Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG
But here they had to make a call. Put out a fire and create the impression and precedent that paying the fee is not only NOT mandatory but economically stupid or let the fire go. Anything that realistically puts the necessary funding of public safety at risk in the general community is way more irresponsible and unethical than letting someone's house burn down in my opinion. I can see a very realistic situation that endangers proper funding here. That is a huge problem.
|
Yeah, putting aside for a moment the moral and legal repercussion the fact remain that a fire department, so dependent on funding and donations, made possibly the dumbest mistake they could make from a financing standpoint. Yeah, they saved some money by not fighting the fire and sure they set an example for all 5 people living in the city. However there's something to be said for goodwill, and it's with good reason that businesses across the country strive to acquire it and protect it.
Next time when that fire department goes to the state asking for additional funding they shouldn't be surprised when they get met with a big **** you. Next time they want a raise in salary, '**** you.' Equipment's not up to date, 'looks fine to me.' Standing outside their local Wal-Mart with a fire boot asking for donations, '**** YOU!" The choice they made over $75 in regards to the Cranick's possibly cost them tens of thousands of dollars in funding.