Tennessee Firemen Ignore Burning House Over Unpaid Subscription Fee

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

@ 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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

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

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

[ComradesTrue]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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.

That's probably the stupidest thing in this thread.

Originally Posted by Blondie93

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

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.