So we can have all the burning houses saved, but only get paid half the time, and everyone loves the SFFD.
Or we can let some of the houses burn, and get paid none of the time, and lots of people hate the SFFD.
I’d rather put out the fires, take the losses, and know that the community respects it’s citizens. That’s part of what being a society is all about.
I understand the issues at play here (city/county/unincorporated areas, taxes, opt-in fees, etc.; I’ve lived rural like that), but I’d really rather go for option A than option B.
I was just at firefighterssupplies.com. I didn’t see a payment option called “the love and respect of the county residents”.
The residents of the county have gone to great lengths to not be part of that society we all think they should have. They’ve repeatedly shot down proposals to establish county wide fire protection. You can’t have a nice society full of nice people when a bunch of people refuse to be part of it. Bankrupting the municipality to keep the love and respect of the county residents is no solution.
What are we becoming? On any social level from tribe to nation, what’s wrong with shunning freeloaders who gleefully use limited resources without contributing their own fair effort? If this guy’s neighbor was too poor to pay his own $75, do you think he would have graciously paid it for him? Hell no.
Dude gamed the system and he lost. As an insurance guy, I have other questions about whether or not he’ll be living in a tent for the next 20 years. I’d not be surprised to find he’d voided his policy by essentially prohibiting fire protection for his home.
I’m seeing a lot of entitled whining masquerading as compassion in this thread. It’s making me hate Cranick even more.
I propose an alternative title for this news story: “Man Who Didn’t Pay for Service Doesn’t Get Service.” The people arguing that they should have put out his fire anyway, even though he didn’t live in town and didn’t pay a very reasonable fee (if you can’t afford $75 a year to protect your home, your belongings, and your family from fire, then you can’t afford to be a homeowner), seem to have some kind of bizarre Wal-Mart bargain shopper view of government services, where we want everything but only at the lowest prices. Any shortfall can go on the government’s credit card (or come out of the workers’ paychecks), but dammit, I better get all these services anyway, because I’m special! This mindset is rampant in America (“get your government hands off my Medicare”). I’m not saying it’s wrong to want or expect good government services, but they have to be paid for. If you live in a place where they don’t mandate that everyone pay for these things and allow you to choose, you can’t whine when you choose incorrectly.
As someone said in the GD thread: this is why we can’t have nice things. The Cranicks of the world just can’t be bothered to pay their fair share.
Also, if you’re going to refuse to pay for the service, maybe you ought to make sure your house isn’t a fire hazard and your good-for-nothing son isn’t falling asleep with lit cigarettes in his mouth.
When large fires occur and they send people from all over the country. It is not the home unit that pays their wages, they are for all intents and purposes independent contractors. On this fire the home unit was on the hook for all the wages, they should not have to pay for someone who didn’t contribute.
When different fire departments help each other out by sending resources it’s call “mutual aid”. They set up these agreements in advance to help each other in an emergency that requires more resources than they need to maintain normal operations. The home owner had an opportunity to set up his own agreement in advance, by paying the dam $75.00 and getting fire protection.
Fires in rural areas require water to be trucked in, in water tenders. When the water runs out the tender has to leave the scene to go fill up. A large tender can easily take more than a half hour to fill, add to that the driving time and you can have hour plus turn arounds for more water. Why should the fire department waste a limited resource on a residence that didn’t pay when they may need it on a residence that did.
How would it be bankrupting the municipality? You can’t even make a valid argument for that. Are you saying there are so many fires in the area around South Fulton, that the fire department would do nothing but put out fires all day every day? Are you seriously saying that the cumulative expense of yearly firefighting would bankrupt the municipality? Got a cite for that?
I mean, all they were billing previously for fighting the fire was $500, right? So, how many fires would there have to be in a year to run the budget into bankruptcy?
I see that the county has about 32,400 residents. If every resident owned their own home and they all burned down twice, that would result in fees of $16.2 million. Assuming they got paid about half the time, that means they would be shortchanged $8 million. I doubt even that ludicrous worst-case scenario would be enough to bankrupt the municipality of South Fulton in one year.
Of those 32,400, 10,900 live in Union City (the county seat and largest city), which has its own fire department, so you have to take that out of the equation.
(Incidentally, Kelly E Edmison, the Chief of the Union City Fire Department, has a response to the “fire storm” on that linked page.)
As for the firefighters, I live in an area with a mix of paid municipal departments and volunteer departments. I can’t imagine any of them refusing to fight a fire for any reason. BUT, I also can’t imagine that any of them would work for a department with that policy. They consider firefighting a calling. In the worst cases, they rush into a fire when all others are rushing out, often at great risk to their own lives.
The fault lies with the fire department making this arrangement with a municipality outside their area. Either the municipality contracts to cover every building in their limits, or you don’t contract with that municipality. Let them fund their own department. Of course, you’ll still have the problem of a fire burning with no one to put it out, but you wont subject firefighters to standing at a fire without taking action.
Our department is volunteer, but supported by taxes (for equipment, supplies, etc). We get annual solicitations for donations. We donate because we appreciate the volunteers - many of them are neighbors and friends. We joke with them, saying that the firefighters have a list of who donates and who doesn’t, for them to reference on cold nights before deciding whether to get out of bed to respond to a call. Any Other Name? Nope, they didn’t donate. Hit the snooze bar.
This is what you get when the “all taxes are EEEEEvil!” meme spreads across society; people voting down tiny taxes that provide essential services that are best provided by a government department.
Ah, socialism. Where I pay a lump sum and never worry if the police, firefighters, ambulances and other life and property saving services will refuse to help me.
Seriously, I’m appalled at the fact that it was an optional charge. I mean, my Canadian taxes pay for emergency care, but not for massages - that’s something covered in my additional insurance through work that I had to opt in to. But that’s a massage, not a fucking fire.
No one here wants to live in Fulton County. No one is saying this is a good way to do it. We want to live in an area where fire and police and EMS are paid for out of general tax revenue and are available to all.
However, we’re also observing that they set up the system this way, and are now complaining that it’s working the way they set it up.
My initial reaction on reading this story was disgust. How could the firefighters just stand by and let it burn? The more I read about it, though, I think the firefighters made the right call, given the unusual circumstances. The guy had repeated opportunities to buy fire coverage, didn’t, and regretfully learned the folly of his ways.
Two thoughts: Maybe the local 911 call center could be set up to take credit card payments over the phone for people who - all of a sudden - discover that they really, really want fire department coverage for a measly $75? I also wonder about the assertion that the fire department lacked the legal means to collect on debts owed to the municipality by those who lived outside it. Liens in Ohio, at least, can be placed with court permission by any creditor, against any debtor, anywhere in the entire state.
Marge Simpson: “That house is on fire!”
Lionel Hutz, realtor: “Motivated seller!”
Are you paying some kind of national tax for that, or does it come from a more “local” tax? Are there taxes at the county and province level that pay for this stuff (do you have counties in Canada?)? Do you live near an urban center or out in the sticks? Anyone living in America in a town or city of any decent size has a fire department paid for by tax dollars. This story is notable precisely because everyone here takes such service for granted, but they are paying for it.
I heard about this yesterday and thought about starting a Pit thread… against the moron who didn’t pay his fee. Then I went to bed and forgot about it. But I am so proud of the majority of you who have exactly the right opinion about this (i.e., you agree with me).
Yup.
Yes you do. Or you give them, and all the other “mopes” like them, the message that it’s okay to just not pay, because you’ll get the service anyway. And there goes your revenue, and with the revenue goes your ability to provide the service to anyone.
It’s the same reason that, in health care, to eliminate “existing condition” clauses we also have to impose the requirement of mandatory coverage. Otherwise, anyone could stop paying their premiums when they were healthy and then start again when they got sick. All forms of insurance–and coverage by a fire department counts here–depend on the safe majority paying for the much greater needs of the minority who are actually affected. It’s like a lottery–you pay in a small affordable amount on a regular basis on the off chance that something terrible will happen and you’ll get benefits back that far outweigh what you paid in.
Yeah, what the hell happened to people being *proud *to pay their taxes?
Because the department has upkeep expenses outside of individual fires. You think it’s free to keep a bunch of people and equipment ready to go at any minute? If you could just pay the fees if and when you had a fire, (a) most people wouldn’t be able to afford it anyway and (b) even if they could, it still wouldn’t be enough to keep things running.
Are you fucking retarded? That’s only five years of coverage. Whoop-de-fucking-doo. Why the hell would anyone pay the fee from year to year if they could just get off with a single tiny payment?
Because if they give into that instict, there won’t be a fire department left, because they won’t be able to afford to keep anything running.
I agree 100%, except I’m pretty sure we’re talking about the opposite parts of the thread.
This does not rate as a disaster or a major forest fire. This was a single family home. Fire Depts respond mutual aid all the time. I’ll help you today because I know that tomorrow I might be the one needing help. But I can’t call on you 100 times a year if I only go to you once or twice. The books have to be balanced - not exact but somewhat proportional.
I have no idea what this means. I do know that AZ privatized some FD’s years back. The company (Rural Metro if I remember correctly) went broke trying to survive on subscription service.
If would definitely suck to stand around and watch someones home burn because of stupidity. But the County took a formal vote and the residents decided they were not willing to “pitch in”. Sucks to be them.