Firefighters Watch As House Burns Down

[Si modo]

If you read the article linked, he had a chimney fire three years ago, the fire department put it out and he paid them the $75 after the fact.

Apparently the fire department has become vindictive.

Yup, I read it. They lucked out with the chimney fire.

They tried to slime out of paying again and this time they didn't luck out.

Too bad for them. They knew the rules and willfully tried to slime out of them again.

And, if I were the insurance company, I would deny paying coverage. They were willfully negligent. I'm surprised any coverage is not made null and void if the fire subscription fee is not paid.

I'd say the fire department gave them a false sense of security by responding to them the first time.

Maybe. Regardless, the family tried to slime out of paying a fee expecting to get the same service those who pay get.

Yeah, that's pretty cool. Well, not to me.

 

[Middleman]

The thing is, this $75 is akin to insurance. It's not the full cost of putting out the fire. Just like your health or auto insurance wants you to pay ahead of time into the pooled resource, so did this fire dept. They need everyone to kick in a measly $75 a year to maintain their fire dept for all subscribers. That's the economics of it. It's a social and financial contract to share resources for the common good.

Some people here believe only in mandatory fees like this, apparently. They don't want to give a choice whether or not to pool their resources together. I think it's cool to give people a choice. I think this fellow is learning a painful lesson.

I did that once. I dropped my comprehensive insurance on a paid for Subaru that was worth about $10,000. Then I totalled the car because of my own fault. So, I lost, and I learned an important lesson.

 

[Ravi]

Your wrong. The policy was put in place twenty years ago, precisely because 75% of the fire runs were rural and those folks paid nothing. It was a burden on the city folks. It worked well until this guy and his inability to assess risk.

You also fail to recognize that 5 other departments offer the service for free, but ch ose not to show up. Stop and ask yourself why. I'll bet there was a line at the City Treasure's office the first business day after the fire. About half the county folks were not paying.

Because the 911 service, which is operated by the county, btw...routed the call to South Fulton because this property was within the five mile outer limits around the city.

It is a computer system. It should have been noted the property was not covered due to nonpayment. The other part of reality is, at five miles away, a structure fire is usually going to result in a total loss. Sorry if that cuts into your horns and pitchfork firefighter v. stupid home owner pity party.

Um...according to the news reports it took a couple of hours to even reach the house. Somehow I imagine a fire crew can get five miles in less than two hours.

And when they got there to respond to the neighbor's property, they did NOTHING.

 

[Valerie]

Valerie, you seem to not get my point. If a large number of people choose to avoid the yearly fee, there will not be a fire service. It takes money everyday to keep the system up and running. It is the equivalent of letting people buy life insurance for dead people. You just pay all the back premiums and a small penalty and there you go $100,000.

This guy chose to not pay the fee and the fire service still existed so you are making an imaginary scenario to make your point. In this real scenario whatever funds they are already using to create the fire department are already sufficient enough to offer people this $75 dollar option already. I'm simply saying the consequence should not ever be to have the fire department standby and wait for the fire to reach the properties who did pay the fee..that is bad public safety policy. The consequence should rather be the hefty fine which will pay for the services provided.

Your wrong. The policy was put in place twenty years ago, precisely because 75% of the fire runs were rural and those folks paid nothing. It was a burden on the city folks. It worked well until this guy and his inability to assess risk.

You also fail to recognize that 5 other departments offer the service for free, but chose not to show up. Stop and ask yourself why. I'll bet there was a line at the City Treasure's office the first business day after the fire. About half the county folks were not paying.

It all worked well until this one guy didn't properly assess his risk and pay $75???


It's a shame 5 other able bodied fire departments didn't show up to put out a fire..A damn shame they couldn't have been blind to the red tape and focused only on fighting fires.

You really believe seventy five whole dollars on this one day made all the difference in cost of fighting that one fire but you fail to recognize the greater value of that hefty fine for taking that risk as the better more reasonable solution than fire department policy of just allowing properties to burn...based on what you said, potentially half the town property burnt to the ground with no public recourse???

 

[WillowTree]

What's wrong with just funding the fire department out of taxes and be done with it?

because libturds slime out of paying taxes too.

 

[Si modo]

Because the 911 service, which is operated by the county, btw...routed the call to South Fulton because this property was within the five mile outer limits around the city.

It is a computer system. It should have been noted the property was not covered due to nonpayment. The other part of reality is, at five miles away, a structure fire is usually going to result in a total loss. Sorry if that cuts into your horns and pitchfork firefighter v. stupid home owner pity party.

Um...according to the news reports it took a couple of hours to even reach the house. Somehow I imagine a fire crew can get five miles in less than two hours.

And when they got there to respond to the neighbor's property, they did NOTHING.

Bullshit. They responded to the neighbor's (a neighbor who paid for the service) brush fire and acted on it. Imagine that.

 

[Paulie]

We're still talking about this?

 

[Paulie]

This guy chose to not pay the fee and the fire service still existed so you are making an imaginary scenario to make your point. In this real scenario whatever funds they are already using to create the fire department are already sufficient enough to offer people this $75 dollar option already. I'm simply saying the consequence should not ever be to have the fire department standby and wait for the fire to reach the properties who did pay the fee..that is bad public safety policy. The consequence should rather be the hefty fine which will pay for the services provided.

Your wrong. The policy was put in place twenty years ago, precisely because 75% of the fire runs were rural and those folks paid nothing. It was a burden on the city folks. It worked well until this guy and his inability to assess risk.

You also fail to recognize that 5 other departments offer the service for free, but chose not to show up. Stop and ask yourself why. I'll bet there was a line at the City Treasure's office the first business day after the fire. About half the county folks were not paying.

It all worked well until this one guy didn't properly assess his risk and pay $75???


It's a shame 5 other able bodied fire departments didn't show up to put out a fire..A damn shame they couldn't have been blind to the red tape and focused only on fighting fires.

You really believe seventy five whole dollars on this one day made all the difference in cost of fighting that one fire but you fail to recognize the greater value of that hefty fine for taking that risk as the better more reasonable solution than fire department policy of just allowing properties to burn...based on what you said, potentially half the town property burnt to the ground with no public recourse???

Val I don't think anyone is trying to say that this particular $75 was any kind of make or break situation.

The point being made is that if everyone just decides to stop paying the $75 because the fire department will just show up and put the fire out anyway, eventually the department is going to hit some serious funding problems.

 

[Ravi]

It is a computer system. It should have been noted the property was not covered due to nonpayment. The other part of reality is, at five miles away, a structure fire is usually going to result in a total loss. Sorry if that cuts into your horns and pitchfork firefighter v. stupid home owner pity party.

Um...according to the news reports it took a couple of hours to even reach the house. Somehow I imagine a fire crew can get five miles in less than two hours.

And when they got there to respond to the neighbor's property, they did NOTHING.

Bullshit. They responded to the neighbor's (a neighbor who paid for the service) brush fire and acted on it. Imagine that.

Nothing in regard to the house that was burning down.

While I agree the firefighters had the right to not do anything I think they are scum for not doing anything.

That is all.

 

[Si modo]

We're still talking about this?

Amazing, isn't it? I'm not so sure the bleeding heart liberal is all that enlightened at all, based on the inability to grasp such simplicity.

 

[saveliberty]

This guy chose to not pay the fee and the fire service still existed so you are making an imaginary scenario to make your point. In this real scenario whatever funds they are already using to create the fire department are already sufficient enough to offer people this $75 dollar option already. I'm simply saying the consequence should not ever be to have the fire department standby and wait for the fire to reach the properties who did pay the fee..that is bad public safety policy. The consequence should rather be the hefty fine which will pay for the services provided.

Your wrong. The policy was put in place twenty years ago, precisely because 75% of the fire runs were rural and those folks paid nothing. It was a burden on the city folks. It worked well until this guy and his inability to assess risk.

You also fail to recognize that 5 other departments offer the service for free, but chose not to show up. Stop and ask yourself why. I'll bet there was a line at the City Treasure's office the first business day after the fire. About half the county folks were not paying.

It all worked well until this one guy didn't properly assess his risk and pay $75???


It's a shame 5 other able bodied fire departments didn't show up to put out a fire..A damn shame they couldn't have been blind to the red tape and focused only on fighting fires.

You really believe seventy five whole dollars on this one day made all the difference in cost of fighting that one fire but you fail to recognize the greater value of that hefty fine for taking that risk as the better more reasonable solution than fire department policy of just allowing properties to burn...based on what you said, potentially half the town property burnt to the ground with no public recourse???

The town is 100% covered. Do you usually comment on things you don't understand?

 

[California Girl]

Um...according to the news reports it took a couple of hours to even reach the house. Somehow I imagine a fire crew can get five miles in less than two hours.

And when they got there to respond to the neighbor's property, they did NOTHING.

Bullshit. They responded to the neighbor's (a neighbor who paid for the service) brush fire and acted on it. Imagine that.

Nothing in regard to the house that was burning down.

While I agree the firefighters had the right to not do anything I think they are scum for not doing anything.

That is all.

They provided the service that they are paid to... nothing. They aren't scum, they're people with families to feed. No pay, no work. That's basic shit right there. I assume that you expect to get paid to work, do you not?

 

[Paulie]

Um...according to the news reports it took a couple of hours to even reach the house. Somehow I imagine a fire crew can get five miles in less than two hours.

And when they got there to respond to the neighbor's property, they did NOTHING.

Bullshit. They responded to the neighbor's (a neighbor who paid for the service) brush fire and acted on it. Imagine that.

Nothing in regard to the house that was burning down.

While I agree the firefighters had the right to not do anything I think they are scum for not doing anything.

That is all.

Rav how do you reconcile responding and putting fires out anyway, even if the fee hasn't been paid?

Do you understand that typical human nature will lead to everyone else realizing that they don't have to pay, and that the department will eventually run into funding issues?

When you take your equipment 5 miles from the station for a structure fire, your district is left vulnerable in the event that another call comes in. Usually in that situation a nearby district will provide mutual aid and cover the empty station during the call.

Who do you think is going to pay for all of this if the $75 subscribers just give up paying and still get coverage?

 

[Valerie]

Your wrong. The policy was put in place twenty years ago, precisely because 75% of the fire runs were rural and those folks paid nothing. It was a burden on the city folks. It worked well until this guy and his inability to assess risk.

You also fail to recognize that 5 other departments offer the service for free, but chose not to show up. Stop and ask yourself why. I'll bet there was a line at the City Treasure's office the first business day after the fire. About half the county folks were not paying.

It all worked well until this one guy didn't properly assess his risk and pay $75???


It's a shame 5 other able bodied fire departments didn't show up to put out a fire..A damn shame they couldn't have been blind to the red tape and focused only on fighting fires.

You really believe seventy five whole dollars on this one day made all the difference in cost of fighting that one fire but you fail to recognize the greater value of that hefty fine for taking that risk as the better more reasonable solution than fire department policy of just allowing properties to burn...based on what you said, potentially half the town property burnt to the ground with no public recourse???

Val I don't think anyone is trying to say that this particular $75 was any kind of make or break situation.

The point being made is that if everyone just decides to stop paying the $75 because the fire department will just show up and put the fire out anyway, eventually the department is going to hit some serious funding problems.

Not if a hefty fine was levied, more funding would be there. But really, why is the fee even optional anyway???

It's just plain stupid policy all around, they should simply make it a mandatory fee!

They're saying half the people already didn't pay the $75 fee and their public leadership just shrugs their shoulders and lets half the town burn to the ground? That's nuts.

 

[boedicca]

We're still talking about this?

Amazing, isn't it? I'm not so sure the bleeding heart liberal is all that enlightened at all, based on the inability to grasp such simplicity.

Their Cognitive Dissonance is astounding.

They argue that the dimbulb homeowner should receive services for which he declined to pay when he had a chance - while at the same time cry up that we are all out brother's keeper. Well, the dimbulb didn't do his part to be his brother's keeper (using the twisted logic of their own bizarro world values system). Why aren't they chastising him for not doing his Fair Share?

 

[saveliberty]

Um...according to the news reports it took a couple of hours to even reach the house. Somehow I imagine a fire crew can get five miles in less than two hours.

And when they got there to respond to the neighbor's property, they did NOTHING.

Bullshit. They responded to the neighbor's (a neighbor who paid for the service) brush fire and acted on it. Imagine that.

Nothing in regard to the house that was burning down.

While I agree the firefighters had the right to not do anything I think they are scum for not doing anything.

That is all.

I'll take that as a debate win, if all I have to give up is the fire guys could have been nicer.

 

[Paulie]

I will say though, that I'd be ok with the department still putting out the fire as long as a HEFTY fine was levied against the home owner.

Like way more than a measly $500.

 

[saveliberty]

...and to think, I almost ignored the whole thread. lol

 

[Ravi]

Bullshit. They responded to the neighbor's (a neighbor who paid for the service) brush fire and acted on it. Imagine that.

Nothing in regard to the house that was burning down.

While I agree the firefighters had the right to not do anything I think they are scum for not doing anything.

That is all.

They provided the service that they are paid to... nothing. They aren't scum, they're people with families to feed. No pay, no work. That's basic shit right there. I assume that you expect to get paid to work, do you not?

They got paid either way. They got paid to watch a house burn down, basically.

 

[Si modo]

I will say though, that I'd be ok with the department still putting out the fire as long as a HEFTY fine was levied against the home owner.

Like way more than a measly $500.

I don't know how they would collect that, but having such a fine on the books might be great incentive for residents to pay the yearly fee.