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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

[thetygerlily]

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.

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.

[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.