Family did not pay $75 annual fee, firefighters watch house burn
- Thread starter Bill Mattocks
- Start date
CoryKS
Senior Master
In general, I agree that if there's a fee for the service and you choose not to pay then the blame rests completely on you. But to come out and put the fire out on the neighbor's house and absolutely refuse to touch the house next door? That's some cold **** right there.
Ray
Master Black Belt
According to what I read: The policy is: if you live outside the city limits, then the city's fire service is available to you if you pay the $75 annual fee. The policy has been in place approx 20 years.
If the city has a policy and they don't enforce it then they don't have a policy. If the city has no ability to levy taxes on people outside the city limits then why should the city taxpayers be expected to subsidize the people who live outside the city?
So, I don't have an opinion, just more questions. It would seem that a more fruitful expenditure of energy by the media would be: 1) people who don't live in the city don't get the service unless they pay for it...2) How can we get the county and/or city gov't to levy the tax and pay the city for the service so that 3) those who live outside the city don't have this issue? Instead it is painted as the "big mean city" not helping the "little guy" who lives outside the city. Where was the media before the house burned down?
If the city has a policy and they don't enforce it then they don't have a policy. If the city has no ability to levy taxes on people outside the city limits then why should the city taxpayers be expected to subsidize the people who live outside the city?
So, I don't have an opinion, just more questions. It would seem that a more fruitful expenditure of energy by the media would be: 1) people who don't live in the city don't get the service unless they pay for it...2) How can we get the county and/or city gov't to levy the tax and pay the city for the service so that 3) those who live outside the city don't have this issue? Instead it is painted as the "big mean city" not helping the "little guy" who lives outside the city. Where was the media before the house burned down?
This is similar to a thread that I posted a month ago, in which EMS services were charging. You'd think the regular taxes that you pay would cover this 'fee' but apparently not.
Perfectly justifiable. Why should the firefighters risk their lives for a house that isn't in the system?
sean
sean
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,399
- Reaction score
- 74
Out of a sense of humanity? compassion? decency?
It's not really a matter of risking their lives, not in this example. It's a matter of refusing to turn on the water hose from a safe distance because a fee was not paid (in time?).
Daddy what did you do today?
Ah well son, I stood by and watched a man's house burn down to leave him with nothing.
Why didn't you do anything daddy?
He hadn't paid his fee son.
I'm so proud of you daddy!
fireman00
Brown Belt
Pay for protection fire departments are not uncommon, especially in the south. We had a company come in and try to buy out our dept so they would have a centrally located station from where they were going to start up a similar pay for protection dept.
usually, if one of these depts. show up and you haven't paid in they'll fight the fire but bill you at about 125 bucks an hour per piece of apparatus and 12 bucks an hour per firefighter.
Side note, as a volunteer firefighter for 18 years... putting a fire out is not as simple as dousing a structure with water. Doing that can actually put the fire through the structure and cause more damage. Venting techniques and proper attack tactics have to be followed to ensure the safety of the fire dept and save the structure.
usually, if one of these depts. show up and you haven't paid in they'll fight the fire but bill you at about 125 bucks an hour per piece of apparatus and 12 bucks an hour per firefighter.
Side note, as a volunteer firefighter for 18 years... putting a fire out is not as simple as dousing a structure with water. Doing that can actually put the fire through the structure and cause more damage. Venting techniques and proper attack tactics have to be followed to ensure the safety of the fire dept and save the structure.
I'm thinking the same thing.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
I read about this earlier, and saw Keith Oberman's interview with Mr. Cranick. From what I understand, he lives in the unincorporated part of the county, so does not pay city taxes towards a fire department. Thus, the only nearby fire service the unicorporated region does receive is the city fire response, which is paid for by the anual fee.
I agree with others in that, in most cases, if you dont pay the service fee, you shouldn't expect the service. If you dont pay your electric bill, don't complain when the power goes out, etc. But in this case, not only had the fire service already responded, but the man was offering to pay the fee. They still refused, claiming "well if we accept such on-the-scene payment, nobody would pay the fee."
The problem with this is that other emergency services that require a fee also operate on a service-first, payment-later scheme just fine. I, myself, was transported to the hospital once by the city's emergency services, and later had to pay a fee for the ambulatory response. In Mr. Cranick's case, the fire department was perfectly capable of putting out the fire and then sending him a bill. Their refusal to do so indicates that, as crushing said, there's more to the story.
I agree with others in that, in most cases, if you dont pay the service fee, you shouldn't expect the service. If you dont pay your electric bill, don't complain when the power goes out, etc. But in this case, not only had the fire service already responded, but the man was offering to pay the fee. They still refused, claiming "well if we accept such on-the-scene payment, nobody would pay the fee."
The problem with this is that other emergency services that require a fee also operate on a service-first, payment-later scheme just fine. I, myself, was transported to the hospital once by the city's emergency services, and later had to pay a fee for the ambulatory response. In Mr. Cranick's case, the fire department was perfectly capable of putting out the fire and then sending him a bill. Their refusal to do so indicates that, as crushing said, there's more to the story.
Phantom beat me to it. Was just going to mention the unincorporated county matter -- most of my North Carolina cousins are farmers that are/were vol. firefighters in unincorporated sections of their county.
That being said, this story highlights a few examples of how what is going on in that county is broken.
The fact that one person lost his home while the firefighters stood around and watched is disgusting. The fact that someone else's home caught fire because the firefighters stood around and watched is even worse.
That being said, this story highlights a few examples of how what is going on in that county is broken.
The fact that one person lost his home while the firefighters stood around and watched is disgusting. The fact that someone else's home caught fire because the firefighters stood around and watched is even worse.
Blade96
Senior Master
Word carol. disgusting. Also, try having no fire fighter at all. My town doesn't even have a fire station. Stupid mayor spent most of his time trying to grow the town without adding anything to it. Thats why he nearly lost that municipal election - to a rookie. :angel:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/10/06/nl-judicial-recount-106.html
I nearly lol'd at that.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/10/06/nl-judicial-recount-106.html
I nearly lol'd at that.
This very thing happened outside of Spokane about 10 years ago or so. The people thought it was tragic, but home owners outside of Spokane Know to pay their taxes now.
Sean
Sean
How about common decency? How about a firefighter's duty to protect home life and property of their neighbors? Even if they live 10 feet from the city/county/state line ... they're STILL neighbors aren't they?
They still could've done their job and then bill the family for services rendered and I think they'd been WELCOMED services. A fire destroys not only the house but everything inside the house as well... including many things (for that family anyway) that are irreplaceable.
I understand that taxes/fees are used to pay for the equipment and for the work put in by those who literally risk their lives to put out the fires that are endangering the homes and lives of people, and the money has to come from somewhere... what if the house that was on the inside of the line hadn't paid their taxes (yet). Would the firefighters quickly look up the address to check the database to see if the house is currently paid up and if they're not sit back and watch THAT house burn down? Or just take for granted that the surrounding neighbors had their taxes paid and will use that money to save the house of the ones that haven't.
Is it all about MONEY??
Interestingly enough, I have an alarm system on my condo. The local PD has an alarm registration form. The intial fee is $25 with yearly fees of $10. On this form, it contains info. on the alarm, the company, keyholders, etc. Will the cops still respond to my house, if the alarm went off, and I did not pay? No idea, but I'd hope so. 
As for this....as I said, I too, think theres more to the story. Suck as it may, to have to pay, but if it means having your house protected, the $75 is a small price to pay, IMO.
As for this....as I said, I too, think theres more to the story. Suck as it may, to have to pay, but if it means having your house protected, the $75 is a small price to pay, IMO.
Interestingly enough, I have an alarm system on my condo. The local PD has an alarm registration form. The intial fee is $25 with yearly fees of $10. On this form, it contains info. on the alarm, the company, keyholders, etc. Will the cops still respond to my house, if the alarm went off, and I did not pay? No idea, but I'd hope so.
As for this....as I said, I too, think theres more to the story. Suck as it may, to have to pay, but if it means having your house protected, the $75 is a small price to pay, IMO.
No kidding, esp. for a homeowner that doesn't have to pay municipal taxes.
If it were me, I'd pay up 2-3 years in advance just to be really sure I'm covered. *nods*
Not arguing here, but trying to be thought provoking.
Where is the decency of the people who refuse to pay the fee, and yet still expect to receive services? Why should others have to pay the fee for the protection of his house, as well as their own?
Where is it said that these firefirghters have a duty to protect the home (life was not an issue here) of their neighbor? Those that don't pay have abrogated their duty to their neighbors by not helping to maintain and pay for the services that they expect to utilize.
And if that family decided not to pay?
Couldn't it also be about fairness?
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Just remember guys, this is why we HAVE to have government. If we didn't things like this would happen.
Oh, Wait. We have government, AND it's happening. Nevermind.
Oh, Wait. We have government, AND it's happening. Nevermind.
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,399
- Reaction score
- 74
Regardless of whether they paid or not... if I had to feel ashamed when telling my kids about what I did at work that day, it would be a clear indication that whatever I did was not the right thing.
For this reason I would also be a crappy defense lawyer. If I noticed a technicality that would get a child molester off free, I sure as hell would keep my mouth shut.The alternative would be to explain to my daughter why that child molester is now walking free again.
For this reason I would also be a crappy defense lawyer. If I noticed a technicality that would get a child molester off free, I sure as hell would keep my mouth shut.The alternative would be to explain to my daughter why that child molester is now walking free again.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. And that includes government services.
