The lesson:
If the idiots in your area vote out a proposal to tax residents for fire protection, and instead opt for an idiotic user-pay system that will inevitably lead to cock-ups like firemen watching a house burn to the ground;
Then pay your $75 voluntary fee, otherwise you are even more of an idiot than the other idiot voters.
Quick question to ALL Dopers about this thread.
If you had the means and money behind fighting this fire, AS A NEIGHBOR, would you help out?
And is there a historic precedent for neighbors helping to put out a fire?
Listen, gonz old buddy, let’s have a private word here, because in other contexts I actually like you. I suspect that on the vast continuum with Tea Party cranks at one end and American socialists at the other, you and I sit pretty close together. Heck, I’ll bet we share adjacent pews. I am certain that you really don’t know anything about me IRL, my youth as a hippy, nor about whatever I may or may not do in service of mankind and/or innocent animals. And finally I recognize that this is the Pit, where venom directed at other posters is almost a requirement. So I take no personal affront at the names you keep calling me.
But I tell you true, one old hippy to another, in this matter you’re flat out wrong. Cranick does not deserve your pity any more than the fire brigade deserves your malice. He fucked up, jumped the shark, made his own bed, screwed the pooch, refused to sign up for an optional service and experienced the consequences.
Rail against the system in place, the stupid, moronic system that allows people to opt out of a critically important service, like the rest of us liberals have been. Call for a real, mandatory tax supported, county-wide fire brigade to serve all local residents without question or equivocation, like civilized places have elsewhere. Models for this are pretty common, you know.
Rant against the brain dead ostensibly adult grand-‘child’ who set a blaze next to the shed then went off to pleasure himself and didn’t return until the fire was about to engulf the house!!! Launch a justifiable tirade against this self same cognitively challenged jerk for running back and forth into and out of the house, making phone calls and sprinkling with a garden hose, without a thought for the poor animals that were apparently locked in some closet or something where they couldn’t themselves flee the flames. Indeed, where exactly were these supposed pets anyway, that they didn’t just leave of their own accord on any of the occasions when moron-junior had the door open? And castigate all the onlookers of whatever stripe who stood around, puds in hand, for all the world apparently unable to think, either individually or collectively, of the expedient of opening a door or breaking a window on the building to let the animals out. Rebuke whatever cretinous family member would maintain pets not only inside a house but inside some interior chamber of horrors from which there was no escape and then leave them there while a fire approached from the vicinity of the shed out back. Myself, I don’t believe that there actually were any dogs or cats inside the house when the fire broke out. Not alive, anyway. (Yeah, maybe I’m hearing banjo music. Something about old man Cranick’s appearance and demeanor on Olberman gave me the creeps.)
But please don’t aim your outrage at the fire brigade for doing exactly what the governmental system required them to do. Nor at me, either. I may be a prick, but I’m hardly a cold hearted one.
Darth, neighbors cooperating to fight fires has a long, even an ancient, and honorable history. Had I been there, I would certainly have been moved to help. Money would not have been an issue. Means though would be more problematic.
I suspect this house was served by a pump and well. I believe there is support for my guess not simply due to the rural location, but because I see what looks like a water pressure accumulator tank in pictures of the yard. Typically there would be a 2 inch or smaller well, served by a horse or horse and a half jet pump, line pressure being stabilized with a pressure switch and the aforementioned tank. This installation serves a home well, providing pressurized water with sufficient volume to supply a couple of open taps at once, like kitchen and bathroom sinks, or clothes washer and toilet.
This is hardly suitable for fighting a fire. Those “couple of taps” could be two garden hoses, but each would only produce maybe 5 or 6 gallons a minute. More hoses would only mean less pressure and less volume from each. And even this would end when the fire reached the electrical supply box, or the utility drop.
Even the professional equipment available would have been hard pressed to extinguish a fully involved double wide. As I cited above, the two different engines available put out much higher rates of water delivery than a garden hose (as much as 1,000 gallons a minute) but had a capacity of only (depending on which fire truck) 30 seconds or 45 seconds of such discharge. To do more, they’d need a refill from a tanker, or a hydrant, or perhaps a nearby lake. Otherwise, the limited water would probably best be reserved for fighting further spread of the fire, not a futile effort on a highly involved structure.
Also, this was a “manufactured dwelling”. What are you going to do with the parts that are left, even if you put the fire out before it destroyed the entire building? Unlike site-built homes, a partially destroyed trailer isn’t really a candidate for repair. It was built, as a unit, in a factory. There is just no provision for reconstructing half a bedroom and the east side of the kitchen (for example).
Nor do I think double wides, especially older ones, are built with much fire resistance. Moron grandson apparently discovered the “problem” when the flames reached the corner of the house. Once the flames reached that point, even had a fire brigade been nearby, I think the only realistic result would be total destruction.
I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. The argument against putting out the fire and sending him the bill seems to be that “He didn’t pay before” and that they have had problems collecting from people in the past.
Sure, the $75 is an optional fee, and I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about billing him for the full cost of putting out the fire and taking him to court if he doesn’t pay.
Public Fire Safety Guidelines (PFSG): put out by The Ontario Office of the Fire Marshal available on the web.
Bolding mine:
So the Ontario Government admits to the fact that some areas have zero fire suppression capabilities. The Ontario Government also states that the level of services provided should be clearly defined and followed. Now unless the province can somehow escape the laws of physics, there will be a line within the province between people with protection and those without, just like in Tennessee. The municipality within the United States chose to be nice and offer fire protection to some of those without it on a yearly pay system. That offer did not and should not make them accountable to every home within the area of zero fire protection services. Just like when the Ontario Governemnt says: “The level of protection services provided by the department, as deemed appropriate by Council, should be clearly defined and included in the fire department establishing and regulating by-law.”
This has nothing to do with being in arrears on taxes, this has to do with living in an area with zero fire protection, and choosing whether or not to take up the adjoining municipality on their nice offer for protection for a small fee.
He lives in the county. The fire department is in the city. Why should a city fire department concern itself with fires in the county? The people in the county have rejected a tax that would provide fire service. Why does this automatically make it the city’s problem?
People who want fire service can pay for it. People who don’t want it don’t pay. He knew what it takes to get fire service, because in the past he has requested it even though he did not pay for it. Surely if there were anyone in that county who should be motivated to pay the fee it would be him, but he, in his own words, admitted that he was just sponging off his neighbors.
Why should the city have to take every deadbeat to court? THEY LIVE IN THE COUNTY. THEY ARE NOT THE CITY’S PROBLEM. Exactly how far away do you believe the county has a responsibility to provide service?
I’m not even sure that’s a legitimate argument.
He refused an optional service. Providing the service anyway and then requiring payment after the fact seems…shady at best.
If I cancel my cable and the cable company continues to supply my home, should they then come after me if I refuse to pay for it? If I stop my newspaper subscription?
A neighborhood kid knocks on my door and offers to clear the snow from my sidewalks. I say no thanks. He does it anyway. I’m obligated to pay him now? I don’t think so.
I hope that I can be clear as well. The fee, and the fire service it binds, is an optional service. There is no provision under the law for forcing someone to accept or then to pay for an optional service.
The City fire department has no authority, outside of the Residential Subscription Service, for providing County residents with fire protection/suppression services. None. Zip. Nada. It is accepted that those people who opt out of the Subscription service do not want the City to provide them with fire fighting services.
What if Comcast came to your house, uninvited and unasked, installed cable, and then sent you a fucking bill for it!!!???!!! What if GEICO picked your name and your car out of a hat and, despite your current coverage and the fact that you had never contacted them, wrote you a policy, sent you a bill, and then took you to fucking court for nonpayment?!?!?!?!
Hell, if I could just make people take and pay for services they never asked for and didn’t want, then I’d be a fucking gazillionaire.
Have I been sufficiently clear this time?
Garfield226, four minutes counts as simulpost, doesn’t it? 
If this was a pre-fab double wide, can we assume it had neither an attic nor a basement?
How exactly did 2 dogs and a cat get trapped in such a small dwelling?
Does anyone else get the sneaking suspicion that there were no dogs or cats?
Or that something was blocking the other fire exit, perhaps more garbage.
Are double wides of this nature required to have multiple fire exits? Or is that an unnecessary government intervention into the lives of hard working 'mericans.
And lastly, do you think there are still people in the area that haven’t bothered to pay their $75. I noticed the NPR article references a $50 fee that they had a hard time collecting. They had to break it down into several smaller quarterly payments and still have trouble.
Well, we are on page 9, maybe we need just one more.
It seems when fires are involved, learning lessons takes more than a few tries.
ETA Seems were on page 10 now.
Page 10 and how many times has it been pointed out that, contrary to the OP’s wording, the fire department is not from the local government, but rather from the government of another community?
You can see the underframe in the pictures. There’s no basement, unless “under the trailer” counts as a basement. And the attic is whatever shit falls on top.
They were kept in some interior torture chamber where they provided sick fucks with targets for their depravity.
I did, post 443— or the poor critters were dead already. Eewww! Bestia-necrophilia!
Seen any episodes of Hoarders lately?
Nope, that’s the whole “rugged individualism” thing in a nutshell.
Maybe they could take chickens in trade?
Love the shirt!
If they were decent individuals, they would fight fires across the land, asking for nothing in return but the sheer joy of helping others.
Uh-huh. And as they flit blithely from hither to non, dousing fires as is their wont, they’d better be careful they don’t get their little fairy wings singed off. :D;)
Agreed. But in this case, the homeowner DID ask for the fire department to come out and put out the fire. And when they showed up for the neighbor, he asked again.
So, my thought is that they should put out the fire and send him a bill.
Plus, Geico or Comcast is not an emergency situation and I would be free to reject that contract. Even without a homeowner’s consent, putting out a fire would almost certainly be seen as a quasi-contract that a court would allow payment on.
I know it’s only been said like 700 times in this thread, but that’s not how it works. It’s like insurance: if you let people opt in after they know they need it, why would anyone pay premiums? He missed his chance to get fire fighting services. Because he was stupid. He might have thought he was still entitled to buy their services on demand, but he wasn’t. Because… (wait for it), he was stupid.
Life sucks when you’re stupid.
Much of this thread makes me think back to this classic thread: Firefighters- Guardians of Corporate Welfare?
It is like insurance. I’m not saying he could pay his $75 premium after the fire started, but that he should pay full price for the service.
This seems to be the part you’re missing. The system only works if everyone pays in a little when their house isn’t on fire. Some people might prefer to pay nothing until their house is on fire, and then pay more at that point, but they don’t get to make that choice.
