Slashdot Mirror
Firefighters Let House Burn Because Owner Didn't Pay Fee
Dthief writes "From MSNBC: 'Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat. "They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.'"
That may be true, but the county can raise property taxes by $75 for everyone outside city limits and administer this themselves, rather than making it optional or more complicated. There's no reason that one should have a choice. If everyone should be paying, then make it part of the budget and fold those fees into taxes.
His county HAS NO FIRE DEPT.
There is no technical reason preventing them from starting a fire dept. However doing so would require raising taxes. Given the size of the county and low population density taxes might need to be raised SIGNIFICANTLY (likely more than $75 per capita) to fund a county fire dept.
The nearby town offers coverage (because the county he lives in, pays taxes in, and votes in) has no fire protection of their own. Now fire depts cost money so the town doesn't provide it free to non-residents. IF you live in the town would you want to pay higher taxes to offer free coverage to non-residents outside the town (who don't pay town taxes)? I don't think so. So the town offers (they can't force, they have no ability to tax non-residents) coverage for a modest $75. The homeowner denied coverage. He wasn't covered.
If the town didn't offer coverage to non-residents he also wouldn't be covered and his home would still have burned.
So in the future the county can
a) fund a fire dept
b) increase county/real estate taxes by $75 per residence and get a blanket contract for whole county to be covered by the town fire dept.
c) encourage residents to pay $75.
The town isn't at fault because the county has no fire dept.
The town isn't at fault because the county resident (who they have no legal authority to tax) didn't pay the $75 fee.
The town isn't at fault because the county govt didn't just step in and pay for coverage for all county residents.
"You've essentially described one of the fundamental problems with public goods -- if it's provided for the benefit of all, how do you avoid free-riders?"
What about the guy that burns his house down every 3 years? Or the guy that burns his house down because he was a smoker and dropped a cigarette? Should I pay the same $75 as the guy being neglectful? If I don't smoke or don't have a fire in 10+ yrs or have a newer up-to-code house or have a alarm system that automatically calls the police shouldn't I get a discount? Homeowner's insurance gives discounts on all of those things, so why is the fee the same?
This $75 thing is just a huge can of worms.
Also why didn't the home owner's insurance pay the $75 a year? After all they're the ones getting screwed here, not the guy. They should have automatically paid the $75 and just added it to his insurance policy just like mortgage companies will often pay the personal property tax (even if they're not escrowed) if the homeowner doesn't and add it to the monthly payment.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Because that's really the whole point of having a county government - to organize basic services efficiently. Look at the outrage over someone who didn't get service because they didn't pay their bill. Everyone obviously feels that they have a right to that coverage. Making it optional really just ends up making you look bad. There's no benefit to anyone.
"From what I've read, this is a voluntary fee because they do not live within the city limits."
County > city. Taxes should have been paying for this all along.
Did you fail your basic civics lessons?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Mod -1 flamebait.
Over here, we have this crazy idea that PEOPLE run the government, not the other way around, and that they can CHOOSE not to have their government provide a certain service if they don't want their tax dollars being spent on it.
Fought a war over that one. Forgot who won. Do you remember?
By the way, that $75 as a tax would mean that failure to pay would result in loss of household in about three years anyway. As a voluntary fee, failure to pay might result in loss of household IF there is a fire. You choose you r poison, you takes your chances.
The city has no obligation to also serve people who reside outside of it.
The imaginary line around the city does not absolve people in the fire department from their moral obligation to help anyone who needs help.
Used to be if there was a fire everyone within reach would be running with a bucket.
Now you have "professionals" who niggle over taxation vs. fee-based services while your pets are incinerated.
>>>What this IS is an example of democracy. The people of that county are free to rule themselves in this matter.
Progressives (big government types) only believe in democracy when it agrees with them. When it doesn't agree with them, then they ram it down the voters' throats even if they don't want it. Like when 80% were against the Bush Corporate Bailout Bill, but it got passed anyway. And 70% against the Healthcare Bill, but it too got passed.
In THIS case the voters don't want a fire department. They want an opt-in system Some here, the progressives, thing the will of the voters should be over-ruled. They don't believe in democracy.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
your expectation have no basis in reality. the insurance company may have an issue with the homeowner not paying for protection, but they would not expect a fire department to fight a fire for free. Sounds like you will have a lot of growing up when you leave your daddies house. Here in the real world, nothing is free, and stupid decisions can often have serious results.
But that does not take into account what would happen to the fire dept if anyone got hurt, or equipment damaged, etc... What happens when a firefighter dies fighting the fire
What happens when the guy's hidden meth lab explodes, blowing burning hazardous materials onto neighbor's houses and potentially killing everyone nearby?
It looks like this homeowner specifically declined to pay the $75. If the city started letting people pay the fee after they needed it, it would be like buying auto insurance after you've had a wreck and expecting the insurance company to cover you for that wreck. In other words, after a while, the only $75 payments they'd collect would be for the houses that actually caught on fire.
You mean, it would be exactly like Obamacare where insurance companies are not allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The fact that you're willing to accept damage control over total elimination of the problem in the interest of principle as a counterpoint says a lot about your ethics. None of those words are complimentary.
One could argue that the system this as disgusting, warped and unethical as this can only exist with a permission from equally unethical, warped and disgusting individuals.
Of course this would have no impact on your taxes, your taxes would be just as high.
Why?
I see from your UID it's low, yet you are asking a question of someone who was born yesterday. So how much did you buy your UID for on ebay?
But to the question, it's the basis of capitalism. Once you establish a fee someone pays, you never reduce it, no matter what extra money your able to nickel & dime with other charges later.
Be seeing you...