Why did fireman just watch as this fire burn a house down

[Bob Alkire]

Yep I could agree with that.

Are you agreeing with this that Salty was asking," I wonder if that was an insurance situation. Suppose a fireman was injured fighting that fire - but since it was not an "authorized" job, the fireman may not be covered under the city workmans comp - since he was not doing city work?"

If so where is the deal we fight fires, he wasn't saying only when we are paid or we are covered by insurance.

Or is it where Salty asked, "Could be the Amish have it right. No insurance, all the neighbors just come and help and no one sues".

I could agree with this one. As I said I've helped many folks on the road, over the years and as I pointed out two times it cost me more than I could afford from being sued.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

You are being short sighted. You ask, "So What?" The "so what" is that if they are taken advantage of by people, they will cease to exist! The fire fighters need money coming in to support themselves and their operations. If people stop paying the fee because they know they will get the service for free, eventually the service won't exist anymore.

How about just pay it out of tax revenues? Matt, where you and I live, here in Duval County, Florida, the fire department is paid for by taxes. Don't you like that?

 

[annsni]

How about just pay it out of tax revenues? Matt, where you and I live, here in Duval County, Florida, the fire department is paid for by taxes. Don't you like that?

For some reason, the locale decided not to do that. I do think that it should just be an across the board tax thing because, after all, what nut WOULDN'T want fire coverage? And as I said, $75 a year? Jeepers!!! Of COURSE I'd pay that!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Are you agreeing with this that Salty was asking," I wonder if that was an insurance situation. Suppose a fireman was injured fighting that fire - but since it was not an "authorized" job, the fireman may not be covered under the city workmans comp - since he was not doing city work?"

If so where is the deal we fight fires, he wasn't saying only when we are paid or we are covered by insurance.

Or is it where Salty asked, "Could be the Amish have it right. No insurance, all the neighbors just come and help and no one sues".

I could agree with this one. As I said I've helped many folks on the road, over the years and as I pointed out two times it cost me more than I could afford from being sued.

I was agreeing with the amish comment. It could be an insurance issue but then again there in lies our problem in this country. Its quite frankly getting out of hand. Insurance agencies get our money up front and when its time to pay out they use every excuse not to pay. Its a sickness. Firefighters and Law enforcement are essential to our society. Is a cop who is in a rural area not obliged to do their job if they are dealing with a crime? No. They have to protect and perserve the peace. If they get injured they are taken care of. Firefighters should be treated in the same respect. Our country is sick. And the fact that we over look this persons misery and say "he should have payed the 75 dollars" is problematic.

 

[matt wade]

How about just pay it out of tax revenues? Matt, where you and I live, here in Duval County, Florida, the fire department is paid for by taxes. Don't you like that?

I would prefer that I pay for the service individually. I don't like the lack of transparency.

 

[RevGKG]

And then they would pay a lot more. It is the whole principle of insurance. You pay less up front but you pay more later.

Listen to the facts: The guy told 911 he would pay whatever it cost to put out the fire.

That means, contrary to Matt Wade who apparently didn't read the article, he was not expecting to get something for free. In fact, he was going to end up paying far more than $75. And he was willing to do that.

It happens in every industry. People who choose not to have health insurance pay higher for health care later on when they actually need it. People who choose not to have extended warranties on their cars take a risk and understand that they will pay more for any problems they encounter.

Again, remember the facts: The guy did want fire coverage and he offered to pay whatever it cost to get it.

It's like life insurance. If you buy life insurance at the age of 25, you pay less than if you wait until age 50 or 60. If you buy health insurance when you are healthy, you pay less than when you are sick. If you buy an extended warranty on your car, you pay less up front than you pay later.

I can't imagine this is even controversial. In a nutshell, we have people arguing that a fire company should put a whole neighborhood (and forest?) at risk for the want of $75, ignoring the fact that the guy offered to pay much more than $75 when he needed the coverage. This seems so simple it boggles my mind.

Ann, can you imagine any industry where someone says, "I will pay whatever you ask," and they refuse to do business with them? I can't. If nothing else, it's a simple business decision. This fire company stood to make thousands of dollars and they said no because the guy hadn't given them $75.

The reason the county charges $75 is not because that is what it will cost to put the fire out. It will cost them thousands to put a fire out, even a small one. The reason they charge $75 is because they are gambling that fires will be so rare that the $75 from each house will pay for the one house that needs it.

Why shouldn't people be able to pay for fire protection on an as needed basis with the understanding that if they need it, it will cost them a bunch of money?

Your comments are very idealistic but are not based in the reality of the way people choose to live in many rural areas. Fire fees are reality whether you like that approach or not.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Its a sickness. Firefighters and Law enforcement are essential to our society.

I believe we all agree. However many a community can not afford one or both. The city I live in has a fire department but we rent our police protection from the county. We rent X amount of policeman and if we want more we have to pay, more. Our fire department cost us enough, that it will be a while before we get our own policeman.

And no I don't want my taxes raised.

Firefighters should be treated in the same respect.

I believe they are. What was it a few years ago up north where the fire man wouldn't go into the building to get some people out because it wasn't safe, and folks off the street went in and got the people out. The union backed the fire fighters, but the local folks were rather upset.

My point, if we want business or government to do things they aren't paid or under contract to do, their employees should also be willing to do the job with out pay. And while we are at it, those who believe someone or some government agency should to do such in such when not paid, should do like wise.

 

[preachinjesus]

Crime and fire protection services of municipalities should be offered as part of your property taxes or simply out of the decency of being humans.

I mean seriously, how crass is it to roll up to the house, realize they didn't/forgot to pay their fee, and just watch it burn down. What kind of world is this?

One of the ministries we have started for some of the seniors in our church is one that helps them structuring and scheduling paying their bills. (It's a very, very carefully monitored group of fine Christian accountants) Sometimes they get letters they don't understand or realize they need to pay. Others of them have gotten so scared of missing something they pay everything that comes through the mailbox.

Honestly, since most town/city/county councils operate with a degree of anonymity (particularly with how and when they pass new fees) it isn't unlikely that this kind of a special use fee would be overlooked by most. If I got a piece of paper in the mail from our county commissioner saying they've assessed us a new charge I'd be suspicious too.

As for volunteer firefighters...the town I grew up had all volunteers and never, never failed to address a fire when they were called. And we never had a "special fee" for protection.

Perhaps it would be a different kind of a protection fee if the fire fighters went door to door collecting it...with several brooding men holding torches ready to roll for those who refused to pay

 

[annsni]

I mean seriously, how crass is it to roll up to the house, realize they didn't/forgot to pay their fee, and just watch it burn down. What kind of world is this?

From what I understand, they did not do that. Instead, they did not respond to the call. They DID, however, respond to the call of the next-door neighbors who's house caught on fire from the first house and the fire department came and fought the fire at the one house and not the other. It's not like they came then stood around watching.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

From what I understand, they did not do that. Instead, they did not respond to the call. They DID, however, respond to the call of the next-door neighbors who's house caught on fire from the first house and the fire department came and fought the fire at the one house and not the other. It's not like they came then stood around watching.

Irrelevant I believe it was wrong. And is a smaller example of how our country is becoming screwed up.

 

[sag38]

This has been a practice for decades Thinkingstuff. It's really very simple. If you want fire protection then pay the fee. If you don't then you are free not too. But, if you choose not to then then don't become a cry baby when your free choice comes back to bite you in the rear. That's what's wrong with our country. No one wants to accept personal responsibility for thier actions. They have an unreasonable expectation that it's the government's job to come and resuce them from the consequences of their own self willed actions.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I did read the article. He may have been willing to pay more than that. At that moment, he might have been willing to pay just about anything. Did he have the actual money to pay it though? Would he have actually paid it?

He said he would. So I am not sure why you say he "may" have been willing. He said he was, and I assume he would know.

If fire fighters started showing up at every fire, putting them out, and sending bills after the fact we'd have people up in arms that it's unfair to expect people to pay for services such as this. The fire fighters would also have to hire additional staff for debt collection. The additional staff would have to be paid for, so everyone's annual fee would be raised and even more people wouldn't pay it.

No, any debt collection gets rolled into the price of the fire. But people should be paying for this through property taxes. That's the point of paying them ... to pay for services associated with your property, like police, fire, education, etc.

This is no different than any kind of insurance -- health, car, life, etc. You pay less if you pay up front; you pay more if you pay later. The county is betting that everyone paying $75 won't need the service and that money can be used for the one or two people who do need it.

It's real simple. If you want the service, pay for it in advance. The fire fighters don't offer a "pay afterwards" option.

But why not? Many businesses, in fact most service businesses, do. You buy an extended warranty for you car and you get it fixed. If you don't buy the extended warranty, you can still get it fixed; it just costs you more.

You buy health insurance and you get part of your services paid for. If you don't buy health insurance you still get health care, you just have to pay more for it.

You go in a restaurant and order. You don't pay up front. You pay when you are done.

So the idea of a "pay afterwards" option is not only feasible; it's pretty standard in service oriented businesses.

No matter which way you look at this, it was a bad decision.

Morally, it risked life and property for the paltry amount of $75 (and in fact turned down thousands), and then they had to show up anyway which cost them a lot more than the $75 the neighbor paid.

Financially, it costs the country and the fire department thousands of dollars that could have been used for a lot of things. Here's the silliness of it: The county is saying, "If you would have paid us $75 we would have come out and saved your house. But we will not come out for more than that." It is so illogical and financially and morally irresponsible that it boggles the mind.

And to top it all off, they had to show up anyway for the neighbor. If I were that neighbor, I wouldn't have been happy because these firemen risked his property and put his family and his house in danger by this. Everyone knows the best time to fight fires is before they start. But these guys apparently waited until after the fire endangered something to show up.

 

[Pastor Larry]

From what I understand, they did not do that. Instead, they did not respond to the call. They DID, however, respond to the call of the next-door neighbors who's house caught on fire from the first house and the fire department came and fought the fire at the one house and not the other. It's not like they came then stood around watching.

This makes it both worse and funnier. Because they had to show up anyway, but by the time they did, more was endangered.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If you want fire protection then pay the fee.

This is where your argument breaks down because he was willing to pay the fee. In fact, he was willing to pay much more than the $75.

No one wants to accept personal responsibility for thier actions.

He was willing to accept responsibility to the tune of "whatever it costs."

They have an unreasonable expectation that it's the government's job to come and resuce them from the consequences of their own self willed actions.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect firemen to show up and put out a fire, particularly for pay. I would be interested in your argument as to how paying firemen to put out a fire is unreasonable.

 

[tinytim]

Morally, they were wrong.

 

[Alcott]

But how often do you hear something about government bodies not being there to make, evaluate, or enforce morals?

 

[Bob Alkire]

None of us were there and we are speaking from our background on the subject. If you haven't live in a rural area and seen problems that can happen, you are not in the know.

I think Pastor Larry said the person said after the fire started they would pay. They could be telling the truth or not I don't know or care. But if the equipment is being used at a fire of a non paying person and now they can't get to a fire of a paying person. I believe the paying customer is going to be up set.

A lot of these places is where some growth has happen and there isn't enough tax base to pay for all, kind of like a family or a woman having four or five kids with out the money to take proper care of them. We might feed the kids but we don't do as much for the area that has a few homes over a larger amount of ground. Like as a child the nearest house was four miles away. If you had a fire you and your neighbors put it out or tried to.

 

[Gold Dragon]

As has been pointed out before, if they allowed folks to pay after the fact, knowing human nature, many wouldn't pay till they needed the service.

The easy solution to this is to charge $75 if you pay before you need the service and a significantly larger sum (ie $1000) if you pay when you need the service, like this gentleman was willing to do. Avoiding the larger sum will be enough incentive to get people to pay before they need the service.

I agree with those who say that this whole situation is just idiotic financial decision making by the council.

 

[matt wade]

The easy solution to this is to charge $75 if you pay before you need the service and a significantly larger sum (ie $1000) if you pay when you need the service, like this gentleman was willing to do. Avoiding the larger sum will be enough incentive to get people to pay before they need the service.

It sounds sounds great in theory. The problem is that you aren't going to be able to enforce payment after the fact. Let's say the fire fighters show up. They tell the person, "Hey, we'll put out the fire! Just sign here on the dotted line that you agree to these charges." So, the fire fighters put out the fire. Now, the person doesn't feel like paying. They go to court. The judge agrees that the contract was signed in duress and throws out the charges.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This has been a practice for decades Thinkingstuff. It's really very simple. If you want fire protection then pay the fee. If you don't then you are free not too. But, if you choose not to then then don't become a cry baby when your free choice comes back to bite you in the rear. That's what's wrong with our country. No one wants to accept personal responsibility for thier actions. They have an unreasonable expectation that it's the government's job to come and resuce them from the consequences of their own self willed actions.

Its immoral. Like law enforcement everyone should pay a fee and if you don't the Law enforcement officers don't help you. Can you imagine that. Well, the samething is happening with the firedepartment. Thank God most of the country doesn't feel the same way you do. Our taxes should cover this type of need. The firefighters should be ashamed. Just like a doctor should be ashamed that they refused cpr to some one who isn't their patient.