Again with the Tennessee County $75 firefighter fee

[Peppergirl]

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

Since when does a little fact like that keep the media from latching on to it like a pitbull?

[Panacea]

The fee doesn't bother me about this. 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? 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."

Several things. By going out there, all they used was gas. Actually fighting the fire means the cost of water, wear and tear on equipment, and treating injuries.

Being on hand means they don't have to come back if the fire spreads to a property that DID pay the fee.

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?

I actually think it's a good idea; the family can pay the fee out of the insurance settlement if they have it. Since it's a government driven fee, it can follow you and hit your credit report.

However, it also might be like getting blood from a stone.

However, in the original case with this county, the first homeowner begged the fire department to fight the fire, and even offered cash to pay them . . . and they refused.

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.

It depends on how the fee is assessed; to the property owner or the person living at the address. If the former, the land lord is responsible and could be sued by the tenant for not ensuring the home was safe. Renters insurance would have no exucse not to pay the tenant, since it's not the tenant's fault the landlord is a cheap ass douche.

If the latter, the tenant is SOL.

As for EMT's . . . sorry, I know you say later it's intentional but that's an apples vs oranges argument. EMTs are regulated by different state agencies with different rules. Public employees who are EMTs are often required by law to render assistance to any who ask. Firefighters exist to protect property. EMTs exist to preserve life.

I do find it disingenuous that the fire chief said, "We'd have done someone if someone was trapped in the house." How did they know someone wasn't, since they never went in?

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.

I respectfully disagree. Folks living there know the score, and know from expereince that the FD can and will let your shit burn to the ground if you don't pay. Therefore, if you can't or won't come up with a measly 75 bucks to protect your home once a year, that's YOUR problem. People who are paying the actual taxes to support this fire company should not have to subsidize tight wads in the country who won't budget to save themselves.

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

You're correct. The initial outrage is coming more from the OP

[Andara Bledin]

I do find it disingenuous that the fire chief said, "We'd have done someone if someone was trapped in the house." How did they know someone wasn't, since they never went in?

The trailer owners were the ones that called 911. They likely told the operator that it was just the two of them - no children, no pets - and that the only thing being lost was property. Some of it irreplaceable, no doubt, but not nearly as precious as a life.

^-.-^

[gremcint]

if they would do it for free, then NOONE would pay. and paying after? ever heard the term deadbeat?

[bainsidhe]

The article says the couple walked back inside their burning home to rescue possessions. Not sure how fast the fire was spreading, but that's definitely a safety issue. So I'm a little confused too, that the fire department would save them if they were trapped, but wouldn't prevent them from entering a burning building and potentially becoming trapped. It's a messy situation, there are no winners here.

[Peppergirl]

This may be of interest:

My father is a retired Cincinnati firefighter. He was active for 25 years.

I sent him the article. He read it, then called me.

He said, "Sounds like the CFD from 100 years ago." I asked what he meant. Apparently, insurance companies would sell homeowners a policy that protected against fire. This didn't just mean fire damage..it actually meant that if you didn't purchase the policy, the Cincy fire department was to do exactly what this Tennessee department did.

Additionally, the insurance companies would actually have the fire department sell and distrubute the policies, then had them place some sort of marker on the property after the policy was paid in full. If the marker wasn't present, they were only to rescue human life, not property. For added fun, the firefighters used to fight over who would get the most markers, because they'd get paid a premium per each.

My dad was heavily involved with the CFD fire museum back in the day, and actually has some of these markers in his fire memorabilia collection.

Crazy!

I asked him, from his perspective, if (right or wrong) he felt he could stand by and watch a house burn to the ground if they hadn't paid. He thought about it a second and said he didn't think he could. My dad is a real tough guy, so if he would have a problem with it, I think alot of them would.

By the same token, he understands the reason for the fee and doesn't think poorly of them for doing their jobs...he just didn't feel he could have done the same.

[IDrinkaRum]

FTR, I was not outraged, I was exasperated. Either the county or the country or the people who are supposed to pay the fee or all 3 of them need to get their heads out of their collective backsides and start doing something.

As for not paying the $75 fee because they didn't feel they'd ever have a fire? Anyone hear of Murphy's Law?

[Sleepwalker]

On the other hand, this has happened a lot. At work, a lot of people have a hard time throwing out perfectly good food, until they see how many scammers there are. Eventually, something's gotta give.

[Panacea]

This may be of interest:

My father is a retired Cincinnati firefighter. He was active for 25 years.

I sent him the article. He read it, then called me.

He said, "Sounds like the CFD from 100 years ago." I asked what he meant. Apparently, insurance companies would sell homeowners a policy that protected against fire. This didn't just mean fire damage..it actually meant that if you didn't purchase the policy, the Cincy fire department was to do exactly what this Tennessee department did.

My late uncle was a firefighter in Massachusetts. He told me similar stories

In NYC, rival fire companies would show up and fight for the right to fight the fire . . . because they were paid by the insurance companies.

Government run fire brigades are so much better for the consumer, in that regard.

[AdminAssistant]

In NYC, rival fire companies would show up and fight for the right to fight the fire . . . because they were paid by the insurance companies.

I believe the classic film Mother, Jugs, and Speed covers that situation with ambulance companies.

[HYHYBT]

I seem to remember ambulances had a slightly different problem: they were owned by the funeral homes. So they would take the dead before the living... who might not still *be* living when they got back.

[Panacea]

I believe the classic film Mother, Jugs, and Speed covers that situation with ambulance companies.

I've never seen it. I'll have to look into it

I seem to remember ambulances had a slightly different problem: they were owned by the funeral homes. So they would take the dead before the living... who might not still *be* living when they got back.

Well, sure . . . with the dead they know they'll get paid.

[AdminAssistant]

I've never seen it. I'll have to look into it

It's kind of awful but in a good way.