In summary: Rural homeowner didn't pay $75 to get fire department service, which was extended to people in the countryside outside the department's coverage. House caught fire, fire department didn't stop it from burning down. They did save his neighbor's house, who did pay the coverage fee.
This is fethed up in all sorts of ways, and no one is going to come out of this looking good, but
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
is pretty telling. 1: It costs the FD a lot more than $75 to respond to a fire. If there's no reason to pay until you need the FD to show up, they're going to be loosing a lot of money. 2: I think it'd also open the FD up to incredible legal vulnerabilities. Nothing like showing up to put out the fire of of someone who didn't pay for coverage, getting them to sign off on a preprinted agreement to pay the fee, put out the fire, and then have them not only not pay the $75, but hit the FD with a massive lawsuit for extortion under duress or something similar.
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late.
Didn't want to pay $75 measly dollars when his house wasn't burning down though did he...
The 75 is a cover all, the actual cost of responding is far far higher. As long as everyone is evacuated safely, thems the breaks, don't pay your bill, don't get the service.
In summary: Rural homeowner didn't pay $75 to get fire department service, which was extended to people in the countryside outside the department's coverage. House caught fire, fire department didn't stop it from burning down. They did save his neighbor's house, who did pay the coverage fee.
This is fethed up in all sorts of ways, and no one is going to come out of this looking good, but
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
is pretty telling. 1: It costs the FD a lot more than $75 to respond to a fire. If there's no reason to pay until you need the FD to show up, they're going to be loosing a lot of money. 2: I think it'd also open the FD up to incredible legal vulnerabilities. Nothing like showing up to put out the fire of of someone who didn't pay for coverage, getting them to sign off on a preprinted agreement to pay the fee, put out the fire, and then have them not only not pay the $75, but hit the FD with a massive lawsuit for extortion under duress or something similar.
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late.
If somebody had died in that fire the Fire Department would be in the deepest possible kind of gak. They lucked out. the fire department stands to lose alot more than a couple $75 fees in a wrongful death suit.
Except the suit would have no basis. The house was out in the countryside somewhere beyond standard fire department coverage, hence the opt in system. They opted out and:
1: Is everyone safely out of the house? is a standard question for fire response. Obviously, Cranick said yes which is one reason why the FD stood by. There are typically clauses allowing for exceptions, like people in mortal danger.
2: Have you ever dealt with emergency response personnel insurance policies? They're nuts, and by engaging a fire on property they had no responsibility for with no life threatening circumstances, the firefighters could've voided any insurance coverage for injuries sustained.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:If somebody had died in that fire the Fire Department would be in the deepest possible kind of gak. They lucked out. the fire department stands to lose alot more than a couple $75 fees in a wrongful death suit.
I've never heard of having to pay an optional charge for the emergency services to turn up to your house. I thought that kind of stuff was, you know, a basic right funded by taxation.
God, what if some innocent was trapped in the building or the fire spread elsewhere, you could have a really dangerous situation.
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
Translation: I didn't pay the tax, but I expected the benefits anyways.
No sympathy from me. This wasn't like something that just popped up a couple weeks ago, and no one knew about it. This has been in place for years. They opted not to pay for the service, then they have no right to bitch when they didn't receive the service.
Howard A Treesong wrote:I've never heard of having to pay an optional charge for the emergency services to turn up to your house. I thought that kind of stuff was, you know, a basic right funded by taxation.
God, what if some innocent was trapped in the building or the fire spread elsewhere, you could have a really dangerous situation.
1. Yea, its an unincorporated county region. I've seen that. I've paid that.
2. They have no liability. Just me, as Sir Dood, has no responsibility if I'm grooving by and there's a fire in a house.
If you think thats mean do you stop at every accident you see, every person pulled over by the side fo the road? If so then I'd have to call you a liar.
Frazzled wrote:If you think thats mean do you stop at every accident you see, every person pulled over by the side fo the road? If so then I'd have to call you a liar.
Don't be daft, I'm just pointing out that in the UK you can't opt out of such things, in fact it's pretty daft that anyone can anywhere. I mean these people who don't pay their for the fire serives, what else can they opt out of? We have things like council tax which pays for road maintenance and waste collection, and taxation in general pays for the emergency services everywhere, even for people living on a remote scottish island who need a helicopter. The fire brigade are the only people really trained and equipped to tackle a fire, so them standing by and watching isn't like me doing nothing to help.
Ultimately the fire brigade only came out because someone else's property caught fire which is what happens when you don't tackle a blaze, and that seems irresponsible to me regardless of who is paying for what.
Frazzled wrote:If you think thats mean do you stop at every accident you see, every person pulled over by the side fo the road? If so then I'd have to call you a liar.
Don't be daft, I'm just pointing out that in the UK you can't opt out of such things, in fact it's pretty daft that anyone can anywhere. I mean these people who don't pay their for the fire serives, what else can they opt out of? We have things like council tax which pays for road maintenance and waste collection, and taxation in general pays for the emergency services everywhere, even for people living on a remote scottish island who need a helicopter. The fire brigade are the only people really trained and equipped to tackle a fire, so them standing by and watching isn't like me doing nothing to help.
Ultimately the fire brigade only came out because someone else's property caught fire which is what happens when you don't tackle a blaze, and that seems irresponsible to me regardless of who is paying for what.
It was a City Fire Department. They were not residents of the city. Where is the disconnect? The city offered the fire departments services to the county as a whole for a fee to help cover the costs. If your not paying the city taxes, or the service fee, then you cannot expect to make use of that service.
In America, we haven't quite gone as socialistic as you guys have.
djones520 wrote:In America, we haven't quite gone as socialistic as you guys have.
Wow, having a right to a fire service stopping your house burning down is "socialism" now? I'd have though it was common sense to stop a fire spreading to multiple houses or setting a forest alight. Amazing, I wonder why many other countries believe the US to have a skewed perspective on what socialism and conservatism really mean?
Frazzled wrote:If you think thats mean do you stop at every accident you see, every person pulled over by the side fo the road? If so then I'd have to call you a liar.
Don't be daft, I'm just pointing out that in the UK you can't opt out of such things, in fact it's pretty daft that anyone can anywhere. I mean these people who don't pay their for the fire serives, what else can they opt out of?
You have to understand, Britain is physically smaller than my backyard. In most states (Louisiana is a foreign country) the state is broken into counties, and within those counties municipalities/towns/hive cities. Unincoirporated areas, is a term that generally describes areas of a county that are not within the jurisidiciton of a municipality (I am simplifying a bit). These can be vast swaths of area and have no services. Often municipalities will offer services to nearby areas, and smaller towns/villages will often opt in as an entity to such as well.
Again this varies because many counties will have county wide service itself. It depends on the county or state.
Bascially if you're in the middle of freaking no where and some local jurisdiction offers fire coverage, take it, or don't whine like a mangina when your house burns down you loser waste of skin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
djones520 wrote:In America, we haven't quite gone as socialistic as you guys have.
Wow, having a right to a fire service stopping your house burning down is "socialism" now? I'd have though it was common sense to stop a fire spreading to multiple houses or setting a forest alight. Amazing, I wonder why many other countries believe the US to have a skewed perspective on what socialism and conservatism really mean?
You would be right if they were a multiple dwelling or near a forest. But if its unincorporated, its going to not be the former, and likely not the latter. Lets put it in a UK perspective to be helpful, imagine a farmhouse in the middle of nowehere. Its probably close to that.
And Daft. I'm not Daft! Have you been talking to my wife?
djones520 wrote:In America, we haven't quite gone as socialistic as you guys have.
Wow, having a right to a fire service stopping your house burning down is "socialism" now? I'd have though it was common sense to stop a fire spreading to multiple houses or setting a forest alight. Amazing, I wonder why many other countries believe the US to have a skewed perspective on what socialism and conservatism really mean?
He had the right to it. With a $75 fee. He opted not to take it. Personal choice. He made it. He has to live with the consequences.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's the same concept as when people bitch about Medical Insurance companies denying people with a pre-exhisting condition.
Why bother paying for the service, when you can just cough up $75 at the last minute and force them to dish out several thousand in return.
Frazzled wrote:You would be right if they were a multiple dwelling or near a forest. But if its unincorporated, its going to not be the former, and likely not the latter. Lets put it in a UK perspective to be helpful, imagine a farmhouse in the middle of nowehere. Its probably close to that.
Even a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere would have coverage. I stayed at a place in Ireland once that was out in the middle of nowhere. We were told that if we set fire to the place the fire brigade were 45 minutes away, but they would come. And if someone broke their leg they'd need a helicopter, but there was no question these would be available.
It's pretty dumb that the guy didn't pay for this, but I suppose the point I'm making is that he shouldn't have been able not to pay to create a situation where there could be a burning house that no one would do anything about. Considering the bill is $75 it should either be compulsory or paid through taxes elsewhere to ensure everyone has access to a fire service. It's pretty dangerous, assuming no one gets trapped inside you have the risk of it spreading and getting out of control with fields of crops or neighbouring properties (as happened here), and there's the problem of poisonous chemicals like asbestos in the building being scattered around the area. Even if you have to issue a large bill at the end like someone who hasn't got medical insurance, it would seem wiser to put the fire out first and concentrate on addressing money issues later.
Frazzled wrote:You would be right if they were a multiple dwelling or near a forest. But if its unincorporated, its going to not be the former, and likely not the latter. Lets put it in a UK perspective to be helpful, imagine a farmhouse in the middle of nowehere. Its probably close to that.
Even a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere would have coverage. I stayed at a place in Ireland once that was out in the middle of nowhere. We were told that if we set fire to the place the fire brigade were 45 minutes away, but they would come. And if someone broke their leg they'd need a helicopter, but there was no question these would be available.
It's pretty dumb that the guy didn't pay for this, but I suppose the point I'm making is that he shouldn't have been able not to pay to create a situation where there could be a burning house that no one would do anything about. Considering the bill is $75 it should either be compulsory or paid through taxes elsewhere to ensure everyone has access to a fire service. It's pretty dangerous, assuming no one gets trapped inside you have the risk of it spreading and getting out of control with fields of crops or neighbouring properties (as happened here), and there's the problem of poisonous chemicals like asbestos in the building being scattered around the area. Even if you have to issue a large bill at the end like someone who hasn't got medical insurance, it would seem wiser to put the fire out first and concentrate on addressing money issues later.
Is it dumb to not pay or is it dumb to allow him to not pay? He was the idiot. Its his problem. Again him. In fact, because he wasted my time thinking about this, they need to bulldoze the house and remove all sharp objects and mechnical devices from his possession as he's too stupid and too sleazy to be allowed to have them.
The fire department is only going to go within its jurisdiction. Thats how it works, and probably how it works there too. Their jurisdiction did not include Captain mouthbreather, just alike a fire station in Pomona California (CRIIIPSS!!!!!) is not responsible for for a fire in Paris, Texas.
SilverMK2 wrote:We should probably set just fire to the whole of America, just to be safe
I don't think you'd want to do that. That will just get Al Gore on your about air pollution and global warming. We cannot distract Al Gore now. He's almost found manbearpig!
What a terrible system especially if you don't trust local government bureaucracy. Can you imagine if you had paid but there was a mess up in the paperwork/database that said you didn't and then have that be the reason for your house and potential loved ones to die? Not to mention all the bad PR this will generate and lawsuits likely to follow, hell according to the article one of the firefighters got assaulted afterwards.
The homeowner made a stupid gamble but having firefighters at the scene letting someone's home burn down seems much worse, likewise with the policy in general. Makes one think that the city officials have a shady business interest in rebuilding homes but I think even the mafia would've taken the money at the scene and put out the fire. Not a fan of local TN politics.
Where's the southern hospitality anyway?! And this is Tennessee, the "Volunteer State!"
Frazzled wrote:You would be right if they were a multiple dwelling or near a forest. But if its unincorporated, its going to not be the former, and likely not the latter. Lets put it in a UK perspective to be helpful, imagine a farmhouse in the middle of nowehere. Its probably close to that.
Even a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere would have coverage. I stayed at a place in Ireland once that was out in the middle of nowhere. We were told that if we set fire to the place the fire brigade were 45 minutes away, but they would come. And if someone broke their leg they'd need a helicopter, but there was no question these would be available.
It's pretty dumb that the guy didn't pay for this, but I suppose the point I'm making is that he shouldn't have been able not to pay to create a situation where there could be a burning house that no one would do anything about. Considering the bill is $75 it should either be compulsory or paid through taxes elsewhere to ensure everyone has access to a fire service. It's pretty dangerous, assuming no one gets trapped inside you have the risk of it spreading and getting out of control with fields of crops or neighbouring properties (as happened here), and there's the problem of poisonous chemicals like asbestos in the building being scattered around the area. Even if you have to issue a large bill at the end like someone who hasn't got medical insurance, it would seem wiser to put the fire out first and concentrate on addressing money issues later.
Is it dumb to not pay or is it dumb to allow him to not pay? He was the idiot. Its his problem. Again him. In fact, because he wasted my time thinking about this, they need to bulldoze the house and remove all sharp objects and mechnical devices from his possession as he's too stupid and too sleazy to be allowed to have them.
The fire department is only going to go within its jurisdiction. Thats how it works, and probably how it works there too. Their jurisdiction did not include Captain mouthbreather, just alike a fire station in Pomona California (CRIIIPSS!!!!!) is not responsible for for a fire in Paris, Texas.
Interesting. So he lives such a remote place that he has to pay an optional surcharge to have the FB come out, but not remote enough for taxes in general I assume?
What about law & order? Does he have to pay a surcharge for that? Or if not can he have his own justice?
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
For that attitude I'd have laughed while his house burned down.
Howard A Treesong wrote:I've never heard of having to pay an optional charge for the emergency services to turn up to your house. I thought that kind of stuff was, you know, a basic right funded by taxation.
God, what if some innocent was trapped in the building or the fire spread elsewhere, you could have a really dangerous situation.
Two things, first he wasn't paying the taxes for the department. So while its a basic service for anyone in the city and paying their taxes it's not for everyone else. The department was actually pretty gracious in offering to extend service for a measly $75 a year. The guy chose not to pay it. So he chose not to have the service. Second, no one was in the house. That was confirmed and I guarantee the firefighters would have gone in after anyone who would have been inside.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Even a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere would have coverage. I stayed at a place in Ireland once that was out in the middle of nowhere. We were told that if we set fire to the place the fire brigade were 45 minutes away, but they would come. And if someone broke their leg they'd need a helicopter, but there was no question these would be available.
While this is nice in theory what happens if while they're driving 45 minutes out into the countryside someone else has an emergency? 45 Minutes out, 45 back. You're removing vital emergency services from a large group of people to deal with someone who has decided to live a long way from anyone else.
It's pretty dumb that the guy didn't pay for this, but I suppose the point I'm making is that he shouldn't have been able not to pay to create a situation where there could be a burning house that no one would do anything about. Considering the bill is $75 it should either be compulsory or paid through taxes elsewhere to ensure everyone has access to a fire service.
Welcome to personal responsibility. The guy knew about the fee and chose not to pay it. He decided to gamble that the fire department would save his house anyways even after he didn't pay the fee. He even admitted as much. He made a stupid decision and got to watch his house burn down for it. "Life's tough, it's tougher when you're stupid." - John Wayne
Frazzled wrote:You would be right if they were a multiple dwelling or near a forest. But if its unincorporated, its going to not be the former, and likely not the latter. Lets put it in a UK perspective to be helpful, imagine a farmhouse in the middle of nowehere. Its probably close to that.
Even a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere would have coverage. I stayed at a place in Ireland once that was out in the middle of nowhere. We were told that if we set fire to the place the fire brigade were 45 minutes away, but they would come. And if someone broke their leg they'd need a helicopter, but there was no question these would be available.
It's pretty dumb that the guy didn't pay for this, but I suppose the point I'm making is that he shouldn't have been able not to pay to create a situation where there could be a burning house that no one would do anything about. Considering the bill is $75 it should either be compulsory or paid through taxes elsewhere to ensure everyone has access to a fire service. It's pretty dangerous, assuming no one gets trapped inside you have the risk of it spreading and getting out of control with fields of crops or neighbouring properties (as happened here), and there's the problem of poisonous chemicals like asbestos in the building being scattered around the area. Even if you have to issue a large bill at the end like someone who hasn't got medical insurance, it would seem wiser to put the fire out first and concentrate on addressing money issues later.
Is it dumb to not pay or is it dumb to allow him to not pay? He was the idiot. Its his problem. Again him. In fact, because he wasted my time thinking about this, they need to bulldoze the house and remove all sharp objects and mechnical devices from his possession as he's too stupid and too sleazy to be allowed to have them.
The fire department is only going to go within its jurisdiction. Thats how it works, and probably how it works there too. Their jurisdiction did not include Captain mouthbreather, just alike a fire station in Pomona California (CRIIIPSS!!!!!) is not responsible for for a fire in Paris, Texas.
Interesting. So he lives such a remote place that he has to pay an optional surcharge to have the FB come out, but not remote enough for taxes in general I assume?
What about law & order? Does he have to pay a surcharge for that? Or if not can he have his own justice?
There is no justice. There is just us.
but yea, he probably has to be extra for cable to watch law and order. IIRC however, reruns of homicide can only be procured via DVD.
No matter how bad the air pollution would be, at least we would get rid of all the airwave pollution
And I think this is so confusing for people in the UK as all fire departments are centrally funded, with funding being given depending on the area they cover, incidents recorded, etc.
There are no "blind spots" in coverage - fire, police and ambulance crews will all come out to visit you if you dial 999 no matter where you are (granted, some places may be more difficult to get to than others). Everyone pays for the service as part of their taxes.
I think the point is that we are someone... gobsmacked? that such coverage is not simply part of your standard taxes, with funds being distributed to emergency services to ensure coverage of all locations within the USA.
SilverMK2 wrote:No matter how bad the air pollution would be, at least we would get rid of all the airwave pollution
And I think this is so confusing for people in the UK as all fire departments are centrally funded, with funding being given depending on the area they cover, incidents recorded, etc.
There are no "blind spots" in coverage - fire, police and ambulance crews will all come out to visit you if you dial 999 no matter where you are (granted, some places may be more difficult to get to than others). Everyone pays for the service as part of their taxes.
I think the point is that we are someone... gobsmacked? that such coverage is not simply part of your standard taxes, with funds being distributed to emergency services to ensure coverage of all locations within the USA.
This is correct. In the UK your council tax covers the emergency services, even if you are in arrears they will not let your house burn down and will respond to an emergency call. Although failure of payment of council tax is one of the only debts for which you can be imprisoned in the UK.
SilverMK2 wrote:No matter how bad the air pollution would be, at least we would get rid of all the airwave pollution
And I think this is so confusing for people in the UK as all fire departments are centrally funded, with funding being given depending on the area they cover, incidents recorded, etc.
There are no "blind spots" in coverage - fire, police and ambulance crews will all come out to visit you if you dial 999 no matter where you are (granted, some places may be more difficult to get to than others). Everyone pays for the service as part of their taxes.
I think the point is that we are someone... gobsmacked? that such coverage is not simply part of your standard taxes, with funds being distributed to emergency services to ensure coverage of all locations within the USA.
Again, UK = smaller than the lair of Loch ness Weinie
In a right proper sized country there is a lot of space and a lot of different ways things are done. It depends on the county/state.
Frazzled wrote:You would be right if they were a multiple dwelling or near a forest. But if its unincorporated, its going to not be the former, and likely not the latter. Lets put it in a UK perspective to be helpful, imagine a farmhouse in the middle of nowehere. Its probably close to that.
Even a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere would have coverage. I stayed at a place in Ireland once that was out in the middle of nowhere. We were told that if we set fire to the place the fire brigade were 45 minutes away, but they would come. And if someone broke their leg they'd need a helicopter, but there was no question these would be available.
It's pretty dumb that the guy didn't pay for this, but I suppose the point I'm making is that he shouldn't have been able not to pay to create a situation where there could be a burning house that no one would do anything about. Considering the bill is $75 it should either be compulsory or paid through taxes elsewhere to ensure everyone has access to a fire service. It's pretty dangerous, assuming no one gets trapped inside you have the risk of it spreading and getting out of control with fields of crops or neighbouring properties (as happened here), and there's the problem of poisonous chemicals like asbestos in the building being scattered around the area. Even if you have to issue a large bill at the end like someone who hasn't got medical insurance, it would seem wiser to put the fire out first and concentrate on addressing money issues later.
Is it dumb to not pay or is it dumb to allow him to not pay? He was the idiot. Its his problem. Again him. In fact, because he wasted my time thinking about this, they need to bulldoze the house and remove all sharp objects and mechnical devices from his possession as he's too stupid and too sleazy to be allowed to have them.
The fire department is only going to go within its jurisdiction. Thats how it works, and probably how it works there too. Their jurisdiction did not include Captain mouthbreather, just alike a fire station in Pomona California (CRIIIPSS!!!!!) is not responsible for for a fire in Paris, Texas.
Interesting. So he lives such a remote place that he has to pay an optional surcharge to have the FB come out, but not remote enough for taxes in general I assume?
What about law & order? Does he have to pay a surcharge for that? Or if not can he have his own justice?
There is no justice. There is just us.
but yea, he probably has to be extra for cable to watch law and order. IIRC however, reruns of homicide can only be procured via DVD.
When hear these little bits of info, I do have to wonder how the US holds itself together. It's amazing that you've not imploded years ago
Cane wrote:What a terrible system especially if you don't trust local government bureaucracy. Can you imagine if you had paid but there was a mess up in the paperwork/database that said you didn't and then have that be the reason for your house and potential loved ones to die? Not to mention all the bad PR this will generate and lawsuits likely to follow, hell according to the article one of the firefighters got assaulted afterwards.
Do you honestly think that if someone's life was in danger the firefighters would just throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, you didn't pay?" Seriously, are you kidding me?
Wolfstan wrote:Interesting. So he lives such a remote place that he has to pay an optional surcharge to have the FB come out, but not remote enough for taxes in general I assume?
What about law & order? Does he have to pay a surcharge for that? Or if not can he have his own justice?
Differing levels of responsibility. When you're talking about a city you have a good sized tax base to spread the cost of a fire department out over. The cost isn't particularly huge to anyone. A county though can be quite large, the population is low and the population density is even lower. In the case of a fire department the cost of providing enough firefighters, equipment, and station houses to cover the area adequately could leave the burden on the home owners (and those who typically live outside the city aren't the highest income to begin with) in the hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year. In this case the city was willing to extend its coverage into the county so long as home owners were willing to spend $75 a year on it. It's perfectly reasonable. The city is extending some of its services to those who are not in its tax base for a rather paltry sum. The home owner benefits because he can now have fire department coverage for a very low cost compared to what he'd be stuck with if the county had to do it on its own. Really its a win for everyone involved except the fire fighters because the cost of a call out is going to FAR exceed that $75 and they're going to be spending more time in their trucks hauling ass out into the county to cover these people.
Frazzled wrote:Again, UK = smaller than the lair of Loch ness Weinie
The best things come in small packages
In a right proper sized country there is a lot of space and a lot of different ways things are done. It depends on the county/state.
Again, this is quite confusing to people from a nation which is all centrally controlled to a large extent. You see, in a real country like merry ol' England, we all pay the same taxes and get the same rights back from them no matter where we live, as those taxes are then distributed through the system to hospitals, police, fire services, politicians' rent boys, etc to ensure that everyone has coverage.
Just because your house is a bit hard to get to, does not mean you should have to pay extra to be protected from fire, crime, etc if you are paying the same taxes as everyone else.
Just because your house is a bit hard to get to, does not mean you should have to pay extra to be protected from fire, crime, etc if you are paying the same taxes as everyone else.
Ah, getcha. Here's the error. he's NOT paying the same taxes or assessments. He mooched out of it. hence my hostility to him.
Frazzled wrote:Ah, getcha. Here's the error. he's NOT paying the same taxes or assessments. He mooched out of it. hence my hostility to him.
So, the people in the city pay, say, $1,000 in tax, while those in the countryside pay $925 (if they don't take out the fire department tax)?
Still pretty weird, but at least it is somewhat fairer. I would still suggest that whoever does not have the cover and requires the fire service would then be able to get them to come out and get everything wet, simply paying the costs of the fire service doing so (as suggested earlier, similar to how you guys do your medical stuff - another crazy system ).
SilverMK2 wrote:Just because your house is a bit hard to get to, does not mean you should have to pay extra to be protected from fire, crime, etc if you are paying the same taxes as everyone else.
I don't think anyone's arguing that. If you pay the same taxes as everyone else you should expect the same services as everyone else.
Which this guy wasn't. Taxes are typically far lower when you live outside the city because you're not paying for services like... the fire department! Again, this was not news to this guy. He knew he wasn't covered by the fire department. He knew about the fee to extend coverage to his house. He chose not to pay it. Ergo he chose to watch his house burn to the ground should this ever happen.
Bad things happen to stupid people. That's the way it works and that's the way it should work.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Although failure of payment of council tax is one of the only debts for which you can be imprisoned in the UK.
A debtor's jail holdover? Elaborate more.
EDIT: Darn it! I couldn't resist the Off-Topic Forum anymore!
Council tax laws are very old fashioned. You can't be imprisoned for a private debt in the UK, debtors prisons were abolished years ago and most people only know of them from Charles Dickens books. There are very few debts you can be imprisoned for but refusing to pay council tax and fines issued by a court are a few. But it's very rare to be imprisoned, usually they only take it that far if you refuse to pay rather than are genuinely unable. I just wanted to point out that not paying council tax, which covers refuse collection, street lighting and road maintenance and a load of other things, is not optional. Which is why if you get into debt you are advised to pay council tax first, the gas, electricity, water and telephone can cut you off and wait, but you can't be imprisoned.
Sorry, did not know that (if it was mentioned in the article linked to in the OP - I can't open the link as I am at work).
I was assuming that he was paying whatever the normal taxes were and because he was "outside" the "normal operating zone" of the firemen he had to pay extra to be covered by their service.
No, when it comes to services and taxation we have about four levels.
City
County
State
Federal
Typically the first two are sort of intermingled. For instance I live in the city and since the city provides most of my services I have very little to do with the county government. Conversely someone living outside the city will usually obtains most of their services (which are typically very limited due to the small tax base and low population density ) from the county and pays most of their taxes and fees to them.
State and Federal are both further up the chain but have little to do with your basic emergency services.
SilverMK2 wrote:Sorry, did not know that (if it was mentioned in the article linked to in the OP - I can't open the link as I am at work).
I was assuming that he was paying whatever the normal taxes were and because he was "outside" the "normal operating zone" of the firemen he had to pay extra to be covered by their service.
Understandable, completely understandable. Now you see why we were getting hot.
Again, many counties/states do have blanket coverage in a form, it just depends. Further, many rural areas are served by "volunteer" fire departments. These typically have a smaller full time staff supported by volunteers. My area in Houston is served by such as there's very few freaking people out there.
Frazzled wrote:Understandable, completely understandable. Now you see why we were getting hot.
Yes, it is more understandable now. Though as I mentioned, it might have been better to simply charge him for the call out and any other associated charges they cared to level on him (I am pretty sure that my university was charged for bogus call outs to the halls of residents - the reason I didn't get my deposit back from them was because of morons setting the fire alarm off almost constantly for a laugh) rather than have his house burn down.
My area in Houston is served by such as there's very few freaking people out there.
Would that be because your legions have killed and eaten them?
Yea guys,
This varies in the US from State to state, county to county even town to town. I am up in the dense metro-NE US and my city has a volunteer fire dept and several fire houses. The next town over is a hybrid volunteer & professional FD, across the bridge it is all pro. This is the first I've heard of paying for optional FD service. I cannot conceive of such a situation working up here given the proximity of the houses.
You yanks are hilarious. I'm adding this to my list.
...no. Not privatized.
From what I can see, rather than providing the state with a fire service, Tennessee has elected to put the responsibility in the hands of city councils - which are effectively businesses. They may have the authority to act as municipal governments, but that is the extent of their power under state constitution that really distiguishes them from any other business providing services.
In this case, an optional paid fire service is in place for an area that lies outside of the local brigade's normal operating region.
I find it funny purely in relation to my local circumstances. I know that's not The American Way, but I'll bet Superman woulda put the fire out!
SilverMK2 wrote:
Yes, it is more understandable now. Though as I mentioned, it might have been better to simply charge him for the call out and any other associated charges they cared to level on him (I am pretty sure that my university was charged for bogus call outs to the halls of residents - the reason I didn't get my deposit back from them was because of morons setting the fire alarm off almost constantly for a laugh) rather than have his house burn down.
Where I live that type of thing is usually done as a matter of indemnity after a number of bogus calls. Basically, whatever municipality the FD is associated with files suit against the repeat offender. We don't have to worry about out-of-area issues because every township in Illinois has its own fire department, and the townships cover the whole of the state, and usually have agreements with the individual town/village/city/county FDs that allow them to call for aid on distant, or difficult fires.
From what I can see, rather than providing the state with a fire service, Tennessee has elected to put the responsibility in the hands of city councils - which are effectively businesses.
****No. 1. Its in the hands of local communities and counties and counties. To be clear, we don't have have the UK council system here. They are definitely not "businesses" just small governmental bodies.
They may have the authority to act as municipal governments, but that is the extent of their power under state constitution that really distiguishes them from any other business providing services.
****No, again, these are local governmental entities in their purest form, just small (or really small, depending). Think of it like this. Your local district/council whatever has a fire department for their area that their citizens pay assessments for. there is an area next to them that does not provide coverage nor pay assessments. This local district says "hey we can stretch out a little if you pay the same fire assessment our citizens do." Thos that do get service, those that don't get what they pay for.
In this case, an optional paid fire service is in place for an area that lies outside of the local brigade's normal operating region.
***This is true. OT but fire brigade sounds cool.
The house was on fire....put out the fire, then bill the guy. Same principle of not having medical insurance. They give you service then send you a bill later.
The house was on fire....put out the fire, then bill the guy. Same principle of not having medical insurance. They give you service then send you a bill later.
GG
I like the concept of no pay no play better. That way the entity can budget properly. Plus the concept of firemen roasting marshmellows on the burning house of a slickster is highly attractive to me at this point in my life.
There's also a significant risk behind removing selected areas from incorporation. Say, poor neighborhoods that don't pay much in terms of property taxes, but can be counted on to suffer from a disproportionately large number of fires.
Frazzled wrote:Ah, getcha. Here's the error. he's NOT paying the same taxes or assessments. He mooched out of it. hence my hostility to him.
So, the people in the city pay, say, $1,000 in tax, while those in the countryside pay $925 (if they don't take out the fire department tax)?
Still pretty weird, but at least it is somewhat fairer. I would still suggest that whoever does not have the cover and requires the fire service would then be able to get them to come out and get everything wet, simply paying the costs of the fire service doing so (as suggested earlier, similar to how you guys do your medical stuff - another crazy system ).
Here's where things get kind of weird.
The further out in a county you are, the less the centralized part of it wants to do with you.
To give an example: I live in a neighborhood that is, for all intents and purposes, split right down the middle by two counties(Durham and Wake). They both try to make us pay property taxes, and whenever there's some kind of public works issue--they try to pawn us off on the other. When we got snowed in last year, neither one would send out plowtrucks, claiming that the other already had.
We had four feet of snow piled up that begged to differ.
I hear what you're saying Frazz - I know perfectly well that counties/councils are not businesses in the strictest sense - but I still think they're effectively businesses. In a democracy everyone is a miniature government representative bound by state law.
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just having a laugh. The idea of 'coverage' is bound only by practicality over here. You still have to pay for it.
On the other hand, having just done some reading on Tennessee's state history, I see that politics are BIG business!
The house was on fire....put out the fire, then bill the guy. Same principle of not having medical insurance. They give you service then send you a bill later.
GG
The difference is city employees can't die or be injured(thus invalidating the insurance policy they have that would pay for their treatment or reimburse their loved ones) treating your cold.
So yeah. Not the "same principle of not having medical insurance" at all.
The house was on fire....put out the fire, then bill the guy. Same principle of not having medical insurance. They give you service then send you a bill later.
GG
The difference is city employees can't die or be injured(thus invalidating the insurance policy they have that would pay for their treatment or reimburse their loved ones) treating your cold.
So yeah. Not the "same principle of not having medical insurance" at all.
Sorry.. but your just plain wrong. City hopsital employees can't be die from contracting AIDS, from treating someone without insurance?
And lets be honest your example of "treating your cold" was intellectually dishonest........ at best.
The house was on fire....put out the fire, then bill the guy. Same principle of not having medical insurance. They give you service then send you a bill later.
GG
The difference is city employees can't die or be injured(thus invalidating the insurance policy they have that would pay for their treatment or reimburse their loved ones) treating your cold.
So yeah. Not the "same principle of not having medical insurance" at all.
Sorry.. but your just plain wrong. City hopsital employees can't be die from contracting AIDS, from treating someone without insurance?
And lets be honest your example of "treating your cold" was intellectually dishonest........ at best.
GG
Except city hospital employees who contract AIDS from treating someone without insurance are, in fact, covered under their insurance policy.
Firefighters who run into a burning building that's not under their umbrella of coverage, when there's not an imminent danger to someone's life are not covered by their insurance policy. Because property can be replaced, and the fire department has no distinct obligation in that case.
gorgon wrote:Per MSNBC, something like 5 pets died. That might be a problem for the fire department.
Not in the least. Anything that happened on the property is not their responsibility because it's beyond the boundary of where they're allowed to legally operate.
Here's the thing: the guy was out in the country-side, out of the FD's jurisdiction. As a courtesy, they offered service to people beyond the FD's operational boundaries because the county did not provide emergency services. If he'd paid for the coverage, like his neighbor did, he would've been included in the area they cover, but since he didn't... I mentioned before how nuts insurance is for emergency response personnel is, and a big part of that relates to injuries and what is covered on the job, and off the job. Because Cranick did not pay, his property was out of the FD's jurisdiction, and as a result, they were not supposed to be there. If the firefighters had tried to put his house out, and any of them had been injured, their insurance wouldn't have covered it because they were not supposed to be there, so it would not have been an on-duty injury. Do you know how often people sue the fire department afterwards because of additional damage to their property (axing through doors, saturating a house with high pressure water streams for long periods of time, etc all wreaks hellacious havoc, and don't even get me started about the fire clauses in homeowner's insurance which try and weasel out of paying for anything that's destroyed while saving the house, but not actually burned). Since they weren't supposed to be there, it would've been just the firefighters left hanging in the breeze(although Cranick has gone on record as saying he doesn't blame the firefighters, so in this case it's totally hypothetical).
This whole situation is case of the system failing in exactly the way it was supposed to fail.
Another issue that came up, doing a little more searching into the area, other FDs offer unilateral rural response, but charge $500 for calls outside their jurisdiction. Less than 50% of the people actually pay this, and the FDs have no legal recourse for pursuing the moochers.
Howard A Treesong wrote:I've never heard of having to pay an optional charge for the emergency services to turn up to your house. I thought that kind of stuff was, you know, a basic right funded by taxation.
God, what if some innocent was trapped in the building or the fire spread elsewhere, you could have a really dangerous situation.
1. Yea, its an unincorporated county region. I've seen that. I've paid that.
2. They have no liability. Just me, as Sir Dood, has no responsibility if I'm grooving by and there's a fire in a house.
If you think thats mean do you stop at every accident you see, every person pulled over by the side fo the road? If so then I'd have to call you a liar.
No.... no I don't. Then again I'm not a public servant. Those guys are. And my salary isn't derived from levying taxes on the public. Those guys salary is. The stupid thing is they drove out to the house just to watch it burn. They'd already spent most of the money involved in responding to a fire. They just didn't extinguish it out of spite. Pretty low if you ask me.
AF
Kanluwen wrote:
Except city hospital employees who contract AIDS from treating someone without insurance are, in fact, covered under their insurance policy.
Firefighters who run into a burning building that's not under their umbrella of coverage, when there's not an imminent danger to someone's life are not covered by their insurance policy. Because property can be replaced, and the fire department has no distinct obligation in that case.
I think the appropriate analogy here would be if a hospital employee were to administer treatment outside the direction of the hospital at which they were employed.
In either case, the two policies are likely sufficiently different as to render them incomparable. Medical employees have to contend with malpractice in addition to the risk of personal harm, which makes the matter even more complicated.
loki old fart wrote:So if the guy has house insurance, do they still pay out?
If so wouldn't it be easier for the fire dept to bill his insurance company
That depends on the policy, but its likely that the answer is no. The act of extinguishing fires is rarely covered by homeowners. Generally, when it is covered, its only because either the house itself, or some of its contents, are extraordinarily valuable.
In fact, because, as Bookwrack said, insurance companies rarely pay for damage incurred in putting a fire out its often better for the homeowner (financially) to simply let the house burn to the ground.
gorgon wrote:Per MSNBC, something like 5 pets died. That might be a problem for the fire department.
Not in the least. Anything that happened on the property is not their responsibility because it's beyond the boundary of where they're allowed to legally operate.
Though I was referring to more than just legal issues. Because there's all kinds of public perception issues at work here. In my professional opinion it qualifies as a major league $hitstorm when your local fire department is the lead story on MSNBC. People are going to get fired (pun not intended) over this whether it's warranted or not...just watch.
Cripes, wait until PETA, etc. gets involved. I think they're going to find that it would have been cheaper and easier to throw some water on the fire, legalities be damned.
What about law & order? Does he have to pay a surcharge for that? Or if not can he have his own justice?
County Sherriff is responsible for law enforcement in the county. There are several differant levels of Law Enforcement. City Police, County Sherriff, State Police, then you have your Feds (FBI,ATF,ETC).
Now this may sound rude, but believe me, i'm not trying to be. But you guys really outta learn a bit more about our governmental system before you start bashing it. It's a lot more expansive then just the Federal Government.
Now this may sound rude, but believe me, i'm not trying to be. But you voters really outta learn a bit more about our governmental system before you start bashing it. It's a lot more expansive then just the Federal Government.
Cane wrote:What a terrible system especially if you don't trust local government bureaucracy. Can you imagine if you had paid but there was a mess up in the paperwork/database that said you didn't and then have that be the reason for your house and potential loved ones to die? Not to mention all the bad PR this will generate and lawsuits likely to follow, hell according to the article one of the firefighters got assaulted afterwards.
Do you honestly think that if someone's life was in danger the firefighters would just throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, you didn't pay?" Seriously, are you kidding me?
Considering the unethical incompetence displayed by the firefighters and city officials it seems that way. They didn't even come to the area until Cranick's neighbor's field and house got caught on fire, the firefighters let the untrained Cranicks try to fight the fire themselves with garden hoses for hours. Can't believe that firefighters would let a fire burn and potentially spread, endangering not only that household's family but the neighborhood and local surroudnings. When they did arrive they just let it burn to the ground to demonstrate that that city's firefighting emergeny personnel won't serve unless you pay $75.
While not paying for that service is stupid, what those firefighters and city officials decided to do, or in this case not do, is much worse and far dumber. Those firefighters and city officials basically gave their career a huge hurdle that they might not ever be able to leap over and deservedly so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The unethical and incompetence seen from the firefighters and city officials let three dogs and a cat from that household die in addition to losing the house and all the family's possessions. fething people in unfirom and politicians deciding not to do the right thing just to make a point about $75. Thankfully none of the family members or other locals got hurt.
Cane wrote:What a terrible system especially if you don't trust local government bureaucracy. Can you imagine if you had paid but there was a mess up in the paperwork/database that said you didn't and then have that be the reason for your house and potential loved ones to die? Not to mention all the bad PR this will generate and lawsuits likely to follow, hell according to the article one of the firefighters got assaulted afterwards.
Do you honestly think that if someone's life was in danger the firefighters would just throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, you didn't pay?" Seriously, are you kidding me?
Considering the unethical incompetence displayed by the firefighters and city officials it seems that way. They didn't even come to the area until Cranick's neighbor's field and house got caught on fire, the firefighters let the untrained Cranicks try to fight the fire themselves with garden hoses for hours. Can't believe that firefighters would let a fire burn and potentially spread, endangering not only that household's family but the neighborhood and local surroudnings. When they did arrive they just let it burn to the ground to demonstrate that that city's firefighting emergeny personnel won't serve unless you pay $75.
While not paying for that service is stupid, what those firefighters and city officials decided to do, or in this case not do, is much worse and far dumber. Those firefighters and city officials basically gave their career a huge hurdle that they might not ever be able to leap over and deservedly so.
"Unethical incompetence"?
Please, gtfo. They "didn't even come to the area" because they had no purview over it. You don't pay the $75, you're not eligible for coverage under their umbrella of responsibility.
Just like the New York City Police Department isn't responsible for what happens in Trenton, New Jersey or the Houston Department of Public Transportation isn't responsible for the crummy quality of roads in Cherokee, NC.
The unethical and incompetence seen from the firefighters and city officials let three dogs and a cat from that household die in addition to losing the house and all the family's possessions. fething people in uniform and politicians deciding not to do the right thing just to make a point about $75. Thankfully none of the family members or other locals got hurt.
Take a deep breath, think hard, and realize you are so incredibly off target here that you make the accuracy of a Grot look impressive.
Firefighters do not decide "Oh, this guy didn't pay $75. We're gonna let his pets die, that'll show him!". Nor do city officials.
If someone opts not to pay for coverage, it's their own damned fault.
To use an example:
We have people in my neighborhood who refuse to pay the city of Raleigh or Durham for ambulance services, since we're waaaaaay out of the way from any EMS/Fire Department crews. They had to sign a waiver stating that they understood by refusing to pay, it meant that there was no expectation of service and the understanding that they legally cannot administer treatment to you(since by refusing to pay, you're effectively saying "No, I have my own means of treatment.), nor even let you sit in an ambulance unless it's a life threatening emergency and your personal doctor cannot get to you, but an EMS crew is already on the scene.
Cane wrote:What a terrible system especially if you don't trust local government bureaucracy. Can you imagine if you had paid but there was a mess up in the paperwork/database that said you didn't and then have that be the reason for your house and potential loved ones to die? Not to mention all the bad PR this will generate and lawsuits likely to follow, hell according to the article one of the firefighters got assaulted afterwards.
Do you honestly think that if someone's life was in danger the firefighters would just throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, you didn't pay?" Seriously, are you kidding me?
Considering the unethical incompetence displayed by the firefighters and city officials it seems that way. They didn't even come to the area until Cranick's neighbor's field and house got caught on fire, the firefighters let the untrained Cranicks try to fight the fire themselves with garden hoses for hours. Can't believe that firefighters would let a fire burn and potentially spread, endangering not only that household's family but the neighborhood and local surroudnings. When they did arrive they just let it burn to the ground to demonstrate that that city's firefighting emergeny personnel won't serve unless you pay $75.
While not paying for that service is stupid, what those firefighters and city officials decided to do, or in this case not do, is much worse and far dumber. Those firefighters and city officials basically gave their career a huge hurdle that they might not ever be able to leap over and deservedly so.
"Unethical incompetence"?
Please, gtfo. They "didn't even come to the area" because they had no purview over it. You don't pay the $75, you're not eligible for coverage under their umbrella of responsibility.
Just like the New York City Police Department isn't responsible for what happens in Trenton, New Jersey or the Houston Department of Public Transportation isn't responsible for the crummy quality of roads in Cherokee, NC.
Yes, the point about not paying $75 was understood however it seems like a cruel and dangerous policy considering those firefighters seem like the only one able to respond to the situation. The 9-1-1 service basically ignored their concerns and the firefighters themselves didn't acknolwedge Cranick even though they came to the scene.
Having the ability to respond to an emergency such as a fire and choosing not to is unethical and incompetent when it comes to firefighting and the safety of others. It seems to also be counter-productive when there are people paying for the service surrounding such a non payer who also claimed to "forget" to pay for it and didn't seem to realize that they wouldn't put out the fire nonetheless; they would risk Cranick and his family fighting a fire with garden hoses for hours which endangers the neighborhood in addition to the Cranick family's pets and possessions lost even though it could spread.
Take a deep breath, think hard, and realize you are so incredibly off target here that you make the accuracy of a Grot look impressive.
Firefighters do not decide "Oh, this guy didn't pay $75. We're gonna let his pets die, that'll show him!". Nor do city officials.
If someone opts not to pay for coverage, it's their own damned fault.
To use an example:
We have people in my neighborhood who refuse to pay the city of Raleigh or Durham for ambulance services, since we're waaaaaay out of the way from any EMS/Fire Department crews. They had to sign a waiver stating that they understood by refusing to pay, it meant that there was no expectation of service and the understanding that they legally cannot administer treatment to you(since by refusing to pay, you're effectively saying "No, I have my own means of treatment.), nor even let you sit in an ambulance unless it's a life threatening emergency and your personal doctor cannot get to you, but an EMS crew is already on the scene.
Yes, the point about not paying for $75 was entirely stupid for Cranick. However how that city and firefighters handled the situation was much worse from an ethical standpoint. They only stand to lose in this situation over making a point about paying $75.
Analogies can be great tools but that doesn't really hold up to showing up to a neighbor's home and putting out their fire while intentionally ignoring their neighbor's distress over $75. fething disgusting.
Cane wrote:They only stand to lose in this situation.
It's profoundly lose-lose for the firefighters. What if the unchecked fire had started a forest fire (they originally weren't going to come at all, right)? What if the owner's teenage daughter -- thought to be at a friend's house -- had come home early and was unknowingly in the house? What if a hundred other what ifs? Again, it's a lead story on MSNBC and negative attention at a national level, and the guy only lost the house and pets. This could be 10x worse.
The downside is huge. The upside is $75 and principle. So throw some water on the fire even if the guy was a dope. I'm not even coming at this from an ethical angle, but a public relations and common sense angle. It's *amazingly obvious* that nothing good is going to come out of the fire department standing around and watching the guy's house and pets burn.
Cane wrote:They only stand to lose in this situation.
It's profoundly lose-lose for the firefighters. What if the unchecked fire had started a forest fire (they originally weren't going to come at all, right)? What if the owner's teenage daughter -- thought to be at a friend's house -- had come home early and was unknowingly in the house? What if a hundred other what ifs? Again, it's a lead story on MSNBC and negative attention at a national level, and the guy only lost the house and pets. This could be 10x worse.
The downside is huge. The upside is $75 and principle. So throw some water on the fire even if the guy was a dope. I'm not even coming at this from an ethical angle, but a public relations and common sense angle. It's *amazingly obvious* that nothing good is going to come out of the fire department standing around and watching the guy's house and pets burn.
Cane wrote:They only stand to lose in this situation.
It's profoundly lose-lose for the firefighters. What if the unchecked fire had started a forest fire (they originally weren't going to come at all, right)? What if the owner's teenage daughter -- thought to be at a friend's house -- had come home early and was unknowingly in the house? What if a hundred other what ifs? Again, it's a lead story on MSNBC and negative attention at a national level, and the guy only lost the house and pets. This could be 10x worse.
The downside is huge. The upside is $75 and principle. So throw some water on the fire even if the guy was a dope. I'm not even coming at this from an ethical angle, but a public relations and common sense angle. It's *amazingly obvious* that nothing good is going to come out of the fire department standing around and watching the guy's house and pets burn.
I agree with this. There will be a minority of people who feel like frazzled does (they didnt pay the fine, feth them) - but most people who see this story are going to be more sympathetic to the home owner than to the fire fighters. This does not bode well for them. AF
Cane wrote:They only stand to lose in this situation.
It's profoundly lose-lose for the firefighters. What if the unchecked fire had started a forest fire (they originally weren't going to come at all, right)? What if the owner's teenage daughter -- thought to be at a friend's house -- had come home early and was unknowingly in the house? What if a hundred other what ifs? Again, it's a lead story on MSNBC and negative attention at a national level, and the guy only lost the house and pets. This could be 10x worse.
The downside is huge. The upside is $75 and principle. So throw some water on the fire even if the guy was a dope. I'm not even coming at this from an ethical angle, but a public relations and common sense angle. It's *amazingly obvious* that nothing good is going to come out of the fire department standing around and watching the guy's house and pets burn.
or just don't show up at all. Problem solved.
That would only make the situation worse since the neighborhood would take notice and the firefighters showed up to a neighbor of Cranick's that paid the amount, which is less than Space Hulk.
Agreed with gorgon, its nothing but bad PR in this specific case especially if Cranick truthfully forgot to pay and didn't realize that they wouldn't help anyway.
Cane wrote:They only stand to lose in this situation.
It's profoundly lose-lose for the firefighters. What if the unchecked fire had started a forest fire (they originally weren't going to come at all, right)? What if the owner's teenage daughter -- thought to be at a friend's house -- had come home early and was unknowingly in the house? What if a hundred other what ifs? Again, it's a lead story on MSNBC and negative attention at a national level, and the guy only lost the house and pets. This could be 10x worse.
The downside is huge. The upside is $75 and principle. So throw some water on the fire even if the guy was a dope. I'm not even coming at this from an ethical angle, but a public relations and common sense angle. It's *amazingly obvious* that nothing good is going to come out of the fire department standing around and watching the guy's house and pets burn.
I agree with this. There will be a minority of people who feel like frazzled does (they didnt pay the fine, feth them) - but most people who see this story are going to be more sympathetic to the home owner than to the fire fighters. This does not bode well for them. AF
I think it bodes just fine. scumbag's not a voter and has no legal claim.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:rights aren't based on citizenship frazzled. they're based on the mere fact of being human. US courts have been pretty clear about this.
No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?
The sad thing is there's a good chance that town will no longer provide service, for pay or otherwise. As mayor I'd revoke that as soon as contractually able. All the people losing coverage should go and personally thank captain numbnuts...
Cane wrote:What a terrible system especially if you don't trust local government bureaucracy. Can you imagine if you had paid but there was a mess up in the paperwork/database that said you didn't and then have that be the reason for your house and potential loved ones to die? Not to mention all the bad PR this will generate and lawsuits likely to follow, hell according to the article one of the firefighters got assaulted afterwards.
Do you honestly think that if someone's life was in danger the firefighters would just throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, you didn't pay?" Seriously, are you kidding me?
Considering the unethical incompetence displayed by the firefighters and city officials it seems that way. They didn't even come to the area until Cranick's neighbor's field and house got caught on fire, the firefighters let the untrained Cranicks try to fight the fire themselves with garden hoses for hours. Can't believe that firefighters would let a fire burn and potentially spread, endangering not only that household's family but the neighborhood and local surroudnings. When they did arrive they just let it burn to the ground to demonstrate that that city's firefighting emergeny personnel won't serve unless you pay $75.
While not paying for that service is stupid, what those firefighters and city officials decided to do, or in this case not do, is much worse and far dumber. Those firefighters and city officials basically gave their career a huge hurdle that they might not ever be able to leap over and deservedly so.
"Unethical incompetence"?
Please, gtfo. They "didn't even come to the area" because they had no purview over it. You don't pay the $75, you're not eligible for coverage under their umbrella of responsibility.
Just like the New York City Police Department isn't responsible for what happens in Trenton, New Jersey or the Houston Department of Public Transportation isn't responsible for the crummy quality of roads in Cherokee, NC.
Yes, the point about not paying $75 was understood however it seems like a cruel and dangerous policy considering those firefighters seem like the only one able to respond to the situation. The 9-1-1 service basically ignored their concerns and the firefighters themselves didn't acknowledge Cranick even though they came to the scene.
Because by not paying the $75, he was telling the local fire department that he was able to deal with the situation himself. They do have paperwork and explain to you what the situation is if you don't pay the fee. So it's not like he wasn't informed.
Having the ability to respond to an emergency such as a fire and choosing not to is unethical and incompetent when it comes to firefighting and the safety of others. It seems to also be counter-productive when there are people paying for the service surrounding such a non payer who also claimed to "forget" to pay for it and didn't seem to realize that they wouldn't put out the fire nonetheless; they would risk Cranick and his family fighting a fire with garden hoses for hours which endangers the neighborhood in addition to the Cranick family's pets and possessions lost even though it could spread.
Seriously?
The ability to respond does not mean the responsibility to respond when it comes to firefighting. You don't pay? Sorry, you're not our responsibility and you sure as hell don't get the opportunity to sue us for damages your insurance won't cover.
We're not talking about doctors or law enforcement officers here. They're not required to respond to a situation they have no jurisdiction over.
In fact, just the opposite. They're obligated to stay the hell out of the way unless someone's life is in danger.
Which it wasn't, so...sucks for Cranick.
Take a deep breath, think hard, and realize you are so incredibly off target here that you make the accuracy of a Grot look impressive.
Firefighters do not decide "Oh, this guy didn't pay $75. We're gonna let his pets die, that'll show him!". Nor do city officials.
If someone opts not to pay for coverage, it's their own damned fault.
To use an example:
We have people in my neighborhood who refuse to pay the city of Raleigh or Durham for ambulance services, since we're waaaaaay out of the way from any EMS/Fire Department crews. They had to sign a waiver stating that they understood by refusing to pay, it meant that there was no expectation of service and the understanding that they legally cannot administer treatment to you(since by refusing to pay, you're effectively saying "No, I have my own means of treatment.), nor even let you sit in an ambulance unless it's a life threatening emergency and your personal doctor cannot get to you, but an EMS crew is already on the scene.
Yes, the point about not paying for $75 was entirely stupid for Cranick. However how that city and firefighters handled the situation was much worse from an ethical standpoint. They only stand to lose in this situation over making a point about paying $75.
Again:
There is no bloody ethical standpoint here. At all.
Cranick called them, said his property was on fire.
The 911 operator asked, as legally required to, "Is anyone in danger, or anyone still inside the property?".
Cranick answered no.
Thus: no ethical obligation.
Analogies can be great tools but that doesn't really hold up to showing up to a neighbor's home and putting out their fire while intentionally ignoring their neighbor's distress over $75. fething disgusting.
What distress? Cranick couldn't even be bothered to get his own pets out of the place, so clearly he wasn't that distressed other than his house burning.
Property damage?
Big friggin' whoop. You've got homeowner's insurance, unless you were too cheap to shell out for that too.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
rights aren't based on citizenship frazzled. they're based on the mere fact of being human. US courts have been pretty clear about this.
You don't have a "right" to have publicly funded institutions save your property when you refuse to pay them for it.
I live in a town that has both an incorporated and unincorporated area. We, in the incorporated town, pay significantly higher taxes. We pay for city stickers for our cars, we pay extra property taxes to the village, we pay for our pet tags and any number of other fees.
Those who choose to live in unincorporated areas do so because they don't want to pay these fees and taxes. In essence, they don't want to contribute to the society around them, and are opting out.
That's "their right", and their choice.
So, you get one of these guys, and he doesn't want to pay for fire service. Why should the fire department that is funded by taxes that other people pay feel in any way responsible for his loss. When you opt out of a service, you can't whine about not getting that service.
Reading the article, the fire department didn't even leave town until a neighbor, who had paid for the service, had his property threatened. They then showed up and protected their paying customer's property.
No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?
sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF
No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?
sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF
Firefighters weren't "watching".
They were busy, y'know...fighting a fire at his neighbor's house.
Speaking from experience, they get exhausted after having to spend(in the case of what started as a bloody small electrical fire from a toaster oven that then burnt out my neighbor's entire home, gutting the walls) at times close to 4-5 hours doing hard work, busting down walls and manning hoses with enough pressure in them that they can strip flesh from bone if fired at people.
No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?
sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF
No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?
sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF
They have no legal duty to help you. Here's the fun part, courts all the way up to the SCOTUS have affirmed that the government has not duty to protect you. Police have no duty to protect you. I have no duty to protect you.
Further, using this argument, all nearby persons, in fact all persons would have a duty to protect Mr. Nattering Nabob, and thus he can literally sue all persons in the US, including you and including me. No ing way.
No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?
sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF
You guess wrong.
The same thing happened in 2008, but changes have yet to be made.
I'm also not sure you're actually reading the thread. There was no 'town' involved. This happened out in the countryside, where the residents have chosen to remain unincorporated. So no county fire service amongst other things, but hurray, much lower taxes! So that they're not left completely hanging in the wind, a nearby city offered to extend service to people outside its normal jurisdiction in the uncovered area for a yearly fee. Since this guy said, 'No, I don't need fire service,' when he had a fire, it essentially left the FD's hands tied.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.
Kanluwen wrote:
Because by not paying the $75, he was telling the local fire department that he was able to deal with the situation himself. They do have paperwork and explain to you what the situation is if you don't pay the fee. So it's not like he wasn't informed.
According to Paullette Cranick she or the family paid the fees multiple times before and that it was an oversight that they missed out this time around FWIW. According to this article it also mentions that the firefighters have come to the rescue of those who didn't pay the fee in rural areas as well, somewhat setting a precedent.
Seriously?
The ability to respond does not mean the responsibility to respond when it comes to firefighting. You don't pay? Sorry, you're not our responsibility and you sure as hell don't get the opportunity to sue us for damages your insurance won't cover.
We're not talking about doctors or law enforcement officers here. They're not required to respond to a situation they have no jurisdiction over.
In fact, just the opposite. They're obligated to stay the hell out of the way unless someone's life is in danger.
Which it wasn't, so...sucks for Cranick.
Understandable but unethical.
Again:
There is no bloody ethical standpoint here. At all.
Cranick called them, said his property was on fire.
The 911 operator asked, as legally required to, "Is anyone in danger, or anyone still inside the property?".
Cranick answered no.
Thus: no ethical obligation.
Unethical: Being the only ones in proximity able to fight fires yet choosing not to in order to make a point about paying $75 even though they would've done so. Such payment the family's paid multiple times before and were unaware that they failed to make this year's payment and also unaware that the firefighters would refuse to fight the fire completely even though firefighters have done so before.
Where did you get that bit about the details surrounding the 911 call? From what I've read it was the fire department refusing to respond due to payment, not anything relating about anyone still in the property which three pets were. Also having one's house in flames seems to constitute as danger for the people nearby.
What distress? Cranick couldn't even be bothered to get his own pets out of the place, so clearly he wasn't that distressed other than his house burning.
Property damage?
Big friggin' whoop. You've got homeowner's insurance, unless you were too cheap to shell out for that too.
Distress: Fighting a fire for hours with a garden house in front of family members including a grandson and losing the household and possessions, three dogs, a cat, and endangering the family and the neighborhood seems like it fits the bill especially since the firefighters arrived at the neighbor's house and watched Cranick's burn.
Where did you get the part you wrote about "Cranick couldn't even be bothered to get his own pets out of his place, so clearly he wasn't that distressed"? From the articles I've read it says Gene Cranick's a grandfather and with that it can be inferred he's of older age which doesn't help when it comes to being an untrained and ill-equipped amateur firefighter/rescuer.
Pretty crappy situation all around, I find myself in agreement with the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, Harold Schatisberger:
The fire department's decision to let the home burn was "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association representing firefighters.
"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.
It's called independence and not caring much for leeches.
"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."
Pretty much. It's a crappy situation all around and the system should probably be changed to confer it like normal taxes. There are a range of issues with this, but I have no patience for those that are of the "feth him" opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.
It's called independence and not caring much for leeches.
Home of the Free, Land of the Brave and rararar...
I really didn't want to buy into the generalisations that I hear about Americans all the time. I dismissed them as simple intolerance and rumour mongering. I'm saddened to find that these claims have more weight than I first thought.
Pretty much. It's a crappy situation all around and the system should probably be changed to confer it like normal taxes.
****The don't have the taxing authority to do so. Its ETJ. Again, before passing judgement on us yokels it helps to understand the issue. As noted I imagine what will happen is the teonwhip will just quit serving the ETJ-which means everyone out there is screwed thanks to Captain Numbnuts.
There are a range of issues with this, but I have no patience for those that are of the "feth him" opinion.
****We shall have to risk your impatience.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
I really didn't want to buy into the generalisations that I hear about Americans all the time. I dismissed them as simple intolerance and rumour mongering. I'm saddened to find that these claims have more weight than I first thought.
Well rumors around here are that Aussies have a tendency to steal aboriginal babies away from their parents so you can raise up all proper. Is that true or did you quit doing that?
"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."
Pretty much. It's a crappy situation all around and the system should probably be changed to confer it like normal taxes. There are a range of issues with this, but I have no patience for those that are of the "feth him" opinion.
Likewise but this is a wargaming forum so I suppose one should expect such an Imperial-esque mindset
"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."
Pretty much. It's a crappy situation all around and the system should probably be changed to confer it like normal taxes. There are a range of issues with this, but I have no patience for those that are of the "feth him" opinion.
Likewise but this is a wargaming forum so I suppose one should expect such an Imperial-esque mindset
And you live in San Antonio? You have to be a foreigner.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.
It's called independence and not caring much for leeches.
Home of the Free, Land of the Brave and rararar...
I really didn't want to buy into the generalisations that I hear about Americans all the time. I dismissed them as simple intolerance and rumour mongering. I'm saddened to find that these claims have more weight than I first thought.
Hey, at least the neighbors tried to help him out and share the outrage...perhaps they'll also find support to help their situation and prevent such unfortunate events from happening again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Cane wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Cane wrote:
"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."
Pretty much. It's a crappy situation all around and the system should probably be changed to confer it like normal taxes. There are a range of issues with this, but I have no patience for those that are of the "feth him" opinion.
Likewise but this is a wargaming forum so I suppose one should expect such an Imperial-esque mindset
And you live in San Antonio? You have to be a foreigner.
Whatever happened to southern hospitality and helping out neighbors?
"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."
Pretty much. It's a crappy situation all around and the system should probably be changed to confer it like normal taxes. There are a range of issues with this, but I have no patience for those that are of the "feth him" opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.
It's called independence and not caring much for leeches.
Home of the Free, Land of the Brave and rararar...
I really didn't want to buy into the generalisations that I hear about Americans all the time. I dismissed them as simple intolerance and rumour mongering. I'm saddened to find that these claims have more weight than I first thought.
And just why should the Fire Deparment help someone who chose not to pay for their services? He chose to do that. That was his decision.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.
I'm English, living in the US, and I far prefer the 'ooops, you screwed yourself' American mentality to the nanny state that the UK has turned into. I don't want government to act as my mother.
F- the fire dept. Do your job you lazy moochers. 3dogs and a cat died in that fire, and i hear they were wiener dogs.
On a side note, it's nice to have the an inkling about someone and then every post reafirm what i had concluded. Some people are hearless bastards, and by some people i mean a certain mod. Nice face your putting on dakka btw.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.
I'm English, living in the US, and I far prefer the 'ooops, you screwed yourself' American mentality to the nanny state that the UK has turned into. I don't want government to act as my mother.
I find it interesting that most of the people who commented on that article were American. Do they look for news stories about British 'political-correctness-gone-mad' to make themselves feel better about their own country or something? Because, I'll tell you what - take the piss all you want, but here in the UK, if my house was on fire the Fire Brigade would come and put it out, no questions asked. I will take a 'nanny state' that protects people's life, health and property over of the shambolic situation in which this man's house was allowed to burn down, thank-you-very-much. Disgraceful.
Albatross wrote:
I find it interesting that most of the people who commented on that article were American. Do they look for news stories about British 'political-correctness-gone-mad' to make themselves feel better about their own country or something? Because, I'll tell you what - take the piss all you want, but here in the UK, if my house was on fire the Fire Brigade would come and put it out, no questions asked. I will take a 'nanny state' that protects people's life, health and property over of the shambolic situation in which this man's house was allowed to burn down, thank-you-very-much. Disgraceful.
fire4effekt wrote:F- the fire dept. Do your job you lazy moochers. 3dogs and a cat died in that fire, and i hear they were wiener dogs.
On a side note, it's nice to have the an inkling about someone and then every post reafirm what i had concluded. Some people are hearless bastards, and by some people i mean a certain mod. Nice face your putting on dakka btw.
Aren't you high and mighty. No one got hurt. The Fire Department is not going to risk its men to rescue the animals of someone who doesn't even pay for their service.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:If somebody had died in that fire the Fire Department would be in the deepest possible kind of gak. They lucked out. the fire department stands to lose alot more than a couple $75 fees in a wrongful death suit.
They have no duty to this mooching pond scum.
I restate Cardinal Rule #1. him.
Frazzled, I don't think I've ever respected you less. I don't even think I could.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:If somebody had died in that fire the Fire Department would be in the deepest possible kind of gak. They lucked out. the fire department stands to lose alot more than a couple $75 fees in a wrongful death suit.
They have no duty to this mooching pond scum.
I restate Cardinal Rule #1. him.
Frazzled, I don't think I've ever respected you less. I don't even think I could.
That probably made him cry.
Go back to glorifying the brutal murder of Heer soldiers.
Frazzled wrote:
They have no legal duty to help you. Here's the fun part, courts all the way up to the SCOTUS have affirmed that the government has not duty to protect you. Police have no duty to protect you.
Why is your goverment paying for a large military and police force, if they are not duty bound to protect you.?
Frazzled wrote:
They have no legal duty to help you. Here's the fun part, courts all the way up to the SCOTUS have affirmed that the government has not duty to protect you. Police have no duty to protect you.
Why is your goverment paying for a large military and police force, if they are not duty bound to protect you.?
It's all about control! They're spending all on that their evil forces, ready to bring the Terrific Triumvirate of Texas crashing down into socialism!!!
AbaddonFidelis wrote:If somebody had died in that fire the Fire Department would be in the deepest possible kind of gak. They lucked out. the fire department stands to lose alot more than a couple $75 fees in a wrongful death suit.
They have no duty to this mooching pond scum.
I restate Cardinal Rule #1. him.
Frazzled, I don't think I've ever respected you less. I don't even think I could.
That probably made him cry.
Go back to glorifying the brutal murder of Heer soldiers.
The hell are you rambling about now? What are Heer soldiers? WW2 german soldiers? I don't remember ever doing that. I hope you're talking about frazzled here, otherwise you should hit the little X on your browser.
djones520 wrote:In America, we haven't quite gone as socialistic as you guys have.
How in the hell does socialism get mentioned in a thread about fire services?
What is turning US political dialogue into such complete nonsense?
Frazzled wrote:You have to understand, Britain is physically smaller than my backyard. In most states (Louisiana is a foreign country) the state is broken into counties, and within those counties municipalities/towns/hive cities. Unincoirporated areas, is a term that generally describes areas of a county that are not within the jurisidiciton of a municipality (I am simplifying a bit). These can be vast swaths of area and have no services. Often municipalities will offer services to nearby areas, and smaller towns/villages will often opt in as an entity to such as well.
Dude, you want to talk about space then you come to Australia. Compared to us even Texas is high density.
Thing is, we learned a long time back that it's a really stupid idea to leave fires unattended. Even fires on the properties of people who don't pay surcharges. Before djones starts freaking, we don't believe it out of any dream in a socialist utopia, we do it because when you leave fires unattended they spread. One guy might be a complete idiot who doesn't pay for coverage, but his neighbour shouldn't suffer for that.
If you read the story you’d see the fire department did respond… when the fire spread to a neighbour's property. That neighbour has a right to be pissed, while the fire department was stuffing around with the first guy the fire spread to his property. Every other nearby resident should be pissed as well, as it could easily have . State wide emergency services should be even angrier still, as fires left unattended have a nasty habit of getting wildly out of control. It seems like every other year Australia sends firefighters to the US to help with out of control fires, so it isn’t as though just letting things burn is a sensible option.
So why would you build a system where people can 'opt in' for fire protection? Ever? It’s ridiculous.
Make the charge mandatory, and you make sure neighbours and the greater community doesn’t suffer because one guy is a derelict. Simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote:Those who choose to live in unincorporated areas do so because they don't want to pay these fees and taxes. In essence, they don't want to contribute to the society around them, and are opting out.
That's "their right", and their choice.
And when fires burn unattended in the unincorporated region... and spread and get out of control, and threaten the town, and force it to be abandoned... then you can spend all day talking about everyone's rights but it's all a load of nonsense.
It's stupid to leave fires unattended.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Firefighters weren't "watching".
They were busy, y'know...fighting a fire at his neighbor's house.
Umm, no. They responded when the original fire spread to a neighbouring property. Had a sensible system been in place the fire would have been put out on the first guy's house, and the neighbour who paid his $75 never would have his property damaged.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Firefighters weren't "watching".
They were busy, y'know...fighting a fire at his neighbor's house.
Umm, no. They responded when the original fire spread to a neighbouring property. Had a sensible system been in place the fire would have been put out on the first guy's house, and the neighbour who paid his $75 never would have his property damaged.
Frazzled wrote:Well rumors around here are that Aussies have a tendency to steal aboriginal babies away from their parents so you can raise up all proper. Is that true or did you quit doing that?
Okay, first up mad props on knowing something about another country. It’s a shame that knowledge is around 50 years old, but it’s still good to see you try.
As a tip, next time you want to have a go at Aussies to protect your national ego… try something more recent. Aboriginals are a good line, but the stolen generation thing is about as relevant as broken treaties with American Indians. Try targeting aboriginal deaths in police custody, it’ll look a little less farcical.
Redbeard wrote:I'm English, living in the US, and I far prefer the 'ooops, you screwed yourself' American mentality to the nanny state that the UK has turned into. I don't want government to act as my mother.
A country can have a sensible approach to fire control and not be a nanny state. Pretending one requires the other is silly.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.
I'm English, living in the US, and I far prefer the 'ooops, you screwed yourself' American mentality to the nanny state that the UK has turned into. I don't want government to act as my mother.
I find it interesting that most of the people who commented on that article were American. Do they look for news stories about British 'political-correctness-gone-mad' to make themselves feel better about their own country or something? Because, I'll tell you what - take the piss all you want, but here in the UK, if my house was on fire the Fire Brigade would come and put it out, no questions asked. I will take a 'nanny state' that protects people's life, health and property over of the shambolic situation in which this man's house was allowed to burn down, thank-you-very-much. Disgraceful.
Property is completely secondary to human life.
Notice that the 911 operator asked "if anyone was still inside the property". If someone had still been inside, the fire department would have responded to it.
They're not required to give a flying feth about someone's property, especially when they have to travel 45 minutes(at least) just to get to the scene of what could possibly be a fire that a yahoo with a fire extinguisher could have put out.
Responding to fires isn't cheap nor easy. Especially not when it's someone who opts out of coverage. And for every minute they spend traveling to put out a fire in the friggin' boondocks, it leaves the incorporated parts of the town at risk with the firefighters out in the middle of nowhere saving precious property.
Kanluwen wrote:Property is completely secondary to human life.
Notice that the 911 operator asked "if anyone was still inside the property". If someone had still been inside, the fire department would have responded to it.
They're not required to give a flying feth about someone's property, especially when they have to travel 45 minutes(at least) just to get to the scene of what could possibly be a fire that a yahoo with a fire extinguisher could have put out.
Responding to fires isn't cheap nor easy. Especially not when it's someone who opts out of coverage. And for every minute they spend traveling to put out a fire in the friggin' boondocks, it leaves the incorporated parts of the town at risk with the firefighters out in the middle of nowhere saving precious property.
If you’d read the article or half of this thread, you’d see that they had to respond in the end when the fire spread to a neighbouring property. Not responding to the fire saved the fire department no resources. Because fires spread.
I don't quite understand the "bite the nose to spite the face" mentality that some have shown in this thread.
Let it burn...because we want to make a point....yeah real smart. GG
I think it’s the same old story of people liking their ideology a whole lot more than they like reality. People wanted to start sounding off on how people need to take responsibility and face consequences and that was a whole lot more exciting than thinking about the possibility that fires left unattended might spread, so an opt in system is really, really stupid.
I don't quite understand the "bite the nose to spite the face" mentality that some have shown in this thread.
Let it burn...because we want to make a point....yeah real smart. GG
I think it’s the same old story of people liking their ideology a whole lot more than they like reality. People wanted to start sounding off on how people need to take responsibility and face consequences and that was a whole lot more exciting than thinking about the possibility that fires left unattended might spread, so an opt in system is really, really stupid.
No one has ever accused Tennessee of being a state renowned for it's brains.
Kanluwen wrote:Property is completely secondary to human life.
Notice that the 911 operator asked "if anyone was still inside the property". If someone had still been inside, the fire department would have responded to it.
They're not required to give a flying feth about someone's property, especially when they have to travel 45 minutes(at least) just to get to the scene of what could possibly be a fire that a yahoo with a fire extinguisher could have put out.
Responding to fires isn't cheap nor easy. Especially not when it's someone who opts out of coverage. And for every minute they spend traveling to put out a fire in the friggin' boondocks, it leaves the incorporated parts of the town at risk with the firefighters out in the middle of nowhere saving precious property.
If you’d read the article or half of this thread, you’d see that they had to respond in the end when the fire spread to a neighbouring property. Not responding to the fire saved the fire department no resources. Because fires spread.
What's your point?
The Cranicks aren't the responsibility of the fire department, specifically due to where they chose to live. It's not like the fire department doesn't remind them of that fact every year when they collect the $75 from their neighbors.
Leaving fires unattended is stupid.
Living in the ass-end of nowhere and not paying your fees to the fire department to be put under their umbrella of responsibility is stupid too.
Where's your hate for Cranick?
If you live in an area which is not under the purview of a fire department(going to go out on a wild limb here and say it's a heavily forested area) means you're SOL if a brushfire starts. That's the Forestry Departments' job, not the Fire Department.
And the Forestry Department doesn't give a flying feth about your property, just like the Fire Department won't.
Also, as an aside?
The Fire Department doesn't exist to save your property. They're there to save your life. Your property is just a bonus, which you're actually supposed to be smart enough to have insured.
I think it’s the same old story of people liking their ideology a whole lot more than they like reality. People wanted to start sounding off on how people need to take responsibility and face consequences and that was a whole lot more exciting than thinking about the possibility that fires left unattended might spread, so an opt in system is really, really stupid.
Do you want to know something else that's really stupid?
The city having to mobilize resources to come to the aid of some spanker who moved out in the boondocks to get away from the community.
Fighting a fire in unincorporated parts of most counties isn't a matter of simply plugging into a fire hydrant.
The biggest problem they face is having to get specialist trucks(which incidentally alot of places don't actually have more than one or two of) that carry enough water for every truck responding to the call out there.
That alone chews up hundreds of dollars, just to fill up one of these trucks.
So, why the hell would the city of Bumfeth, TN waste that for some jackass who couldn't be bothered to make sure he paid the $75?
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's also worth noting there's an update to the story:
SOUTH FULTON, Tenn. - An area fire department felt the heat Thursday after a department policy allowed a home to burn to the ground.
The focus remains on what's called subscription fire service. Some people living in Obion County, Tennessee must pay a $75 fee to a city fire department if they want firefighters to respond in an emergency.
On Wednesday afternoon, a home in Obion County burned to the ground because the home's owners, Gene and Paulette Cranick, didn't pay the fee.
"Well, I don't mind the home. I know it can be replaced, but other things I got in there can't be," Gene Cranick said. "Other than that, we're doing fine, nobody got hurt that's a good thing, everybody is okay. We're going to live over this."
South Fulton police arrested one of Gene Cranick's sons, Timothy Allen Cranick, on an aggravated assault charge. When officers arrived at the firehouse Wednesday, South Fulton Fire Chief David Wilds was in an ambulance receiving medical treatment.
Police said Cranick was upset firefighters weren't putting out the fire and attacked the chief. The South Fulton city manager said Wilds was treated and released and will recover just fine.
The incident is shining new light on a policy that's got a lot of people upset. But Union City Fire Chief Kelly Edmison is defending the firefighters in South Fulton.
"If somebody is trapped in the house we're going to go because life safety is number one but we can't give the service away," Edmison said. "It's not South Fulton's problem. It's not Union City's problem. It's the county's problem. There is no county fire department."
And with no fire department, people living in the county rely on nearby city or volunteer fire departments in an emergency.
In Obion County there are eight municipalities. South Fulton, Union City and Kenton are the only ones on subscription service, meaning if you don't pay, you don't get help.
That's exactly what happened to the Cranicks Wednesday. It's a situation Edmison said isn't ideal but a necessity to keep fire departments operating.
"If we just waited to charge when we went out there, you'd be working on a per-call basis," he said. "With no more calls than there are, the money wouldn't be there in a sufficient source to buy the equipment you need."
He and other fire chiefs in Obion County who charge subscription fees for county residents know they're in a tough spot.
"It's like car insurance," Edmison said. "I wish I could wait until I have an accident until I pay my premium on my car insurance, but it doesn't work that way. So why should the fire service be looked at anything different?"
Again, if the fire situation is life threatening, fire departments will respond. However, that was not the case with the fire in South Fulton Wednesday.
Edmison said Obion County has entered into a letter of intent with all eight fire district municipalities, so all eight departments will soon respond to county residents through subscription service only.
What's your point?
The Canicks aren't the responsibility of the fire department, specifically due to where they chose to live. It's not like the fire department doesn't remind them of that fact every year when they collect the $75 from their neighbors.
Not relevant to his point.
Living in the ass-end of nowhere and not paying your fees to the fire department to be put under their umbrella of responsibility is stupid too.
Not relevant to his point.
Where's your hate for Canick?
If you live in an area which is not under the purview of a fire department(going to go out on a wild limb here and say it's a heavily forested area) means you're SOL if a brushfire starts. That's the Forestry Departments' job, not the Fire Department.
That differs by local ordinance and house fires are not the purview of the forestry department anywhere. As an aside, it's local firefighting forces that are typically used to control wildfires, the forestry service doesn't maintain a large enough force to do so.
And the Forestry Department doesn't give a flying feth about your property, just like the Fire Department won't.
Also, as an aside?
The Fire Department doesn't exist to save your property. They're there to save your life. Your property is just a bonus, which you're actually supposed to be smart enough to have insured.
Incorrect. Fire control agencies exist to prevent the spread of fire. Period. Property damage is just as harmful to a community as loss of life, often times moreso.
Do you want to know something else that's really stupid?
I bet you're about to say something stupid, so i'll see it regardless.
The city having to mobilize resources to come to the aid of some spanker who moved out in the boondocks to get away from the community.
Fighting a fire in unincorporated parts of most counties isn't a matter of simply plugging into a fire hydrant.
Thats why the trucks have water tanks.
The biggest problem they face is having to get specialist trucks(which incidentally alot of places don't actually have more than one or two of) that carry enough water for every truck responding to the call out there.
That alone chews up hundreds of dollars, just to fill up one of these trucks.
HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS!. As opposed to the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property damage that the community incurs by the loss of the structure and damage to the surrounding areas due to unattended or ill attended fires.
So, why the hell would the city of Bumfeth, TN waste that for some jackass who couldn't be bothered to make sure he paid the $75?
Other then the sheer concept of human decency? Because it's economically unsound, locally unsafe, and financially idiotic for the community to do that to itself. It creates stratified areas of high fire risk in the exact areas where fires are more likely and it logically will always cost the community more then simply maintaining a standard fire fighting force through the loss of property value and the logical uptick in insurance payouts or homelessness.
They would do it because not doing it is fething idiotic in every way. Something Tennessee is great at.
If you know that you have to pay a certain fee for a service, and don't pay that fee, where does the surprise come from when you don't receive that service?
That said...
If the fire department is already there, why not do the right thing? What kind of dicks are they? I couldn't just stand there and watch somebody's house burn down. Well, not most people anyway.
I just saw the news footage of this on ABC about 5 minutes ago. They barely touched on the point that the guy was out of regular juristiction, saying he was "close to the city of (whatever)", and interviewed the dumbass, but not any member of the fire department. Nothing was mentioned about the firefighters' insurance, costs, legal worries and such that you guys have brought up. The broadcast seemed to sympathise with the dumbass in a very one-sided bit they did on it. People nowadays in this kind of economy love a victim and a government faceless institution to blame and it seems the news wants to suck up to that mentality.
Guitardian wrote:I just saw the news footage of this on ABC about 5 minutes ago. They barely touched on the point that the guy was out of regular juristiction, saying he was "close to the city of (whatever)", and interviewed the dumbass, but not any member of the fire department. Nothing was mentioned about the firefighters' insurance, costs, legal worries and such that you guys have brought up. The broadcast seemed to sympathise with the dumbass in a very one-sided bit they did on it. People nowadays in this kind of economy love a victim and a government faceless institution to blame and it seems the news wants to suck up to that mentality.
Often I'd agree with you about media hype, but in this case there's a problem with the institution. It's clearly the choice of the State of TN to have things this way, but hopefully this will change in light of this incident. Section 21 of their Bill Of Rights dictates that no man shall demand service without paying due compensation. Section 23 allows people to peaceably apply for redress of grievances. I myself wouldn't be satisfied with a state government that doesn't provide such a basic service, but I wouldn't go so far as to call the people of TN 'dumbasses'.
He was ignorant of the policy - that's a costly mistake under the circumstances. Calling him a 'dumbass' is unfounded, unless you're his neighbour or actually have an interest in his business. When the situation arose, he tried everything he could to save his home. He didn't realise that the emergency services in his state or county are exclusive to private customers.
Folk can piss and moan about him not paying the same taxes all they like, but most of the yanks here don't live in TN or pay any of their state taxes either. It's as good as another country as far as the rest of us (and the rest of the US) are concerned.
To everyone who thinks the fire department of Podunk County, Texicania, should go outside its legal jurisdiction to put out fires, I would ask, how far?
Kilkrazy wrote:To everyone who thinks the fire department of Podunk County, Texicania, should go outside its legal jurisdiction to put out fires, I would ask, how far?
Why is a population center that they DO commonly service, but is under a separate tax payment plan somehow outside of it's legal jurisdiction? Wouldn't that imply that they don't actually have a duty to respond to calls in that area, something that is clearly not the case here?
Kilkrazy wrote:To everyone who thinks the fire department of Podunk County, Texicania, should go outside its legal jurisdiction to put out fires, I would ask, how far?
I'm rather more interested to hear what the legal responsibilities of Houston's Volunteer Fire Departments are - being volunteers and all.
My point, that I've now explained several times in plain English, is that leaving a fire to burn is stupid. It is likely to spread and cause far more damage.
The Cranicks aren't the responsibility of the fire department, specifically due to where they chose to live.
The Cranicks are irrelevant. A fire could well be on state land where no-one will be paying $75. The point is that you don't leave fires unattended, and any line of thought that leads to the conclusion that you should leave a fire unattended is a stupid line of thought.
You are right that if you offer an opt in payment system but provide fire services anyway then people will opt out, knowing they will get covereage anyway. The answer then is to look at the ad hoc system that's been developed, that's caused the fire department to let a fire burn, and realise that is a stupid system. You then look at building a statewide system of financing and coverage where that ensures the whole state is covered.
That'd be pretty hard though, and wouldn't involve judging anyone. And we all know how much fun it is to judge people. So instead people just call that Cranick guy an idiot and move in with their day thinking everything is fine.
Living in the ass-end of nowhere and not paying your fees to the fire department to be put under their umbrella of responsibility is stupid too.
The neighbour paid his fee. But Cranick didn't, the dept let the fire burn until it damaged the neighbour's property, which is plainly not fair for the neighbour. The effect of people's approach here is not only should we be accountable for our own stupidity, we are to be held to the whims of our neighbour's stupidity also.
What if that neighbour hadn't paid either? Nor the next guy along the street? How many non-payers should the fire dept stand and watch, before a house fire becomes a blaze that sweeps across the county?
Where's your hate for Cranick?
He's just some guy. I don't care about him. What matters is the system, and having a system that doesn't leave fires unattended.
What amazes me is how few people in this thread are capable of realising there are more important things than blaming some random guy in a news story.
Do you want to know something else that's really stupid?
The city having to mobilize resources to come to the aid of some spanker who moved out in the boondocks to get away from the community.
Well yeah, fires have to be fought, where ever they are. And yeah, it costs money. But it will cost more money to let them burn, because fires spread.
Fighting a fire in unincorporated parts of most counties isn't a matter of simply plugging into a fire hydrant.
The biggest problem they face is having to get specialist trucks(which incidentally alot of places don't actually have more than one or two of) that carry enough water for every truck responding to the call out there.
That alone chews up hundreds of dollars, just to fill up one of these trucks.
When I lived in the country I was volunteer firefighter. As the accountant for the local government I oversaw the budget for the service. The costs you mention exist, but are largely trivial compared to the cost of requiring extra capital equipment. Despite the volunteer status of its members, fighting fires was much more expensive in the country than in the city.
Despite all that we attended every fire, no matter how remote. Because leaving fires unattended is stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:I just saw the news footage of this on ABC about 5 minutes ago. They barely touched on the point that the guy was out of regular juristiction, saying he was "close to the city of (whatever)", and interviewed the dumbass, but not any member of the fire department. Nothing was mentioned about the firefighters' insurance, costs, legal worries and such that you guys have brought up. The broadcast seemed to sympathise with the dumbass in a very one-sided bit they did on it. People nowadays in this kind of economy love a victim and a government faceless institution to blame and it seems the news wants to suck up to that mentality.
Several media outlets have attempted to speak to the mayor, but he's not willing to talk. They're likely formulating their strategy.
It makes sense that the media won't spend much time talking about insurance and travel costs, that stuff is pretty irrelevant. The story that matters is that the system broke down to such an extent that a government body with the resources to stop a fire elected instead to let it burn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:To everyone who thinks the fire department of Podunk County, Texicania, should go outside its legal jurisdiction to put out fires, I would ask, how far?
As far as the resourcing available to them allows. Why wouldn't they?
If the resourcing model produces blind spots that will allow fires to burn unattended, then there should be serious drive to reform that model.
Kilkrazy wrote:To everyone who thinks the fire department of Podunk County, Texicania, should go outside its legal jurisdiction to put out fires, I would ask, how far?
Why is a population center that they DO commonly service, but is under a separate tax payment plan somehow outside of it's legal jurisdiction? Wouldn't that imply that they don't actually have a duty to respond to calls in that area, something that is clearly not the case here?
As it is unincorporated, legally it is not part of the county.
The residents have no obligation to pay taxes to the county, and the county has no obligation to extend its community services outside its borders. The county fire service only goes out to the unincorporated places which have paid for service, which is done on an individual basis in this case. In other words, it isn't a tax, it is a voluntary payment.
This sort of arrangement is not uncommon in rural/small town USA. It is often uneconomical for a village to establish their own fire department or police department, and they communally buy in the services from a larger town nearby.
That becomes a lot more complicated when you are dealing with not a community, but a bunch of individuals, which is the situation in this case.
The ethical issue of whether you should let one house burn down, because endangers the neighbouring house, is part of the reason why most communities normally incorporate, and make communal arrangements for fire service and so on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It could be seen as the final expression of individualism, and demonstrates a disadvantage of that situation.
CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.
By the time the firefighters had responded to the neighbor's call-in, it is safe to say that Cranick's house was beyond saving. There were no human beings in danger, and it also safe to assume that they made sure the fire was contained to Cranick's premises before leaving. So they didn't make the extra effort to save the house, so what? I've seen firefighters arrive at a burning house, ask if everyone was out, and then just wet the areas around the house and let the fire burn itself out because the home was already too far gone. If someone had been inside the home, the fire department would have responded immediately to Cranick's call. No one wasn't, so it is just an ordeal of saving property; and Cranick didn't pay for that service.
And to the -"No fire should be left unattended." Well, if the Cranick's had that mentality from the start, there wouldn't have been one. I'll bet they didn't even have a fire extinguisher in the home.
What about law & order? Does he have to pay a surcharge for that? Or if not can he have his own justice?
County Sherriff is responsible for law enforcement in the county. There are several differant levels of Law Enforcement. City Police, County Sherriff, State Police, then you have your Feds (FBI,ATF,ETC).
Now this may sound rude, but believe me, i'm not trying to be. But you guys really outta learn a bit more about our governmental system before you start bashing it. It's a lot more expansive then just the Federal Government.
Did I bash it? I was just asking as I found it fascinating how it all works... or not in this case.
Frazzled wrote:
They have no legal duty to help you. Here's the fun part, courts all the way up to the SCOTUS have affirmed that the government has not duty to protect you. Police have no duty to protect you.
Why is your goverment paying for a large military and police force, if they are not duty bound to protect you.?
They're protecting the National Interests.
This does not always tally with "protecting" or serving the citizens of a nation in quite the way that people would like to imagine.
Firefighters have only the objective of making sure every one is safe first. In this case everyone was safe and sound. (PS pets don't count if they can get them cool, otherwise go to the pound and get a new one,(cause they are harder to find in a blaze and sometimes pose a risk to the firefighters aka pit-bulls)) Then if it is safe for them to do so they tackle the blaze. Loads of time it's not safe for them to do so except from outside the house which does jack gak except to keep it from spreading.
I personally live in a county in MD with a volunteer FD which creates the MAJORITY of its budget from fundraising within the community that I have personally helped with in the past. So I know about half of the FD personally.
It all comes down to the fact that its out in the boonies so has subscription Fire Service which is basically like insurance, pay for it just in case the worst scenario happens. And like any other kind of insurance if you don't pay for it don't expect to get anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And also in this case since it is out of their jurisdiction they are essentially private citizens in the matter and have no right to rescue. Just like if I see you get stabbed I can legally watch you bleed to death and ignore your cries for help with no legal repercussions. And notice I said legal not ethical. Remember lots of legal things are unethical, and some ethical things can be illegal.
Why do you pay your taxes at all? In the UK we might pay more, but then our Government actually occasionally does stuff for us.
The point is the guys whose house burnt down were not paying county taxes, which cover fire service, because they didn't have to, because they lived beyond the county line.
The fire service was offered as an option, which they chose not to take advantage of.
It's like in the UK if you have a well and a septic tank, you are not obliged to pay water rates. But if your well dries up, you can't expect the water company to give you a free pipe.
Ironhide wrote:By the time the firefighters had responded to the neighbor's call-in, it is safe to say that Cranick's house was beyond saving.
You've gotten yourself confused - the original call was to the Cranick's place. The firemen only responded when the fire spread to the neighbours property. Had the fire service responded to the first fire there never would have been damage to the neighbours house.
And to the -"No fire should be left unattended." Well, if the Cranick's had that mentality from the start, there wouldn't have been one. I'll bet they didn't even have a fire extinguisher in the home.
Yes, boo hiss on the Cranicks, they're awful, awful people. But who honestly gives a gak about them? Seriously? It's one family.
Read this next bit slowly because it's important - you cannot build a system that is based around everyone being responsible. This means if you build a fire control system that relies on people making opt in payments, or having the fire service leave fires unattended, you have a very stupid system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghost in the Darkness wrote:Firefighters have only the objective of making sure every one is safe first. In this case everyone was safe and sound. (PS pets don't count if they can get them cool, otherwise go to the pound and get a new one,(cause they are harder to find in a blaze and sometimes pose a risk to the firefighters aka pit-bulls)) Then if it is safe for them to do so they tackle the blaze. Loads of time it's not safe for them to do so except from outside the house which does jack gak except to keep it from spreading.
Yeah - that last bit there - spraying water from outside to keep it spreading... they didn't even do that. Which meant the fire could have spread.
For feth's sake people this isn't rocket science.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:It's like in the UK if you have a well and a septic tank, you are not obliged to pay water rates. But if your well dries up, you can't expect the water company to give you a free pipe.
A house lacking a water supply won't spread its lack of water to neighbouring properties, or threaten to engulf the whole neighbourhood in a lack of water supply and get people killed.
fire4effekt wrote:
On a side note, it's nice to have the an inkling about someone and then every post reafirm what i had concluded. Some people are hearless bastards, and by some people i mean a certain mod. Nice face your putting on dakka btw.
I care for the people who actually pay their bills and don't try to mooch off the rest of us.
To your point about me. There's only one thing I can say about that.
A house lacking a water supply won't spread its lack of water to neighbouring properties, or threaten to engulf the whole neighbourhood in a lack of water supply and get people killed.
So they're not really very alike at all.
Septic tanks can leak into ground water, or give off poisonous fumes, so actually they rather alike.
Frazzled wrote:
They have no legal duty to help you. Here's the fun part, courts all the way up to the SCOTUS have affirmed that the government has not duty to protect you. Police have no duty to protect you.
Why is your goverment paying for a large military and police force, if they are not duty bound to protect you.?
They are not duty bound to protect individual citizens. Blame NY court cases for that.
Ancient Budha say: If you want to find a donut shop call a cop. If you want to find your kid call me.
(Intranet bonus points on which movie that comes from)
Frazz, I think your one of the few people that agrees with me on this.
If the town doesnt like paying $75 a year for coverage, maybe they should do what other towns across the US have done. Start a volunteer Fire Department.
A house lacking a water supply won't spread its lack of water to neighbouring properties, or threaten to engulf the whole neighbourhood in a lack of water supply and get people killed.
So they're not really very alike at all.
Septic tanks can leak into ground water, or give off poisonous fumes, so actually they rather alike.
Exactly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Catyrpelius wrote:Frazz, I think your one of the few people that agrees with me on this.
If the town doesnt like paying $75 a year for coverage, maybe they should do what other towns across the US have done. Start a volunteer Fire Department.
Yes. I now fear the town will withdraw its ETJ coverage to everyone.
On the positive maybe this will spur the county to get it together with the communities and do a county wide fire brigade.
Volunteer Fire Departments can be a major benefit to small rural communities. I live in a town that is entirely residential, its definatly not what most people think of as New Jersey. The only place to go in town is the local Volunteer Fire Deptartment where they are always haveing some kind of fund raiser in the form of a party, community day... etc.
Back OT, if the fire department was to have put out the fire at this guys house, they would have been setting a bad precident, and more then likely many others would stop paying their fee. To me this is akin to walking into Wendey's and complaining when they wont give me free food. On a positive note however, it sounds like the man has learned his very expensive lesson.
Monster Rain wrote: If the fire department is already there, why not do the right thing? What kind of dicks are they? I couldn't just stand there and watch somebody's house burn down. Well, not most people anyway.
See, that's it. I completely agree they were under no obligation in this case. The guy was a dope for not paying for something as important as that. However, you can't be a firefighter on the scene and ignore the blaze. It's irresponsible and completely tonedeaf, as other firefighters have since come out and said. I agree they were in a no-win situation, but the right thing to do was to throw some water on the fire and avoid becoming a national (now world?) story.
The real lesson here is about the lack of wisdom involved with a "pay if you want coverage" system. Obviously the local government should have just raised taxes enough to cover everyone and avoided putting the fire department -- and the local government, because you better believe there'll be repercussions there too -- in that situation. Allowing people to opt out just means they put their neighbors and communities at risk.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I really didn't want to buy into the generalisations that I hear about Americans all the time. I dismissed them as simple intolerance and rumour mongering. I'm saddened to find that these claims have more weight than I first thought.
Up on that high horse again, are you? Glass houses and stones, buddy.
sebster wrote:You've gotten yourself confused - the original call was to the Cranick's place. The firemen only responded when the fire spread to the neighbours property. Had the fire service responded to the first fire there never would have been damage to the neighbours house.
This is one of the strangest threads I have run into on Dakka. To be clear, Sebster couldn't be more correct on nearly every point he has made.
I know a lot of firefighters. I don't need to ask them about this story, because they have made their opinions entirely clear already. I'd be absolutely ashamed if I were any of the firefighters involved in this story. The assault was absolutely unnecessary, but the fire department should have seen that one coming ten miles away.
The main point in my mind is that I would be outraged as the neighbor whose house caught on fire because the city has some sort of ridiculous checklist.
Opt-out DOES NOT WORK.
When there is a large scale forest fire near residential areas firefighters don't go through a checklist to see whose house they are saving. The department in question needs a goddamn reality check. Unfortunately, because of the crappy system we have in the U.S. it is possible that this department will be shut down over incompetence. Fire does not take sides. The Cranick's house presented a serious threat to the town as a whole, and they should not have had the option to opt-out because of that. Force the payment; problem fething solved.
This thread is full of self-righteous cathartic nonsense. Get over it, because firefighters should not have to deal with this kind of political pissing contest.
sebster wrote:You've gotten yourself confused - the original call was to the Cranick's place. The firemen only responded when the fire spread to the neighbours property. Had the fire service responded to the first fire there never would have been damage to the neighbours house.
There was no damage to the neighbor's house. Just Cranick's.
This is one of the strangest threads I have run into on Dakka. To be clear, Sebster couldn't be more correct on nearly every point he has made.
If by "correct", you mean "wrong", sure.
The fire started in barrels outside of the Cranicks' home. At this time of year and knowing people like the Cranicks, it's likely they were burning leaves and left it unattended. So it's their own damned fault.
Oh, and as an aside?
You need a permit to burn debris like leaves. So that's a potentially illegal act that led to a fire, right there.
I know a lot of firefighters. I don't need to ask them about this story, because they have made their opinions entirely clear already. I'd be absolutely ashamed if I were any of the firefighters involved in this story. The assault was absolutely unnecessary, but the fire department should have seen that one coming ten miles away.
Yeah, god forbid the firefighters just let a house that already burnt to the ground(which, with it not being under their area of responsibility any potential injuries or deaths wouldn't be covered by the firefighters' insurance plan) continue smoldering while they're putting out a fire in a field...
The main point in my mind is that I would be outraged as the neighbor whose house caught on fire because the city has some sort of ridiculous checklist.
The neighbor's house didn't catch on fire. Their fields did, but since they actually paid their fees, the fire department was obligated to try to save their property.
When there is a large scale forest fire near residential areas firefighters don't go through a checklist to see whose house they are saving.
This isn't a residential area though. This is a rural area, quite likely with lots of open space between properties.
The department in question needs a goddamn reality check. Unfortunately, because of the crappy system we have in the U.S. it is possible that this department will be shut down over incompetence. Fire does not take sides. The Cranick's house presented a serious threat to the town as a whole, and they should not have had the option to opt-out because of that. Force the payment; problem fething solved.
You can't force the payment on an area which isn't part of the city offering the fire service. They move out there, specifically so they're not part of the community as a whole.
If anything, this will just lead to the creation of a "county" fire department, or the fire departments that offer coverage to these outlying areas just severing it completely.
I love how all the brits seem to be pointing the finger and saying "for shame" about the U.S. system. I, like Redbeard, am also a Brit living in the U.S., and I have to agree with the perspective of the people who live here. Sorry Brits, but your overbearing socialist-leaning system has its own problems too. Sorry, we don't get housing or health care or expect the dole and free services to wipe our noses for us paid for by other people's taxes either.
As Loki Old Fart pointed out, a good question is that if the United Statesia can afford to buy fighter planes, then why not more fire trucks? This is because our government is compartmentalized. Each juristiction and each segment of each department of each jurisdiction, whether on a federal, state, county, or township level, has responsibilities for its own thing and a budget that is (ideally) suited to its needs.
Fire fighters in NYC don't cross the bridge to fight a fire in Jersey, even though they are right across the bridge, that's not only in a different county it is in a different state. Different regultions, different insurance concerns, different budgets at stake. A fire in Jersey is Jersey's responsibility. They have their resources, and NYC has their resources.
This goes all the way down the ladder to a personal level. Here in the U.S. we do not like the government taking half of our money and spending it how they think best for us. We resist taxes, and favor personal responsibility as much as we can. Some things, granted, are necessary to be governmentally regulated on some level (federal military, state for education and roads, township water treatment, police, fire etc) but we like to be personally responsible for as much as we can, not just trust the government to handle everything for us.
It was clear that this man, in opting not to live in the township, had taken on a personal responsibility to see to his own safety. He failed in his responsibility. It is sad that his house burned down, but as the spokeswoman for the town pointed out, if we let the fees slide until needed, nobody would pay them. You don't wait to pay for life insurance after being diagnosed with a terminal illness and 3 months to live. You pay for it, just in case you need it, not just because you need it.
Lacking for a government provided fire service by living in an area with no local government means taking on that responsibility yourself. For everyone who lives in town paying taxes that fund the fire department, and everyone outside of town not having to, is unfair to the people living in town who are footing the bill for freeloaders. That's why the town offered their services to outsiders for a small fee. He didn't want to pay the fee.
Kilcrazy asked how far should responsibilities of the overnment go. Indeed, this is the point I think most United Statesians question. We don't see governments from southeast Asia rushing aid to clean up an oil spill that affects the north American coast line, do we? Oddly enough, United Statesia tries its best to be wherever it may be needed, whether as a military presence, a humanitarian aid effort, or a diplomatic mediator, stretching itself and it's people's resources very thin by doing what countries with less sense of responsibility fail to do. These very same countries that are always dissing us "Americans" as beeing overbearing and/or lazy and/or fat stupid etcetera etcetera. Funny how these elitist European enlightened cultures quit their codescending "stupid Americans" attitude pretty quickly when you need help.
You don't hear Haiti complaining about the U.S. meddling in its affairs. Or the 2004-05 Tsunami relief effort in southeast Asia. How much aid did you send, "Great" Britain, compared to how much we did? Maybe that's why we have to be paying for our own health care, have a bad debt, have a sense of military responsibility to police countries that nobody can police with only a token gesture of support from other members of the U.N. Maybe we have to be the hated babysitter cleaning up the baby poop of undeveloped countries with despotic or incompetent governments because nobody else will help out if we don't. So the world is a safer place for all the piddly gak little countys that can't help themselves, and us "stupid Americans" have to foot the bill, and as a consequence, don't get the advantages of a happy utopia where the government can provide everything for its spoiled sh!t-talking citizens.
So to all the people who live in more socialist places, don't pshaw our cold-hearted attitude toward this. We are big fans of personal responsibility, something that is quite a strange idea when your government holds your hand and makes all your decisions and sees to all your needs for you. This man did not take care of his self imposed responsibility and hey, sucks for him.
Fire departments risk lives, spend money and effort in doing so. Where does that money and effort come from if people aren't willing to pay for it? I think it's a good lesson for all United Statesians to notice. You get what you pay for.
Ask yourself, would you risk your life to save someone's property who just takes you for granted and wouldn't even cough up the $75 bucks that pay your wages for risking your life?
Wrexasaur wrote:This is one of the strangest threads I have run into on Dakka. To be clear, Sebster couldn't be more correct on nearly every point he has made.
Kilkrazy wrote:Septic tanks can leak into ground water, or give off poisonous fumes, so actually they rather alike.
Yes, a septic tank and a burning house represent exactly the same threat to neighbouring properties.
Yes, because a septic tank leaking into the water system can't make people violently ill or even potentially kill people in neighboring properties who share the same water system as you.
avantgarde wrote:Well they are both a threat to the neighboring property values.
And if there was a system in which people were to opt in to clean up septic tanks, lest they spread across the neighbourhood, it would also be a stupid system.
No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?
sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF
So we have a right to services we don't pay for?
your rights are not based on your ability to pay. your rights are based on the mere fact of being human. so yes, you have rights whether you are rich or poor, whether you can pay your taxes or not. If there was an intruder in your home and you calld 911 do you think it would be fair for the dispatcher to ask to see your tax records before sending out a patrolman?
AF
Kilkrazy wrote:Septic tanks can leak into ground water, or give off poisonous fumes, so actually they rather alike.
Yes, a septic tank and a burning house represent exactly the same threat to neighbouring properties.
If you had a septic tank spillover you would know, oh yes you would know...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Amaya wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:legal claim = rights
No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?
sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF
So we have a right to services we don't pay for?
your rights are not based on your ability to pay. your rights are based on the mere fact of being human. so yes, you have rights whether you are rich or poor, whether you can pay your taxes or not. If there was an intruder in your home and you calld 911 do you think it would be fair for the dispatcher to ask to see your tax records before sending out a patrolman?
AF
If you lived in Texas and called the NYPD would that be fair? Its the same thing.
No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?
sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF
They have no legal duty to help you. Here's the fun part, courts all the way up to the SCOTUS have affirmed that the government has not duty to protect you. Police have no duty to protect you. I have no duty to protect you.
Further, using this argument, all nearby persons, in fact all persons would have a duty to protect Mr. Nattering Nabob, and thus he can literally sue all persons in the US, including you and including me. No ing way.
If a policeman stands by while you get robbed, you have a right to sue him. if I stand by while you get robbed, you have no right to sue me. you know why? the 1st guy is a policeman. I'm not.
No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?
sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF
So we have a right to services we don't pay for?
your rights are not based on your ability to pay. your rights are based on the mere fact of being human. so yes, you have rights whether you are rich or poor, whether you can pay your taxes or not. If there was an intruder in your home and you call 911 do you think it would be fair for the dispatcher to ask to see your tax records before sending out a patrolman?
AF
You, in fact, do not have a right to fire departments. There's nowhere in any religion or government charters stating that "And man and his properties shall be protected from fire by his government".
Police officers are a totally different subject, and not relevant whatsoever to this discussion outside of being public servants who exist to protect individual life.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If a policeman stands by while you get robbed, you have a right to sue him.
That was your first mistake. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, you don't.
Again, case law has determined the government has no duty to protect your sorry ass.
Kanluwen wrote:There was no damage to the neighbor's house. Just Cranick's.
That should have read "damage to the neighbour's property" and the point still stands.
If by "correct", you mean "wrong", sure.
The fire started in barrels outside of the Cranicks' home. At this time of year and knowing people like the Cranicks, it's likely they were burning leaves and left it unattended. So it's their own damned fault.
That's some pretty wild speculation. Well, speculation is pretty generous, basically you're just making stuff up to villify people you know nothing about because that's easier than considering the idea that a resourcing scheme is poorly established.
Yeah, god forbid the firefighters just let a house that already burnt to the ground(which, with it not being under their area of responsibility any potential injuries or deaths wouldn't be covered by the firefighters' insurance plan) continue smoldering while they're putting out a fire in a field...
As has been stated clearly in several stories on the event, and explained multiple times in this thread, the firefighters were not busy protecting the neighbours yard - they were doing nothing. They only acted to protect the neighbours house when the fire spread from the Cranick's place.
Please don't make up things to fit your argument.
The neighbor's house didn't catch on fire. Their fields did, but since they actually paid their fees, the fire department was obligated to try to save their property.
Irrelevant. The neighbour's property was damaged, and further damage was risked because of this.
Now, it may well be that facing delinquency across the area the fire department has been forced into this measure, if so their actions are understandable provided they use this event to reform the system. What is not understandable are the thoughts of people in this thread who think what happened was an acceptable course of action - you do not leave fires unattended and systems that allow for that are stupid systems.
This isn't a residential area though. This is a rural area, quite likely with lots of open space between properties.
So? Should they then construct their large scale responses with one eye on who paid on time? Being in a more rural area and more exposed to massive fires is only greater cause to reform the system.
You can't force the payment on an area which isn't part of the city offering the fire service. They move out there, specifically so they're not part of the community as a whole.
More speculation - there are lots of reasons to move into the country besides chasing the dream of rugged individualism. A family might want to have more pets than city by-laws would allow. They might like the peace and quiet. You don't know, so stop making things up.
And if the city can't force payment, then you look at countless other options. A volunteer fire service. Incorporation, generating funds to build their own fire dept or pay another service for blanket coverage. A deal with state emergency services. There are lots of options, all of them quite practical and a whole lot smarter than leaving a fire to burn.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If a policeman stands by while you get robbed, you have a right to sue him.
That was your first mistake. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, you don't.
Again, case law has determined the government has no duty to protect your sorry ass.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If a policeman stands by while you get robbed, you have a right to sue him.
That was your first mistake. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, you don't.
Again, case law has determined the government has no duty to protect your sorry ass.
so the law is wrong. happens all the time.
No, its not. You're wrong. The government has no duty to you. It never has. This is a joy common law going back to the William guy. Its also on the Spanish side as well. The crown has no duty to you peasant. Now get back there and bring me more mead!
Kanluwen wrote:There was no damage to the neighbor's house. Just Cranick's.
That should have read "damage to the neighbour's property" and the point still stands.
If by "correct", you mean "wrong", sure.
The fire started in barrels outside of the Cranicks' home. At this time of year and knowing people like the Cranicks, it's likely they were burning leaves and left it unattended. So it's their own damned fault.
That's some pretty wild speculation. Well, speculation is pretty generous, basically you're just making stuff up to villify people you know nothing about because that's easier than considering the idea that a resourcing scheme is poorly established.
Of course it's speculation Sebster. There's been nothing to say what was in the barrels, but every newspost I've seen starts off with the line that the fire started in barrels outside of Cranick's mobile home. Making a leap of logic, from the experience of currently living in an unincorporated with neighbors very much like Cranick, I stated that "given the time of year, it's likely they were burning leaves and left it unattended".
Because that's what my dumbass neighbors do, every bloody weekend.
More speculation - there are lots of reasons to move into the country besides chasing the dream of rugged individualism. A family might want to have more pets than city by-laws would allow. They might like the peace and quiet. You don't know, so stop making things up.
So, it's okay for you to make things up but not me? Grand!
And if the city can't force payment, then you look at countless other options. A volunteer fire service. Incorporation, generating funds to build their own fire dept or pay another service for blanket coverage. A deal with state emergency services. There are lots of options, all of them quite practical and a whole lot smarter than leaving a fire to burn.
The county's taxpayers, which would presumably include Cranick, voted against county and volunteer fire departments. They also voted against incorporation.
So, that's three of your options down. There is also no "state fire department" option, given how friggin' illogical and useless that would be. There's also no real "state emergency medical services" for the same reason, outside of in some states Lifeflight.
There's also no "private" fire departments simply because of the logistics involved.
Guitardian wrote: I love how all the brits seem to be pointing the finger and saying "for shame" about the U.S. system. I, like Redbeard, am also a Brit living in the U.S., and I have to agree with the perspective of the people who live here. Sorry Brits, but your overbearing socialist-leaning system has its own problems too. Sorry, we don't get housing or health care or expect the dole and free services to wipe our noses for us paid for by other people's taxes either.
As I explained earlier, you don't have to pick between nanny state and a properly constructed fire service.
This goes all the way down the ladder to a personal level. Here in the U.S. we do not like the government taking half of our money and spending it how they think best for us. We resist taxes, and favor personal responsibility as much as we can. Some things, granted, are necessary to be governmentally regulated on some level (federal military, state for education and roads, township water treatment, police, fire etc) but we like to be personally responsible for as much as we can, not just trust the government to handle everything for us.
Many things are regulated by government because they provide a general good. In this case a user pays system for fire insurance results in people who pay in to the system still risking their homes burning down if their neighbours are derelict.
That exact thing became very clear in the US in the 19th C, when private fire fighting companies would refuse to put out fires on houses that hadn't paid. The result was many fires that got quickly out of control, and people died.
It was clear that this man, in opting not to live in the township, had taken on a personal responsibility to see to his own safety. He failed in his responsibility. It is sad that his house burned down, but as the spokeswoman for the town pointed out, if we let the fees slide until needed, nobody would pay them.
Yes, which is why you don't have a system which allows people to opt out, forcing a situation where firemen watch a fire burn, threatening to spread and possibly grow out of control. Instead you construct a better system. That idea really is the easiest thing you'll read all day. Please just accept it.
Lacking for a government provided fire service by living in an area with no local government means taking on that responsibility yourself. For everyone who lives in town paying taxes that fund the fire department, and everyone outside of town not having to, is unfair to the people living in town who are footing the bill for freeloaders. That's why the town offered their services to outsiders for a small fee. He didn't want to pay the fee.
And neighbours who did pay the fee? Including the one who saw the unattended fire spread to his property?
Kilcrazy asked how far should responsibilities of the overnment go. Indeed, this is the point I think most United Statesians question. We don't see governments from southeast Asia rushing aid to clean up an oil spill that affects the north American coast line, do we? Oddly enough, United Statesia tries its best to be wherever it may be needed, whether as a military presence, a humanitarian aid effort, or a diplomatic mediator, stretching itself and it's people's resources very thin by doing what countries with less sense of responsibility fail to do.
That has nothing to do with anything. We're talking about fire control, and system necessary to limit the damage they cause.
So to all the people who live in more socialist places, don't pshaw our cold-hearted attitude toward this. We are big fans of personal responsibility, something that is quite a strange idea when your government holds your hand and makes all your decisions and sees to all your needs for you.
This is gibberish. This issue has nothing to do with national differences. We're really not as different as you'd believe... in fact, we have many failed and disfunctional systems of our own. Many of those systems, while in obvious need for reform, are obstructed by the same fuzzy headed thinking we've seen throughout this thread. Hey, up until ten years ago we had a pretty poor model for funding emergency services control (it was charged on insurance polices, and many companies would simply insure overseas and avoid the surcharge - reform was introduced to attach it instead to rate payments) and this was opposed for incredibly stupid reasons. I mean, we didn't see the land of the free silliness you get here, but WA's own version, which amounts to 'we're special so stuff that works elsewhere can't work here so we going to be different for the sake of being different'. None of it meant anything, reform passed and the overseas insurance loophole was closed.
The point, in it's entirety once more, is that if you build a system where firemen are told to watch a fire burn, you have a bad system. It's an outcome that may well cost lives, that has a precedent in your country for costing lives. So the simple, obvious conclusion is to reform the system.
All the 'but America is different' stuff has nothing to do with a basic issue of proper governance.
When you say 'likely' you're not acknowledging the very speculative nature of your suggestion. Good to see you've accepted that, though, so moving on...
So, it's okay for you to make things up but not me? Grand!
I didn't make anything up. I pointed out someone might move to the country for all kinds of reasons. Unlike you, I never said any one reason was likely, based on what a neighbour does. That's the difference between listing possibilities and making wild speculation.
I'm going to honest with you, it is quite ridiculous that I had to type out the above. What I wrote was a very basic, very obvious thing, and your claim that I was speculating at all in comparison to your own efforts is obviously nonsense. Please think about what you've typed before you hit send. It would improve the quality of debate immensely.
And if the city can't force payment, then you look at countless other options. A volunteer fire service. Incorporation, generating funds to build their own fire dept or pay another service for blanket coverage. A deal with state emergency services. There are lots of options, all of them quite practical and a whole lot smarter than leaving a fire to burn.
The county's taxpayers, which would presumably include Cranick, voted against county and volunteer fire departments. They also voted against incorporation.
So, that's three of your options down. There is also no "state fire department" option, given how friggin' illogical and useless that would be. There's also no real "state emergency medical services" for the same reason, outside of in some states Lifeflight.
When fires burn on government land, who puts them out?
There's also no "private" fire departments simply because of the logistics involved.
Did anyone suggest anything of the sort? Why did you make that impractical solution up?
Any options I missed shooting down?
You didn't shoot anything down, please stop with the grandstanding. You pointed out that people voted against incorporation, and against a volunteer fire department (got a source for that by the way?) This prompted you to speculate some more about the voting practices of Cranick, despite knowing nothing but his name and his failure to pay one bill one time.
You then assume that because something was rejected once, it will be rejected again and forever more. Which is nonsense - the absolute failure of the current system wasn't as clear then as it is now. What may have appeared unnecessary when before will likely be a lot more appealing now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:What they should have done is put out the fire, then hand the guy a bill.
He offered to pay the full cost of the service. They declined
Meanwhile, its worth pointing out again that user pays fire protection has existed in the US, the ridiculousness of the system caused fires to spread and people to die. These failings directly led to municipal fire services.
When you say 'likely' you're not acknowledging the very speculative nature of your suggestion. Good to see you've accepted that, though, so moving on...
Sebster wrote:
So, it's okay for you to make things up but not me? Grand!
I didn't make anything up. I pointed out someone might move to the country for all kinds of reasons. Unlike you, I never said any one reason was likely, based on what a neighbour does. That's the difference between listing possibilities and making wild speculation.
I'm going to honest with you, it is quite ridiculous that I had to type out the above. What I wrote was a very basic, very obvious thing, and your claim that I was speculating at all in comparison to your own efforts is obviously nonsense. Please think about what you've typed before you hit send. It would improve the quality of debate immensely.
You didn't "list possibilities". You speculated on Cranick's reason for living in an unincorporated area of a county, outside of the jurisdiction of any city fire departments.
Sebster wrote:
And if the city can't force payment, then you look at countless other options. A volunteer fire service. Incorporation, generating funds to build their own fire dept or pay another service for blanket coverage. A deal with state emergency services. There are lots of options, all of them quite practical and a whole lot smarter than leaving a fire to burn.
Kanluwen wrote:The county's taxpayers, which would presumably include Cranick, voted against county and volunteer fire departments. They also voted against incorporation.
So, that's three of your options down. There is also no "state fire department" option, given how friggin' illogical and useless that would be. There's also no real "state emergency medical services" for the same reason, outside of in some states Lifeflight.
When fires burn on government land, who puts them out?
The Forestry Department.
This wasn't "government land". This is privately owned property, which was purposely purchased away from the city for whatever reason.
Sebster wrote:
There's also no "private" fire departments simply because of the logistics involved.
Did anyone suggest anything of the sort? Why did you make that impractical solution up?
You did actually, when stating:
Sebster wrote:pay another service for blanket coverage
Sebster wrote:
Any options I missed shooting down?
You didn't shoot anything down, please stop with the grandstanding. You pointed out that people voted against incorporation, and against a volunteer fire department (got a source for that by the way?) This prompted you to speculate some more about the voting practices of Cranick, despite knowing nothing but his name and his failure to pay one bill one time.
You then assume that because something was rejected once, it will be rejected again and forever more. Which is nonsense - the absolute failure of the current system wasn't as clear then as it is now. What may have appeared unnecessary when before will likely be a lot more appealing now.
Read any news story regarding it, and it's been noted that the county fire department idea was voted down.
And considering how much it costs to run a volunteer fire department, and the refusal to pay a simple $75 I can't see a VFD going over too well here. Volunteer Fire Departments are run off of funds donated from the community. If there's not enough money to justify them...you get cases like this, where unincorporated areas have to pay a fee to get service from the cities.
Kilkrazy wrote:What they should have done is put out the fire, then hand the guy a bill.
Some of the other nearby FDs do that. $500 for responding to a rural call, which the homeowners pay less than 50% of the time, and there's no way for the FD to press the issue for non-payers.
Do you call Geico to set up an account right after you smash your car into a tree? No you call them before you ever needed them. That's the point of INSURE-ance. We can all look back and say "damn I wish I was covered". Should have thought about that before the catastrophic accident". Hindsight is a virtue of the pathetic.
Being self-employed most of the time, I don't have any health coverage. If I fall off a ladder that's on me, I won't try to foist the bill upon on whoever I'm working for. Solution: be careful and don't fall off a ladder. If you don't have fire service, be careful and don't catch your place on fire.
The money all has to come from somewhere. In a heavily taxed system I would expect to be covered by the government who I pay to handle such things. I wouldn't expect the government I don't pay to handle things for me. At least in a free market system I have the choice (and consequences) of deciding whether or not I need insurance. The choice was his, the consequences are his.
I like this idea of of emergency services being similar to buying luxury goods with disposable income, and mostly because we aren't smart enough to realize some things are good for the community and some things are better for the private sector.
In summary: Rural homeowner didn't pay $75 to get fire department service, which was extended to people in the countryside outside the department's coverage. House caught fire, fire department didn't stop it from burning down. They did save his neighbor's house, who did pay the coverage fee.
This is fethed up in all sorts of ways, and no one is going to come out of this looking good, but
Lovely.
This is how Crassus, the first mega-tycoon in recorded history reportedly made his fortune. Though Fire 'insurance' in ancient Rome. The policy wasnt exactly popular 2000 years ago, why reinvent it now?
In summary: Rural homeowner didn't pay $75 to get fire department service, which was extended to people in the countryside outside the department's coverage. House caught fire, fire department didn't stop it from burning down. They did save his neighbor's house, who did pay the coverage fee.
This is fethed up in all sorts of ways, and no one is going to come out of this looking good, but
Lovely.
This is how Crassus, the first mega-tycoon in recorded history reportedly made his fortune. Though Fire 'insurance' in ancient Rome. The policy wasnt exactly popular 2000 years ago, why reinvent it now?
Didn't he offer to buy their burning houses, and would put them out if they sold at exhorbitantly low prices?
Guitardian wrote:
As Loki Old Fart pointed out, a good question is that if the United Statesia can afford to buy fighter planes, then why not more fire trucks?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't Frazz said the goverment has no duty to protect the public. I pointed out it does otherwise it wouldn't have a army and police force etc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire fighters in NYC don't cross the bridge to fight a fire in Jersey, even though they are right across the bridge, that's not only in a different county it is in a different state. Different regultions, different insurance concerns, different budgets at stake. A fire in Jersey is Jersey's responsibility. They have their resources, and NYC has their resources.
Well thats stupid aswell A fire is nobodies friend, a fire that is your neighbors problem today may be yours tommorrow.
Kilcrazy asked how far should responsibilities of the overnment go. Indeed, this is the point I think most United Statesians question. We don't see governments from southeast Asia rushing aid to clean up an oil spill that affects the north American coast line, do we? Oddly enough, United Statesia tries its best to be wherever it may be needed, whether as a military presence, a humanitarian aid effort, or a diplomatic mediator, stretching itself and it's people's resources very thin by doing what countries with less sense of responsibility fail to do. These very same countries that are always dissing us "Americans" as beeing overbearing and/or lazy and/or fat stupid etcetera etcetera. Funny how these elitist European enlightened cultures quit their codescending "stupid Americans" attitude pretty quickly when you need help.
Funny how everytime america helps us, we end up three generations in debt. Even better when we help you we end up in debt
Fire departments risk lives, spend money and effort in doing so. Where does that money and effort come from if people aren't willing to pay for it? I think it's a good lesson for all United Statesians to notice. You get what you pay for.
So the average american pays less and is happy with gak, ok I can live with that
Guitardian wrote:
As Loki Old Fart pointed out, a good question is that if the United Statesia can afford to buy fighter planes, then why not more fire trucks?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't Frazz said the goverment has no duty to protect the public. I pointed out it does otherwise it wouldn't have a army and police force etc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire fighters in NYC don't cross the bridge to fight a fire in Jersey, even though they are right across the bridge, that's not only in a different county it is in a different state. Different regultions, different insurance concerns, different budgets at stake. A fire in Jersey is Jersey's responsibility. They have their resources, and NYC has their resources.
Well thats stupid aswell A fire is nobodies friend, a fire that is your neighbors problem today may be yours tommorrow.
Kilcrazy asked how far should responsibilities of the overnment go. Indeed, this is the point I think most United Statesians question. We don't see governments from southeast Asia rushing aid to clean up an oil spill that affects the north American coast line, do we? Oddly enough, United Statesia tries its best to be wherever it may be needed, whether as a military presence, a humanitarian aid effort, or a diplomatic mediator, stretching itself and it's people's resources very thin by doing what countries with less sense of responsibility fail to do. These very same countries that are always dissing us "Americans" as beeing overbearing and/or lazy and/or fat stupid etcetera etcetera. Funny how these elitist European enlightened cultures quit their codescending "stupid Americans" attitude pretty quickly when you need help.
Funny how everytime america helps us, we end up three generations in debt. Even better when we help you we end up in debt
Fire departments risk lives, spend money and effort in doing so. Where does that money and effort come from if people aren't willing to pay for it? I think it's a good lesson for all United Statesians to notice. You get what you pay for.
So the average american pays less and is happy with gak, ok I can live with that
Don't you still owe us for lend lease? Don't you still owe us for...SPAM!
The average american has the choice to live in gak and pay less, or get what he pays for. We like having the choice. Maybe that makes us cold unfeeling and barbaric to you, but we kind of like having the choice in our decisions, and resent people foisting them upon us by government mandate. I like paying my taxes because I like roads. I don't like paying taxes so that welfare moms get free housing when I have to scrape a budget every month to make my own way, or freeloading country folk can have free fire services that I have to pay taxes to recieve.
This is not about a danger to the 'community', this was not the community. This was an isolated area, it isn't like it would be a repeat of the Great Chicago Fire or anything. One house is one house. Sucks for the guy living there, but hey it sucks for the fire department who is morally expected to risk their lives or look like donkey-caves on national news for a guy who never cared about them before he needed them. Again I say, hindsight is a virtue of the pathetic.
(btw can you fix your quoting so my words are not intermingled with yours all under a box that says "guitardian wrote:" ? it's kind of like putting words in my mouth and a bit difficult to follow who is saying what)
I thought they still owed us for inventing the technology and modernizing the post WWII infrastructure that made them capable of dominating the car and home electronics industries in the 80s. dont they? Oh wait... all the technology invented by us better exploited by foreign nations is a free-for-all for everyone. Nobody owes us for that kind of thing. England and France don't owe the United States either for all the resources used 70 years ago then do they? All that stuff is in the past, right? The U.S. hasn't consistently put themselves on the line for its allies? Hell if I was a dictator I would be demanding tribute from every country that United Statesians died to protect/liberate/advance.
The Queen still owes me back pay reparations for my family being serfs in 1100 A.D. I should probably send her an invoice. Compounded with interest, I think I could get at least one piece of the crown jewels and a public appology for serfdom out of it.
Guitardian wrote:The Queen still owes me back pay reparations for my family being serfs in 1100 A.D. I should probably send her an invoice. Compounded with interest, I think I could get at least one piece of the crown jewels and a public appology for serfdom out of it.
I think you are more likely to be hung, drawn and quartered for treason
Guitardian wrote:I thought they still owed us for inventing the technology and modernizing the post WWII infrastructure that made them capable of dominating the car and home electronics industries in the 80s. dont they?
If you want to pay for all the british inventions
Guitardian wrote:The Queen still owes me back pay reparations for my family being serfs in 1100 A.D. I should probably send her an invoice. Compounded with interest, I think I could get at least one piece of the crown jewels and a public appology for serfdom out of it.
I'll ask my old man to look back thru the family history, see if you ever worked for us, if so I'll send you a couple of quid, you sound like you need it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:What they should have done is put out the fire, then hand the guy a bill.
Agreed actually.
Of course after he hit the fire chief, they should have popped with the hose, full force, until he ran off or started crying like a girl.
No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?
sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF
So we have a right to services we don't pay for?
your rights are not based on your ability to pay. your rights are based on the mere fact of being human. so yes, you have rights whether you are rich or poor, whether you can pay your taxes or not. If there was an intruder in your home and you calld 911 do you think it would be fair for the dispatcher to ask to see your tax records before sending out a patrolman?
AF
If you lived in Texas and called the NYPD would that be fair? Its the same thing.
................how?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
No, its not. You're wrong. The government has no duty to you. It never has. This is a joy common law going back to the William guy. Its also on the Spanish side as well. The crown has no duty to you peasant. Now get back there and bring me more mead!
I know..... it's been all down hill since 1789.....
No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?
sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF
So we have a right to services we don't pay for?
your rights are not based on your ability to pay. your rights are based on the mere fact of being human. so yes, you have rights whether you are rich or poor, whether you can pay your taxes or not. If there was an intruder in your home and you calld 911 do you think it would be fair for the dispatcher to ask to see your tax records before sending out a patrolman?
AF
If you lived in Texas and called the NYPD would that be fair? Its the same thing.
................how?
You're asking one juridisction to take care of another jurisdiction and saying you have that right.
him. You don't pay, you don't play.
