Tennessee Firefighters Let Mobile Home Burn Because Couple Didn't Pay Protection Fee

[RamboLiberal]

SOUTH FULTON, Tenn. -- A Tennessee couple has lost everything after their home burned to the ground as firefighters watched and did nothing.

Bell says she could "look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance."

Rural residents who want fire protection can get service from the nearby town of South Fulton, but they must pay a $75-a-year fee. South Fulton Mayor David Crocker said that if the city's firefighters responded to people who didn't pay there would be no incentive for anyone to subscribe. He said firefighters will help when people are in danger, regardless of whether they have paid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/tennessee-home-burns-as-f_0_n_1132120.html

[joeybee12]

1. This happened before with someone's house...the consensus on DU

was that it should burn down...and not just the lurking freepers felt that way.

[Posteritatis]

3. I anticipate a large crowd cheering it again this time. (nt)

[Pithlet]

11. Actually, I remember it a bit differently.

I remember stating that the county wanted to implement this awful pay to spray because they kept voting down the taxes to pay the city, and that I felt the city shouldn't have to be compelled to provide them with fire service for free. And it seemed DU overwhelmingly piled on me and the few others who agreed.

Which is why I worry about DU3. Would I have been alerted on and all my posts deleted because I went against the majority? I 'm not so sure about this new system precisely because of instances like like the first time this story was posted.

[Bunny]

22. I remember it your way, too.

I agreed with you, and we took a beating in those threads. DUers don't do nuance well, do they?

[rpannier]

80. I remembered it going both ways

I thought it was outrageous that they stood and watched.
I had disagreements with Hannah Bell -- It's why I remember that post because that didn't happen too often
There were posts that supported non-action and posts that supported my position
It was pretty heated, but I don't remember either side having a significantly higher number of individuals in their corner

[thelordofhell]

113. Not only that.....the fire department was from another state

And the people in the house had another fire at another of their places a few years ago, begged the fire department to save it, and said they would pay the price........they didn't. They told the fire department to sue them for the money. The residence owner thought he got a great deal. The only thing I was angry about was the fact that they had family pets they didn't bother to evacuate and the fire department couldn't save them.

[jberryhill]

16. That's an oversimplification

Emergency services are organized in a lot of different ways among cities, states and counties. Some ways work better than others.

Putting stuff like this onto the shoulders of the individual employees of the fire company, as many DUers did, was one thing to which I objected. They weren't the ones who set up the screwy system.

[rhett o rick]

31. I understand what you say, but how can a fire fighter stand by and watch someone's home burn to the

ground? I would quit before I would be put in that situation.

[jberryhill]

37. I see.... so you've never gone out of your way to save ANYONE's home

...but judge others engaged in that pursuit for their failings.

You avoid the situation by not being a firefighter at all.

And with jobs just bursting forth from the TN economy, you would tell your kids, "No food tonight. We're having Dad's principles."

I save the moral posturing about others for the freeps.

[rhett o rick]

39. I guess your standards are different than mine if you could stand by and watch someone's

home destroyed. And your crack about freeps is childish.

[jberryhill]

42. I do a lot of work for free, as it turns out

What I do not do is stand in moral condemnation of others whose facts and circumstances I am not qualified to judge.

That's why I said that the characterization of the previous discussion is an oversimplification.

There is a larger problem here between the city and the county which, it appears, the voting public of that area has not yet solved.

Dumping that problem onto the firefighters and tut-tutting about their morals or lack thereof is not only misdirected, it is small minded.

I'm sure that at the bottom of every social problem and policy failure, there is a low paid public employee to be blamed, but I'm just not buying it.

[rhett o rick]

50. Good grief. You should re-read what you wrote. nm

[jberryhill]

54. Good idea... I like it even better now.

Thanks!

[rhett o rick]

55. And I am not surprised. Have a good holidays. nm

[jberryhill]

60. You too. We're making a luminary out of the neighbor's place!

[JVS]

105. +1

[WildNovember]

65. If all the money in the fire budget is spent putting out the fires for people who didn't pay,

that means the fire dept isn't there for people who *did* pay.

This is the problem with subscription fire service and people who don't want to pay taxes. No one wants to pay until it's them.

[tnlefty]

18. I wasn't one of them and that was a disgusting display, almost as

disgusting as the callous assholes then and now who let the homes burn down. I don't think I'll stick around long for this one, but I'm tired of being embarrassed by the calloous assholes and morons in this state.

Recently there have been 5 foreclosures in my neighborhood and these families didn't purchase extravagant homes they couldn't afford, one or both wage earners lost a job and couldn't keep up. People are struggling just to keep the power turned on (my spouse is a manager in our electric cooperative) and when he sometimes comes home in tears from some of the heartbreaking stories he's heard, and trying to help people keep the power on, and the numbers are increasing, I couldn't believe some of the bullshit I read in those threads the first go around.

I won't mention my true thoughts about those who let the homes burn. :mad:

[gratuitous]

23. Let me say first, it's tragic

But put yourself in the mayor's shoes: You send the fire department out to cover each and every blaze whether the homeowner paid the annual fee or not, and the costs pile up. What do you cut so that people out of town and not paying into the system continue to be saved from fires, a readily foreseeable (though not guaranteed to happen to any particular individual) event?

I presume South Fulton doesn't have a huge fire department. What if the crew is called out to some fire burning outside town and is heavily engaged when another fire breaks out for a home that did pay for protection? Does the crew just abandon the first building and hie off to the second one? Or is it tough luck for the second house, even though it paid the annual fee and the first one didn't?

It seems to me there's an obvious solution, but in our taxophobic society we just won't admit to it. I'm not trying to be callous, but with the facts as they are, there are very distasteful choices that must be made.

[saras]

32. You're the mayor. You cut crap and fund the fire department.

It's just that cutting the crap pisses off the people profiting from it, but if you can't provide public safety, you've failed as a government and need to get out of the way and let someone else try.

[tammywammy]

34. Why should the mayor of the neighboring town cut services?

These are rural residents that refuse to pay into the neighboring city's fire department.

[Pithlet]

38. Why should the city have to suffer from cuts

because the county keeps voting not to pay for for fire service? That's ridiculous.

[TorchTheWitch]

79. they shouldn't be voting on it in the first place

Fire and police services are vital to any jurisdiction and should be paid for through TAXES whether anyone likes it or not. Fire fighting service should NEVER be a "pay it if you want to" subscription service any more than police service. A 19th century subscription service is dangerous and stupid which was why it was done away with a long time ago.

[Pithlet]

120. I agree.

The first time I heard that anything like that still went on, I couldn't believe it.

[hobbit709]

75. the fire department IS funded, for people living within the city limits.

It's not a county fire department. Maybe the county should fund the fire department they authorized some years back but never allocated a penny for.

[fishwax]

89. as the mayor of the town, you're responsible for providing public safety in the town

The issue involves people who are outside the town.

[tnlefty]

44. I don't want to put myself in the shoes of the asshole mayor...

Allow me to state that in my county, one of the four largest counties in TN that other counties bleed off of because they refuse to raise their tax rates, years ago we voted to tax ourselves to pay for education.

Volkswagon wants to move in here and none of us had a vote about what the city council, nor the county commission, nor the state were willing to give up to allow them to be here (it was all secret for $14.00/hr jobs). Volkswagon was even exempted from pollution standards, and the run off fees that individual taxpayers have to pay, along with local businesses who also have to pay their taxes. This is one example http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_139277.asp

There are two articles stating the millions taken from the university system of TN and the amount taken from my local school district for Volkswagon to be here and pay nothing (I can't find them right away, I thought they were bookmarked). In other words, people aren't gonna be so willing to vote tax increases on themselves and see the money handed off to a company who doesn't contribute one goddamned thing to a community, but just takes....

I can't call a city fire dept. as that isn't an option for me. I pay my subscription fee yearly to a volunteer fire dept., and I suppose if the volunteers don't show up it will be okay for my house to burn down, too. And I still will state that anyone who watches a house burn down is a low-life.

[Pithlet]

46. This county doesn't even have a volunteer fire department

And they STILL vote not to fund anything. That's the difference. Why should any other entity give them the service for free? You are laying the blame on the wrong people. Plain and simple.

[tnlefty]

59. WTFE!

I get it, it's just okay to let someone's home burn down.....

I fucking get it.

[Pithlet]

61. No one thinks it's okay to just let a home burn down

We're just putting the blame where it belongs. It's not the fire fighter's fault. I support the fire fighters. They aren't the ones telling these people to vote against funding them.

[tnlefty]

119. You go ahead...

you think as you do as so do I, but I'm done with this.

[gratuitous]

108. No, you apparently don't get it

I said it was tragic, first thing. But the easily foreseeable consequences leave many distasteful choices. Homes burn, I don't think that's up for debate. But in an area where some people pay for fire department protection and others don't, what's your solution? Finances and resources have been limited by the residents themselves. Yeah, it's horrible that the fire fighters stand down when a person's home is burning, but what's the solution? Finances and resources have been limited, fairly or unfairly. Everyone knows, going in, what the risks and what the remedies are. When someone rolls the dice by not paying their annual fire protection assessment, and it comes up snake eyes, is it fair for the people who paid for the service to watch someone who didn't pay receive the benefit? What's the incentive then for anyone to pay for fire protection?

And again, two calls come in an hour apart for fire fighters: The first for a house that didn't pay its assessment, the second for one that did. Under your scenario, those low-life fire fighters run off to put out the fire at Donnie Deadbeat's house. Then a second alarm sounds, and Ronnie Responsible's house is on fire. Ronnie paid his assessment. What are the fire fighters to do? I realize this is an outlandish scenario that would never, ever happen in a million years. I mean, who ever heard of two houses catching fire at about the same time? But does Donnie's house get saved while Ronnie's house gets reduced to ashes?

Neither you nor I set up this horrible game, but there it is, and those playing it know the rules. Once upon a time, we as a society decided to tax ourselves and pay for any number of things we hoped we would never need, or that we might not utilize. Things like fire protection, police protection, libraries, schools, roads and such. We did it because we recognized the benefits to everyone even if we never had kids or went to that library branch or had to call the cops or flushed a toilet or whatever. Somewhere in the last 50 years or so, a lot of people have adopted this taxophobic mentality where if they don't get the immediate, personal benefit, they don't want to pay for it. Perhaps we have to go through these horrible tragedies to get back to a better sense of society. Maybe next time funding for a fire protection district is proposed, the people of this area will say, "You know, I want to be able to call someone if my house catches fire. It means a few dollars less a month in my pocket, but even if I never have a fire, the peace of mind is well worth it."

Or not. And we get to have this scintillating discussion all over again.

[tnlefty]

118. Whatever you say

and I don't intend to ever have this discussion again.

[The Doctor.]

82. Of course you don't. Because then you'd have to make tough decisions,

and be lambasted by people that refused to understand your position.

[WillowTree]

117. Yes. You pay your subscription fee. This homeowner didn't pay his.

He doesn't pay taxes that fund the fire department in the nearby city and he didn't pay the paltry $75 annual subscription fee, but he expected the fire department to save his house anyway.

What part of that are you so stubbornly refusing to get?

[elleng]

19. I don't think that was the consensus on du.

[SharonAnn]

33. I live here in EastTN. People don't want to pay taxes for anything. So,

There are a lot of services not provided because the tax base doesn't exist to fund them. Most of our rural fire departments are volunteer fire departments and they rely on donations, which means they're always short-funded.

Some large municipalities have taxpayer funded fire department. Some communities have subscription fire departments.

So, when people don't want to pay for something, I don't think they should get it for free. Sorry, but that's how I feel.

I've decided that enabling their beliefs, that they can indeed get something for nothing is just perpetuating their addiction to "magical thinking". As a recovering alcoholic, I see it as an "enabling" issue.

So, I support organizations that help children and the vulnerable, and I pray for the enlightenment of others.

[bluestate10]

121. Good to hear from someone living the reality, instead of hearing infinitum

from progressives theorizing. People that don't like paying taxes vote the neanderthals into office that help the rich and screw poor people that don't like paying taxes. My one wish is that the two burning homes will cause more people in that region to realize that there is a role for taxation and government. That realization should cause more of them to vote for sane candidates who will work for their best interests instead of buttressing the already substantial advantages of the rich.

[Logical]

49. Of course you are totally wrong. But you know that I assume.

[jeff47]

64. When you refuse to pay taxes, why should you expect government services?

The county could pay the city from county taxes. They have refused.
The county could set up it's own volunteer FD for way less than $75/house/year. They have refused.
The homeowners receive multiple mailings and phone calls when they don't pay their fee, so they definitely know they are not protected.

I really don't see why the county residents should get protection from their right-wing dogma for free.

[bluestate10]

122. Exactly. nt

[joshcryer]

67. BS.

A few loud free marketers thought that, the consensus from all participants was that it was inherently evil.

[fishwax]

88. I think that's a mischaracterization n/t

[snooper2]

98. Yep, a bunch more need to burn down, Then maybe the ignorant folks that vote for this shit

And vote for people who allow this shit will pull their heads out of their asses

[Hissyspit]

112. Obviously, if firefighters are forced into this ethical situation, the system sucks.

And must be changed.

[AmericaIsGreat]

2. Again? Are you fu(king kidding me? n/m

[Leftist Agitator]

15. It's OK, you can swear on DU.

Damn fucking right you can!

:rofl:

[AmericaIsGreat]

29. Shit, lol, I know why I did that

I frequent another forum where "fuck" is not allowed and I had just been there so it carried over. I've posted fuck many times on DU. Fuck fuckitty fuck fuck!

[msanthrope]

40. Welcome to DU. Fuck is allowed. nt

[Fumesucker]

4. Oh brother..

:popcorn:

[Swede]

5. Uh-oh

[Matariki]

6. I guess Ronald Reagan's dream of turning the US into a third world nation has been accomplished.

:cry:

[SoCalDem]

7. The logical solution to this whole conundrum is

to ADD the $75 a year to whatever tax assessment is due, and give the money to the Fire Protection people..

Even doing it that way, there will still be some who do not pay the taxes, but with the majority who DO pay it,m there should be enough money paid to cover people who forget or who are too cash-strapped to pay.

[Pithlet]

9. The problem is the people in the county keep voting that solution down.

It seems this is the way the county wants to provide themselves with fire service.

[fishwax]

94. Or insurance companies could charge an extra $75 for homes not subscribing

You apparently have to have insurance in order to get the subscription service. I wonder what kind of reduction you get on your premium if you have the service ...

[Enrique]

8. same place as last time

worst. county. ever.

http://www.kfvs12.com/story/16201834/home-burns-while-firefighters-watch

[Newest Reality]

10. Protection Fee?

Where have I seen that practice before?

Oh, but the fire departments don't start the fire if you don't pay ;) There is a difference. Whew.

[geardaddy]

12. La Cosa Nostra FD?

[freshwest]

30. Ancient Rome. Pay up or watch it burn, then the land was bought by the ones who stood by. Same thing

Everyone's loss is some scoundrel's game. I've called the GOP mindset patrician before. Just because they're not royals doesn't mean their sets of rewards and punishment are the same. It's all about patronage, a different economic and social order than modern democracies. Everything goes, lying, stealing, assaults, even murder, to stay in the graces of the patron. They are not considered with defrauding voters, the poor or anyone else, since they are not part of their clan. Democrats who shriek due process, the rule of law and justice simply don't comprehend what they're dealing with. Such arguments as fairness and equality have no meaning to them. Just who pays who, is all that matters. It's the end result of libertarianism.

[The Straight Story]

13. Hmmm what would I do, let a house burn down to teach someone a lesson, or help them

Cause if we punish enough people and watch them suffer we will scare others into complying.

PS - if you see any jews wandering around report them, if you don't you will be punished. Soon - we will have the people well trained to ignore the plight of others for the sake of money.

[jeff47]

66. Ah yes, time to call the firefighters Nazis

Good call. It's clearly their fault that the neighboring county refuses to pay them. Clearly they should just put out the fire, so that the city residents can pay for the people outside the city who refuse to pay.

Btw, you could probably cut a few $75 checks and buy fire protection for the remaining houses in that county. You may not live there, but clearly you think someone should pay when the county refuses to do so. Might as well come from your checkbook.

[Lord Magus]

115. Yes, that's EXACTLY what the firefighters should have done.

But they value money over actually fighting fires, apparently.

[jeff47]

126. So...I needed the sarcasm tag on that one?

It costs money to fight the fire. If the residents don't pay through taxes or direct billing, the fire can't be fought. Otherwise, the FD runs out of money and there are no firemen left.

You are approaching this from within a sane area where taxes pay for your fire department, so you just assume the fire department puts out all fires. That is not the case here.

[gratuitous]

14. You have to pay for government services, duh!

But let's go through this again for the slow coaches: Fire department services are paid for through taxes. But in our taxophobic nation, anything that smacks of taxes is anathema to various segments of the population. Yes, these people have been lied to by the likes of Fox, Grover Norquist, and a parade of charlatans going back to Howard Jarvis and before. The fact remains, though, that if you're going want a service, you have to pay for it. For reasons that escape me, this comes as a shock to many people.

The good folks in this area of Tennessee have decided that they don't want to pay for no fire fighters if'n their house isn't on fire right this minute. The compromise is that those who want fire department protection pay $75 a year for it. Those who don't want it don't pay, and they take their chances. Every now and then, that chance goes badly wrong, and now we get another sob story of people who, for whatever reason, didn't see fit to either (a) vote to be taxed for a rural fire protection district; or (2) pay their annual fee independently when they and their neighbors voted not to tax themselves. I'd be willing to bet that the amount taxed if everyone participated would be less than $75 annually.

Is it tragic? Yes. Is it avoidable? Most definitely. Is it going to happen again, even with this object lesson staring these folks square in the face? You'd better believe it. Will we be scolded for not showing the proper sorrow for such an invited calamity? Oh yeah.

[grantcart]

17. In my hometown the extreme rightwingers build huge developments just

outside of the city limits laughing about saving on city taxes, which were almost non existent.

They expected however to get all of the same services.

Imagine their surprise when one of their houses caught fire and the city's fire fighters were across the street watching.

Their insurance prohibited them from crossing the line unless one of two conditions were met.

1) Human life was at risk

2) County Commissioners requested emergency assistance.

If they had gotten hurt putting out that fire they would have lost their job and gotten no compensation.

Years later it was found that these same areas had screwed up their sewage system and they had to incorporate and each house was levied a huge bill. It ended up costing them five times as much as the taxes would have cost them, not counting the damage to the value of their house.

[ieoeja]

106. They probably still feel it was worth it.

Those higher taxes are going to support themselves and people just like them. A certain type of person is very happy to pay ever higher taxes as long as it does not benefit the wrong sort of people.

[bluestate10]

123. Smells like justice. nt

[Turbineguy]

20. But look at all the taxes

they saved!

[Speck Tater]

21. When a service is offered you can either buy that service or not.

I can't expect to walk into the supermarket and walk about without paying for a carload of groceries.

And if somebody doesn't pay for the fireman's wages then he and his family will be the ones in the supermarket wanting free food.

Yes, there are areas where government really SHOULD provide services, but in many cases local governments can't afford to provide those services. Where I live we have a volunteer fire department and a big siren on main street to call them, but the population of my town is less than 1,000 and it's a mile and a half from end to end, so volunteers can cover that.

Yes, it's a terrible shame that their house burned down. What is the solution, other than making full-time professional fire fighters work for free?

[geomon666]

24. How is this not extortion? n/t

[sylveste]

57. because

the firefighters aren't threatening to burn down the non payers' houses.

[lpbk2713]

25. It makes me wonder about the other side of the coin.

What if a home owner pays the 75 bucks and there's a fire and
the FD responds but the damage results in a total loss?

This may sound like a far fetched hypothetical but if the FD can
sit and watch a home burn because they were not paid, what if
they were paid and didn't get the job done? Do they owe the
property owner a new home? Of course I know what the answer
would be but it seems an interesting point to ponder.

[sweetapogee]

85. food for thought

Suppose you are the owner of a double wide located 15 miles from the fire station. One fine evening, you forget to turn off the space heater in your living room, which the cat knocks over and sets your sofa on fire. Within 60 seconds you call 911, by the time you hang up with the 911 center, your sofa is fully on fire.

Playing by the rules of physics, your fire doubles in size every minute it is in free burn. It takes 5 minutes for the volunteer fire fighters (ie: beer drinking bums) to get out of bed and assemble on station and get the first due out. They then drive the 15 miles to your place in 20 minutes, we are now 25 minutes into this event.

Questions to ponder:

1. How big is the sofa fire now that it has had 25 minutes to grow?

2. Your first due truck arrives at your home in rural USA with 4 to 6 firefighters and 1000 gallons of water. That is all you have since there are no hydrants near your place. Since one of the firefighters is running the pump, this leaves say 4 firefighters to stretch (2) inch and three quarter hose lines flowing 125 GPM each. That translates to 250 gpm total which of course means that the 1000 gallons on the truck will last 4 minutes. Your second due is 4 minutes out with 3 or 4 firefighters, so there will be a 3 minute gap of no water and your second due has only 500 gallons of water to contribute. But wait, what about ventilation, utility shut off, search and rescue and so forth? You have 8 working firefighters on scene, what jobs do you want completed first?

3. What started out as a sofa fire in a double wide has been in free burn for 25 minutes. It is now 3 rooms fully involved. It takes a flow rate of approx. 200 gpm to get the upper hand on 1 room and contents fire but you have 3 rooms going. Given the information I have provided, what do you think the outcome of your fire will be?

I'm a volunteer fire fighter who lives in a 1600 Sq ft house located in a rural area but 2.5 miles (not 15) from my fire station. I have said many times in the past that if my house catches fire and we don't find out about the second it starts, my house is a goner. Apply my thinking, based on years of rural firefighting experience on the matter, to the double wide located 15 miles from the fire station. In my opinion, luck is the only thing that would save any part of your trailer if a fire gets a foothold in your place.

The truth of the matter is, if you live in an area that does not provide fire service but the nearest fire company offers their service for $75.00 just pay it. Fire fighters don't just respond to fire calls. And they may be able to salvage something of value to you. The main thing though is fire insurance because one the the realities of living in a rural area is that most of the time dwelling fires are total losses. Not always but figure this in the equation when you decide to live in the woods. We have had some amazing saves, houses that should by all rights be a hole in the ground are still inhabited. But don't count on this and trailers, forget it, they don't have the fire stops. We call house trailers "Vertical Chimneys".

Suppose you live in a rural community without fire service and a fire company 10-20 miles away offers to cover your township for $75.00 year per home. There are 800 homes in this township. $75.00 x 800 = $60,000.00 Do you think you could organize your own volunteer fire company for $60,000.00 annual?

[fishwax]

93. then, presumably, it would be an issue for the insurance company

You have to have insurance in order to subscribe to the service, according to the article; that's why the woman in the story didn't pay the fee or have the service--she wasn't eligible because she didn't have insurance.

Houses and other structures can't always be saved, even with the proper response by the fire department, so I can't imagine that the fee would be a guarantee, anymore than supporting a fire department through taxes is a guarantee.

[sweetapogee]

102. ok

the point I was trying to make is that even if the fire fighters went balls to the walls for this lady most likely the end result would be the same, a total loss. I've seen enough trailer fires to know that chances are slim to none as far as saving them when there is a working fire and they are rural. So all this hissing and spitting against the firefighters, the city and or laws of physics is really misplaced and unproductive. You can't save what the fire has already destroyed. The fire in the same district a few years ago the homeowner admitted that the trailer was fully involved before he called 911 and yet people are still kicking up a fuss over the actions of the fire department.

The other thing is of course insurance is not that expensive and nice to have when fire happens. I personally would give up a meal a day to have homeowners insurance. Renters insurance is around here <$100.00 per year. No renter should be without it.

[Maraya1969]

26. Besides being barbaric and inhumane letting a trailor with all sorts

of formaldehyde and other chemicals burn to the ground is not safe for anyone around. It is not safe for the fire fighters or for the other children in the neighborhood. There are too many dangerous chemicals around to just let things burn willy nilly.

[Liberal_in_LA]

27. so this happened AGAIN?

:-(

[KamaAina]

28. This is extremely regressive

the owners of the mobile home that burned would have had to pay the same $75 as the owners of a McMansion, assuming there are any McMansions in this backwater.

[JVS]

100. I'm having a hard time envisioning any trailer surviving a fire that requires firefighters from...

several miles away.

[MedleyMisty]

35. If it's true that they won't just pay taxes for firefighter services

Then yeah. This needs to happen. We can't keep coddling people and letting them get out of the consequences of their political beliefs. If they don't want to pay taxes for services, then they don't get the services. Maybe they'll learn that hey, paying taxes for services is a good idea!

If the individuals whose house burned down voted for the taxes, then it really sucks for them and I feel empathy for them and if I lived there I'd help them out. If they voted against taxes to pay for firefighters though - political beliefs have consequences, and people need to start learning them.

It's just - I've lost all patience and am on the way to losing all empathy for people who create the hell that we live in with their support of the 1% over everyone else and refusal to participate in society.

[jberryhill]

43. And then some here turn around and blame the firefighters

[sweetapogee]

87. MedleyMisty

MedleyMisty said:....If the individuals whose house burned down voted for the taxes, then it really sucks for them and I feel empathy for them and if I lived there I'd help them out. If they voted against taxes to pay for firefighters though - political beliefs have consequences, and people need to start learning them.

If they wanted fire protection and their neighbors voted down funding, all they need to do is pay the $75.00 per year and problem solved. No need to loose sleep or make yourself ill over this because there is a very simple solution to the problem. $75.00 per year is $6.25 per month or 20 cents per day. So you see that it really doesn't suck for them after all!

[fishwax]

95. apparently she was not eligible to pay the fee because her trailer was not insured

Bell says the South Fulton Fire Department came out, but did nothing. She says she understands why. She says none of the trailers near hers qualify for insurance. So, according to City rules - they are not eligible to pay a fee to receive rural fire protection service. She says she knew if there was a fire, she would be out of luck.

:(

[tammywammy]

101. I wonder why they don't qualify for insurance. n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

36. Guess they valued their home at less than $75. nt

[bvar22]

41. I'm an active member of a Rural Volunteer Fire Department.

Our Department is funded by Federal Grants AND voluntary "Dues" from the local residents of our area.
Every Fire Department I have had any contact with also obtains Federal Grants to buy and maintain equipment.
IF the Fire Department in question ALSO receives Federal Grants,
then they have no basis for denying their services to anyone.


Everyone in our department is a well trained "volunteer".
No FireFighter in OUR department would Stand By and watch somebody's Home BURN.
If we were ordered to stand by, we would disobey that order.

Approximately 30% of our area residents comply with the voluntary dues,
but We PUT OUT FIRES for anybody without question or hesitation.
After putting out fires, we usually ask the owner of the property whether he/she has paid their dues,
and, if they have not, try to shame them into paying,
but we always make it clear that we will come anyway.

It is their choice whether on not to pay their DUES,
and their conscience to live with.
I (WE) will NEVER make a choice to NOT help somebody.
My soul couldn't stand it.
That is one of the reasons I AM a FireFighter.



On Edit: I checked with the Administrative Director of our Fire Department,
and she informed me that about 1/2 our routine funding comes from grants, Federal, State, and County.
We also receive additional individual grants based on need and application.
Last year, we received $165,000 from Homeland Security for a new 3,000 gallon tanker truck.
She pointed out that all of our training is Federal and State funded.
Despite being a "Volunteer' Fire department, we are required to attend training,
and meet both Federal and State training requirements for certification.

If that department in Tennessee is anything like ours,
they DEPEND on County, State, and Federal funds to operate,
and are in NO position to deny help to anyone.

BTW: Our Administrative Director is also a FireFighter,
who can safely hustle a 30 year old pumper truck carrying 1000 gallons of water
down these bad country/mountain dirt roads in the middle of the night.
She is also my wife. :)



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sweetapogee]

90. one small problem bvr22

Even though you are a volunteer fire fighter (I'm one also), someone pays for your Workman's comp and life insurance which is very handy when one of your guys gets hurt. That bill is most likely paid for by your township and is the same as the municipal employees policy. The local government has the final say on this matter, not the state, county or firefighters themselves.

You may not be aware of them but there are laws regarding FF response out of your district, if there is no legal agreement out of district and you get hurt you are not covered medical or loss wages from your regular job. Your fire company is not covered for liability either. Kids don't think about this but daddy's with kids do and my partner and kids would be in a world of S#&^ if I didn't have Workman's comp and VFIS which I have collected twice in the past.

By the way, I have many years in the volunteer fire service, I'm a long time secretary of my local firemens relief association and my county Fireman's Association and I have served on state wide committees tasked with revisions to the funding and insurance needs of volunteer fire fighters. I know a little bit about this. Just because a fire district receives a federal or state grants does not give out of district rights to their services. In many if not all states, it is actually illegal to provide out of district services without some kind of agreement.

I understand your frustration but it is up to the people in the community to craft a solution to the problem, not us volunteers. Those people would rather watch their places burn down tan pay $75.00 per year, that is their right. You and I can only do so much my friend. When I was new to the fire service all I dreamed of was putting out fires. These days all I think about is the safety and well being of my fellow firefighters and their families. If you feel called to attempt to save someones house that doesn't have any right to your services due to their own misplaced priorities and you are willing either as an individual or corporation to accept the responsibility that will fall on your shoulders when the shit hits the fan, by all means take those calls. But if you do this and your township doesn't have a legal contract and or your not covered for mishaps well then don't be surprised if you find yourself in either legal hot water or dismissed from your fire co by the township supervisors or both.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

45. I believe back in Kingfisher County Oklahoma....

...we have a pay after service sort of a system. And I think that only applies when it is out side of the city limits.

[Karenina]

92. What I don't get is WHY

a policy couldn't be implemented to PUT OUT THE FIRE and charge say, $750 for those who haven't subscribed? :shrug:

[sweetapogee]

107. ok again

I will tell you why. As I have mentioned in a few other posts in this thread, under the circumstances we are considering (rural location) the chances are very good that the home and especally a house trailer is going to be either heavly damaged or a total loss. If you are not willing to pay a small $75.00 fee to have fire services then most likely you do not have homeowners insurance either. This is the case with the lady that owned the trailer that burned.

Under ideal situation, the fire is put out but say the kitchen is gutted. Imagine that you can find a contractor willing and able to fix the kitchen, how much do you think it will cost for this repair? Lets say it's 10 or $15,000.00 probably more but the homeowner is not insured so they will have to pay for this out of pocket. Do you think a person who doesn't have insurance and will not pay a $75.00 fire service fee is going to throw 15K into a home that may not be worth 15K?

The answer is of course no, the owner is simply going to walk away from the home and there it will sit until either someone else removes it or mother nature does her thing. This person is not going to call in a house wrecking service to remove the gutted home either, costs 1000s of dollars for that. So there is no chance that the fire dept is going to get anything out of the homeowner once the fire is established. That's just the way it is.

The lady that owned the trailer that burned is going to simply walk away from what is left of her home. It wouldn't matter if the fire co did everything possible for her, her home was a total from the get go, sorry if that offends but the reality is what it is.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

114. Exactly! Just sounds ridiculous!

Don't just let people's homes burn!

[Dems2002]

47. Anti-Tax Zealots Watch Home Burn

So, I support the firefighters. I realize it sucks, and if it's a matter of money, that the poor family isn't capable of paying $75 a year (about $6 a month) then I feel really bad for them. It would be nice if folks could apply for a few waiver due to extreme poverty.

BUT, at the end of the day, if people don't want to pay taxes because they don't think they're going to need a service, I don't feel that horrible when they get screwed. They had a choice, opt in or opt out, they chose to roll the dice and opt out.

[lonestarnot]

48. So firemen are having to mob up so they can survive now or what?

[jeff47]

62. No.

City fire department, paid for by taxes on the people who live in the city. Former house is in the county, not in the city and so does not pay city taxes. The county refuses to pay the city for fire protection. The county also refuses to set up its own volunteer FD (for much less than $75/house/year).

County residents think "fire won't happen to me!" and so don't pay the city for fire protection. So when their house catches fire, they don't get protection.

This is a trivial problem to solve, but the county refuses to solve it because it would invalidate their right-wing dogma.

[lonestarnot]

73. Oh. Too ignorant to pay taxes in the county then? Mine went up about 30 bucks a month beginning

next month. How many people in the county are without jobs?

[jeff47]

96. Your arguments are irrelevant

The county specifically voted down paying the city for fire protection. They also specifically voted down forming their own fire department. Year after year after year.

Your taxes aren't relevant. And this has nothing to do with your proposed intelligence-to-taxpaying ratio.

[Logical]

51. If no one paid then there would be no firemen!! Get it??

[hyphenate]

52. I've seen this kind of article before, too

and I compared it then--and still do--to the protection racket actions of organized crime. People shouldn't be paying any additional fees to have firefighting, because part of our taxes go to the common good, and that includes firefighting and police services.

It's a shame that money grubbing bastards choose to blackmail ordinary citizens to paying additional fees for something they're already paying.

[Cid_B]

56. Except for the fact that the money wasn't going to the firefighters...

They should just do it out of the goodness of their own hearts? Not to mention equipment and maintenance.

Money comes from somewhere.. or in this case.. nowhere..

[tammywammy]

58. Except none of their taxes were going to the fire department.

These are rural citizens, not in the city. They voted against paying taxes to the nearby city for fire protection. The city said that's fine, if you want fire protection just pay a flat $75/year. People are still choosing to not pay the $75 after receiving multiple mailings and I believe phone calls every year to pay it.

[jeff47]

63. You're wrong. They are not already paying

The county refuses to pay the city for fire protection, and the county refuses to set up their own volunteer FD for way less than $75/house/year.

[hobbit709]

76. CITY FD, COUNTY residents.

City taxes pay for CITY FD. County residents have to option to pay $75/yr to get fire department that the county won't pay for.
Try calling city services anywhere when you live outside the city limits and see how far you get.
These people were not paying taxes to the city for fire department.

[hyphenate]

53. NEWS FLASH!

Keith has thus on tonight as part of "Worst Persons" coming up!

[Jim Lane]

70. So who got the "Worst Person" award?

Some DUers would give it to the city firefighters who followed their instructions by not putting out a fire outside their jurisdiction, in a nearby county.

Some DUers would give it to the city mayor who gave the firefighters those instructions.

I myself would give it to the right-wing county commissioners who voted against providing fire protection services out of tax dollars, but decided to leave it up to the free market, with predictably disastrous consequences.

Which way did Keith go?

[Behind the Aegis]

68. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[joshcryer]

69. To all the justifiers saying they're not paying, illegals don't pay health care taxes...

...should they not be treated?

[Fumesucker]

71. If people were in danger the city fire department would try to rescue them..

So your analogy is not a very good one since property is not the same thing as human beings.

[hobbit709]

77. What health care taxes?

Even illegals pay sales tax where they live-which goes to provide various services.
If we had healthcare taxes, we would actually have a healthcare system, instead of a health insurance system.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

104. Someone (you) can't grasp the concept of physical danger versus property damage.

[fasttense]

72. Pay for protection only works in rural areas.

If this happened in a large city, maybe Chicago, and the person's house that was burning hadn't paid their protection fee, and the house was allowed to burn. That burning house would likely burn down their neighbor's house too. It could even burn down a huge city like Chicago.

But in rural areas, the only thing that would happen is that it would set a field on fire or a barn.

Next up pay for police protection, oh wait, I guess OWS has shown us the police only protect the 1% anyway.

[LanternWaste]

74. I am certainly bemused

I am certainly bemused (in a sad sort of way, mind you) at the justifications I'm reading attempting to rationalize the passive non-response of the local authorities to a house burning down.

The movement is a waltz, I believe. A nice 3/4 time signature, destined to dance in circles over and over again...

[lynne]

78. This isn't the first time. Why haven't the people there tried to change this?

Is this method working for the majority so they've not been inclined to change this? At least institute some type of pool to assist those who are having a hard time coming up with the $75. fee?

Sad for the couple who lost everything, for sure.

[The Doctor.]

83. This should answer your question;

[JVS]

99. Because they prefer not to pay.

In this case you have a city. The city has a FD, but can only raise money from people within its boundaries. In the countryside they don't have a fire department. They could either set up their own (which is going to cost a lot more than $75 per household) or they can individually subscribe to the city FD which will come out of its way for them. One possibility would also be that the county collects the $75 per house and buys coverage for everyone, but it seems that the county voters prefer to occasionally have a house burn down than to cover everyone.

[rpannier]

81. Crassus would be proud nt

[Obamanaut]

84. This is the county with a similar incident in 2010. Did not the residents

read the papers and/or see the news on teevee? Could they have thought that perhaps $75 was a small price to pay to have some degree of protection, rather than lose all their stuff?

[spanone]

86. like a doctor standing by watching a patient die cause he can't get to his check book

[opihimoimoi]

91. Who pays for any injury/fatality sustained by FFers? The house owners decided out and now they lose.

whats there to shout about.?

They gambled and lost...tough shit...

[Gormy Cuss]

97. Homeowners insurance applications generally ask about fire protection.

I remember there were questions on whether it came from a municipal service and how far our house was from the nearest fire station. If these homeowners claimed to be protected they may not see much of a payout from the insurer.

[tammywammy]

103. In a other article I read on this, the homeowner said her house didn't qualify for insurance.

She said that having insurance was a requirement in order to pay for the fire protection.

[Gormy Cuss]

109. Well that's a wonderful situation, isn't it?

Can't get insurance in order to buy protection. No protection would mean that most insurers wouldn't sell HO for it.

[apnu]

110. WTF? Is Tenn actually NYC in the mid 1800's?!?! (nt)

[Lord Magus]

116. More like Rome in the 70s BC.

The only thing making rural Tennessee more progressive than the Roman Republic is that unlike the Romans, they were forced against their will to abolish slavery a century and a half ago.

[Hissyspit]

111. kick nt

[kevinbgoode]

124. And once again, I have some questions about this action. . .

For one thing, if they are located outside the city, whose water are the firefighters going to use, and who is paying for that? Are they trucking water from the city all of the way out there, or do those poor residents pay the city for water service?

How much money is the fire department receiving in federal and state grants for equipment upgrades? And who is paying for those?

[BlueCheese]

125. Suppose someone hasn't purchased health insurance...

... and then gets sick. What should society do?

[Doctor_J]

127. Libertarian Fire Dept

"Just a minute while we run your credit card - is that credit or debit?"

[Puzzledtraveller]

128. I watch the 5 program because I love Bob Beckel

and was surprised most of the right wingers on the show thought it was heartless to let it burn. I was a fire fighter in USAF and I would not have been able to sit and do nothing.