Quote :

"If what you’re doing is the right thing to do"

the right thing to do is... pay the $75 for the service.

10/6/2010 7:51:37 PM

The right thing to do is to put out the fire.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 7:52 PM. Reason : i seriously can’t believe I had to type that out… wow]

10/6/2010 7:52:00 PM

Quote :

"people have had fire-fighting squads for literally thousands of years, going back to the greeks and romans, it’s easy to see that we as a people view the issue of a house burning down differently than anything else. Fighting fires isn’t merely a service, its an expectation of living in societies, and has been so for thousands of years."

And again it was expected that all citizens would share in the burden of supporting this service. In this case, the burden was a very precise amount. $75. He chose not to share his portion of the burden. The fire fighting squad functioned exactly as it should have and protected the land of those who opted into the social contract.

End of discussion.

10/6/2010 7:53:23 PM

Good thing the "right thing" to do never has adverse, practical consequences.

^^Condemn the firefighters all you want. That still doesn't absolve the homeowner of fault.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 7:54 PM. Reason : df]

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 7:54 PM. Reason : better word.]

10/6/2010 7:53:49 PM

Quote :

"nothing being done to prevent it"

the $75 service fee would have prevented it. you guys act like these guys sat back while a baby burned inside...

10/6/2010 7:54:19 PM

^^^ you’re wrong.

again,he offered to pay his burden directly.

^^ i’m sure he’s kicking himself. It doesn’t change the fact that the firefighter’s best course of action was to put the fire out.

^ you’re arguing that is what they SHOULD do.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 7:56 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2010 7:55:17 PM

nor does it change the fact that you've failed to demonstrate WHY it is the firefighters best course of action to put the fire out (aside from your unsupported appeal to emotion).

10/6/2010 7:56:13 PM

^ that doesn’t require demonstration, because it’s self-evident.

But, just for posterity:

the optimal action for the best outcome was to put the fire out, because not only could the owner’s house had been saved, but the neighbor’s house wouldn’t have caught fire. The homeowner could have covered whatever costs, and everyone is happy.

Instead, the house is gone and so are the owner’s pets and possessions, the firefighers look like idiots, and people are now arguing that firefighters shouldn’t fight fires. We lose all around.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 8:00 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2010 8:00:00 PM

I guess you guys are right. I'm calling the N&O and demanding my free newspaper subscription because like everyone else, I have a right to know what's going on in the world.

10/6/2010 8:00:13 PM

I was talking to a firefighter about this and he said they had a list of names that paid, if there was a fire they'd put it out no matter who it was. Then they'd go through the list and if they weren't on it they'd charge a flat rate of ~$500 for the work they did.

End of story.

10/6/2010 8:00:48 PM

^ that makes sense.

Maybe people from Tennesse are just dumb?

10/6/2010 8:01:55 PM

This is a tennessee firefighter but different county.

10/6/2010 8:02:56 PM

then why should anyone pay? if that is the case then it's smarter to just chance it.

the county should get their own fire department and raise taxes to support it so this wont happen again.

I bet the fire department that offers this service will take it away. Then what?

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 8:05 PM. Reason : ?]

10/6/2010 8:03:01 PM

^ because most people don’t want to pay the $500, or their house to burn down.

Seriously, this isn’t that complicated.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 8:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2010 8:04:13 PM

Quote :

"haha alright bud you're comparing 75 dollars to the loss of thousands and thousands of dollars in property, and that 75 dollars was in the past, I'm talking about the present scenario of something burning to ruin and nothing being done to prevent it"

Deciding to not put out the fire was not about $75, it was about not undermining the entire system and therefore costing the city thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars in yearly revenue when everyone suddenly decides that they aren't going to pay the $75 until their house catches on fire. So if want to weigh something against the value of the property and lost productivity of the house's inhabitants that's what you have to consider.

That being said, there should've been a contingency plan in place here. Something along of the lines of, if we have to put a fire out and you haven't paid the $75 we're still going to put it out but we're going to charge you for the full cost of the operation. So don't blame the firefighters, they were just doing what they were told. The people who wrote the law without a contingency plan in place and the homeowners who decided to play their odds and not pay the $75 share the blame in this one.

10/6/2010 8:05:05 PM

Quote :

"hat doesn’t require demonstration, because it’s self-evident."

obviously not.

Quote :

"but the neighbor’s house wouldn’t have caught fire. The homeowner could have covered whatever costs, and everyone is happy."

The neighbor's house didn't burn down and if the neighbor has already demonstrated his inability / lack of desire to pay $75, why should the FD expect him to cover the full cost of putting out the fire (a cost I doubt he could even put a number to).

Quote :

"Then they'd go through the list and if they weren't on it they'd charge a flat rate of ~$500 for the work they did."

This sounds reasonable. This wasn't in the contract. Some things that haven't been addressed:

1) what would be the legal liability of the FD had they failed to put out the fire after the owner offered to pay for the effort?
2) what would be the legal liability for a firefighter who was injured or killed had the fire department been operating outside of what their liability insurance covered?
3) what would be the legal liability had a fire occurred at a location that WAS covered by the FD and it had burned down while the FD was engaged in fighting this guy's fire?


Seriously, nothing about this case makes it "self-evident" that this fire should have been put out.

10/6/2010 8:05:15 PM

the compromise solution for the future is to explicitly state that there will be a $1000 trip fee for those who have not paid for services.

10/6/2010 8:06:50 PM

^^ there were 2 fires in this story.

The initial fire, that they ignored, and the fire that started on the neighbor’s house, that they showed up for, that paid the $75.

I’m saying had the firefighter’s done the most rational, responsible course of action, that neighbor wouldn’t have had to worry about their house catching fire.

Quote :

"Seriously, nothing about this case makes it "self-evident" that this fire should have been put out. "

Quote :

"1) what would be the legal liability of the FD had they failed to put out the fire after the owner offered to pay for the effort? 2) what would be the legal liability for a firefighter who was injured or killed had the fire department been operating outside of what their liability insurance covered? 3) what would be the legal liability had a fire occurred at a location that WAS covered by the FD and it had burned down while the FD was engaged in fighting this guy's fire? "

These questions are irrelevant.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 8:10 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2010 8:07:05 PM

Quote :

"it’s rosy for me to expect firefighters to have the decency to put out a fire?"

OK then you can pay anybody's fee who doesn't want to pay. Shit i don't want to pay for renters insurance can you pay it for me just in case my apt catches fire?

10/6/2010 8:10:14 PM

^ haha, if your apartment catches fire, i’m sure your neighbors would be willing to pay whatever it took for the FD to put it out.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 8:12 PM. Reason : k]

10/6/2010 8:11:52 PM

Quote :

"These questions are irrelevant."

self-evident too I assume? Dude, you're just clowning on yourself at this point. Have at it.

10/6/2010 8:13:08 PM

I’m pretty sure that saying that fire-fighers should fight fires isn’t clowning myself...

10/6/2010 8:14:05 PM

Quote :

"^ haha, if your apartment catches fire, i’m sure your neighbors would be willing to pay whatever it took for the FD to put it out."

Good then why should i pay renters insurance if i know my neighbors are going to cover it?

10/6/2010 8:15:39 PM

^ why are you asking me? Just stop paying, and see what happens?

10/6/2010 8:16:45 PM

you would be clowning yourself if you paid for a service that you didnt get...

10/6/2010 8:16:54 PM

^^HAHA

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 8:17 PM. Reason : /]

10/6/2010 8:17:05 PM

10/6/2010 8:21:12 PM

 





The older I get, the more I realize that most people are complete hypocrites. Some complain about others trying to force their private beliefs onto everyone, (whether you should do drugs, who you should marry, etc.,) ...but then they turn right around and try to force their private beliefs onto everyone, (how you should be charitable, how you should save for retirement, etc.)


You people!










 

10/6/2010 8:45:35 PM

Why isn't anybody bitching about the fire dept. in the next county who also didn't put this fire out for free? Or the Nashville fire dept., or the one right here in Raleigh?

Look, if you don't want a service, don't pay for it. If you don't pay for it, don't expect a service. TANSTAAFL.

If the residents outside of the city limits want a service they should either purchase it from the municipality directly (an offered option here), pay for it through taxation like they do for the sheriff's dept., petition their county government to start a rural fire fighting force that could be funded through one of the aforementioned means, or start a volunteer task force of some kind. It's not like this situation was unforeseen, it was obviously planned for, the homeowner just chose not to participate.

Imagine this, imagine you could get a bank to lend to you without purchasing homeowner's insurance. Now you're a homeowner with a mortgage, but no protection in case of catastrophes, such as a fire. As a homeowner would you then expect for some insurance company to cover your lost items and the remaining balance of your mortgage in the event of a fire? Of course not, that's asinine. It's also very, very similar to what's going on in this exact case.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 10:33 PM. Reason : asdfs]

10/6/2010 10:24:43 PM

Quote :

"They Offered to pay "whatever the cost" before the fire spread to their house"

Whatever the cost is only $75. lol.


So it's not like they didn't have $75.

10/6/2010 10:32:06 PM

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/06/let-it-burn-or-not-fulton-fire

Good read. Fair point, up until quite recently the FD wouldn't even respond outside of city limits, only after feeling bad about a fire did they offer the opt in service.

Look, it sucks that the house burned down, nobody is actually happy about it. It's probably good that it's made the news, it will probably result in policy changes (emergency response fees+ flat fee for those who don't opt in for the annual fee for example) that will be beneficial or will result in a county wide service funded by additional property tax or something (hopefully higher for county vs. city residences) or might even cause some enterprising fellow to start a private company that fights fires. Of course the government run monopoly will never allow that last option, but hey whatever.

Again, this is not an unforeseen consequence that this person should be surprised about.

However, let me point out that only a government operated agency would be so bureaucratically bound and so stupid as to refuse payment for a service when it was offered. If this were a private company doing this folks would be yelling about "price gouging" or "extortion" when they tried to charge more than the annual subscription fee for covering a non-policy holder.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 10:49 PM. Reason : asdfa]

10/6/2010 10:46:32 PM

The community should have had a volunteer fire dept as well.....those are all over shit towns in America that cant afford a paid one.

10/6/2010 10:55:08 PM

this thread does a great job of showing who the conservatives are and who the commies are!!11

10/6/2010 10:57:14 PM

^^ they still cost monies. it will just go as a tax.

10/6/2010 11:02:28 PM

Yeah, volunteer FDs usually have volunteer firefighters, but equipment paid for by the county or a particular area.

10/6/2010 11:05:20 PM

Damn hippies want free fire protection for all!

10/6/2010 11:09:23 PM

Maybe someday folks will wise up and realize that there's no such thing as free.

10/6/2010 11:10:37 PM

i was a liberal until i started making real money

10/6/2010 11:11:17 PM

I am not gonna poke fun at this guy, because I would probably be the one that forgot to pay the fire hazard bill.

The other side of that is that there is no fucking way I would live somewhere that did not have emergency services.

Also another point of interest. This was not some fire started an electrical problem or another unforeseen cause. They were trying to burn shit in the yard in some barrels and caught their shed on fire which subsequently spread to the house.

5) Failed by not paying the insurance bill
4) Failed at supervising his kid burning garbage when its dry out
3) Failed by catching the yard and barn on fire burning garbage
2) Failed at putting the fire out before it spread to the main house
1) Failed by not lying and saying someone (human not dog) was trapped up stairs

This would be like going out in the snow and trying to drag race knowing your car insurance just lapsed........ODDS ARE NOT IN YOUR FAVOR.

10/7/2010 12:00:27 AM

this is kinda hilarious to me but sucks for them, maybe next time you can pay 75 bucks.

but making the people pay for the fire service........almost along the lines of making me pay for health insurance for the entire country

10/7/2010 12:26:44 AM

Quote :

"but making the people pay for the fire service...."

If they aren't paying for it through taxes why should they have access to it? Shit doesn't fund itself. Fire trucks aren't given away, firefighters don't work for free, diesel isn't free, maintenance is costly, and so on.

10/7/2010 12:32:39 AM

you douchebags are all fuckin retards

quit arguing about this

asshole thought they were bein cute not payin for protection

now they gotta pay the piper

no one gives a damn about what you think is fair or ethical you bleeding hearts

learnt o take directive and follow ordinance for once instead livin by the seat of your skinny jeans

10/7/2010 12:37:04 AM

hai guyz, wuts goin' on heya?

10/7/2010 12:38:14 AM

Id imagine u jackasses think its ok to preach bullshit at a soldiers funeral too

10/7/2010 12:39:38 AM

I'm not going to read either threads, thankyou very much.

10/7/2010 12:41:39 AM

GUYS IF THEY HAD PUT OUT THE FIRE THE AMERICAN EMPIRE WOULD FALL.

10/7/2010 4:21:43 AM

Collecting a voluntary fee for fire protection is so Gangs of New York. They should have a fire tax, like everywhere else that has moved into the 21st century. I can't imagine what homeowner's insurance must cost there.



That said, I understand the position of the fire department if they didn't pay. It would be like calling an insurance company to pick up insurance when you get sick, have a car accident, fire, etc.

10/7/2010 6:56:34 AM

Quote :

"Look, if you don't want a service, don't pay for it. If you don't pay for it, don't expect a service."

Im sure a lot of 75 dollar checks went out the next day this story aired.

Hospitals shoudl start doing this. It will only take one to set the example. (kidding)

10/7/2010 7:41:10 AM

Quote :

"Collecting a voluntary fee for fire protection is so Gangs of New York. They should have a fire tax, like everywhere else that has moved into the 21st century. I can't imagine what homeowner's insurance must cost there."

yeah, i never thought about homeowner's insurance...i assume fire makes up the majority of insurance claims and company payouts, so i'm not sure how they could justify paying more money for insurance but not the $75/year that would (should) reduce their insurance premiums

unless they lied to the insurance company about having fire protection...in which case they're properly fucked

10/7/2010 7:50:12 AM

I wonder how much the property tax was on that house? I guess it's an issue about property tax distribution because you'd think they would want to keep the what $1,000+? property tax per year coming in as opposed to letting that tax asset burn to the ground over $75. Now they get nothing.

10/7/2010 8:33:34 AM