Hello:

There's a guy in Tennessee who's house burned down while the local firemen watched, because he didn't pay a $75 surcharge. Who is wrong, and why - the guy for not paying his $75, the county for not collecting enough taxes to protect everybody, or the firemen who watched??

excon

Seems the owner that lost her home is understanding of the situation, she knew there was a fee to insure that firefighters would put out a fire in a this rural area.

Sign of the times it appears what with too much tax burden, reduced tax revenue, etc.

NewsTimes.com - The Latest (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HOUSE_LEFT_TO_BURN?SITE=CTDAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Yes, it is very common in rural areas for there to be an annual fee for fire protection service. Often those areas will not approve a tax bill to include the fire service, or the fire service is private.

The rules are very clear and homeowners should be made aware of this.

Sign of the times it appears what with too much tax burden, reduced tax revenue, etc.Hello tk:

Thanks for your response...

Oh, I know WHY it's happening. Taxing authorities have LESS money, ergo they need to CUT services... I'm just asking whether THIS service should be cut, as opposed to say, a road crew, a jail, or even a cop?

excon

In most areas there was never tax covered fire service. While I can't say for this area, it is very likely that they always had a paid service. And most likely the firemen theirself are often volunteer workers who either don't get paid, or only get a small fee for each fire worked.

Hello Padre:

I understand the situation. I'm asking whether it's good. SHOULD these services be parsed out? If it's OK for the fire department, maybe the cops should consult their list of PAID subscribers before they stopped a rapist, or a burglary that they're watching going on...

What I'm saying is, that in my view, in exchange for the taxes we pay, there are, or at least there SHOULD be, SOME basic services that we can COUNT on government to provide, NO MATTER WHAT. At the TOP of that list should be fire and police protection. No?

excon

Aftr posting I realized I did not answer your original question, "Who is wrong".

You did ask "why".

Clearly, according to the new report, the owner stated she had been paying the fee, and missed a payment, then she is in the wrong.

I am sorry, I did miss the why also,

No I think it is a shame and a sin that they sat and watched the building burn, ( I guess at least they did not roast hot dogs)
As a police officer I swore to protect and serve and even if off duty if it was a serious felony I had a obligation to act.

I think they should have put it out and then charged them the entire cost ( not the 75 dollars) but the 3000 or 4000 or what ever the cost of the actual service was. If the home owner had insurance they could have billed it. And if not, they could have put a lien on the property

I am very upset over this. It's locationally close to me, and we have to pay $50 a year for this service as well.

What would have happened if there were people in that house? Would they have stood and watched those people burn?

For crying out loud, instead of watching the house burn, they could have sent a bill later.

Here's the thing, I find it appalling that the fire department watched it burn down, but these folks knew the rules and the consequences and this area had NO fire service until "pay for spray." But again, I can find no redeeming value in trained professionals watching a family lose their home and pets over 75 bucks.

What would have happened if there were people in that house? Would they have stood and watched those people burn?



Sadly, there were three innocent dogs and a cat inside the home and they still just stood around and watched.

Yeah the people were wrong for not paying the bill. But come on put the damn fire out and collect your friggin pennies later.

The simple solution for this would've been to upcharge for the service if it's not contracted for in advance.

The Fire Dept was wrong because by not fighting the fire they put the neighbors who had paid the fee at risk.

They apparently saved the neighbor's field from what I heard. I don't know how they did it, watched as someone's house burned down with pets inside to boot. I'd be ashamed.

This is one of the more unbelievable stories of the year. That an emergency crew could be so heartless just confirms my worst views of the society in which these people live.

I discussed this over at Huffpo a few days back and this is the narrative from the left, Obion County Fire Tragedy Symbolizes Tea-Party-Republican Vision of Government (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/obion-county-fire-tragedy_b_753893.html).


The Obion County fire incident is symbolic of the moral and economic bankruptcy of the Tea-Party-Republican vision of government and the economy. And it poses the stark choice facing American voters in the Mid-Term elections.

Pure fantasy nonsense.

This is done every day in 1000's of cities around the US. And has been that way for at least 30 years that I am aware of.

The issue as stated earlier on a post, if they provided service to only get 75 dollars, then no one would pay the 75 dollars till after they had a fire. So the after fire fee would have to be in the 1000's to make it worth paying the fee.

But honestly, they should merely find a way to attach the fee to the water bill or some bill where every user of that service has to pay. That is what they do with the trash bill for many places,

That's what the Hufpos float as commentary ? The Tea party thinks it's the role of the local government to provide these services. What they object to is the standardization that comes out of Washington that would do things like mandate the local fire dept. purchase high rise cherry pickers for a rural community .

When my chimney caught fire ,my neighbor who is a volunteer was at my house within minutes inspecting my walls and attic ,and other fighters ran through the woods to get to my house before the fire had a chance to spread.

Good luck getting service like that from Washington. I give more than that fee to the local volunteers for their annual fund drives . It is money well spent .

That's what the Hufpos float as commentary ? The Tea party thinks it's the role of the local government to provide these services.

From the moment this story came to light that was the narrative. I'm constantly amused by the Huffposers, it's one huge echo chamber. Well, there was one guy who had a different take (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Speechlesstx/the-road-to-a-new-progres_b_752707_62954373.html) but most of them were too busy insulting "baggers" to notice.

It was not a fire, but I had a serious breathing issue about a month ago and my wife had to call 911 for help to get me breathing, well the fire truck was the first thing here ( within just a couple minutes ( I live close) they came in with a defib and more and I was breathing good before the ambluance got here. And of course in my younger days I was a fireman for a non paid department.

So I just love my local fire fighters,

Not sure how all of that applies, but I felt like rambling

So I just love my local fire fighters, Hello Padre:

Glad you're feeling better. You wouldn't love 'em so much if you forgot to pay your special assessment...

excon

I honestly have never heard of a pay for spray policy. Am disgusted to hear of it and even more disgusted that the building was allowed to burn down. I can stand the loss of an animal, I would not expect a fireman/woman to go in and rescue my cat. That poses too much danger for that professional. I do agree with other posts that have said - take care of the fire and bill later. The community might have even pitched in monies to offset that bill if the person did not have the funds. A policy like pay for spray is cold-hearted.

We have to remember in those departments it is a business, that yearly fee is how they pay for equipment, training, and more.

If you are hungry and don't have money you can't get food from the local store without paying for it.

If you don't have money to pay the rent, you get evicted.

So if you look at those departments as a business, not a government service,

so if you look at those departments as a business, not a government service,Hello Padre:

That works for well for the RICH, but the poor homeowners suffer. Police protection is going to be privatized NEXT. That AIN'T going to be good.

Who is saying this isn't EXACTLY like the tea party would like it?? Seems to me, this is Tea Party nirvana.

excon

Who is saying this isn't EXACTLY like the tea party would like it???? Seems to me, this is Tea Party nirvana.

Seems? Give me one shred of evidence, ex.

Seems? Give me one shred of evidence, ex.Hello again, Steve:

One of us is missing something...

I thought Republicans were in favor of PRIVATIZING government services... I thought the TEA PARTY had orgasms over PRIVATIZING government services... THIS is a privatized government service. THIS fire department is acting EXACTLY like you'd think a privatized fire department SHOULD act. No pay - no spray. What's NOT to like if you're a tea partier? Glenn Beck LOVES it... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/glenn-beck-mocks-fire-vic_b_753193.html)

Now, I could be wrong,. But, I'm NOT. .

excon

This is not a case of privatized services. That is a distortion .

This person could easily afford the fee . He chose not to pay it. Had he been taxed for it ,he would've paid more annually than the fee.

Also he did not live in the taxing authority .People who live in unincorporated sections of the county near the village I live in have similar fee for services charges from the village. The village on it's own cannot afford to cover non-residences for free ;and frankly it would be unfair for the homeowners in the village to subsidize non-residences .

That being said I think it was irresponsible for them to sit by and not put the fire out. An upcharged bill could've been submitted and enforced after the service was provided. Consider the $75 not a tax but and insurance policy.

On 9-11 many volunteer firefighters responded and it cost them their lives. They did not sit outside because a fee hadn't been settled .

This is not a case of privatized services. That is a distortion .

This person could easily afford the fee . He chose not to pay it. Had he been taxed for it ,he would've paid more annually than the fee. Hello again, tom:

Huh??

Let me see. They were CHARGING for it. It WASN'T a tax. He COULD afford it. He DIDN'T pay, and he DIDN'T get the service. What ISN'T private about that? That's how I do business with my dry cleaners, and, frankly, everybody else for that matter... THAT'S how private business WORKS.

As a rightwinger, how is it that you don't know that?

excon

He lived outside the taxing authority .Are you saying he should've been covered for free... or are you saying the people of the town should've provided this service to him for free ?
Maybe you think this is like the free health care services that illegals get.

This person could easily afford the fee . He chose not to pay it.

Incorrect. This person forgot to pay it. She paid in previous years, but forgot this year.

I can't say how they bill there, but normally they get a bill, they get a reminder bill and often even another bill. If you forget to pay your tax bill, they will end up selling your house.

But with that said, to go back to excon statement about private police, which is what some gated communities have basically, And if you don't see a difference in the treatment of people in court who have the money to pay better lawyers, to afford investigators and to afford to pay for a dozen motions on a case.


If OJ had been a poor man from the projects he would not have been out on bail and he would be serving 15 to life.

Local news story.

Firefighters And Obion County Mayor Speak Over Fire Controversy - WREG (http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-obion-fire,0,2139336.story)

He lived outside the taxing authority .Are you saying he should've been covered for free ...or are you saying the people of the town should've provided this service to him for free ?.Hello tom:

He lived in SOME taxing authority. Maybe THAT authority (the county?) should have collected taxes to cover its residents... I'm sure the little town would LOVE to have received the money in a bunch instead of $75 here and $75 there. I'll bet they could even have gotten a discount if they paid that way.

What I'm saying, is this is either a failure of government, or it's an intentional outcome. I think it's intentional. I think it's exactly what Republicans want... Or, maybe you really DON'T want it, when you see it in action.

Government isn't ALWAYS the enemy. Ronald Reagan didn't tell you that.

excon

The article J9 posted says that a county tax had been proposed in the past and rejected.

J9 whether they "forgot" to pay ,or didn't pay is irrelevant to my point of view because I already agreed that the fire dept was wrong to stand by.

That being said ,I wonder how many people in the unincorporated areas make the decision not to pay?

Reading the comments to the article I find that their illegal burning of trash is what caused the fire.

Ex ,yes I want to live in a world where there is at least a small degree of individual responsibility . It is absolute demagoguery to suggest houses burning down is the outcome we desire .

What's NOT to like if you're a tea partier? Glenn Beck LOVES it...

Aside from his idiot sidekick mocking the man, Beck wasn't LOVING it. He made the point that - and I remind you that until the fee this area had NO fire service - if the fire department responds to everyone who hasn't paid the fee, no one would pay the fee and there would be no way to fund this service. You forget that my "green job" is in fire protection and it ain't cheap. If they have no money they have no fire protection.

It is absolute demagoguery to suggest houses burning down is the outcome we desire .Hello again, tom:

In private business, SOME people choose NOT to buy. When they DON'T buy, they DON'T get the benefit of whatever it is that they DIDN'T buy. I'm sure you don't like to see peoples homes burn, but that IS the result of PRIVATIZED government service. That's NOT demagoguery. It's BUSINESS. IF you're so worried about your neighbor, and you appear to be, put fire protection BACK under the social contract where it once was...

You either EMBRACE private fire departments, and accept houses that burn as a result of nonpayment, or you don't. Spit it out...

excon

Not buying it . There is no mandate for this service. I see it all the time where I live. The Orthodox community opts out of the public services and provides their own on things like busing ,ambulance services etc . They just don't cry about it if they need the service and it isn't delivered by the government . They take care of themselves.

This is reminiscent of the old days where you had to purchase metal badges to be displayed on a leather cord or wooden board outside your home so the firefighters who showed up knew you had already paid for their services. Harken back to the good old days.

Also, the homeowner would have had homeowner's insurance that would have covered the fire damage (I hope). Maybe the insurance company will end up suing the fire department for not putting out the fire when they where there on the scene.

It's sad that this "service" should be paid for yearly and not included in their property taxes. Talk about backward states and backward counties..!

Mental note, stay in Canada

Here fire services are paid through your property tax but I can tell you that no one would be refused that service even if they hadn't paid their property tax that year.

To let the house burn, the pets inside burn, is inhumane, and the firemen that stood by watching it burn should be extremely ashamed.

I find this horrifying. You all can keep your government, I'll stick with mine.

I have watched this debate and there is nothing logical in a system of fire protection that says you have to pay before you are protected. This does not serve the common good. It is like saying you can't step into the street if you haven't paid taxes, or you can't have medical assistance if you don't have medical insurance. The circumstances of this case show a heartlessness that is difficult to contemplate and I'm glad I live in a country where such behaviour would be unconscienconable and subject to action for criminal negligence

It is a issue of jurisdiction and authority, Fire protection in many areas have been taken over by the city or by the county, ( and I have seen fire departments stop because they discover it is in a different district and will not proceed but go back to their department and just call the other. ** their insurance does not cover them outside of their area unless ordered by higher up in the department

But there are other areas that have no service because either their city or county has not approved, or can not fund such a service, The voters have to agree to pay for it.

nothing logical in a system of fire protection that says you have to pay before you are protected.

What is taxes but pay in advance for a service ? What is your medical insurance or auto insurance but a pay before services are delivered ?

What is taxes but pay in advance for a service ? What is your medical insurance or auto insurance but a pay before services are delivered ?

Tom there are some things that have a common good and some that have an individual good. We would not think of paying for a road before we used it or the sewerage system even though these things are funded by contribution, call it taxes if you will. Why should a fire service be any different? Would you like to extend this principle to the police service? Or other emergency services? Of course not. This was plainly wrong, the result of wrong thinking. In some places certain types of indemnity insurance is manadated, you cannot drive a car without it, this is done for the common good, because there are irresponsible individuals who game the system. Even medical insurance is mandated in some places for the same reason.

What I see implicit in your answer is acceptance that taxes pay for services even though some people contribute at a different level or don't contribute at all. To take certain people outside the system and say no contribtion, no service is discrimatory

We would not think of paying for a road before we used it or the sewerage system

I've been paying for a sewer system for years that will not be hooked up in my neighborhood for another 2-3 years.

Fire equipment must be purchased and fire personal trained long before they are called upon to save your house.

To take certain people outside the system and say no contribtion, no service is discrimatory

The house in question was not in the taxing authority of the town That is why the fee system was set up . But just like in health care ,you think people are entitled to services for free. The world doesn't work that way.

As I have said ;the fire dept should've fought the fire. But buillt into the system should be a severe fine for allowing the fee to laps if the fire dept is called upon to protect the property. I see that comparable to the fines the dept imposes on business owners who's alarm system triggers a false alarm.

I've been paying for a sewer system for years that will not be hooked up in my neighborhood for another 2-3 years.

Fire equipment must be purchased and fire personal trained long before they are called upon to save your house.


The house in question was not in the taxing authority of the town That is why the fee system was set up . But just like in health care ,you think people are entitled to services for free. The world doesn't work that way.

As I have said ;the fire dept should've fought the fire. But buillt into the system should be a severe fine for allowing the fee to laps if the fire dept is called upon to protect the property. I see that comparable to the fines the dept imposes on business owners who's alarm system triggers a false alarm.
There is apparently a very different ethos between you and me Tom, I don't subscribe to a system that allows a town to be selective about who is in or out of a service area. I used to live in a situation that might have paralled this but we were not left without any responder. There is a concept here which appears to be missing there, and that is the last resort, and it basically obligates a service to respond if no other service can. It is called a community service obligation. Maybe this is because our services are organised at state level and so local politics is kept out of the picture and the question of funding is a separate issue to be argued out by bureaucrats.
Now this may not be very efficient and a service might respond that is further from the scene than is desirable, but for the common good and to ensure protection of life in the broad sense response is made. I think our attitudes come from living closer to a pioneering environment, we have to depend on our neighbours

I can't see why they didn't have a non-subscriber fee they could impose which could be levied on the insurer or the owner either.

The house in question was not in the taxing authority of the town That is why the fee system was set up . Hello again, tom:

You keep saying this as though he didn't live in ANY taxing authority. He DID, and it was THAT taxing authority who did wrong. Services COULD have been purchased for EVERYBODY. They SHOULD have done so. Period, end of story. They put the fire department and homeowners, those who paid and those who didn't pay, into a no win situation.

Everybody here wants to blame the poor homeowner or the fire department... Why don't you blame GOVERNMENT? I thought you HATED government. Here's you chance...

excon

Hello again, tom:

You keep saying this as though he didn't live in ANY taxing authority. He DID, and it was THAT taxing authority who did wrong. Services COULD have been . They put the fire department and homeowners, those who paid and those who didn't pay, into a no win situation.

excon

Come on Ex it's more than that, they turned their fire department into a collection agency, this was nothing more than a legalised protection racket

Because in this case the government is not at fault. The question of taxing at the county level was proposed and rejected. That is what the people in the unincorporated parts of the county wanted . This system is a good deal for them. An annual fee of $75 is not a burden... period . I bet these folks paid more monthly on cell phone text and internet access,or satellite television .

Services COULD have been purchased for EVERYBODY. They SHOULD have done so. Period, end of story.

Our government is allegedly "of the people, by the people, for the people." That's what the left ignores, that WE are the government and the government serves the people. Instead, like you they believe the government is some higher entity whose duty it is to babysit the people.

Wrong! If this county -the people - rejected a tax to provide fire service and opted for another way to protect those rural areas then they have to deal with it. Pay for the service or be at risk, because fire protection isn't free. I bet they paid their homeowners insurance policy, don't you?

Our government is allegedly "of the people, by the people, for the people." That's what the left ignores, that WE are the government and the government serves the people. Instead, like you they believe the government is some higher entity whose duty it is to babysit the people.Hello again, Steve:

Ok, then. Let me ask you this, Mr. WE the people. Let's say YOUR town, which is populated mostly with RICH people who can AFFORD to pay for private services, decides to vote down fire protection. The POOR people in your community, not surprisingly, voted against it. The people have SPOKEN, say you!

So, Mr. WE the people, are you going to let the POOR peoples houses burn?? I think you WOULD! And, you have the gall to call FIRE PROTECTION, babysitting! DUDE!

Is THIS the American you envision?? DUDE!! Let me out of here.

excon

There are plenty of services that the poor 'can't afford'. The toll for a bridge doesn't change depending on the income level of the driver. The sewer fees and garbage fees that are charged for residents do not change based on income levels.
If a person can afford to be a home owner then that person should be able to afford a fee for fire protection . (generally the poor people you are talking about are renters and not home owners... but you knew that ) . My town mandates smoke alarms installed throughout a home. They are required regardless of the income level of the owner .

Again let's keep this in perspective . It was not that the owner couldn't afford it . It's that the owner for whatever reason didn't pay it .

Is THIS the American you envision??????? DUDE!!! Lemme outta here.

Ex, I said right from the start "I find it appalling that the fire department watched it burn down" and "I can find no redeeming value in trained professionals watching a family lose their home and pets over 75 bucks." I also said I don't know how a professional firefighter can watch and do nothing as someone loses their home and pets, so enough of the drama over what country I "envision."

The country will undoubtedly have some changes coming up, but none of this excuses the Cranicks for not playing by the rules they knew they were living under and have to accept responsibility as well.

Oh, and "the people" put Obama and Democrats in charge and I certainly don't like what they envision for our country, but I believe you told us to get over it.

but I believe you told us to get over it.Hello again, Steve:

As I'm sure you'll tell me when I'm bi**ing about president Palin.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

As I'm sure you'll tell me when I'm bi**ing about president Palin.

I'm thinking president Christie.

I'm thinking president Christie.

I'm getting mixed signals . While he has gone on the national tour building up IOUs ;he also had made some definitive Shermanesque declarations of not running.