Tennessee Firemen Ignore Burning House Over Unpaid Subscription Fee

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

Why isn't that $75 fee tied in with taxes? That's how ours is done.

Because they lived out in a rural area where they relied on a municipal fire service. Since they don't live in the town, they don't pay municipal taxes. Lots of counties have arrangements like this -- rather than trying to maintain rural fire departments that they can't afford, they arrange with municipal fire departments to serve residents outside the town or city limits, provided those residents pay a fee (in lieu of paying taxes that would support the fire department).

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by ForeverRoses

I wonder if home owners insurance would refuse to payout since the extent of the fire was preventable? I wasn't sure if not paying the $75 would negate the fire insurance portion of home owners insurance.

I was thinking that too.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Because they lived out in a rural area where they relied on a municipal fire service. Since they don't live in the town, they don't pay municipal taxes. Lots of counties have arrangements like this -- rather than trying to maintain rural fire departments that they can't afford, they arrange with municipal fire departments to serve residents outside the town or city limits, provided those residents pay a fee (in lieu of paying taxes that would support the fire department).

This is done between some cities around here HOWEVER, the money is included in city/county taxes and then is transferred by that entity to the municipality who performs the fire service. Making it optional is insane to me.

The saddest part is that their next door neighbor's house caught on fire because this house was on fire. The neighbor had paid the $75 fee so his house fire was put out. In making it optional, it endangers others even those who do choose to pay. Can that neighbor now sue this clown for not paying for his fire service and having his house catch on fire as a result? Even if he did sue him, he probably wouldn't get anything since this guy now has nothing.

There are definitely better ways to implement this.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

This is done between some cities around here HOWEVER, the money is included in city/county taxes and then is transferred by that entity to the municipality who performs the fire service. Making it optional is insane to me.

Well, there's that whole thing about small government, reducing the consumer burden by eliminating non-essential or overly-cost-ineffective services, potential issues with what are essentially government-run insurance programs, etc.

You can certainly see why some people would want to opt out - similar to other forms of insurance, the majority will never have a fire event and thus are "wasting" the $75 to subsidize others. You might even argue that making it optional is the most sane thing - it's the only option that allows the individual to make their own rational decision. Surely you like making your own decisions, right?

The saddest part is that their next door neighbor's house caught on fire because this house was on fire. The neighbor had paid the $75 fee so his house fire was put out.

This is more "bad luck" than "sad" - after all, that's why the neighbor paid the $75: you never know what will cause a fire in your home. It might even be the neighbors.

In making it optional, it endangers others even those who do choose to pay.

Presumably, the majority of folks who live in rural areas don't live all that close to their neighbors, making this a very low-level risk to "endanger others." That's why it is perfectly reasonable to levy taxes in cities to pay for municipal services (assuming risk), and also perfectly reasonable to not do the same in rural areas (markedly lower risk).

Can that neighbor now sue this clown for not paying for his fire service and having his house catch on fire as a result?

He can attempt to sue him, sure - whether or not that suit has merit and/or will be successful is, of course, a completely different matter and depends on approximately seven hundred and twenty factors we really don't know.

There are definitely better ways to implement this.

It seems this method worked perfectly to me.

[christiangirl]

*sigh*.....why does every tragedy have to become a reason for conservatives and liberals to fight over whose side is better? These people lost their homes, now's not the time for a political debate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot...logical-debate

[navane]

I am a Volunteer Firefighter. Interestingly enough, on a firefighter discussion board I frequent, the guys there are pretty horrified that the department did not put out the fire. The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF, the firefighter union) has spoken out against this city's policy and believes that firefighters should not have to check who has paid and who hasn't before responding to a call.

And yes, rest assured, if there were people inside the home, I know in my heart that firefighters would go in for the rescue. I just couldn't fathom a firefighter letting a person die for lack of a subscription fee.

.....Kelly

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by navane

I am a Volunteer Firefighter. Interestingly enough, on a firefighter discussion board I frequent, the guys there are pretty horrified that the department did not put out the fire. The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF, the firefighter union) has spoken out against this city's policy and believes that firefighters should not have to check who has paid and who hasn't before responding to a call.

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.

[Drolefille]

For the want of 75 dollars someone is now homeless. Which ultimately costs society more? It's not small government it's pigheadedness and stupidity.

Having fees be voluntary instead of mandatory is ridiculous.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Having fees be voluntary instead of mandatory is ridiculous.

How?

[DSTRen13]

My husband is a volunteer firefighter; the way he explained it to me (a nearby fire department has a system like this one, only it isn't rural) is that should someone's life be in danger the firefighters will save said person, then let the building finish burning to the ground.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

How?

Because the result is a homeless person. (or people) The destruction of property and the risk to neighboring land/property/people is also dumb.

It doesn't make sense not to just assess the "out of area" people the same fee via taxes or some other mandatory fashion. Particularly since the firefighters were completely capable of showing up quickly and doing something about it.

We all pay for policemen even if our house is never broken into. All property owners (in most areas of the country) pay for schools even if they don't have children. All drivers (and others) pay for roads even if they swear they're never taking the interstate anywhere. Having firefighting services be the exception to that rule is dangerous and stupid.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

We all pay for policemen even if our house is never broken into. All property owners (in most areas of the country) pay for schools even if they don't have children. All drivers (and others) pay for roads even if they swear they're never taking the interstate anywhere. Having firefighting services be the exception to that rule is dangerous and stupid.

None of your examples are on point though. None of the folks in those situations have the ability to opt out. In this case, the "victims" opted out of paying a pretty cheap annual fee to have protection. They consciously made that decision.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

None of your examples are on point though. None of the folks in those situations have the ability to opt out. In this case, the "victims" opted out of paying a pretty cheap annual fee to have protection. They consciously made that decision.

You missed the point or made it for me? No, you can't opt out of those other services because society has deemed them important. It wouldn't make sense for us to pay an optional "police fee" and have the police refuse to show up/investigate crime/arrest an intruder/do their job if you haven't paid your fee.

The guy's a victim no matter what. No scare quotes needed. He's homeless because his house burned down. And if you read an article where they interviewed him he actually says that he thought they'd put it out anyway and tried to pay them on the scene. Can you imagine watching your home and everything you own being destroyed in front of your eyes? The guy was a stubborn idiot when he wouldn't pay the fee, no doubt. But it's an illogical and counterproductive for society to let him opt out in the first place.

There's no logical reason for it NOT to be required. We pay for a lot of things "just in case" no matter how unlikely the outcome is. It's like people who complain about how their taxes shouldn't go to schools because they don't have kids, or to hospitals because they never get sick, and so on. Allowing it in the case of the fire dept. is dumb.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

For the want of 75 dollars someone is now homeless. Which ultimately costs society more? It's not small government it's pigheadedness and stupidity.

Having fees be voluntary instead of mandatory is ridiculous.

This is ridiculous logic - "for want of sharing 80% of profit, xxxxx is yyyyyyyy."

Where does it end? The American ideal is all about allowing people to make poor decisions - this person is homeless due to their own choice. That choice, in the vast majority of circumstances, would have been "correct" under a strict cost/benefit analysis. They lost the bet. Nobody is refunding me my nest egg when I bet on Kmart, right? It's literally the same thing.

That's fine.

Society makes city taxes important because there is a real risk for a large number of people. You're missing a fundamental difference between the city and the country - one I addressed in my original post, and I think fairly completely.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is ridiculous logic - "for want of sharing 80% of profit, xxxxx is yyyyyyyy."

Where does it end? The American ideal is all about allowing people to make poor decisions - this person is homeless due to their own choice. That choice, in the vast majority of circumstances, would have been "correct" under a strict cost/benefit analysis. They lost the bet. Nobody is refunding me my nest egg when I bet on Kmart, right? It's literally the same thing.

That's fine.

Society makes city taxes important because there is a real risk for a large number of people. You're missing a fundamental difference between the city and the country - one I addressed in my original post, and I think fairly completely.

Contrast it with public safety then? Why should someone who lives in the country subsidize county sheriffs when they're probably never going to need their services? Being in the country vs. the city brings different issues to play but doesn't change the fundamentals behind it. There are reasons why hospitals provide care to anyone who shows up and needs it. Those same reasons behind police and emergency care apply to fire departments. They're emergencies. Their definition means that no one thinks it will happen to them and that it's unlikely for it to happen.

This person's homelessness is now a separate societal burden. His country/state/federal goverment will end up spending how much to help him get back on his feet? It's entirely counter productive. Charging everyone a fee, possibly a lesser fee because it's spread out amongst more people, would make sense for all involved. This doesn't even address what would happen had people been in the house or had minor children been involved.

When lives are at stake, we don't generally allow people to 'bet' on everything working out ok. This isn't stocks and Kmart. And it's silly to compare the two. There's no profit-sharing here.

You don't protect people from every bad decision, but plenty of other areas, city and country, suburban, or otherwise have made fire department service a required inclusion in their county/city/state tax or fee structure. It's not as if this is a crazy concept only promoted by socialists, fascists, hippies or whatever the scare word of the day is.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Contrast it with public safety then? Why should someone who lives in the country subsidize county sheriffs when they're probably never going to need their services? Being in the country vs. the city brings different issues to play but doesn't change the fundamentals behind it. There are reasons why hospitals provide care to anyone who shows up and needs it. Those same reasons behind police and emergency care apply to fire departments. They're emergencies. Their definition means that no one thinks it will happen to them and that it's unlikely for it to happen.

There's a fundamental difference, however, in two key areas:

1 - Police presence (and hospitals/EMTs, to a separate/different extent) can't easily separate out one citizen's issues from another's. Restated: basically every police issue is a public issue; many rural fire issues are not a public issue.

2 - There are significant changes in the "fundamentals" when you fundamentally alter the concentration of people. Delhi deals with different issues than Denison, IA right?

[quote]This person's homelessness is now a separate societal burden. His country/state/federal goverment will end up spending how much to help him get back on his feet? It's entirely counter productive.[quote]

It might be. You don't know that, though. This person may have booked the $$ saved and can afford to rebuild. You're essentially arguing that a correct assessment of a cost/benefit analysis is the wrong decision - you realize that, right?

Charging everyone a fee, possibly a lesser fee because it's spread out amongst more people, would make sense for all involved. This doesn't even address what would happen had people been in the house or had minor children been involved.

None of these points are persuasive - minors? Really?

When lives are at stake, we don't generally allow people to 'bet' on everything working out ok. This isn't stocks and Kmart. And it's silly to compare the two. There's no profit-sharing here.

No, it's not - this is the same as spending the kids' food money on Powerball. There's no law against that, right?

You don't protect people from every bad decision, but plenty of other areas, city and country, suburban, or otherwise have made fire department service a required inclusion in their county/city/state tax or fee structure. It's not as if this is a crazy concept only promoted by socialists, fascists, hippies or whatever the scare word of the day is.

It's not a crazy concept, and in a massive number of situations, I agree it's the correct thing to do. That doesn't mean it's correct across the board, right?

Unless you think popularity of an idea equates to utility?