Firefighters Let Home Burn Over Unpaid Fee

[EternalEnigma21]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Did Buster and Saden switch accounts in this thread? Seriously I'm confused. :cheeky-sm

At the end of the day we're talking about a measly $75. They seriously let someone's house burn down over $75? As a society you've gotta just ask WTF are we doing?

What's next? Police not responding if you haven't paid a fee?

I grew up spending time in an area that had the same kind of rules. And there were no police. There was a county sherrif that would come if called but it took him an hour. There are still parts of this country that seem very much off the grid. So if no one pays the fee, the fire dept can't operate outside their typical set of parameters and everyone's house burns... Why assume the liability and risk endangering the lives of firefighters for someone who opts to assume the liability on their own by not paying the fee? If there are kids in the house its JUST as much the parent's responsibility to ensure the safety of THEIR OWN children by paying the fee that would protect them in this instance as it would be the firefighters to risk their lives to save them. Im not saying it would be right for them not to help, but let's not put the firemen on a cross and neglect the fact that ultimately the homeowner's home, property, and family is THEIR responsibility.

[firstdown]

Didn't Pay $75 Fee? Firefighters Watch Your Home Burn To Ground - The Consumerist

Seems like the guys story has changed some. In the article for this thread he says he forgot but in this link it sounds like he just figured they would come regardless if he paid. So it seems to me like he figured he could just start skipping the fee an if something did hapen he could then pay the fee. Sounds like his little plan back fired. Not sure how I feel about the firefighters just standing there but if they let one person slide then no one would pay their bills.

[MTK]

Apples and oranges FD.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Apples and oranges FD.

Really!

[BDBohnzie]

It's a slippery slope. Those usage fees are obviously a big part of their funding, and they only responded to help the homeowner who did pay. If that gentleman who paid the fees hadn't called, the fire department wouldn't have responded at all.

While it's a damn shame that Mr. Cranick lost his possessions and pets, if the fire department puts this fire out, the precedent would be set that they would have to serve all those who didn't pay as well, or risk lawsuit. The flip side of the coin would be what if a firefighter had lost his life fighting this fire? Would his widow(er) be denied insurance benefits because they were not authorized to put out this fire?

The correct answer isn't always the best answer or the most moral answer.

[InsaneBoost]

I hope they write an article about me when I forget to pay a car payment and the car get's repo'd!!!!!

[firstdown]

The guy live in a county that has no fire dpt. so the other county provides fire dpt. services for a fee and the didn't pay. The link I provided the guys said he thought they would provide service even if he didn't pay the fee. Semms like he got what he paid for. Nothing I have read says any about the time line of events so maybe by the time they responded to the neighbor who paid the fee it was too late to help the guys dogs.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The guy live in a county that has no fire dpt. so the other county provides fire dpt. services for a fee and the didn't pay. The link I provided the guys said he thought they would provide service even if he didn't pay the fee. Semms like he got what he paid for. Nothing I have read says any about the time line of events so maybe by the time they responded to the neighbor who paid the fee it was too late to help the guys dogs.

This is the type of thing where you punish people with fees after the fact. That's your incentive to pay. Make it 10 to 15 times the amount of the yearly service fee. Charge him a fine in the range of $750-$1125. Put a lein on the house of people who don't pay, take it out of their pay check. Do what you have to do to collect the fee. Don't sit there and watch a persons place burn down with his pets inside.

The fire department will be sued. Every lawyer within a 1,000 miles of South Fulton Tennessee is going to want a piece of the settlement that will result from this. The assault charges will be dropped. In the end the fire department looks like idiots in a country where fireman are rightfully deemed real life super heroes.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

This is the type of thing where you punish people with fees after the fact. That's your incentive to pay. Make it 10 to 15 times the amount of the yearly service fee. Charge him a fine in the range of $750-$1125. Put a lein on the house of people who don't pay, take it out of their pay check. Do what you have to do to collect the fee. Don't sit there and watch a persons place burn down with his pets inside.

The fire department will be sued. Every lawyer within a 1,000 miles of South Fulton Tennessee is going to want a piece of the settlement that will result from this. The assault charges will be dropped. In the end the fire department looks like idiots in a country where fireman are rightfully deemed real life super heroes.

This doesn't work necessarily.

Imagine this becomes the SOP. So what happens? Now people get to basically decide whether to pay the fee or risk having to pay umpteen more in fines/interest/whatever if they have a fire. Let's say it's a lot. Like 100X the fee...so $7500.

Now how many people pay the fee? None? Some? Who knows but I'd bet a good many of them don't pay their fee. As luck would have it most of them won't have a fire but if just one in a hundred does then the whole deal is all square monetarily. But what if only one in thousand do? Now the county is out a bunch of money. Seems to me that the fines/interest have to be significant...to the point of prohibitive. I am guessing a guy living in a double-wide in a poorish rural county doesn't have the juice to pay $20,000 in fines.

This is definitely not a simple moral question to me. On one hand you can't simply make it policy to provide a service whether someone paid for it or not. Regardless of the nature of the service the leverage to actually collect a fee for the service disappears as soon as you set precedent that the fee is essentially voluntary. On the other hand it obviously doesn't seem right that someone loses their home because of a stupid $75 fee. I guess sometimes fair and right aren't the same thing.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

This doesn't work necessarily.

Imagine this becomes the SOP. So what happens? Now people get to basically decide whether to pay the fee or risk having to pay umpteen more in fines/interest/whatever if they have a fire. Let's say it's a lot. Like 100X the fee...so $7500.

Now how many people pay the fee? None? Some? Who knows but I'd bet a good many of them don't pay their fee. As luck would have it most of them won't have a fire but if just one in a hundred does then the whole deal is all square monetarily. But what if only one in thousand do? Now the county is out a bunch of money. Seems to me that the fines/interest have to be significant...to the point of prohibitive. I am guessing a guy living in a double-wide in a poorish rural county doesn't have the juice to pay $20,000 in fines.

This is definitely not a simple moral question to me. On one hand you can't simply make it policy to provide a service whether someone paid for it or not. Regardless of the nature of the service the leverage to actually collect a fee for the service disappears as soon as you set precedent that the fee is essentially voluntary. On the other hand it obviously doesn't seem right that someone loses their home because of a stupid $75 fee. I guess sometimes fair and right aren't the same thing.

There's a simple principle in contract law. No contract is above the law. The fact that this county and fire department is allowed to ignore a house fire should be a crime. Just like it's illegal for a police officer to ignore a person in need. The closest scenario I can think of is having an illegal alien getting robbed of their belongings right in front of an officer and the officer does nothing. And why should he? The illegal alien doesn't pay his salary.

On top of that the firefighters were way to cocky in this story. A house is burning, that's a hazard. You don't know if something is going to blow up, like a gas line or a propane tank, and do more damage (and you can't say they knew it was safe to let the house burn because they didn't show up when they were initially called). Instead they waited for the fire to approach the neighbors property and then only fought the flames approaching the neighboring property. Someone could have been hurt due negligence. As sick as it sounds, they're lucky that the only casualties were the pets. It's not much different then us taking for granted that we were going to beat the Rams this year.

Protect and serve is not a suggestion based on capitalism. It's a basic right that keeps the citizens of this country safe. You don't get to make an example of people who skimp on payments like that. You find another way to remedy the situation. Actually above all else it's obvious that this method of paying for fire protection is obviously broken. This should have never been an issue to begin with.

Check out the video to see what another local fire chief had to say.
Woman Says Firefighters Blameless In House Burning - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

There's a simple principle in contract law. No contract is above the law. The fact that this county and fire department is allowed to ignore a house fire should be a crime. Just like it's illegal for a police officer to ignore a person in need. The closest scenario I can think of is having an illegal alien getting robbed of their belongings right in front of an officer and the officer does nothing. And why should he? The illegal alien doesn't pay his salary.

On top of that the firefighters were way to cocky in this story. A house is burning, that's a hazard. You don't know if something is going to blow up, like a gas line or a propane tank, and do more damage (and you can't say they knew it was safe to let the house burn because they didn't show up when they were initially called). Instead they waited for the fire to approach the neighbors property and then only fought the flames approaching the neighboring property. Someone could have been hurt due negligence. As sick as it sounds, they're lucky that the only casualties were the pets. It's not much different then us taking for granted that we were going to beat the Rams this year.

Protect and serve is not a suggestion based on capitalism. It's a basic right that keeps the citizens of this country safe. You don't get to make an example of people who skimp on payments like that. You find another way to remedy the situation. Actually above all else it's obvious that this method of paying for fire protection is obviously broken. This should have never been an issue to begin with.

Check out the video to see what another local fire chief had to say.
Woman Says Firefighters Blameless In House Burning - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports

If you create a legal responsibility for them to provide a service regardless of payment what incentive exists for the citizens to pay the money that the service costs?

I want to make clear that I am not for them having let the place burn down necessarily. I simply don't know enough about the specifics economically, logistically and administratively. So my opinion is more from a general point of view.

In this case they were denied a service they had no legal right to. The fire-fighters have a responsibility to the people who pay for their service. What they do simply isn't free or even cheap...someone has to pay for it. And a system has to be in place that efficiently collects the money needed to provide the service to those who pay for it. Railroading the process by inserting real incentives to NOT pay for the service is irresponsible. The solution here isn't to make a service a legal right regardless of payment. It is to make the payment a tax and create other real incentives to pay. Like jail. Don't pay your taxes..go to jail.

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.

[SmootSmack]

Saden why do I get the feeling you're not being totally genuine in your posts on this thread?

Dirtbag I agree, levy the heavy fines and fees after the fact

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Saden why do I get the feeling you're not being totally genuine in your posts on this thread?

Dirtbag I agree, levy the heavy fines and fees after the fact

Why do you doubt my rational? Do I not make any sense?

Speaking of fines and fees....any of you guys ever forget to pay your semi-annual water and sewage treatment fee to your city? I have. Instead of letting me deal with my own water and sewage acquisition and disposal the f'ing city placed a lien on my property! It cost me $400 with interest and fees. That's big government for you.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

Why do you doubt my rational? Do I not make any sense?

It's just not necessarily consistent with your history

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

It's just not necessarily consistent with your history

Clearly not. If a town wants to run its government that way, more power to them. If I lived there though I would like to see the Mayor, Fire Chief, every fire fighter at the scene, dispatchers, and whoever thought this was good policy get shitcanned or at the very least get to taste baseball bat woodchips.

It's absurd policy...glad I don't live there.