You can tell how terribly sorry I am not to meet your seal of approval by the look on my face right now. I'm sure.

Also, learn to read.

People are talking about maintaining a GOVERNMENT contract.

As long as that is being discussed, there has not been a mention of eliminating the government's role in putting out fires. The failure here was government and contracts. Not lack of government.

That's why, small government arguments have not been discussed here.

@ the bold: So, if someone makes a bad decision (drunk driving:refusing to get coverage), it makes sense that they'll have to deal with the consequences?

As everyone else has said, I'm not laughing and stroking my cat while sitting in my evil lair. It sucks that these people lost everything. I haven't lost anything in a fire, but I did have a lot of flood damage in a previous dwelling a few years back. I could have called my (car) insurance company and said that I'd pay a renter's insurance premium after the fact, but that's not how it works. I made a decision not to pay a fee and had to suffer the consequences.

The insurance company had the means to pay me for my damages, but that would have been at the expense of those that DO pay. How is that fair to them?

No shit he has to deal with the consequences. It's the idea of 'deserving' it and the acceptance of the situation that bothers me. This wasn't insurance, this was the fire department. It's considered a 'service' for a reason. I don't object to them paying for it, I object to the presentation of coverage as optional.

The situation never should have happened.

It's considered a service for those who pay for it. He knew the consequences of living in the country and was OK with it. That falls on him. The fire department of another city doesn't owe him protection.

ETA: I would agree that it shouldn't have happened if the option to pay had gone into effect, say, earlier this year. I seem to remember reading, though, that this has been in effect since 1990. It's not as if they were blindsided by a mysterious fee. They were aware of the procedure for 20 years and still did nothing.

There ya go.

You're missing my point. It never should have been optional.

Maybe not, but if the residents thought it was bad to have it optional, why wait 20 years to make a fuss?

Because it took 20 years for a tragedy to happen to make them rethink it? I'm not a resident, so I wouldn't know. Status quo is hard to change without outside force.

Regardless as an outside observer, which is the only way any of us can comment, it was a terrible policy.

Maybe, maybe not. The citizens kept it in place for all of these years, though.

I feel like we'll be dancing in circles until the sun comes up, so I'll step back :)

FYI - there is a video of the Hornbeak (?) Fire Department chief on MSNBC.com for anyone that's interested. Looks like Hornbeak is about 30-40 minutes away from the South Fulton area.

ETA: Cranick is at the press conference as well. Looks like there are 8 fire departments in the county, 3 of which use subscription service.

ETAA: Someone asked if they thought the subscription service was a good idea. He replied that it was better than nothing. I think people forget that without this, they'd have nothing.

Also, Cranick said that the money was not an issue. If that's the case, why didn't he pay it in the first place?

We don't know how the citizens reacted over the course of 20 years. And, as other posters pointed out, the county could have made other arrangements besides an optional fee.

I cannot get into the minds of the people involved, I can only talk about on a policy level and an individual level from my perspective. It's the same for everyone else in this thread.

I get what you're saying. I hadn't heard of fire service subscriptions before. I do know, though, that when you're paying taxes in your city, it's covering residents of your city. Neighboring towns shouldn't be able to sponge off of each other.

And while it may not have been the best plan, it was the plan. If they wanted to ensure that their home was protected, they should have paid.

Hopefully, this will push the county into action and allow it to find a better solution. In the meantime, I won't be canonizing the Cranicks like some folks have done (not you, DF, people in general). They made a poor choice that, unfortunately, cost them everything. But it was their choice.

ETA: Looks like one or more of the individual fire departments have been in contact with the municipalities to try to get a fire tax for the county, but they got a lot of pushback.

I follow what you are saying through the thread that the policy is the issue here, and that fire should not be a fee for service.

As to your other points above, I can add this since maybe I am not quite as much as an "outside observer." I live in the same general region of the country as this incident. Also, as I have stated prior in this thread, I also live just outside my local city limits and must subscribe to an identical type fire service if I want fire protection. Mine runs $128 year.

Earlier this year the city tried to annex a very large portion of the county, including my 600+ home subdivision (<1 mile from city limits) as well as several other areas that could be actually be considered rural. There was huge outrage against this effort, possibly bordering on 90% of the affected residents against it.

The main reason that the residents were against it is that they are happy with the private services that they contract with (fire, garbage, sewer, etc) and feel that the huge increase in taxes (~150%) would not get them any better way of life.

So, as to your view that fire protection should never be "fee for service-" at the present time the people in my area have not been swayed by this story even though the exact same thing could happen here. Our county residents continue to think that the subsription service is a much better option than paying city taxes.

/2 cents from a not-quite-so-outsider

That's not a small government argument.

That's a medium sized government argument. A small government argument is that the public fire service should have never existed.

After reading all of this, there's one thing I still can't believe...

People in the midwest have Earthquake Insurance? I live on the Ring of Fire, and I don't have Earthquake Insurance. I don't know anyone here in Seattle who has it, and we have lots of faults running all over the place. The only people I know with EI live in California. A 5.0 is a pretty small earthquake, one that won't cause any significant - if any - damage. We have them in the west pretty regularly and sometimes you can't even really feel them.

Earthquake insurance in the midwest is as necessary as tornado insurance is in the west. In other words, ridiculous.

Feck if I know, I've never owned a house. I don't believe people get 'tornado insurance' here either though it's covered in homeowner's plans. Perhaps because we're not out in Cali, we don't have to buy separate earthquake insurance. I don't recall any issues being reported following the damage from the 5.0 (which might be quite minor to you but freaked people the hell out and caused some minor damage). But we didn't have any damage ourselves so no clue. My point was more that to my knowledge people are 'covered' not necessarily that they buy separate policies. However I could be wrong.


That's probably the stupidest thing in this thread.

I still don't see it as an either/or situation. I get that they probably didn't want to pay more in taxes, however I don't see why the county couldn't contract with the city and charge the country residents via county taxes. It wouldn't cost any more than it does now and possibly less.

It shouldn't be about incorporation vs. optional fee, IMO. And the fact that incorporation was on the table, not a requirement to pay for emergency services, brings a lot more issues into play.

http://geneo.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/new_madrid.gif
New Madrid Fault Line.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...f_Fire.svg.png

From Wikipedia:

And....?

Nobody has earthquake insurance - it's exceptionally rare (and incredibly expensive). That was the point I was making - for the most part, earthquake coverage is a very bad investment.

But then someone responded that there's a fault in Missouri that caused a 5.0 a few years ago and a 6.something about 120 years ago, as if that was good cause for, as you said, very expensive earthquake insurance.

That's the kind of reaction I would expect from normal, compassionate human beings.

I don't even know why anyone would try to justify something like this. And the fact that someone was going to pay the firefighters when it happened, and they still wouldn't do it is just suspicious to me. I wonder if there is more going on behind the scenes. What kind of people could just let a house burn? I wouldn't want people like that serving in any type of rescue capacity in my city. That's just sick.

And where I live, all of that is built into the annual taxes. But even if someone is delinquent on those taxes and it could be argued that they didn't pay their "fee," the fire department would still be called to put out a house fire.


Karma is not a game and I have a strong feeling that these people are going to reap what they have sown. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to take such a position and stick with it when to do so is morally wrong.

For whatever reason that none of us are privy to (though I can imagine it might have had to do with county residents not wanting to be taxed anymore than they already were), the elected government officials in this particular county chose to contract with fire departments to make fire protection a subscription service rather than to automatically provide it to all residents through taxation. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume with local government of this kind that if contituents had wanted it done differently, they would have been able to pursuade their elected officials to do it differently or would have elected new people.

I can see the arguments as to why it's bad policy, but I can also see that this is democratic local government in action -- they can weigh the policy considerations for themselves and decide how they want to handle it. We can second guess them all we want to, but they get to make the call for themselves.

Folks opt to live in rural, non-incorporated areas for a great many reasons, not the least of which is the ability to privately contract for services, rather than having municipal costs/municipal employees foisted upon you. There's also the ability to discharge a firearm on your own property, own livestock, not worry about having to jump through hoops if you want to construct something, etc.

Rural life does come with a few costs, for example, you know that in most cases, law enforcement coming to your aid is probably going to take a pretty long time, so you have to be armed. You have to maintain a well and a septic system. You probably have propane gas. If you live in a neighborhood and have a decent association, you can contract for security/police and fire services.

It's a different sort of lifestyle and a different sort of person. No one out there typically wants to have a governmental solution for their problems. And as you can see, that doesn't always work out nearly as well as the alternative. That said, these folks pay a lot less for fire protection than you or I do.

In light of such a publicized issue, I wonder if this county- or any others- will be revisiting this policy. I'd be curious to see whether anything actually changes a year or two from now... or if they want to keep things as they are.

According to the press conference I saw on MSNBC, the individual fire departments have been trying to get something done for at least 2 years. The municipalities and their residents weren't too keen on making changes, though.

Ah, thanks KS. I got lost in the earthquake talk.

So you didn't actually read what I said which included an acknowledgment that I could be wrong? A+ reading skills.
Sure it's democratic government in action, that doesn't make it a good idea. I'm not proposing on driving in there and overthrowing the county government in a coup, I'm criticizing the decisions of said government.

I take it they don't teach geography or history at Pepperdine?

From the cornerstone of American knowledge Wikipedia on the New Madrid Earthquake of 1812:
Now, that was nearly 200 years ago but:
And catastrophe:
I say this, because my parents hold earthquake insurance on their house because they live pretty close to the New Madrid fault.

My own personal opinion is that the fire department should have put the fire out. They had gone out there anyway, in case a neighboring house whose owners had paid the fee caught fire (which happened - and I have to wonder how those neighbors feel now that they have to deal with fire damage). So they should have rescued any people or pets that needed rescuing, and extinguished the fire. And then they should have slapped the homeowners with a huge fee. Of course, then you have to think about whether the homeowners would have paid the huge fee, given that the fire is now out...

I live in an area where some services are municipal and some must be contracted for privately. Police, fire, recycling, snow plowing for my street, are all covered in my property taxes. Water and sewer are not - I'm on well and septic. Garbage collection other than recycling is also not paid for by my property taxes. I bought the house knowing I'd be paying monthly for trash removal, and paying a septic company every couple of years to pump my septic tank, and paying a plumber as needed if something went wrong with the well - and if I didn't pay, there would be consequences - uncollected garbage, backed-up septic, no water.

These people bought their house knowing that they would have to pay an annual fee if they wanted the fire department to take care of them, and that if they didn't pay, there would be consequences. I just think the consequences in their case should have been a hefty fine rather than homelessness.

You've identified the problem yourself: there's not necessarily a way to enforce that "huge fee" on the homeowner since there isn't a contractual agreement to put out the fire. The homeowners saying "I'll pay whatever it costs!" may or may not be relevant in enforcing the fee, either, depending on the particular local laws.

Once the fire happened, the fire crew's hands were pretty well tied. I'm sure it was awful for everyone involved, to be honest, to be on the scene, but it's a much more complex situation than simply levying a fine.

Here you go. How about he got what he paid for?

http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/p...ding_heart.jpg

Bored tonight or something?

LOL

Yes. I read your posts.

This was your best effort?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

Was this yours?

It's always amusing when relatively uninteresting threads end up in Weirdville.

We are put here solely for thine ammusement "Oh, High Queen Bitch" of Weirdville.

Heavy flow day? Time to switch out the tampon.