About that fire rescue fee.....

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by Autumn

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]

Originally Posted by TroyF

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

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]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by tarcone

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]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RendeR

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]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Logan

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]

Originally Posted by Autumn

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]

Originally Posted by RendeR

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

+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]

Originally Posted by RendeR

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

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Logan

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.

Originally Posted by molson

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.