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

[BlaqueKatt]

What if there was a grass / forest fire in an unowned piece of land? Would they ignore it until it was burning people's homes who did pay the fee?

is no such creature-all land is "owned" if not by a private person then by the state.

From what I've found, the cities that offer this type of service, have a contract you sign if you pay the fee and a waiver you sign if you refuse, and the waiver states that you understand that you are responsible for your own fire protection. A non-residential fire or wildfire would not be able to either enter into a contract or sign a waiver-so this line of thought is superfluous.

As an aside the homeowner's son has assaulted the mayor of the town and is sitting in jail.

I would love to see if a similar situation went to the courts either here or in another place - what was the ruling (who was responsible?).

It would fall under Warren v. District of Columbia-as the government is under no obligation to provide anyone with any services.

[AdminAssistant]

All we know is that the fire spread to the neighbor's property, since this is a rural area we're talking about, it's basically guaranteed that their property line is a good distance from their actual house.

Not necessarily. I lived in a very rural area, and sometimes houses are close together. In the lack of evidence, as you say, you cannot make that assumption.

[HYHYBT]

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.

Yes, which is great... except that it's caused a lot of hospitals to go out of business from all the people they treat who never pay. (But who, nonetheless, will sue if anything goes wrong, regardless of whether it was the hospital's fault or not.) Which, really, is not an argument against the law, exactly, but one for a single-payer system, and therefore a subject already done to death in other threads

I'd say, though, that much the same applies here. People ought not have to contract individually with a fire department, and when there's already a fire going is no time to stop and look up whether it's a covered address or not. The solution, though, is not to force the fire department to put it out for free, but for the county either to create its own or to contract with this one *for the whole county* and charge an appropriate tax for doing so.

We do charge for public services, though. That's the purpose of taxes. There's no such thing as a free service--you pay for everything you use. There's no other way to handle giving you whatever service in the first place.

No, but if the money is collected as part of property taxes, not only will most people not even notice, but it will always be paid. Because if you don't pay your property tax, they take your house and sell it to someone who will. Which isn't so great in many ways, but it *does* mean the fire department gets paid.

[crashhelmet]

According to this article on MSN, the International Association of Firefighters condemned the firefighters and the policy.

It also states that the homeowner hadn't paid it because he forgot to pay it. The policy has been standing for 20 years, and no one has said if he's never paid it or if this was the first time it wasn't paid.

It also states that the house was not empty. Along with all of their personal belongings, they lost 3 dogs and a cat.

For those of you that support the firefighters, would you still support them if the neighbor didn't pay the fee and his house burned down too? Would you still support the firefighters if it had been a human that died instead of the 4 animals?

CH

[Rageaholic]

After reading this and watching the video, I say the firefighters were dicks. I mean, they had already arrived at the scene and they just sit there like jackasses going "HA HA! YOU DIDN'T PAY A FEE!!". Then not even giving them the chance to let their house be saved.

From the looks of it, these douchebags were on a power trip.

[AdminAssistant]

So these firefighters are basically responsible for the deaths of four animals. Gotcha.

ETA: Three animals, it seems. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../05/113824.htm

[Wingates_Hellsing]

So let me get this straight, they had time to realize that the fire their son had started to burn trash outside was getting out of control, try for god knows how long to put it out with garden hoses and not one of them could be bothered to open a door and call the animals out?

At this stage I'm not prepared to take anything the guy or his family says as true without some form of corroboration, although it sounds here at least as though he's taking responsibility for his failure to pay.

And just so you know, here's the breakdown of whether or not I'd care:

Human being dies: I'd care
Animals: no
House: no
Stuff: no

There's a difference between not helping someone and actively doing harm to them. The firefighters didn't set his house on fire, they just didn't put it out. This would only constitute: being left to the wolves if that meant they all had rifles and a place to hide and the help of others (seeing as how they've managed to spring for an RV and apparently have the support of many members of the community.)

I'd be pissed if my dog died in a fire. But I wouldn't demand that anyone risk their lives to save her.

[Anthony K. S.]

The Cranicks said they also forgot to pay their fire service fee on time about three years ago. But the fire department then did not hesitate to put out a chimney fire and let them pay the fee the next day.

Wait, this has happened before . . . ?

You would think that the Cranicks would have learned something from their previous experience of facing a house fire without having paid the fee for fire protection services.

. . . Oh, wait. Maybe they did learn something.

Since the firefighters put it out anyway and just let them pay the fee the next day, what the Cranicks apparently learned was that if you don't pay the fee, it's no big deal, and you'll get service anyway.


As much as it galls me to have to do this, I am forced to . . . agree . . . with Glenn Beck . . . at least about this one thing :

"As soon as they put out the fire of somebody who didn't pay the $75, no one will pay the $75," he said.

What incentive do homeowners have to pay the annual fee if they know that they'll get service regardless?

Sure, you could pay the $75 . . . or you could just wait until you actually get a house fire, and just pay the fee the day after, like the Cranicks did three years ago.

After all, if you hold off on paying the fee, then you just might get through the year without paying anything at all (if you don't happen to have a fire on your property).

Providing a service regardless of whether you were paid for it or not removes any incentive people have to pay at all. And I'll leave it to you to imagine the consequences of any significant reduction in funding to a fire department.

By the way, some people have suggested that the fire department should have put out the fire and then billed the Cranicks for it afterward, possibly for the entire cost of the call, rather than just the $75.

I do sympathize with this point of view to some extent . . . but I am also skeptical, because I strongly suspect that if the fire department had sent the Cranicks a large bill for the service, then people would be asking why the department couldn't let them off with just paying the $75.

(The reasoning, presumably, would have been that if $75 would have been enough at the beginning of the year, then it should be enough in the middle of the year, too.)

I further suspect that many of the people who would have been asking that are the same people who are now asking why the department couldn't just bill the Cranicks after the fact.

[The Shadow]

I know $75 is nothing! will be the battle cry. $75 is nothing to some, to others..it might as well be a million. So..now public services are only available to those who can afford them, heck with everybody else. I hope then that you never get to the point where you can't afford them.

Well to play devil's advocate, some would probably argue that anyone who couldn't afford that shouldn't be living in a house in the first place and instead maybe an apartment or public housing. And the Cranicks *were* living in a house.

[BlaqueKatt]

Well to play devil's advocate, some would probably argue that anyone who couldn't afford that shouldn't be living in a house in the first place and instead maybe an apartment or public housing. And the Cranicks *were* living in a house.

actually not sure if a mobile home =house-yes it was a trailer not an actual house

[joe hx]

I'm pretty sure that legally a mobile home is a house. Do these people pay any property taxes? What happens if you don't pay property tax?

[AdminAssistant]

actually not sure if a mobile home =house-yes it was a trailer not an actual house

The accounts I've read describe it as either a "double wide" or "modular home" which in some cases could be considered a house.

Either way, it was their HOME and should be treated no differently than a house built with brick and mortar.

joe: Mobile home owners pay property taxes just like anybody else. There are a number of factors considered as to whether or not a "pre-manufactured home" is considered a house or a trailer. If the wheels are still on it, for example, it's a trailer. If it's on a foundation and secured, then I think it can be considered a house.

ETA again, sorry: I also deeply, deeply resent ANY notion of, "oh, it's just a trailer." As I said above, it was their home. Pre-fab houses are good, affordable housing for people who live out in the country. I should know...I lived in 'em for 18 years.

[dendawg]

joe: Mobile home owners pay property taxes just like anybody else. There are a number of factors considered as to whether or not a "pre-manufactured home" is considered a house or a trailer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't property taxes primarily assessed to the owner of the land? I used to live in a trailer park with my ex once upon a time, and since we owned only the home, and not the parcel of land we paid rent on, I don't recall ever having to pay property tax once.

Now onto the primary topic at hand here. IMHO, the owner of the house/trailer/whatever was a dick for not paying the $75 fee for fire services, but IMHO that should not exclude him from receiving said service if it was necessary. The guy was a dick for sure, but the so-called "firefighters" and the county running the fire dept were even bigger dicks for letting someone's house burn down over $75. Completely inexcusable, because as has been pointed out earlier, they could have extinguished the fire and then charged the guy after the fact, and don't tell me it's not possible to do so, as I once had a medical emergency at work, and EMT's on call did not refuse service to me simply because i didn't have medical insurance. They transported me to the nearest hospital anyway, and sent me a $500 bill. There was no excuse for what the firefighters did, orders or no, and should be ashamed to even call themselves firefighters after this debacle. Firewatchers is a more apt name to call those people, IMHO.

[AdminAssistant]

That could be it, dendawg, but my only experience with pre-manufactured housing was where we owned the house and the land it was on.

[crashhelmet]

You can live in a trailer on a piece of property that you own. In fact, it's actually very common in rural areas. People select the property they want to buy and then strike a deal with a company that sells 'pre-fabricated" homes to have it set there as a house. A foundation is built, the wheels are removed, and there are typically porches and garages attached to it.

All in all, it costs about the same as it does to have a "stick built" house. It's just quicker.

CH