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

[ZedOmega]

Oh, it gets worse from there. Now the county who offered the fire services is expanding. At least someone else involved in this farce is showing some degree of brains in the matter:

Union City Fire Department Chief Kelly Edmison objects to the new expansion, saying that “the best option is a true fire tax. It eliminates this having 911 or whoever check to say, ‘Are they covered or not covered?’ The last thing a firefighter wants to do is to not be able to help when they’d like to.” According to documents prepared by the county in 2008, a paltry 0.13 cent increase in property taxes on each household would be all it would take to fund fire services for the towns within the county.

[Hobbs]

In contrast, this is an example of a fire department (a government entity, in fact, the very thought of it!) going above and beyond to provide their services to those who otherwise wouldn't.

And they say chivalry is dead.

Did I miss something? This fire department failed to put out a fire! How is that above and beyond?

Oh, my friend's dad is a firefighter. Even he thinks it's a dick move.

[crashhelmet]

The article says he offered to pay whatever he had to pay to put out the flames and he was told it was too late. As others have said, they could've easily billed him. If they want to relate it to insurance, then have him pay for actual time spent on site.

For example:
Cost of water: $X.XX per gallon
Transportation costs (Gas, vehicle maintenance, etc) $X.XX per mile, round trip.
Staffing: # Firefighters @ $X.XX an hour, rounded to the next hour. (3 hours 15 minutes would be 4 hours)

Total Bill: $XXX.XX

Even if the homeowner had any type of insurance to protect against fire damage, i bet the insurance company will deny his claim because of this.

CH

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Problem being that the costs of something like a fire department run much deeper than the expenditures that occur on-site. To be effective, a fire department has to have a constant source of money to acquire and maintain vehicles, equipment and related infrastructure; provide living quarters and food for on-duty staff which means paying for and maintaining a building as well as all the associated utilities and services theretoo connected.

If a fire department instead billed the person to whom they rendered services after the fact, they'd have to factor in a large amount of profit to sustain themselves between calls. THIS would truly be a fire department being run like a business and really would favor those with the means to pay over those who don't because only those who actually have a fire would be paying for it.

The only tenable finance source is an annually or otherwise regularly allotted one, which can either be taxes in the event that this department is run by the jurisdiction's government, or a 'subscription' fee in the event that some other entity either detached government or private provides the service.

In this case the county in question does not have the funds to maintain a fire department, much less start one. The fire department in a nearby jurisdiction has offered to provide coverage, something that they have neither the duty nor responsibility to do, so that people who would otherwise have no service can at least avail themselves of it. It is just and reasonable, therefore, that those who avail themselves and therefore stand to benefit from this service pay into it like the people who live in the county from where the service is based. If you don't pay in, for any reason, you don't get service.

Remember also that this isn't about public safety. The homeowner and his family were out of the building and clear of the area, and only their possessions were in danger. If this were not true, the firefighters would be obligated to go in and save them, but would still not be obligated to save the stuff. The neighbor had payed into the system and therefore his property was protected.

Heartless as it may seem to you, exceptions cannot be made for those without the common sense to avail themselves of something they may need. If such an exception is made and therefore possible in future, the system would fail because of freeloading assholes who think they can get away with being cheap without consequence.

[AdminAssistant]

The county should start a volunteer fire department so that they wouldn't have to rely on the city service. That's what my hometown had (and all of the other towns around it). Even with greater distances and fewer resources, the volunteer service had a faster response time, with equipment similar to the professionals, and volunteers who went through extensive training - now all of them are also trained as full first responders.

Oh, and the best part, they don't DENY SERVICE TO SOMEONE WHO NEEDS IT BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T PAID THE FUCKING FEE. I mean, what if a person were caught in that fire? Would they say, "Ooops! You haven't paid your Fire Fee so they just have to die. Sucks to be them!" It's ridiculous, and that entire fire department should be ashamed. To sit on the sidelines and let a fire rage out of control because of an issue like money. They allowed a dangerous situation to spread, and it's very lucky that no one got hurt.

I mean, would a police officer allow someone to be shot or harmed because they haven't paid their income tax? Do EMT's refuse to treat illegal aliens? No. They do their jobs.

ETA: Wingates, this IS about Public Safety. Fires are fickle fucking beasts. The slightest shift in a wind can send a nearby property up in flames. It isn't about the department "saving their stuff," it's about eliminating a deadly threat to others.

[crashhelmet]

Problem being that the costs of something like a fire department run much deeper than the expenditures that occur on-site. To be effective, a fire department has to have a constant source of money to acquire and maintain vehicles, equipment and related infrastructure; provide living quarters and food for on-duty staff which means paying for and maintaining a building as well as all the associated utilities and services theretoo connected.

This particular Fire Department gets that funding through their own city's funding. i'm talking about cases like this where the homeowner didn't pay the $75 "premium" so they would be billed for costs.

Think of it like a maintenance contract on your television. You can pay $25 a year for it and have all service covered, or you can pay the repairman $400 for the parts and labor.

CH

[Vash113]

Oh, it gets worse from there. Now the county who offered the fire services is expanding. At least someone else involved in this farce is showing some degree of brains in the matter:

Chief Edminson is correct, the proper course of action would be a proper fire tax. That way everyone would have to pay for the service and there would be none trying to get away with being cheap and not paying the service fee. It would solve the problem of having anymore occurances like this happening.

That said it's hardly a farce unless your talking about the stupidity of the homeowner. It is simply a stop-gap system that is far preferable to no system at all when there is a lack of a proper fire tax and fire department services in a given area. If the locals are totally objected to a tax increase and the local government hasn't established it yet then expanding the extended coverage system is a very good thing indeed... as long as people aren't idiots and pay for the darn thing. It's stupid in the extreme to get an opportunity to protect yourself, refuse to pay for it and then complain when you don't get the protection.

Did I miss something? This fire department failed to put out a fire! How is that above and beyond?

Oh, my friend's dad is a firefighter. Even he thinks it's a dick move.

You did miss something, the part where it wasn't paid for. Exceptions cannot be made or the system fails, if people don't pay for the service then the service cannot be provided. He may have offered to pay after the fact but that defeats the purpose of the system. If that were allowed and the fire department just billed the guy then others would do the same and the fees that allow the department to function in this way and provide a service that is otherwise horribly lacking would shrink to the point of making the service untennable.

The South Fulsom fire deparment is going above and beyond by stretching their resources to protect a neighboring county where taxes do not pay for them to be covered. To make this possible a fee is required to cover the departments increased costs. But because this fee is optional and not mandated by taxes there are those that try to be freeloaders and take the easy way out by not paying. By doing this the fire department is in no way obligated to put out the fire.

In fact, before fire department services became government regulated this was how it worked everywhere, you had to pay a subscription for the service and have a plaque outside your building notifying your protected status, otherwise the fire departments would not save your building. This is hardly a new idea and the fault is entirely on the homeowner for not paying for the service.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, you cannot expect a service to be provided after refusing to pay for it. It's as simple as that. Whether you think it's a dick move or not is entirely inconsequential, it doesn't change the simple fact that the fire-fighters are in the right here and the responsibility is entirely in the homeowners hands. $75 would have kept this from happening, but the homeowner was too cheap to pay it and as a result suffered. This is not the fire-fighters fault or responsibility. They are going out of their way to help these people not in their own jurisdiction but this service has costs that must be paid. The neighbor paid and was protected, the homeowner didn't and lost his house. This should be a lesson against stingy freeloading.

I see no reason to impune the fire-fighters for the homeowner's poor decision.

The article says he offered to pay whatever he had to pay to put out the flames and he was told it was too late. As others have said, they could've easily billed him. If they want to relate it to insurance, then have him pay for actual time spent on site.

For example:
Cost of water: $X.XX per gallon
Transportation costs (Gas, vehicle maintenance, etc) $X.XX per mile, round trip.
Staffing: # Firefighters @ $X.XX an hour, rounded to the next hour. (3 hours 15 minutes would be 4 hours)

Total Bill: $XXX.XX

Even if the homeowner had any type of insurance to protect against fire damage, i bet the insurance company will deny his claim because of this.

CH

Except it unfortunately doesn't work that way. As Wingates said, the costs related to covering Obion County exceed just those for each individual fire response. The training and equipment for the firefighters for example, the maintanence and upkeep of that equipment and the South Fulsom County Department's facilities. All of these things have to be paid for, these are covered by the fees and taxes. A bill including just the work on site could not cover or include all the other costs that the fees cover. There's no way to accurately assess and include those in a bill either. If the department made an exception for this person than others would expect the same and the fee system would fall apart.

Not to mention a billing system doesn't just come out of nowhere, the fire deparment doesn't have a billing department, they aren't covering their operating costs with profits, they aren't maintaining bank accounts to manage payment plans. Your in essence expecting the fire department to magically manifest an entire buissiness model from nowhere just to make exceptions for people too stingy to pay for their services in the first place and that's just rediculous.

After all, the homeowner was given the option to protect himself, refused to pay for it, and then comes running afterwards expecting to be protected? I don't think so.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

You comparisons to EM services and LEO assistance are invalid here because you're comparing cases of imminent danger to life and limb to an instance in which this was not so. The homeowner and his family were aware of the danger and had fled and even made their own attempts before they even called (probably because he knew he had fucked up by not paying)

When the neighbors called and related their legitimate concern for their property and possibly lives as the fire spread, the department DID deploy to observe the situation and intervene if necessary (which they did when it became necessary.)

A fire may shift suddenly and light neighboring buildings on fire (although this happening very quickly in this case is less than in urban areas as there seems to be plenty of space between the structures in question.) And a group of gang members in one precinct's area may decide to move their tussle into the area of another. In both situations the service responsible for the neighboring jurisdiction may deploy to observe and prepare for that shift (which the Folsom firefighters did, in fact, do) but they should not and indeed can not take action unless someone's life is in danger or it spreads/moves to the area they are responsible for.

EDIT:

This particular Fire Department gets that funding through their own city's funding. i'm talking about cases like this where the homeowner didn't pay the $75 "premium" so they would be billed for costs.

Think of it like a maintenance contract on your television. You can pay $25 a year for it and have all service covered, or you can pay the repairman $400 for the parts and labor.

CH

This funding covers only the services rendered to the city itself. Anything additional would logically add to the costs of the operation and it's only fair that the additional benefactors cover the additional costs.

It's more like buying a cable subscription and being informed that you had to either pay more or lose it entirely because the jackass next door wants to get it without paying for it. In that instance I would tell the jackass to fuck off and pay for what he intends to receive.

[Vash113]

The county should start a volunteer fire department so that they wouldn't have to rely on the city service. That's what my hometown had (and all of the other towns around it). Even with greater distances and fewer resources, the volunteer service had a faster response time, with equipment similar to the professionals, and volunteers who went through extensive training - now all of them are also trained as full first responders.

That's great for you then, unfortunately Obion county did not do this.

Oh, and the best part, they don't DENY SERVICE TO SOMEONE WHO NEEDS IT BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T PAID THE FUCKING FEE. I mean, what if a person were caught in that fire? Would they say, "Ooops! You haven't paid your Fire Fee so they just have to die. Sucks to be them!" It's ridiculous, and that entire fire department should be ashamed. To sit on the sidelines and let a fire rage out of control because of an issue like money. They allowed a dangerous situation to spread, and it's very lucky that no one got hurt.

This is incorrect, no lives were in imminent danger, if they were the fire-fighters would have most likely been required to respond and save those lives, but not necessarily the house. There is no shame involved and I see no reason there should be, fire-fighters are providing a service, this service has costs and when those costs aren't covered (like by taxes) then there is no reason to expect them to provide that service when there is no iminent danger to human life. Cast aspersions if you like, it is still the homeowners fault for failing to pay for his protection.

I mean, would a police officer allow someone to be shot or harmed because they haven't paid their income tax? Do EMT's refuse to treat illegal aliens? No. They do their jobs.

Actually EMTs will in certain cases refuse. Why? There are many reasons such as but not restricted to the fact that many will not be fully fledged doctors and thus have not taken the hippocratic oath and do not have its legal protections either, also that by starting treatment they then make themselves legally responsible for that persons life. Should something happen and the person dies they are then not covered by their hospital's insurance and could be sued by the family. It sucks, but there you have it.

As for police officers that is also not an accurate analogy as the case assumes iminent threat. The protection status of the specific victim is not as important as the potential threat to bystanders which the police officer would have to respond to. It's also not an accurate analogy because there are restrictions on police forces depending on jurisdiction, in some cases an officer might have to let a criminal run away and be restricted from giving chase or arresting them because they are either not on active duty or are in another jurisdiction. To do so would give the criminal justification to sue the department or get their case thrown out. Again, it sucks, and isn't always the case nor will such restrictions always be adhered to but they do exist.

ETA: Wingates, this IS about Public Safety. Fires are fickle fucking beasts. The slightest shift in a wind can send a nearby property up in flames. It isn't about the department "saving their stuff," it's about eliminating a deadly threat to others.

Actually no this is not about Public Safety, if you look at the situation the department did contain the fire from spreading to the neighbors property and threatening others. That argument is entirely baseless.

This particular Fire Department gets that funding through their own city's funding. i'm talking about cases like this where the homeowner didn't pay the $75 "premium" so they would be billed for costs.

Think of it like a maintenance contract on your television. You can pay $25 a year for it and have all service covered, or you can pay the repairman $400 for the parts and labor.

Except this is nothing like that, as I said before fire departments to not have a billing department, they aren't set up for such things and can't be expected too. In this case they are extending their coverage outside of the area provided for by taxes and to pay for this they require a fee. They do not bill charges like a repairman nor is the fee like a "premium." There is no profit making involved, merely the covering of costs and these include basic operating costs that the mechanic of profit provides for in a buissiness.

Again the expection is that the South Fulsom County fire department will somehow manifest an entire operating structure that is completely purposeless most of the time purely to deal with the exceptions of assholes who don't pay for the service in the first place. I neither see the point or practicality of this.

Everyone always complains that government run organizations are inefficient and waste money, and now your expecting them to do something inherently inefficient and wastefull? Talk about an oxymoron.

[crashhelmet]

If this Fire Department doesn't have a billing department, then who accepts, tracks, and manages the money collected from the people that pay the $75 fee? How do they know who paid and who did not?

Someone, whether it's a member of the Fire Department or the City Government, keeps a budget for that station. Someone determines what funding is needed and what they can do with said funding. They determine all spending on supplies, staffing, and other resources. Surely, they should already have estimates of what it costs the Fire Department for every fire they put out or cat they rescue from a tree. In fact, it would be a VERY SAFE assumption that said budget was responsible for the establishment of the $75 a year charge.

Try to justify it all you want, but it was still a dick move.

CH

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

I say that this is a good thing.

Now before we all grab our torches and pitchforks and start organizing the lynch mob hear me out.

This situation has hit national news. CNN, Reuters, AP, hell even the BBC has mention of it. This means that there is going to be a HUGE uproar over the situation and someone is going to put forth legislation.

Legislation similar to that which was put in place when ER's at hospitals were refusing to treat anyone who didn't have insurance or looked like they had the means to pay for treatment.

The laws there were put into place to ensure that the Emergency rooms would treat, stabilize and save the lives of EVERYONE regardless of payment likelyhood. You could bill them later, send the bill collection agencies afterwards, transfer them to other facilities (after they are stabilized and their lives are no longer in jeopardy)...but they will goddamn treat them first.

Now that something very similar has happened to tax-payer supported (I'm sorry, $75 is not enough to pay for the fire department) Emergency Service, someone will scream to congress to push forth legislature to make goddamn sure that some greedy, money grubbing Emergency Service agency never gets to pull this shit again.

So, it sucks for the people who had this happen to, but the blessing will be the eventual laws that will protect people from this happening again.

It may take a little while, there may be a few more cases...but it will happen.

Thus...a good thing.

[Vash113]

If this Fire Department doesn't have a billing department, then who accepts, tracks, and manages the money collected from the people that pay the $75 fee? How do they know who paid and who did not?

Someone, whether it's a member of the Fire Department or the City Government, keeps a budget for that station. Someone determines what funding is needed and what they can do with said funding. They determine all spending on supplies, staffing, and other resources. Surely, they should already have estimates of what it costs the Fire Department for every fire they put out or cat they rescue from a tree. In fact, it would be a VERY SAFE assumption that said budget was responsible for the establishment of the $75 a year charge.

Finance and billing are two very different things. Just because a simple fee can be collected, which is no more complicated than taking donations which many such organizations do already, a billing department is a much more complicated and substantial undertaking. It's not just having the department's treasurer tabulate a rough estimate and get it paid, that's hardly a safe thing to do legally. Proper billing proceedure requires trained individuals, specific forms and structures, managed accounts and so on and so forth. Things a fire department just doesn't have. I wouldn't be surprised if even the fees were handled by the county rather than the department, but that doesn't mean the county is in any better position to be sending out bills. Especially not for something it is not supposed to be sending out bills for in the first place.

Try to justify it all you want, but it was still a dick move.

Try to excuse the homeowners laziness all you want, that's the dick move. It's his responsibility, his mistake, and there's no reason the fire-fighters should have to cover his ass.

Besides, even if it was, so freakin what? Doesn't make it wrong, being right doesn't also mean you have to be nice all the time. The guy didn't pay and suffered for it, boo freakin hoo, cry me a river. It would have been jolly if the fire-fighters had run around like boy scouts, putting their own departments needs on the line for some shiftless knucklehead but they didn't. Oh well.

Actions have consequences, the homeowner did not take the necessary action to protect himself and suffered the consequence. Hopefully he's learned his lesson. But that's all this really amounts too, cry all you want about compassion, morals or ethics but rules are rules, money is money, if you don't follow the rules and pay for something its your loss and no bleeding-heart-liberal-shenanigans will ever change that.

Now that something very similar has happened to tax-payer supported (I'm sorry, $75 is not enough to pay for the fire department) Emergency Service, someone will scream to congress to push forth legislature to make goddamn sure that some greedy, money grubbing Emergency Service agency never gets to pull this shit again.

Yet here's the problem, legislation to do what precisely? Stuff still needs to be paid for, the $75 a year fee does not pay for the fire department. Nobody said it does, it does however cover the cost of an existing fire department spreading their area of protection to another county. Rave about "money grubbing Emergency Service" if you want but its not like their making a profit, they aren't a business or privately run like health services are these days. They have costs, costs that must be paid, and if people aren't paying for them what then? You gotta draw the line, is it better to have coverage for just those who pay or none what so ever? That's the choice this county faces and some choose to ignore the option and don't pay for protection.

Nobody says its perfect either, I mentioned earlier that the quote from the Fire Chief was entirely correct. A fire tax would solve the issue entirely and provide complete fire protection and keep this sort of thing from happening. As is though, it isn't the firefighters fault, or their responsibility. While a fire tax is better, this does not invalidate the fee system. I already said before the fee system is hardly new, in fact it was how all fire departments operated for quite some time. Tax coverage is a newer system. But if the residents don't want to see their taxes increased, the coverage fee is what they get. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

So, it sucks for the people who had this happen to, but the blessing will be the eventual laws that will protect people from this happening again.

It may take a little while, there may be a few more cases...but it will happen.

Thus...a good thing.

On the contrary, if legislation forces the South Fulsom County department to aid all residents whether they have paid the fee or not, the most likely result will be the cancellation of that coverage leaving Obion county completely unprotected (after all they still don't apparently have the funds or incentive to build their own fire department or pay a fire tax). This would put them back to square one and leaves the county much worse off than before. The problem is screaming to congress is extremely counter-productive when a call to action takes precedent over ensuring that action is the right one. It's easy to join the mob and rant for protection but there are downsides and complications, such as the withdrawal of any protection as I mentioned before, or a tax hike, perhaps even a substantial one that might force the residents to start up a fire department where at the moment they don't need one as long as they pay a modest fee.

Its easy feel like your saving the world, its much harder to actually do it. Rabble rousing doesn't really do any good in the end and legislation won't necessarily solve the problem. What will certainly solve the problem and keep this sort of thing from happening is for the Obion county residents to buck up and institute a fire tax or just be responsible and pay the darn fee. There's no excuse not to protect themselves and I have absolutely zero sympathy for those that don't and then regret it. It may suck that this happened to the homeowner but ya know... it's his own darn fault.

P.S.

As a sidebar, I find it kind of funny that this is the exact sort of system that many people would argue is better than a mandatory tax system. After all the government is not getting directly involved and forcing anyone to do or pay for anything, it's their choice and therefore freedom. Yet when something bad happens everyone is up in arms... I must admit... I'm not surprised.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I too think it may turn out to be a good thing, but not because of legislation, rather because the people for whom a system like this apply may just manage to find their asses with two hands and a map and pay the fucking fee for the service they fucking want. You want firemen to save you from a burning building where you could or would definitely die? THAT is something you should receive regardless (and there's no indication here that they wouldn't have, although, being a rural area, I wonder if the possibility of saving someone who's somehow gotten trapped in a cabin in bum-fuck no-where could possibly be saved by a department minutes away, but I digress.) If you want them to risk their lives for the sake of your stuff, well, perhaps it's best to partake of what you want instead of assume that you'll just 'have it' without paying for it.

Vash is right, the fact that this system allows for people to make a choice and thus, be free, is a definite plus. After all, isn't this supposed to be a nation where the word 'freedom' invalidates all arguments? Where's a picture of William Wallace when you need one?

P.S. Even if it were within the reasonable capability of the department to bill the man afterwords, to do so would invalidate the whole system. This guys HOUSE is not more important than the continued emergency service provided to the people who pay for it as per the agreement.

[Vash113]

Where's a picture of William Wallace when you need one?

Here you go:

P.S. Even if it were within the reasonable capability of the department to bill the man afterwords, to do so would invalidate the whole system. This guys HOUSE is not more important than the continued emergency service provided to the people who pay for it as per the agreement.

Ah yes I forgot to repeat that again. If exceptions are made it gives more homeowners an excuse not to pay the fee in the first place, leaving the fire department in the lurch and potentially leading to the rescinding of the agreement entirely.

That said I honestly don't know why everyone seems to be overlooking or ignoring the fact that the entire situation would not have occurred if the homeowner had just paid the fee in the first place.

[ZedOmega]

I'm not going to go into a long, ranty argument, but I'm just going to say this: Imagine, barring any other personal beliefs, politics and preparations including paying any fees and taxes, your own house catching fire and burning down to the foundation. The fact that this aspect of the whole thing, knowing the Cranicks are experiencing grief on top of any regrets Mr. Cranick is feeling for not paying the fee to begin with, is being ignored.

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