Hvytrkmech

Wow, would I love to go on a profanity laced tangent right now.


$75.00 fee to have fire protection, your not on our list? Joking right?


Unequivocally the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

If you pay state and county or city tax, property tax, excise tax, etc you pay for fire protection.

Regardless of the idiocy of what the home owner was doing to cause the fire, the blatant and purposeful disregard for life and property was inexcusable. That 911 operator, the chief and the department should be terminated and prosecuted up to and including prison time.

zulusafari

I watched a video response from the homeowner in the story, and he stated he expected them to waive the fee and let him pay whatever it takes BECAUSE THEY DID IT FOR HIS SON, ANOTHER NEIGHBOR, AND A THIRD INSTANCE PREVIOUSLY. This leads me to believe that there is a serious breakdown in that county, whereby rural residents are in fact sponging off the city tax supported Fire Department.

Was it morally correct? I can't answer that, as my moral guidelines are different than others.

As for the pets - if the family had been burning their trash responsibly in the first place, then the pets would not have been in danger.

All in all, this is another instance of someone who "played with fire, and got burned."

BC847

EPIC FAIL!

http://www.cityofsouthfulton.org/fire.htm

Hvytrkmech

I have fought lots and lots of fires in all kinds of properties in all kinds of conditions. I have gone on mutual aid calls in other cities and towns neighboring the city I work in and actually put their fires out. Been to house fires, block fires, factory and mill fires. Abandoned homes to luxury homes, homes full of squalor that you could not fathom. Been trapped in buildings and cut off on roof tops. Heard and made lots of comments over my career, but never, ever, ever have I heard anything even remotely close to "you didn't pay" so were not coming.

ofcmarc

I would have paid 2-3 time that amount for coverage when I lived outside of a coverage area (had that option been available). $75 is CHEAP insurance.

As for the FFs watching the house burn, No problem there either. Wildland firefighters do it all the time and no one says a word.

RAMRODD

Most rural fire departments save a lot more then foundation's Fall of 2003 my ranch was 1 of many that was saved by a wild fire

You get in a accident in rural america you can bet it will be a rural fire Dept cuting you out of your ride.

So please don't put us down we are the ones that show up and will atleast try

cincydiesel

Sorry but I meant that tongue in check..

jthorpe

You're in New Mexico, right? Please stay there.. Thank you

chaikwa

That would be a good policy, but again, you can't get blood from a rock. As much as it seems this should be a public service everyone is entitled to, it still has profound costs associated with it. And if those costs can't be covered, whether it by taxes or subscription fees, it won't be long before there is NO fire department to respond. In this case, the tax money residents pay was reduced because of the lack of fire protection services.

With the utmost of respect regarding your thoughts on this Tim (and others), I have to say that just because a concept such as subscription fire department services is something foreign to you doesn't mean it isn't a common-place occurrence in other parts of this country. It is quite common in a lot of rural areas and people accept it because, a) it is what they voted for in the first place to reduce costs of living, or b) such a policy has been in place since fire services were established. It is common knowledge that this is how it works and it's associated risks are accepted both by those who do, and do NOT subscribe. Most departments will respond to assure life safety to a non-subscriber however, but this department may have been so far off that life safety wouldn't be an issue anyway.

But don't forget that their mission statement is more than likely directed at the residents of their city, which is also more than likely tax base supported.

What would be the difference in the result of that comment and an insufficient response from a department that had it's manpower cut by 2/3rds due to budget cuts? Either way there may be no response, and either way it would be the result of insufficient money to support the operation. And further, if you were one of the unfortunate brothers to get laid off, would you still fill your regular shift because it was 'the right thing to do'? Grand Rapids MI was faced with this very scenario last May. They have 9 stations, (I think), with roughly 3 trucks/crews in each station. Each station has been cut to 1 truck and 2 people per shift. (Again, 'roughly'. Some stations have more while others have none.) The Wyoming MI fire department has basically been shut down altogether, leaving fire protection to neighboring departments. The response of the residents when asked why they wouldn't support additional taxes was , "That's what we have insurance for". They don't think about the human factor, or losing irreplaceable items. But they'll be the first ones to complain when they DO lose all those things due to lack of fire protection. It comes down to personal responsibility of all the parties involved.

I too can see both sides, but the bottom line is always money.

Hvytrkmech

You my friend have been off the line too long and lost your perspective.

Apples to oranges, you can not compare manpower cuts too, you did not pay.


I respect you Scott and I will agree to disagree here.

linetrash75

From What I read the guy made the choice not to pay gambling on the thought he would never need it. Looks like that bet doesn't pay. Everbody is responsible for his or her own actions. Its not the FF fault he chose not to pay for fire protection.

Jed

chaikwa

That's what true friendship is all about Tim. I appreciate that!

ofcmarc

I lived 1/2 mile out side a fire service area and never expected ANY response from the nearest VFD (in which I was a member). I was out of the area. End of story.

There was a fire in a small community called Fox up here a few years ago that was similar to the one that started this thread. 1 piece of property wasn't covered by the VFD and allowed to burn while the one next door was extinguished. Lots of community outrage but it came down to the fact that the owner of the home that burned did not want to pay Borough Taxes so he received no services. The VFD who were there felt horrible that they couldn't fight the fire but it was out of their area.

GIT-R-DONE

I dont see a problem here. The guy didnt pay, then no service rendered.

Round here the volunteer firefighters I would'nt trust to put out a trash can fire, let alone a structure fire.

One way this could be taken care of is if in your home owners policy they put in a "little" charge for emergency use, and it gets paid only when you have used it.

But to charge people every year an "X" amount of dollars....I dont like that. It puts money in hands of those that can abuse it. It is already done here. Too many parades....fun drives out in the country. Dont even get me started with the 911 dispatch, its a joke and could give 2 seperate instances in which they are just retards. I'll take my chances

patoka pirate

Where I live there is one property tax rate for the city folk and a lower one in the county. The county always votes against joining the city and getting police, fire and sewage lines. Therefore they have volunteer fire departments and septic tanks and are protected by the state police and sheriff's dept.

The guy seemed to think that because the fire department had put out fires for actual costs in the past they should have done it now too. That system will work until the current fire truck wears out. Then the first guy with a fire will have to cough up $ 250,000.00 for a new truck and it may take several weeks for delivery.

Or everyone could pay the same fee as their neighbor and there will be a good truck and trained firemen and enough hoses and ladders to fight the fire.