Firefighters let home burn over $75 fee -- again

maximillian

Dennis Gardner wrote: »

I think the fire department needs to negotiate a price per gallon fee once they arrive at an unpaid house fire.

Then no one would pay. Why would they? I wouldn't at that point if I just need to square up the bill at the needed moment. There's a good chance your house will never burn in your and your children's lifetime. But the fire department still has bills to pay just for being open and available.

Even if there is a 100% penalty I still wouldn't pay in that case because chances are I would never need the service. What's the worse that could happen? I have to pay way more than what the house is worth? Fine, agree to payment, have them save your house, then file for bankruptcy and have them take your house. At least I wouldn't lose my personal belongings. Again, no real incentive to pay.

BTW, from what I remember from the first time this happened, the county is too poor to afford their own FD so they allow citizens to purchase the service from the next county over, or something like that. I don't see what's wrong with this. The alternate is to simply tax everyone the $75, but I guess that would be socialism and that's bad, right? </sarcasm>

madmax

I think if you don't pay the fee you can't expect the service. (unless something else is going on)
madmax

WilliamM2

maximillian wrote: »

The alternate is to simply tax everyone the $75, but I guess that would be socialism and that's bad, right?

Seems to work for the rest of the country. My property taxes go to schools, police, fire, etc. A seperate charge is just stupid.

tonyb

Guess they'll pay the fee next time around. Live and learn as they say. Actions do have consequences.

The fire dept. has to show up in case the fire spreads to a fee paying home, or spread to nearby forest and grows. They are actualy doing that non paying home owner a service by doing that. Can you imagine the liability for that non paying homeowner if his house fire spread and destroyed others homes ?

ohskigod

both sides of the argument are valid in this very wierd case. I was a volunteer EMT for 15 years, this doesn't sit right with me. Why not do a flat mandatory 75$ assessment per house on muni prop tax level? Town gives fire dept the money, if it isnt paid then they do what towns do when people dont pay the property taxes.

in all honesty, as much as this doesnt sit right with me, I blame the town government more. this is a public safety issue.....does looking up wether the fee is paid affect response time? I'd say yes.

dorokusai

I never said they didn't have to dispatch prior but if its that big of a deal, and it is since it costs money to have a fire put out on your home, and the BILL is footed by the local establishment, then they should know that ahead of time and blacklist the ppl who don't pay money.

Or is blacklisting non-payers not OK? Is that too 1984 or tooo whatever?

It seems like its OK after the fact, why not handle that before and make sure that they die without wasting any effort....****, a new episode of Real Housewives might be on. If the town is SOOOO concerned with this non-payment issue of $75 then they should outline with a Sharpie, where they cannot go as long as they are constantly updated thru an accurate system of up to date payment information. Doesn't that sound totally logical? <sic> If they aren't paying, and the township is aware of that fact, which they were, then they should be put on a list of losers and/or miscreants. I'm not sure why they just don't kill them and rid the problem alltogether, problem solved.

I'm all for a Logan's Run type society.

inspiredsports

ryanjoachim wrote: »

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again

I mean...come on. I understand that they didn't pay the fee...but why can't they just charge them what they would have "owed" in back pay instead of letting the house burn?

For example: They hadn't paid for 10 years, so charge them a $750 fee for putting the fire out. You get money, and they don't lose their house.

Because idiots who won't pay $75, won't pay $750.

You can make the "for want of a nail" argument for anything.

If you don't pay your phone bill and it gets turned off, you can lose your home or your life. Just because it is a fire people get super liberal, but f the idiots who don't pay is the way I see it.

inspiredsports

ohskigod wrote: »

. . . why not do a flat mandatory 75$ assessment per house on muni prop tax level?

You know as well as I do that it is PRECISELY the folks whose house burned to the ground that would be the absolute loudest, most obnoxious OPPONENTS of this type of assement to the point they would be fire-bombing the town hall if the assement was required.

dorokusai

I went for years without renters insurance, cuz I was a college student or military individual...who hasn't at some point? I love the holier than thou approach to this subject. I'd like to be classified in the moron category if that's all it takes to get in it. WOW.

I wouldn't do that now but I also think that insurance is big business and cemented in so much of our lives that its almost silly. I have flood insurance on my home because it's rounded up in the idea that my water heater might blow up and flood my home....I reside in a geographic peak and only a cataclyism would raise the water high enough to reach my home. And at that point the clause kicks in and doesn't cover me anyways. Do you see where I'm coming from here? It's ****, so is that fee of $75. I pay taxes in my county and state and as such want my home fire put out regardless of wtf I paid last year for my stupid township. When was the last time your TOWN did anything for you? A parade? or some other jerk off event? Your town is just a tax revenue vaccuum that poorer communities have to use since the state and county ignores them. Open your eyes folks, the spending information of everything that happens is public record. You'd be appalled to see where it goes and we're complaining about a place we don't even live in? You folks are disconnected....so am I it appears.

Just wait until you get levied with yet another tax for this, like they did and see how your tune changes. You ALREADY pay for fire response....what's being lost in translation here?

Good luck, I'm off to better threads.

inspiredsports

In many municipalities fire department funding is subject to a vote. I an issue/levy fails, they go to a "pay to play" format.

You can't say "you already paid for it" if you didn't already pay for it.

steveinaz

The bigger picture here is, they made a poor decision, and now it's someone elses fault. BS. Take responsibility for your actions. Is it unfortunate?--absolutely.

Until we start holding people accountable, and MAKING them accept responsibility for their poor decisions--we will remain a liability society. People better start getting a clue, because this country is about to go through some serious change---OLD school style. I say it's LONG overdue.

Sometimes you have to let things break, to let everyone know that a problem exist--in order to fix the problem correctly, in the long-term. This country has too many band-aid fixes, that never solve the real problem.

Joe08867

It should be included in there taxes just like it is in almost every other county in the USA. The fact that it isn't is just ridiculous. I will say I am surprised anyone from that county didn't pay since this has happened before.

I feel bad for these people but since it was not included and they didn't pay they are screwed.

Hope there insurance was paid up?

maximillian

Joe08867 wrote: »

It should be included in there taxes just like it is in almost every other county in the USA. The fact that it isn't is just ridiculous.

Agreed a tax is better (I jest above), but I think that the county residents would have to vote this tax inclusion before it becomes mandatory. Often, people fight over ANY tax increase. So they may be stuck with a county not offering the service, not mandating a tax, and residents having to buy their service themselves.

exalted512

tonyb wrote: »

The fire dept. has to show up in case the fire spreads to a fee paying home, or spread to nearby forest and grows. They are actualy doing that non paying home owner a service by doing that.

exactly.

ohskigod wrote: »

does looking up wether the fee is paid affect response time? I'd say yes.

I'd say no. I'd say, they're going out to the fire anyway (see above). And it is looked up and radio'ed to them on the way.

inspiredsports wrote: »

You know as well as I do that it is PRECISELY the folks whose house burned to the ground that would be the absolute loudest, most obnoxious OPPONENTS of this type of assement to the point they would be fire-bombing the town hall if the assement was required.

Guaranteed.

dorokusai wrote: »

I'd like to be classified in the moron category if that's all it takes to get in it.

Pfft. You've always been in that category:cheesygrin:

steveinaz wrote: »

The bigger picture here is, they made a poor decision, and now it's someone elses fault. BS. Take responsibility for your actions. Is it unfortunate?--absolutely.

Until we start holding people accountable, and MAKING them accept responsibility for their poor decisions--we will remain a liability society. People better start getting a clue, because this country is about to go through some serious change---OLD school style. I say it's LONG overdue.

Sometimes you have to let things break, to let everyone know that a problem exist--in order to fix the problem correctly, in the long-term. This country has too many band-aid fixes, that never solve the real problem.

win win win win win. win.

Joe08867 wrote: »

It should be included in there taxes just like it is in almost every other county in the USA. The fact that it isn't is just ridiculous. I will say I am surprised anyone from that county didn't pay since this has happened before.

I feel bad for these people but since it was not included and they didn't pay they are screwed.

Hope there insurance was paid up?

I think its a good thing they can opt out of certain 'taxes'. I wish I could do that.



This is an insurance policy. If you don't pay for it, you don't get it. It's really not that hard to understand. I do NOT agree with what happened last time when pets were allowed to die, UNLESS it just wasn't safe enough to enter. I never really heard for sure one way or another on that.

You'll find no sympathy here for the families who don't pay.

-Cody

sucks2beme

Trailer? My guess. They don't have insurance. They don't have $75 or a pot to piss in.

Drenis

dorokusai wrote: »

A television being stolen and your home being burned down are not equal issues. At least bring it more perspective, step up the game. Give me a break on the 75 vs 1100 issue, that's just crap.

Show me where I compared the two? Cause you're comparing apples to oranges Mark...

Now I'll reiterate what I said: "This scenario is similar to people who rent and do not take out tenants insurance..." - What I'm implying here is NOT for items stolen... apples to apples here. So if the house you rent burns to the ground you lose all of your contents regardless if the home or building owner has insurance for the property.

coolsax

Bell and her boyfriend said they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them.

They're idiots and did it to themselves, just pay the $75 a year in a more rural area.. The quote above from the article shows how dumb they are... Can't sympathize with them one bit on it...The "it won't happen to me" syndrome at work...

heiney9

I would bet a million $'s they also had no home owners/trailer insurance. No underwriter in their right mind would write a policy if the owners didn't pay for fire service. So I'm betting they are SOL. What a couple of idiots, unless they truly were so poor they couldn't pay. I doubt that's the case though.

H9

brettw22

The way this is being executed is the problem. If these people are so rural that they don't have houses stacked on top of each other, then it's not likely that there was a neighbors house that 'might' have caught fire so they shouldn't have ever went.

The verification of the fee payment needs to happen before they pull out and if that can't be managed, then the fee should be mandatory so these firefighters don't just drive around town from fire to fire watching houses burn.......it's a waste on every level if they end up standing and watching things burn but stay there just in case.....

I think the information should be tied to 911 so when the address comes up, the fee payment would be indicated and at that point they can save the resources and notify the callers that they are unable to help. Unfortunately, this would put a negative spotlight on the 911 operators when they are really only verifying whether a caller has paid this fee or not.....but this would resolve the issue of a fire truck pulling up and these guys just standing there like complete morons.......

inspiredsports

heiney9 wrote: »

I would bet a million $'s they also had no home owners/trailer insurance. No underwriter in their right mind would write a policy if the owners didn't pay for fire service. So I'm betting they are SOL. What a couple of idiots, unless they truly were so poor they couldn't pay. I doubt that's the case though.

H9

Oh I just can't help myself, but it always seems in these situations folks like "Bell and her boyfriend" have about $75 a week (each) to spend on smokes and booze.

shack

brettw22 wrote:

The way this is being executed is the problem. If these people are so rural that they don't have houses stacked on top of each other, then it's not likely that there was a neighbors house that 'might' have caught fire so they shouldn't have ever went.

The verification of the fee payment needs to happen before they pull out and if that can't be managed, then the fee should be mandatory so these firefighters don't just drive around town from fire to fire watching houses burn.......it's a waste on every level if they end up standing and watching things burn but stay there just in case.....

I think the information should be tied to 911 so when the address comes up, the fee payment would be indicated and at that point they can save the resources and notify the callers that they are unable to help. Unfortunately, this would put a negative spotlight on the 911 operators when they are really only verifying whether a caller has paid this fee or not.....but this would resolve the issue of a fire truck pulling up and these guys just standing there like complete morons.......

The thing with this is the firefighters WILL take action if there is a life or injury at stake...and they may not be able to determine that until they are on the scene.

I am squarely in the court of if you don't pay...you have no right to have your home saved. As others have said...if the policy is to collect after the fact IF your home happens to catch fire...everyone would take that chance...no one would pay...and ultimately there would be NO fire department. If you can't afford $75 a year for fire protection...you have no business owning a home. Go rent something. The homeowner had choices...the one they made (for WHATEVER reason) cost them their home. Life sucks sometimes...especially when YOUR actions make it worse.

BeefJerky

Well, i was going to post my thoughts, but steveinaz already summed them perfectly. I agree 100% with what he has said in this thread.

WilliamM2

heiney9 wrote: »

What a couple of idiots, unless they truly were so poor they couldn't pay. I doubt that's the case though.

H9

Did you see the picture on the news article? Look at the neighbors trailer, probably 40 years old, and worth less than $500. Sure looks like a poor neighborhood to me.

Drenis

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Did you see the picture on the news article? Look at the neighbors trailer, probably 40 years old, and worth less than $500. Sure looks like a poor neighborhood to me.

Don't be quick to judge! I know many people who drive rusted out beaters that are doing just fine... My last 4 cars have been less than $400.

You don't need an expensive home if you don't want one or require one. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

WilliamM2

Drenis wrote: »

Don't be quick to judge! I know many people who drive rusted out beaters that are doing just fine... My last 4 cars have been less than $400.

You don't need an expensive home if you don't want one or require one. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

I wasn't judging them, I was just pointing out that they are old trailers. Others seem to be judging them.

Do the folks you know that are doing just fine live in a neighborhood like that?

Drenis

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Do the folks you know that are doing just fine live in a neighborhood like that?

I don't think that's even relevant. If so, what does that matter anyways? You don't know anything about "that" group of people. They could still have money... who knows there reasoning.

mrbiron

I will show no sympathy for people who don't pay their bills whether it be "optional" or mandatory. This one is a no brainer to me. There are far to many people depending on the system to just "work for them".