Don't pay $75 Fee and your House catches Fire..Tough Luck!!!

I am amazed that firemen would stand by and WATCH another's home burn to the ground over a fee!

IMO they are not true firefighters, if they were they wouldn't want to see another's home burn to the ground.

This isn't old times either!

What's next you call 911 and they refuse to help you cause you didn't pay a fee?

I know this is going to sound bad but the one who got assaulted imo deserved it. I hope he doesn't sleep at night.

reply to post by mblahnikluver


The firemen did make sure that the neighbors' house didn't burn down...

And no one was stopping the family from paying the fee....

Just because fire sets off the monkey alarm bells in our brains doesn't mean we should revert to socialism though.

*This fire department needs to get their billing system in order. They could make money by charging thousands of dollars to put out a fire; a high price is the only thing that will keep people paying the subscription. One cannot have the one-time fee be cheaper than say, 20 years of paying fees in the county. Twenty years worth of fees, that is only $1500; the fire departent would have to find a price that will allow them to keep serving the county folks and encourage people to pay the fee.

It is to no one's benefit if the place goes out of business because of too much charity. Then no one will have firemen in that county.

It's too bad that this man lost his house however, no one is questioning why this man's grandson was openly burning trash close enough to the house for the fire to spread. My grandpa used burn rubbish on occasion and his fire pit was 150 feet from anything in any direction. Not only to prevent the fire from spreading but to steer clear of the odor as much as possible.

In this case, I have to wonder if this genius of a grandson was letting this fire burn unattended in the first place. If he was watching it he should have kept it under control. Stupid is as stupid does.

This fire spread over 2 hours. Surely enough time to grab the animals when the fire first reached the house.

did he forget to pay his house insurance too?

This is just another sickening example of the decline of common sense, human decency and heroism in western society. It is but another example of how little regard "public servants" now have for the people they are sworn to serve, and the selfishness of our society in general.

It reminds me of the decision of the police to "set up a perimeter" at Columbine while the killers continued to go room to room murdering students.

It reminds me of the stories we have read of police officers in Great Britain who stand by and watch people drown in rivers.

It reminds me of the video, seen recently, of the elderly American gentleman who was struck by a car...but no other cars, or citizens walking by came to his aide.

Does anyone else see the disconnect between the recent announcement of the Medal of Honor to be awarded to the soldier who personally took on 100 Taliban to save 22 of his mates...the majority of whom were Afghanistan soldiers...and this kind of chicken-#@% garbage?

If it's your job to put out fires...put out fires. If it is your job to protect citizens from the acts of criminals, protect the public. If it is your job to protect your Country from its enemies, fight.

If you are a person who been protected by others in your life (like your family, your friends, a stranger), then be a citizen, be a real human being and stand up to protect others too!

Remember, please, this $75 fee was an arbitrary one set by some level of government as an additional form of taxation. These people lived in a mobile home...maybe they couldn't afford to pay it (or maybe they chose not for some reason...does not really enter into it).

What's next...if you are too poor, or fail to pay your taxes for any other reason the police will not come if you call 911 during a home invasion? You will be arrested if you try to drive on a public highway? The fire department will not come to your aide if your house is on fire? Oh, wait....

Perhaps the odd thing here is, that I a not a liberal...at all. I think people need to pay their own way, overall. The system needs to be set up so that people have real incentives to stand on their own two feet and make it in this world. But having said that, there are certain very basic things that we need to provide to people in our society whether or not they have willingly contributed to the fund-pool - especially in times of emergency.

There are remedies other than public servant inaction. How about, making these people do public service equal to the actual cost of the fire call...instead of standing by and watching a house burn to the ground - taking the lives of 4 beloved pets at the same time?

We, as a society, need to begin to stand up and speak out against these forms of madness!

If these firefighters want to be a corporate entity, then they should not receive ANY help or tax breaks from any federal, state or local government, because ALL of us paid those taxes.

No the citizens of the city of South Fulton pays their taxes. How would you feel if your house catches fire and your nearest fire company is on a run 10 miles away to a place that doesn’t contribute. The next nearest fire company may be an additional 10 minutes away from your house. So your house will suffer a great deal more damage because of some freeloader.

Communities create fire departments for the good of THEIR OWN community not someone down the road. If you want a county wide fire department then pass a county wide tax to pay for it.

If they were the first department to receive the alarm for the house fire, they, by law, are required to respond to the fire and try to extinguish the fire.

Totally incorrect.

This is called "Mutual Aid," where one or more fire departments are sent to assist another department whether it be for a fire,

This is not a case of mutual aid. Mutual aid is an agreement between more than one FD. In this case the house was located in an area that is NOT served by any FD.

It is likely that they were burning trash because that area does not have trash pick up. Or like in my area each home has to pay a monthly fee to a private trash company. He chose not to pay for that as well.

It makes you wonder if he has insurance on his automobile. Would you people be so forgiving and generous if he has an auto accident and no insurance? Oh the poor sole he has no insurance so we should chip in and pay for his car wreck!

As for the dead dogs: Legally they are no different than a couch or television. Just personal property. If he cared so much about his animals he should have supported the FD by paying that minimal fee. That $75 doesn’t begin to cover the true cost of fighting a structure fire.

reply to post by samkent



I know this is not a case of mutual aid, i was providing an example of why a fire dept would still pay out disability/death benefits for an injury sustained whilst fighting the fire. You missed the point.

And I dont know of any city or town or state that doesnt recieve federal aid in the form of grants etc for first responder agencies. So by and large, this tax paying homeowner has a stake in the fire fighting apparatus at the very least.

The main point to this is that there is a blatant lack of humility to help another human being at the time they needed help the most.

Besides the fact that the homeowner said HELP ME, ILL PAY WHATEVER YOU WANT!

So fight the fire and then bill him...at least youre not complete scum for watching a HOME burn down with FAMILY PETS INSIDE!

Originally posted by samkent

No the citizens of the city of South Fulton pays their taxes. How would you feel if your house catches fire and your nearest fire company is on a run 10 miles away to a place that doesn’t contribute. The next nearest fire company may be an additional 10 minutes away from your house. So your house will suffer a great deal more damage because of some freeloader.

This is called "Mutual Aid," where one or more fire departments are sent to assist another department whether it be for a fire,

This is not a case of mutual aid. Mutual aid is an agreement between more than one FD. In this case the house was located in an area that is NOT served by any FD.

You contradicted yourself...If the fire dept is fighting a fire and saving lives 10 minutes away then the mutual aid company thats standing by at the station for coverage would respond to my house.

I don't understand the controversy.

The home owner knew of the $75 dollar fee to pretty much subscribe to the Fire Departments services...it is pretty much a supplemental tax...and he DECIDED not too. It was his CHOICE.

Yes...it sucks his house burnt down...that is why it is GOOD to have taxes to pay for a Fire Department that will service ALL residents of an area. This is why I laugh at people who are mad at paying taxes.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


So why dont they have a $75 pre pay and if you dont pay that and use the service you pay actual costs for services rendered? Instead of your city and your fire department looking like a bunch of vindictive heartless trash you would have your city and department looking like they are just greedy

No the first example (your house) is how would you feel as a citizen of the city who pays taxes toward your own FD if your house burns longer while the FD is out fighting a freebie in the county. There is no mutual aid since there is only one FD involved. You paid your taxes so an engine company could be close to your house in case of emergency. But now in your time of need they are outside your city on a run somewhere in the countryside fighting a fire but they have never put a dime towards you FD. Is that fair to the citizens of the city that pays for the FD?

How far does this feeling of charity extend? This county is on the border with Kentucky. Should they make free runs into the next state? What if the house is just 50 feet in the next state?

Speculation on my part but what do you bet this guy pays more per month on his cell phone bill?

It comes down to priorities.

Charging the full cost of services sounds nice but collecting the money is the problem.
This guy lives in a trailer. Even if the FD responded the damage would be so extensive the owner could not have moved back in. Plus would this guy have the 2-5K for the full amount? Not likely.

Then you run into the problem of the FD being over extended. More people move into the area but not the city proper. The city is forced to buy additional fire houses and equipment and staff. But at the same time they may or may not be collecting on the runs.

reply to post by samkent


I would have to angrily question my town selectmen why we dont have a mutual aid contract to cover the town while the engine company is out fighting another fire IN the town...

If a fire company is tied up, it doesnt matter if they are tied up fighting a fire at a taxpayers house or fighting a fire out in the outlying county...they cant pack up before the fire is out to come to my house...

mutual aid is a necessity everywhere...this city fire dept (speculation) has to have mutual aid coverage

You dont become a firefighter for the money...sorry, its just not there...

Its not like they didnt show up at all and refused to come out (which may have been better)...they watched the home burn to the ground.

If they cover the area for a fee then they cover the area. Kentucky doesnt claim to cover the area at all so they wouldnt have a responsibility to show up and the city in question does.

As a line firefighter, you dont worry about money while the flames are raging...you let the attorneys cover that.

Originally posted by BingeBob
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

So why dont they have a $75 pre pay and if you dont pay that and use the service you pay actual costs for services rendered? Instead of your city and your fire department looking like a bunch of vindictive heartless trash you would have your city and department looking like they are just greedy

So you want the FD to use the tax dollars I pay to go fight fires for someone who doesn't pay...and then HOPE to collect money for the services. No thanks...the homeonwer needs to take responsibility for his own actions. You want to take the risk of not paying the fee...live life on the edge...then take responsibility for your choices when something happens.

Isn't it fun to link this back to other current events...like health insurance. All these people complaining that they will be "forced to buy health insurance"...well these are the same type of people like this home owner. They are all big and tough until something happens and they would need it...then they will cry about how it isn't fair.

Personally responsibility...it is lacking in todays society.

Even if he offered to pay the fee, which he didn't according to Canadian Media, this is just like house insurance.

You can't offer to get house insurance AFTER you home is broken into or suffers damage, or trying to buy health insurance after you get sick or injured, or trying to buy travel insurance AFTER you get stuck at the airport overnight. It's the same for this guy.

He took a chance with the fees to save a few bucks, and lost. $75 a year? That's less than $7 a month to protect your home in case of emergency. It's just like folks who don't have fire insurance, and then expect the community to kick in dollars and bail them out when their home burns down.

I'm also betting we're not hearing the whole story here. Mobile home fires spread pretty quickly, it's very likely that by the time the fire department got out to a rural area, that the home was fully engulfed and there was nothing they could do.

The best thing the fire department could do was to make sure that the fire didn't spread to neighboring properties.

In most rural areas in both the USA and Canada, the fire department doesn't cover your area and it's not likely they will come if called - it's one of the downsides of living out in the boonies. You get a beautiful, quiet area, and probably a large property or an acreage that you wouldn't get in the city, but if you get into trouble, you're pretty much on your own.

I fully support the fire department in their decision on this one. It's time people realized that their are consequences for their life choices.

A tough life lesson learned for this trailer owner.

Yes, but with all those circumstances you have a chance to pay out of pocket for it...

Auto insurance...if you crash without it you pay out of pocket to get it fixed if you crash into someone else they sue you and the court orders you to pay up...

Home insurance (this guy had still doesnt replace memories and pets) you pay for the damage of your property out of pocket...

This guys house burned to the ground and there was a fire dept present to mitigate the damage but stood by and did nothing. The guy tried to pay out of pocket for the service but was denied.

Okay, here's the scenario.

This guy doesn't pay the required fees to use the service and is now pissed that he can't use the service.

What happens if while this fire truck is busy putting out a fire for someone who doesn't contribute a DIME to this service, either in fees or in taxes, that there is a large fire in the city needing ALL fire resources that they can't put out because they're busy being a good samaritan to this guy and the truck is now out in the rural area, too far away to put out the fire for the good, tax paying citizen?

It's also likely that there are no fire hydrants in this rural area, and that the miniscule annual fee not only covers the city salary of the fire fighters (not really though) but also for the water that they've had to take out of the City to go fight the fire for this guy. $75 was a very small annual fee to pay for what many would consider an essential service, obviously this guy felt differently about this, and didn't think fire coverage was essential.

People make life choices, and sometimes they pay the consequences of their bad decisions.

This guy made his choice not to pay for the service, and now, he cannot use the service. It's a simple policy of you get what you pay for. In his case, he didn't contribue, so he gets nothing.

reply to post by jibeho


So if no one had been home would they have let it burn not knowing if someone was inside, or would they have let it burn?

Truth is anyone could have been in the home and they would not have known otherwise had someone not been home.

The firemen who responded and sat and watched a home burn to the ground are lacking in morals and overall human compassion.

So you agree that unless you pay a $75 protection fee your home should burn. Nice to see a compassionate side. I do not know the home owners finaces. Maybe they where having a hard time getting by, maybe not. Either way the firemen are a sad case in my eyes.


Raist