Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

Well you seem to be aware of all of the facts, so we will just have to disagree on where that leaves the blame

I don't think I'm really disagreeing except for maybe the idea that choice matters in public safety. Overall, I think it's a shared blame.

First, this incident is the fault of the people that were there and did nothing. I would not be upset in the slightest if they simply didn't respond since it was out of their jurisdiction, but since they were there, it was a douchey thing to do- especially calling the police on them. That's cold!:lol

The county is at fault because the are too collectively stupid to have figured out they need fire protection for all even if fires are few and far between.

 

[Buttchin]

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.".

this pretty much

 

[Ripclawe]

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.".

Exactly, they knew the procedure and decided to say to hell with it. Next time pay the fee and don't let your idiot grandson start a fire near the house in the first place and then leave it unattended.

 

[Korey]

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.".

Thank you.

I like how people in this thread are treating "not having your house burn down" as some sort of unalienable human right bestowed by god.

It's not. The only insurance from destruction of your material property and possessions is....insurance. And they failed to pay that insurance. It wasn't anyone else's responsibility to keep their house from burning down.

 

[Aselith]

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.".

Perfectly stated.

Someone at work brought up the insurance issue as we were discussing this. I don't know if it's been discussed in the thread but, if the guy had insurance, but not the fire protection, would the lack of fire protection negate the innsurance? I realized that yeah probably so this guy got double fucked in this situation.

 

[Javaman]

Perfectly stated.

Someone at work brought up the insurance issue as we were discussing this. I don't know if it's been discussed in the thread but, if the guy had insurance, but not the fire protection, would the lack of fire protection negate the innsurance? I realized that yeah probably so this guy got double fucked in this situation.

The quality of fire protection works it's way into the price of the insurance. I live close enough to a firestation that we get a discount. If he lied about having fire protection coverage that's another story.

 

[JGS]

Perfectly stated.

Someone at work brought up the insurance issue as we were discussing this. I don't know if it's been discussed in the thread but, if the guy had insurance, but not the fire protection, would the lack of fire protection negate the innsurance? I realized that yeah probably so this guy got double fucked in this situation.

No, it doesn't. His insurance already assumed that he was in the highest risk area unless the dn't use the maps I used (I think he would be a 9) It made him tough to insure to begin with but insurance would have factored in a lack of fire protection and charged accordingly. Farm Bureau companies will usually insure them.

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.

There's nothing wrong with paying on the spot for out of city runs for this type of ridiculous setup. As you said they are few and far between and don't affect the budget they get from the city. There's no way for them to go broke unless they were broke to begin with. Charge $200.00- $300.00 for on the spot or $75.00 pre-pay. You can even have a form for them to sign at the scene. It sure beats sitting there. As it is right now, it's the worst insurance rider ever and not firefighting at all.

A house fire is not a crime in progress, and there is nothing gained beyond the salvage of personal property by putting it out.

It can be if it's arson which the firefighters could help with too, but that's way down the issues list.

 

[numble]

There's nothing wrong with paying on the spot for out of city runs for this type of ridiculous setup. As you said they are few and far between and don't affect the budget they get from the city. There's no way for them to go broke unless they were broke to begin with. Charge $200.00- $300.00 for on the spot or $75.00 pre-pay. You can even have a form for them to sign at the scene. It sure beats sitting there. As it is right now, it's the worst insurance rider ever and not firefighting at all.

Everyone would just opt for the on-the-spot option, since the chances of fire in 25 years are probably extremely low. The firemen will have 1-2 fires a year to put out, and the spot fees won't cover their salaries.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

so did the firefighters do everything they should EXCEPT use water to put out the fire?

 

[Zzoram]

Guys, the firefighters couldn't just accept money on the spot. First of all, they don't have the authority to create a new pay-per-use fee structure. Second, firefighters don't have the authority to accept money. Third, if they did accept the money and put out the fire, the homeowner could then turn around and sue the fire department for extortion, and possibly even destruction of private property via water damage, because they had no jurisdiction over his house.

Without having signed up for the $75 fire protection service contract, his house was not considered part of their jurisdiction, so the firefighters had no power to act.



Should fire protection be a mandatory tax? I think so. Does it suck that these rural areas don't have it? Yes. Should there be a fee structure for the stubborn cheap asses who decide to gamble their house for $75? Probably. However, that's an issue for another day. In the moment, the firefighters couldn't just create a fee structure and collect money. They had to abide by the existing rules, and hope that before the next time the system will be revised to have a fee system for people who didn't sign up for the service but need immediate assistance.

 

[Zzoram]

I don't think I'm really disagreeing except for maybe the idea that choice matters in public safety. Overall, I think it's a shared blame.

First, this incident is the fault of the people that were there and did nothing. I would not be upset in the slightest if they simply didn't respond since it was out of their jurisdiction, but since they were there, it was a douchey thing to do- especially calling the police on them. That's cold!:lol

The county is at fault because the are too collectively stupid to have figured out they need fire protection for all even if fires are few and far between.

It's a rural area that has to contract with a nearby city to get fire protection. Since they don't pay taxes to the city, they have to subscribe to what amounts to fire protection insurance from a nearby city that does have a fire department. However, rural people are generally very anti-government. They probably voted in county officials who promised to cut taxes, and one of the ways they did it was by removing mandatory fire protection from the tax structure to give them the "freedom" to deicde if they want protection instead of having their county force taxes and forcibly contract fire protection from the nearby city for them. Public services are always cut along with taxes.

 

[SouthernDragon]

I agree 95% with Mudkipz, except for the taxes.

There's no countrywide firefighting service? Set one up, pay your taxes, avoid having your home burn to the ground.

 

[Burai]

I agree 95% with Mudkipz, except for the taxes.

There's no countrywide firefighting service? Set one up, pay your taxes, avoid having your home burn to the ground.

Small town America doesn't like being told what to do by county, state or national government. It'll never fly. $75 tax rise won't wash with these people. They'd rather save that money and cry about it later.

 

[The Faceless Master]

guys, you need to read the proposal that was linked a page or so back... one of the suggestions for the funding for full countywide coverage was a $3-5 surcharge per month per meter. yes, $48 a year per electrical meter, basically amounting to $36-60 per household. and it was rejected! many of the people in the rural areas just don't want fire service at any additional cost!

the simple fact is, the firefighters tried to get a proposal across to cover everyone, but people continue to be cheap, so only the people who pay are fully covered, while the ones who don't are only covered from bodily harm.

 

[DanteFox]

Just gonna stand there and watch me burn? That's alright because I love the way you lie.

I was gonna post that.

 

[iamaustrian]

this is ridiculous

would be the same if a doctor refuses to help an injured/sick person because he didn't pay for the service before!

 

[The Faceless Master]

this is ridiculous

would be the same if a doctor refuses to help an injured/sick person because he didn't pay for the service before!

it would be like a doctor refusing to help someone bake a cake, since the fire dept will respond if people are in danger.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Cops arrest criminals if they see them commiting a crime in another area

It should be no different for the fire fighters. The fire killed a half dozen animals and caused the destruction of a family. The insurance company of both the non-paying homeowner and the other homeowner should make that fire house pay.

That fire house should be ashamed of their selves. They're not a profit organization, they're a public service for the safety of the country. A small fire can quickly devestate an entire county.

Those who favor the fire fighters should be ashamed of themselves. Public safety comes before petty cash charges.

it would be like a doctor refusing to help someone bake a cake, since the fire dept will respond if people are in danger.

A house burning is a safe situation?

 

[Arde5643]

Cops arrest criminals if they see them commiting a crime in another area

It should be no different for the fire fighters. The fire killed a half dozen animals and caused the destruction of a family. The insurance company of both the non-paying homeowner and the other homeowner should make that fire house pay.

That fire house should be ashamed of their selves. They're not a profit organization, they're a public service for the safety of the country. A small fire can quickly devestate an entire county.

Those who favor the fire fighters should be ashamed of themselves. Public safety comes before petty cash charges.


A house burning is a safe situation?

There were no one in the house and fire was contained to only the house at that point - read the fucking posts before you.

Goddamnit, learn to read, people.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

How did the firemen know that for sure?

If they asked "is there anyone in the house?" and he replied "no" is that enough proof to possibly kill someone? Maybe the caller didn't know and was just guessing? Maybe he thought everyone was safe?

What gives the firemen the right to take that chance?

 

[Arde5643]

How did the firemen know that for sure?

If they asked "is there anyone in the house?" and he replied "no" is that enough proof to possibly kill someone? Maybe the caller didn't know and was just guessing? Maybe he thought everyone was safe?

What gives the firemen the right to take that chance?

Have you actually bothered to read the article at all?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Yes

Have you bothered to read anything I wrote?

 

[AndyD]

How did the firemen know that for sure?

If they asked "is there anyone in the house?" and he replied "no" is that enough proof to possibly kill someone? Maybe the caller didn't know and was just guessing? Maybe he thought everyone was safe?

What gives the firemen the right to take that chance?

The firefighters do not cover that jurisdiction. They are not responsible for the houses that do not opt in to the optional plan. Their insurance likely does not cover them fighting fires in areas not covered.

So if they went in there out of their good will, and the house collapsed and a firefighter died, what then? Would you say firefighter is hero, but sucks for his family who now gets nothing because insurance wont pay? Would you then blame insurance?

You get a homeowner who calls and says there's a fire and its not threatening his house. It took two hours to get to the house. He could have moved out half his furniture in that time had he wanted to. Let alone his animals and any people in there. And these houses are very far apart on large plots of land. This is not California with brush fires, its farmland.

 

[sangreal]

How did the firemen know that for sure?

If they asked "is there anyone in the house?" and he replied "no" is that enough proof to possibly kill someone? Maybe the caller didn't know and was just guessing? Maybe he thought everyone was safe?

What gives the firemen the right to take that chance?

Next time you see a fire, call the NYFD in NYC and see if they come put it out in Rochester. What gives them the right not to?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

What if they didn't and the house collapsed and a person died

for 75 dollars

Next time you see a fire, call the NYFD in NYC and see if they come put it out in Rochester. What gives them the right not to?

The fact I have my own fire district

That's not quite a great example either. In that case, the NYFD would call my local fire department to handle it, so in the end the fire would still be put out.

 

[AndyD]

What if they didn't and the house collapsed and a person died

for 75 dollars

I assume you mean if the firefighters did not respond. But they were told there were no people in the house. They are not clairvoyant. If the homeowner lied, its his problem and his fault. Its like people who wont tell their doctor they have such and such symptom, or they don't follow prescription instructions, you cant blame the doctor.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I assume you mean if the firefighters did not respond. But they were told there were no people in the house. They are not clairvoyant. If the homeowner lied, its his problem and his fault.

You're assuming he would have lied?

What if he thought everyone was safe, but someone had run back in to grab the cat or something?

Should we allow that chance to be taken?

 

[Dram]

Humane Society Condemns Subscription-Only Firefighters For Standing By And Letting Animals Die In Fire

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/08/humane-society-obion-county/

“It is inexcusable that three dogs and a cat would have to die in such a horrible way, with firefighters ordered to not intervene, because of an unpaid $75 service fee. Putting out fires is a matter of life and death for people and animals, and South Fulton city officials should quickly reconsider their emergency response policies before others are put at risk,” said Leighann McCollum, Tennessee state director for The HSUS.

 

[Korey]

How did the firemen know that for sure?

If they asked "is there anyone in the house?" and he replied "no" is that enough proof to possibly kill someone? Maybe the caller didn't know and was just guessing? Maybe he thought everyone was safe?

What gives the firemen the right to take that chance?

The "caller" was the family who lived there. If you read the article you would know that.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The "caller" was the family who lived there. If you read the article you would know that.

So?

That means without a doubt nobody is in the house? Because the family calls?

 

[AndyD]

You're assuming he would have lied?

What if he thought everyone was safe, but someone had run back in to grab the cat or something?

Should we allow that chance to be taken?

I dont assume he lied. I said I assume they took him to his word when he said there was no one in the house. Which was not threatened by fire at first.

And yes, that chance needs to be taken. You can't have them drive out to another county for an unpaying person, an uncovered incident at the slightest alarm, when they have a huge area to cover and they would liable if they may be needed elsewhere at the time.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I dont assume he lied. I said I assume they took him to his word when he said there was no one in the house. Which was not threatened by fire at first.

And yes, that chance needs to be taken. You can't have them drive out to another county for an unpaying person, an uncovered incident at the slightest alarm, when they have a huge area to cover and they would liable if they may be needed elsewhere at the time.

Life is worth 75$?

A house burning is not "the slightest alarm," a cat in a tree is "a slight alarm"

 

[Korey]

So?

That means without a doubt nobody is in the house? Because the family calls?

The FAMILY WHO LIVES THERE would know if there is anybody in the house.

What the hell are you rambling about? You want firefighters who aren't even working in their jurisdiction to run around randomly inside a burning house looking for nonexistent people in case the family who lives there is lying? You're a smart guy.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The FAMILY WHO LIVES THERE would know if there is anybody in the house.

What the hell are you rambling about? You want firefighters who aren't even working in their jurisdiction to run around randomly inside a burning house looking for nonexistent people in case the family who lives there is lying? You're a smart guy.

What if they thought everyone was safe?

I can very easily see in all the confusion someone thinking they saw a person, while they person is still in the house.

 

[AndyD]

Life is worth 75$?

A house burning is not "the slightest alarm," a cat in a tree is "a slight alarm"

Ask the guy whether life is worth $75. Or his house. People are allowed to be stupid. They just have to live with the consequences.

And the initial alarm was not house on fire, but a fire in a shed type thing, then it spread to the house from the description.

And your above comment is just stupid. Do you not trust anyone, ever?

 

[sangreal]

The fact I have my own fire district

Why? Have you considered getting rid of it? It seems like you are wasting money since your neighboring fire departments are obligated to put out any and all fires

 

[ultron87]

This thread is still going? Christ.

So?

That means without a doubt nobody is in the house? Because the family calls?

Yes. If the family tells any firefighter anywhere that no one is inside the house they sure as hell aren't going inside that house (if the fire has progressed to a point that the house is lost anyway). Firefighters don't want to run into burning buildings any more than you do.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Do you not trust anyone, ever?

In a time of emergency, no.

This thread is still going? Christ.

Yes. If the family tells any firefighter anywhere that no one is inside the house they sure as hell aren't going inside that house (if the fire has progressed to a point that the house is lost anyway). Firefighters don't want to run into burning buildings any more than you do.

That's assuming the firemen are actually at the house to access the situation and know if the house is lost.

 

[Zoe]

I can very easily see in all the confusion someone thinking they saw a person, while they person is still in the house.

It took two hours for the fire to touch the house.

 

[Roto13]

What if they thought everyone was safe?

I can very easily see in all the confusion someone thinking they saw a person, while they person is still in the house.

People don't rush into burning buildings unless they absolutely have to.

 

[Buttchin]

ahhhh the thread is brought back to life after a person comes back to revive it after all the arguments he's made have been discussed at length. Save everyone the trouble and simple start reading the thread from the beginning and then read all the posts (or start maybe halfway). Some you'll like, some you won't etc etc.

You'll get to see lots of articles. Some countywide proposals that were turned down. The Homeowners and the Firefighters takes on the matter. If you've done all that and are still in the mood to fight then continue on posting with something new that hasn't already been debated.

 

[Angry Grimace]

do you have to pay for everything in the US or what?

i know europeans get taxed so they gotta pay too but thats still way different as everybody is covered automatically and there won't be some tard rule where they let a mans home burn down WTF is wrong with humanity?

But it IS a tax. It's just an optional tax.

Captialism at work.

 

[JGS]

Everyone would just opt for the on-the-spot option, since the chances of fire in 25 years are probably extremely low. The firemen will have 1-2 fires a year to put out, and the spot fees won't cover their salaries.

That's only for the county. The salaries should be paid by the city anyway which is who they really service. The fee is to cover the added expense of them travelling outside the city or response area. Maybe I missed where the dept needs the county's money to survive though.

It's a rural area that has to contract with a nearby city to get fire protection. Since they don't pay taxes to the city, they have to subscribe to what amounts to fire protection insurance from a nearby city that does have a fire department. However, rural people are generally very anti-government. They probably voted in county officials who promised to cut taxes, and one of the ways they did it was by removing mandatory fire protection from the tax structure to give them the "freedom" to deicde if they want protection instead of having their county force taxes and forcibly contract fire protection from the nearby city for them. Public services are always cut along with taxes.

I know and it's sad. Fights like that happens in Kentucky although when it comes to fire protection, most counties have volunteers because people are dying to be firefighters here.

Safety was a big reason for Lexington having a merged government and I think Louisville just did it a few years ago, but they're both metropolitan areas. One of the reasons that rural areas are anti-government is because they are fairly independent or think they are. So if they have a shotgun and a bucket of water, that means they are taken care of security wise.

 

[Zombie James]

My God.

 

[The Faceless Master]

How is this thread still going? It's like a fire that can't be extinguished

we didn't pay the fee.

Cops arrest criminals if they see them commiting a crime in another area

It should be no different for the fire fighters. The fire killed a half dozen animals and caused the destruction of a family. The insurance company of both the non-paying homeowner and the other homeowner should make that fire house pay.

That fire house should be ashamed of their selves. They're not a profit organization, they're a public service for the safety of the country. A small fire can quickly devestate an entire county.

Those who favor the fire fighters should be ashamed of themselves. Public safety comes before petty cash charges.

people who want to leech off the system when they can afford to pay should be ashamed of themselves.

A house burning is a safe situation?

depends. are people in danger?

My God.

wow, Beck actually laid it out, nailed it and shut down Bill. the community had no fire coverage. period. until 20 years ago. some people didn't want any, some people did, and this is the solution they came up with. wish he had told Bill that there was a proposal for everyone to be covered but it failed. i wonder what Bill would have said if he knew the people didn't want a good solution...

 

[Escape Goat]

Why won't this thread die.


/sets fire to the thread, hopes GAF didn't pay for their protection this year

 

[nib95]

Even though I despise Fox and both presenters, I'm with O'Reilly on this one. Ok, so you didn't pay the $75 fee, instead of watching a few hundred thousand dollars worth of goods and property go down in the blaze, we'll fix your mess, but charge you a bigger fee for work and services (i.e a few thousand dollars).

Basically like travel insurance. Take it or not, jobs getting done either way. You either pay big if God forbid you do get stung, or pay a smaller fee and get covered.

 

[Escape Goat]

Even though I despise Fox and both presenters, I'm with O'Reilly on this one. Ok, so you didn't pay the $75 fee, instead of watching a few hundred thousand dollars worth of goods and property go down in the blaze, we'll fix your mess, but charge you a bigger fee for work and services (i.e a few thousand dollars).

Basically like travel insurance. Take it or not, jobs getting done either way. You either pay big if God forbid you do get stung, or pay a smaller fee and get covered.

Then the family sues the fire dept for signing a contract under duress. Court throws contract out, fire dept out of more money through court costs.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I haven't read this thread, but I was wondering.. would the fire department get involved if someones life were in danger, or would they still stand in the sidelines? Have they actually addressed this?

 

[Escape Goat]

I haven't read this thread, but I was wondering.. would the fire department get involved if someones life were in danger, or would they still stand in the sidelines? Have they actually addressed this?

They would have intervened if someone were in the house.