Why did fireman just watch as this fire burn a house down

But the fact that he said he forgot to pay shows that he did not just intentionally not pay the $75. That is my whole point concerning his forgetting.

Haven't you ever forgotten something important? I know I have. But I did not do it intentionally.

But I still believe whether it had been in effect 20 years or even 50 years, it is wrong of the fire department to allow a person to lose everything because he did not give them protection money. They are no worse than the thugs who demanded protection money from storeowners in the early 20th century.

 

No wonder the current generation is among the most selfish and irresponsible of all time. They are taught they don't have to be accountable for their actions. This situation is a perfect example.

This man was irresponsible and is suffering the consequences. I'll bet he doesn't "forget" to pay his fire protection fee again.

 

I admit to some confusion. How is it irresponsible to call up and request a service that you are willing to pay for?

Would you like it if your plumber treated you that way? "Yes, I know you have a leaky pipe and you basement is flooding ruining years of momentos, pictures, memories, and stuff. But you didn't pay me January 1 so I am not going to come help you."

How silly.

On the flipside, how is it not irresponsible to expose a whole neighborhood and a forest to the ravages of fire all for the sake of winning a stupid little game about who paid a negligible fee that wasn't going to cover the cost anyway?

It seems that any reasonable person looking at the facts is going to say that the fire department is irresponsible. How can any reasonable person would say that a person is irresponsible for being willing to pay for services rendered? I think that is the definition of responsible isn't it?

Do we really think that someone should lose everything they have because they didn't pay $75 and instead offered to pay "whatever it costs"?

 

The plumber didn't ask me to pay up front did he or did I miss that somewhere?

If you convince me that an insurance company is morally responsible to to pay claims to folks who didn't take out insurance policies then I'll go along with the fact that this town should have provided a service to someone who didn't pay the fire service fee. Good luck!!!!

 

I know I never said they are obligated to put out the fire if the people didn't pay. What I said is the concept of fee-based fire service is both crazy and insane.

 

My friend it all is fee based when it comes to government service. Many towns across this country due to a big drop in revenue are laying school teachers, policemen, fireman, court house workers and so on. Class sizes are going up do to less teachers, less police men, less fireman and so on, all of which mean there could be less service offered. I've seen it over the years when times got hard government cut back problems grew. If the service can't be paid for it can't be given.

 

Yep. The "Tea Party" mentality run amuck. A failure to understand the concept of "the commons".

 

You probably missed it. Many home service companies offer "pay up front" plans. I had an appliance repairman at my house just recently for my washer who told me that if I would pay him $59, all my service calls would be covered for the next three years on any appliance in my house; I would only have to pay for parts. If I didn't not pay the $59, I would have to pay $39 for each occurrence. So you probably just missed it somewhere.

You are missing the point. After he did not pay the $75, it is not insurance. It is fee-based. And the guy offered to pay. Your position would be like the only appliance repair company in a city saying, "Since you didn't pay the $59, I am not coming." Except that when your washer breaks down, you only lose the chance to do your wash for a few days. You don't lose your whole life of property and memories.

So the stakes are far higher in a house fire, which makes the irresponsibility greater.

And this fire department was both morally and financially irresponsible not to put out the fire.

Let me paint it for you this way clearly (since the more subtle ways didn't come across).

You have two options:

1. You can receive $75 and spend 4-5 hours putting out a fire.
2. You can spend 4-5 hours putting out a fire and receive $5000.

Which will you take? You would take the $75 and refuse the $5000. I would take the $5000 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. It is financially foolish and irresponsible not to.

Furthermore, to refuse to put out the fire is morally irresponsible because it not only destroys the life of someone for the sake of $75, but it endangers a whole community, the lives and property of others, the surrounding forest and wildlife, and we know how fast a forest fire can spread.

 

Saying they will pay so much and then actually paying it, after the fact, are two different monkeys. A fire department needs the money up front, not afterwards. With everyone paying $75.00 up front there is a good source of revenue to help provide the service.

 

Most services oriented businesses disagree with you.

At $75 a year, unless there is an awful lot of houses, there is not enough money to cover much. I imagine it is probably supplemented by other income such as taxes.

 

Wow.

Took a few posts longer than I thought, but I was wondering how long before someone used this to cheap-shot tea-party folks. Sad, but expected.

My view has morphed on this over the last few days. I agree with much of what PL has said. Other thoughts:

• If fire department can offer this "service," how long before police do? And what's to stop them from offering different "tiers" of service?
  • "I'm sorry, ma'am, I realize that rape is a traumatic thing...but realize, you didn't pay the $99 'violent crime rider' on your protection policy..."
  • Yes sir, we will look for your son...but first, we nee to find out: did you purchase the preferred law enforcement service, or the standard? Standard? OK, please hold, one of our 'standard service' folks will be with you in a little while..."
• Also...keep in mind: Government isn't known for always being 100% accurate when it comes to record-keeping. Can you imagine the train wreck, and associated liability (and subsequent lawsuits) after the following...Here's a call on January 3:
  • Operator: "911 emergency, sponsored by AAA computer systems...how can I help you?"
  • Citizen: "Help me! My house is on fire! I'm at 123 Elm Street!"
  • Operator: "I'm sorry, but our records don't show a payment for 2011."
  • Citizen: "That's crazy! I paid the fee!"
  • Operator: "I'm sorry, but you'll have to call back during business hours and speak with an account rep."
  • (Before you shrug that one off, realize that Alabama has had massive computer problems with keeping up with property tax liability, revenue, and payment. If they were to use the same system for this, hundreds of folks would show up as "not qualifying" for fire protection).
• "We're not fighting that fire--you haven't paid your fee!" Has yet another weakness--just one mistake--one, mind you--and someone could lose their life.
• Exactly how long before the costly lawsuits begin? How long before x part of town says, "Hey...we don't have as much money as 'y' part of town, yet you're charging us fees?" How long before charges of racism or classism lead to lawsuits over this? How many millions will go to lawyers over this bad idea?

The more I think about this issue, the less I like it. The more frought with problems it becomes. The more headaches and nighmares it will cause.

 

WRONG WRONG WRONG - or maybe in your mind. There is NO way this fire department is responsible for this fire. Whether you like it or not that is the law in that area and the homeowner knew it. The homeowner is the IRRESPONSIBLE one here and HE is the one RESPONSIBLE for his neglect (forgetting is the same as neglect - ask the electric company if you "forget" to pay your electric bill).

These type of fire districts are common in rural areas and are likely not to change. It is not a matter of how they would make more money (that argument has no valid support). It is a matter of the rules (laws) in that fire district. There are some fire districts where it is illegal for the fire department to respond to a non-subscriber and the firefighters can actually face legal charges if they do respond.

For you urban dwellers, you have no understanding of what a fire district is and how it works. You can rant and rave all you want but these districts will most likely not change. Sorry if you think they will. Those of you ranting against the districts miss the point that people living in these districts CHOOSE the cheaper alternative of paying fire dues rather than paying higher property taxes. And if they don't pay their dues, the consequences can be devastating. It is sad that this family lost their home, but the fire department cannot be faulted. There were rules set in place and the homeowner was well aware off those rules. It was his choice not to make pay the dues a higher priority. (BTW, fire districts have a well publicize membership drive when the dues need to be paid.)

 

I haven't read through the entire thread, so this may have been suggested. IMO the common sense solution would have been to put out the fire, and then bill the home owner with some type of added penalty charge.

 

This probably reveals the basic difference in the concept of moral responsibility on the part of public servants.

Since you are so dogmatic about this, what if this fire had gotten out of control and now a week later, forest fires are still consuming acres of woodlands along with people's houses. Do you believe it is still acceptable for the fire department to have ignored this fie?

 

Larry, you just like to argue for the sake of argument? My dad used to say that I'd argue with sign post too.

Did you not read the article? Have you not paid attention? The fire department was there to protect the other homeowner's property should the fire spread. Those other home owners had the sense to pay. Woodlands fires are not the responsibility of local fire departments as much as they are the responsibility of the state forestry agency. A city fire department is equipped to fight structure fires more so than a forest fire. Both present unique problems requiring specialized equipment such as a bulldozer for a forest fire. I don't think I've ever seen a city fire department equipped with bulldozers to fight forest fires.

 

No, just for fun. It's nice to discuss something that doesn't really matter that much.

Are you the signpost? Or am I?

Yes, to both. In fact, I just went back and reread the article.

But not until they called, right? The article says, "They eventually showed up."

It sounds from the article like it wasn't a matter of sense as much as oversight. The guy forgot. That's a high price to pay for forgetting particularly when it was easily remedied. The proverbial "punishment doesn't fit the crime." It would be interesting to know the history. Has he never paid? Was this just a single year oversight? I am more sympathetic to your position if this guy had lived there for twenty years and never paid, although his offer to pay whatever it cost kind of removes that from the table. As with any insurance, failure to pay the premium should not prevent you from getting service. It just means you are "self insured," and you are likely going to pay more.

The article says that one fire chief (not sure if it is this one) operates his whole department on $8000 for the year. Here was an opportunity to get all or most of that $8000 in one fell swoop.

And as for motivating people not to pay the $75/year, it probably has just the opposite affect. When the neighbors see that this homeowner's forgetfulness to pay $75 actually cost him $5000-10,000, they are going to be more likely to pay because they will see what a good bargain the $75 is. They won't want to be the ones forking over $5-10K for forgetting or refusing to pay.

Interestingly, the lady said some firefighters called to apologize to her. Apparently, they have a conscience about and see the problems that it caused even if the "higher ups" do not.

Exactly my point. The failure of the local FD to put it out when it was small could have resulted in a massive destruction that they were unequipped and unprepared to handle. They exposed the community to a huge risk for $75. That is not responsible, is it?

 

There's no way that it's cheaper for fire service to be fee-based as opposed to tax-based. This is the same reason I'm opposed to a flat income tax. With a flat fire fee a poor person living in a single-wide trailer pays the same as someone with a McMansion. With property tax funding, a person with more valuable property pays a higher rate for fire service that is proportionate to his risk of loss in a fire.

 

If you want to open that argument, then we need to consider risk as well. The person in lower income housing has a higher risk of having a house fire than the person in the "McMansion". The lower income housing likely has poorer wiring, less fire retardant building materials, etc. Do you really want to play this game, or is your motive to just tax the rich more?

 

The fire department should have put out the fire and sent a bill for the full amount. A house fire is an emergency situation. In an emergency you take action and count the beans later.

A.F.