CoryKS
Senior Master
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.
Family did not pay $75 annual fee, firefighters watch house burn
- Thread starter Bill Mattocks
- Start date
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
Sr. Grandmaster
qft
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
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.
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...
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
Senior Master
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?
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
Senior Master
+1
Big Don
Sr. Grandmaster
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?
OP
OP
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.
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
Senior Master
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?
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.
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
Senior Master
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.
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).
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).
The other people will pay... now. An example has been set.
Sean
Sean
ArmorOfGod
Senior Master
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
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
Master of Arts
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.
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.
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.
ArmorOfGod
Senior Master
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
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
Last edited:
