Check out some similar questions!

excon · Oct 7, 2010, 05:39 AM

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

tkrussell · Oct 7, 2010, 05:51 AM

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

Fr_Chuck · Oct 7, 2010, 06:00 AM

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.

excon · Oct 7, 2010, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by tkrussell

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

Fr_Chuck · Oct 7, 2010, 06:05 AM

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.

excon · Oct 7, 2010, 06:40 AM

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

tkrussell · Oct 7, 2010, 07:06 AM

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.

Fr_Chuck · Oct 7, 2010, 07:38 AM

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

J_9 · Oct 7, 2010, 08:06 AM

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.

speechlesstx · Oct 7, 2010, 08:30 AM

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.

FoxCash · Oct 7, 2010, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by J_9

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.

spitvenom · Oct 7, 2010, 08:49 AM

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

tomder55 · Oct 7, 2010, 10:49 AM

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.

speechlesstx · Oct 7, 2010, 02:24 PM

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.

paraclete · Oct 7, 2010, 02:55 PM

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.

speechlesstx · Oct 7, 2010, 02:58 PM

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.

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.

Fr_Chuck · Oct 7, 2010, 03:02 PM

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,

tomder55 · Oct 7, 2010, 03:10 PM

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 .

speechlesstx · Oct 7, 2010, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 but most of them were too busy insulting "baggers" to notice.

Fr_Chuck · Oct 7, 2010, 05:09 PM

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