Pay to Spray??? Homeowner looses everything...

hearingimpared

tonyb wrote: »

Judgmental Joe ? The difference is you didn't plaster yourself all over the media.

Paisano, I don't see the relevance in that! If that had happened to me, I would be at every news station shouting from the rooftops. I think you would too, IF, you were in the same situation.

ohskigod

so many variables on this.

let's say a neighbor sees a house burning, gives the address and it is not on the paid list. in this scenario they have no idea wether someone is in the house or not (since a neighbor called). do they come out? I would really like a full detail of the SOP's on this pay to spray thing.

The 75 bucks should be mandatorily added to the municipal taxes......believe me, these people are paying prop taxes to someone I am sure., that gets kicked to the fire department.....if the 75.00 isnt paid, your prop taxes arent paid in full......done

jflail2

ohskigod wrote: »

The 75 bucks should be mandatorily added to the municipal taxes......believe me, these people are paying prop taxes to someone I am sure., that gets kicked to the fire department.....if the 75.00 isnt paid, your prop taxes arent paid in full......done

That's the point I've been trying to make. I'm not for forced compliance in the form of taxes for most things, but emergency services are a big exception for me. If the county can't afford it alone, let some state funds take care of the rest, but in my humblest of opinions, EVERYONE should have access to emergency services.

shadowofnight

ohskigod wrote: »

so many variables on this.

let's say a neighbor sees a house burning, gives the address and it is not on the paid list. in this scenario they have no idea wether someone is in the house or not (since a neighbor called). do they come out? I would really like a full detail of the SOP's on this pay to spray thing.

The 75 bucks should be mandatorily added to the municipal taxes......believe me, these people are paying prop taxes to someone I am sure., that gets kicked to the fire department.....if the 75.00 isnt paid, your prop taxes arent paid in full......done

Exactly , or their data server took a dump with no access to the paid/unpaid database...etc

Of all the crap charges we get forced on us , I dont think any reasonable person would **** about this 75 bucks being included in property taxes.

shack

The home in question was not in a municipality...it is a county. Very few (if any) county governments in the state of TN provide fire protection. The options are volunteer or subcription, either by corporate or a nearby city (as is the case here). Many rural areas have NONE. They simply do not have the population/taxbase to support fire protection as the land is mainly farm and woodland. Many of the smaller municipalities don't provide fire protection for the same reasons. Tax revenues are not enough. Even if they wanted to tax more the residents probably can't afford it. A sheriff, deputies, and MAYBE a rescue squad will be the only pubic safety the county can/will provide. Many of the smaller rural counties rely on the State Troopers for law enforcement. Again the population of the State of TN is such that state supported fire protection is not an option. Education and social services consume the majority of the tax revenues. Too big a state...too small a population.

mrbigbluelight

A key point here that hasn't been brought up is that these firefighters were VOLUNTEER firefighters in a rural district. This is not an incorporated munincipality with a taxpayer supported Fire District.

That may be an incorrect fact, but that is what is being reported here.

Volunteer firefighters are just that: volunteers.
They not only volunteer their time but quite often they have to pay for their own equipment.
It is not uncommon for these rural areas to hold fundraisers to pay for equipment: church bazaars, raffles, you name it.

The $75 yearly fee does not cover their operating costs.

So if a volunteer firefighter shows up at your house that you haven't bought a $75 yearlyfire sticker for, than I can almost assure you of one thing:

Your house is going to burn.

If a volunteer firefighter shows up at your house that you haven't bought a $75 yearlyfire sticker for, BUT THERE ARE HUMAN LIVES AT STAKE, than I can almost assure you of another thing:

Your house is not going to burn.

At least until the humans have been evacuated, then:

Your house is going to burn.


IMO, that's the way it oughta be.

These are VOLUNTEER firefighters.

Don't like it ? Than move there and volunteer your time, it would be appreciated.

And as much as I hate the thought of the animals perishing, what is even more horrifying is the sound of a burn victim have the process of debridement
performed on them. And I'd hate the assignment of telling a burned volunteer firefighter that his actions, while putting him at Pain Central in the lowest pit of Hell, did manage to save some pets of a guy who wouldn't/couldn't pay $75.

megasat16

I guess Volunteering means it's something you want to do and help out the others?

As far as I know, volunteer public works don't earn a dime.

But in this case, they probably got paid for Volunteering. It must be great coz you can do what you like and get paid for it also. It must be awesome!

So, I wonder what makes these volunteers think it's OK not to do the job they volunteer for.

shadowofnight

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

These are VOLUNTEER firefighters.

They are not volunteer's whatsoever, in the city limits they are a standard fire dept just like you find in any normal city...funded exactly like every other regular fire dept.

It's when you travel outside of the city limits that it becomes a subscription service.


“We are a city fire department. We are responsible for the City of South Fulton and we offer a subscription to rural residents. "

inspiredsports

exalted512 wrote: »

I'm saying as a human...and ESPECIALLY a fire fighter, you have a duty, no matter what. The NYFD didnt hesitate to risk their lives in a building they knew was falling apart when they went into the twin towers. I believe THAT is going above and beyond the line of duty. These marshmallow roasters sit and watched while this man's house burned to the ground. It killed part of his family that was helpless against it. A dog should never have to suffer when it does nothing wrong just because his owner failed to pay $75 WHEN PEOPLE WERE THERE THAT HAD THE CAPABILITY OF STOPPING IT. Much less burn to death. Like I said earlier, what the owner did (or didnt do) was irresponsible, but what the marshmallow roasters did was immoral. I can deal with irresponsible, but immoral people piss me off.

As far as do I think people should get insurance coverage when they dont pay, no, I dont...I thought I had made that clear when I said:

-Cody

I'm guessing the World Trade Centers paid literally billions of dollars of taxes over the decades that paid decent salaries for New York City services workers like the NYFD. It's horrible that they lost their lives, but it was sure logical that the paid firefighters did their jobs as expected.

I'm really trying here, but not at all following your extremely weak logic.

Also, I may be wrong, but guess the NYFD doesn't travel outside of the city limits where they are paid, repeat paid, to perform a service.

kawizx9r

We should agree to disagree.

messiah

Lmao!! ^^^^ :d

mrbigbluelight

shadowofnight wrote: »

They are not volunteer's whatsoever, in the city limits they are a standard fire dept just like you find in any normal city...funded exactly like every other regular fire dept.

It's when you travel outside of the city limits that it becomes a subscription service.


“We are a city fire department. We are responsible for the City of South Fulton and we offer a subscription to rural residents. "

I stand corrected on the volunteer issue.

In regards to the rural residents, it would appear that they have a choice.

mrbigbluelight

kawizx9r wrote: »

We should agree to disagree.

There's nothing that can't be saved by kittens.



Recalling a quote thread a little while back, I'd just like to say:

"I'd like to agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong".


:)

exalted512

inspiredsports wrote: »

I'm really trying here, but not at all following your extremely weak logic.

Its actually pretty easy. If you have the capability to help someone, however irresponsible they may be, do it...especially if other helpless pets are involved.

If you can't follow that logic, well, it speaks loads about your character and I'll leave it at that;)
-Cody

snow

exalted512 wrote: »

Its actually pretty easy. If you have the capability to help someone, however irresponsible they may be, do it...especially if other helpless pets are involved.

If you can't follow that logic, well, it speaks loads about your character and I'll leave it at that;)
-Cody

:rolleyes:

inspiredsports

exalted512 wrote: »

Its actually pretty easy. If you have the capability to help someone, however irresponsible they may be, do it...especially if other helpless pets are involved.

If you can't follow that logic, well, it speaks loads about your character and I'll leave it at that;)
-Cody

OK, I'm suddenly feeling irresponsible and may be unable to feed my helpless pets for the next month because my house payment is due. Should I PM you my PayPal addy so you can send me some cat food or mortgage money?

ohskigod

inspiredsports wrote: »

Also, I may be wrong, but guess the NYFD doesn't travel outside of the city limits where they are paid, repeat paid, to perform a service.

wrongo, if a surounding municipality close enough for a reasonable response from a NYPD house calls for help, that house will go if they can be spared at the time.

In Jersey it is called "mutual aid" there are long standing agreements that if a town calls for help you go, the city next to my town (Paterson) has sent trucks to my town and others when a fire gets hairy, and Totowa has definitly done it for Paterson as well.....(same for the Ambulance, they have come to us when needed, and I have driven an ambulance many times down there when they get jammed)

it's just how we roll up here. Jersey has it's faults, access to emergency services aint one of them I guess.

I volunteered (ambulance, not fire). I didnt check if people donated, a call came out, I went. I had no thoughts of "why risk my butt of they didnt pay?"
Incidentally, there is little risk to firefighters lives if they just do the "spray and pray" aka the "surround and drown". they could have prayed some water on that fire.......sorry, thats just my opinion.

hearingimpared

Jeez! Reading some of Shack's responses and others it reminds of the old western movies where a house is burning and the whole town comes out and in a line of a dozen people they pass a bucket of water to each other and the last one closest to the house throws the water on the fire.

I guess that's what some of the folks in the rural areas of TN need, more private citizen participation with lots of buckets.:rolleyes:

Maybe I'm being obtuse. When I lived in Yeadon, PA the fire department was all volunteer. A couple of friends I had were some of the volunteers. They would from time to time, out of boredom, as us to start a brush fire in the in woods so they could go out with their firefighter outfits on and ring the bell on the firetruck to put the fire out. My point to this story is they were itching to get some action to put out fires especially in homes. I can't tell you how many time I heard the main siren go off in the bough hall and see several volunteers rushing out of their homes, putting the blue light on in their cars and racing to either the firehouse or directly to the fire scene.

This seems to me to be what firefighters are all about . . . helping their neighbors or others to save their homes. Public servants!

Anyway back to the topic. I still am not convinced that the firefighters should have been on scene on an adjacent property and watched as this guys house burned to the ground despite the rules set about the $75. It seems criminal to me to let a house burn to the ground with innocent pets burning alive and not doing anything about it because of a rule.

I still say it is heartless and inhumane!

tonyb

Hearless and inhumane as it may be Joe, an animal is still considered personal property. Nobody loves dogs as much as I do, and if it was me in this guys situation,I would have made sure my dogs were out before myself. Most any dog owner will tell you they consider their dog one of the family, a kid even, so why this guy chose to get out without seeing that everything else dear to him was safe is beyond me. It's a terrible situation, one that may need review. Fire protection is a service, if you give people a choice,stuff like this will happen. If you take away the choice, and force it on people, then that argument can get ugly. Most don't care that it's added to your real estate taxes because after all,who doesn't want the fire protection. You have alot more to lose than to gain by not paying 75 bucks. This guy gambled his personal property, his life and the life of others that he would be ok without coughing up 75 bucks. Personal responsibility Joe, I know you like those 2 words,we talk about it all the time around here. Unfortunately this is the flip side of those who don't subscribe to those 2 words. Another 2 words I should throw in is common sense....burning trash next to the home,when your own home burned down the same way. Even Forest Gump would know better.

hearingimpared

tonyb wrote: »

Hearless and inhumane as it may be Joe, an animal is still considered personal property. Nobody loves dogs as much as I do, and if it was me in this guys situation,I would have made sure my dogs were out before myself. Most any dog owner will tell you they consider their dog one of the family, a kid even, so why this guy chose to get out without seeing that everything else dear to him was safe is beyond me. It's a terrible situation, one that may need review. Fire protection is a service, if you give people a choice,stuff like this will happen. If you take away the choice, and force it on people, then that argument can get ugly. Most don't care that it's added to your real estate taxes because after all,who doesn't want the fire protection. You have alot more to lose than to gain by not paying 75 bucks. This guy gambled his personal property, his life and the life of others that he would be ok without coughing up 75 bucks. Personal responsibility Joe, I know you like those 2 words,we talk about it all the time around here. Unfortunately this is the flip side of those who don't subscribe to those 2 words. Another 2 words I should throw in is common sense....burning trash next to the home,when your own home burned down the same way. Even Forest Gump would know better.

Tony, I absolutely agree with the above. HOWEVER! Personal responsibility and common sense, well we don't know the guys SITUATION!!! Again I say there is a rush to judgement here!!!

Let's flip it over Tony. How about the responsiblily of the the firefighters ON SCENE to use common sense!?! Screw the $75 for the moment, kill the fire then work out the details! For God's sakes if the guy can't or won't pay the bill the FD produces then put a lien on his property but save the friggin guys house and animals!

I'd rather see the guy loose his property after all this is said and done and the fire put out; if the guy DOESN'T THEN TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to pay off the lien then nail him.

snow

hearingimpared wrote: »

Tony, I absolutely agree with the above. HOWEVER! Personal responsibility and common sense, well we don't know the guys SITUATION!!! Again I say there is a rush to judgement here!!!

Let's flip it over Tony. How about the responsiblily of the the firefighters ON SCENE to use common sense!?! Screw the $75 for the moment, kill the fire then work out the details! For God's sakes if the guy can't or won't pay the bill the FD produces then put a lien on his property but save the friggin guys house and animals!

I'd rather see the guy loose his property after all this is said and done and the fire put out; if the guy DOESN'T THEN TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to pay off the lien then nail him.

Geez Joe if the guy isnt responsible enough to pay the $75.00 fee to begin with what are the odds of him paying a bill that is much more? and that is if there was anything left to file a lien on, you have to realize this was a mobile home not a house, mobile homes especially an older one is fully engulfed usally within 2 minutes after a fire begins, a lot of people here are blaming the FD for both not putting out the fire and saving the pets when the FD is another county miles away by the time they arrived on the scene odds are there was little to nothing they could do to save anything home or pets odds are they were only able to prevent the fire from spreading even if he had paid.

The guy is a loser he chose to abandon his pets after he failed to not pay a paltry $75.00 fee that he was well aware of because his own son had done the same thing and had the fee waived and the FD put the fire out, he thought he could get by with doing the same thing. The only way these type of services can afford to work is if the majority of the people pay every year if a large number dont then there isnt enough funds to cover the fires that do happen its no different than an insurance policy most people arent having accidents and the ones that are were paid by the money received from the ones that paid and didnt file a claim.

The people in this county chose by a vote not to have fire protection added into their taxes but to pay for it as a service, as such he didnt pay for this service and isnt entitled to that service period.


Lets say one of the fireman got injured putting out the fire that they shouldndt have do you think workmans comp is going to pay for that firemans medical bills? what if they died while fighting a fire that they had no business fighting? would the widow be able to collect a pension? who is liable for anything that may go wrong fighting a fire that you have no business fighting? what do you think would happen if the insurance company providing for the FD found out that the FD was fighting fires that wasnt their rsponsibility? either the insurance rates would rocket out of sight or they would drop the policy alltogether. The FD could well be sued not only by widow but by the homeowner if something happened.

The ony persons responsible for the tragic event was the homeowner and his grandson.



REGARDS SNOW

hearingimpared

WE DO NOT KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS FELLOW HAS FACED! How do we know he was able to pay? UGH! I'm repeating myself. I give up . . . we'll agree to disagree.

I do have one thing to comment on. It is my understanding that firefighters and their equipment are insured pension and all. That being said unless there is a clause in the insurance policy that they CANNOT fight any fire outside their juristiction or for people not on their list they are covered. Besides, when my home in Yeadon caught fire, and the FD took care of it the insurance company DID NOT pay for their services and wouldn't I'm sure. That was all part of the volunteer FD and my dad probably paid it in real estate taxes, I don't know.

mrbigbluelight

snow wrote: »

The ony persons responsible for the tragic event was the homeowner and his grandson. REGARDS SNOW

That is the heart of the matter, IMO.

As has been mentioned, we can only guess-timate what went down that night.
Our local news reports had mentioned that the fire department was strictly a volunteer fire department. That was incorrect.
What other aspects of other news sources and reports are out there that also aren't accurate ?

But: if the homeowner and grandson left their 'pets' in the house, than ....... well ...... at best, they are responsible for their deaths.
Not the fire fighters.

snow

hearingimpared wrote: »

WE DO NOT KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS FELLOW HAS FACED! How do we know he was able to pay? UGH! I'm repeating myself. I give up . . . we'll agree to disagree.

I do have one thing to comment on. It is my understanding that firefighters and their equipment are insured pension and all. That being said unless there is a clause in the insurance policy that they CANNOT fight any fire outside their juristiction or for people not on their list they are covered. Besides, when my home in Yeadon caught fire, and the FD took care of it the insurance company DID NOT pay for their services and wouldn't I'm sure. That was all part of the volunteer FD and my dad probably paid it in real estate taxes, I don't know.

Joe he himself said that it wasnt a matter of not having the money to pay the fee his excuse was that he forgot to pay after his own son had the fee waived earlier :rolleyes: there is no doubt in my mind that he felt he could do the same thing and if a fire broke out he would still receive service and then pay the fee.

As far as the insurance goes if as a fireman you are expressly forbidden to do something and you choose to go ahead and do it no insurance company in the world is very likely to pay out as im certain these firemen were told you are not allowed to put out fires for people who havent paid the fee.

Its easy to get emotional about such matters but the evidence points to the firemen were not at fault here they had put out fires before for people that hadndt paid the service fee but now had their collective hands tied so to speak, trust me firemen like putting out fires they dont like sitting around watching peoples property burn up.

If anyone wants to place blame place it where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of the cheap **** who allowed his pets to burn up.



REGARDS SNOW

inspiredsports

snow wrote: »

Joe he himself said that it wasnt a matter of not having the money to pay the fee his excuse was that he forgot to pay after his own son had the fee waived earlier :rolleyes: there is no doubt in my mind that he felt he could do the same thing and if a fire broke out he would still receive service and then pay the fee.

As far as the insurance goes if as a fireman you are expressly forbidden to do something and you choose to go ahead and do it no insurance company in the world is very likely to pay out as im certain these firemen were told you are not allowed to put out fires for people who havent paid the fee.

Its easy to get emotional about such matters but the evidence points to the firemen were not at fault here they had put out fires before for people that hadndt paid the service fee but now had their collective hands tied so to speak, trust me firemen like putting out fires they dont like sitting around watching peoples property burn up.

If anyone wants to place blame place it where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of the cheap **** who allowed his pets to burn up.



REGARDS SNOW

Amen

messiah

A. The firemen suck, and they can't take it back. The whole country knows it, and the International Association of Fire Fighters president said they suck.

B. The idiot was probably being cheap, and his son was stupid for starting a fire so close to the home.

C. The animals in the equation are most likely better than all of the people being discussed here, whether they are the firemen or the homeowners, and sadly they are dead.

D. A moderator should probably just shut this down, as it's just dumb **** bickering.

snow

messiah wrote: »

A. The firemen suck, and they can't take it back. The whole country knows it, and the International Association of Fire Fighters president said they suck.

B. The idiot was probably being cheap, and his son was stupid for starting a fire so close to the home.

C. The animals in the equation are most likely better than all of the people being discussed here, whether they are the firemen or the homeowners, and sadly they are dead.

D. A moderator should probably just shut this down, as it's just dumb **** bickering.

Well I guess a lot of firemen accross the country suck then because this is not a new thing nor an isolated incident :rolleyes:

REGARDS SNOW

inspiredsports

messiah wrote: »

. . . a moderator should probably just shut this down, as it's just dumb **** bickering.

Amen

exalted512

messiah wrote: »

A. The firemen suck, and they can't take it back. The whole country knows it, and the International Association of Fire Fighters president said they suck.

Which is another reason why it seems like the "oh what if something happened and they wouldnt be covered by insurance" seems like a crock of ****.

If that was really the case, then I would think the IAFF wouldnt have said what they did.
-Cody

snow

exalted512 wrote: »

Which is another reason why it seems like the "oh what if something happened and they wouldnt be covered by insurance" seems like a crock of ****.

If that was really the case, then I would think the IAFF wouldnt have said what they did.
-Cody

Its always easy to blame others rather than to take responsibilty for your own actions, that is whats happening here. You must have missed the part where he says that they waived the $75.00 fee for his own son and put the fire out at his place. If you really believe that these firemen voluntarily sat around because they didndt want to do anything you are wrong and to say they suck because they were not allowed to fight this fire is just wrong.

REGARDS SNOW