Sucks but I can see the bigger picture. This is happening all over the country and in similar ways. Every year here they keep firing more and more firefighters and cutting their budgets because homeowners keep voting down taxes. This is just a more in your face example of look people, you can't have it both ways. Firefighters aren't a charity, they put their lives on the line. They aren't bill collectors, they shouldn't have to hunt down insurance companies because your cheap lazy ass don't want to pay them till you actually need it. These services aren't funded by magical no-tax fairies.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground
- Thread starter The Faceless Master
- Start date
- Status
I missed this entire thread unfortunately, but kind of surprised that a lot feel it's a community's right to pick a for fee fire department and the neighbor had it coming. The county residents should have a public safety tax and then you don't have idiot firefighters with no concern for their job unless the fee is paid watching a house burn down (Especially since they would have still been paid by the owner or the insurance company).
The fee was clearly voluntary, no question about that and the neighbor did not pay voluntarily which is why public services should be mandatory.
The fee was clearly voluntary, no question about that and the neighbor did not pay voluntarily which is why public services should be mandatory.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Teh Hamburglar said:Humans > Cats
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
That guy doesn't represent everyone. He is likely one of the exceptions. If the majority of people refused to pay then it wouldn't make sense for them to offer coverage at all.sangreal said:
That's kind of a contradiction.
Fire is pretty unpredictable, so by letting it burn they endangered the lives of everyone in the vicinity.
I believe they have the option to request to be annexed by another city's fire department and pay for services through an increase in property taxes. Other options include include a volunteer force or even the plan they rejected.
Maybe this incident will motivate people to do something because this seems like a big problem to me. This fire department stands to financially benefit from people who are fearful of their homes burning down. The fire chief implied it himself. That just strikes me as a potentially dangerous conflict of interest.
K
kittens
Unconfirmed Member
Seriously.DeathNote said:
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Shanadeus said:
The Faceless Master
Member
this link is amazing!sangreal said:
yeah people were saying "charge xxxx" ...good luck with that...
and for the firefighter guy
yeah, i wonder why this proposal didn't go anywhere and who was against it...
Escape Goat
Member
Shanadeus said:That's because you're no firefighter.
Why do you think the stereotype regarding firefighters have them rescuing kittens from high places?
It's because it's an essential part of their job, to care and rescue those that cannot save themselves - like a small feeble kitten who will mew at you trapped in an inferno of fire.
A firefighter not rescuing a poor creature like that isn't human.
You are one of the most naive people on this forum. If you haven't figured out why the firefighters didn't do anything theres not much else anyone else can say. But I am curious, what kind of fantasy utopia do you live in?
I'm from the EU and I think that if you expect the fire service to put your house out, you ought to pay them.jorma said:
It's that simple. Pay directly, pay via taxes, pay however they allow you to pay. There is no alternative. It ought to be dealt with via taxation ideally but Americans seem rather allergic to taxation.
If you don't pay, your house burns. It can't work any other way, firefighters don't grow on trees or fall from the sky.
SmokyDave said:
Yes. And most of the world realise that fireprotection (and healthcare, law enforcement, etc) is something that everyone needs, and also that everyone needs to pay a fair share for it.
It's even worse when the same principles are applied to healthcare. That doctors need to watch perfectly curable persons die just because they "choose" to not pay for insurance.
The "uncivilised" bit is the notion that this protection should be optional and that it allows for situations like this. Not the actual tragedies that arise from it, since they are a given once you've accepted a non-mandatory solution.
The system exists because everyone in that city, and some rural residents, are paying in advance. Why not just abolish the taxes and fees and have everybody just pay when they actually need firefighters? Because a fire may happen only 1-3 times every 2 years, and by then it's not worthwhile for there to be a full-time fire department on call 24 hours, if it's only paid for by 1-2 homeowners a year. Unless the fees are astronomical, and then people would just ask for taxes/fees as insurance instead.skrew said:
jorma said:
This situation isn't remotely comparable to healthcare though. Healthcare ewxpenses are very high for those not getting it through work. This fire protection was $75 A YEAR. You'd have to be a complete moron tightwad not to pay. This guy got was coming to him. Sorry.
Aselith said:
It's very comparable. You should read my comparison above where i compare them. And particulary note that the comparison was about how people in most countries realise that these services need to be supplied to everyone and funded by everyone and not about how this particular homeowner skimped out on a 75 dollar fee.
Cornbread78
Member
I'm still waiting to see the story on Opera and watch her buy them a new house and pay the fee for them, LOL
SmokyDave said:
See, thats mostly reasonable, but here's the question: Should firefighters act as the collection agency for that money? If the local government wants the money and puts an approved fee on homeowners, they can collect through collection agencies, garnishment, and other methods. By having the fire department not put a fire out because of it puts other homeowners and the public at risk, all to make a financial point that can be made through other more appropriate avenues where the only risk to the safety of the public is paper cuts.
The Faceless Master
Member
why do people keep saying that it puts other homeowners at risk when the fire crew stopped the fire from getting to the neighbor who had coverage?
CharlieDigital
Banned
The Faceless Master said:
Because fires are rarely so predictable. An errant gust of wind could have lead to a much more grave situation.
Escape Goat
Member
Cornbread78 said:
I once saw Phantom of the Oprah on Broadway. It was pretty cool.
Seriously the biggest problem here is that fire service is optional to start with.
If the county does not have a fire department then the council should have included fire service from the other town in their property tax.
This is way more than a personal choice thing, a uncontained fire could cause major damage to the whole county. So it for the betterment of the whole county that everyone have this service.
Heck it should be federal law that all people have fire department service. How is it any less of a national security threat than crime and stuff.
If the county does not have a fire department then the council should have included fire service from the other town in their property tax.
This is way more than a personal choice thing, a uncontained fire could cause major damage to the whole county. So it for the betterment of the whole county that everyone have this service.
Heck it should be federal law that all people have fire department service. How is it any less of a national security threat than crime and stuff.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Hopefully Peta will be all over this.
They should have put out the fire and billed the homeowner, it's that simple. This is a public service and the people should be served regardless.
If you go to the emergency room without insurance they will treat you because the law says so and it should be the same for this.
The guy even offered to pay the fee over the phone, that's just insane. Those City Employees should be under some serious heat for this.
And now this guy is homeless and pretty watched his house burn down over a 2 hour time frame. 2 hours of nonfucking action. WTF america.
They should have put out the fire and billed the homeowner, it's that simple. This is a public service and the people should be served regardless.
If you go to the emergency room without insurance they will treat you because the law says so and it should be the same for this.
The guy even offered to pay the fee over the phone, that's just insane. Those City Employees should be under some serious heat for this.
And now this guy is homeless and pretty watched his house burn down over a 2 hour time frame. 2 hours of nonfucking action. WTF america.
Broken record time
Yes, they shouldn't stand for this man allowing his pets to allegedly stay inside for the two hours it took for the fire to spread to his house.
It is a public service for people who live in an area with a fire department. He was not located in the jurisdiction of any fire department.
The law only requires that ERs stabilize you before checking if you can pay. Once you are stabilized they will let you die if you cannot pay.
Heat from whom? People that don't live in the city, like this family?
No, he isn't.
ssolitare said:
Yes, they shouldn't stand for this man allowing his pets to allegedly stay inside for the two hours it took for the fire to spread to his house.
It is a public service for people who live in an area with a fire department. He was not located in the jurisdiction of any fire department.
The law only requires that ERs stabilize you before checking if you can pay. Once you are stabilized they will let you die if you cannot pay.
Heat from whom? People that don't live in the city, like this family?
No, he isn't.
That's not the issue since they clearly are willing to serve that area. It's not like someone is calling a Chicago fire department to put out a fire in Peoria. They were close enough to accept fees for the service, so they are close enough to provide service to all.ssolitare said:
If they CAN serve the area as a whole, they need to provide the service as a whole and mandate the charge or actually be something slightly better than scumbags about it and put out the fire until another comes along they need to go to and then charge.
I am starting to appreciate more and more living in Kentucky where they will definitely not kick you out just because you stopped having a heart attack. Not sure about the law, but we must have a lot of attorneys willing to sue over this because a hospital will take care of you until you are better not just stabilized. When you are sick again, they will take you back in again.ssolitare said:
Stuff like this happens all the time. When I sold insurance, I had to constantly tell people of the benefits of paying 100.00 for renters insurance. They didn't, a fire comes along and they lost all of their stuff. They're morons, but like most other people, they don't think things like this can happen to them.Ashhong said:
Maybe they're not morons just broke. Regardless, the fire department would still try to put out the fire if they are there. Heck a person who works as a firefighter but off duty will often times see what can be done to help a citizen out.
JGS said:
So it is okay as long as they refuse to provide service for anyone who lives outside of their jurisdiction? They did consider that option: http://www.cityofsouthfulton.org/Minutes/081904 Agenda & Minutes.pdf
So why do I need to pay for local fire protection via my taxes? Certainly my town should be able to close their fire department and just rely on neighboring cities to put out our fires without any compensation at all, right? I mean they are "close enough"
Mandating the charge is not an option, they have no jurisdiction over these non-residents. In the link I posted you'll see how unhappy the freeloading non-residents are about having to even pay this fee at all.
and if you require a heart transplant? chemotherapy?
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
it was either that or XBox Live GoldAshhong said:
MIMIC said:
They respond to all fires when lives are reported to be in danger
These issues are concerns of other departments than the South Fulton Fire Department (I'll remind everyone again that this fire was not in South Fulton). The county has resources of their own, just not a fire department equipped to handle burning buildings.
Republicans
The link didn't pull up but of course they can. Them accepting a fee was them acknowledging that they would have at least a quasi-jurisdiction for that township. They could have easily just refused to accept a fee and not worry about anyone's home there although that would be the sillier option.sangreal said:
City/county assistance happens all the time. Where I live, it's a merged goverment so the whole county is already taken care of.sangreal said:
South Fulton is in Obion County and they are clearly willing to helping the other communities in the county for a price and we can assume the price is necessary for the added service area. Rather than have a tax for just city residents, the communities should have a fee for providing the fire services for everyone. It should be an all or nothing proposition or the community pays it and collects it from the residents. HOA's do it all the time. If they don't want the fee/tax, fair enough- round up your own firefighting volunteers and take care of the city residents only.
This is incorrect. They have complete control of the fire services. Rather than serve one and not another, they should refuse service altogether or charge as a whole.sangreal said:
That's not the same thing as stabilization. If you have cancer, you can certainly receive treatment for the cancer without insurance and a heart transplant would never be something that's guarenteed even if you have insurance. Those are also two things that would never be performed in an ER. If you are actually dying as a result of a need for either of those things, you're dead already and will be given plenty of morphine to cope.sangreal said:
I agree with and this could be a part of the stabilization process or if there are sent home with meds, they are a phone call and ambulance away from going back there. My issue is the idea that firefighters sitting around literally doing nothing when they could be doing their job is akin to some doctors seeing if you have moola before they finish treating you. That's not normally the case.Buttchin said:
EDIT: Actually it's not normallly the case for firefighters to do this either.
JGS said:
It isn't a township, it is unincorporated land within the county. Everyone's property is separate. They need to collect the fee in advance in order to have the capacity to serve the properties.
All of the fire departments in Obion County participate in mutual aid when requested by another fire department but that doesn't apply here.
I agree, but this is a failing on the part of the county and not the South Fulton Fire Department. The residents of the county refuse to adopt that scheme. It was proposed as part of the rejected plan I posted earlier:
Not sure what you mean. The city of South Fulton doesn't have the authority to mandate any charges on people who live outside of the city. The county can do this, but they refuse.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The fact that the failings of this situation are so similar to those of a broken healthcare system only serves as evidence that it needs to be changed.sangreal said:
SapientWolf said:
I'm not arguing in favor of the situation or the failings of our healthcare system. My argument is that this incident was the fault of Obion County and its policies and not the South Fulton Fire Department. Other people keep making the comparison to healthcare with the suggestion that hospitals don't allow people to die over money which is false -- broken or not. Denzel even made a movie about it.
It is a poor comparison anyway, since saving somebody's life is inarguably more important than saving their house which they themselves valued at less than $75/year.
But that's obviously not the case or else they couldn't afford to go out there to stand around and protect the neighbor's property. However, I get what your saying, but every county has some juridiction over their residents. County residents don't live in the wild west and the city could have come to terms with the county.sangreal said:
I guess I am saying that I place the blame for this particular incident on the firefighters there. I am no saint, but I would have risked my job to put out that fire & I can't imagine I'm the only one that thinks like that. However, overall it's the county's fault for not coming upt with a better solution than the one they have.
This is why it should be an all or nothing proposition. I'm sure most people are willing to pay the 75.00 fee, but for the dingbats that don't, time and money is saved by simply charging them anyway or refusing to service the county.sangreal said:
To be clear, if all of this is really over the fee and they have a record of everyone that pays, then it should be an easy thing for them to keep a record of the ones who owe the fee and suing them plus the expense of putting out the fire. It's as simple as an Excell spreadsheet.
I'm saying it in the sense that they are in complete control of who they help or not and what their fees are. They are also in control of simply offering the service. If the homeowner gave them permission to put out the fire, then they had the authority to collect based on that agreement and for whatever amount beyond the 75.00.sangreal said:
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Obion County's policies were the enabler, Cranick's lack of payment and fire safety was the catalyst, but the buck stops with the South Fulton Fire Department. None of them are completely blameless.sangreal said:
Failed policies enable these type of tragedies but people are often able to go around or even change those policies to prevent them, if they choose to do so. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
gutter_trash
Banned
this could have been avoided if they had a special ruling where they would BILL people who did not pay the 75 bucks with double or quadruple the fee
I am sure they would pay it after it being saved
3rd world country
I am sure they would pay it after it being saved
3rd world country
Don't most house fires in rural areas end up being a total loss anyways? I work with several volunteer firefighters from small towns and when we went to a firebrigade refresher, most didn't even bother fully suiting up and skipped their flash hood. I asked why and they told me they never do interior firefighting because the houses are usually fully engulfed by the time they get there. Most volunteers get paged to the fire department. By the time they get there and fully suited up and then get to the fire 20 mins can easily have passed. That's long enough for it to be a total loss.
This situation might be different since they were probably serviced by firefighters in the city who were on standby, but even then a long response time would leave you with little salvagable stuff.
This situation might be different since they were probably serviced by firefighters in the city who were on standby, but even then a long response time would leave you with little salvagable stuff.
gutter_trash said:
Yeah, and who would pay before hand? If they aren't going to pay when the risk is losing their house you think they'd pay if the risk is losing $500? How would the FD retain the capacity to serve the area
Javaman said:
I think the average response time is around 12 minutes but in this case they did have 2 hours before the fire reached the house.
JGS said:
Well you seem to be aware of all of the facts, so we will just have to disagree on where that leaves the blame
GoldenEye 007
Member
So you're proposing a tax on residents that don't live in the jurisdiction?gutter_trash said:
gutter_trash said:
again as people mentioned before why would anyone then pay for the $75 initial fee
if the risk was so low and they could simply be billed i know i wouldnt pay it then (for $150 at least i wouldnt). They need everyone to chip in there small amount if they want the department to remain funded... To do that you sadly have to make the risk of not taking the $75 and having the fire substantial.
Now if they bill them the cost of it in full and then double it.... Maybe then but still i dont really know how much it costs to put out a fire and run the department so im entirely guessing. Just my two cents
7 pages of people failing to understand:
A $75 on-the-spot option would just result in everyone paying on-the-spot if they ever have a fire. With fires being rare, the fire department wouldn't have any damned money. In fact, fires are so rare that any on-the-spot amount you could imagine would either be too low to be a deterrent, or too high for anyone to pay it if they're actually hit with the fee for it.
Taxes don't come into play here because the fucking area was outside of their jurisdiction. As a Californian, I sure as fuck don't expect other fire departments to come to our aid when we set our selves on fire every other week. (And I'm very grateful for those that do help out anyway.)
Services were not wasted - the firefighters were there making sure other homes were protected, and they did indeed go to work when the fire tried to spread to a neighboring house.
Public safety was addressed. The firefighters were there making sure that nobody got dedded, and that homes that did pay up were protected.
Police not stopping crimes in progress is not a valid comparison. Firefighters would still rescue anyone in danger, paid up or not. A house fire is not a crime in progress, and there is nothing gained beyond the salvage of personal property by putting it out.
Shitty situation, but duder should've checked the box that said "Yes! I'd like to have my shit saved in case of fire, for the low, low price of $75.".
A $75 on-the-spot option would just result in everyone paying on-the-spot if they ever have a fire. With fires being rare, the fire department wouldn't have any damned money. In fact, fires are so rare that any on-the-spot amount you could imagine would either be too low to be a deterrent, or too high for anyone to pay it if they're actually hit with the fee for it.
Taxes don't come into play here because the fucking area was outside of their jurisdiction. As a Californian, I sure as fuck don't expect other fire departments to come to our aid when we set our selves on fire every other week. (And I'm very grateful for those that do help out anyway.)
Services were not wasted - the firefighters were there making sure other homes were protected, and they did indeed go to work when the fire tried to spread to a neighboring house.
Public safety was addressed. The firefighters were there making sure that nobody got dedded, and that homes that did pay up were protected.
Police not stopping crimes in progress is not a valid comparison. Firefighters would still rescue anyone in danger, paid up or not. A house fire is not a crime in progress, and there is nothing gained beyond the salvage of personal property by putting it out.
Shitty situation, but duder should've checked the box that said "Yes! I'd like to have my shit saved in case of fire, for the low, low price of $75.".
- Status