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.'"
Uhhh, yea. That's how it works.
Your city and county taxes pay for fire departments. If your county is too poor to pay for a fire department, you may have a volunteer fire department, or the nearest municipality may charge a fee to cover service. If you don't pay that fee, you don't get fire protection.
It ain't rocket science. Some bubba sets his own house on fire, and then whines because the people he didn't pay, didn't come to put it out. I've lived in Tennesee: they really don't like taxes there. That's fine, but there are consequences.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
You have to pay your taxes if you want municipal services. If you wave it away claiming you don't want government interference in your life, then the firefighters will not interfere with fire burning down your house. The guy sadly got exactly what he argued for in the first place when he turned the city down.
This is what happens when you don't have socialism.
This one time I didn't have contents insurance and got robbed and all the insurance companies stood around doing nothing because I didn't have a policy with any of them!
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
for libertarians everywhere.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wouldn't work. Look, it's not like there are fire hydrants out there. That fire department depends on those fees to get tank trucks and other stuff you have to have to fight rural fires. If you could just pay as you go, then no one would ever pay, and the fire department wouldn't be able to afford the equipment.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
They turned up to stop the spread of the fire to a neighbouring property, then they stood and watched as the house burnt to the ground, killing the animals inside. The guy forgot to pay $75, offered to make good on it, and they refused, they just watched his house, his life's possessions, and his pets burn alive.
I don't care who you are, that's callous beyond anything I wish to respect.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Load of shit? Ok, I have 200 people under this arrangement. 100 pay, 100 don't. One of the 100 who don't pay end up needing the service. I bill him $75 but the other 99 don't pay but, in effect, got the service.
What is the incentive for ANYONE to pay in this type of arrangement?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
A publicly funded fire brigade? What's next? Public healthcare? You dirty socialist!
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
That's in the article, too, if common sense couldn't tell you: then instead of paying an annual fee, people would only pay if and when their house is on fire. And since that's pretty rare, the fee would have to be raised to a ridiculous amount to cover the costs of the fire department.
I think the best solution for essential services like these is to make paying for them mandatory, i.e. by including the costs in taxes.
Perhaps the better policy would be to go ahead and fight the fire and then put a lein on the property. So, you pay the yearly fee, or in case of fire, you pay a fine.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Nuff sed.
Table-ized A.I.
Dude, it's the state, not the country. Don't blame fricking Obama for the problems of Fulton County Tennesee's rural fire department! That's just absurd.
In most other states, there'd be a state income tax, or a hefty county tax, or a sales tax or something to support fire coverage for all the citizens in the county. They didn't want that there, so there is a fee. And if you don't pay it, you're screwed. And it's their own bed to lie in.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
In case any of you are wondering, this is exactly the reason why a lot of us detest libertarianism, and refuse to vote for Ron Paul not because they think he can't win but because they think he would ruin this country.
I absolutely disagree with the idea that the state should have to pay for this joker's bad decisions. That's money out of all of our pockets because he can't make a rational choice.
Forcing everyone to pay for fire coverage (via taxes) is fine. But that doesn't mean that we owe some joker in some county that didn't feel the need.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
As decent human beings, I would imagine that many of the firefighters wanted to help the guy out. On the other hand, what kind of precedent does that set? Don't pay and your house is on fire? Well, I guess we'll help out this time. What incentive would there be for anyone to pay the fee if they all knew that the fire department would come and help them out anyway? No... as much as it pains me to say it, the fire department made the right choice, if they had done anything else the whole system would fall apart. Maybe that would have been a good thing, but I don't see that it is the firefighters job to make that decision.
Easy solution: Put out the fire, then hit him with a massive fine. Say 10x the actual cost of fighting the fire.
The service obviously wasn't "essential." The home owners are still alive. If they thought their home was worth more than $75 they would have paid the bill.
the roof, the roof is on fire.
Extra medication for all!
What is next a cop fee and if you don't pay the cops will just stand there as you get raped as you did not pay the fee?
fireman and cops should be payed for with taxes!
also will the fireman pass up a burning car as they don't know if the people in the car payed?
This what the republic want for health care but with health care buying on your own can cost $1000+ month with a big list of stuff not coved and if you are sick then it can be hard to get it at all. Some job only have that min med that cost about $700+ year + copays with $2000 MAX YEAR PAY OUT AND that is joke care.
There's a lot of libertarians here on Slashdot. Well, this is what a libertarian utopia looks like, kids. If this strikes you as unjust and cruel, you'd probably better stop listening to Glen Beck on the teevee, and start voting for candidates who believe that government is a useful thing.
(If, on the other hand, you're happy with the outcome of this story, that's cool, you're not a hypocrite, and, we can agree to disagree.)
As for "why not put out the fire and then bill him", the $75 fee is not to put out the fire, it's to keep the fire department running when there *isn't* a fire. You can no more pay the bill after you need the service than you can wait until after you get cancer to start paying for medical insurance. The system can't work that way.
Your political philosophy does not work. At one time, all fire departments operated under these terms; there were no municipally supported fire companies. You know what the number one cause of fires was during those times? Fire departments. Give me some good old fashioned socialism any day. Libertarian philosophy - or as I like to call it, "Fuck you, I've got mine", has already been tried. We rejected feudalism hundreds of years ago. Why go backwards?
Animal cruelty charges should be brought, they allowed 4 pets to die...frankly I would be more pissed about that than losing my stuff.
If your county is too poor to pay for a fire department, you may have a volunteer fire department, or the nearest municipality may charge a fee to cover service. If you don't pay that fee, you don't get fire protection.
But in the interest of public good, a fire that's allowed to burn out-of-control at one home could spread to another home, or to a forest, extending the initial threat from a single private residence to the general welfare of the public. If I were this man's neighbor, and the fire that the fire department let burn suddenly engulfed my house as well, I would be quite the irate citizen.
There is public good in not permitting a fire from growing, regardless of whether or not someone payed their municipal fees. As such, fire protection should be a public service guaranteed to all citizens, funded through taxes, rather than be an optional insurance paid for at the individual level. We realized long ago that individual and/or private firefighting services were not in the best interests of the public.
NO, you bill them for the cost, not the missed payment. The entire cost. which I believe is about 7500 dollars.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The problem with that policy is that it endangers the neighbor's houses and everyone's lives. If I were a paid-up neighbor, I would be pissed off at any damage that could have been prevented.
I really don't see what the problem is. If the householder doesn't pay the $75, charge them $1000 when you come out to save the house. That way the surrounding properties are not put in danger, the fire department gets more money than they otherwise would have and they don't end up looking like petty, money hungry dicks.
Right up until the moment they need the government. Ain't it a bitch?
I was raised liberal in a redneck part of the country. And a lot of kids I grew up with thought it was clever to call the cops "the pigs". The first time my mom caught me pulling that shit, she pulled me aside and bitched me out, telling me, "You won't be calling a pig on the day you need a cop."
Frankly, I like nice roads. I like a school tax that enables stores to hire cashiers who can read. I like the idea that if any brown people overthrow their government while I'm on vacation that I can go to the embassy and the Marines will fly me the fuck out of there.
I'm a supporter of paying higher taxes -- just make sure I get some decent services to go with it.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
I realize they were in their "rights" legally and such to put out the neighbours fire and not his.. (from the TFA, they just sat there and made sure it didn't spread). But I mean, as a human, what the fuck. Is there so little empathy?
As human beings, I'm sure there was plenty of empathy. And now that this guy's got national attention, I'm sure there will be plenty more. There'll be donations a-plenty. He'll probably be fine.
But water isn't free... Nor is the gas to drive the truck out there... Nor are the paychecks that all the fire fighters collect... You can't really run a fire department for free. If they start running around, putting out fires for free, pretty soon there won't be a fire department at all.
Why couldn't they have put it out and then billed him? He probably would have been so happy he would have paid it. This reeks of callousness. What have "we" become (I'm not american, but I am a human, I think..)
Fire departments cost money all the time, not just when stuff is on fire. You have to pay to maintain the equipment, pay the employees, etc. You need that money year-round, not just when stuff is on fire. And, if you're lucky, more people pay you (via taxes or fees) than people actually have fires. So you don't have to charge every single person the full cost of putting out their fire.
If they were allowed to collect money at the time of the fire, nobody would pay ahead of time. I mean, hell, why would you? Pay $75 now on the off chance that you might have a fire... Or pay $75 when your house is actually in flames, and if it never burns you don't have to pay... Tough choice!
But then the fire department has no money to maintain anything, no money to hire anyone. And then you've got no fire department at all.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
The City of South Fulton doesn't have the authority to issue fines to people who don't live in their town.
"Why not put out the fire and then bill him for the $75?"
I was thinking he should get a fine, like parking meters, it's only 50 cents an hour to park YMMV and no one's watching too closely and you could park and not pay, but if you're caught it's a $50+ fine.
I say put out the fire and bill him $7500+. If he don't pay put a lien on the house and take the house.
But to just stand there and watch it burn? That should be criminal, what if people died? I think the firefighters should go to jail. What has his world come to when the people sworn to serve and protect decide not to? Sounds like anarchy.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
It set the precedent that your human beings.
I don't know why this is missed by people here, but OBVIOUSLY you would bill him for putting it out. OBVIOUSLY I mean the entire cost not the 75 dollars.
I would get fired before I let someones home burn down. To hide behind 'policy' and rules is a way to cover up entrenched callousness and cowardice.
The whole thing reeks of 3rd world policy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
While yes it is sad that this happened to the family, I think this is a fantastic example of what happens when right wing capitalist values meet reality. They are so obsessed over the evils of socialism, how forcing people to pay for services 'used by other people' is anathema.
So here is what happens when you don't feel you should have to put money into the collective pool for social services. Thanks but no thanks. If some relatively small taxes is the price I have to pay for this kind of peace of mind, I'll take it every time.
This is why the health care plan will still fail. There's a fine associated with not getting health insurance, which besides being an infringement of natural rights doesn't keep anyone from simply buying health insurance when they need it because the fine is less than the cost of health insurance, and now you can't be turned down for preexisting conditions.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Exactly - this guy still owes $75 for the LAST fire his idiot redneck grandson started that the fire dept. put out (despite his not having been paid up at that time, either).
Second strike you lose, dumbass.
And no, rural TN will never support raising taxes to eliminate this nonsense. The stupid grows thick there.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Fire dept and police department services are NOT optional. This isn't a cell phone subscription or some opt in bullshit. These are required services needed to live.
If the voters in that district agreed with you, they would have approved the tax.
Thankfully this is America, where democracy still holds some kind of value, and the actual residents of the county get to decide what their laws say.
In addition his neighbor did the same to the firefighters. They refused.
Finally, according to the guy, he pays public safety taxes that go to things like shiny new fire engines, that they can drive out to his house (so they can toast smores and watch it burn).
My issues are two fold:
1. The guy offered to pay (he claimed that he forgot about the fee, who hasn't missed a bill payment once in their life?)
2. This runs afoul of the Good Samaritan Laws. Anyone who was driving by that might have helped out, saw the firefighters and figured they were handling things.
For those who think he got what he deserved, think about this: if you're driving though this town and your car catches fire, you didn't pay the fee, so they won't try in save it, but they'll watch your car burn.
Emergency services are not optional. They must be funded through taxes. We need a law to state this, I mean just look up the crash tax.
I pay my taxes so these people are covered when driving though my town, why am I not covered by them when I drive through their town?
=================
Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
Uh, sure they do. It's just a different 'fee'.
Preventative fire fee: $75.
Urgent right now fire fee: $10000.
Case closed.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
If the teabaggers had their way, this is what government would run like.. A government by the people, for the people that can afford it.
Now, what happens when there is a paperwork mistake and the fee had been paid? What if it were a case of arson, and stopping the building from burning would have preserved evidence? What does the insurance company do? Raise rates for every one in that town?
South Fulton used to send out bills of $500 to non-payers for fire response. Less than 50% of the people paid that bill.
They realized that they would have to get a court order to collect the rest.
Subscription districts suck.
This approach did not make the fire companies popular - espicially the incidents in which they would sit outside a burning building with a family trapped inside burning alive, trying to negociate payment and refusing to rescue anyone until the money was assured. The first public, tax-funded fire service (In Britain, anyway) was in response to the public outcry about these practices of dubious ethics.
Why does this remind me of the health care argument? People claiming that this sort of things is optional and they shouldn't have to pay, knowing in their minds that it's only a matter of time before they DO need to rely on that service. I have no sympathy for this family. They should have been responsible citizens and paid their dues just like everyone else, instead of assuming they could freeload off the system in an emergency.
It was a neighbouring city government that had agreed to provide fire services on an individual basis to people in a county that didn't want to either set up it's own fire department or be annexed by the city.
In this case the city government was just like a private contractor.
That's true, this is like the health care debate. In this case, someone chose not to buy the service, and the public outcry will be, "That's terrible! No one should have that choice!" Also, note that the fire victim was surprised that the FD wouldn't take his $75 while the fire was in progress. If it were health care he needed, he'd complain that his house being currently on fire is a "pre-existing condition" and that an insurer should be legally forced to insure him the moment he feels like paying.
The comparison to national health care doesn't quite fit though, because the question there is whether the US federal government has lawful authority under the Constitution to order people to buy things. It definitely does not, if the Constitution is still a meaningful limit on federal power.
Revive the Constitution.
The only thing that tires me more than a frothing libertarian is a frothing libertarian hater, of which there seem to be more than actual libertarians.
If you knew anything about what the hell you were talking about you'd realize that libertarians aren't opposed to all government, just parts of it. As with any group of humans there's variance, some are quite moderate, some are more extreme. However you find that things like military and public safety, which fire departments are, are things they almost universally are ok with taxes paying for.
There's a big difference between saying "Reduce or eliminate many government programs," and saying "Eliminate ALL government." That would be anarchists, not libertarians.
Also please realize the people suggesting bill him mean "Bill him for the cost of putting out the fire." It would be a case of "Pay $75/year in insurance, or pay the full cost if there is a fire."
That is the proper way to handle a situation like this, since fire is a public safety issue. Not putting out a fire should never be an option since the problems isn't that a house may burn down, it is that all of them may burn down. Ask London what happens when you lack proper fire control.
"Why not put out the fire and then bill him for the $75?"
But to just stand there and watch it burn? That should be criminal, what if people died? I think the firefighters should go to jail. What has his world come to when the people sworn to serve and protect decide not to? Sounds like anarchy.
When did the firefighters of South Fulton Kentucky ever swear to serve and protect the people of Obion County Kentucky? They have no legal responsibility to protect anyone outside of their jurisdiction. The subscription fee puts them in their jurisdiction. No subscription fee, no jurisdiction.
And honestly, 90% of the Volunteer Fire Departments in my area of the country don't take any kind of Oath. I didn't take one when I was an EMT either.
yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, no.. then put a lien on the house and sue his insurance company.. I am suprised the insurance company doesnt make it mandatory to have this service paid up to date...
Even 3rd world African countries have free fire protection.
In fact, as far has I know, the last state that asked a fee for fire protection was Rome. I think that says a lot about USA. Even more when I see so many comments here in Slashdot supporting the fire department action.
Also it says in TFA that this has been their policy for the past 20 years, so it's kind of hard to blame Obama for it; the only weird thing is that there don't seem to be reports of this having happened before. Maybe the media just didn't pick up on it last time?
To every Tea Party type that thinks it was a shame, get over it. Fire protection is socialism. I WANT SOCIALISM. Let's fund these damned things, huh? Pay a fucking tax at the STATE level. And if they can't pay, let the STATE deal with it. Fire zones should be based on a municipality, but should be funded in the same way STATE POLICE are funded.
If libertarians had their way and fire departments were privatized across the country:
Incidents like this would become an almost daily affair.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
They're not in the town.
That would set a terrible precedent. Everyone would see that the $75 was not required and opt out. The FD would only be able to collect from people that had fires. I doubt that would be anywhere NEAR enough money to keep them operating unless they drastically increased the fee.
Does the FD not have matches?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
An interesting sub-topic to be sure. Do you think he had the right to expect those services to be available to him knowing that he refused to pay into the system? I wasn't referring to the larger question of the legality of Health Care and I don't want to get too side tracked from the topic at hand with such. I was more interested in the fact that he refused to pay for the service and then expected them to provide such services for the original fee after it became an emergency.
I see that as very similar to folks who refuse to pay for health insurance, and then expect to be able to go to the emergency room for treatment. It just struck me as a little too close in general situation to the health care debate.
Apologies if I didn't make that clear.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define:whinge
It's not that hard. Policing large events and festivals frequently involves the organisers being billed for it, sometimes retroactively, sometimes in advance. Any fire service that doesn't have a good idea of what the costs are when the firemen are called out frankly have utterly incompetent book keepers. They know how many man hours it took, how much any materials cost, maintenence and wear and tear on equiptment. You can even bill the time it takes for someone to calculate this.
You then claim this money off of his insurance or get a court to enforce him to pay it back in installments (when again, you can bill him for any costs arising through doing this).
Simple to fix. "Hi, we're here to put out your fire. Please sign this contract and we'll get started."
But emergency rooms are still required to treat the grievously injured, insured or not. What if there had been a life on the line, someone trapped inside the building. Does some kid have to die because his dad was to cheep or too stupid to pay a fee?
I understand why this happened this way but I don't see why it couldnt be structured differently. If wilderness rescue can charge a lost hiker for finding them without that hiker having to pay a $75 fee ahead of time just in case they get lost, why cant the fire department charge someone who didn't pay the fee up front. Obviously the fee for putting out the fire should be a lot more than what the person would pay if they just paid in advance but it should be an option.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
The bill the county, the county fines the homeowner.
Or they bill the homeowner directly.
Note:Bill not Fine.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You don't pay taxes in Europe? You pay for it whether you realize it or not. In this case, this individual is in a separate county, so his taxes did not pay for that service. He is frankly no eligible to receive those services if he didn't pay for them.
As for me, I would never be so stupid as to refuse to pay a $75 dollar fee for fire service.
You're ignoring the greater problem: socialised defense! The federal government is taking your money, and using it to protect poor people from terrorism.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
A privatized fire department is equally as crazy as privatized health insurance. This is what will happen if the Republican extremists get their way.
The whole reason we have a government is to have someone to blame when things go wrong. That doesn't really work if we remember we are the government, so shut it. Comforting myths are comforting.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Standard IANAL disclosure blah blah. It seems to me like there could be some legal responsibility here in the case of loss of life. If you have the means, the opportunity and the training to prevent loss of life without substantial personal risk but willfully do nothing, I'd think, at the very least, you'd be liable for criminal negligence if not manslaughter.
The difference here is that these areas aren't covered under the city's charter. They are simply providing a service to people who otherwise have *no* fire protection.
Speaking as someone living in the "socialist hell" of Sweden I have to say that this absolutely baffles me, I've always seen neo-liberals ranting about how the world would be perfect if we all had to pay private police and fire departments for "protection" as the crazy ramblings of people so obsessed with their pet ideology that they shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone sane, and now it seems this is actually the status quo in some parts of the US.
I'm sorry but that's just scary, around here the (horrible horrible tax-funded) fire department will at least make an effort, even if you live out in the middle of nowhere...
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
I don't know how this might have played out in this situation, but over the past couple days I have read forum posts from Fire Chiefs in other parts of the country that say this is an issue.
A fire departments Insurance is only in place when they are responding to emergencies in their jurisdiction or when responding to legitimate requests for mutual aid into other jurisdictions.
Some of the Insurance Carriers are taking a hard line about subscription areas or areas without fire protection districts. If the fire department responds into areas without fire protection, the Insurance companies are refusing insurance claims for injuries or equipment damage because the fire department is covered in their own jurisdiction only. Subscribers in subscription areas are considered as being under their jurisdiction. Non-subscribers are out of district.
These Fire Chiefs are struggling with the moral dilemma this puts them under. The only way around it is for them to have a Contract or Memorandum of Understanding with the County that all the homes/businesses in the subscription area are part of their jurisdiction. Some counties have been reluctant to sign such agreements.
I've seen a lot on here about the unconscionable conduct of the fire department (and yes, they were douche-nozzles about the whole thing). What I haven't seen is commentary on why this guy's idiot grandson was burning rubbish in the first place. Use legitimate solid-waste disposal (landfill or, better yet, recycling) but don't burn the stuff! Not only can it cause property destruction, but it's also a health hazard if plastics are being burned and people happen to inhale the noxious fumes. Too bad this poor guy had to lose his home because his grandson is a fucktard.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
Yes, we get it, we all get it, the whole of Europe gets it. We KNOW that public services are paid for with taxes, we don't think they magically exist for free. The other thing is that we tend to pay our taxes up to the top, and then the top ensures that stuff like firefighting are paid-for nationwide. That also means that there isn't a jobsworth being employed to check whether homes currently being burnt down are covered. Frankly, this situation is stupid even for all the people who DO pay because time is wasted checking to see if they're on the list (and faffing around resolving mis-spellings, no-doubt) when the firefighters SHOULD be going to put out the fire immediately.
FGD 135
The article states that he "forgot". (In quotes.) There's no clarification that he had paid prior years on time or if he had been "forgetting" for several years. If anyone had been injured as a result of them not showing up over a $75 annual fee, then there would be a lot more shit hitting the fan.
Since his insurance is paying part of the loss, I'm assuming their stance on this will be very important. If they hold the homeowner to a higher standard because of his failure to pay, then he's lost everything and won't receive much compensation. If the insurance takes the view that this was a preventable loss and that the fire department should've shown up regardless, then this could be interesting.
The fire department should've shown up in either case. Worst case, he honestly forgot to pay this year and they'll get $75 out of showing up. If he's "forgotten" to pay the past few years, then they'll have grounds for a lien on this property until he can reimburse them for their costs.
If the neighbour's sustained any damage, I wonder who they'll go after. The broke guy who just lost everything, or the fire department?
Well, they've been forcing us to buy roads, tanks, buildings, lands, art, etc, etc, etc for centuries.
Though frankly I think it was a mistake not to offer a public option. Pretty much pointless without that. Still no real competition among insurance companies.
Why is it that, if I buy car insurance, it's just about me but if I buy health insurance it's completely contingent on my workplace? Buying health insurance for just me should be cheap, and yet it's not, and I have no alternative but to take the crap that's available to my workplace.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
But people get health insurance for more than just emergency events. So, enough people have health insurance that we can, theoretically, cover these costs. This doesn't work with fighting fires. In general, either your house is on fire, or it isn't. If every fire station had to respond to fires as a matter of law, then there would be no incentive to pay these fire fees and, therefore, no money to cover the cost of fighting these fires.
I say put out the fire and bill him $7500+. If he don't pay put a lien on the house and take the house.
So then he can sue them claiming that since he didn't sign a contract for their help, they shouldn't have helped, and therefore can't charge him for help, and therefore can't take his house. Further, if they made him sign a contract on the spot, he can try to get it invalidated by saying he wasn't of sound mind and body when he signed it (since his house was on fire).
I think the firefighters should go to jail. What has his world come to when the people sworn to serve and protect decide not to? Sounds like anarchy.
They didn't swear to serve and protect the public. They get paid to protect the people who pay them. They have no obligation to work for free, any more than you have an obligation to do your job for free.
So they showed up to put the fire out on the neighbor's property, but didn't do anything for him? Isn't there a law about Duty to Rescue? Even if there wasn't, simple Good Samaritan Laws would protect the firefighters...
I call BS.
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
OSHA considers a house fire to be "Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health"
All my personal protective equipment comes with warning labels that even when wearing the equipment properly, I can still be killed in a fire that the equipment will survive.
Every time I enter a building that is on fire it counts as "substantial personal risk". I am definitely at less risk than someone without the training or equipment, but I am still at risk.
If I am injured on a fire that my department has no legal responsibility to respond to, the Workman Comp Insurance provider can deny my claims.
Unless there is a pre-written agreement between the County and my Community, responding to a non-subscribers house fire is an out of jurisdiction response. The Subscription fee is what gives my fire department jurisdiction.
I wonder how long it will be until we hear they let someone's house burn down due to a clerical error,
i.e. they actually paid but the computer says they didn't. Or the 911 operator types in the wrong
address when they call. Seems sure to happen sooner or later.
...we should all pay a tax and the funds used to provide medical care to every citizen. But Saint Rush Limbaugh says that's morally wrong because most of "those people" don't deserve any.
Bad news: the scotus has already ruled that police can, in fact, legally stand by as you are raped. Even if they know about it. Even if you call for help.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
You never know what the whole story is. If I were desperately trying to keep my head above water and avoid foreclosure, I might let this fee lapse, assuming the chance of losing my house to foreclosure is much greater than losing it to a fire. Now I have no idea whether that's the situation or not, but I would agree that it should follow health care rules, i.e. that an emergency room is obligated to help a patient and sort out the billing later.
As a Brit, yes, I pay taxes, and if my house was on fire, a fire engine would come to put it out. And if the house of my friend who has a part-time job and pays less taxes was on fire, a fire engine would come to put it out. And if the house of my other friend who is on benefits (which you'd call "welfare") because this wretched economy means they can't get an interview much less a job, and as such doesn't pay taxes in any meaningful sense was on fire, a fire engine would come and put it out. And if the house of my other other friend, who has a debilitating illness which means she couldn't work if she wanted to and gets just enough money from the government to pay for the food, rent and carers she needs was on fire, a fire engine would come and put it out.
We have this crazy idea over here that a person's right to emergency services shouldn't be based on how much money they're making, and shouldn't be removed through poor luck or illness. And yeah, a few lazy people abuse it; frankly, I'll accept that knowing that if anyone I care about is in need, no matter whether due to malice, bad luck or their own stupidity, they'll be helped, without needing to sign up for a series of different plans years beforehand.
"Duress": I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Black's Law (quoted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress) defines duress as: "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]".
In other words, I can induce you to sign a contract with any LEGAL threat that I so please, and the contract is still binding. But if my threats are inherently illegal (such as threatening to hurt you, hurt your family, destroy your property, blackmail you), then the concept of duress applies, and you have a defense against my breach of contract claims.
This definition makes a lot of practical sense, if you think about it. If duress were a broader concept that included me refusing to provide you with services if you don't sign a contract, then I wouldn't even legally be able to tell you the point of signing the contract, in the first place. Under that kind of twisted logic, if you asked "Why should I sign this contract agreeing to pay you $20 to mow my lawn", and I responded "Because I won't mow your lawn for free", then I'd be subjecting you to duress. Clearly, that's not conducive to basic business arrangements.
In this case, the firefighters would be threatening to withold a service (fighting the fire consuming the man's house), which doesn't seem to be an illegal threat, to me. Granted, the house represents a very serious economic and emotional loss to this man and his family. I don't want to belittle that. But it's not like the firefighters set the man's house on fire, in the first place.
Now, there are some situations where a society will legally or socially obligate an individual member to act on behalf of his fellow man in a time of need. Some jurisdictions even have laws requiring you to aid another human being in distress, as long as you're not putting yourself in harm's way (like in the Seinfeld finale). So everything I said, above, assumes that this little Tennessee burg isn't one of situations.
I think he should have been able to purchase the services on a one-shot basis, which would clearly have to cover the entire cost of the operation of saving his house. $75 clearly wouldn't cut it. Probably would be at least $30,000. Then again, that is probably more than a house in the rural SE United States is worth..
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Safety and security forces, such as police and fire are functions of most conceptions of a 'limited government' state, as are roads and basic infrastructure. The state exists to take care of highly unprofitable yet necessary services. Libertarianism is not equal to Anarchy as some here seem to posit.
What happened here is an unfortunate circumstance that the local government subcontracted out fire protection to another district because it refused to pay for it itself. In a purely libertarian environment, the fire fighters would have charged him a huge bill for the fire service on call, not just stood there like inhuman robots and watched as humans suffered.
they could charge the homeowner whatever turns out to be the actual cost of the service (the annual cost of having the resources available divided by the average number of fires per year, plus a surcharge for "forgetting" to pay). It might be several thousand dollars, and it's up to the homeowner to decide whether his house is worth paying for the service or not.
All fine and dandy except for one niggling problem:
Federal law limits post-fire bills to $500. This isn't enough to keep people paying the $75, nor enough to cover actual expenses. So they let it burn.
I don't read AC A human right
I agree that some career departments have outrageous budgets.
I am a Captain in a Volunteer (Paid on Call) department. I get paid $10 per hour per call. I might make $1000 this year.
Our department budget is $135,000 per year. We are a municipal department. The property tax hit is about $85 per $100,000 in home value. Pretty darn cheap if you ask me.
Oh, and we are an ISO Class 4 department, which less than 10% of the fire departments in the country obtain. The difference in property insurance rates for my community between ISO 4 and 5 is $250,000 per year (according to the agents who testified at the hearing when we had to replace our ladder truck)
The comparison to national health care doesn't quite fit though, because the question there is whether the US federal government has lawful authority under the Constitution to order people to buy things. It definitely does not, if the Constitution is still a meaningful limit on federal power.
The comparison to national health care is a perfect fit. There are certain services, in a civilized society, that require contribution from the entire population so that all may benefit equally when they need it. Fire, Police, Military and Health care should never be "opt-in" services...they are all equivalent in that they are services that you cannot predict when you will need them, and paying on the spot for service performed is ridiculous.
Social Security and Medicare are also not "opt-in" and history has shown that without them our society would be in worse shape. Where in the Constitution does it state that at age 65 you should be treated differently? Yet the some people who scream about health care are the ones whining about cuts to the Medicare Plus benefits....
I cannot for a reason think why any logical person would think society would be better if Fire services, or Health services should be "opt in"....
I know - reading American responses to this kind of thing is really baffling, isn't it? They call it socialism, I call it basic human compassion.
There was an excellent article that delved into this mindset recently in Rolling Stone. I think it's especially enlightening when read from a European perspective, particularly in terms of how the working class perspectives on these issues differ so much (non-sensically, in fact) in the US.
Amnesty International
Think of all the new construction jobs created by having to rebuild the house. Why do you hate jobs creation?
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
What is next a cop fee and if you don't pay the cops will just stand there as you get raped as you did not pay the fee?
Well, yeah. You think the cops have any legal obligation to protect you?
Think again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
If all hell breaks in your town ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_riots ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina) whose responsibility is it to protect your own skin?
Yours.
P.S. Many a person were incensed after the L.A. Police Chief pulled all of his uniformed officers out of the L.A. riots and left citizens to fend for themselves, and there were even more pissed off when gun stores were telling them that there was a mandatory 10 day waiting period regardless of the raging riots.
You shouldn't be embarrassed by not knowing it. You should be embarrassed that you live in a country where such a thing would happen.
Where I live (same country, different state), if there's an emergency, emergency response workers show up and do their job. If they are the closest available unit, they'll cross city and/or county boundaries to help people.
After that's all done, if there is a fee, it's handled by financial people. It's possible his homeowner insurance may have paid the costs related to reducing their cost. A fire that damages one wall is a lot cheaper to replace than an entire house and the contained possessions. I know, TFA said that his coverage wouldn't cover everything in his house, but that wouldn't have really mattered since it wouldn't have been a total loss.
Most emergency response workers don't care about the money. They are doing their job to help people. Who else would sign up to run into burning buildings, or any of the other stuff that they do?
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
You missed the point - he offered to pay WHATEVER IT TOOK.
Instead, these assholes let the house burn, killing the pets, and the "Mayor" defends this.
They should all be fired and then stand trial for animal cruelty. Period.
OK, I'll bite.
"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."
From my perspective, I don't care. I want the people around me to be safe from big-life changing (or ending) problems that might arise in or out of their control, and fire is pretty high on that list. I don't care if that is something decided by national government or local, and I don't care if that decision is made with or without input by the people. In most cases, the opinion of the people is routed through so many local officials and lobbyists, shaped through media and pressure groups, and interpreted by national officials and groups such that by the end, the actual will of the people is, if nothing else, impossible to accurately verify.
"Fought a war over that one. Forgot who won. Do you remember?"
I assume you mean the American civil war, and yes, America won. I'm rather sketchy on what that has to do with this topic though?
"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."
IF you can afford it. It's a big if for more people than you might think. Again, as I said above, I don't care about how a particular person gets help when they need it, and if they aren't paying the tax I don't care if it's because they're cheap, stupid, needy, ill, or unlucky. I don't want to worry that someone I know is going to get into a spiral of problems where their income drops, they aren't able to keep up with payments for things I'd consider basic or essential, and then the universe bites them in the ass. I just want to know they are safe. If you consider that opinion to be flamebait, so be it.
I live in the next town over, across the state line in KY, so allow me to expand on this a little.
The fire subscription fee has been in existence for 20 years for those living within a certain distance of South Fulton in Obion County. It has never gone up in 20 years. It is a meager fee for such service, yet a large portion of those eligible still gamble with it. Before 1990, the rural folks flat out didn't have fire service, period. South Fulton FD would not respond outside the city limits, so this is considered an expanded service for those outside the city limits, not a gov't paid and provided service like it is for those inside the city. And we use the term "city" liberally. South Fulton has a population of maybe 2500 people and falling as the old die off and the young leave for lack of employment opportunity.
Had there been a person in the home whose life was in danger, the firefighters would have been legally obligated to respond to save the person, but once the person is rescued, their duty ends for those without a fire subscription. Also, I don't understand why his pets died. From what I've been told, it took almost 2 hours for the fire to go from the burn barrels to his shed and ultimately to his house. He had lots of time to rescue his pets and his most important documents and possessions before the fire got to his house, but he instead assumed that the SFFD would come save his pets and property even though his fee was not paid. He expected something for nothing and got exactly what he put effort into - nothing.
As for the property next door, it was a harvested soybean field on fire, not another home. They have special tanker trucks with big spray booms to deal with such.
Refused? Any evidence of that? For what it's worth, Cranick says he forgot.
Now, in a situation like that, the hardest core libertarian would agree with the idea of forming a contract on the spot to extinguish the fire in exchange for a price acceptable to the fire department.
"Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out."
In other words, not the $75 fee to get insurance for a pre-existing condition, but the actual cost.
Either he's lying or the fire department is actively vindictive.
Nobody was in the house, and if there were I'm sure they would've intervened and (hopefully) recovered their costs.
First of all, firefighters swear no such oath.
Second of all, this wasn't their area of obligation - had there been a fire in the city, they damn sure should've been there as opposed to this backwater area
Third of all, fire departments are ridiculously expensive to run; that's why it should be a tax across everybody! They can't let this guy get away with not paying and getting service anyways, or everybody would do it and the FD just wouldn't be able show up at all out of town.
Fourth of all, the obligation they *did* have was to his neighbor who *did* pay the fee that year. They kept *his* house safe
This guy was burning his trash while refusing to pay for fire service. He was probably one of the ones refusing to pay a tax increase for county fire service. He doesn't exactly deserve any sympathy.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Sorry the comparison to the Health Care Coverage debaty is not a good one. If would hold water if instead of paying the bill it was the doctor, or hosptital that refused service. In that case the person is not denied the medical help he needs, he just has to pay for it. Hospitals I don't think can turn people away from the emergency room. (nor shoud they). The same should be true of Fire Departments, they should put out the fire and charge him. Then the models would match.
It is unconscionable that they would deny putting out the fire, while they were there on the scene, for a meer $75 fee. I have to say that the progressive and dare I say it Christian view would provide the service to your neighbor in time of need. Fire, police and health should be basic services provided to communities and supported by all. Insurance can be optional thats fine, but this is a good example of business thinking overriding morals and ethics. Here the only ethic is getting the money.
So many of us left Europe to get away from things like Debtor's prison. Another old and tired and morally bankrupt practice of jailing someone with at debt, this is very close to that same ethic. Haven't we evolved passed this?
It was a city funded fire department.
Does your city funded (garbage collection? I'm sure your city governments do something.) also perform their function in the rural area adjacent for free?
I think offering your neighbors fire service (at below cost per another post) is quite decent.
Can't blame them for not fighting fires for those that refuse to pay the fee.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The responses here on /. point up what is wrong - not with Tennessee, or the USA, or libertarianism, but with human beings as a species. When you let a principle, right or wrong, trump your humanity you have lost the plot. It seems for most of the people on this site you can stand by and let your neighbour's house burn down because it makes sense politically, or economically, or administratively. And if his children had been in the house? The principle doesn't change. Never mind that libertarianism is just an infantile fantasy anyway. What kind of fireman will stand there and let this happen? A cowardly one. I don't care who pays, or how it's organized, or what the policy is: if your ideas are more important than your humanity, your ideas aren't worth shit.
Science fiction for grown-ups...
I like what you're saying, except the numbers shouldn't be arbitrary. They should divide the number of hours spent on that incident by the hours in a year, then multiply by the annual budget to calculate the figure. Simple. Fair. Not arbitrary, inherently indexed to inflation.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Actually, what many states in US generally require is not that the *car* be insured, but rather the *driver* -- the legal requirements are for liability insurance for drivers, which makes some sense to me. The Wikipedia article on vehicle insurance goes into public policy somewhat.
If Joe collides with Kelly, and it's Joe's fault, then Joe is liable, and it's his responsibility to cover Kelly's expenses. Liability insurance makes sure that Joe can pay to cover such costs. If Joe has no liability insurance, and is too poor to pay for Kelly's expenses, then Kelly is stuck out through no fault of her own. Many states require liability insurance before they allow someone to get a driver's license, and thereby provide all drivers a measure of protection from the potential malfeasance of other drivers.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Huh? I believe that I'm "forced" to pay for Interstate Highways, Federal Police, the Military, and plenty of other things which are of only indirect benefit. If you don't like the health care proposal, do us all a favor and dislike it for a real reason, ok?
Right now I'm paying for people who don't have health insurance through higher hospital costs passed on to me due to all of the freeloaders who use the ER as their only doctor. I'd rather everyone pay less to keep them healthy and maybe employed, or at least employable, rather than pay more to have them sit around sick and on welfare. People losing their house is this manner is a direct analogy; too cheap to pay for their own fire service, they're even too cheap to pay $75 insurance for another town's fire service, they are now homeless and my taxes will go toward their welfare. Make the bastards pay a little so that we don't have to pay it all for them. Heck, the fire dept. was stupid too. It will cost us all a ton to help this family back onto their feet; if we'd just all be "forced" to pay in equally then this wouldn't happen. Or, give up, tell them to go homeless, and then pay more for police to arrest and house them (in prison) when they steal to eat.
Fact is, we all pay for everyone's stupidity. It's only a matter of how we pay, and how much. Your choice.
You really think that will work.
As the price rises the default rate also rises and this ends up creating a viscous cycle.
Say average response cost is $10,000. Now at $10,000 maybe you get on average $2,000 collected (some pay in full, some partially pay, a lot don't pay a dime). So simply you just increase the cost to $50,000 per response call right so on average you get $10,000 from each response (some will pay full $50K, some a fraction, and many none)?
I think you can see the problem with that. The repayment rate at $50,000 will be a tiny fraction of it at $10,000. Thus as your raise price the expected return doesn't rise linearly. Once you get to extreme prices the "benefit" to default begins rising rapidly and consumer behavior will respond. You stack the deck against the consumer enough and they will take the optimal option no matter how morally gray it is.
No business works where the cost of defaults is only borne by those who default.
If it did for example you would see 3% credit cards for people who have never defaulted. Risk free return is about 1% of short term interest however even among those with spotless lifetime long credit records they pay 7%, 8%, even 12% on balances.
Another example would be hospitals. The insured pay for the cost of the uninsured. Collections on uninsured as so pathetically low that to full collect the cost of treatment from them is impossible.
Medical debt often collects less than $0.01 on the dollar. To full collect the cost of procedures only from the uninsured the "cash" price would need to be 100x the actual cost. The problem with that is you give someone a bill for $1.8 million and most people will simply file bankruptcy. You can never collect enough to have the uninsured "pay their way".
The idea that you can pay for non covered customers only from non covered customers without the help of the pre-insured customers isn't based on any economic or pricing theory. In reality it is a good way for the fire dept to go bankrupt.
There's no conservatives in a house fire.
Guy has no problem "forgetting" to pay his fees until it's his arse on the line. Then suddenly it's time for the government to bail him out.
A point which I haven't seen mentioned: This guy (according to the Olbermann interview) HAS homeowners insurance, including fire coverage! Why wasn't the insurance company allowed to pay the fee for him? (or, if they were why didn't they?) And why wasn't the insurance company allowed to separately contract with the city fire department to provide fire-fighting services for their policy holders (this is the way firefighting was funded in most of the US prior to the civil war)?
Setting up a situation where somebody (intentionally or inadvertently) not paying a $75 fee can cause tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage and fees for themselves, their neighbors (at least one had direct property damage) and the other policy holders of the insurance company is stupid and unjustifiable regardless of moral, political or economic perspective.
I'm amazed at how many people are (t)rolling out the line "If everyone could pay on the spot then they'd only pay $75 when they needed it".
Don't you think the policy makers would involve some sort of penalty?
They tried that first. $500 bills after the fact. Not enough people paid so they stopped.
What is wrong with everyone in a society all paying for something that nearly everyone benefits from? Like fire protection? Newflash, the free market just doesn't work for everything.
Sigs are awesome huh?
To me, this is the perfect argument to make me question my often-Libertarian leanings. The reason we have governments is so that, as a society, we don't have to worry about situations like this. So we can extinguish the fire, without wondering if it was paid for. So we can protect the neighborhood (or surrounding land). Fire departments are in place to provide a necessary protection for society as a whole, and that system breaks down if one person can opt out-- or even be put in a position to have to choose whether to opt out. Fire departments should not have a fee associated, they should be covered by a tax.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
You've come up with some figures that cover the costs of the firefighters going out for 3 hours to fight a fire. You're forgetting the other overheads involved, the cost of running a business has to cover more than just the actions of the moment.
- Training of firefighters
- Equipment for firefighters (wear and tear on clothes and kit, need to be replaced every year or so)
- Fire station for housing the fire truck and firefighters kit
- Running costs of fire station (water, electric, ongoing maintenance, etc)
- Admin overhead to pay for the billing and manage the fire department staff
The cost of fighting a fire has to also in some part cover the cost of when there is a fire truck sitting in a fire station not fighting a fire, say the next 24 hours before the next fire, not just the 3 hours when it's out on a call.
As others have noted the USA is so screwed up by a legal culture then you probably have to factor in the "lawyer on year round standby" charges to cover the fact that some of the people who are charged then try to get out of paying the charges and have to be taken through the courts to recoup the money.
Plus the fire dept. will need to pay for its own insurance to cover itself in the shortfalls that occur when they turn out to fight a fire and bill the residents and the residents don't or can't pay and the fire dept. needs to be covered for the $20,000 or so lost.
My guess is that a man who refused to pay 6.25 / month before the event would be unlikely to freely hand over 10,000 or more after the event even if he claims he will. He'd probably claim he was forced to sign under duress as his house was burning down and would try to hire a lawyer and try to get out of paying. I can understand the fire chief making the decision that as nobody was at risk of injury or death, and the homeowner had decided not to pay for the fire protection service, his first priority was to protect the lives of his own firefighters and stand off and just check the fire didn't develop further but rather guard it and let it burnt out.
Does your city funded (garbage collection? I'm sure your city governments do something.) also perform their function in the rural area adjacent for free?
Well no, that rural adjacent area is maintained by the adjacent city government. If there's no city on the other side of the land, the city line moves out and "hey, free land!"
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Human Compassion, with a price-tag that carries the weight of law is Socialism. One can be an advocate of compassion for others without advocating that compassion be mandated by the government. I see it as a significant distinction.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.