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

Would it change anyones opinion if this "for $75 fee firefighting organization" were compared to a company like ADP which offers security monitoring of homes?

ADP will only provide their services to paying customers.

In the OP case homeowners who don't pay their $75 dollar fee to the local firefighting organization are not entitled to their services by contract and would have to rely upon the public fire department.

Unfortunately for them there is no other fire department.

 

Your "what if's" are pointless and not a valid argument. It did not happen that way. You can "What if" all day and never solve anything. Talk about the reality not the what have could been. By saying it "could have" is simply a straw man. You are grasping at air.

In many areas fire protection is offered as a private service (whether you think it should be or not, whether you like it or not) because people want it that way. They do not want the higher property taxes needed to pay for a public service.

 

Its really a shame christians feel this way. Better to have saved the house and deal with the issue after than watch it burn down.

Did you ever think that its hypocritical for the law to make it mandatory that Doctors who witness a medical emergency must help the individual whether they paid for the service or not but not have the same requirement of firemen?

 

Sorry, but I got tickled at seeing PL called "Liberal."

Man, some folks don't need much to get worked up...


OK, hypothetical question:

Change this story just a bit--now it's the small-town police department that charges a fee. They don't respond to a non-paying citizen. Does that change anyone's view? Why?

 

Would the city police have the authority to respond to a call outside of the city limits?

That is the case with the OP.

The city offers fire fighting outside of the city limits to county residents as a for fee service.

It is the city's position that fire fighters are not allowed to respond to non-paying county residents outside of the city limits.

Should the city be on the hook for fighting all the fires in the entire county?

Is that fair to the city residents who fund the fire department?

 

Why is that a better analogy? There is a civil responsibility to protect citizens by both police and firemen.

 

It was mentioned...



Maybe this is the crux of the problem here: We expect a public service. But it's operating like a private contractor. If those are incongruent, how can they be reconciled?

And the idea of no law enforcement--instead, a private security company "keeping the peace"--makes me extremely nervous. I realize the fire analogy isn't quite that disturbing--but there are parellels.

 

A significant source of funding for our fire department is local fund raising. I'll put a buck or two in the boot now and again but I have never been to one of their suppers, chicken bbq, or auctions. I am so glad they didn't hold that against me when we had our fire.

9-1-1 What's your emergency?

padre's house is on fire.

padre? Has he ever been to one of our bbqs?

Nope, never been to one of the Chinese auctions neither.

Let it burn but watch for the neighbor. They've been to the bbq and the auction.

​

$75.00, at our current pump price, would put about 20 gallons of fuel in the pumper truck. Where does the money come from to support the rest of the operation? Under the county's proposal, a monthly $5.00 fire tax added to everyone's electric bill would generate enough revenue to fully fund the county-wide fire department. I ain't the sharpest stick in the pile but I think that comes up to $60.00 a year which is less than $75.

 

And if there was only one household in this town, then you might have a point.

I think I'll just let the sheer silliness of this statement speak for itself.

First, you must show that they exposed a "whole community to fire destruction". You have failed to do so.

Actually, I did.

Sorry, but the idea that it's the responsibilty of the government to save you from the consequences of your own actions (or, in this case, inaction) and that others should pay for services you receive are hardly conservative ideas.

Then why are you arguing against the very system that brought fire protection to this community?

How so?

Then he should sue the homeowner who caused the damage.

Which would have happened if the homeowner had wanted the protection in the first place.

They did act appropriately. The homeowner did not want their services and they didn't force them upon him.

Agreed.

So, let me get this straight: you say something, I agree, you get mad and say that I don't agree and then you repeat what I just agreed to and then accuse me of changing what you said? And you say you're not a liberal?

And yet, here you are blaming everybody but the one person who's responsible and trying to pin responsibility on those who were not responsible.

Actually, while fire protection is a public service in some cases, in this case, the fire company was acting as a private service. That's the whole point of the $75, as opposed to merely taxing homeowners for it.

Oh, so then you are saying that they were better off before they had the fire service.

 

Because the city is offering the fire fighting sevices to county residents outside of the city limits as a contractor.

Does the city have a civic responsiblity to the entire county?

In my opinion they do not.

 

No however, leo's do. They have responsibility to protect citizens no matter where they are even off duty. And police will often respond to other departments request.

 

So, then, it would seem that many of you don't put firefighters quite into the same category as law enforcement officers, on the scale of "public servants." In other words, there's a hybridization of private and public function with firefighters.

If that's the case, this will likely be a point of contention--because IMHO, there's always going to be a "gray area" in which those two realms don't see eye-to-eye.

Is that solvable? How?

 

I put them into the same catagory.

 

Same category of public servant - ok.

But what about jurisdiction?

 

I will say this: I'm as anti-tax as they come. But the one place I'll consider more--is if our most essential public services--fire and police--need it.

And I'm talking need--not for "consultants" or bureaucratic junk--but personnel, equipment, etc.

 

I believe what applies to law enforcement should also apply to firefighters. That there is a general responsibility that all are obligated to but are specialized for one area.

 

I can't believe ya'll are still arguing over this, but since you are, I'll through in my two cents (I have two cents cause my dad spent 25 years of his life as a firefighter).

The difference between law enforcement and fire protection is this: STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. The first is mandated by both. The second is NOT. There is the difference. If you want to make fire protection a "public service" that everyone has access too, you have to change the laws of the land.

Second point: $75 a year is less than half of what our volunteer services ask per year in my part of the State of Alabama. They know most residents either won't or, more likely, can't afford it, so they hold fundraisers almost constantly trying to piece together outdated equipment, and pay fuel and other costs. This sort of thing is the how the whole electronic bingo issue got started up here (I live in Walker county, rbell knows what I'm talking about). Big mess caused by a few who tried to use a loophole in the charity fundraising laws.

The cities and towns who do have fire depts raise funds by raising taxes. Why should my tax dollars go to provide fire services for those who don't pay into the system? Around here, it used to be a point of pride to live "out in the county", because tax rates out there are probably 35% cheaper than what I pay inside my city limits. People were willing to do without services in order to save that much money right up until they lose their house to a fire! Then they want to whine and complain that the "county should be providing fire services", yet they refuse to raise taxes in order to pay for it.

You know, people need to put their money where their mouths are. The guy in the OP, he'll make it a priority to pay any fire dues on his next house. It won't be something he "forgets" to pay. Really, how hard would it have been for him to pay fire dues at the same time he paid his house insurance?

 

Thank you

 

The fire district system was enacted in the State of New York in 1932. Municipalities are required to provide fire protection. New York has some very rural areas. The company or companies assigned coverage within the fire district must respond to calls for service.