Firefighters do nothing and let house burn down because family hadn't paid a fee

[Andara Bledin]

Short version: if it was your own house...

I feel for the loss of their stuff, but if it was my house, I would have paid the damn fee.

If I had had 4 fires in the last decade, and the neighboring city that was kind enough to offer services out of their jurisdiction sent me a renewal letter, I'd have paid it. They wouldn't have had to go to the trouble of sending three more follow up letters and then calling me an additional three times to let me know it was still unpaid.

Ah, pshaw, Boozy. Apparently, people in rural areas don't deserve the same public services as those city folk do.

And here comes the "prejudice card."

Well done squeezing that in there.

....

I'm really quite disappointed in most of the responses here. There is such a rush to call to arms against the fire department that "stood around and watched" that there's precious little healthy skepticism in evidence.

The vast majority of all articles regarding this incident are woefully incomplete, often holding only enough detail to support whatever veiwpoint they are trying to encourage.

From what I can piece together, the homeowner had normally paid. They had missed once several years ago and been allowed to pay late when the fire department was called to respond to a chimney fire. I would suspect that this previous incident would have fallen within the grace period that includes the reminder letters and calls that go out to those who are shown as not yet paid or waived, but I did not look that far into it.

The fire raged for at least half an hour prior to the homeowner calling 911, which would have been ample time for those not involved in fighting the fire (which had only just started to spread to the house) to have removed both pets and valuables. It is unknown how long the fire was battled at the house before the grass fire started to infringe upon the neighbor's property, at which point 911 was called again and the fire department actually dispatched.

They didn't roll until after the neighbor called. They weren't on hand at all. And once the neighbor's property was deemed secure, they departed. At no time did they "stand around" as so many sensationalist headlines are wont to claim.

^-.-^

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Admin, you're missing high right, remember to correct for exaggeration and bias. Otherwise it's the straw-man you get, and I don't think he appreciates people shooting him down.

Where did I say that rural people are inferior to urban people? did I not use general terms to describe a generally different situation? The fact of the matter is that there's a different set of general characteristics for different areas, which creates a different situation. There will always be extenuating circumstances and I never said that the firefighters shouldn't take these into account but NONE of those applied here so you have NO basis to assume anything about situation where they did (except grass catching fire, which did happen. But everyone seems to forget that they fucking handled that)

It's certainly admirable that your group of volunteers put the immediate and long term well being of those they worked for before their health and safety, but this does not necessitate anyone else to do the same. I certainly appreciate people with that sort of cavalier attitude but that doesn't make the rest of us assholes. It's quite simply not my place, nor that of anyone else, to demand that others risk their lives especially when they don't have to.

Maybe they didn't do their job in the way you think they should have, but they fought the fire on behalf of the people they worked for. Had the homeowner payed the fee he would have been included in that but he didn't, so helping him was not in any way the department's concern.

[Vash113]

Wow, this thread seems to be like the Highlander, it just won't die. Ok, it's time to get critical here.

The average home contains many, many materials that release toxic fumes into the atmosphere when burned. Allowing a fire to continue reduces air quality -- even in rural areas.

As far as putting the firefighters lives at risk, all I can say is that they chose to become firefighters; this is their job. I'm grateful to those that choose to pursue risky careers in service to others, but I'm not going to let them pick and choose who and what is "worth it" or not.

Oh so your comfortable sitting on the sidelines and asking people to risk their lives so you don't have a little smog hanging in the air for a day? I'm glad your not the one making those decisions (two can play at that game!).

Yes there are plenty of toxic materials in a house. However they are, in what are all things considered, minute quantities. The Bald Eagle isn't going to go extinct because some drain cleaner burned into the atmopshere. Especially in a rural area the effect is unlikely to be anything but neglibable unless the guy was running a cocaine cutting plant in his kitchen or something.

As far as the danger goes, I'll let the firefighters decide that. Many are quick to spout outrcy about the danger but where you there? Was there any danger? The reports would indicate there was none. After all when the fire spread it was contained. That's the point: it was contained.

Sure, a glorified mobile home burned down, but there is no indication that this was somehow a forrest fire threat, that is just wild imaginings.

Oh and for those who have gone "BUT what if it was YOUR house!?!?!" my response is simple: the Cranicks didn't pay the fee, they started the fire, ergo its their fault. If I was in a similar situation I'd square my shoulders, shrug and get on with buissiness. Life moves on, it was a mistake and it cost them, big deal. They still have their lives and are to all reports doing just fine. They aren't wailing in the gutter starving. In fact this blasted sob story might actually prove to be beneficial in the long run for them. What with people lavishing support on them for what is really their own cock-up.

Ah, pshaw, Boozy. Apparently, people in rural areas don't deserve the same public services as those city folk do. Just let the house burn! They shouldn't'a lived in the sticks. Lord knows that in rural areas people don't live next to barns and sheds with things like fertilizer, pesticide, seed, gasoline, propane, farm implements, and other such goodies stored inside. And, I mean, grass never catches fire, particularly in fall when there's less rain and it's a bit dry. And who cares about air quality? Psshhhh. Country folk don't deserve that either.

Ok where did you get that cockameme idea from? The same place as music and lighting in movies I suppose. Nobody said that and its just stupid to make the claim we did. Dem rurle folk deserve jus as much protecion as e'rey one else yaahear!

Now I've said that lets cut with the wanky phonetic hick speak. It isn't a matter of public services, it isn't a matter of air quality, it isn't a matter of anything except responsibility that was dropped. These people had access to the same public services that everyone else does, they just chose (or allegedly forgot...) not to pay for it and as a consequence lost those services. The benefit of having those services paid for by taxes is you can't really forget or choose not to pay.

If you don't pay for something, you don't get it, that's why I pay my taxes... duh!

The entire issue is responsibility, nothing else. You can throw morals in if you want but a logical argument that does not make. As for danger of the fire spreading, toxic fumes, air-quality and so on and so forth those are entirely pointless without data to back them. Without it, I'll trust in the professionals opinion here, you know the uhm... firefighters. If they didn't see a direct threat, or think the fumes would be a danger than I have no reason to doubt it. Otherwise they would have done more to contain the fire and county health would have been called in, not to mention an evacuation order for the area.

As I mentioned before, I grew up with a volunteer fire department. Those guys weren't getting paid anything, and they would NEVER sit on the sidelines and let a house burn because, "Oh, we might get hurt." If there was a genuine danger to their safety, such as a house with a known meth lab burning, then they'd put on their masks and make sure the fire didn't spread. Otherwise, they put out the fire. And stayed until they were sure it was out and that any hot spots were taken care of. If volunteers can do that, then surely the paid firefighters can do the same. If not, then they should consider changing careers.

Perhaps you should be less judgemental and care more about peoples lives than stuff. Or do you prefere wallpaper to humans? This guilt-trip argument of "the firefighters I know would NEVER do that!" is irrelevant in the extreme and a waste of time. Do you really know how "your" firefighters would act in the same situation? NO, you don't. In fact I'd say they would probably do their jobs and follow their orders. As any professional firefighter should know, if you don't follow your orders you are in fact putting your own and potentially others lives at risk. You can harrang them about it afterwards but it doesn't change the fact that if they are doing their job they won't act like martyrs and go charging off to rescue somebodies DVD collection.

Besides since so many people want to go that route I'll do you one better, my grandfather was a volunteer firefighter for thirty plus years. Our family is still close to the local firedepartment in his home town and our own fire department. My grandad may not have always liked his orders but he followed them, that was after all his job. There are always considerations that the men on the ground do not know, sure this case may have been largely influenced by money but that does not in any way invalidate the order. If someone had been hurt saving an unpaid persons house the department's medical insurance may not have covered it, if someone died the department's life insurance may not have been rewarded to that persons family. There are a lot of aspects to consider that compound the situation. If you aren't supposed to be doing something, like expending resources and risking lives to save the property of someone that is not the department's responsibility than you don't do it.

To wrap this up I'll just say this; maybe some of you should think twice before condemning anyones actions secondhand with partial knowledge against the firsthand actions and decisions of professionals in that field. Just sayin...

[linguist]

To wrap this up I'll just say this; maybe some of you should think twice before condemning anyones actions secondhand with partial knowledge against the firsthand actions and decisions of professionals in that field. Just sayin...

if they did nothing because they truly believed the danger was too great, then fine. i'll accept their judgement. however, in this case they sat on their asses and refused service because someone hadn't paid their protection money, which is extortion plain and simple.

[AdminAssistant]

I've been saying all along that this isn't about property, it's about removing the threat to public safety.

[blas87]

I've been staying out of this mostly because I don't understand, please don't hit me, but so......these people didn't pay their taxes, so when their house caught on fire, the fire department did nothing to put it out?

Am I right? I'm just so confused here. I have never heard of firefighters ignoring a fire, unless it was like a meth lab that blew up and they needed to stay away or use extreme caution and enter slowly.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

If that's extortion than all important service providers commit extortion. If you can't pay for the bus, you can't ride the bus.

These firefighters aren't threatening people if they don't pay, or refusing to save anyone's lives if they don't pay, they are simply providing an unnecessary but beneficial service outside their obligation to save lives, in return for funding. This is, at the very worst, business.

This family was in no imminent danger, nor were the neighbors. Unless the situation got worse, no one would be hurt. There are plenty of ways the situation could have gotten worse, and one came to pass. But the firefighters did NOT sit on their asses, they took care of it as soon as it was actually their job to do so.

When it comes to public safety, there's a much thicker line than some people here seem to imply. Not every emergent situation poses a threat to public safety, and not every threat to public safety necessitates the same response. In this instance, the burning house did not pose any risk to anyone at any point once the firefighters were present. It may have eventually posed such a threat, but it didn't. Whilst things like air quality may pose a slight long term risk, it's really a very low priority for emergency services. And while it's possible that there were some sort of detonation or spread, this only requires a readiness to handle the new situation. Heading it off is nice, but it by no means takes the cake in the same way as someone burning alive does. I don't see any imminent threat to public safety here, only a potential future threat. Which means that, at the time the house was burning, the only thing that would be saved by going in was, possibly, some material possessions.

I'll summarize this for you blas:
County has no fire service, but neighboring city FD offers to extend coverage to individuals in County for $75 a year.
Person's house catches fire and cannot put it out. Since Person didn't pay the fee, Person does not receive fire protection.
Person and family abandon their house.
Neighbor calls saying that the fire is really getting out of control and looks like it will spread. Neighbor had payed, so the FD rolls vehicles to his property.
FD refuses to extinguish fire on Person's property as he did not pay his fee, firefighters are ordered not to help against their wishes.
Fire eventually spreads to a field belonging to Neighbor, at this point the FD begins work to contain the fire from spreading any further and succeed.

[Andara Bledin]

I've been staying out of this mostly because I don't understand, please don't hit me, but so......these people didn't pay their taxes, so when their house caught on fire, the fire department did nothing to put it out?

The situation is this: Those that live in unincorporated areas of that county have no fire fighting service. In this instance, the local city that does have a firefighting service (paid for by taxes of the city's residents) offered those living outside their jurisdiction the services of their fire department at a cost of $75 per year. This has been the situation for the last 20 years.

The Cranick's have paid for most of those years without problem. They did have an incident where they had a fire (one of four in the last ten years for this household) and had not yet paid for the service, but were allowed to pay that day and receive service. I assume that they were still within the grace period when reminders are still being mailed and called in.

This year, the Cranick's did not pay the fee. They were sent a renewal notice in June. They were also sent three more reminders by mail and an additional three more reminders by phone.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Where public safety is a concern, the government needs to provide the service to all citizens equally.

I like the UK system of distance between payment and provider. The local councils are responsible for funding the local services such as police and fire services.

The fire folks don't know if someone's not paid. The council has the duty to get the money out of the householders. The vast majority of people pay, and there are legal consequences for not paying, so things generally work out.

Rapscallion

[ben_who]

Okay, Winsgate_Hellsing, you've made your point. Good LORD, have you ever made your point. You've been beating us over the head with it mercilessly for pages. You're absolutely right. If they wanted fire protection, they should have paid the fee. You are factually correct.

I think that sort of begs the question of whether you're MORALLY correct.

Please, please, please, tell me that there's a compassionate bone somewhere in your body for someone who lost their home because of a mistake. I beg you, please tell me that that you know the difference between a "consequence" and a "punishment" and that you're not one of those people who thinks people who get shivved in prison for parking tickets "deserved it." Because if you're representative of modern bootstrappy dontchaknow conservatism, if you pray at the altar of personal responsibility to this evangelical a level, if parroting the talking points, first as a defense and then as a bludgeon, is really what you feel, then your side of the argument scares the hell out of me.

People fuck up. My grandfather fell off a roof and broke his back. If my grandmother had had your "Well, if you didn't want to break your back you shouldn't have climbed on the roof" attitude, I wouldn't be here today. The streets of my city are littered with the human debris of those who can't function in modern society and have taken to living in boxes or tents in the woods because a job and a home is beyond their ken. Basic human compassion and respect for the dignity of the species begs us not to turn a blind eye, even though they're solely responsible for their situations.

When there's a crisis, and you can solve it, you get to work. You don't stand around debating whether or not that crisis is worthy of your attention. If a city falls because you stood there like an oaf and decided that it wasn't worth your time, you might as well have swung the hatchet.

Comparing him to an SC seems to be a bit beyond the pale, actually. This wasn't a guy throwing a wobbly because the Subway sandwich shop didn't have enough banana peppers; this was a guy who was losing his home and everything he owned because he made a mistake.

The system that the town had set up was a bad, bad system, and watching its elected officials cowering behind the rules as if they're a kind of magic shield is a little appalling. "Yes, we're cold, heartless, cruel, robotic bureaucrats, but thems the rules! He shoulda followed the rules! We got rules! See our rules, right here? Read the rules and you'll certainly agree that we had no choice at all!"

No choice at all. How about saving his house, and then fining him for non-payment? The DOT doesn't come over and smash my car with a sledgehammer when I fail to make my registration payments; they tack a fine onto it and let me keep driving. How about not having this stupid system at all, and instead having all homeowners pay into the system instead of deciding arbitrarily that certain emergency services are "optional"? There were choices. They weren't good choices, but they were choices. And any one of them would have avoided the whole controversy and all the negative attention this dump of a town, where "penny wise and pound foolish" isn't so much a cliche as it is the motto, has received in the meantime.

But nope. They have their rules. Know what you get if you don't follow them rules? Anarchy! Yes, that's right! Madness! There is no room for compassion when we have rules!

Love, Who?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Okay, Winsgate_Hellsing, you've made your point. Good LORD, have you ever made your point. You've been beating us over the head with it mercilessly for pages. You're absolutely right. If they wanted fire protection, they should have paid the fee. You are factually correct.
I think that sort of begs the question of whether you're MORALLY correct.

And just when I thought that this thread had curled up and died of repetition. But here we go ever onwards, if the word 'onwards' can even apply to something of this nature.

Anywhoo, I've thus far not spoken very specifically of the morality alone, as that's not what most people are debating with me about, but underneath it all and it may or not be apparent is this: It really sucks that this guy's house burned down, and I empathize with that. But this family is far from ruined, stricken by misfortune, maybe, but not ruined. And even if the fire department had moved in, risking the lives of those who did, to put out a house that was essentially entirely on fire, everything would have pretty much been ruined anyway and the net result would be practically speaking, identical.

While it is certainly noble for people to throw such cautions/the rules to the wind and do what they think is right anyway this in no way makes the people who don't cold heartless evil bastards in the was as so many people seem to insinuate yourself included. As it stands the people involved in this whole thing were not particularly malicious OR valiant, just, well, regular I suppose.

Please, please, please, tell me that there's a compassionate bone somewhere in your body for someone who lost their home because of a mistake. I beg you, please tell me that that you know the difference between a "consequence" and a "punishment" and that you're not one of those people who thinks people who get shivved in prison for parking tickets "deserved it." Because if you're representative of modern bootstrappy dontchaknow conservatism, if you pray at the altar of personal responsibility to this evangelical a level, if parroting the talking points, first as a defense and then as a bludgeon, is really what you feel, then your side of the argument scares the hell out of me.

I feel sorry for these people's problem, albeit substantially less as they caused the whole fucking thing to happen from the get-go. It would have been nice if there were a system in place to save them from the ineptitude that caused this but that in no way takes the blame for this off their shoulders. I don't think I've ever stated that what happened was a fitting punishment for their idiocy, I really have no idea where you got that from. I'm far from a conservative when it comes to my overall views and the same can be said of liberalism and libertarianism. I think there's substantial reasons behind all three and others besides and where exactly I come down on an issue has much more to do with the issue itself than my stance on other things. I'd love to provide wholly new arguments but I can only come up with so many ways to answer the same question. Besides, I kinda see it as my duty when holding a minority opinion to those who surround me to stick it out. If there's one thing I can't stand it's people who shut themselves up because too many people disagree with them.

People fuck up. My grandfather fell off a roof and broke his back. If my grandmother had had your "Well, if you didn't want to break your back you shouldn't have climbed on the roof" attitude, I wouldn't be here today. The streets of my city are littered with the human debris of those who can't function in modern society and have taken to living in boxes or tents in the woods because a job and a home is beyond their ken. Basic human compassion and respect for the dignity of the species begs us not to turn a blind eye, even though they're solely responsible for their situations.

But I take it that your grandfather didn't blame the shingle company for his accident, nor lamb-baste the local regulatory agency for not ensuring that the shingles provided better traction. If the family in question truly needed help to survive I'd be behind that up to a point (I'm not fucking giving them a whole new even bigger house, but getting them to where they can get by is good) but they're getting by just fine on their own steam.

When there's a crisis, and you can solve it, you get to work. You don't stand around debating whether or not that crisis is worthy of your attention. If a city falls because you stood there like an oaf and decided that it wasn't worth your time, you might as well have swung the hatchet.

I don't think this constitutes a crisis on anything like the level of a whole fucking city in danger. One is something thousands if not millions of lives depends on, the other is one dude's material possessions of only marginal necessity to his long term survivability. I'm all for jumping in and getting shit done when there's lives in danger but this just isn't what happened. If there were gunman swarming DC you can bet I'd do what I can with what I have (FMJs work both ways, fuckers)but I wouldn't storm a building single-handed so I could save some dude's plasma screen from being stolen.

Comparing him to an SC seems to be a bit beyond the pale, actually. This wasn't a guy throwing a wobbly because the Subway sandwich shop didn't have enough banana peppers; this was a guy who was losing his home and everything he owned because he made a mistake.

And then pointing the finger at a group of people who were not responsible for causing any of this to happen.

The system that the town had set up was a bad, bad system, and watching its elected officials cowering behind the rules as if they're a kind of magic shield is a little appalling. "Yes, we're cold, heartless, cruel, robotic bureaucrats, but thems the rules! He shoulda followed the rules! We got rules! See our rules, right here? Read the rules and you'll certainly agree that we had no choice at all!"

Not really, it may not be perfect but it's certainly not evil. It's a perfectly reasonable compromise between the all-to-likely unfeasible forming of this counties own FD and not having any fire services whatsoever. If you'd like to stop being so overly emotional for a second may I remind you that rules are kinda important, and since this guy had full knowledge of the rules there's no excuse whatsoever if he chooses not to follow them.

No choice at all. How about saving his house, and then fining him for non-payment? The DOT doesn't come over and smash my car with a sledgehammer when I fail to make my registration payments; they tack a fine onto it and let me keep driving. How about not having this stupid system at all, and instead having all homeowners pay into the system instead of deciding arbitrarily that certain emergency services are "optional"? There were choices. They weren't good choices, but they were choices. And any one of them would have avoided the whole controversy and all the negative attention this dump of a town, where "penny wise and pound foolish" isn't so much a cliche as it is the motto, has received in the meantime.

What's with all the flawed analogies? No one came and set this guy's house on fire. The system isn't arbitrary at all. When it was implemented it was a way of getting something that would otherwise be impractical to have. Which means the motto of this town is more along the lines of, "where there's a will. there's a way." in that they found a way to get something they wanted and it works pretty good all things considered except when it comes to people pissing their pants over the times it doesn't work. That's more or less unavoidable, so the best course of action is to do the best you can and the people who bitch without offering a viable alternative will just have to stay upset.

But nope. They have their rules. Know what you get if you don't follow them rules? Anarchy! Yes, that's right! Madness! There is no room for compassion when we have rules!

Those ARE the rules, and anarchy IS when people don't follow the rules. I, for one, am sick and tired of the sort of shit that follows that 'one exception'... suddenly every asshole wants the same thing because 'it's only fair'. Fuck that, those are the rules, either change 'em, learn to live with them or get the fuck out.

Love, who?

Norman Borlaug, the greatest man that ever walked the earth. And it's a god damned shame that so few people know who he is.

[ben_who]

And just when I thought that this thread had curled up and died of repetition. But here we go ever onwards, if the word 'onwards' can even apply to something of this nature.

I suppose some of my comments are going to drift off topic; would it help if I put them in a different thread? I could go on for months about "personal responsibility vs. social pressure." Sure, I was too emotional, and you bore the brunt of my frustration of all the people who leaped to the defense of the town at the expense of basic humanity. Probably not right, but you were on a public forum and I had a "reply" button, so there you go.

Anywhoo, I've thus far not spoken very specifically of the morality alone, as that's not what most people are debating with me about, but underneath it all and it may or not be apparent is this: It really sucks that this guy's house burned down, and I empathize with that.

But the morality is what those of us on this side of the argument have been debating: not whether it was right, but whether it was Right, capital R, to have this system in place and then adhere to it at the expense of someone's home.

I've removed your qualification here (everything after the "but") because I wanted to thank you for saying this; your reptilian heartlessness in previous posts was what caused the compensatory emotionalism in mine. The "throw 'em to the wolves" attitude is one I hear a lot in the media from bootstrappy righties with an "I've Got Mine" chip on their shoulder. In short, you had me terrified.

We could have a whole "personal responsibility vs. social pressure" discussion; I work in corporate America, and over and over again I see people getting kicked off the ladder by people higher up and then being blamed for being on the bottom.

I got to thinking once about the people who ate at McDonald's, got fat, and sued McDonald's for getting fat. Defenders of McDonald's came forth and said, "Well, no one told them to eat at McDonald's every day. It's not their fault."

It may be true that its not their fault, but the reasoning doesn't pair with the conclusion. Someone does tell them to eat at McDonald's every day: McDonald's. If these plaintiffs live in an urban or suburban environment, it's unlikely that they go a full day without seeing at least ONE McDonald's ad: in the newspaper, on TV, on the radio, or even just in passing. (In "Super Size Me," Morgan Spurlock pointed out that he passed three McDonald's on the way to work every day.)

The point of this wild tangent is that the argument ("No one told them to eat at McDonald's every day") is false. The conclusion still stands, but we're going to need another argument to lead up to it. (Just to get my own opinion out of the way, those kids are idiots. Imagine how little dignity it takes to go into a courtroom and say, 'I have zero willpower and am a tool of the corporate state; give me money.')

If it's possible to rein in this tangent, it's true that the homeowner should have taken the responsibility to protect his home. I'm assuming that the firefighting fee wasn't some big secret. However, the homeowner shouldn't be forced to take responsibility for that system existing in the first place. To whatever extent it's his fault that he didn't pay the $75 fee, it is NOT his fault that a $75 fee needed to be paid.

So the ire of those of us with compassion for the man who lost his home due to his mistake is directed at that system - in this case, the town that entered into a bad deal. I assume a great deal here, but I assume that in order to avoid raising taxes, which is EVIL EVIL EVIL to most righties, they instead levied the fee, which looks prettier on the books and doesn't force them to use the dreaded T-word. (Why else wouldn't the fee simply be levied into the property taxes?)

The argument here isn't the rightness of a man failing to pay his bills and expecting a service anyway, it's against the SYSTEM ITSELF, a system that, I feel, shouldn't exist. That has less to do with the homeowner than you think it should. It's a bad system. It's an appalling system. It's a system that should go away. And that's a different argument than the one you're making.

And the thing is, subsequent articles seem to imply that changes to that system are underway. I'm evidently not alone in my belief that it's a bad system that doesn't serve its community the way it should - some of the people in the town that lives within this system - hell, some of the people who directly benefit from the system - seem to agree with me. Or, at least, they're tired of getting phone calls from the BBC and Al-Jazeera.

TL;DR, yes, this guy should pay his bills, but the service he's paying for should be a public service.

But I take it that your grandfather didn't blame the shingle company for his accident, nor lamb-baste the local regulatory agency for not ensuring that the shingles provided better traction. If the family in question truly needed help to survive I'd be behind that up to a point (I'm not fucking giving them a whole new even bigger house, but getting them to where they can get by is good) but they're getting by just fine on their own steam.

This is just a mental exercise, apropos of nothing, but do you think Granddad would have had a case if the ladder broke?

Okay. That aside, I've used that analogy before - Granddad really did fall off a roof and really did break his back, and he really was at the mercy of those around him for his care for a few weeks, even though it was in fact no one else's fault but his that his back was broken. I used it in part because I find that it gives bootstrappy libertarians and John Galt clones the ab-dabs. They find it hard to reconcile the idea that even people solely at fault with their own misfortune sometimes have to depend on others to get them out of it, and waving it off as "not my problem" isn't the right solution.

If you like that as a mental exercise, I can give you my "cigarettes" argument, too.

Not really, it may not be perfect but it's certainly not evil. It's a perfectly reasonable compromise between the all-to-likely unfeasible forming of this counties own FD and not having any fire services whatsoever. If you'd like to stop being so overly emotional for a second may I remind you that rules are kinda important, and since this guy had full knowledge of the rules there's no excuse whatsoever if he chooses not to follow them.

Again, we have two arguments here, not one: there's the "situation," and the "system." You're arguing against the situation. I'm arguing against the system.

There are other compromises. See "higher taxes" above. Now, I have no way of knowing whether the community was actually saying "Let's avoid higher taxes by calling it a 'fee' and levying it on an individual basis, because we're all conservatives who think taxes are icky-poo and this is a convenient way to cook the books, then we'll all cower behind 'Personal responsibility! Personal responsibility! Rules! Rules!' when it bites us on the ass," but that's kinda what it looks like. If there's one thing conservatives seem to be good at, it's playing the shell game with tax dollars. And if, in fact, it is what it looks like, that makes conservativism in general look morally bankrupt.

I remember a long time ago, here in Maine, some developers found a way around zoning rules to build houses in areas that were...less than well-served by emergency services. First of all, it struck me as eminently sensible that you don't bloody build a house so far out into the toolies that a fire engine can't get there in time to save it. There are lots of houses where I grew up - wood frame, cheap construction, tinderboxes - that would have been disintegrating husks before anyone remembered the pre-911 fire department's phone number and dialed it into the rotary phone. This is also apropos of nothing, except perhaps "don't let your town build hosues in areas you can't defend."

I've had less sympathy for the guy who lost his house the more I learned, but that's the "situation" argument. I still feel the same about the "system" argument. If he did live in a mobile home, even a double-wide, well, those things are about a step above a matchbox in terms of fire safety, and some of the older ones in the towns where I grew up were only slightly safer than living in a propane tank. No wonder he couldn't get it under control; even if he'd paid for his service his house was probably a dumpster inside of fifteen minutes. Of course, now I'm assuming he had one of those older model jobs and not a newer, more fire-safe one. Knowing that he just lost a house trailer and not, say, a 170-year-old heirloom farmhouse with four generations' worth of antique furniture, well, I'm not so bleeding-heart that knowing that doesn't help. We're probably more in agreement in the "situation" argument than I've indicated.

Again apropos of nothing, in the farming community where I grew up, the most flammable, least safe houses always seemed to be owned by the biggest idiots. If a house was insulated with newspapers and sawdust and sat ten miles from the nearest fire engine, that would be the guy who fell asleep drunk in front of his TV with a lit cigarette in his hand. I wish I exaggerated, but I remember seeing the remains of one trailer fire from the school bus - the daughter of the homeowner had set it on fire with a curling iron. Which was exactly the way they were burned out of their last trailer, in the same location, one year before. So "Some idiot lost his house because he didn't pay his fire department bill" inspires in me less sympathy and more of a knowing nod.

Still can't help but feel bad for the guy, though. That's just the way I am.

Love, Who?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

If you'd like to move on to the system instead of the situation that would still be a measure of reiteration. I've said over and over again that I don't think the system is a bad one nor a good one just 'something that works'.

It really is the sort of middle of the road approach I tend to be in favor of. People should not be forced to pay for a service they don't want anymore than they should be forced into the situation where, willing to pay or not, they can't have it. In this sense the system at hand is an amenable compromise, people who want it can pay for it and get it and people who don't can keep that money for whatever else they want or need it for.

Personally I think a fire tax is better as it's in the grand scheme of things, simpler and allows the FD to function a little bit more smoothly and, to top it all off, we wouldn't have rubes like this making a stink.

On the other hand, there's very solid reasoning behind the right to not pay if you don't want something, and the proposition of setting up a whole new FD is exactly the kind of fiscal and logistical nightmare the ill taste of which only gets worse when there's a reasonable alternative to hand.

At most I'd say that it needs some adjustments. All of which have everything to do with the will of the constituents and the resources available to the county and very little if anything to do with what I think.

[HYHYBT]

Since you brought up McDonald's making people fat... there are (at least) two completely different meanings of the sentence "No one told them to eat at McDonald's every day," and your argument relies on deliberately confusing the two. Yes, the ads (and, because you mentioned it, the buildings as well) are out there every day. When someone says "no one told them to eat at McDonald's every day," you and everyone else know that that means that the ads, regardless of how often they are visible, do not say that you should eat there every day. It's not even comparable; it would be like claiming that, because every time I go to the Colbert Report website I see ads for Smartcars, they're saying I should buy a new car every day. If you can find a way to make that claim sound sensible, go for it

[Andara Bledin]

But the morality is what those of us on this side of the argument have been debating: not whether it was right, but whether it was Right, capital R, to have this system in place and then adhere to it at the expense of someone's home.

The problem is that you cannot save everyone. Resources are finite, and a decision has to be made about who you do save versus who you don't. As much as it may pain us, a line must be drawn at some point.

In this case, there was no danger to any person involved, so it was a matter of property. And, as much as I sympathize with the Cranicks, property is at the bottom of the list of things to save. Plus, there is the issue that they had something between 30 minutes to an hour between the time that the fire first got out of hand and they called 911. They had quite a large window of time in which they could have recovered much of their things as well as their pets.

Another thing to consider is that this particular family has had a fire, serious enough to require firefighter assistance 5 times in 10 years. At some point you have to allow that some people just cannot be saved from themselves.

I'm assuming that the firefighting fee wasn't some big secret.

It's a fee he had paid on time for at least 10 of the last 11 years, this one not included. He received a reminder letter in June and then 3 follow-up letters and 3 follow-up phone calls over it. So not only was it not secret, they were actually rather pushy in trying to make sure that everybody who wanted to be was covered.

To whatever extent it's his fault that he didn't pay the $75 fee, it is NOT his fault that a $75 fee needed to be paid.

Actually, considering that the county actually voted the measure in in the first place, you can't determine what his culpability as regards the fee is or isn't.

While not solely responsible one way or the other, he is not completely absolved, either.

I assume a great deal here, but I assume that in order to avoid raising taxes, which is EVIL EVIL EVIL to most righties, they instead levied the fee, which looks prettier on the books and doesn't force them to use the dreaded T-word.

You don't have to assume anything. There is more than enough information about this online if you take the time to look and sift through the agendas and bias to get to the truth of the matter prior to leaping to judgment.

This is not a political issue. It is a bureaucratic one. From what I understand, the local government mostly just doesn't want to have to deal with all of the issues that would be related to adjusting from having the local fire departments do whatever they felt was good for them to levying a tax on all non-city residents and then distributing those fees to the cities as necessary.

This is also apropos of nothing, except perhaps "don't let your town build hosues in areas you can't defend."

I do have to ask... If a person is fully aware of the dangers inherent in living outside of the range of emergency services, who are you (or anyone else) to prevent them from living there?

No wonder he couldn't get it under control; even if he'd paid for his service his house was probably a dumpster inside of fifteen minutes. Of course, now I'm assuming he had one of those older model jobs and not a newer, more fire-safe one.

It is noted that this is the fifth fire in a decade. One of those was actually to his chimney (not previously mentioned), so I would think the house was a bit less volatile than most people think. I suspect it was closer in terms of construction materials to a pre-fab as opposed to a mobile home as we normally consider them.

I lived in a triple-wide mobile home (a true mobile home) for several years, and according to the safety meetings they held regularly, that thing would have burnt to the ground in something like 10 minutes flat. All the while releasing toxic fumes into the immediate area. There is no way that the Cranick's home was the same material.

and, to top it all off, we wouldn't have rubes like this making a stink.

Strangely enough, the homeowner himself isn't making that huge of a stink. He's really sad that it happened, and he did believe that they'd let him pay after-the-fact, probably in part because they'd let him slide before, as I mentioned in a previous post.

His son, however, was mad enough over it to commit assault. The grandson, the one responsible for the fire, is mostly just very upset and guilty over having been the catalyst for this whole thing.

One particular report of events state that he set the trash alight in the barrels and then went to take a shower and that's when the fire got out of hand. Unfortunately, I can't find any other reports that corroborate this, so I'm a bit leery of actually believing this version of events. Also, this report says the grandson is 21 while other reports list him as being a teen.

Actually, the wild discrepancies between the various "news" reports of this very easily-researched and well-witnessed event really point out how lazy and unreliable our news services are.

And, while I refuted the earlier prejudice card as being unfounded, this particular statement reeks of bias. If it's not supposed to specifically single out rural people as being less savvy, then you really should use a less ambiguous term.

^-.-^