Firefighters Let Home Burn Over Unpaid Fee

[saden1]

These people in unincorporated county areas have a few solutions available to them in light of this incident:

• Get a volunteer fire fighting crew together and give the city the finger.
• Join the city.
• Form a new city.
• Expand county services by means of taxation to provide fire protection.
• Lobby the state to pass a legislation that makes unresponsive fire departments illegal.
• Burn South Fulton City to the ground and takeover their fire station. If the f*ckers at South Fulton City want to be bitches it's time for them to get stitches.

[Monkeydad]

I like the "form a new city" option.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I wonder if all the negative exposure was worth the $75 fee? In the business world sometimes whether a company is right or wrong, you do what makes the most business sense, even if it means taking a loss. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that letting a guy's home burn down along with his pets, was the right decision, under any circumstance.

BRILLIANT!
and to ...try to justify it in any way soley illustrates what is wrong with...GOVT.
A bit of an over-simplification....but
We will give 498 Cazillion dollars to Haiti when they need it, (and anybody else with their handout) but we cannot figure out how to deal with a $75 municipal fee......utter insanity

[CRedskinsRule]

I understand the compassion element that matty and hog1 are saying, but what I don't hear from many is the simple acknowledgement that this guy had been aware of the risk of not paying and made the choice not to pay. Yes maybe somehow it could have been handled better, but if the man had paid the 75 fee, which he had in the past, then this would not have happened. Maybe the unincorporated areas or the city could have a hardship assistance fund for it or some other mechanism, but with the laws in place as they are right now, the firefighters did what they were supposed to do.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Hog1

BRILLIANT!
and to ...try to justify it in any way soley illustrates what is wrong with...GOVT.
A bit of an over-simplification....but
We will give 498 Cazillion dollars to Haiti when they need it, (and anybody else with their handout) but we cannot figure out how to deal with a $75 municipal fee......utter insanity

The difference is the federal govt doesn't have to worry about having a 1.3 TRILLION dollar deficit, the local county and city governments do, and they have to worry about their bond ratings and they have people who hold them accountable when trying to raise taxes.
As for Justifying the action, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't look for solutions that keep it from happening going forward. I imagine if you were to research the history of this law you would find many pros and cons both sides of which were fought out in the ballot box.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I understand the compassion element that matty and hog1 are saying, but what I don't hear from many is the simple acknowledgement that this guy had been aware of the risk of not paying and made the choice not to pay. Yes maybe somehow it could have been handled better, but if the man had paid the 75 fee, which he had in the past, then this would not have happened. Maybe the unincorporated areas or the city could have a hardship assistance fund for it or some other mechanism, but with the laws in place as they are right now, the firefighters did what they were supposed to do.

LOL...really? And here I was thinking he said he forgot to pay. People forgetting to pay bills? Unheard of!

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The difference is the federal govt doesn't have to worry about having a 1.3 TRILLION dollar deficit, the local county and city governments do, and they have to worry about their bond ratings and they have people who hold them accountable when trying to raise taxes.
As for Justifying the action, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't look for solutions that keep it from happening going forward. I imagine if you were to research the history of this law you would find many pros and cons both sides of which were fought out in the ballot box.

If all the rules had been carefully followed, none of this would happen? Perhaps he made a mistake, perhaps he's an asshole.....it happens. THAT should have been dealt with after the fire was put out and the locals were busy annointing the local Fireman, as hero's.
This has already boiled into a shitstorm that won't soon be forgotten in those parts and those involved will likely be searching for other employment, or testifying forever.
Sometimes....you just can't play by the rules as they "just don't make sense". They're are a bunch of fireguys and a city manager or two that will figure it out for the sake of..........$75..amazing

[SmootSmack]

I'm just not seeing where he said he chose not to pay

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I understand the compassion element that matty and hog1 are saying, but what I don't hear from many is the simple acknowledgement that this guy had been aware of the risk of not paying and made the choice not to pay. Yes maybe somehow it could have been handled better, but if the man had paid the 75 fee, which he had in the past, then this would not have happened. Maybe the unincorporated areas or the city could have a hardship assistance fund for it or some other mechanism, but with the laws in place as they are right now, the firefighters did what they were supposed to do.

From the article:

"I just forgot to pay my $75," Cranick told ABC News. "I did it last year, the year before. ... It slipped my mind."

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm just not seeing where he said he chose not to pay

Perhaps the fact that he forgot to pay is a choice in itself?

This story is spicy enough...I don't get why people keep throwing in more peppers.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I understand the compassion element that matty and hog1 are saying, .

Are you kidding me? How am I not on that list? I'm offended.

[CRedskinsRule]

He does say he forgot, so my words about choosing were wrong, except if you use Sadens interpretation. However, in his interview with Keith Obermann he also said he knew of several other houses where the various fire departments had refused. So he did know that it could be a consequence. He also said that it had happened once before and a former official had waived the fee, but the new person had a policy not too. I forget things at work way too often, and I have missed bills and made other dumb moves. But in the end, you deal with the consequences. He also said he did have insurance and that they were covering up to the limits of what he paid for.

Just thinking about it further, could the insurance company deny his claim based on his failure to pay the fee?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Why is there a fee to begin with?

Seriously?

[FRPLG]

To me it comes down to this. It costs money to run a fire department. Putting out the fire in this case, to me, presents a pretty damn clear endangerment to the funding of the fire department. Blame a dumb policy that allows something like this to happen. Don't blame the fire-fighters and their bosses. They have to keep open for business for the greater good. Putting out fires for free works against that. It just does. At the end of the the day they chose not to do something that might end up costing them way more than just one fire. I can't fault them for that. Is it more decent to put the fire out and watch everyone else stop paying the fees and therefore have to curtail the service? Not to me it isn't. They had to choose between two crappy choices.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

He does say he forgot, so my words about choosing were wrong, except if you use Sadens interpretation. However, in his interview with Keith Obermann he also said he knew of several other houses where the various fire departments had refused. So he did know that it could be a consequence. He also said that it had happened once before and a former official had waived the fee, but the new person had a policy not too. I forget things at work way too often, and I have missed bills and made other dumb moves. But in the end, you deal with the consequences. He also said he did have insurance and that they were covering up to the limits of what he paid for.

Just thinking about it further, could the insurance company deny his claim based on his failure to pay the fee?

Not unless it's spelled out in the policy somewhere