Firefighters Let Home Burn Over Unpaid Fee

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

I don't think very many people have read the article. The county which had the fire does not even have a fire department. They rely on another county for fire services and thats why they must pay for the service. The one county has no way of taxing the people of another county so they must charge a fee.

[FRPLG]

BTW...this is a super-interesting discussion to me. I work in local gov't so I have the perspective of a damned bureaucrat when it comes to stuff like this I guess.

[FRPLG]

I suppose one way to prevent this is to simply charge people to put our fires. Put them all out and hand them a bill when done. That's maybe the fairest way to go about it. Sort of defeats the purpose of a community existing to spread the cost of services out and make them more affordable though.

[Chico23231]

i dont see how as a human being you can sit and watch someone's house burn down when you have all the tools to help that person. Incredible, thats what this country has become too worry about a money to help another? I mean thats what it comes down too and $75 at that. Petty society

[CRedskinsRule]

Maybe an opt-out statement. If a person absolutely doesn't want to pay the yearly fee, they can put an opt-out statement on file. Otherwise, if the fee is not paid, then as was said, the FD will act in best interests of the property, and a heavy fee will be assessed and that is noted in the annual assessment bill. So, in this case, the homeowner would have had his house protected, but the integrity of fee for service is also maintained in a prior contract.

[Monkeydad]

Yeah, insurance is a product you can shop for and choose your coverages and rates.

Emergency services are not a matter of choice. They're also not a for-profit business like insurance. There's an expectation of them being available when needed.

[Chico23231]

^Great points

I dont get it, these people are your neighbors. Really gets me pissed how petty these people were...i think the story is telling of where this country is

[Hog1]

The time to determine who should owe what, what law/rule has been violated, how to handle it going forward, etc is...AFTER we have helped our neighbors to save their pets, their belongings and their house. It is NOT while we watch their lives and those of their dogs and cat go up in flames.
There are times we are all faced with that we SHOULD go against the "grain" and do what is morally right in the face of the rules? It is indeed a shame the fire crew apparently did not feel that way as according to the article, they stood and watched it burn,
Effectively they traded much of these peoples lives for $75. They SHOULD be ashamed. If you can justify it.........wow

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Hog1

The time to determine who should owe what, what law/rule has been violated, how to handle it going forward, etc is...AFTER we have helped our neighbors to save their pets, their belongings and their house. It is NOT while we watch their lives and those of their dogs and cat go up in flames.
There are times we are all faced with that we SHOULD go against the "grain" and do what is morally right in the face of the rules? It is indeed a shame the fire crew apparently did not feel that way as according to the article, they stood and watched it burn,
Effectively they traded much of these peoples lives for $75. They SHOULD be ashamed. If you can justify it.........wow

Except that this man states he was fully aware of the choice he made in not paying the fee.

Again, I think it would be better with an OPT OUT clause, and an express and hefty fine if the fee is not paid either by neglect or, as this man tried to do, playing of the odds. So, if someone opts out in advance, then they know it's on them. If someone is playing the odds, then they know the consequence will be a very substantial fine, or levy on their assets. And hopefully most will do the responsible act and pay the fee upfront so that the assisting county can plan for the future.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Except that this man states he was fully aware of the choice he made in not paying the fee.

Again, I think it would be better with an OPT OUT clause, and an express and hefty fine if the fee is not paid either by neglect or, as this man tried to do, playing of the odds. So, if someone opts out in advance, then they know it's on them. If someone is playing the odds, then they know the consequence will be a very substantial fine, or levy on their assets. And hopefully most will do the responsible act and pay the fee upfront so that the assisting county can plan for the future.

As I said, the time to debate this is........after
wow

[MTK]

Hard to believe this is even a debate.

[chica-alisha]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Hard to believe this is even a debate.

Couldn't agree with you more

[CRedskinsRule]

Well, it's nice to debate an individual case after the incident, but from a practical sense, that invites lawsuits, and financial insecurity for the neighboring county who is providing the service. Let's put it this way: Suppose another call comes in, in the county where everyone pays taxes for this fire department, and that house burns because a person who had purposely chosen to not pay the fee was being served. Is that fair. Or suppose, the bordering county, faced with a huge legal fees is forced to shut down service to the whole neighboring area, because their insurance deems it too risky. Is it fair that the whole group of people who had pay the service fee on time every year now loses coverage because the service is terminated?

These things don't happen in a vacuum, and while, yes it is a horrible outcome, it could have been prevented by the man paying the $75 he knew was the fee. Now that he took a gamble, and lost, the fire department is made out to be immoral, or unethical people and that is just as ridiculous.

[MTK]

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.

[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