Again with the Tennessee County $75 firefighter fee

[Sleepwalker]

Go in if someone's life is in danger. Otherwise you are saving someone's stuff for free, risking your own life and equipment for it. Sadly, this shit costs money and when people think the fire trucks will show up anyway, they won't pay. 75 frickin dollars.

[Greenday]

They were there and there was no reason not to put the fire out. If you're not going to don't bother showing up. That's just insult to injury. "Oh hey, I totally have everything necessary to help out with this, but I'm just going to stand over here and watch."

They were probably there to make sure the fire didn't spread beyond their home.

There's a perfectly good reason for not putting it out. They weren't getting paid to.

[Hyena Dandy]

I have a suggestion. Its a bit weird, but its just an idea I had.

What if they kept it as-is, and the firefighters still went and put out fires. But if you didn't pay, you were charged... I don't know, some exorbitant fee... Basically, its still a gamble. You're still getting it bad if you don't pay. But if you don't, you'll not end up completely without anything.

I don't know, is that a good idea, or a stupid one?

[bainsidhe]

What if they kept it as-is, and the firefighters still went and put out fires. But if you didn't pay, you were charged... I don't know, some exorbitant fee... Basically, its still a gamble. You're still getting it bad if you don't pay. But if you don't, you'll not end up completely without anything.

I agree with you here, but I'm not sure it'd work that well. The chances of a fire are slim, so everyone would just gamble it wouldn't happen to them and the fire department would never collect anyone's 75 bucks. Keep in mind this couple lived in trailer with no insurance. By all means bill them after the fact, but you can't get paid if they've no money to give.

It's a miserable situation, but I can't stand the thought that a fire department was RIGHT THERE and just watched the thing burn. Speaking of home insurance, what if someone was renting out in the boonies and the landlord didn't pay the fire bill? Some innocent renter loses everything over a 75 dollar fee? Heck, why not do the same with ambulances? EMTs show up and you either have to prove you have insurance or that your really are having a heart attack. Chest pains alone doesn't mean a ride to the hospital.

Sorry, this whole thing is nonsense and there are no winners. I'm just disgusted.

[Canarr]

Sure, it sucks. But what do you want to do? Maintaining a fire department costs money. Somebody has to pay for that. People in the city pay taxes, people in the county don't want to do that, they prefer the voluntary fee. But if you tell people that fire department coverage costs 75$ a year, but still help does who don't pay, then what's the incentive to pay the fee at all?

[Sleepwalker]

Your stuff is not the same as your life. Bad analogy. If your landlord is at fault, you take it up with your landlord.

[HYHYBT]

What bothers me is that he fire station is going on about how much money they spend going out to these rural areas to put out fires when they went out to this fire. If you're there, why not try to put the fucking fire out instead of standing around and watching it burn?

Because the only way they can get *anybody* to pay the fee is to demonstrate that if you don't, they let your home burn. Meanwhile, they have to be there to make sure it doesn't spread.

As for billing after the fact... if you didn't have the money to pay the $75 in the first place, and now everything you had in the world has gone up in smoke, what good would sending you a bill do? Make you wait until you've received it to file bankruptcy?

As for the landlord thing... the building is theirs; their loss, not yours. Your stuff inside, you should have renter's insurance for. Good luck otherwise proving that it *would* have been saved, because often as not, it would be destroyed or ruined even the fire had been put out.

[bainsidhe]

Your stuff is not the same as your life. Bad analogy. If your landlord is at fault, you take it up with your landlord.

The analogy was intentional. This couple was running back into their burning home trying to save their belongings. Had they been trapped inside or had the fire spread, the firefighters would've stepped in to do their thing. But since no one was dying and the fire didn't spread, the fire department stood back and watched. It could just as easily be EMTs that would transport you to the hospital, but only if you were dying or had insurance.

As for the landlord thing... the building is theirs; their loss, not yours. Your stuff inside, you should have renter's insurance for.

Not good enough. If my home burned, I'd lose my furbaby, family momentos, pictures and all my possessions. No amount of insurance would "make me whole"on the things I cherished the most. And insurance only reimburses (after deductable!) what THEY think things are worth, not my actual investment. If the fire department stood by and watched while everything I held dear went crispy....I can't express the rage. All over 75 bucks.

I understand why the fire department made the choice they did, but it was still a dick move.

[kiwi]

Remember this thread about a man whose house burned down because he didn't pay the $75 fee for the firefighters?

Seems another family lost their house because they didn't pay the fee, and they live in the SAME COUNTY as the other man.

Maybe the county needs to learn that they can't keep letting this happen and drop the $75 fee?

You would think by now people would learn that these houses are OUTSIDE the tax zone for this fire department and they have NO WAY to tax these people to get them to pay the fee which is why it is a subscription based service.

I don't blame the fire fighters one bit, I hardly think they are standing there rubbing their hands with glee. Fire fighting equipment isn't paid for with thin air! If you want the protection and you are TOLD you need to pay for it and you choose not to, you assume that risk.

[BlaqueKatt]

If the fire department stood by and watched while everything I held dear went crispy....I can't express the rage.

I have witnessed a fire in an apartment complex where the firefighters did just that because it was TOO DANGEROUS to get anywhere near the fire, they had to let it consume most of the building because of several residents having propane tanks on their balconies(against fire code, and the leases) that were turning into well, shrapnel. Getting close enough to do anything put them at great risk, to "save someone's stuff". Life and safety of fireman>material belongings.

My "brother"(kid that I grew up on his parent's farm) died in a trailer fire*, he was a volunteer fireman, due to the heat, and rapid consumption of the trailer(it was gone within less than 10 minutes), his friends had to watch it burn(knowing he was inside) because there was nothing they could do, the flames were over 25-30 feet high. And his parents who lived next door called it in within 5 minutes or it starting, so 15 minutes from fire ignition to nothing but ashes.


for (hopefully), the last time:

the firefighters are employed and paid by the city, the fees are a contract to provide services if necessary, if any one of those firefighters had been injured while not working under a contract they WOULD NOT be covered by workman's comp.


*which is why I despise the phrase "die in a fire" that everyone thinks is such a cute and pithy catchphrase.

[bainsidhe]

BlaqueKatt, that's terrible.

And I do understand the many reasons why the decision was made. I don't like it and don't agree with it, but I understand. No one wins here. If firefighters put out every fire, then no one would bother paying the taxes and then there'd be no money for the upkeep of equipment and eventually there'd be no fire department.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Let's say they did have insurance. Would they cover it since it was negligence not to have paid the firefighter fee?

Given the nature of insurance companies (corporate entities that exist to make a profit), likely by not paying for the fire fighter service given them the ability to say "Well that was your stupidity, tough shit) and not pay.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

If you're there, why not try to put the fucking fire out instead of standing around and watching it burn? They were there and there was no reason not to put the fire out.

Because the only way they can get *anybody* to pay the fee is to demonstrate that if you don't, they let your home burn. Meanwhile, they have to be there to make sure it doesn't spread.

Another point to consider. HYHYBT's point is a valid one, but there is also the fact that a fire can spread from one house to another fairly quickly. I've lived in trailer parks where my neighbor didn't even have to step outside of his trailer to ask me for a cup of sugar. I could just pass it across the way like those Grey Poupon commercials.

So if 227 Road St. is on fire and they didn't pay the fee but 225 and 229 on either side did pay the fee then they need to be there to make sure that 227 doesn't toast their neighbors.

It does suck and I do feel bad for them. However the community voted to not pay taxes (which would have solved this whole mess before it happened) but instead agreed to the $75 fee.

The way I look at it is this. If I am a mechanic and I tell you that your timing belt is hanging on by a thread and that it is not going to last much longer and offer to fix it now before it snaps and causes your expensive as all hell interference engine to self destruct...and you say "Meh. Can't be arsed to deal with it now" and sure enough the engine does go tits up...well is it my fault as a mechanic?

If they were given the choice of pay taxes to pay for the service, or pay a fee for the service and they choose the fees so they have the option of deciding whether or not to pay the fee...

...then they have no call to bitch and complain when they decide to not pay for the service.

[Gravekeeper]

If they're outside of the tax zone for this fire dept and the people voted for this fee instead of being taxed. I can't really say I have any sympathy whatsoever. -.-

[SkullKing]

Correct me if i am wrong, but what I gather from the article is that even the owners of the trailer agree that they were being stupid and aren´t complaining about the fire department