Don't blame local Govt. re: fire department non-response

[musiclawyer]

To those who blame the county or local agency, arguing that fire suppression taxation/assessment should not have been put to the a vote and that fire suppression should just be automatic, you have no idea how local government works.
In unincorporated areas of rural counties, there are usually three fire suppresssion mechanisms: a county fire department, a local district or fire company( which can be either a public agency or private and either can be manned by volunteers, professionals, or a mix of both), or a state fire agency ( In CA, we have what's called CALfire, whose missions is wildfire suppression but who will put out structural fires if necessary). But there are millions of homes in rural unincorporated area that 1) don't have a county/city fire department, 2) are outside the boundaries of a local fire district/company or 3) too far away from state responders. If you are in one of those areas, you WILL eventually be asked by the county, "do you wish to tax yourself so we can start operating a county fire department?" Likewise you WILL eventually be asked by a local nearby fire district/company or city , "do you wish to subscribe for coverage, such that we will go out of our boundaries to serve you?" And guess what happens if you say no to both of those options? Well you are on your own, and probably have to pay a fortune in fire insurance because the insurance company knows that one of the local fire marshal yahoos might decide not to put out the fire even if he is there on-site for some reason! Sound familiar. There is no excusing failure to act when responders are on site. Very few will disagree. But the real structural problem is the militant anti-tax mentality that leaves many counties/agencies without the money to operate a fire department effectively or even have one. And that same mentality that leaves most local fire districts/companies without effective means to raise revenues to expand their boundaries. In many states, fire districts literally have no way to legally raise money wihtout a supermajority vote or an assessment vote whose sought funds cannot legal be used outside the district's boundaries. Hence they are limited to tiny scraps left from property taxes within their boundaries. In short, don't blame local government. The root of the problem is grounded elsewhere.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Also well explained in this post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9266721

Interesting how those very same people who condemn "welfare" and "freeloaders", are quite willing to be among them when it comes to their own responsibilities.

[mmonk]

2. I don't . I blame those that while they were in the neighborhood

would not bend the rule to accept $75 on the spot to save someone's home while they were there anyway.

[Tesha]

5. That's not how insurance works; you can rarely buy it "ex post facto".

If you don't believe me, try it with an auto insurance company
right after your uninsured car has been totalled.

The one thing this fire company might do is carry paperwork
that allows them to put a "mechanic's lien" on the property:
"Buddy, if you want us to put the fire out, sign here as a
guarantee that we'll get paid for all of our expenses."

Tesha

[mmonk]

6. Yes, technically correct and morally bankrupt. That is how it works.

Of course, I see nothing wrong with accepting a fee while one is there. Even in the wild west, neighbors would come around and pitch in.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Why is it morally bankrupt? Wasn't it morally bankrupt to save some beer money...

assuming they would save the house?

You gotta draw the line somewhere.

[mmonk]

11. Sometimes, one's home is the single most item of worth a family has.

It's a matter of proportion. Yes, it is the fault of the county residents and commissioners. I understand that part. But I think if one is currently spraying, they can bother themselves to spray the house as well.

[Tesha]

19. Well, if their home were the item of most worth that they had, then...

...they could have found the $75 to buy-in to the fire protection
for it.

But noooo...

Tesha

[Broderick]

23. I think

most homes are the number one valued item in any family. Sometimes, 75 dollars, is a lot of money to people. Just my opinion. Frankly, I have seen people come up with so many excuses for not being able to afford things, and sometimes they use excuses like this to avoid admitting it is a burden on the pocket book. It is so not black and white imo.

[Broderick]

22. I agree

I just can't see myself in any situation not doing what is right, as I see it. I could never let a house burn, or animals die because of taxation principle.

[Fla Dem]

3. I understand the realities of problem, but...............

If someone doesn't subscribe and they call 911 for fire suppression, they should be asked if they are willing to pay for the fire team to put out the fire. If they say yes, that response is recorded on the 911 system. The county and/or city, should them respond and put out the fire and bill the homeowner; like a flat rate, $5000. If the homeowner doesn't pay, then put a lien on their property just as you would do if they didn't pay their taxes. I can't agree that you would allow a family's home to burn down because they didn't pay a $75 fee. There has to be an alternative, and the city and/or county council members are short sighted for not having some type of alternative in place.

[COLGATE4]

15. They are in two different States. There's no way they can put

a lien (or otherwise collect) the money.

[Fla Dem]

21. Of course they can.

If on the 911 tape they are told it will cost $5000 to put out the fire, and they agree to that price, the FD holds up their end of the bargain and the homeowner reneges, they can go after them for the costs. It wasn't 2 different states. The fire was in an unincorporated section of Obion County, Tn. The fire department was from the city of South Fulton also in Obion County. If they can't put a lien on the house they can go to court. It's no different than any other agreement to pay for services rendered.

[hayu_lol]

25. Sorry Colgate, the early threads I read said that the town of Fulton...

was in Kentucky. It is. It is also a twin-city to South Fulton just across the state line. Didn't know about the error until I used Hannah Bell's document links today.

However, the Obion head commissioner said that there is no way to collect costs in Tennessee by state law.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Very simply-- ultimately, it is the dumbass voters who refuse to pay for the service...

either through taxes or the subscription fee.

Personally, I think fire protection is the sort of thing that is to the public good and the public should have to pay for it.

(BTW-- I also think health insurance should be mandatory.)

[mmonk]

7. Ultimately.

[Lyric]

9. I disagree. The problem is incompetent local government combined with negligent state government.

Uncontrolled fires are a threat to more than just one isolated home. The wind-blown embers threaten forests and meadows for miles around. If the local government's hands are tied because the majority of their electorate is stupid, then it's up to the state to step in and fix the situation. Sometimes the state really DOES need to save us from our own stupidity--because one person's stupidity can mean death and loss for the innocent people, homes, and forests around him.

When is the best time to put out a fire? When it's small and easily contained, or when it's huge and sending up flaming embers and ash that spread out and cause more fires? The threat goes beyond the scope of the local government, so it's up to the state government to set things right.

[suston96]

10. You got it right. Government, at any level, cannot abdicate public safety.

That's why we create or have government. And further, the right of the people to be secure (safe) in their homes and anywhere else cannot be subject to majority rule.

So those elections by taxpayers to refuse fire protection are bogus and illegal.

[Lyric]

13. Precisely. We don't get to vote on whether or not we want to pay for police protection.

Similarly, we should NOT get to vote on whether or not we want to pay for fire protection. The very idea is absurd. The state government of Tennessee should never have allowed this to happen, and it's up to THEM to fix the problem now.

Since the threat of fire is bigger than one community or county, then the solution to ameliorate the threat should also be bigger than one community/county. Tennessee needs to either levy a mandatory state tax to support universal firefighting service, or it needs to pass legislation that forces the local governments to levy such a tax and provide the service. Either way, the solution has to come from Knoxville--NOT the Obion county government. That little experiment in Libertarianism has already failed.

In the meantime, in order to prevent fires from spreading to state-owned forests and grassland areas, firefighters need to respond to ALL fires. The state government can provide emergency funding and then recoup it later via tax revenues. People might refuse to pay the fire department, but they're damned well NOT able to refuse paying the state. The state has enforcement and collection tools that the local governments do not--it needs to USE them.

[musiclawyer]

12. You are not refuting my points

We agree that the fire should have been put out, for many reasons, including the reasons you articulate. But the populace is misinformed if it thinks that it's structurally the fault of local government. In this case it was the fault of an idiot fire chief. But in the macro sense, the problem is people who elect state legislators who allow rural fire districts and counties to be paupers and make it impossible to get reliable and adequate revenue sources.

[Lyric]

14. Oh, I agree that the state government is ultimately responsible.

I just think that the local government is not entirely blameless. They failed to recognize the larger threat and take action: they could have done the right thing and implemented a fire tax without the support of the voters, or they could have appealed to the state government. So far as I can see, the fire tax was voted down by the county board--not by voter referendum. They were worried about risking their jobs, so they did the popular thing instead of the right thing. It was incompetence, plain and simple. There's a reason why this country is a republic and not a direct democracy--THIS is that reason. There are some issues that you cannot trust to the voters--sometimes it's better to have a wise representative standing between the voters and the law, so that he or she can save the voters from their own short-sighted ignorance.

A county government doesn't have ultimate authority, but it DOES have enough power to either levy a necessary tax, or to ask the state government to do it. This particular county government failed to do either. It caved in to the voters, even when it was obvious that the voters were being irresponsible and wrong. That is an utter failure to act as a representative government--even a local one--should.

[COLGATE4]

16. Remember the saying: 'Trying to argue legal issues with a

non-lawyer is like trying to teach a pig to sing. You don't get anywhere and all it does is make the pig mad'.

[Hannah Bell]

18. The county is *not* a pauper. It has a larger tax base than all the cities providing fire service.

It chooses not to tax. There is no rural fire district. The county has chosen not to establish any.

The fire chief is not at fault, & not an idiot.

The teabaggers are trying to bankrupt the city.

[Hannah Bell]

17. I blame the county with good reason. It has *no* residential fire protection.

Because it has repeatedly refused to fund it.

There is no private entity offering fire service in the county. The county has no volunteer fire department (it's shot down two attempts to start one). There is no state agency that puts out residential fires in the county.

The only protection for homes in the unincorporated county has been provided by the cities. For free.

[TexasObserver]

20. Unrecommend

Contrary to your stated supposition, you're not better informed than those with whom you disagree.

And, you said what the other two dozen who agree with you have said, but you said it less cogently.

[ncteechur]

24. Well, the FD was on the scene. IMO it is criminal for trained fire personnel to stand by and watch

someone's house burn when they have the equipment and skill to do something about it. Money or no money. You can get the money later.