- Sep 9, 2005
- 1,338
- 72
LULOriginally Posted by bittersweet
Originally Posted by thytkerjobs
the dogs
and the cat i suppose
We must be soft because that's the part that bothered me the most.
Not their fault.
but damn thats janky
No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn.
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by south sole,
- Start date
but damn thats janky
- Jan 3, 2008
- 12,094
- 12
It wasn't something he was "late" on. The article suggested he NEVER pays it. Furthering my initial point.
- Aug 9, 2002
- 463
- 10
^ Yes, from what it sounds like, this wasn't a "late" bill. It was neglecting to pay for a service that they probably found unnecessary until that day.
EDIT: Perhaps the town could offer something like charging you a large sum if they're forced to come save your house if you neglect paying the $75. Maybe charge them like $10,000 if they're forced to come to your house and you're not in their fee system. Then you can make the choice of paying the $10,000 or losing your house. I'm sure there are a million reasons that wouldn't work either, but there has to be something to prevent people from watching their house burn down. I get that they neglected payment, but that still sucks.
EDIT: Perhaps the town could offer something like charging you a large sum if they're forced to come save your house if you neglect paying the $75. Maybe charge them like $10,000 if they're forced to come to your house and you're not in their fee system. Then you can make the choice of paying the $10,000 or losing your house. I'm sure there are a million reasons that wouldn't work either, but there has to be something to prevent people from watching their house burn down. I get that they neglected payment, but that still sucks.
- Jan 22, 2003
- 206
- 10
- Oct 17, 2002
- 445
- 10
- Dec 28, 2004
- 18,903
- 1,184
that sucks, i see and agree with both sides... "middle road man" lives.
- Mar 6, 2004
- 8,818
- 4,296
sounds like the only realistic solution.
we dont want someone to die before action is taken
- Jun 17, 2001
- 498
- 13
Life ain't fair. If you choose not to pay the fee, you don't get the services.
Plus it's the stupid grandson that burnt the house down.
Plus it's the stupid grandson that burnt the house down.
- Nov 27, 2009
- 28,226
- 3,086
Thats crazy. Now out of a home & all belongings now. Wow. But like ya said, its life.
- Jan 22, 2003
- 206
- 10
- Mar 8, 2001
- 7,004
- 522
Not at all. But there's a difference between being late and choosing not to pay it.
If I choose not to pay my phone bill, I shouldn't be shocked when I can't call someone. And I'm late all the time on my AT&T
Not saying it's right, but that's life
It's %#+%+$ up that this family had to lose their possessions and house this way.
it's not like the geico analogy though. it's more like the police wont help a rape because she didn't pay the city tax
How isn't it? The opt-in essentially works as a type of insurance in this instance for the surrounding areas. A preventative measure.
You're really comparing a violent crime like a rape with an accident caused by someone burning their trash in the backyard?
- Nov 21, 2006
- 5,258
- 454
I work for emergency services and this happens alot in rural communties, we have a couple of parts of our county that are out in the boonies and they only have volunteer firefighters, and if those volunteers decide not to respond to their pagers(which happens alot) then the people who call are screwed, the city fire dept. is very far away, the crazy thing is they were going to build a closer fire dept for the rural area, but the residents didn't wanna pay the "taxes".
if they allowed people to pay just whenever they needed a fire dept. How would the fire dept survive? most of the firefighters would quit because they weren't paid because nobody paid there fee, then you wouldn't have to worry about the fire dept not showing up because their wouldn't be one
if they allowed people to pay just whenever they needed a fire dept. How would the fire dept survive? most of the firefighters would quit because they weren't paid because nobody paid there fee, then you wouldn't have to worry about the fire dept not showing up because their wouldn't be one
- Nov 21, 2006
- 5,258
- 454
I work for emergency services and this happens alot in rural communties, we have a couple of parts of our county that are out in the boonies and they only have volunteer firefighters, and if those volunteers decide not to respond to their pagers(which happens alot) then the people who call are screwed, the city fire dept. is very far away, the crazy thing is they were going to build a closer fire dept for the rural area, but the residents didn't wanna pay the "taxes".
if they allowed people to pay just whenever they needed a fire dept. How would the fire dept survive? most of the firefighters would quit because they weren't paid because nobody paid there fee, then you wouldn't have to worry about the fire dept not showing up because their wouldn't be one
if they allowed people to pay just whenever they needed a fire dept. How would the fire dept survive? most of the firefighters would quit because they weren't paid because nobody paid there fee, then you wouldn't have to worry about the fire dept not showing up because their wouldn't be one
- Jan 3, 2008
- 12,094
- 12
- Optional fire protection service is some backward, backwoods / hillbilly nonsense. Fire protection should be mandatory, regardless of how the community or individual finances that realization. Include the damn $75 in the property taxes or something, but to just stand there and watch a house burn to the ground is downright silly / evil.
- What if a body or two dropped in the fire (trapped)...changes the whole complexity of the situation.
What if where he lives, there isn't enough support for a Fire Station, as was the situation here? There are more than one set of circumstances that allocate funds and services to citizens. This is a reminder to get involved in your communities and act towards changing things. If there was enough of a support system to sustain a fire department, this might not have happened. When you choose to live where resources are scarce this is the result. There is nothing "backwards" about it. I'm sure there are other places of similar sizes with fire departments. It just so happened where he lives, there isn't enough to support one. Not my problem, especially if its not my district.
I don't think so... The article didn't mention it but I'm sure if they were out front jumping and screaming that a "body was inside" i'm 110% sure they would have rushed in. They're NOT going to kill anyone over this. The might let a few pets go down though. Remember, human safety is number one. They're not going to sacrifice human life over that payment. They will easily neglect to save your property though as it poses no direct threat to the life of another human being. Its ethical homie.
- Jun 23, 2002
- 506
- 16
Strong possibility that the responding Fire Dept. was a volunteer department since it was in a small town.
Volunteer departments are always hurting for funds for everything.
But i agree with whoever said, this should not have even been an option. Should be included in his taxes.
Who on earth wouldnt want fire/rescue services?
Volunteer departments are always hurting for funds for everything.
But i agree with whoever said, this should not have even been an option. Should be included in his taxes.
Who on earth wouldnt want fire/rescue services?
- Aug 1, 2005
- 2,699
- 10
- Optional fire protection service is some backward, backwoods / hillbilly nonsense. Fire protection should be mandatory, regardless of how the community or individual finances that realization. Include the damn $75 in the property taxes or something, but to just stand there and watch a house burn to the ground is downright silly / evil.
- What if a body or two dropped in the fire (trapped)...changes the whole complexity of the situation.
Wouldn't change anything. would just make the story sound even worse than it really is.
Y'all talking about "They let his home burn over $75? !!%$%!" in reality,
He felt it was unnecessary to insure himself in the case something like this happens and destroys thousands of dollars of his property because it doesn't happen often.
He took a gamble and lost. The dealers don't hand you back your chips just because you chose to go all in.
- Aug 25, 2005
- 5,974
- 352
- Optional fire protection service is some backward, backwoods / hillbilly nonsense. Fire protection should be mandatory, regardless of how the community or individual finances that realization. Include the damn $75 in the property taxes or something, but to just stand there and watch a house burn to the ground is downright silly / evil.
- What if a body or two dropped in the fire (trapped)...changes the whole complexity of the situation.
100% disagree. Its not some backwoods hillbilly nonsense. It is a necessity for areas with limited budget/resources to go around. If mandatory fire protection was so important to everyone in that rural community, then they should have acted accordingly. They should have figured out a way to bring in service from a neighboring community that does have such resources (ex. $75 opt in fee paid to neighboring fire dept), voted for the inclusion of a new local tax to defer the cost of operating their own volunteer fire dept, or any number of other suggestions that other people have posted.
In my opinion, suggestions like the following dont work
" Perhaps the town could offer something like charging you a large sum if they're forced to come save your house if you neglect paying the $75. Maybe charge them like $10,000 if they're forced to come to your house and you're not in their fee system. Then you can make the choice of paying the $10,000 or losing your house"
Where are they going to get the $10K from? These are rural simple folks, they dont have $10K laying around the house. Furthermore, how would the city providing service be able to secure repayment? People saying that they should just "take their house if they dont pay" really have no idea of how the real world operates. You cant just go and take someones house cause they owe you money. Hell, its difficult to take someones house even if they signed a contract (mortgage) that says you can in the event of default (thanks Obama!).
Firefighters acted accordingly. As a dog lover, it sucks that these dogs died, but the blood is on the homeowners hands, not the fire dept.
- Jul 25, 2009
- 583
- 10
Bad choice of words on my part, especially since I essentially agree with your general point.
The concept of an additional "urgency" fee is intriguing to me, but can we really blame them for not being creative enough to come up with that idea prior to this event? Looking at this situation in isolation, I can't say the firefighters did wrong.
- Apr 4, 2006
- 15,862
- 3,490
Originally Posted by Fantastic4our
Not at all. But there's a difference between being late and choosing not to pay it.
If I choose not to pay my phone bill, I shouldn't be shocked when I can't call someone. And I'm late all the time on my AT&T
Not saying it's right, but that's life. The policy is kinda effed up but according to the article it's been in place for 20 years. That's an issue between them and the policy makers not the firefighters that are just doing their jobs.
It's %#+%+$ up that this family had to lose their possessions and house this way.
How isn't it? The opt-in essentially works as a type of insurance in this instance for the surrounding areas. A preventative measure.
You're really comparing a violent crime like a rape with an accident caused by someone burning their trash in the backyard?
my example was a little extreme. but coming outside to find your car has been hit is different from watching your house burn down and being ignored because you didnt pay the fee
- Aug 25, 2005
- 5,974
- 352
its not different. its exactly the same.
in our society, most people pay for some for of preventative measures (be it insurance or fire prevention from the neighboring fire dept) to either prevent the loss/damage of personal property, or to cover the costs of this loss/damage. if you choose not to secure these preventative measures for yourself (whether its through an insurance policy or $75 opt-in coverage), then you alone are solely responsible for the consequences of your actions.
- Feb 20, 2007
- 408
- 12
What happened to just looking out for your fellow man? Regardless of the history, when certain dangerous situations develop, humans are basically programmed to preserve life. You have to be a very spiteful and sadistic person to let what happened, happen.
Around those parts, people are overwhelmingly christian; what happened to just being a good christian?
Around those parts, people are overwhelmingly christian; what happened to just being a good christian?
- Nov 8, 2005
- 638
- 10
Originally Posted by thytkerjobs
idk if its been said cus I'm not reading through (sue me) but they should have an option where the person pays triple price or what have you, if it's on the spot. Like they can choose to pay 75 to be safe but if something happens they can pay 225 or whatever fee the firefighters see fit.
im stillthat 3 puppies had to die.
Someone mentioned something but yeah its a good idea but it would have to be a Lot bigger number, like $2,500 because if you came to me saying you can pay $75 and have coverage in case of a fire or wait and then pay $250 if you have a fire I am taking that chance all day.
Rules are Rules but their logic is definitley flawed
- Aug 1, 2005
- 2,699
- 10
No one got hurt.
Dude should've been a good christian and paid his $75 as a thanks to the firefighters for willingly extending their hands out to his area.
- Apr 13, 2007
- 5,288
- 467
Funny how you believe a "good christian" would side with the institution of currency as a means of good faith, instead of good faith itself. Ironic, really.
- Aug 1, 2005
- 2,699
- 10
Looks like good faith took this guys house with it.
If this happened to me and I didn't pay it, I wouldn't even be mad at them. I'd kill my grandson though.
