. As the out right owner of a house, you have the right to gamble with the possibility of a flood, it is foolish and you might lose everything but it is your right to do so. The guy was a fool but there is no punishment for being one there are consequences and this guy just received them.
Once again Foff

[LiberalAndProud]

241. I don't believe that this is a 'punishment'.

Sarge, I be very interested in how you would answer this question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9265178&mesg_id=9267705

[wtmusic]

77. Cuts to the heart of the social responsibility vs. personal responsibility dilemma.

Though most of us would agree the fire should have been put out, most of us would also agree that the homeowner should have taken responsibility for his home.

From the Republican or Libertarian point of view: though most would agree the homeowner should have taken responsibility for his home, most would also agree that the fire should have been put out. I believe that.

If we could find consensus on a solution to this problem, it would be the solution to many, many others.

[LaurenG]

83. Well take a look up-thread and find a bunch who think

it's just fine that his house burned along with his pets. He didn't hand over the money therefore he gets no service.

After all its the principal right? :sarcasm: and they don't care, which scares the shit out of me. I can only hope that you're right about most people believing the fire should have been put out.

[MadHound]

80. Then the fire department goes ahead and puts out the fire,

Bills the owner for both fires, and if they refuse to pay up, hand it over to the county prosecutor. That's what we did when I was a volunteer firefighter.

You don't let a house go up in flames. It's that simple.

[catbyte]

85. Sensible solution, but it still should be tax, not fees

[MadHound]

90. Yeah, it should be tax based,

But in some places, perhaps not in TN but elsewhere, there simply isn't the tax base to support keeping the roads in repair, sheriffs on the road and a fire department. That's why many places have volunteer fire departments based on a fee structure. But despite that, you fight all fires, and worry about the money afterward.

[TreasonousBastard]

82. Yeah, apparently he was cheap, mean, and stupid. But, maybe he was broke and needed...

the 75 bucks for food. Or beer and cigarettes.

Who knows? None of us was there or knows any of the people involved.

As Rocktivity and precious few others have said, the real problem is the nonsense of a subscription for what should be normal government service, whether volunteer or paid. With such a system it's not a question of will service be denied, but when.

Many Years ago there were no fire departments, but insurance companies had fire brigades to put out fires in the houses they insured. When you bought fire insurance, you got a plaque to put on the front, and with no plaque the brigade would just watch the fire.

Obviously, this didn't last too long, mainly because in the cities there were houses next door, and paid municipal fire departments eventually became the rule.

My belated answer after the fact...

If the county residents are too afraid of taxes to pay for fire protection, keep the subscription system. But if anyone doesn't pay, the fire will be put out and the bill is $1,000 (or more) with a lien put on the property.

Problem solved.

[grahamhgreen]

88. You have lost your humanity. The FEE was the CRIME.

[TexasObserver]

93. That's completely irrelevant. The duty to extend help is not contingent on payment.

[Throckmorton]

94. Why not put a Mechanics Lien on the place.

Not a paying subscriber, FD shows up, puts out the fire, and then liens the property for the cost of fire suppression. (Equipment Hours, Man Hours, insurance, etc). I know it might be a long time before they get paid, but it does seems to solve some of the issues. Firefighter gets hurt in the process of suppressing the fire, file civil actions against the owner, for the usual stuff.

[wtmusic]

97. Not a bad idea, but IMO in many cases

the cost of the response would be more than the property is worth (after all of the expenses involved with collecting). And if that's the case you can forget collecting anything sufficient for personal injury.

The whole fee-based thing is problematic. I'd have to agree with other posters upthread that a county-wide tax, with reimbursement to municipalities, seems like the best solution.

[slackmaster]

95. The FD still should have put out the fire and saved the house

Even if insurance covers the damage, that cost will be passed on to a lot of people in the form of higher premiums.

[Rex]

232. Spot on!

I can't believe people here are still arguing about putting the fire out over $75. It is like they drank the kool-aid and won't admit to it.

[mstinamotorcity]

100. I have two sisters

who live in Obion County. One must pay fees and the other doesn't. They stay several miles from each other. One in town the other closer to the edge of town. Called them both this morning to make sure they had paid their fees. Thats when I learned that one must pay and the other is included in the tax base. In the systematic world we live in so many people go on raw facts instead of humanity. No one really knows the intention of this man's heart. No one has to walk in his shoes. It is not your house or pets that perished in the fire. Regardless if I have paid or didn't it would be heartbreaking to see my home and life's work go up in flames with the fire department sitting right there. And for those of us who has ever lived through a fire with extensive property loss,we know the feeling. How do you think people feel when they pay there taxes and the firefighters come to put out the blaze and find that the fire hydrant isn't working? There have been instances where they have had to go blocks away just to get water. We have a basic infrastructure problem in this country. With all the tax cuts and drop in federal public spending, I tend to lay this more at the feet of the limited Government folks.

[wtmusic]

104. +1 nt

[phleshdef]

101. Who cares? This whole fiasco resulted in a complete breakdown in faith for public safety.

[LynneSin]

108. Then put out the fire and BILL HIM for the cost of handling it

What if that was people in the house and not pets that were killed because of the fire. Would we tell the survivors 'Tough Shit' you should have paid your fee?

Fire Companies should know how much it costs for them to put out a fire. Put that on the bill - if you do not pay the fee you'll pay $x-thousands of dollars for us to put out your fire, should one happen.

But don't let the house burn. THat was just selfish and wrong on so many levels!

[COLGATE4]

157. And when he tells you to stick the bill, then what???

[LynneSin]

161. Bill Collectors

What else.

I mean Hospitals somehow manage to treat people without insurance. Why can't Fire companies do the same.

[bvar22]

110. As a FireFighter,

that doesn't matter to me.

We will still do everything possible to save his home and animals.


As a Human Being, that does NOT matter to me.
I will do everything I can to save his home and animals whether he pays his dues or not....
because that is the RIGHT thing to do.

[LaurenG]

113. + 1,000,000,000

Thank you!

[baldguy]

117. My father was a volunteer firefighter & EMT for 30 yrs.

Thank you for your service.

[PA Democrat]

119. A big cyber hug to you!

[Ganja Ninja]

126. Yup I agree totally, they should have put the fire out regardless.

I also agree with the op. This guy should have paid the fee and the "I forgot" excuse just doesn't wash.

This area is typical teabagger country. He's likely too embarrassed to admit he refused to pay.

[Bluerthanblue]

129. you speak in harmony with the firefighters

I know and love/loved.

:grouphug:

[Lucian]

154. You are a good person.

Hopefully some of that compassion well spread around to the rest of the people around here.

[HughMoran]

173. +infinity

Because a dead pet is dead forever.

[bullwinkle428]

221. Wish I could rec. a post!

[Swamp Rat]

233. Amen, brother!

I don't care if the guy was a Freeping Ayn Rand Apostle, I would have helped him save his home and animals.

[Forkboy]

237. I note the OP avoided your answer like the plague.

[Tikki]

128. Why didn't the firemen put out the fire and then slap a lien on the homeowners?

Lots of liens are put on homes for services rendered and not paid...


Tikki

[seabeyond]

135. two different states. i think that has something to do with it.

they have tried charging them, but the peopple just didnt pay those either.

[Lance_Boyle]

136. What are their odds of ever recovering anything?

Even the attorneys fees involved? The guy already had an outstanding debt to the same fire dept. I don't shed a single tear for the guy who already ripped off the fire dept once getting his comeuppance on the second go-round.

[JuniperLea]

140. So the fuck what?

I'm really sick of this. Seriously sick of this. Putting money above people is disgusting.

[COLGATE4]

159. It's not putting money above people. It;'s putting money above

money. The house is not a person. It has 'x' value. The owner made a bet and figured that not paying $75 was a smart bet, and that if there was a fire he'd get the service for free. He was wrong. So, instead of it costing him $75 it cost him whatever the value of the house (less insurance proceeds).

[JuniperLea]

160. What about his dead pets?

What about the firefighters who are suffering emotionally over this?

People were hurt by this. People.

[Lucian]

153. I had emergency medical care in April and couldn't afford to pay the bills.

I couldn't get medical insurance.

So if I have to the ER again, and couldn't pay my bill (which is owned by debt collectors now), are they right in refusing me service?

[derby378]

156. So fucking what?

The public good outweighs the bottom line every single time. Unless, of course, you're a corporation. And the last thing we need is for government to be run like a corporation.

[GreenTea]

163. Fuck they have a lot a fires in that town - Sounds like extortionist arsonist Libertarians!

Libertarians are Tea-baggers are Republicans are Whigs are Elitist are Monarchists!

[Forkboy]

164. A totally heartless way to teach a man a lesson.

Glad to unrec this dreck.

[Matariki]

166. SO WHAT?

Do you really want to live in a culture that stands and watches people's homes burn? When the means to put the fire out is right at hand? All over a few miserable dollars? Is that really the sort of country you'd like to live in?

We keep heading in this direction and we're going to be Haiti North. Seriously.

[Sheepshank]

170. I hate that this guys house was burned.

On Olbermann he looked broken.

Why did the City/County Council institute this fee as an 'optional' item? Why not bury the fee into the property tax for everyone who is in the service area, across the board?

I suspect there were a lot outspoken people who clearly demonstrated that that they did not want government telling them what they must do. Hence the "optional" participation in the fee and sevice the fee provided.

[BzaDem]

179. How is this at all relevant? ERs don't send gunshot victims away even if the victim never paid

and won't pay.

They try to collect later, suing if necessary, just like hospitals do to people who can pay but refuse to.

[Canuckistanian]

181. What is this? Libertarian "tough love"?

Or is it a Mafia-type warning to the rest of the "dead-beats"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. Thirty plus years of propaganda

[depakid]

208. All the twisting , turning and convoluted rationalizations suggest some form of collective insanity

This is a very simple deal.

You don't stand there and let someone's house burn down.

[nadinbrzezinski]

226. Peel the rationalization

I hate to say it, but we have people here espousing the same talking points. Sad part is the propaganda has worked... they are not even aware of it.

By the way I took the thinking to the logical extreme.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9267852&mesg_id=9267852

[depakid]

228. I've been trying to look at it like one of Kohlberg's dllemmas

http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/Kohlberg.htm

And using it to see what sorts of things are actually going on in (or happened to) the American psyche

Given that it's a real life situation though, I'm having a bit of trouble getting past the simple (and at least here in Oz the universal) answer.

FWIW here's Kohlberg's basic framework (stages of moral reasoning) for individuals.

[nadinbrzezinski]

229. I have not read them in decades....

but here is a little insight.

The American National DNA, as much as we like to think is uniquely American... goes back a long time...

Been reading material on Elizabethan England trying to see the origin of our attitudes vis a vis labor, and right now reading a general history of the period.

Well you know how the AFA, for example, goes on and on about morals, and how women should obey their husbands? Goes back to at least the high medieval period.

This general distrust of the commons, goes back to the Enclosure Acts and the destruction of the common lands, which led to famines, people losing their shirts, et al.

Some of these attitudes are deep in our national DNA.

[depakid]

230. Yep- and let's not forget the Calvinist influence

An adage I've heard around here often describe the difference between America and Australia (which considering other aspects of the two nation's histories, ought to have similar prevailing psyches).

We got the convicts, you got the Puritans.

In that vein, MIL when informed about the situation (once she got over being aghast) noted: If anything like that had happened here, some of the firefighters would have told broken ranks, told the chief to pis off and helped put out the fire!

ps: she also thinks Heinz should have stolen the drug :-)

...and her reasoning on this and similar issues is as close to stage 6 as anyone I've ever met. Me, I'm mired down there in with the social contract thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

231. Hey we ALSO got convicts

but since it don't play well with the national myth.

Over 30,000 just in the 18th century according to the data I've seen.

But as soon as 1787 one Thomas Jefferson, for example, went out of his way to deny this little history.

Hell, Colonies passes laws, that the crown ignored, forbidding the importation of convicts.

I am sure you knew that, but most Americans don't.

[depakid]

234. Georgia got both convicts AND Calvinists!

After the revolution, the British needed somewhere else to send their rabble and political prisoners.

If they hadn't, we might all be speaking Dutch around here!

Or French.

[nadinbrzezinski]

236. Or German

You know the other thing that is fascinating is seeing how the borderer culture took shape... part of the deep cultural DNA as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

185. Different values

As a Mexican Red Cross Paramedic I never cared if somebody gave up a donation.



Is this the NEW and improved US? Can I get off?

Oh and all other arguments, there are LEGAL ways to deal with it by the way.

[B Calm]

186. Where did the money come from to purchase fire trucks and a fire house?

[BzaDem]

188. It could EASILY come from charging non-subscribers for it if they have a fire.

Just send them the bill for a few thousand or however much it could cost. That would cover the cost of putting out the fire, the proportional cost of the truck and hose, etc.

Just like ERs do for people without insurance. They help first, and collect later.

[B Calm]

189. My guess is the cost of the fire trucks and fire houses were paid for

by Americans paying taxes and it was before they initiated this bull shit charge!

[seabeyond]

193. it is paid by the city citizens who actually are taxed for their FD. nt

[bvar22]

220. Our rural volunteer fire department receives FEDERAL Funds...

...through various grants, and also receives some funding through Homeland Security for training and equipment.
We also get great deal on used equipment through the State.



They guy whose house they let burn HAD partially contributed to that fire department through State and Federal taxes.



You need to include this fact in the rant you are spamming every thread with.

[seabeyond]

223. actually from the work up i found on odion county they dont, becuase they did not develop their VFD

it said they could have, and they got some in the past, but have recently because they didnt develop the vfd. and if the money does not fo to fulton, then how does that pay them?

[seabeyond]

192. as on another thread, they did and it wasnt paid. another state and they had no recourse

not so easy

[BzaDem]

198. You go to court and sue, just like a hospital would for someone who could afford it but doesn't pay.

[seabeyond]

200. a town of 2500 people poorer than county. not a lot of money. hire lwayers and court cost to TRY

and get payment?

not smart

lets raise those poor city folks taxes to pay for the significantly more wealthier non paying county people?

[depakid]

190. And so the house deserved to burn...

I'll have to say, these threads have surely been enlightening.

[seabeyond]

194. solution? city FD go bankrupt? significantly raise city taxes to cover county? nt

[BzaDem]

197. Solution: charge non-subscribers the full cost of their service, just like ERs do.

If they don't pay but can afford to, then sue (just like hospitals do).

[seabeyond]

199. 3rd time to you.... they tried. they dont get payment. another state and dont have same recourse

and community of 2500. you want them to spend MORE money on lawyers and court to try and get payments that will cost more than what they likely receive.... nto smart.

[BzaDem]

When you explain how this is at all different than hospitals who collect from ER victims

I will start to take you seriously.

Sometimes, ERs can't collect. Should they stop providing ER services to people they know won't pay?

[BzaDem]

214. .

[depakid]

201. Ever heard of a lien?

Believe me, you don't want one on your property.

[TwilightGardener]

204. Naw, if you read all of this, you'll realize that West Bumblefuck TN/KY

is the only entity in the United States with absolutely no standing or ability to sue for payment in court for services rendered. At least, that's what some will have us believe.

[depakid]

206. They may not even need to go to court to attach a lien to the property

[seabeyond]

209. can one state put a lein on anothr property in another state? nt

[depakid]

213. If the owner owes money- or if the Fire Dept files a mechanic's lien for its work on the property

A cursory look at Tennessee law tells me that, while this would likely be a case of first impression, there's no logical reason they wouldn't qualify (and once it's on there, the onus is on the property owner to deal with it- one way or another, irrespective of whether the Department takes action on it).

Who can claim a lien in this State?

There shall be a lien upon any lot of ground or tract of land upon which a house or structure has been erected, demolished, altered, or repaired, or for fixtures or machinery furnished or erected, or improvements made, by special contract with the owner or the owner’s agent, in favor of the contractor, mechanic, laborer, founder or machinist, who does the work or any part of the work, or furnishes the materials or any part of the materials, or puts thereon any fixtures, machinery, or material, and in favor of all persons who do any portion of the work or furnish any portion of the materials for such building; provided, that the subcontractor, laborer or materialman satisfies all of the requirements set forth in § 66-11-145, if applicable.

http://constructionliens.uslegal.com/state-laws/tennessee-construction-lien-law/

[seabeyond]

222. thanks for this. nt

[seabeyond]

210. this town is 2500 people. your answeris to hire lawyers and incur court costs to try and get

the money?

[TwilightGardener]

211. My town of about 1000 had a city attorney. I would guess most municipalities

have attorneys.

[BzaDem]

212. YES. That is EXACTLY the answer. n/t

[Marr]

202. It's bizarre to see so many people defending the libertarian policies of the county, by

calling their opponents libertarians and 'fake Democrats'.

[Chemical Bill]

205. Let's tax rich people to pay for firefighting! n/t

[rufus dog]

238. Man there is a lot of shit flying on this

So I should pitch a few piles....

As with most everything there is likely a whole lot more to this story. Likely some personality conflicts with the major players, either an old grudge or some jealousy. And highly likely that the majority, if not all, of the players are (to borrow a term) Major League Fucking Assholes. Your typical, "don't tax me bro" types who look down their noses at the local "city" workers pulling double shifts at the mini mart. And when push comes to shove, will screw over a neighbor to make a point.

[6000eliot]

239. What happens if he can't afford the fee?

Should the homes of the poor burn to the ground?

[southernyankeebelle]

244. Bullshit is the right word for you. NO ONE should have to pay extra

for services we pay through taxes already.

[Romulox]

246. LOL. They didn't pay for it through taxes though. Did you miss about a gazillion posts on this?

:hi:

[seabeyond]

247. you are damn right, they dont have to pay EXTRA thru taxes or anything else. they pay NOTHING

hence, the issue