Rural Tennessee fire sparks conservative ideological debate

[MamaSheep]

We used to live in an area that had the same kind of arrangement. Except I think it was $100 a year. I thought that was a pretty good price and we always factored it into our budget. I think they had a way that poor families could apply for help at a lower fee or no fee, but they had to prove their income was in a certain bracket and they really couldn't afford to pay the fee. But it was explained to us up front that we had a CHOICE, and we were responsible for the consequences if we chose not to purchase fire protection. In fact, I think there was a precedent where if you didn't buy the fire protection and then your house caught on fire and spread to your neighbor's house, you could be liable for damages to your neighbor's home because you were neglegent in not taking reasonable measures to protect against fire. Even if the fire truck came to protect the neighbor's house.

 

Fire engines, fire stations, upkeep, training, etc. aren't free. Many areas pay for it out of taxes and people don't really notice that they're paying for it, but in areas like this you pay it as a fee. (As an aside, I sometimes think the government would rein things in a bit and be more responsible with tax money if everyone received an itemized bill for their taxes and had to write a check every month or year knowing what their money was being spent on.) Either way, tax or fee, someone has to pay for the equipment, training, and personnel, or there will be no fire engine to come put out a fire. If you allow one homeowner to not pay the fee, and then send him a bill when he has a fire anyway, then everyone wants the same deal. Nobody pays the fee unless they have a fire. Then either there's not enough money collected to pay for the fire engine, and there's not a fire engine to come put out anyone's fire, or the "fee" for putting out a fire has to be astronomical in order to pay for the overhead of the fire department. It does seem fair to me that everyone chips in a little bit to maintain a fire department, and that those who opt not to contribute are also opting not to benefit. I think it's reasonable to charge people who can afford it a little extra so you can offer free coverage to people who really can't affort to chip in, though.

[aude sapere]

Would you really? Do you call and make sure that every check you send off has been recieved?

I do check, either my bank account, or with the business, depending on what it is. And for something like fire protection, I'd double check. Ditto with my health insurance premium, my mortgage, etc. Again, personal responsibility.

 

I mean, that's great if you do, but I think that most people write the check, mail it off, and mark that task off their to-do list. And even if you make that call, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of people here in my neck of the woods (Katrina territory) who have suffered the perils of government paperwork snafus EVEN THOUGH they did indeed call and check to see if their application had arrived, were correct, etc.

The Cranicks didn't suffer through a government snafu, they made a personal choice to not pay the fee.

 

 

 

.

[katilac]

The Cranicks didn't suffer through a government snafu, they made a personal choice to not pay the fee.

 

Yes, I understand that. As I said in the post, I was referring to POTENTIAL problems with the policy in general, not the specifics of this actual case.

[aude sapere]

The Cranicks didn't suffer through a government snafu, they made a personal choice to not pay the fee.

 

Yes, I understand that. As I said in the post, I was referring to POTENTIAL problems with the policy in general, not the specifics of this actual case.

 

And a potential solution to your potential problem is for the rural homeowners to verify their coverage with the fire department.

[mommaduck]

If a child lived in that home, all the more reason for the Cranicks to have purchased fire protection services.

So you would have told your firemen to stand around and watch them burn. Good to know...good also to know that you aren't in charge.

[justamouse]

 

Can you imagine our grandparent's generation? Even our parents, for heaven's sake, just sitting around while a neighbor lost everything? What's wrong with us?

 

I know. How horribly sad and I think morally wrong.

[justamouse]

:iagree:

 

Wife of a former FF here... FFs don't decide what to fight or not fight. They follow orders and are supervised just like any other employee. Should they lose their jobs because someone conveniently "forgot" to pay their fee? I think not.

 

As far as standing around watching gleefully while someone's house burns down, no FF I know would do such a thing. I'm sure their every instinct was screaming to put out the fire. Instead of demonizing them, let's keep the blame where it belongs, please - on the homeowner.

 

Remember in that movie with Tom Cruise and Jack Nickleson -A FEW GOOD MEN? Remember how the young military guys got sent to prison (for murder), and the one was wondering why? He just did what he was supposed to do? Remember the line about they were supposed to protect the guy that died, in that instance and NOT listen to the CO?

 

This is the same instance. They were there, and they had a chance to do the right thing no matter what the rules were. They chose to not do the right thing. They should have listened to their instincts.

[Gooblink]

Welcome to the libertarian paradise.

 

Reality is so much measure than fantasy. People want opt-in services to take the place of government, but they don't want to see firefighters stand by while a house burns down. They yell "health care is not a right," but they don't actually want to step over dead bodies in the street.

 

I bet that county has awesome low taxes.

 

As one who is a proponent of the libertarian philosophy, I will admit its biggest fault is that it assumes the best of people and that folks will make good choices.

 

Yes, that does appear to be fantasy.

[Carrie12345]

I don't understand how any person or entity can just stand by and watch another's life destroyed without attempting to assist.

 

In our area, we don't have this situation with the fire departments (though we did just donate a bunch to one of the local departments at their annual open house!), but our ambulance squads do have a user fee (that may or may not be covered by insurance).

They give families the option of making a $50 donation that will then waive any ambulance fees they incur in the next year. We don't always do it when money is tight (and our insurance covers all but $50, anyway), but we do when we can. Of course, they come no matter what. I think it's a great idea!

[justamouse]

I think it takes a pretty big pair of cajones to stand around a watch someone's house burn to the ground if one is in a position to help.

 

I think it takes a bigger pair to buck a bad system and do the right thing.

 

Having been both a paid and a volunteer fire fighter I cannot imagine continuing employment with a department at allows such a thing. But I know, as evidenced by what happened, that there are those firefighters that will.

 

Exactly.

 

And yes, Libertarianisim is a fantasy, though one I heartily wish for.

[aude sapere]

So you would have told your firemen to stand around and watch them burn. Good to know...good also to know that you aren't in charge.

 

I'm not arguing a hypothetical with you. There was no loss of life in this case.

The Cranicks didn't purchase fire protection. They had no business expecting the fire department to provide services.

 

The burden rests squarely on the shoulders of the home owner.

 

If they were worried about the potential loss of life in a fire, they should have purchased the service.

[LisaKinVA]

I'm not arguing a hypothetical with you. There was no loss of life in this case.

The Cranicks didn't purchase fire protection. They had no business expecting the fire department to provide services.

 

The burden rests squarely on the shoulders of the home owner.

 

If they were worried about the potential loss of life in a fire, they should have purchased the service.

 

And I strongly disagree. While the "stated policy" was one way, the policy that had previously been practiced ALLOWED for the FD to act, and then accept payment after the fact.

 

The Cranicks weren't living in some fantasy world, they had experience (and I would guess, others did as well), of being able to pay AFTER the fact.

 

Regardless of what the written policy was, the unwritten contract was one in which people could pay AFTER the fact. The fire department ad-hoc changed that policy, making it something that could be selectively enforced. That sets up the very problem we have.

 

I would argue that HAD the fire department NEVER deviated from the stated policy, the policy would most likely have been changed long ago. People would have voted to change. But, because the FD HAD deviated from the stated policy, and intervened on behalf of people who had not pre-paid, but paid after the fact -- there was no incentive to change, and every expectation the FD would be there when people called REGARDLESS of pre-payment.

 

Selective enforcement of policies only cause confusion and unwarranted suffering. You either enforce it uniformly -- or you don't uniformly. That is just treatment. This was not just.

 

Again, the stated policy in place for 20 years was NULLIFIED by actions by the same fire department to the contrary.

[mommaduck]

I'm not arguing a hypothetical with you. There was no loss of life in this case.

The Cranicks didn't purchase fire protection. They had no business expecting the fire department to provide services.

 

The burden rests squarely on the shoulders of the home owner.

 

If they were worried about the potential loss of life in a fire, they should have purchased the service.

The reason for the hypothetical is to show that this is a moral situation, not just a legal one. While the FD may have had legal grounds, they were morally wrong. And going by the "standard", they would/should also stand around and watch a child burn. It seems some people are more concerned with the legal issue of the owner than they are about the moral issues caused by the way they have chosen to fund the FD.

[aude sapere]

The reason for the hypothetical is to show that this is a moral situation, not just a legal one. While the FD may have had legal grounds, they were morally wrong. And going by the "standard", they would/should also stand around and watch a child burn. It seems some people are more concerned with the legal issue of the owner than they are about the moral issues caused by the way they have chosen to fund the FD.

 

 

How about the morals of the Cranicks, who didn't pay for the service, and then expected the fire department to provide it anyway?

[Haiku]

As one who is a proponent of the libertarian philosophy, I will admit its biggest fault is that it assumes the best of people and that folks will make good choices.

 

Yes, that does appear to be fantasy.

 

And how. I have always tried to point that out to my Libertarian friends, and they assure me that if the government stopped stealing everyone's money, everyone would somehow become much kinder.

 

Tara

[Brilliant]

How about the morals of the Cranicks, who didn't pay for the service, and then expected the fire department to provide it anyway?

 

Yes. Whether or not the fire department should have saved the house or not - it's apparent that the Cranicks had had success with cheating the system once before, and didn't think it was important to pay the $75 this year.

[LisaKinVA]

Yes. Whether or not the fire department should have saved the house or not - it's apparent that the Cranicks had had success with cheating the system once before, and didn't think it was important to pay the $75 this year.

 

Exactly HOW did they cheat? Cheating would either be "pretending" to have paid, and getting the service OR promising to pay for the service, than later refusing to pay after the fact.

 

The fire department felt, at that time, that payment after the fact was acceptable. That is NOT cheating. That was an agreed upon action, with payment for services rendered. This set up a REASONABLE EXPECTATION that such services would continue to be available in the same manner.

 

Selective enforcement of policy is BAD. It is unjust, and does no one good. By declining to provide the service in the same manner as they had agreed to before, the department changed the de-facto policy. This is akin to the fire chief flipping a coin and saying, "tails, you lose."

[justamouse]

How about the morals of the Cranicks, who didn't pay for the service, and then expected the fire department to provide it anyway?

 

this question absolutely befuddles me. We are not talking about people making a lot of $, we are talking about people who lived in a trailer, yes? We aren't talking about people who defrauded anyone, stole from anyone, have a long list of fire code violations, we are talking about people who suffered a horrible accident and were made to watch while their community did nothing to help. I fail to see the moral failings of the family. What I do see is a lot of too bad, so sad, you should have paid your bill. And here we have an outstanding lesson in compassion and empathy or what a lack of it will get you.

 

You know, I was listening to the news last night CNN, did a show on bullying, and people were asking, where is empathy? Why don't people have empathy anymore? this is why. Because when something like a person's house burns down, we justify watching it happen.

[Mejane]

This is the same instance. They were there, and they had a chance to do the right thing no matter what the rules were. They chose to not do the right thing. They should have listened to their instincts.

 

 

I don't see it as the same at all. This guy chose not to pay. He's like the thief who isn't sorry he stole, he's only sorry he got caught.

[Mejane]

And going by the "standard", they would/should also stand around and watch a child burn.

 

I don't believe that at all, and I doubt you do either. A house is not a person.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

So, if a child had been inside that home and you were responsible for the FD, you would have been fine making them all stand there and watch the home burn?

 

The fact is that there were no children in the home. There was no claim of any people in the home or that there were people unaccounted for.

 

So you can't make an argument one way or the other that the moral thing was to put out the fire because next time there might be an entrapment.

 

The fire departments and fire fighters I know (and I know many, closely) would have used resources to rescue a person.

 

And while fire departments are often able to rescue pets in the course of responding to a fire call, there is not a compelling interest in putting a fire crew at risk to save a dog or cat. No animal is worth the life of a fire fighter.

 

Things we don't yet know about this case include how involved the house was when the call was made or how involved it was when the fd arrived. There are instances when a fd has to make the decision that a house is too involved to risk lives in just to save a structure. Happens all the time, even when there isn't a question of coverage.

[mommaduck]

Things we don't yet know about this case include how involved the house was when the call was made or how involved it was when the fd arrived. There are instances when a fd has to make the decision that a house is too involved to risk lives in just to save a structure. Happens all the time, even when there isn't a question of coverage.

None of this is the issue. We have a moral obligation not to stand by and watch a neighbour's house burn to the ground if we have the means to put it out.

[mommaduck]

And going by the "standard", they would/should also stand around and watch a child burn.

 

I don't believe that at all, and I doubt you do either. A house is not a person.

Found it eye opening that she wouldn't answer the question though.

[justamouse]

I don't see it as the same at all. This guy chose not to pay. He's like the thief who isn't sorry he stole, he's only sorry he got caught.

 

No, like the other poster said above, the FD had taken the de facto position that paying AFTER the fact was OK. He didn't steal anything. Stealing is taking $ from someone, not choosing not to pay a opt in service. Yes, he Opted out, he took a chance knowing that if, God forbid, his house should catch fire, he could pay for it later. The FD changed the rules mid game.

 

You know what I think happened? NO ONE was paying. And they needed the money, so they upped the consequences, willing to play chicken with someone in their community and this family pulled the lucky straw.

 

The charges should be in taxes PERIOD. Call me a bleeding heart commie, I'll wear it proudly in this instance.

[mommaduck]

No, like the other poster said above, the FD had taken the de facto position that paying AFTER the fact was OK. He didn't steal anything. Stealing is taking $ from someone, not choosing not to pay a opt in service. Yes, he Opted out, he took a chance knowing that if, God forbid, his house should catch fire, he could pay for it later. The FD changed the rules mid game.

 

You know what I think happened? NO ONE was paying. And they needed the money, so they upped the consequences, willing to play chicken with someone in their community and this family pulled the lucky straw.

 

The charges should be in taxes PERIOD. Call me a bleeding heart commie, I'll wear it proudly in this instance.

:iagree: or start having fundraisers for their FD so that those that can't afford to pay aren't punished for their lot.

[lionfamily1999]

So what happens if the fire dept. decides this community is just not worth the trouble? These are people offering a service that this community does not have. What happens when the law suits are filed and the outrage is vented and this fire department STOPS offering this? This is not their community, this is not the area where their income is paid. What then? Should they be forced to continue this service?

 

How about the morals of the Cranicks, who didn't pay for the service, and then expected the fire department to provide it anyway?

Well, when you're coming from an entitlement pov, I guess the morals of the Cranicks were right on.

No, like the other poster said above, the FD had taken the de facto position that paying AFTER the fact was OK. He didn't steal anything. Stealing is taking $ from someone, not choosing not to pay a opt in service. Yes, he Opted out, he took a chance knowing that if, God forbid, his house should catch fire, he could pay for it later. The FD changed the rules mid game.

 

You know what I think happened? NO ONE was paying. And they needed the money, so they upped the consequences, willing to play chicken with someone in their community and this family pulled the lucky straw.

 

The charges should be in taxes PERIOD. Call me a bleeding heart commie, I'll wear it proudly in this instance.

They are charged in the taxes where this fire dept. is based.

[Haiku]

You know what I think happened? NO ONE was paying. And they needed the money, so they upped the consequences, willing to play chicken with someone in their community and this family pulled the lucky straw.

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised. And having grown up in a rural area where what you did and who you knew/were related to made all the difference, I'm willing to bet a gosh darn lot that had this family been VIPs or related to the right folks, their call to the FD would have been answered, no questions asked, and that pesky business about a fee handled later.

 

Tara

[Sebastian (a lady)]

So really it wasn't about the money. There was something else going on.

 

Tara

 

One report I've read mentioned that family had had a chimney fire a few years ago, when they also didn't have coverage and that the fire department responded and put out the fire. It makes me wonder why they didn't place a greater priority on making sure that they were paid into the system

 

One of the things we don't know is how many calls the fd had made in recent years to non-participating households outside their district and how much trouble they'd had in getting any payment for services. Or why the county didn't have a rural fire protection district, or why there didn't seem to be a volunteer or small paid department in the area that might then have had a mutual aid agreement with the city. Or why the county (presumably representing the wishes of the county residents) had not levied a tax to pay into the fire protection program as a whole. We don't know, for example, if the current scheme is a result of a levy being voted down.

 

How does one complain on one hand about government entities not controlling costs when they are providing services for non-residents and then complain that non-residents have to go without the services of the city to which they don't pay taxes?

[justamouse]

I wouldn't be surprised. And having grown up in a rural area where what you did and who you knew/were related to made all the difference, I'm willing to bet a gosh darn lot that had this family been VIPs or related to the right folks, their call to the FD would have been answered, no questions asked, and that pesky business about a fee handled later.

 

Tara

 

Right? I would bet $ on that one.

[aude sapere]

this question absolutely befuddles me. We are not talking about people making a lot of $, we are talking about people who lived in a trailer, yes? We aren't talking about people who defrauded anyone, stole from anyone, have a long list of fire code violations, we are talking about people who suffered a horrible accident and were made to watch while their community did nothing to help. I fail to see the moral failings of the family. What I do see is a lot of too bad, so sad, you should have paid your bill. And here we have an outstanding lesson in compassion and empathy or what a lack of it will get you.

The Cranicks haven't claimed they couldn't afford to pay. Mr. Cranick admitted that he forgot to pay. What is your source for this?

 

 

..

[dansamy]

In everything there will be down sides and liabilities. One of the biggest that these homeowners have, perhaps, not considered is the complete loss of these services. See, this fire dept. is in another area. They have offered their services to people that pay the fee. If this were to turn into a large law suit then the losers will be that community/county when they completely lose their access to that department.

 

I can foresee this happening. If a law suit is successful, either by the Crannicks or their insurers, I doubt that the city of South Fulton will be so generous as to offer an opt-in service to the unincorporated areas again. Then where will the county residents be? Their insurances will skyrocket because there is no fire response. This situation hurts the entire community. While the Crannicks are reeling from losing all that they owned, the rest of the community stands to pay a heavy price as well.

[Gooblink]

None of this is the issue. We have a moral obligation not to stand by and watch a neighbour's house burn to the ground if we have the means to put it out.

 

I'm in your camp, mommaduck, regarding moral obligation. As I said, I can't imagine standing around doing nothing to help.

 

Having said that, I can see Sebastian's point; the extent of fire damage to the structure is probably a real issue. A mobile home doesn't take long to burn beyond salvation, and it could be that the structure was "gone" before the FD got there.

 

Could it be that the media is working up a public frenzy to show how BAD opt-in services are and how NECESSARY universal programs are?

[LisaKinVA]

just one comment... modular does not equal mobile. Big difference. HUGE.

[lionfamily1999]

I can foresee this happening. If a law suit is successful, either by the Crannicks or their insurers, I doubt that the city of South Fulton will be so generous as to offer an opt-in service to the unincorporated areas again. Then where will the county residents be? Their insurances will skyrocket because there is no fire response. This situation hurts the entire community. While the Crannicks are reeling from losing all that they owned, the rest of the community stands to pay a heavy price as well.

Yep and those people that paid for the service are probably ready to rip off a few heads themselves :glare:

[justamouse]

 

Well, when you're coming from an entitlement pov, I guess the morals of the Cranicks were right on.

 

 

Entitlement has nothing to do with this. We are talking about the morally right thing to do, period. There is no entitlement to putting a fire out in someone's house. It's the basic thing to do, back to the bucket brigade.

 

It's so funny that we have these people in the country who want to take back the government, want to rewrite the laws, and yet when they actually HAVE a chance to break a rule and the law, they scurry back under it to prove themselves right.

[Haiku]

How does one complain on one hand about government entities not controlling costs when they are providing services for non-residents and then complain that non-residents have to go without the services of the city to which they don't pay taxes?

 

I don't know the answer to that question, but the article stated that the homeowner in question said he would pay not only the $75 fee but also any costs associated with controlling the fire. If the issue was simply that the department needed that $75, then they would have accepted and put out the fire. That they didn't leads me to believe that this was not a fiduciary issue, and, as I mentioned in my previous post about growing up in a rural area, I'm unfortunately not surprised that people would behave like this. I also won't be surprised if it turns out that Mr. Cranick or someone in his family was having some sort of tiff with someone in power somewhere and was punished as a result. Small communities sometimes work that way. Heck, large communities sometimes work that way.

 

There are two "shoulds" here: The family should have paid the fee, and the fire department should have put out the fire. Neither fault excuses the other.

 

Tara

[Rivka]

Welcome to the libertarian paradise.

 

Reality is so much measure than fantasy.

 

Man, posting from my phone makes me look like I have aphasia. I don't always notice when it "helpfully" corrects my spelling. That was supposed to say "reality is so much MESSIER than fantasy."

Edited October 6, 2010 by Rivka

[justamouse]

..

 

It doesn't matter that he forgot. The right thing to do is put the fire out. Legalism is a dead thing. It has no heart, it has no compassion or empathy, though it's a technically safe place to stand.

[Gooblink]

It doesn't matter that he forgot. The right thing to do is put the fire out. Legalism is a dead thing. It has no heart, it has no compassion or empathy, though it's a technically safe place to stand.

 

Amen.

[lionfamily1999]

Entitlement has nothing to do with this. We are talking about the morally right thing to do, period. There is no entitlement to putting a fire out in someone's house. It's the basic thing to do, back to the bucket brigade.

 

It's so funny that we have these people in the country who want to take back the government, want to rewrite the laws, and yet when they actually HAVE a chance to break a rule and the law, they scurry back under it to prove themselves right.

Ha! Okay, I misread you and had to delete and retype, but now that I read what you've read I have nothing to say.

 

Yes, blame the fire department for evil libertarians.

Edited October 6, 2010 by lionfamily1999

[Mejane]

.

It's so funny that we have these people in the country who want to take back the government, want to rewrite the laws, and yet when they actually HAVE a chance to break a rule and the law, they scurry back under it to prove themselves right.

 

I also find it funny that people always complain about others not taking personal responsibility, then make excuses for someone whose own actions resulted in their being harmed. :confused:

[LisaKinVA]

Entitlement has nothing to do with this. We are talking about the morally right thing to do, period. There is no entitlement to putting a fire out in someone's house. It's the basic thing to do, back to the bucket brigade.

 

It's so funny that we have these people in the country who want to take back the government, want to rewrite the laws, and yet when they actually HAVE a chance to break a rule and the law, they scurry back under it to prove themselves right.

 

See, I'm one of the "anti-government nuts." But, this is a public safety issue -- a very legitimate function of government. Fires spread. They don't usually contain themselves. They have to be dealt with. Ignoring this real threat to public safety is negligent of the government. This should NOT be an "opt-in" type of service -- because it has direct and immediate consequences to people completely and wholly uninvolved.

 

The theory of nullification is meant to remedy situations in which laws (or policies) are viewed to be unjust. Even in a court of law, the jury can vote "innocent" -- even when the evidence is clear that the individual DID break the law, because the jury believes the law to be wrong.

 

I do believe there is much more at play than "they didn't pay, so there."

 

The family has taken their lumps, and has been publicly very understanding of the whole thing. I for one, am going to exercise my kind heart and send the family SOMETHING. Because despite my very limited government leanings... wrong is still wrong. My neighbor is anyone in need.

[justamouse]

What rule did they break?!? They are a fire department from another area!

 

There is no rule or law that says you must put a fire out, especially if you're a fire department that is outside of its jurisdiction.

 

As for the sympathy &tc... uh where were these people when their house caught fire and their pets were inside?!? They didn't think to let the dog and cats out?!? No, blame the fire department that was doing what they were paid/contracted to do. The pet owners that left their pets inside, they're the victims.

 

I would have gladly been fired for breaking command and put the fire out. I stand by my comments, it's the right thing to do, period. You do not stand next to a fire truck and watch someone's house burn down.

[aude sapere]

It doesn't matter that he forgot. The right thing to do is put the fire out. Legalism is a dead thing. It has no heart, it has no compassion or empathy, though it's a technically safe place to stand.

 

The right thing to do is to live with the consequences of ones actions.

 

Should they choose to continue to reside in the same area, I hope they remember to purchase fire protection services from the city.

[justamouse]

My neighbor is anyone in need.

I agreed with everything you said. But this especially.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

The charges should be in taxes PERIOD. Call me a bleeding heart commie, I'll wear it proudly in this instance.

 

Then it would be the responsibility of the government officials in the county that the house was located in to do the taxation, set up a rural fire protection district, found a volunteer fire department, pay for a small paid or combo department etc.

 

It would be a very illegal taking for a city to try to collect taxes on a property outside the city limits.

 

We have no idea at this point how much it was announced that really you have to pay into the system or you will not be receiving fire services from the town next door to where you live.

 

I ran a back of the envelope calculation for one of the districts I know. They spent an average of $66/resident in 2009. With reimbursement from a neighboring city (with which they have a city to city agreement) for EMS calls, the cost was reduced to $45 per resident. But this is the cost for EMS, not for fire. And the annual report is for operating costs and does not include the cost of vehicles when they are periodically replaced. The last truck for the district I'm familiar with cost over $300,000 just for the vehicle, before any equipment (radios, hoses, pike poles, hand ladders, etc). Granted these are figures for a more urban district. A more rural city would likely have lower salaries, older (possibly used) vehicles and less equipment; however it would also probably have fewer residents to share the cost. If $66/resident is typical, then $75 per home seems resonable.

 

I might argue that in the stereotypical commune, a family does not get to fail to contribute to the training of the village fire fighters while still benefiting from their skills and equipment. I might even argue that the stereotypical commune might have established a volunteer fire department, that could have rendered assistance until mutual aid arrived from the neighboring city. :001_smile:

 

My dh is part of a family with deep ties to the fire service. He pointed out that volunteer fire departments were established in the country back when New York was still New Amsterdam. It seems to me that there was a lot of assuming that someone else was going to take the risk and make the payment for providing fire service.

[justamouse]

The right thing to do is to live with the consequences of ones actions.

 

Should they choose to continue to reside in the same area, I hope they remember to purchase fire protection services from the city.

 

Ah, yes, Christianity (Christ) is all about making sure we live with our consequences. Grace must die a long, painful death.

[Alyce]

Actually in that movie the two soldiers were found not guilty of murder but guilty of action unbecoming a marine and were dishonarably discharged. Either way you are in the middle and it's easier to be on the outside looking in than being that person in the middle and is being pulled in 2 directions. I'm afraid I feel more loss for the FF's than the homeowner. They were the ones there watching and as a FF wife I know they didn't just stand around playing cards waiting for the fun to be over. The system definitely needs fixed and hopefully this will lead to that fix.

[Haiku]

The right thing to do is to live with the consequences of ones actions.

 

 

That applies equally to the fire fighters (my dad was a volunteer FF for 12 years when I was growing up, as well as a volunteer paramedic and a CPR teacher) who will have to live with the fact that they stood by and did nothing. Honestly, I hope they wake up one day very soon and are appalled at their own behavior.

 

My dad called me from visiting my sister in another state to inform me of this news item. He was livid that what he called "a bunch of supposed public servants" would behave this way.

 

We ALL know that the homeowner was in the wrong here. The point is, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Tara

[justamouse]

My dh is part of a family with deep ties to the fire service. He pointed out that volunteer fire departments were established in the country back when New York was still New Amsterdam. It seems to me that there was a lot of assuming that someone else was going to take the risk and make the payment for providing fire service.

 

You know, I fully understand that these services need $ to operate, and they are not free. I am not saying that there should not be a charge, and I think 75 is modest--but I can afford that. To someone else, say my friend who was down to 20 bucks paying for food for a family of 6, that is more than they can handle. I don't disagree with you, I'm just saying that in this instance, it's wrong to watch a person's house burn down. The system is very broken and I don't know what they answer is, I do know what it isn't.