# Family did not pay $75 annual fee, firefighters watch house burn



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 5, 2010)

Gotta admit, I'm a little shocked at this one:

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



> *Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground*
> 
> *												Reporter - Jason Hibbs
> Photojournalist - Mark Owen
> ...



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...0tdxWoStirdC9tycATygD9ILMTD01?docId=D9ILMTD01

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 5, 2010)

In general, I agree that if there's a fee for the service and you choose not to pay then the blame rests completely on you.  But to come out and put the fire out on the neighbor's house and absolutely refuse to touch the house next door?  That's some cold **** right there.


----------



## Ray (Oct 5, 2010)

According to what I read: The policy is: if you live outside the city limits, then the city's fire service is available to you if you pay the $75 annual fee.  The policy has been in place approx 20 years.

If the city has a policy and they don't enforce it then they don't have a policy.  If the city has no ability to levy taxes on people outside the city limits then why should the city taxpayers be expected to subsidize the people who live outside the city?

So, I don't have an opinion, just more questions.  It would seem that a more fruitful expenditure of energy by the media would be: 1) people who don't live in the city don't get the service unless they pay for it...2) How can we get the county and/or city gov't to levy the tax and pay the city for the service so that 3) those who live outside the city don't have this issue?  Instead it is painted as the "big mean city" not helping the "little guy" who lives outside the city.  Where was the media before the house burned down?


----------



## MJS (Oct 5, 2010)

This is similar to a thread that I posted a month ago, in which EMS services were charging.  You'd think the regular taxes that you pay would cover this 'fee' but apparently not.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 5, 2010)

Perfectly justifiable. Why should the firefighters risk their lives for a house that isn't in the system?
sean


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 5, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> Perfectly justifiable. Why should the firefighters risk their lives for a house that isn't in the system?
> sean



Out of a sense of humanity? compassion? decency?
It's not really a matter of risking their lives, not in this example. It's a matter of refusing to turn on the water hose from a safe distance because a fee was not paid (in time?).

_Daddy what did you do today?
Ah well son, I stood by and watched a man's house burn down to leave him with nothing.
Why didn't you do anything daddy?
He hadn't paid his fee son.
I'm so proud of you daddy!_


----------



## crushing (Oct 5, 2010)

> Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out.
> His offer wasn't accepted, he said.


 
I can't help but feel there is more going on here than what is being reported.


----------



## fireman00 (Oct 5, 2010)

Pay for protection fire departments are not uncommon, especially in the south.  We had a company come in and try to buy out our dept so they would have a centrally located station from where they were going to start up a similar pay for protection dept. 

usually, if one of these depts. show up and you haven't paid in they'll fight the fire but bill you at about 125 bucks an hour per piece of apparatus and 12 bucks an hour per firefighter.   


Side note, as a volunteer firefighter for 18 years...  putting a fire out is not as simple as dousing a structure with water. Doing that can actually put the fire through the structure and cause more damage.  Venting techniques and proper attack tactics  have to be followed to ensure the safety of the fire dept and save the structure.


----------



## MJS (Oct 5, 2010)

crushing said:


> I can't help but feel there is more going on here than what is being reported.


 
I'm thinking the same thing.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 5, 2010)

I read about this earlier, and saw Keith Oberman's interview with Mr. Cranick.  From what I understand, he lives in the unincorporated part of the county, so does not pay city taxes towards a fire department.  Thus, the only nearby fire service the unicorporated region does receive is the city fire response, which is paid for by the anual fee.

I agree with others in that, in most cases, if you dont pay the service fee,  you shouldn't expect the service.  If you dont pay your electric bill, don't complain when the power goes out, etc.  But in this case, not only had the fire service already responded, but the man was offering to pay the fee.  They still refused, claiming "well if we accept such on-the-scene payment, nobody would pay the fee."

The problem with this is that other emergency services that require a fee also operate on a service-first, payment-later scheme just fine.  I, myself, was transported to the hospital once by the city's emergency services, and later had to pay a fee for the ambulatory response.  In Mr. Cranick's case, the fire department was perfectly capable of putting out the fire and then sending him a bill.  Their refusal to do so indicates that, as crushing said, there's more to the story.


----------



## Carol (Oct 5, 2010)

Phantom beat me to it.  Was just going to mention the unincorporated county matter -- most of my North Carolina cousins are farmers that are/were vol. firefighters in unincorporated sections of their county.  

That being said, this story highlights a few examples of how what is going on in that county is broken.

The fact that one person lost his home while the firefighters stood around and watched is disgusting.  The fact that someone else's home caught fire because the firefighters stood around and watched is even worse.


----------



## Blade96 (Oct 5, 2010)

Word carol. disgusting. Also, try having no fire fighter at all. My town doesn't even have a fire station. Stupid mayor spent most of his time trying to grow the town without adding anything to it. Thats why he nearly lost that municipal election - to a rookie. :angel:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/10/06/nl-judicial-recount-106.html

I nearly lol'd at that.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 5, 2010)

This very thing happened outside of Spokane about 10 years ago or so. The people thought it was tragic, but home owners outside of Spokane Know to pay their taxes now.
Sean


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 5, 2010)

Ray said:


> If the city has a policy and they don't enforce it then they don't have a policy.  If the city has no ability to levy taxes on people outside the city limits then why should the city taxpayers be expected to subsidize the people who live outside the city?


How about common decency? How about a firefighter's duty to protect home life and property of their neighbors? Even if they live 10 feet from the city/county/state line ... they're STILL neighbors aren't they? 

They still could've done their job and then bill the family for services rendered and I think they'd been WELCOMED services. A fire destroys not only the house but everything inside the house as well... including many things (for that family anyway) that are irreplaceable. 

I understand that taxes/fees are used to pay for the equipment and for the work put in by those who literally risk their lives to put out the fires that are endangering the homes and lives of people, and the money has to come from somewhere... what if the house that was on the inside of the line hadn't paid their taxes (yet). Would the firefighters quickly look up the address to check the database to see if the house is currently paid up and if they're not sit back and watch THAT house burn down? Or just take for granted that the surrounding neighbors had their taxes paid and will use that money to save the house of the ones that haven't. 

Is it all about MONEY??


----------



## MJS (Oct 5, 2010)

Interestingly enough, I have an alarm system on my condo.  The local PD has an alarm registration form.  The intial fee is $25 with yearly fees of $10.  On this form, it contains info. on the alarm, the company, keyholders, etc.  Will the cops still respond to my house, if the alarm went off, and I did not pay?  No idea, but I'd hope so.  

As for this....as I said, I too, think theres more to the story.  Suck as it may, to have to pay, but if it means having your house protected, the $75 is a small price to pay, IMO.


----------



## Carol (Oct 6, 2010)

MJS said:


> Interestingly enough, I have an alarm system on my condo.  The local PD has an alarm registration form.  The intial fee is $25 with yearly fees of $10.  On this form, it contains info. on the alarm, the company, keyholders, etc.  Will the cops still respond to my house, if the alarm went off, and I did not pay?  No idea, but I'd hope so.
> 
> As for this....as I said, I too, think theres more to the story.  Suck as it may, to have to pay, but if it means having your house protected, the $75 is a small price to pay, IMO.



No kidding, esp. for a homeowner that doesn't have to pay municipal taxes.  

If it were me, I'd pay up 2-3 years in advance just to be really sure I'm covered. *nods*


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 6, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> How about common decency? How about a firefighter's duty to protect home life and property of their neighbors? Even if they live 10 feet from the city/county/state line ... they're STILL neighbors aren't they?


 
Not arguing here, but trying to be thought provoking.  

Where is the decency of the people who refuse to pay the fee, and yet still expect to receive services?  Why should others have to pay the fee for the protection of his house, as well as their own?

Where is it said that these firefirghters have a *duty *to protect the home (life was not an issue here) of their neighbor?  Those that don't pay have abrogated their duty to their neighbors by not helping to maintain and pay for the services that they expect to utilize.  



> They still could've done their job and then bill the family for services rendered and I think they'd been WELCOMED services. A fire destroys not only the house but everything inside the house as well... including many things (for that family anyway) that are irreplaceable.


 
And if that family decided not to pay?  



> I understand that taxes/fees are used to pay for the equipment and for the work put in by those who literally risk their lives to put out the fires that are endangering the homes and lives of people, and the money has to come from somewhere... what if the house that was on the inside of the line hadn't paid their taxes (yet). Would the firefighters quickly look up the address to check the database to see if the house is currently paid up and if they're not sit back and watch THAT house burn down? Or just take for granted that the surrounding neighbors had their taxes paid and will use that money to save the house of the ones that haven't.
> 
> Is it all about MONEY??


 
Couldn't it also be about fairness?


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 6, 2010)

Just remember guys, this is why we HAVE to have government.  If we didn't things like this would happen.

Oh, Wait.  We have government, AND it's happening.  Nevermind.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 6, 2010)

Regardless of whether they paid or not... if I had to feel ashamed when telling my kids about what I did at work that day, it would be a clear indication that whatever I did was not the right thing.

For this reason I would also be a crappy defense lawyer. If I noticed a technicality that would get a child molester off free, I sure as hell would keep my mouth shut.The alternative would be to explain to my daughter why that child molester is now walking free again.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 6, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Just remember guys, this is why we HAVE to have government. If we didn't things like this would happen.
> 
> Oh, Wait. We have government, AND it's happening. Nevermind.


 
There is no such thing as a free lunch.  And that includes government services.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 6, 2010)

fireman00 said:


> Pay for protection fire departments are not uncommon, especially in the south. We had a company come in and try to buy out our dept so they would have a centrally located station from where they were going to start up a similar pay for protection dept.
> 
> *usually, if one of these depts. show up and you haven't paid in they'll fight the fire but bill you at about 125 bucks an hour per piece of apparatus and 12 bucks an hour per firefighter.*
> 
> ...


 
I like this idea. You didn't pay your bill, but we'll put your fire out for a substantially higher fee. He still gets the service but he also receives an incentive to pay the bill from now on.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 6, 2010)

5-0 kenpo said:


> where is the decency of the people who refuse to pay the fee, and yet still expect to receive services?


qft


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 6, 2010)

Big Don said:


> qft



Your reaction comes as no surprise, but consider the following:

1) just because someone should not expect to be helped does not mean that helping them is not the right thing to do.
2) if they did not have the money to pay, then now they have no money AND no house anymore. Now they will become even more of a burden on society. Everyody loses.

Just because they didn't have the right to be helped does not mean that it would not have been the decent thing to to. Especially since they were standing ready to do so.

This is like you having a medical emergency and me refusing to help you. Sure, I'd be in the right to do so, because I have no obligation to, but it would make me no less a jackass for doing so.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 6, 2010)

I'm not all that sympathetic.  5-0 said it -- TANSTAAFL.  I'm sorry for their loss -- but they knew the system.  They knew they had to pay if they wanted to guarantee fire response.  (It's less than I pay in my monthly condo/homeowner's association fee...)

They didn't pay.  I don't know why.  Maybe they were in that bad a financial situation.  Maybe they simply misplaced the bill.  Don't know.  Don't really care.  I bet had they had a true financial hardship, something could have been done.  They chose not to pay and not to ask anyone.

This really goes back to an old model of fire service, where you paid into the fire company and they'd respond if called...


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 6, 2010)

The homeowner said he forgot to pay the fee and when the firefighters showed up, he told them he would pay whatever fee they wanted to charge, just save his house.  The firefighters called the politician in charge and he told them to not fight the fire, regardless if the homeowner would pay an increased fee or not.  I'm all for personal responsibility, but there is a lot to be said for morality too.  Letting this man's home and belongings burn to the ground when it could have been prevented does not seem right.  Nevermind that he would have paid more than $75 and now his homeowner's insurance will be picking up the tab.

I have to wonder if people who agree the house should have been left to burn would be so cavalier and cold hearted if it was thier home burning.  "Oh, I forgot to pay the $75.  Okay, well I guess you should let it burn then!"  What is it was your family?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 6, 2010)

wc_lun said:


> i have to wonder if people who agree the house should have been left to burn would be so cavalier and cold hearted if it was thier home burning.  "oh, i forgot to pay the $75.  Okay, well i guess you should let it burn then!"  what is it was your family?



+1


----------



## Big Don (Oct 6, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Your reaction comes as no surprise, but consider the following:


Two men walk into a popular moderately expensive eatery, should both be served steak an lobster, even though only one intends to pay for his meal?
 Are you owed a house, because your neighbor busted his *** to afford one?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 6, 2010)

I think there is something to be said for both arguments.

For example, you can't buy insurance for your car after it's stolen.  You can't buy insurance for your house after it burns down.  You can't buy health insurance to cover your injury after you get hurt.

Ah, but the federal government does quite commonly let people buy into flood insurance after their houses have been flooded - if the area is declared a 'disaster area' by the government.  I have never been sure why that is permitted; after all, I paid for my flood insurance, and my premiums go up to support those who never paid into the system until AFTER they were flooded, and then they only paid the one year's premiums; I've been paying all along.

There is also a difference between private enterprise and their responsibility to the public and government and their responsibility.

When a private company - say a private fire-fighting company - refuses to provide services, it is clearly well within it's rights to do so if the person in question is not a customer.  However, a private company would clearly be a bit on the stupid side if they refused to provide services to a non-subscriber on a cost-plus basis (meaning you agree to pay for the costs of putting out the fire, plus a profit markup, at the time of the fire).

When a government agency - city, county, state, or federal - refuses to provide a service, the question is not such a clear one.  Obviously, a governmental agency has no obligation to citizens who live outside its jurisdiction.  However, it is very common - in fact normal - for agencies to provide mutual aid on request.  For example, a neighboring city might provide fire or police services to assist another city in an emergency; the usual understanding is that one hand washes the other; the city providing the assistance has a right to expect such assistance if it ever needs it as well.  In some cases, the cost of such assistance is billed to the government agency requesting assistance, which can offset the costs of providing such assistance.

Governments, no matter the size, were established to provide what are termed 'essential services' to citizens within its jurisdiction.  In the past, that has clearly been police, fire, road maintenance and clearing, perhaps sewer and water, and other such services.  Unlike private industry, governments are permitted to maintain monopolies on such services, and to claim immunity from many kinds of prosecution such as some sort of civil lawsuits.  Governments, unlike private industry, can levy taxes, set zoning laws, seize property, and provide court services such as trying and imprisoning citizens when necessary.

Now we are moving into an era of increased privatization, and government resources being stretched to the limit.  Governments are hesitant or unable to provide services outside their mandate; and we have more and more issues of police, fire, and other essential services being turned over to private industry to maintain instead.

I suspect we'll see more of this.  I'm not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing.  I sympathize with this family and I'm sure that if I am offered fire protection at a price, I'll be budgeting to pay for it.  I don't want to risk the consequences.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 6, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Two men walk into a popular moderately expensive eatery, should both be served steak an lobster, even though only one intends to pay for his meal?
> Are you owed a house, because your neighbor busted his *** to afford one?



No, but that is not the situation.
The situation we are discussing is like you literally starving to death in front of my feet, and I am standing there with a loaf of bread, saying that I'd really wanted to give you this bread, but sadly you can't afford it.

While this is technically legal (I am not arguing that) it is not really classy, no?


----------



## girlbug2 (Oct 6, 2010)

We're not talking about life or death, we're talking about property.

Firefighters as far as I am aware, do not take an oath to risk themselves in service of protecting property. There is no shame in them refusing to do so for people who are not willing to pay them.

If property has a certain value and I refuse to insure it, then I am taking the risk that I will lose it some day. That 75 dollar fee is insurance. This homeowner took a financial risk and he lost. Hopefully he was at least smart enough to have paid the insurance company so that he could rebuild.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 6, 2010)

girlbug2 said:


> We're not talking about life or death, we're talking about property.
> 
> Firefighters as far as I am aware, do not take an oath to risk themselves in service of protecting property. There is no shame in them refusing to do so for people who are not willing to pay them.
> 
> If property has a certain value and I refuse to insure it, then I am taking the risk that I will lose it some day. That 75 dollar fee is insurance. This homeowner took a financial risk and he lost. Hopefully he was at least smart enough to have paid the insurance company so that he could rebuild.



Yes.

But otoh, Turning on the water hose from a safe distance is not a life threatening risk. We are talking about a simple house, not the empire state building. Furthermore, from the article it seems that they forgot to pay. This implied that they had paid until they missed that one last payment.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 6, 2010)

This must be some of that compassionate conservatism I heard so much about


----------



## crushing (Oct 6, 2010)

Now that the county area woke up with the ol' "horse head in the bed", I'll bet there will be an increase in people willing to pay the protection money.

Afterall, what is $75 to someone living in a trailer?  Maybe a half year of school lunches for a child (if they aren't getting them free or reduced).


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 6, 2010)

The other people will pay... now. An example has been set.
Sean


----------



## Big Don (Oct 6, 2010)

I'm guessing, but, I wouldn't be surprised if not paying the $75 fire department bill has some effect on their homeowner's insurance policy...


----------



## ArmorOfGod (Oct 6, 2010)

If you read the main story, you will notice that it is a mobile home in rural TN (in the county, not the city).
Some points in that hint at the family (or families around them) being poor.  Could they afford the $75 per year?
I work at a public school where a lot of our families are homeless (living in motels) and living in run down single wide mobile homes in county trailer parks.  They CAN NOT afford that amount per year.  Most of it is due to the slackness of the parents, but the children are not to blame.  Them enforcing their rule to the letter would allow a lot of children to suffer.
But Glenn Beck thinks it's great, so it must be morally right, don't you think?

AoG


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 6, 2010)

Ok, let's clarify a few things:

1. This isn't someone unwilling to pay the fee.  It's someone who forgot to pay the fee, usually pays the fee (presuming this), and was willing to pay the fee at the time of the fire.  He _forgot_, he didn't refuse.  

2. I haven't read any arguments for forcing the city fire department to put out the fire for free.  Putting it out and then sending him a bill would be preferable to sitting there letting his house burn down.  Nobody's calling for a free lunch here.


----------



## MJS (Oct 6, 2010)

girlbug2 said:


> We're not talking about life or death, we're talking about property.
> 
> Firefighters as far as I am aware, do not take an oath to risk themselves in service of protecting property. There is no shame in them refusing to do so for people who are not willing to pay them.
> 
> If property has a certain value and I refuse to insure it, then I am taking the risk that I will lose it some day. That 75 dollar fee is insurance. This homeowner took a financial risk and he lost. Hopefully he was at least smart enough to have paid the insurance company so that he could rebuild.


 
Be that as it may, IMO, it should be a no brainer.  I mean, you want to become a FF....but you never want to enter a burning building.  You want to become a LEO, but you never want to have to confront someone who doesnt want to be arrested.  You want to join the military, but you never want to go to Iraq and run the risk of getting killed.  See where I'm going with this?

Should the FD reconsider their policy and allow people who dont pay or forgot to pay, the chance to pay, when they arrive at the fire?  Will the check be good?  Will it have to be cash?  

We can probably 'what if' this all day long.  If its a rule of that county to pay, and you dont, then ****** as it may be, God forbid your house catches on fire, may as well kiss everything goodbye.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 6, 2010)

MJS said:


> Be that as it may, IMO, it should be a no brainer.  I mean, you want to become a FF....but you never want to enter a burning building.  You want to become a LEO, but you never want to have to confront someone who doesnt want to be arrested.  You want to join the military, but you never want to go to Iraq and run the risk of getting killed.  See where I'm going with this?


off topic, but, damn.
I went through Army basic training with a guy whose recruiter told him  he would NEVER have to touch a gun. I thought the drill sergeants were going to die of laughter.


----------



## ArmorOfGod (Oct 6, 2010)

Has anyone read "Jennifer Government" by Max Barry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government
There was a scene in the beginning where a little girl was hit by a car, so a bystander called 911 to get help. The operator needed to know the girl's insurance and credit card number before she could send assistance. I read the book back in 2003 and HIGHLY recommend it.

AoG


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 6, 2010)

The more I see some of the more conservative positions on this story and some others, I see a common thread, F the poor and compassion is for left wing bleeding hearts.   I can respect some conservative positions even if I don't agree with them, but this Let them eat cake type of thinking just annoys me...especially those that claim to be practicing Christians.  It certainly lens weight to Ghandi when he said, "I like your Christ.  Not so much Christians.  They aren't very Christ like."


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 6, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> The homeowner said he forgot to pay the fee and when the firefighters showed up, he told them he would pay whatever fee they wanted to charge, just save his house.  The firefighters called the politician in charge and he told them to not fight the fire, regardless if the homeowner would pay an increased fee or not.  I'm all for personal responsibility, but there is a lot to be said for morality too.  Letting this man's home and belongings burn to the ground when it could have been prevented does not seem right.  Nevermind that he would have paid more than $75 and now his homeowner's insurance will be picking up the tab.
> 
> I have to wonder if people who agree the house should have been left to burn would be so cavalier and cold hearted if it was thier home burning.  "Oh, I forgot to pay the $75.  Okay, well I guess you should let it burn then!"  What is it was your family?


Show me the MORAL obligation to preserve the man's HOUSE.  From what I've read on it, the fire service will respond if life is endangered.  But they won't for mere property, unless you've paid.  Explain how they had any obligation to respond to save the man's house...

There are lots of things that are good to do, or nice to do, or even humane to do -- but that doesn't mean that they are moral imperatives.


----------



## Carol (Oct 6, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Show me the MORAL obligation to preserve the man's HOUSE.



I think the resident of the 2nd house that caught fire can see the moral issue fairly clearly.  Had the firefighters squelched the first fire before it started spreading around the neighborhood, the second home might not have burned at all, with no life at risk or no possessions damaged from smoke or water damage.

Or, preventing wildfires from sweeping the countryside that were sparked by a house fire burning unchecked.   Up to last week, the very rural section of NH where I commute had a sign up saying "Fire Danger SEVERE Today" as we've been so dry.   A carelessly tossed cigarette alone could spark the burning of thousands of acres.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 6, 2010)

ArmorOfGod said:


> Has anyone read "Jennifer Government" by Max Barry?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government
> There was a scene in the beginning where a little girl was hit by a car, so a bystander called 911 to get help. The operator needed to know the girl's insurance and credit card number before she could send assistance. I read the book back in 2003 and HIGHLY recommend it.
> 
> AoG




Yes.  Max has written some good books, but IMO that is one of his best, and it illustrates some of the advantages and pitfalls of a Market Anarchy very well.  This whole story is an example of just that.


----------



## MJS (Oct 6, 2010)

Big Don said:


> off topic, but, damn.
> I went through Army basic training with a guy whose recruiter told him he would NEVER have to touch a gun. I thought the drill sergeants were going to die of laughter.


 
I probably would've laughed too. LOL.  Not sure where people get the idea they can take on jobs like this, and think, for one minute, they'll never be put in a risky situation.  

I was just shocked by her comment, thats all.


----------



## Mark Jordan (Oct 7, 2010)

I don't know but what I'm thinking is that out of compassion, the firefighters should have just doused the fire and then charged the family the unpaid tax plus a penalty.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 7, 2010)

MJS said:


> I probably would've laughed too.


then you could have done push ups with the rest of us that laughed...


----------



## Ray (Oct 7, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> The more I see some of the more conservative positions on this story and some others, I see a common thread, F the poor and compassion is for left wing bleeding hearts...


I personally believe that gov'ts exist for a reason, that the rules that are in place should be followed or changed if they don't work.  That any gov't that collects taxes for a service should render that service to the citizens under the gov't (city dwellers pay the tax, they get the service...people outside the city don't pay the tax but can buy the service in advance).

I also believe in compassion and hope that you will start a fund to pay the fee for all homeowners who live close enough to be served by the fire dept, but who aren't in the city.  Otherwise it's too easy to put the burden of the cost of the service on the city dwellers and the city probably can't levy taxes on those outside the city.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 7, 2010)

The city fire department that charges $75 annually to each county residence is providing fire protection on a contract basis to the unincorporated area outside the county.  That contract is essentially that, if you pay your annual fee, they will respond to save your house.  They'll still respond to save lives "for free" -- but not property.  Here's a radical thought: if they county residents want to guarantee their own fire protection -- form their own volunteer fire companies, or demand that the county make a non-fee arrangement with the city.

It's really not that different from cities or incorporated towns that don't want to pay for their own police, so contract with the counties that surround them, incidentally.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 7, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> The homeowner said he forgot to pay the fee and when the firefighters showed up, he told them he would pay whatever fee they wanted to charge, just save his house. The firefighters called the politician in charge and he told them to not fight the fire, regardless if the homeowner would pay an increased fee or not. I'm all for personal responsibility, but there is a lot to be said for morality too. Letting this man's home and belongings burn to the ground when it could have been prevented does not seem right. Nevermind that he would have paid more than $75 and now his homeowner's insurance will be picking up the tab.


 
I wonder what would have happened to the firefighters that ignored the orders of their bosses who said don't do it. Should they risk their jobs for the sake of one house? 

I have to wonder if people who agree the house should have been left to burn would be so cavalier and cold hearted if it was thier home burning. "Oh, I forgot to pay the $75. Okay, well I guess you should let it burn then!" What is it was your family

That's why I bought a house with a sprinkler system, use a digital camera for photos and use off-site storage, keep all of my essential document and firearms in a fireproof gun safe, and have home owners insurance to cover the rest. 

I remember once when I was on a call of a family dispute where, right in front of me, an elderly lady passed out due to stress. We called the fire department to come check her out and it took 10 minutes for them to arrive (I counted).

The unit that came was literally across the street. It would have taken me less time to walk over there with her then it took for them to drive over as they did. I am under no illusions as to the response times of government employees. 



> The more I see some of the more conservative positions on this story and some others, I see a common thread, F the poor and compassion is for left wing bleeding hearts. I can respect some conservative positions even if I don't agree with them, but this Let them eat cake type of thinking just annoys me...especially those that claim to be practicing Christians. It certainly lens weight to Ghandi when he said, "I like your Christ. Not so much Christians. They aren't very Christ like."


 
I don't think that you would find many conservatives here who would actually stand by and watch the house burn. That being said, however, the onus and responsibility was on the home owner to pay the bill, not the firefighters to violate their orders from their bosses. That, I think, is what is mainly being discussed here. 

You don't get to keep your car in order to go to work and provide for your family if you don't pay the car note. You don't get to keep your gas going in the winter if you don't pay your gas bill. 

Personally, I would have doused the fire. To my way of thinking, what's the worst that could happen. I tell my bosses, "Oops, thought he had paid the fee. You should probably bill him for our services, the lazy rat bastard." (snicker)

Better to ask for forgiveness then beg for permission.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 7, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Personally, I would have doused the fire. To my way of thinking, what's the worst that could happen. I tell my bosses, "Oops, thought he had paid the fee. You should probably bill him for our services, the lazy rat bastard." (snicker)
> 
> Better to ask for forgiveness then beg for permission.



Huge +1. Blame it on misunderstanding.

- Excuse me boss, what was that?
- Boss we are having a very bad connection here. Do you want us to put out the fire?
- Boss? Boss?

Come on guys, let's get to work!


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 7, 2010)

Letting a man's home burn to the ground when you have the power to save it, while he begs you and offers to pay $5000 for you to save his home, because he forgot to send $75 dollars to the city...yes, in my book that is immoral.  But hey, I understand, those durned poor rural people need to be taught a lesson.  Let it burn!


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 7, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Letting a man's home burn to the ground when you have the power to save it, while he begs you and offers to pay $5000 for you to save his home, because he forgot to send $75 dollars to the city...yes, in my book that is immoral. But hey, I understand, those durned poor rural people need to be taught a lesson. Let it burn!


 
I like how every. single. time. we have these discussions in which folks take opposing views on a topic, it invariably ends up with the hoisting of the "ignorant bigot" strawman, complete with misspeled wurds.  In this case, it's especially amusing since in your example them durned ignorant bigot hillbillies are apparently bigoted against, um, themselves.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 7, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> In general, I agree that if there's a fee for the service and you choose not to pay then the blame rests completely on you.  But to come out and put the fire out on the neighbor's house and absolutely refuse to touch the house next door?  That's some cold **** right there.



Welcome to the Libertarian dream!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 7, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Letting a man's home burn to the ground when you have the power to save it, while he begs you and offers to pay $5000 for you to save his home, because he forgot to send $75 dollars to the city...yes, in my book that is immoral. But hey, I understand, those durned poor rural people need to be taught a lesson. Let it burn!


I knew you would understand! LOL


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 7, 2010)

If you are three months late on your car insurance as they tow your wreck of a car away and you are standing outside of the insurance company waving that three hundred bucks around, you can empathize with this particular homeowner.
Sean


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 7, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> I like how every. single. time. we have these discussions in which folks take opposing views on a topic, it invariably ends up with the hoisting of the "ignorant bigot" strawman, complete with misspeled wurds. In this case, it's especially amusing since in your example them durned ignorant bigot hillbillies are apparently bigoted against, um, themselves.


 
I did not say or imply anyone was a bigot or ignorant.  If you've seen the guy talk, he is a bit of a hillbilly.  So what?  I like how you are saying I did say those things to throw the focus off what I did say, some people need to learn some freaking compassion.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 8, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> No, but that is not the situation.
> The situation we are discussing is like you literally starving to death in front of my feet, and I am standing there with a loaf of bread, saying that I'd really wanted to give you this bread, but sadly you can't afford it.
> 
> While this is technically legal (I am not arguing that) it is not really classy, no?


Heck yes it's classy. 

You'd be doing him the biggest favor of his life if you refused him that bread. Tell him about bootstraps instead, and then he'll rise up on an incentive based will of iron and go earn some bread for himself.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 8, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> I did not say or imply anyone was a bigot or ignorant. If you've seen the guy talk, he is a bit of a hillbilly. So what? I like how you are saying I did say those things to throw the focus off what I did say, some people need to learn some freaking compassion.


 
This:



> But hey, I understand, those durned poor rural people need to be taught a lesson.


 
insinuates that they chose not to help due to a bias against "poor rural people". It's the same tactic that the war protesters use when they talk about "shooting brown people" to suggest that anyone who supports the war does so out of racism. Don't insult us further by pretending it wasn't intentional.


----------



## crushing (Oct 8, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Heck yes it's classy.
> 
> You'd be doing him the biggest favor of his life if you refused him that bread. Tell him about bootstraps instead, and then he'll rise up on an incentive based will of iron and go earn some bread for himself.


 
Here in the US the progressive thing to do is to let the starving person know that there is a large team of well paid government beaurocrats that will help him.  If the government doesn't provide the needed help, it's because the government doesn't have enough employees and they are losing too much money to Joe Citizen keeping too much of his paycheck.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 8, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> This:
> 
> 
> 
> insinuates that they chose not to help due to a bias against "poor rural people". It's the same tactic that the war protesters use when they talk about "shooting brown people" to suggest that anyone who supports the war does so out of racism. Don't insult us further by pretending it wasn't intentional.


 

No, it insinuates that the desire to teach people a lesson about sending in thier $75 dollars was more important than saving a man's home.  Stop trying to make it something it was not in order to play the victim and garner sympathy for lack of compassion.  I never claimed anyone was either ignorant or a bigot.  Just to make it clear, I don't think anyone that posted a contrary opinion to my own is either ignorant or a bigot because of it.  Showing a lack of compassion and empathy for a fellow human being yes, an ignorant bigot, no.


----------



## MJS (Oct 8, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> If you are three months late on your car insurance as they tow your wreck of a car away and you are standing outside of the insurance company waving that three hundred bucks around, you can empathize with this particular homeowner.
> Sean


 
A few years ago, there was a massive car crash that happened.  Long story short, it involved a run away truck, hauling crushed rock, which lost its breaks, blasted down a hill, thru the intersection, where it took out a number of other vehicles. Sadly, a few people died.  

The dirtbag owner of the trucking company, didn't have ins. on this truck, as well as a few others.  When he heard of the crash, he instructed his wife to contact the ins. co. and put ins. on that crashed truck...of course, not telling them that the truck just crashed.

The guy got caught and sent up the river.  

There couldve been any number of reasons why this guy didnt pay the $75 fire protection fee, ie: lost in the mail, forgot to mail it, said **** it, I'm not paying it, the place where the cash was sent lost it...who knows.  Was it coldhearted to not put out the fire?  Of course.  But those are the rules apparently in that county, so......

As I said, one would think that your taxes would cover stuff like this, but apparently not.


----------

