About that fire rescue fee.....

[stevew]

Pay-to-Spray Firefighters Watch as Home Burns - By Daniel Foster - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248649/pay-spray-firefighters-watch-home-burns-daniel-foster)

In short, dude doesn't opt-in to firefighter coverage. House burns. Firefighters only show up when neighbor's house(who paid) is in danger of catching on fire.

[JPhillips]

An honest question, what would they have done if a person were in the house?

[Lathum]

I say if he knew about the fee and chose not to pay that is the rusk he took. I equate it to people living in north Carolina and nit having hurricane insurance. It just isn't worth the risk.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Oy, this is bad (http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html) for the libertarians:

No, I'd say it's bad for the Cranicks.

[Logan]

I say if he knew about the fee and chose not to pay that is the rusk he took. I equate it to people living in north Carolina and nit having hurricane insurance. It just isn't worth the risk.

But insurance doesn't protect you from a hurricane; it compensates you for what is lost in a hurricane. If this guy didn't have homeowner's insurance but had firefighter service, he'd likely still be in some shit even if the fire was put out relatively quickly.

If I'm the other guy who did pay, and my house/property ends up getting touched by that fire only because it wasn't put out quickly enough, I'm pretty pissed at everyone.

[EagleFan]

That is extortion. It's basically government run mafia at that point. Pay for "protection". What next? Are they going to ask the residents to pay if they want police protection? There are some basic things that should be covered by local taxes (blanket policy, not this pay extra for protection crap); police and fire would be those things.

[Lathum]

But insurance doesn't protect you from a hurricane; it compensates you for what is lost in a hurricane. ne.

All the more reason to pay for it. Preventive maitnence is even better.

[Neon_Chaos]

Shouldn't firefighter coverage be under basic government services that are covered by your taxes?

[larrymcg421]

The crazy thing is that the guy was offering to pay for it when the fire started, but they said it was too late. The problem with things like this is that you can't just punish one person in a vacuum if they don't pay. Neighbors will get punished too. Even if the fire doesn't spread, I doubt the burned down house does a whole lot for surrounding property values.

Also, I'd hate to be a firefighter in a town like this. It seems to go against a basic code of being one if you're supposed to just sit there while a house is burning. Kinda like a medical proffessional who refuses to give CPR to someone who doesn't have health insurance.

Put the fire out and then fine the guy out of his asshole.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I don't know, wouldn't allowing him to pay then and there cause a moral hazard?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Shouldn't firefighter coverage be under basic government services that are covered by your taxes?

They don't live in the city, so there's no city tax to pay but no city services either.


Vowell said county residents do not have guaranteed fire service since there is no countywide fire department to cover rural areas, but many municipalities offer rural fire coverage to residents in specified coverage areas for a nominal annual fee. South Fulton’s fee is $75.
Tempers flare in SF after house allowed to burn; fire chief hit on NWTNTODAY.COM (http://www.ucmessenger.com/news.php?viewStory=46801)

He said the city mails out notices to customers in the specified rural coverage area, with coverage running from July 1 of one year to July 1 the next year.
At the end of the enrollment month of July, the city goes a step further and makes phone calls to rural residents who have not responded to the mail-out.
“These folks were called and notified,” Vowell said. “I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to get it and be aware it’s available. It’s been there for 20 years, but it’s very important to follow up.”

[Lathum]

I think Larry makes a great point. They should have had a clause saying you can opt out of the fee but if you need the services you have to pay a huge fine.

[SteveMax58]

I guess I don't understand the (potential) debate here.

Guy lives in a very rural setting where they don't have fire protection services. The closest in proximity fire services allow access for a nominal yearly fee. He opts to not pay that fee until his house is actually burning. They wont do anything for him because he opted to not get that protection.

If everybody did what this man did...and still received services...then that would be a "pay as you go" model for fire services. So instead of $75/yr for everybody it would be $6k (or whatever it equates to) if you hit the unlucky fire lotto.

I'm sorry...at some point stupid people need to be allowed to make bad decisions. You can't have a society that thinks for everybody.

[Autumn]

There's all kinds of pay fire services, even in areas that have traditional coverage. They put that fire retardant on your house in times of forest fires, etc. There was a great article about one in Harper's Magazine a while back.

What I don't get is why the fire department was there in the first place? They just respond to everything and then check to see if it's paid up? This seems like a silly controversy - when the county went to this arrangement it had to be very clear to everyone that this is the result. Why is this a surprise to them? I wonder more at the process of installing this system.

[molson]

I guess I don't understand the (potential) debate here.

Guy lives in a very rural setting where they don't have fire protection services. The closest in proximity fire services allow access for a nominal yearly fee. He opts to not pay that fee until his house is actually burning. They wont do anything for him because he opted to not get that protection.

If everybody did what this man did...and still received services...then that would be a "pay as you go" model for fire services. So instead of $75/yr for everybody it would be $6k (or whatever it equates to) if you hit the unlucky fire lotto.

I'm sorry...at some point stupid people need to be allowed to make bad decisions. You can't have a society that thinks for everybody.

And the whole point of people paying early is that that money keeps the fire department going and all the equipment maintained and current (the actual firefighters are probably volunteers). That wouldn't work on a pay as you go model because once the fire starts, and they write you a check, there probably isn't enough time at that point to buy the fire truck.

Edit: I take that back, I guess it's "nearby" (I wonder how nearby) municipal departments willing to send out help for a fee. I'm sure if you lived in that town, you wouldn't be thrilled with your department going off to non-tax-paying areas to put out fires, with the corresponding reduction of quality services in your own city.

[lungs]

Why not include fire protection in property taxes?

[larrymcg421]

The fire department is there probably because there's a chance it could spread to surrounding areas.

Again, you can't punish people in a vacuum in cases like this. There are lots of things that can go wrong under this policy. What if the homeowner isn't there but, say, an elderly houseguest is inside and they die? Or like my earlier scenario and it just punishes people with falling property values or the fire spreads to surrounding properties and gets too big for them to control?

I'm not against the fee for fire protection. I'm not against the guy getting punished for not paying it. I'm saying that letting the house burn down makes no sense whatsoever. Put that fire out and then fine him an appropriate amount.

[Lathum]

What I don't get is why the fire department was there in the first place? They just respond to everything and then check to see if it's paid up? This seems like a silly controversy - when the county went to this arrangement it had to be very clear to everyone that this is the result. Why is this a surprise to them? I wonder more at the process of installing this system.

The article very clearly stated they denied their call and only came out when the neighbor who had paid the fee called because they were worried about the fire spreading.

Switch to caffeinated my man!

[Alan T]

The fire department is there probably because there's a chance it could spread to surrounding areas.

Again, you can't punish people in a vacuum in cases like this. There are lots of things that can go wrong under this policy. What if the homeowner isn't there but, say, an elderly houseguest is inside and they die? Or like my earlier scenario and it just punishes people with falling property values or the fire spreads to surrounding properties and gets too big for them to control?

I'm not against the fee for fire protection. I'm not against the guy getting punished for not paying it. I'm saying that letting the house burn down makes no sense whatsoever. Put that fire out and then fine him an appropriate amount.

How does a nearby town that has no municipality over them fine them though? If I understand correctly, these people lived in an unincorporated rural area not governed by nearby towns. That would be like the City of Atlanta fining someone that lives in Cobb County for some house violation that they don't like.

[larrymcg421]

And the whole point of people paying early is that that money keeps the fire department going and all the equipment maintained and current (the actual firefighters are probably volunteers). That wouldn't work on a pay as you go model because once the fire starts, and they write you a check, there probably isn't enough time at that point to buy the fire truck.

Edit: I take that back, I guess it's "nearby" (I wonder how nearby) municipal departments willing to send out help for a fee. I'm sure if you lived in that town, you wouldn't be thrilled with your department going off to non-tax-paying areas to put out fires, with the corresponding reduction of quality services in your own city.

It should be noted that Cranick wasn't expecting to just pay the $75 fee. He was willing to pay "whatever it took".

[larrymcg421]

How does a nearby town that has no municipality over them fine them though? If I understand correctly, these people lived in an unincorporated rural area not governed by nearby towns. That would be like the City of Atlanta fining someone that lives in Cobb County for some house violation that they don't like.

Okay, but it still sounds like they could come up with a fee that people would have to pay if they didn't fork over the $75 earlier. Have him sign to agree to pay that and then put the fire out.

I just don't like the idea of letting the houses burn because it will end up affecting more than just the guy who didn't pay his fee.

[molson]

Okay, but it still sounds like they could come up with a fee that people would have to pay if they didn't fork over the $75 earlier. Have him sign to agree to pay that and then put the fire out.

I just don't like the idea of letting the houses burn because it will end up affecting more than just the guy who didn't pay his fee.

I feel like any idiot that refuses to pay $75 for fire department coverage is going to stiff you on any bill you send him.

That doesn't address the legitimate concern of neighboring houses, but I wonder how much of a threat that is in rural counties where you have a lot of space between houses.

I think the cities should just get out of the private firefighting contracting business. Especially if they're expected to cover the cost of deadbeats in surrounding areas. How can that be worth it? If the rural area wants fire service, they can organize it themselves.

[larrymcg421]

I feel like any idiot that refuses to pay $75 for fire department coverage is going to stiff you on any bill you send him.

Okay, but at least now you have the legal recourse which solves the problem that Alan presented earlier.

That doesn't address the legitimate concern of neighboring houses, but I wonder how much of a threat that is in rural counties where you have a lot of space between houses.

Seems like it was enough of a concern here that the neighbor who had paid $75 did call out the fire department.

[molson]

Okay, but at least now you have the legal recourse which solves the problem that Alan presented earlier.



They might have a recourse, but I don't know why a small city would want to get into (or could afford) the business of offering credit for contract fire services and then going after the deadbeats.

[JPhillips]

How many households are covered? Seventy-five dollars a piece just doesn't seem like it would add up to a lot of money relative to the budget of the fire department.

[molson]

Seems like it was enough of a concern here that the neighbor who had paid $75 did call out the fire department.

And his house didn't burn down though, right?

I'm no fire expert, I just imagine the firefighters can handle that better than say, a crowded city block.

Hey, maybe they could put the non-subscriber fire out if necessary, but then once everything's safe for the subscriber, burn the non-subscriber's house down in a controlled manner.

[SteveMax58]

How does a nearby town that has no municipality over them fine them though? If I understand correctly, these people lived in an unincorporated rural area not governed by nearby towns. That would be like the City of Atlanta fining someone that lives in Cobb County for some house violation that they don't like.

This is exactly the point. He lives in an unincorporated rural area. Who has jurisdiction to even enforce a fine?

He was offered a service which is not part of his property taxes due to being in an unincorporated land area. And as molson noted...residents of the fire department may actually have a just reason to not like this arrangement as it reduces their own fire protection services.

[SteveMax58]

How many households are covered? Seventy-five dollars a piece just doesn't seem like it would add up to a lot of money relative to the budget of the fire department.

I'm sure it's heavily weighted to probability & cost of living though. I wouldnt be surprised if it's subsidized as well.

If this is a very rural area...$75 might be doable but $250-500 is likely a lot of money there.

[molson]

I'm sure it's heavily weighted to probability & cost of living though. I wouldnt be surprised if it's subsidized as well.

If this is a very rural area...$75 might be doable but $250-500 is likely a lot of money there.

I don't think a super-rural fire department costs TOO much - if you get 500 people to sign up at $75 - $37,500 probably goes a long way and might be worth it for the occasional trip out to the country to put out a fire.

[SteveMax58]

I don't think a super-rural fire department costs TOO much - if you get 500 people to sign up at $75 - $37,500 probably goes a long way and might be worth it for the occasional trip out to the country to put out a fire.

Absolutely...I'm sure it makes sense for them.

I think people are forgetting why we have towns, villages, etc. It's for this type of crap!! If you are thinking in terms of land values, etc. you are missing the nature of extreme rural areas...and why people live in them.

[Lathum]

I feel like any idiot that refuses to pay $75 for fire department coverage is going to stiff you on any bill you send him.

This, you can't get blood from a stone.

I'm pretty sure if my house was on fire I would say anything to try and get them to put it out and worry about the consequences after the fact.

[Logan]

This is a clear violation of the Good Samaritan Law (think that's two days in a row with that reference here).

Kinda like a medical proffessional who refuses to give CPR to someone who doesn't have health insurance.

Anyone care to respond to this analogy?

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is exactly the point. He lives in an unincorporated rural area. Who has jurisdiction to even enforce a fine?


Presumably there's a county government that has some jurisdiction over the area.

The likely process, off the top of my head at least, would be for the city FD to bill the county government who would then in turn "fine" the property owner accordingly (with surcharges, admin fees, etc attached).

Not saying that I think it's a really workable model but where there's a will, there's usually a way.

[JPhillips]

The county government last night passed an ordinance to allow more towns to use fee for service fire protection.

I'm curious about how much administrative costs there are with this kind of setup.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is a clear violation of the Good Samaritan Law (think that's two days in a row with that reference here).

Umm ... huh?

The Good Samaritan Act in TN is similar to the one I'm familiar with, which basically provides that a public safety worker acting in good faith does not incur civil liability for their actions or inactions.
See Tennessee (http://www.cprinstructor.com/TN-GS.htm)

Did you mean some other law else perhaps?

[JediKooter]

This is a clear violation of the Good Samaritan Law (think that's two days in a row with that reference here).



Anyone care to respond to this analogy?

This was my thought. How can anyone in good conscience sit there, with equipment and the knowledge to put out a fire, and watch someones house go down in flames?

I'd have to be a cold hearted asshole to do that. Fee paid or not, I'm putting that fire out and billing him later.

[stevew]

I think Logan is referencing the Hippocratic Oath.

[Logan]

Umm ... huh?

The Good Samaritan Act in TN is similar to the one I'm familiar with, which basically provides that a public safety worker acting in good faith does not incur civil liability for their actions or inactions.
See Tennessee (http://www.cprinstructor.com/TN-GS.htm)

Did you mean some other law else perhaps?

Sorry, just some humor.

The Finale (Seinfeld) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Finale_(Seinfeld))

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think Logan is referencing the series finale of Seinfeld.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Fee paid or not, I'm putting that fire out and billing him later.

Not with someone else's equipment you aren't, at least not if you'd like to have a job shortly thereafter.

edit to add: What's rather unusual about this situation is that it sounds as though there is no fire service covering this area whatsoever, I can't recall ever running across that situation in Georgia. Where there's something then what's known as mutual aid agreements would have come into play, basically that "we'll help you, you'll help us, and it'll all work out in the end". In that scenario then they would have almost certainly acted without hesitation, it's covered.

[JediKooter]

Not with someone else's equipment you aren't, at least not if you'd like to have a job shortly thereafter.

I can live with my decision on that. I'd go home with a clear conscience knowing that I did the right thing.

[stevew]

I think Logan is referencing the series finale of Seinfeld.

Yeah. I should have considered that.

[Greyroofoo]

I don't understand how human beings can stand around and let the guy's house burn when they have the means to put it out. :mad:

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think Logan is referencing the series finale of Seinfeld.

{whoosh}

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'd go home with a clear conscience knowing that I did the right thing.

Easier call here on a msg board than when you have to feed your family, pay your mortgage, etc.

[Logan]

I can live with my decision on that. I'd go home with a clear conscience knowing that I did the right thing.

And since it's a volunteer job, I think I'd sleep well at night knowing I saved someone's house and didn't risk putting food on my family's table.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And since it's a volunteer job, I think I'd sleep well at night knowing I saved someone's house and didn't risk putting food on my family's table.

Have we firmly established that this involved volunteers? I haven't seen any accounts that spelled that out specifically & I've read about a half dozen versions including the one linked here.

edit to add: I've found a reference to the current chief coming into the department as a volunteer but the rest of the wording at the city website gives me the impression that he's among some paid employees now.

[Logan]

I'm also sure that this rural town has a sophisticated enough billing/invoice/recordkeeping system where there could never, ever be a mistake as to who was covered and who wasn't.

[Logan]

Have we firmly established that this involved volunteers? I haven't seen any accounts that spelled that out specifically & I've read about a half dozen versions including the one linked here.

Someone mentioned it before but you're right in that I haven't seen it spelled out. I think it's a fair assumption when you're considering a $75 pay-in fire protection type atmosphere and the amount of revenue that can produce. I grew up in an upper-middle class town of about 50k with ridiculously high property taxes that had a volunteer fire dept, so I guess that's clouding my judgment.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

While I personally would probably not be able to just stand there and watch while this happened, I don't think I can pass judgment on anyone here. It's really hard to not fault the homeowners completely, they knew what the score is and passed up several attempts to get them to sign on.

[Logan]

The fire dept was from South Fulton, TN according to an article. This is their website.

South Fulton, Tennessee (http://www.cityofsouthfulton.org/fire.htm)

"Chief Wilds has been affiliated with the Fire Department since 1998, coming on as a volunteer."

So it seems at least that part of the department is volunteer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Someone mentioned it before but you're right in that I haven't seen it spelled out. I think it's a fair assumption when you're considering a $75 pay-in fire protection type atmosphere and the amount of revenue that can produce.

I think the discussion here is maybe clouding the situation a bit.

South Fulton is a city -- 17 firefighters on the roster & 5 trucks in the station -- which pays for various services for residents with city taxes & such.

The house that burned is located outside their jurisdiction, but for the $75/yr they are willing to go outside the territory they're responsible for in the event they're needed. In other words, they aren't covering their entire territory for the $75/yr per, that's just an add-on deal.

[JediKooter]

Easier call here on a msg board than when you have to feed your family, pay your mortgage, etc.

Not really, given the context of the article. I believe it was a rural volunteer department. I understand your point though. I think if I was at a paid department, my guess is that there probably won't be a 'pay for service' kind of set up in that area?

Regardless, the right thing to do is put the fire out. This is a fellow human being. Yea, the guy was a dumb ass to not pay the fee, it's also dumb that there is no structure to collect the fee via property taxes or a local sales tax or some other means.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not really, given the context of the article. I believe it was a rural volunteer department.

Nope, this is a city fire department that offers some coverage to non-residents outside their territory.


I think if I was at a paid department, my guess is that there probably won't be a 'pay for service' kind of set up in that area?

Actually that's pretty much the core of this whole story. The subscription service exists for non-residents who have no other fire coverage.

it's also dumb that there is no structure to collect the fee via property taxes or a local sales tax or some other means.

You'd have to take that up with the county government, who pretty clearly chooses not have a fire department for whatever reason.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm getting a kick out of this one. It's remarkable that people evidently can't understand the difference between city and county gubmint. Heck, I grew up in a consolidated gubmint town (Columbus, GA/Muscogee County..one of the first such in the SE), and even *I* can get this one straight, I'm fairly sure:

FIRE DEPARTMENT = city
DUMMY WHO WON'T PAY = county
$75 = extra fee for county people if they want to opt in

Have I got it right here?

[Lathum]

I'm getting a kick out of this one. It's remarkable that people evidently can't understand the difference between city and county gubmint. Heck, I grew up in a consolidated gubmint town (Columbus, GA/Muscogee County..one of the first such in the SE), and even *I* can get this one straight, I'm fairly sure:

FIRE DEPARTMENT = city
DUMMY WHO WON'T PAY = county
$75 = extra fee for county people if they want to opt in

Have I got it right here?

You are correct and bolded for truth.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

How about this - why doesn't the county secure protection for everyone in unincorporated areas and then raise the county taxes appropriately?

[larrymcg421]

Not sure why anyone feels the need to point out that the guy is a dummy as if that's an argument that anyone here disagrees with.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Have I got it right here?

Yup.

[JonInMiddleGA]

How about this - why doesn't the county secure protection for everyone in unincorporated areas and then raise the county taxes appropriately?

I imagine that's because they fear being voted out on their asses if they do.

edit to clarify: If there was a demand or desire for that to happen, it would have happened already.

[JediKooter]

Nope, this is a city fire department that offers some coverage to non-residents outside their territory.

No problems with that from me.


Actually that's pretty much the core of this whole story. The subscription service exists for non-residents who have no other fire coverage.

Ok, that makes sense. However, you don't let a persons house burn down. I can understand slower response times and outdated equipment, but, you don't let someone's house burn down when you get there.

You'd have to take that up with the county government, who pretty clearly chooses not have a fire department for whatever reason.

Not sure why this is so complex for the state of Tennessee (or at least that county). It's simple in San Diego. You live in an un-incorporated portion of the county, you pay your property taxes to the county. You live in a incorporated part of the county, the taxes go to that city. Maybe I'm thinking that this should not be so difficult for that Tennessee county? This is definitely some short sightedness by that county.

[Lathum]

dola- Did anyone read the part about how the fire chief got punched out by either the guy whose house it was or a family member ( the article wasn't very clear). Way to blame others for your own stupidity. $75 a year is roughly 21 cents a day. Why on earth wouldn't you pay it?

Sometimes the decisions you make in life have consequences, he made an exceptionally stupid decision and unfortunately for him was an expensive lesson.

[Lathum]

Not sure why anyone feels the need to point out that the guy is a dummy as if that's an argument that anyone here disagrees with.

Because for me anyway it is hard to feel bad for someone who is so colossally stupid.

[Logan]

I think this being a full-on city fire department actually makes the whole thing worse. How much extra revenue is being kicked in by the $75/year from these rural homeowners? If it's not about the money, what's the point?

[k0ruptr]

I feel bad for this guy, sure he didnt pay the 75 dollars, but he still didn't deserve to have his house burn down.

[Lathum]

How about this - why doesn't the county secure protection for everyone in unincorporated areas and then raise the county taxes appropriately?

Probably because people would throw a fit. Everyone wants more social services but someone else to pay for them.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

You and Jon are probably right, I just find a $75 raise in property tax so that the fire department will fight a fire in your house to be a reasonable instance of taxation.

[Ben E Lou]

I imagine that's because they fear being voted out on their asses if they do.

edit to clarify: If there was a demand or desire for that to happen, it would have happened already.Yeah, that's my guess here. It's probably an area where people feel that they can protect and take care of themselves and their families, and don't want higher taxes for something as unnecessary as a fire department.

And you're right, it's not as easy a decision for the firefighters as some seem to make it out to be. (And yeah, I read that info as indicating that these guys are making a living this way.) If they're volunteers, then it's another thing entirely.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not sure why this is so complex for the state of Tennessee (or at least that county). It's simple in San Diego. You live in an un-incorporated portion of the county, you pay your property taxes to the county. You live in a incorporated part of the county, the taxes go to that city. Maybe I'm thinking that this should not be so difficult for that Tennessee county? This is definitely some short sightedness by that county.

It isn't particularly complicated for this county either. I have zero doubt that they collect taxes just like everyone else, they just haven't opted to put taxes toward a fire department.

[JediKooter]

It isn't particularly complicated for this county either. I have zero doubt that they collect taxes just like everyone else, they just haven't opted to put taxes toward a fire department.

Well, I know there's at least one guy in that county that wished they did. :)

[Ben E Lou]

Well, I know there's at least one guy in that county that wished they did. :):D

[illinifan999]

“I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,” said Gene Cranick

Really?

Say you don't have car insurance. You get into an accident. You call an insurance company and ask to get some insurance for the car you just totaled. Are they going to give it to you, or are they going to tell you that you are out of luck?

[AlexB]

Pay-to-Spray Firefighters Watch as Home Burns - By Daniel Foster - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248649/pay-spray-firefighters-watch-home-burns-daniel-foster)

In short, dude doesn't opt-in to firefighter coverage. House burns. Firefighters only show up when neighbor's house(who paid) is in danger of catching on fire.


This is how it used to be in good ol' days of NY according to Herbert Asbury

[JonInMiddleGA]

You and Jon are probably right, I just find a $75 raise in property tax so that the fire department will fight a fire in your house to be a reasonable instance of taxation.

But that isn't going to come close to covering it.

There are roughly 15,000 housing units in the county as of 2008.
Roughly half the population lives inside one of the 3 city limits (who presumably all have fire coverage)

That leaves, give or take, half to pay some hypothetical county surcharge. So 7500 units X $75 = $526,500

That's enough to maybe buy a couple of decent trucks, but does nothing to provide for salaries, expenses (have to insure even volunteers & their equipment), facilities maintenance, etc, etc, etc. And two trucks to cover a county of 555 square miles would be a joke, it'd be an accident if they manage to get to a fire in time to accomplish anything. (By comparsion, the rural county I moved out of has nearly a dozen trucks to cover 375 sq miles)

[Lathum]

And you're right, it's not as easy a decision for the firefighters as some seem to make it out to be. (And yeah, I read that info as indicating that these guys are making a living this way.) If they're volunteers, then it's another thing entirely.

Totally agree. The part of the country I live in firefighters are paid, a good friend of mine is one, and if your captain gives an order you follow it. It is all fine and good to talk about morality and such, but if you have a family to provide for it isn't such an easy call to make.

If they are volunteers I think it somewhat changes the equation. Just because the captain came on as a volunteer doesn't mean the whole force is, that could be poor journalism. He may have started as a volunteer washing trucks or something to get a foot in the door.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Sorry Jon, I should have clarified, I meant the county taxes $75, the county then gives that $75 to the appropriate existing FD that is offering coverage for that price.

Essentially forcing everyone not under a FD jurisdiction to buy in to one of these plans. It would save these sorts of scenes from ever happening.

[Lathum]

Sorry Jon, I should have clarified, I meant the county taxes $75, the county then gives that $75 to the appropriate existing FD that is offering coverage for that price.

Essentially forcing everyone not under a FD jurisdiction to buy in to one of these plans. It would save these sorts of scenes from ever happening.

I think that goes back to people being pissed off about it. Anyone who would be OK with a tax hike will likely be the same people who pay the fee, while the people who don't pay the fee will be pissed off that they have a tax increase for something they don't feel is necessary.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sorry Jon, I should have clarified, I meant the county taxes $75, the county then gives that $75 to the appropriate existing FD that is offering coverage for that price.

The county certainly seems to have the option to do that, they've chosen not to for whatever reason.

There are several ways around this, creation of a separate fire protection district political subdivision seems like an obvious option to me.

[Abe Sargent]

I feel like any idiot that refuses to pay $75 for fire department coverage is going to stiff you on any bill you send him.

That doesn't address the legitimate concern of neighboring houses, but I wonder how much of a threat that is in rural counties where you have a lot of space between houses.

I think the cities should just get out of the private firefighting contracting business. Especially if they're expected to cover the cost of deadbeats in surrounding areas. How can that be worth it? If the rural area wants fire service, they can organize it themselves.

If this is in Appalachia, then they were probably very, very close together - like urban close.

[Passacaglia]

Sorry Jon, I should have clarified, I meant the county taxes $75, the county then gives that $75 to the appropriate existing FD that is offering coverage for that price.

Essentially forcing everyone not under a FD jurisdiction to buy in to one of these plans. It would save these sorts of scenes from ever happening.

And it would increase response speed, since the FD won't have to check to see if someone calling in has paid.

[Passacaglia]

dola- Did anyone read the part about how the fire chief got punched out by either the guy whose house it was or a family member ( the article wasn't very clear). Way to blame others for your own stupidity. $75 a year is roughly 21 cents a day. Why on earth wouldn't you pay it?

Sometimes the decisions you make in life have consequences, he made an exceptionally stupid decision and unfortunately for him was an expensive lesson.

Since the article didn't say who did it, I thought it could have been someone unrelated to the house -- just a "concerned citizen."

[k0ruptr]

Totally agree. The part of the country I live in firefighters are paid, a good friend of mine is one, and if your captain gives an order you follow it. It is all fine and good to talk about morality and such, but if you have a family to provide for it isn't such an easy call to make.

If they are volunteers I think it somewhat changes the equation. Just because the captain came on as a volunteer doesn't mean the whole force is, that could be poor journalism. He may have started as a volunteer washing trucks or something to get a foot in the door.

I could be different from most people, but I look at it like its a very easy decision,if I'm there with the means to put it out, and if its possible I lose my job, or 100%that I will. I still put that fire out. easier for me to find a new job than for this guy to get a new house. And I am definitely willing to make that sacrifice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And it would increase response speed, since the FD won't have to check to see if someone calling in has paid.

Only for the relative handful that would be covered.

Check the map - all three cities in the county (who appear to be the source of the subscription coverage) are on the northern border adjacent to the Kentucky state line. In the case of South Fulton they appear to offer the option to residents within 5 miles of their city limits.

The rest of the county? Damned if I know, although at least a couple of the little towns/unincorporated areas are also border territories that lie partially within other counties.

[Autumn]

I think this clarifies well why history here has trended towards publicly funded fire departments rather than private ones. given that a fire in my neighbor's house is a threat to mine, it's really the most sensible solution. Maybe this will be enough to convince the people in that county to pony up and start paying for one.

[JonInMiddleGA]

easier for me to find a new job than for this guy to get a new house.

You obviously haven't been looking for a job lately. At least in Georgia, there are considerably more trained firefighters than there are paid positions these days.

[k0ruptr]

You obviously haven't been looking for a job lately. At least in Georgia, there are considerably more trained firefighters than there are paid positions these days.

not a problem with me, I still do it. like I said maybe I'm just different.

[larrymcg421]

Really?

Say you don't have car insurance. You get into an accident. You call an insurance company and ask to get some insurance for the car you just totaled. Are they going to give it to you, or are they going to tell you that you are out of luck?

That brings me back to the medical analogy I presented earlier and no one responded to. Should medical professionals refuse to treat critically ill patients who have no insurance and/or means of paying for such treatment?

[Lathum]

I could be different from most people, but I look at it like its a very easy decision,if I'm therewith the means to put it out, and if its possible I lose my job, or 100%that I will. I still put that fire out. easier for me to find a new job than for this guy to get a new house.

I have to heavily disagree with this statement. I have a family, mortgage, children, health insurance etc... and in this economy it isn't easy to find a job. No way I am giving up my entire livelihood, and my families future and well being because some moron made a horrible decision.

Except for the part about you being different :), that I agree with.

[k0ruptr]

I have to heavily disagree with this statement. I have a family, mortgage, children, health insurance etc... and in this economy it isn't easy to find a job. No way I am giving up my entire livelihood, and my families future and well being because some moron made a horrible decision.

Except for the part about you being different :), that I agree with.

totally understand. it may be a dumb decision on my part, but I could still feel good about it.

[illinifan999]

easier for me to find a new job than for this guy to get a new house. And I am definitely willing to make that sacrifice.

It would actually probably almost be impossible for you to find another job as a firefighter. Becoming a firefighter is as difficult as becoming a police officer. The testing process is long, and having a "fired with cause" or "resigned in lieu of termination" on your application is going to be pretty much be a kiss of death.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Should medical professionals refuse to treat critically ill patients who have no insurance and/or means of paying for such treatment?

Should they? Yeah, probably so.

[TroyF]

So the guy refuses to pay. They call him up to make sure he's aware of the coverage and he still chooses not to pay. Then his house burns to the ground and he's upset because the fire department is doing nothing.

Good lord.

I'm surprised an insurance company would provide home insurance to someone who didn't pay the fee. I don't wish harm on anyone, but the guy was warned and made his decision. Thankfully nobody died. Beyond human life, he chose poorly and needs to deal with it.

[Lathum]

That brings me back to the medical analogy I presented earlier and no one responded to. Should medical professionals refuse to treat critically ill patients who have no insurance and/or means of paying for such treatment?

I think this takes a leap into a gray area.

Everyone has a right to basic health care, IMO, but I think it is apples and oranges.

This man voluntarily chose to not pay a nominal fee, full well knowing the risks involved. If he couldn't afford the $75 then there is a whole different argument, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that.

[Logan]

Really?

Say you don't have car insurance. You get into an accident. You call an insurance company and ask to get some insurance for the car you just totaled. Are they going to give it to you, or are they going to tell you that you are out of luck?

Did this guy ask for the fire dept to rebuild his home? No...that's what homeowner's insurance is for. Like Larry says, this is like getting into that same accident, being pinned under your car, and the ambulance and FD coming out to the scene but not using the jaws of life because you're uninsured.

[Lathum]

totally understand. it may be a dumb decision on my part, but I could still feel good about it.

Feeling good won't feed you kids, pay your mortgage, provide health insurance, save money for college, etc...

[SteveMax58]

That brings me back to the medical analogy I presented earlier and no one responded to. Should medical professionals refuse to treat critically ill patients who have no insurance and/or means of paying for such treatment?

I think you are making an uneven comparison though...whereas the car insurance is a little more similar.

You are talking about life & death and this story (as well as the insurance analogy) are talking about material possessions.

By contrast...if there were a trapped person in the house, I would believe it to be a different case. And in that event...you are there to get the person out of the house...not necessarily put the fire out.

[TroyF]

Did this guy ask for the fire dept to rebuild his home? No...that's what homeowner's insurance is for. Like Larry says, this is like getting into that same accident, being pinned under your car, and the ambulance and FD coming out to the scene but not using the jaws of life because you're uninsured.


But it isn't like that. The medical analogy only holds if the firefighters refused to save lives. They didn't refuse to do that, they refused to save a house. The difference is monumental.

[Autumn]

It's a bit of an assumption (unless there's been something to suggest it's definitely the case) that the only choice was A) Do nothing for the guy's house or B) do something and get fired. While certainly it must be against their policy to respond to calls from people who haven't paid, in this case they were right there. Would people have been so upset at them putting out the fire that people got fired? We don't know that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Yeah, that's my guess here. It's probably an area where people feel that they can protect and take care of themselves and their families, and don't want higher taxes for something as unnecessary as a fire department.


Are you claiming a fire department is unnecessary? Or just stating that that's probably the way these people felt?

Because if you really think it's unnecessary...*facepalm*

[Lathum]

It's a bit of an assumption (unless there's been something to suggest it's definitely the case) that the only choice was A) Do nothing for the guy's house or B) do something and get fired. While certainly it must be against their policy to respond to calls from people who haven't paid, in this case they were right there. Would people have been so upset at them putting out the fire that people got fired? We don't know that.

Their superior obviously told them to not put the fire out. In most walks of life if your superior gives and order, and you do the direct opposite it is safe to assume you are toast.

[SteveMax58]

It's a bit of an assumption (unless there's been something to suggest it's definitely the case) that the only choice was A) Do nothing for the guy's house or B) do something and get fired. While certainly it must be against their policy to respond to calls from people who haven't paid, in this case they were right there. Would people have been so upset at them putting out the fire that people got fired? We don't know that.

Just a small commentary about the tone of the thread in regards to the house (not entirely fixed on your post Autumn though it does look like it :))

I agree it isn't a foregone conclusion that the guy gets fired for putting it out..but the idea that houses are like people and that we have to save them no matter what is the kind of thinking that really makes me nervous. :D

[Ben E Lou]

Are you claiming a fire department is unnecessary? Or just stating that that's probably the way these people felt?

Because if you really think it's unnecessary...*facepalm*Well, obviously the good people of this particular county don't see it as necessary. The government doesn't, or it would be a law. The people don't, or they'd clamor for it. And this dude/dummy/whatever didn't, 'cause he didn't pay for it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Would people have been so upset at them putting out the fire that people got fired? We don't know that.

I can't hardly imagine an instance where insubordination like that wouldn't lead to dismissal. And especially in public safety where chain of command is so critical.

[Logan]

But it isn't like that. The medical analogy only holds if the firefighters refused to save lives. They didn't refuse to do that, they refused to save a house. The difference is monumental.

Well I think on its basis we're talking about specialized workers who have a certain skill, not performing their job in a way which can impact public safety (I know, in this case it's not their "job" to protect this particular house). Again I'll come back to...the fire ended up spreading to a subscriber's house, so it was put out. Why should any damage - at all - have been done to the subscriber's property because this other guy refused the service? What if once it spread to his property real lives did end up in danger?

Or what if the next time this happens, the homeowner is a stingy old man who is disoriented by the fire, and forgot that his grandkid was sleeping in his attic that night? Yeah I know...what if, what if, what if. But that's exactly the point.

[molson]

All this discussion is convincing me more strongly that opt-in fire coverage is just a terrible idea. The city fire department needs to either stay in the city, or get a fat check from the county to cover broader areas outside the city.

Since there's no turning back the clock here though, I feel its perfectly appropriate to put 100% of the blame on this homeowner (and his idiot grandson who was burning trash near the house).

[Logan]

All this discussion is convincing me more strongly that opt-in fire coverage is just a terrible idea.

I think that's where I'm falling too, even if it seems like I'm bashing the fire department and how they handled it. And I'm not trying to remove blame for the homeowner. This just seems like such a horrible, misguided, moronic, nothing-but-downside idea that was probably evolved from a discussion like "if we just ask for a few bucks from everyone, they'll all pay it anyway" instead of thinking of the broader picture.

[molson]

Maybe FOFC should open a private fire department in this county - we'll charge only $70 for opt-in coverage. Sure, mostly our department will be guys with buckets of water on horseback, but it's better than nothing.

[stevew]

Just for reference, I lived in Tennessee from 94 to 2000 and you weren't required to carry auto insurance.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i'll bet my lunch money this was a planned stunt or not at all like it's being portrayed.

either way, it's a direct affront by the dems toward libertarians/tea party types.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

dola

it sparks debate about morality and taxes and what type of social system we all want to live in, and that's a good thing.

but c'mon. you gotta be a stone cold motherfunker to show up to somebody's burning home and say, 'sorry dude. we're here for the neighbors lawn.'

[panerd]

i'll bet my lunch money this was a planned stunt or not at all like it's being portrayed.

either way, it's a direct affront by the dems toward libertarians/tea party types.

Don't know if this is sarcasm or not but my guess is this is definitely written with a political slant but it is cannibalistic GOP on Libertarianism. They don't like the fact that a lot of conservatives are getting tired of the GOP and their wasteful ways including Medicare expansion and war mongering. The National Review is one of the Neocons biggest propaganda pieces.

(And the event is most certainly true I am not that much of a conspiracy nut. Bit it couldn't come at a better time for their great theory of why even the party of small government needs big government)

[Passacaglia]

i'll bet my lunch money this was a planned stunt or not at all like it's being portrayed.

either way, it's a direct affront by the dems toward libertarians/tea party types.

Definitely. It's pretty obvious the dems have been planning this for years, by driving the value of homes down enough to where they can afford it. Look for more uninsured-fire-terror plots in the future.

[stevew]

I actually double checked this was real before I posted it. Seemed like an allegory(I think this is the correct word) on people who don't have health care.

[RainMaker]

I'm totally fine with what they did. In fact, I wish we went further with this. As someone mentioned, a house is different than a human life. We shouldn't have rights to have other people not only help us save our property for free, but fix it.

This goes for people who live along rivers or on coasts. Rivers flood, hurricanes hit coasts, you chose to live there, not me. I know it comes across like a dick, but I never understood why certain tragedies take precedence over others. The people in New Orleans get all this aid for losing their homes, yet if lightning hit a tree in my yard and collapsed on my home, I wouldn't get a government check.

Not paying that $75 was a risk those people took. Just as living on a river or coast is. That gamble didn't pay off. Tough luck.

[RainMaker]

If he couldn't afford the $75 then there is a whole different argument, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that.
If he couldn't afford $75, he shouldn't own a home. You wouldn't buy a brand new BMW and skip the car insurance on it. It's such a small fee for such a potentially large loss.

[hawk4669]

Just my opinion (as an 18 year career firefighter in California currently at the rank of Battalion Chief).....but $75.00 or not, we'd have put the fire out. Period. Of course, my department is funded by property taxes and two voter approved benefit assessments.

I just have a hard time not doing my job, regardless of the circumstances, over any sum of money. I didn't join this profession to do crap like this.

Again, just my opinion. Put the fire out, do your job, sort out the other stuff later.

[molson]

Just my opinion (as an 18 year career firefighter in California currently at the rank of Battalion Chief).....but $75.00 or not, we'd have put the fire out. Period. Of course, my department is funded by property taxes and two voter approved benefit assessments.

I just have a hard time not doing my job, regardless of the circumstances, over any sum of money. I didn't join this profession to do crap like this.

Again, just my opinion. Put the fire out, do your job, sort out the other stuff later.

This one might have been simple, if they were really "right there" and not doing anything, (and there was zero chance they'd be needed anywhere else, which I don't think we know), but what if you know there's a fire in a neighboring county at a non-subscriber's house and you have a small department? Are you running out to engage that fire and leave limited protection in your taxpayer community? I mean, does that "boundary" ever end for a fire department?

[Autumn]

Here's the article you guys might find interesting about private fire companies out in forest fire land. Not the same situation by a long shot, but touches on some similar points - these guys literally watch other people's houses burn all the time.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/10/0082671

[Drake]

Serious question:

I live in a rural area where our fire service is provided solely by volunteer fire departments. We had a field fire a couple of years ago (neighbor burning leaves set my field on fire) and the fire department came out. My neighbor was billed like $500 for them coming to put it out.

My understanding is that fire coverage works that way: if you have a fire, they come and put it out, then send you a bill (which your homeowners insurance may or may not cover, depending on your coverage).

Is that not the way it works in more urban areas?

(And hell, I'd skip the local fire insurance and just carry fire insurance on my house...then if it burns down, I'm getting compensated for the full loss rather than merely fire damage.)

[tarcone]

I could be different from most people, but I look at it like its a very easy decision,if I'm there with the means to put it out, and if its possible I lose my job, or 100%that I will. I still put that fire out. easier for me to find a new job than for this guy to get a new house. And I am definitely willing to make that sacrifice.

Thank you.

Why wouldnt you help another human being? Because your captain ordered you not too? Because you wont be able to feed your family? Because the guy didnt pay $75? Really?

I think if a firefighter was fired for helping a person by putting out a fire, someone would hire him pretty quick. Good moral character is hard to find. And when it is shown, people are attracted.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is that not the way it works in more urban areas?


Sorta. And sorta not.

Having grown up around this stuff (my dad was a volunteer FF from the time I was small until he eventually "retired" from it as a chief, my bro-in-law is now a full-time paid FF who is also certified to teach virtually everything, blah blah blah), there's all kinds of little nooks & crannies that go with the admin side.

With your area, someone has liability & responsibility for the equipment, behavior, etc. of the volunteer department. When they showed up for your brush fire, presumably that was in an area where they normally work.

In this instance, one of the big differences is that it was outside the area of responsibility. That starts getting into things like insurance coverage for the department - both men & equipment - as well as any jurisdictional issues and so forth.

If they operate in the absence of an agreement at (hypothetically) 5 miles outside their jurisdiction, then why not 6 miles? Or 8? Or 14?

My own experience with volunteer FF companies is that they ultimately operate under the auspices of something, however indirectly that might be. For example, the county where I grew up had only one incorporated city & that had the only paid FF in the county, the rest of the county was served by a number of volunteer stations. Each of those volunteer groups had the aforementioned mutual aid agreements with the city FD and most with each other as well, but those agreements -- sometimes very formal, sometimes verbal over a few cups of coffee -- dictated who would respond to what, where, and under what circumstances. It worked wonders most of the time, as more than once there were territorial issues that arose between departments (most hate having "their fires" jumped by someone else). But when there wasn't an agreement with an area (say a community on the other end of the county or 6 miles to the county line) that city FD wasn't moving an inch even if half the affected area burned to the ground.

Now those small unincorporated towns & communities had raised the money for trucks & equipment, raised money for training, facilities upkeep, etc. They also got a small "donation" from the county each year to help with that, typically between $1k and $5k each. Eventually through some paperwork & hoops, they also got help with getting insurance for the equipment via the county (details are fuzzy, I was young).

Meanwhile at no time did any volunteer station ever send anyone a bill for anything (except each other occasionally if someone "borrowed" a piece of equipment at a fire scene & managed to break it or something). They had no legal right to do so, wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, since there was no contract with anyone to enforce.

So like I said, the answer would be yes & no to your original question.

[Drake]

Thanks for the explanation, Jon. From what little I know about the volunteer fire departments in our area (very much the patchwork, negotiated coverage that you describe), I assume someone has ultimate authority, but it's unclear who that is.

I know they hold a ton of fish fries to cover expenses. :)

I appreciate your insight.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just checked their local paper after this came up again on my FB page with some firefighter friends mentioning it.

Lo & behold, after two years of negotiation, seems this has prompted the county commission there to act. Fire protection agreement sent to commission on NWTNTODAY.COM (http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=46976)

The agreement would be among the communities of Hornbeak, Kenton, Obion, Rives, Samburg, Troy and Union City, as well as the Obion County Emergency Communications District (E-911) as the fire dispatch agency for all municipalities in the agreement and Obion County.
The municipalities named would agree to provide rural fire service outside of their established town and city limits and would agree to expand their rural fire service areas as indicated on a map which defines the areas in which the present municipal fire departments provide rural fire protection.
Each municipality would agree to implement a standard subscription rate, with individual properties classified by a parcel number as listed on the county tax assessor’s map/tax card and a separate subscription fee to be charged for each parcel/address for which the customer desires to have rural fire protection coverage.
According to the proposed agreement, South Fulton intends to provide rural fire service outside its city limits as directed by its city commission in a designated fire service area and would not be a party to the interlocal agreement.
Doyle said the first year of implementing the program would be the most difficult as groundwork is laid, but he said it should become much easier the second year.
“I think we have set up a good thing,” he said.
Commissioner Ralph Puckett made the motion to send the agreement from the budget committee to the county commission for a vote. His motion was seconded by commissioner Dwayne Hensley, who said he noticed a lot of cooperation among members when he attended a fire committee meeting.
If approved, the projected date of implementing the agreement would be July 1, 2011.
The issue of county-wide fire protection has made local, regional and even national news in recent days in the aftermath of a rural South Fulton fire where firefighters from a municipal fire department could not respond because the property owner had not paid an annual rural fire subscription fee. Ironically, the issue of county-wide fire protection resurfaced and discussion of an agreement began a little over two years ago following a similar rural fire situation near South Fulton.

I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the fee thing, although the way it's worded it sounds as though the cities/town will now be switching to billing by subscription for their own residents while the county residents will still remain optional ("for which the customer desires"). It's also interesting to note the city of South Fulton will not be a part of the agreement, but rather will act under the instructions of their own city commission (which seems entirely appropriate to me).

[CU Tiger]

That leaves, give or take, half to pay some hypothetical county surcharge. So 7500 units X $75 = $526,500

That's enough to maybe buy a couple of decent trucks,


Actually I dont think it covers one "engine"...our local VFD which I used to be a volunteer on, recently purchased a Pierce engine and it was over $720,000...all for a community of 280.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Actually I dont think it covers one "engine"...our local VFD which I used to be a volunteer on, recently purchased a Pierce engine and it was over $720,000...all for a community of 280.

I've seen pretty wide ranging prices, so I tried to be conservative.

Used pumpers & tankers in the 10 yr old range seem to be going for around $200k-$400k when I checked today, the veteran FF I talked to tonight used $500k as a baseline figure for just the truck (not including the gear to equip it), and you can definitely get to the $700k without being the least bit extravagant.

[stevew]

Geez. Why aren't we manufacturing fofc firetrucks if they cost that much.

[ISiddiqui]

but c'mon. you gotta be a stone cold motherfunker to show up to somebody's burning home and say, 'sorry dude. we're here for the neighbors lawn.'

True that. The Christian in me is absolutely horrified at this and couldn't imagine doing something like that to my brother. The economist in me is looking at the numbers (and thinking having him ask for help and charging him a higher rate is the way to go) and contemplating moral hazard and all sorts of fun things with the fee. But its a tough moral dilemma. At least for me.

[RendeR]

Just my opinion (as an 18 year career firefighter in California currently at the rank of Battalion Chief).....but $75.00 or not, we'd have put the fire out. Period. Of course, my department is funded by property taxes and two voter approved benefit assessments.

I just have a hard time not doing my job, regardless of the circumstances, over any sum of money. I didn't join this profession to do crap like this.

Again, just my opinion. Put the fire out, do your job, sort out the other stuff later.


No, in fact you wouldn't.

Reason? by loading up your gear, containing and pushing back the fire and at some point entering that residence you are placing yourself an every single man on your team in jeopardy.

Now this is what you do, you say. true, but normally, when the site you're fighting the fire at is paid up or covered in whatever way, YOUR team is also covered by life, property and liability insurances.

not so trying to save this guys house. You go in there, one of your guys gets maimed or even killed. YOU sir, are going to jail and the entire system you work for will get hammered with fines and who knows what else, because your fire company's insurance will take it out of you.

Now please, don't get me wrong. If I were a neighbor I'd be running my garden hose over to offer whatever help I could, but in this case the Firefighters had no choice but to stay away.

Their services, equipment and very LIVES were not protected under this situation. Any one of them lifting so much as a finger endangers the entire Company.

It sucks, but they did exactly what they had to do.

[RendeR]

Thank you.

Why wouldnt you help another human being? Because your captain ordered you not too? Because you wont be able to feed your family? Because the guy didnt pay $75? Really?

I think if a firefighter was fired for helping a person by putting out a fire, someone would hire him pretty quick. Good moral character is hard to find. And when it is shown, people are attracted.


To the bold point: No, they wouldn't touch him. If he broke the rules/regulations and did whatever he felt like doing (be that right or wrong) he still failed to follow orders and endangered not only himself but others in doing so. He opened the department up to lawsuit after lawsuit by their insurance carriers and lord knows how much more.

He'd never work as a firefighter again.

[k0ruptr]

Actually RendeR is probably right, he'd get offered a much better job.

[k0ruptr]

dola, actually tarcone didn't say another FD would hire him pretty quick, he just said someone, which I think is correct.

[ISiddiqui]

Actually RendeR is probably right, he'd get offered a much better job.

Especially if he was religion. Some Church would snap him up to speak around the country about what he did.

[JediKooter]

Just my opinion (as an 18 year career firefighter in California currently at the rank of Battalion Chief).....but $75.00 or not, we'd have put the fire out. Period. Of course, my department is funded by property taxes and two voter approved benefit assessments.

I just have a hard time not doing my job, regardless of the circumstances, over any sum of money. I didn't join this profession to do crap like this.

Again, just my opinion. Put the fire out, do your job, sort out the other stuff later.

I think you can speak to this better than I can, but, going through two major fires that ripped through my neighborhood (Rancho Bernardo), you put that fire out because you don't want it to spread. California may be different because it doesn't get as much rain as other parts of the country, but, letting a structure burn, just isn't a smart thing to do in California regardless of what fee may or may not have been paid.

[Autumn]

To the bold point: No, they wouldn't touch him. If he broke the rules/regulations and did whatever he felt like doing (be that right or wrong) he still failed to follow orders and endangered not only himself but others in doing so. He opened the department up to lawsuit after lawsuit by their insurance carriers and lord knows how much more.

He'd never work as a firefighter again.

Well one person isn't going to be able to fight the fire themselves. I think the possible scenario is that the whole crew decides to put out the fire. I think given the sort of publicity that would gather, the fire department or city might find it makes more sense to praise the crew rather than fire them. I can't imagine the political backlash for firing a bunch of firefighters for saving a house.

[molson]

Actually I dont think it covers one "engine"...our local VFD which I used to be a volunteer on, recently purchased a Pierce engine and it was over $720,000...all for a community of 280.

I don't get that part - wouldn't $720k be more than the entire budget of a community with 280 people? Is there funding from other sources?

[JediKooter]

I don't get that part - wouldn't $720k be more than the entire budget of a community with 280 people? Is there funding from other sources?

State or federal funds/grants?

[Logan]

I don't get that part - wouldn't $720k be more than the entire budget of a community with 280 people? Is there funding from other sources?

The cost would be amortized over the useful life of the engine of course, so it's not like it's an annual cost. I'd guess it would cover 10 years on the budget. If that's your only major expense, and it's a volunteer dept, that seems reasonable.

[molson]

The cost would be amortized over the useful life of the engine of course, so it's not like it's an annual cost. I'd guess it would cover 10 years on the budget. If that's your only major expense, and it's a volunteer dept, that seems reasonable.

But even $72k a year just for a truck over 10 years seems like crazy money for rural communities with a few hundred people. Perhaps this country is just better off than I though.

[RendeR]

Well one person isn't going to be able to fight the fire themselves. I think the possible scenario is that the whole crew decides to put out the fire. I think given the sort of publicity that would gather, the fire department or city might find it makes more sense to praise the crew rather than fire them. I can't imagine the political backlash for firing a bunch of firefighters for saving a house.


And you really don't understand the regulations they're under based on what they can and cannot do.

Firefighters aren't a happy bunch of guys doing a nice thing" they're a para-military unit. There are rules, regulations and a chain of command. There are limitations on what they can do because of liability for injury and damages.

If one of those guys would have fought the fire and been killed, his family would have gotten NOTHING. The Fire company could be sued etc etc.

There is no "they would have pulled it off" This is a legal situation, not some feel good "ol' country boys" story.

[JonInMiddleGA]

There is no "they would have pulled it off" This is a legal situation, not some feel good "ol' country boys" story.

+1

And by now people ought to realize that when me & Render are in agreement on something, there's a strong chance that we're right ;)

[RendeR]

+1

And by now people ought to realize that when me & Render are in agreement on something, there's a strong chance that we're right ;)


Yeah seriously, think about that =)

[k0ruptr]

no homo.

[JediKooter]

Yeah seriously, think about that =)

Between this and the Vanilla Ice pictures, I better play the Lotto tonight.

[stevew]

I guess these people didn't learn from the first time?

Firefighters watched as house burned to the ground - Law Blog - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/12/07/no-fire-fee-let-your-house-burn/)

[Marc Vaughan]

Just a small commentary about the tone of the thread in regards to the house (not entirely fixed on your post Autumn though it does look like it :))

I agree it isn't a foregone conclusion that the guy gets fired for putting it out..but the idea that houses are like people and that we have to save them no matter what is the kind of thinking that really makes me nervous. :D

Ok put it this way - what happens if they watch the house burn down and then find that a young girl was asleep in bed within it ...... does that change your stance regarding whether people should do the decent thing and help one another?

(incidentally such 'optional' insurance was removed in England in preference to a national system back when the Fire of London occurred .. the reason being if fire fighters had worked coordinated instead of only on their insured houses a lot of the fire spreading could have been prevented)

[CU Tiger]

The cost would be amortized over the useful life of the engine of course, so it's not like it's an annual cost. I'd guess it would cover 10 years on the budget. If that's your only major expense, and it's a volunteer dept, that seems reasonable.

But even $72k a year just for a truck over 10 years seems like crazy money for rural communities with a few hundred people. Perhaps this country is just better off than I though.


Sorry I never saw these first time by. 10 years is way short. Our 2010 truck repalced an 84...that's 25 years. Then the old truck was sold for something (I think around 50k) to go towards the fund. But yeah there is state and federal money there to pay for it.

[k0ruptr]

again? damn .... honestly though if they pay the fee just have a law/clause whatever the fuck that you bill the owner a few thousand-whatever... at least they don't lose the house.

[k0ruptr]

from the article @ wsj. This is what I was trying to say:

Nearby Blount County, Tenn., also has a subscription service, but the fire chief says the same situation wouldn’t happen there, according to The Daily Times. Blount County charges a $100 annual fee, but nonsubscribers can pay $2,200 for the first two hours firefighters respond to a scene, and $1,100 for each additional hour.