Tennessee Firemen ignore burning house over unpaid subscription fee

[tiredofthis]

This just breaks my heart...let me just tell you as someone who knows that $75.00 is a HUGE amt. to some people.
My hubby made 900/wk at one point and now he makes just over 400/wk...I make pots of soup and spaghetti every week, things that will stretch out over 3 or 4 days to feed us...we eat alot of ramen noodles and mac n cheese also...it really sucks but it's life for us right now.
I would just absolutely HATE to see all my things burned...my pictures, my scrapbooks, etc...because I couldn't afford to pay the fee...
A fee which some people say omg, it's only $75 a year, but that $75 a year you scoff at could be a HUGE amt. for some people.
I guess I would just have to be fired if I were a fireman in this situation...there is NO WAY POSSIBLE I could stand by and watch whether my job was on the line or not.

Thank you, White Rain...$75 is a huge amount to some people. There are a lot of people in this country who make too much to qualify for food stamps, but are still living far below the poverty line.

 

[Charlie09]

I feel like I'm about to nudge this thread further off-topic...but Charlie09, can I ask--are there any services that you think the government should provide? If you don't want to answer, that's cool too. I'm just curious.

To directly answer - taxes should pay for fire and police - but if there aren't services available, and the homeowner wants the protection it needs to be paid for privately.

 

[Charlie09]

Thank you, White Rain...$75 is a huge amount to some people. There are a lot of people in this country who make too much to qualify for food stamps, but are still living far below the poverty line.

It's 10 hours of work at federal minimum wage, since TN doesn't have a minimum wage - well 12 or 13 hours after taxes - to pay for a YEARs worth of fire protection. THIRTEEN HOURS a year would have covered that amount.

 

[tfrohning]

When I heard this story I was beyond mad:furious:

I don't care if he pay 75.00 or not. That could been worked out later.

IMO this was unacceptable:furious:

 

[tiredofthis]

It's 10 hours of work at federal minimum wage, since TN doesn't have a minimum wage - well 12 or 13 hours after taxes - to pay for a YEARs worth of fire protection. THIRTEEN HOURS a year would have covered that amount.

Yes, I agree with the numbers, but a lot of people are unable to work due to some form of disability.

I respect your viewpoint, but I have a different one. I really don't want to get into an argument so I will stop posting on this thread.

 

[Charlie09]

Yes, I agree with the numbers, but a lot of people are unable to work due to some form of disability.

I respect your viewpoint, but I have a different one. I really don't want to get into an argument so I will stop posting on this thread.

I truly believe that if it were financially difficult and not a choice, there would have been a community resolution to this.

 

[tiredblondy]

I have a question?

What if a child or elderly person had been trapped inside??? Would the firefighters have refused to come or stood by and watched someone,perhaps a child die???
They did not know if there was a person in the house or not.
No life is worth $75.00!

This is seriously going to backfire.The person at the other end of the phone line who was saying no when the people were begging to pay them anything just to come put the fire out was playing God with lives. He was lucky there was not a death.
Why do I suspect if there had been a person trapped inside their life would have been lost?

Firefighters do not choose to be firefighters to ignore calls for help, whatever the reason.

There were other alternatives! I can guarantee the posters here that there will be other alternatives very soon in this very town.

 

[tiredblondy]

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/International-Association-of-Fire-Fighters-condemns-local-department-104392079.html

and this

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/More-fallout-following-house-fire-104113489.html

"If somebody is trapped in the house we're going to go because life safety is number one but we can't give the service away," Edmison said


I'm glad to know that life safety is number one but I wonder in which 911 call the owners of the burning house were asked if anyone was trapped in the house. Guess that sort of answered my previous question in post 67.

I have lived near a house on fire where children were trapped inside. I will never forget their screams.There was no time to determine if someone was trapped inside before the fire truck left the fire dept.

 

[Nova]

Well, I guess the government can have nursing aids for everyone because we're all too damn lazy to even wipe our noses. We want every freedom imaginable, just let someone else pay for it please.

You're probably right that that is what we want. But it's time we all grow up and realize some services are essential, and a modern industrialized society isn't composed of self-sufficient loners, but of mutually dependent communities.

And, yes, we all have to pay to keep ourselves and our neighbors safe.

 

[Nova]

To directly answer - taxes should pay for fire and police - but if there aren't services available, and the homeowner wants the protection it needs to be paid for privately.

Charlie, I think most of us actually agree here. Allowing for the possibility that the homeowner simply couldn't find the $75, most of us agree s/he is at fault here, too.

That being said, fire coverage shouldn't be optional for the simple reason that--as in this case--your fire spreads quite easily to your neighbor's house or property.

 

[Charlie09]

You're probably right that that is what we want. But it's time we all grow up and realize some services are essential, and a modern industrialized society isn't composed of self-sufficient loners, but of mutually dependent communities.

And, yes, we all have to pay to keep ourselves and our neighbors safe.

It's not what we want, it's what a segment of the population wants, the other segment believes that we have to pull our own weight in society, not rely on our neighbor keeping us safe. WHICH is why the neighbor paid his $75.00 and his house was spared.

 

[Charlie09]

Charlie, I think most of us actually agree here. Allowing for the possibility that the homeowner simply couldn't find the $75, most of us agree s/he is at fault here, too.

That being said, fire coverage shouldn't be optional for the simple reason that--as in this case--your fire spreads quite easily to your neighbor's house or property.

Why are we allowing for something that hasn't been said? Maybe - he or she gets more out of it by it burning down? Maybe they are close to foreclosure? Maybe they get more out of their insurance than what was owed and it was worth it burning down? I mean if we're going to allow for things not reported, then lets allow for the full range.

I'm actually not sure of the legality of forcing one county to pay another county that way - I can't think of an instance where that occurs. It comes down to core beliefs of what the government can and can't do - and opinions certainly won't change based on this thread.

 

[Nova]

It's not what we want, it's what a segment of the population wants, the other segment (the grown ups) believes that we have to pull our own weight in society, not rely on our neighbor keeping us safe. WHICH is why the neighbor paid his $75.00 and his house was spared.

Oh, come now. We'd all like to win the lottery. But you are right that many of us believe that instead of wishing for pie from the sky, we should earn our keep and pay our own way. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY fire protection should be a government service paid out of mandatory taxes, so that those of us who act responsibly aren't victimized by those who don't.

Important clarification: the neighbor's house wasn't "spared." It caught fire, in large part because of his negligent neighbor's irresponsible behavior. Fortunately, and thanks in part to his having paid the $75, it wasn't allowed to burn completely to the ground.

 

[Nova]

Why are we allowing for something that hasn't been said? Maybe - he or she gets more out of it by it burning down? Maybe they are close to foreclosure? Maybe they get more out of their insurance than what was owed and it was worth it burning down? I mean if we're going to allow for things not reported, then lets allow for the full range.

I'm actually not sure of the legality of forcing one county to pay another county that way - I can't think of an instance where that occurs. It comes down to core beliefs of what the government can and can't do - and opinions certainly won't change based on this thread.

The issue isn't one county v. another (which might be legally problematic). It's county v. a city within the county, I believe. I don't know that the county can force the city to provide service outside city boundaries; the point is the county should have its own department (or contract with the city to provide universal coverage).

As for your speculation, all possible but none of that changes the fact that everyone should have fire coverage, not only for his own protection, but to protect one's neighbors. The only way to insure that is through universal coverage paid for out of mandatory tax revenues.

 

[belimom]

Why should they? They clearly knew, and they clearly ignored the option.
There are consequences for actions -
There is personal responsibility - they chose to not accept it.

Seems like they paid in the past but it slipped their minds this year. Also, they firemen do feel bad - and the homeowner (wife) doesn't blame the firefighers themselves:

From http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/06/woman-doesnt-blame-firefighters-let-home-burn/?test=latestnews:

...(snipped)...Cranick said her family had paid the fee in the past but simply forgot it recently.....

...."You can't blame them if they have to do what the boss says to do," Cranik told The Associated Press. "I've had firemen call and apologize."...(snipped)...

I feel really bad for them... As for the analogy between paying the fee on the spot and paying Geico on the spot, I bet there are alot less people whose homes/pets/lives need saving in such a situation as people who wreck their cars without auto insurance. And alot fewer people who would choose to purposefully abuse the system in the first scenario as opposed to the latter (I don't think they did it purposefully). They lost virtually everything, which can't be compared to losing a vehicle. Have some heart.

 

[LadyLuck]

I think the city fire department should have put the fire out. BUT I live in the county and county residents do not pay as much taxes as city residents. The city fire department would not respond to my house if it was on fire. We have volunteer fire departments and all the surrounding volunteer departments respond. We do not pay a fee or a specific tax but I do make a sizable donation each year. Our volunteer department does an amazing job. Anytime you call 911 for an auto accident or illness they are the first responders. My son and I were in an auto accident 3 miles from home and they saved his life while we were waiting on the ambulance to arrive. This was a sad situation. Maybe that county needs to organize and get a volunteer fire department. $75.00 from each resident outside the city should generate a good beginning.

 

[In da Middle]

Ok, we have some rural property that is covered by a volunteer fire dept. If I didn't pay the annual fee, they have a policy that if they have to come out they will bill you fee for the service that will be far greater than the annual fee. If the owner can't (or won't) pay the higher bill they will slap a lien on the property, but they WILL put out the fire. Seems like a simple solution to me.

 

[Charlie09]

The issue isn't one county v. another (which might be legally problematic). It's county v. a city within the county, I believe. I don't know that the county can force the city to provide service outside city boundaries; the point is the county should have its own department (or contract with the city to provide universal coverage).

As for your speculation, all possible but none of that changes the fact that everyone should have fire coverage, not only for his own protection, but to protect one's neighbors. The only way to insure that is through universal coverage paid for out of mandatory tax revenues.

There are other great ideas besides taxing which is simply not the answer to everything out there.

 

[AliceInPain]

I'm stunned...

wth if your job is "firefighter" then you fight fires, no matter what your boss says. I'm an artist, I create, whether people like it or not. That is what I do. Money and politics are other people's problems. I take pride in my job, I work first, think later. WTH, just wth...

 

[Nova]

There are other great ideas besides taxing which is simply not the answer to everything out there.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I can't help noticing you haven't offered one of those "other great ideas."