Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

WarOne wrote:

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.

Privatised FD?

You yanks are hilarious. I'm adding this to my list.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Privatised FD?

You yanks are hilarious. I'm adding this to my list.

...no. Not privatized.

Tyyr wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Privatised FD?

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.

This story is so dumb.

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

generalgrog wrote:This story is so dumb.

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.

Per MSNBC, something like 5 pets died. That might be a problem for the fire department.

SilverMK2 wrote:

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!

generalgrog wrote:This story is so dumb.

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

generalgrog wrote:This story is so dumb.

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

generalgrog wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

generalgrog wrote:This story is so dumb.

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.

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

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Bookwrack wrote:

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.

Wolfstan wrote:

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.

djones520 wrote:

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.

Corrected your typo

Tyyr wrote:

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.