Tennessee Firemen Ignore Burning House Over Unpaid Subscription Fee

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by thetygerlily

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.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

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.

[thetygerlily]

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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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.

So you didn't actually read what I said which included an acknowledgment that I could be wrong? A+ reading skills.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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.

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:

Some sections of the Mississippi River appeared to run backward for a short time.[2] Sand blows were common throughout the area, and can still be seen from the air in cultivated fields. The shockwaves propagated efficiently through midwestern bedrock. Residents as far away as Pittsburgh and Norfolk were awakened by intense shaking.[4] Church bells were reported to ring as far as Boston, Massachusetts and York, Ontario (now Toronto) and sidewalks were reported to have been cracked and broken in Washington, D.C.[5] There were also reports of toppled chimneys in Maine.

Now, that was nearly 200 years ago but:

The zone remains active today. In recent decades minor earthquakes have continued.[5] New forecasts estimate a 7 to 10 percent chance, in the next 50 years, of a repeat of a major earthquake like those that occurred in 1811–1812, which likely had magnitudes of between 7.5 and 8.0. There is a 25 to 40 percent chance, in a 50-year time span, of a magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake.[13]

And catastrophe:

In a report filed in November 2008, The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency warned that a serious earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone could result in "the highest economic losses due to a natural disaster in the United States," further predicting "widespread and catastrophic" damage across Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and particularly Tennessee, where a 7.7 magnitude quake or greater would cause damage to tens of thousands of structures affecting water distribution, transportation systems, and other vital infrastructure.[14]

I say this, because my parents hold earthquake insurance on their house because they live pretty close to the New Madrid fault.

[aephi alum]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

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...

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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The world I want to live in does not respond to someone experiencing such tragedy with "he got what he deserved.'

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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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

Bored tonight or something?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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

LOL

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Bored tonight or something?

Yes. I read your posts.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Yes. I read your posts.

This was your best effort?

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

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This was your best effort?

Was this yours?

[DrPhil]

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

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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

Heavy flow day? Time to switch out the tampon.