It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tennessee family home burns while firefighters watch

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by brokedown
 


Thank you for clarifying.


What bugs me is how heartless anyone can be though. Basically these firefighters were watching their own neighbors house go up in flames and did nothing.

I don't see how anyone could do that, fee or no fee.


It looks to me like the years of heartless actions by our government is finally trickling down to the local level.

I know they need the money, but you can't tell me that they can't come up with a better solution.

Oh and 75 dollars isn't always easy for some people just to dish out when they have a family to feed. I'm guessing the department didn't have a payment play for those in which $75 is a weeks pay?




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
These firefighters are a disgrace to our State, and this Mayor is shameful. Tennesseans should vote him out and not put up with this garbage anymore.

My local firefighters would never do such a thing.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Why I hate seeing how highly regarded fire fighters are,to let a home burn down,I hops their familys need a doctor and the doctor they see isn't in their medical network,firefighters are like anyone else with their hands out to rip off tax payers,screw em



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by snowspirit
 

That sounds like a very strange system. In the UK (where I was born and lived till 20 or so) and here in Holland (where I live now) police, ambulance and fire services are all paid for out of public money. You call, they come, no bill before or after.

Oh, and car insurance is compulsory if you want to drive and house insurance or contents insurance is not but the fire truck will come regardless.


That isn't true at all - we are taxed for all of our services in the UK and have been for ages. Your council tax payments, for example, pay for things like local police, fire, etc as well as having your bins collected.

I don't actually see the problem here - the people elected not to pay tax, therefore they forego the right to use the services that the taxes pay for. It is quite simple really.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 

Well, I'll be honest and say I did leave the UK before the council tax started (and moved to a country where they already had it
) but my point was that you don't get a bill. I can't imagine the fire-brigade first checking to see if you have paid your council tax before going to a fire. I guess change is inevitable though. Thanks for the clarification.

ETA They must be one step ahead here. We get a separate (and large!) bill for rubbish collection. They outsourced it to SITA, a multi-national profit making corporation.
edit on 7/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
$75 a year for a service you may never need?

So it costs $2,250 for 30 years of service, which you likely wont need.

Lets say... 1 out of 20 houses has a serious fire in that time. Period. The fire department has made $45,000 for that day of work.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


No, fair play, i get your point and will admit to a bit of obtuseness (?) in order to get my point across!
Much as i love the place, you probably did the right thing in escaping!

The Fire brigade wouldn't check, they would simply put out the fire (if possible). It is slightly different over here in that if you opt to not pay council tax, you get a knock from the bailiffs - and not just normal bailiffs. As it is a government tax debt, they have the power to come straight on in (unlike the majority of bailiffs, whatever they may claim). Non payment would not stop the services, it would just mean you lose your possessions for not paying in the first place!



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
These small town politicians running the government feel justified in denying services to folks outside their taxing authority while making only the appearance of providing those same services to their taxpaying residents. Our town has more firetrucks than staff - just 2 guys can run an ambulance but not a big firetruck and definitely NOT at the same time. Our fire department lets the tax-paying resident's house burn up along with those no-paying people out in the county! But we can drive our big trucks out to other department's fires and bill them for using our equipment.

ganjoa



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





Besides, it was a trailer, they burn up in like 20 minutes anyway.


Actually it is more like eight minutes. Watched a friends trailer burn down across the border in MS. There was no fee in MS but it was a volunteer fire dept. By the time they got there the fire was over.

Also this not the first time this has happened. I remember a couple years ago this happened to another couple in another State.

Personally, I lost my cabin when a tree fell through it in a storm. I had no insurance. I was sad, and wished I had paid the insurance, but I had to start over and buy another home. Luckily the first one was paid off so their was no double house payment.

I really see no difference here. If you take the risk and do not pay you take the loss if you gambled wrong.

Remember, we all love capitalism. Can't reverse and embrace socialism every time something we don't like comes from our choices. If we did that we would be bailing out banks when they fail. Oh...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
We have a volunteer department here. My neighbors house across the street caught fire two years ago on Christmas eve. It took 15 min for them to get here, as they live all over the county and it takes time to get here.
We do not pay 75 a year .

30 miles away, where my brother lives in San Tan Valley, they have to pay the75 or the same thing will happen. In fact it did, there was a story about it last year.

If you have the means, put the fire out, and ask for 75 bucks. I mean come on! What if your neighbor did pay the 75, but you didt so they do not put your house out and now the whole neighborhood is up in smoke.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Ittabena
 


Yep, a volunteer fire department isn't going to waste a tankfull of water on an impossible blaze anyway. They'll save it for the next fire when hopefully they can do some good.

I've been thinking about my flip-flop from last year's thread, and I agree with what I said last year. If you don't pay the fee, the fire department could still put out the fire and levy a mechanics lien on the property. They could bill for actual cost of services in that instance, and it would be way more than $75. Everyone still gets fire coverage, but some people have paid the $75 in advance, and others have chosen to gamble and pay the actual cost of services in the event they need them.

I think that is a great way for the departments to handle this. If you paid the fee, they show up and put the fire out. If you haven't paid the fee, they show up with a contract for firefighting services, and you sign it and they put the fire out and levy a lien on the property. Or, in the case of a trailer, they show up, they give you the option, and you say, "let it burn." Then they aren't the bad guys, it was your own choice.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
MADNESS
"WHERE IS IT" "THERE" ....."OH NEVERMIND FOLKS. NOTHING TO SEE HERE" ... 2 HRS LATER.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Ittabena
 


Yep, a volunteer fire department isn't going to waste a tankfull of water on an impossible blaze anyway. They'll save it for the next fire when hopefully they can do some good.

I've been thinking about my flip-flop from last year's thread, and I agree with what I said last year. If you don't pay the fee, the fire department could still put out the fire and levy a mechanics lien on the property. They could bill for actual cost of services in that instance, and it would be way more than $75. Everyone still gets fire coverage, but some people have paid the $75 in advance, and others have chosen to gamble and pay the actual cost of services in the event they need them.

I think that is a great way for the departments to handle this. If you paid the fee, they show up and put the fire out. If you haven't paid the fee, they show up with a contract for firefighting services, and you sign it and they put the fire out and levy a lien on the property. Or, in the case of a trailer, they show up, they give you the option, and you say, "let it burn." Then they aren't the bad guys, it was your own choice.

Some counties in Tennessee already do this.

From an article posted last year:

Blount County residents who fail to subscribe to fire services for $110 will be presented with a hefty bill after firefighters finish their duties at a house fire.

McClanahan said it amounts to $2,200 for the initial call and $1,100 for every hour past the first two that firefighters are on the scene

---------------------

But Knox County's non-subscription charge leaves the others in ashes.

If no subscription is paid, he said, the standard rate is $1,200 per hour for each unit dispatched to the scene.

"And we never send a single engine to a fire," he said. "We send four engines and a ladder truck," meaning the homeowner is charged the hourly fee for each truck.

Knowing that, he said, most people realize it is "more reasonable" to pay the subscription fee.
knoxnews.com

When it comes to something like the above, I guess some could see it as a gamble. Pay now or maybe pay later.

OiO

edit on 7-12-2011 by OneisOne because: fix wording



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Ethically and morally it's not right but like everything it's a business. Kind of like insurance or extended warranties. Hopefully they had home owners insurance to cover their loss.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Sounds to me like a libertarian wet dream.

I'm kind of shocked that more of the ATS user base isn't cheering/celebrating this.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
When I hear about stories like this one it completely puzzles me because of where I live we do not have to pay for anything directly. You pay a sales tax (on food too) and property tax, that is all here (except taxes for the Feds). So when they talk about paying a fee for garbage collection or the FIRE DEPARTMENT for God’s sake it makes me pause.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
Ethically and morally it's not right but like everything it's a business. Kind of like insurance or extended warranties. Hopefully they had home owners insurance to cover their loss.


Well that would bring up another question..
Could the Homeowners Insurance decline the claim because the homeowner didn't take all precautions available to minimize potential damages?

Now that would be the ultimate slap!



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuch4another

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
Ethically and morally it's not right but like everything it's a business. Kind of like insurance or extended warranties. Hopefully they had home owners insurance to cover their loss.


Well that would bring up another question..
Could the Homeowners Insurance decline the claim because the homeowner didn't take all precautions available to minimize potential damages?

Now that would be the ultimate slap!


Hmm...good point. That would be the ultimate slap and right to the nuts.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
For those who want to see that this does not happen again,
www.thepetitionsite.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by lcbjr1979
 


I thought paramedics were more intelligent than this. The topic is about a house burning down, not people burning inside the home. If you read the article it states that safety comes before the fee, so if people were in the house the firefighters would have acted accordingly. Your analogy is baseless and frankly if you were the only paramedic around I'd prefer you not do anything. I'd stand a better chance of resuscitating myself.

Again this was a property loss issue. There is a fee. They didn't pay it. They don't get service. It's just like not paying any other fee. Whether the fee is right or wrong isn't the point of the thread. It is what it is. If you don't want to pay a separate fee for fire service then move somewhere else where it's included in your property taxes.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join