Firefighters Let House Burn Because Owner Didn't Pay Fee 2058
Dthief writes "From MSNBC: 'Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat. "They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.'"
Well Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhhh, yea. That's how it works.
Your city and county taxes pay for fire departments. If your county is too poor to pay for a fire department, you may have a volunteer fire department, or the nearest municipality may charge a fee to cover service. If you don't pay that fee, you don't get fire protection.
It ain't rocket science. Some bubba sets his own house on fire, and then whines because the people he didn't pay, didn't come to put it out. I've lived in Tennesee: they really don't like taxes there. That's fine, but there are consequences.
No, that's not it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care who you are, that's callous beyond anything I wish to respect.
Simon
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:5, Informative)
He didn't forget to pay. He chose not to pay. He received a bill and then a phone call and was advised his home would not be protected if he didn't pay.
No different then letting your life insurance policy lapse, then you die, and your spouse tries to collect $1 mil by paying this months premium.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
It is quite different.
A regular insurance policy is nothing more than a bet: You pay X per year, and in case of your death, your beneficiaries get Y back: If putting X in an investment fund would have netted you more than Y at the time of death, the insurance company wins, if Y is greater, you and your family win, so paying for coverage after you want to make a claim just doesn't work.
Now, in a fire, the amount of money destroyed by letting any given fire run amok in an average house is always far higher than the cost of actually stopping the fire. It's not a zero sum game. If I give you, right there and then, four times as much as it costs to put out the fire, as it happens, both sides win, as they are both better off than if the value of the house just evaporates.
So the real problem is not the fact that this guy was unwise in his choice to not pay for the fire coverage, but on the fact that there was no mechanism to allow him to make a far higher contribution on site, for a final result that was superior to every party involved.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, in a fire, the amount of money destroyed by letting any given fire run amok in an average house is always far higher than the cost of actually stopping the fire. It's not a zero sum game. If I give you, right there and then, four times as much as it costs to put out the fire, as it happens, both sides win, as they are both better off than if the value of the house just evaporates.
It's the exact same as insurance -- by charging a small fee per house, the fire dept is betting that only 1 house out of every couple thousand will catch on fire per year.
If you let them pay after the fact, both sides don't win. It costs way more than $75 to put out a fire -- the cost is amortized by the fact that a fire only occurs for every couple thousand or so citizens who pay the fee. The actual cost of putting out the fire may be $100,000 or more (if you consider the cost of fire dept, vehicles, having fire fighters on standby, etc). If you allow people to pay $75 only when you need services, the fire department will incur a huge loss because it's "betting" that 1,999 out of 2,000 people won't have fires when they charge the $75 fee.
The only way to make the cost a win for the city/fire-dept side would be to charge the person the actual cost of putting out the fire (and running the fire department / number of fires per year). This might result in a charge of $100,000 - $200,000 to the person and might actually be more than their house and possessions are worth.... and note this isn't really a win for the city - it's just break-even cost -- and that assumes you can collect the $200,000 from someone whose house just burned down because insurance doesn't pay for saved houses, only destroyed ones.
The only practical way to do it is to enforce the fact that when someone opts out of paying for a service, they have opted out of receiving that service.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not even remotely ridiculous to hope to accurately assess the cost of a fire. The direct costs are obvious, and it's straightforward to figure out the standing costs per month of the department and the number of fires in an average month. I'm sure they've already done this in determining the $75 fee, in fact.
The on-site cost will be far higher than the $75, but there's no reason not to permit it. Perhaps you don't make the same guarantee of ability to provide timely response, but it seems extremely shortsighted to refuse service to property within the general service area in the way they've done here.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care who you are, that's callous beyond anything I wish to respect.
How long do you think there would be firefighters to call if you could just pay $75 when you have to call them out because your house is on fire? That's like crashing your car into a Ferrari and _then_ offering to pay $100 for insurance because you 'forgot' to pay the premium beforehand.
If that behaviour became the norm then no-one would pay and the next time someone's house caught fire the whole area would burn down.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
For those of you that say "Why didn't they put it out when the guy pleaded to pay the $75?" Sorry, that's SOP. If they agreed to this EVERYONE would fail to pay the $75/year and they'd just offer to pay after the fire dept came. You have to realize that it costs a lot more than $75 to pay for FD services. The $75 is effectively an insurance, $75 alone doesn't come anywhere NEAR the cost of putting out a single fire.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
For those of you that say "Why didn't they put it out when the guy pleaded to pay the $75?"
First correction: He did not offer to pay $75. He offered to pay whatever the cost to put out the fire.
If they agreed to this EVERYONE would fail to pay the $75/year and they'd just offer to pay after the fire dept came. You have to realize that it costs a lot more than $75 to pay for FD services. The $75 is effectively an insurance, $75 alone doesn't come anywhere NEAR the cost of putting out a single fire.
You are exactly right. So clearly, just billing the $75 is not adequate. So, like you said, treat it as insurance. Consider the parallels to the medical world (at least the idealized version of it). If you have health insurance and go to the emergency room, you pay $X, which is significantly less than the actual cost of service. If you don't have insurance, you have to pay for the actual services used. So do the same thing in this situation. The invoice could be:
Again, that's what the guy offered to pay...not just the $75. Basically, it comes out to skipping the $75 payment for 150 years. To me, that's plenty of incentive to pay $75 a year for guaranteed service.
Interesting follow-on to this story: One of Cranick's relatives later went to the fire station and punched the chief [nwtntoday.com] that ordered the firefighters not to put out the fire (even though they were on the scene). He's now been charged with assault, but I know a lot of people who want to contribute to the guy's legal defense fund.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:5, Interesting)
pets fireman's life. Just ask the child of a dead firefighter.
Incidently, firefighters don't put out fires from the outside. If they fight it, they go in. There's no halfassing it.
If people can just pay the cost of the visit then everyone would choose to do so. At that point we're back to private fire departments. Look where that got us (private firefighters were becoming arsonists)
It's quite fucked up when you, AS AN ADULT choose not to pay something that's about .0001% the value of your house to keep it from burning down. If you don't think your shit is worth $75/year then WHY THE FUCK would a firefighter think it's worth their life?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The county he lives in does not have a fire department. A nearby city does. The city FD (which is funded by the tax base of the city only, not the county at large) allows county residents to pay the $75 for them to cover them as well, but since they don't live in the city itself, the city can't compel them to pay. And the county apparently isn't willing or able to fund their own FD out of the county tax base.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>lowered property values for the entire neighborhood...
Bullshit. That's the same argument the Housing Association gave when they refused to let my parents put an antenna on the roof (to get TV). The lawyer, who was quite good, dug-out the 1996 Telecommuncations Act which gave my parents the right to erect an antenna. He also noted several other laws the HA was in violation of (requiring a certain kind of grass), which eventually led to the judge dismantling the HA for multiple counts of abuse against citizens.
You see: Congress decided freedom to "pursue happiness"
was more important than property values. Freedom means nothing, if you are not truly free to make your own choices.
I don't insure my car. Do you think you have a right to FORCE me to insure it? You don't. Neither do you have a right to force me to insure my house.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:4, Insightful)
This person lived outside of the city fire jurisdiction. The had been petitioned by the people in the county to extend their coverage, but since those people didn't want to incorporate as part OF the city, the city offered to agree to put out fires for people who wanted to pay the $75 fee. So, this is a service the city is doing for those that pay for it.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that by definition, if you think "making a public good like firefighting or police service an opt-in fee is stupid and results in dumb, avoidable tragic circumstances" you're not *actually* "all for the free market".
This is Ayn Rand in Practice. It is also the reason why these Balanced Budget, Socially and economically Conservative states (By and Large, an with caveats for the current recession) get more in taxes than they send to Washington and are being being subsidized by those stupid Liberal States.
Because that stupid liberal keynesian economics actually works. Although I swear to god, as near as I can tell the main insight Keynes made is that "Dollar for Dollar Poor and Middle Class People contribute to the Economy far more than the wealthy do"
Pug
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is why this is a voluntary fee?
From what I've read, this is a voluntary fee because they do not live within the city limits. The city has no obligation to also serve people who reside outside of it. When I was a kid, folks out in the country (outside of the city limits) could pay a fee to have their kids attend the city school system, instead of the county schools. This is pretty similar.
It looks like this homeowner specifically declined to pay the $75. If the city started letting people pay the fee after they needed it, it would be like buying auto insurance after you've had a wreck and expecting the insurance company to cover you for that wreck. In other words, after a while, the only $75 payments they'd collect would be for the houses that actually caught on fire.
What about the insurance company? (Score:4, Insightful)
A point which I haven't seen mentioned: This guy (according to the Olbermann interview) HAS homeowners insurance, including fire coverage! Why wasn't the insurance company allowed to pay the fee for him? (or, if they were why didn't they?) And why wasn't the insurance company allowed to separately contract with the city fire department to provide fire-fighting services for their policy holders (this is the way firefighting was funded in most of the US prior to the civil war)?
Setting up a situation where somebody (intentionally or inadvertently) not paying a $75 fee can cause tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage and fees for themselves, their neighbors (at least one had direct property damage) and the other policy holders of the insurance company is stupid and unjustifiable regardless of moral, political or economic perspective.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:4, Insightful)
This is Tennessee we're talking about. Any attempt to do that would be met by a rally of tea-partiers calling you a socialist. Got to keep the government off our backs, you know.
I guess I have to tell you this since you obviously don't know. However, ignorance didn't seem to stop you from spouting off.
The TEA Party has no problem with taxes for local services. TEA Partiers have a problem with the federal government providing services they have no business providing that can be handled better and more efficiently by local governments.
This guy is a poster case for personal responsibility. You'll notice most conservatives here are saying that his house burning down was his fault whereas liberals are saying that the fire department should have saved his house even though he chose not to pay the fee. The problem is that liberals don't seem to understand that if you start offering services for those who don't pay for them, pretty soon, no one will be paying for the services that everyone is entitled to.
To mangle an old quote (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no conservatives in a house fire.
Guy has no problem "forgetting" to pay his fees until it's his arse on the line. Then suddenly it's time for the government to bail him out.
Counterpoint (Score:3, Insightful)
If your county is too poor to pay for a fire department, you may have a volunteer fire department, or the nearest municipality may charge a fee to cover service. If you don't pay that fee, you don't get fire protection.
But in the interest of public good, a fire that's allowed to burn out-of-control at one home could spread to another home, or to a forest, extending the initial threat from a single private residence to the general welfare of the public. If I were this man's neighbor, and the fire that the f
Re:Counterpoint (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Counterpoint (Score:4, Insightful)
There is public good in not permitting a fire from growing, regardless of whether or not someone payed their municipal fees. As such, fire protection should be a public service guaranteed to all citizens, funded through taxes
First, there are no municipal fees, this is the county we are talking about. Second, the voters of Fulton County considered this argument and decided they would rather not have yet another tax assessed on their houses when the city provides the same service for less. Maybe now they will reconsider, but there's nothing unreasonable in saying "It would cost us $200/house in taxes to set up our own fire dept but the city agreed to provide it for $75." In fact, getting fire service for $75 instead of $200 and avoiding unnecessary duplication in equipment, training and organization is an unalloyed public good.
The wrinkle is that since the city doesn't have the authority to tax country residents outside city limits and the county cannot tax the residents and give the money to the city, it has to be organized as a voluntary subscription. So I'm not sure if your argument here is "the county should tax the residents and set up a duplicative fire dept." or "the county should be allowed to tax its residents and give the money to the city in lieu of setting up it's own fire dept". The latter makes sense, the former is total bollocks.
Re:Well Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, Tennessee is a state that steadfastly refuses to pass an income tax and in which any talk of raising taxes is met with crazy uproar. They had an actual riot back in 2001 when the state tried to introduce an small income tax.
This same guy who complained that the firefighters didn't save his house would probably be the first in line to scream like a girl if anyone dared propose a tax increase to pay for a fire station.
Once again, there is no free lunch, rednecks. If you want something, the money has to come from somewhere. If you want the government "off your back" then fine, but be prepared to fight your own damn fire.
Re:Well Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer isn't always more government.
Re:Well Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, letting them pay $75 at time of use is a no-go. Fighting a fire costs way more than $75. That's an insurance price, not a retail service price. If you allow people to buy insurance after they need it, you either go bankrupt or the cost of insurance ends up equaling the retail cost of service. You then lose the risk-pooling function of insurance. Now, for things as potentially valuable as houses and their contents, it would be sensible to have an actual retail price(set ahead of time, and publically known, to prevent extortion) that an uninsured person could pay to save a burning building, there are probably a fair few situations where the price of fighting the fire is lower than the cost of replacing the structure, so being able to pay a retail cost of approximately actual cost+service fee would be sensible for both householder and firefighting company.
However, here is where things get unpleasant: Because the Cranicks didn't pay, the firefighters allowed the fire to burn merrily, growing and spreading until it hit somebody who had paid. Now, since the paying householder's property is on fire, they likely suffered some thousands or 10s of thousands in direct combustion, smoke, and water damage. They paid, and they got shitty service. Had the firefighters used the Cranicks property to fight and stop the fire, they could have saved their customers from any damage, and done a much better job of serving them, the ones who actually paid.
Of course, if it becomes known that firefighters will fight fires around an insured property, the obvious strategy is for property owners to club together, buy insurance for 1 plot and get insurance for all for only $75/n. The fire department couldn't support itself on that. If they tried to offer two tiers, a $75 "Fires fought on your property only" and a more expensive "Fires that threaten your property fought", then this creates a perverse incentive: If I live next to a wealthy looking neighbor, I can get him to buy my fire insurance for me just by making my property more dangerous to his. Don't want to encourage that.
This is why firefighting, like certain public health measures, is very hard to elegantly force into a market model unless you are so far in the sticks that each man really is an island. Fires spread, just like diseases. Whether or not the firefighters come to my neighbor's aid matters to me(aside from any debatable moral stuff); because the raging inferno that is his burning house just needs the wind to shift for my house to be next. Even if I've paid my fee, having thousands in water damage from the firefighters, plus smoke and any combustion that occurs before they get there isn't really satisfying. I'd really rather have them fight the fire where it starts, and never have to suffer it myself, rather than insist that everyone pay, and let pockets of fire spread until they endanger me. Same way, even if I don't give a fuck about the life of the guy making my sandwich at the deli, and I don't care how poor he is, I sure do care about what immunizations he has, and whether he can take sick days; because his germs are getting into my food supply.
That is the real complexity of this story, in my opinion. There are some moral questions, but those are debatable, and there really should be a retail price set; but that is a bookkeeping matter; but if I were the insured householder I'd be absolutely livid about this. I paid my dues, and I get lousy service because they are trying to make a point? You could have completely protected my property; but chose to let a nearby building become a danger to it, when I pay you to protect my property? WTF?
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't work. Look, it's not like there are fire hydrants out there. That fire department depends on those fees to get tank trucks and other stuff you have to have to fight rural fires. If you could just pay as you go, then no one would ever pay, and the fire department wouldn't be able to afford the equipment.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Easy solution: Put out the fire, then hit him with a massive fine. Say 10x the actual cost of fighting the fire.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
The City of South Fulton doesn't have the authority to issue fines to people who don't live in their town.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bill the county, the county fines the homeowner.
Or they bill the homeowner directly.
Note:Bill not Fine.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Informative)
South Fulton used to send out bills of $500 to non-payers for fire response. Less than 50% of the people paid that bill.
They realized that they would have to get a court order to collect the rest.
Subscription districts suck.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does this remind me of the health care argument? People claiming that this sort of things is optional and they shouldn't have to pay, knowing in their minds that it's only a matter of time before they DO need to rely on that service. I have no sympathy for this family. They should have been responsible citizens and paid their dues just like everyone else, instead of assuming they could freeload off the system in an emergency.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
The comparison to national health care doesn't quite fit though, because the question there is whether the US federal government has lawful authority under the Constitution to order people to buy things. It definitely does not, if the Constitution is still a meaningful limit on federal power.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
An interesting sub-topic to be sure. Do you think he had the right to expect those services to be available to him knowing that he refused to pay into the system? I wasn't referring to the larger question of the legality of Health Care and I don't want to get too side tracked from the topic at hand with such. I was more interested in the fact that he refused to pay for the service and then expected them to provide such services for the original fee after it became an emergency.
I see that as very similar to folks who refuse to pay for health insurance, and then expect to be able to go to the emergency room for treatment. It just struck me as a little too close in general situation to the health care debate.
Apologies if I didn't make that clear.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
But emergency rooms are still required to treat the grievously injured, insured or not. What if there had been a life on the line, someone trapped inside the building. Does some kid have to die because his dad was to cheep or too stupid to pay a fee?
I understand why this happened this way but I don't see why it couldnt be structured differently. If wilderness rescue can charge a lost hiker for finding them without that hiker having to pay a $75 fee ahead of time just in case they get lost, why cant the fire department charge someone who didn't pay the fee up front. Obviously the fee for putting out the fire should be a lot more than what the person would pay if they just paid in advance but it should be an option.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Informative)
I live in the next town over, across the state line in KY, so allow me to expand on this a little.
The fire subscription fee has been in existence for 20 years for those living within a certain distance of South Fulton in Obion County. It has never gone up in 20 years. It is a meager fee for such service, yet a large portion of those eligible still gamble with it. Before 1990, the rural folks flat out didn't have fire service, period. South Fulton FD would not respond outside the city limits, so this is considered an expanded service for those outside the city limits, not a gov't paid and provided service like it is for those inside the city. And we use the term "city" liberally. South Fulton has a population of maybe 2500 people and falling as the old die off and the young leave for lack of employment opportunity.
Had there been a person in the home whose life was in danger, the firefighters would have been legally obligated to respond to save the person, but once the person is rescued, their duty ends for those without a fire subscription. Also, I don't understand why his pets died. From what I've been told, it took almost 2 hours for the fire to go from the burn barrels to his shed and ultimately to his house. He had lots of time to rescue his pets and his most important documents and possessions before the fire got to his house, but he instead assumed that the SFFD would come save his pets and property even though his fee was not paid. He expected something for nothing and got exactly what he put effort into - nothing.
As for the property next door, it was a harvested soybean field on fire, not another home. They have special tanker trucks with big spray booms to deal with such.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? I believe that I'm "forced" to pay for Interstate Highways, Federal Police, the Military, and plenty of other things which are of only indirect benefit. If you don't like the health care proposal, do us all a favor and dislike it for a real reason, ok?
Right now I'm paying for people who don't have health insurance through higher hospital costs passed on to me due to all of the freeloaders who use the ER as their only doctor. I'd rather everyone pay less to keep them healthy and maybe employed, or at least employable, rather than pay more to have them sit around sick and on welfare. People losing their house is this manner is a direct analogy; too cheap to pay for their own fire service, they're even too cheap to pay $75 insurance for another town's fire service, they are now homeless and my taxes will go toward their welfare. Make the bastards pay a little so that we don't have to pay it all for them. Heck, the fire dept. was stupid too. It will cost us all a ton to help this family back onto their feet; if we'd just all be "forced" to pay in equally then this wouldn't happen. Or, give up, tell them to go homeless, and then pay more for police to arrest and house them (in prison) when they steal to eat.
Fact is, we all pay for everyone's stupidity. It's only a matter of how we pay, and how much. Your choice.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't pay taxes in Europe? You pay for it whether you realize it or not. In this case, this individual is in a separate county, so his taxes did not pay for that service. He is frankly no eligible to receive those services if he didn't pay for them.
As for me, I would never be so stupid as to refuse to pay a $75 dollar fee for fire service.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we get it, we all get it, the whole of Europe gets it. We KNOW that public services are paid for with taxes, we don't think they magically exist for free. The other thing is that we tend to pay our taxes up to the top, and then the top ensures that stuff like firefighting are paid-for nationwide. That also means that there isn't a jobsworth being employed to check whether homes currently being burnt down are covered. Frankly, this situation is stupid even for all the people who DO pay because time is wasted checking to see if they're on the list (and faffing around resolving mis-spellings, no-doubt) when the firefighters SHOULD be going to put out the fire immediately.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Brit, yes, I pay taxes, and if my house was on fire, a fire engine would come to put it out. And if the house of my friend who has a part-time job and pays less taxes was on fire, a fire engine would come to put it out. And if the house of my other friend who is on benefits (which you'd call "welfare") because this wretched economy means they can't get an interview much less a job, and as such doesn't pay taxes in any meaningful sense was on fire, a fire engine would come and put it out. And if the house of my other other friend, who has a debilitating illness which means she couldn't work if she wanted to and gets just enough money from the government to pay for the food, rent and carers she needs was on fire, a fire engine would come and put it out.
We have this crazy idea over here that a person's right to emergency services shouldn't be based on how much money they're making, and shouldn't be removed through poor luck or illness. And yeah, a few lazy people abuse it; frankly, I'll accept that knowing that if anyone I care about is in need, no matter whether due to malice, bad luck or their own stupidity, they'll be helped, without needing to sign up for a series of different plans years beforehand.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Informative)
"Duress": I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Black's Law (quoted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress) defines duress as: "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]".
In other words, I can induce you to sign a contract with any LEGAL threat that I so please, and the contract is still binding. But if my threats are inherently illegal (such as threatening to hurt you, hurt your family, destroy your property, blackmail you), then the concept of duress applies, and you have a defense against my breach of contract claims.
This definition makes a lot of practical sense, if you think about it. If duress were a broader concept that included me refusing to provide you with services if you don't sign a contract, then I wouldn't even legally be able to tell you the point of signing the contract, in the first place. Under that kind of twisted logic, if you asked "Why should I sign this contract agreeing to pay you $20 to mow my lawn", and I responded "Because I won't mow your lawn for free", then I'd be subjecting you to duress. Clearly, that's not conducive to basic business arrangements.
In this case, the firefighters would be threatening to withold a service (fighting the fire consuming the man's house), which doesn't seem to be an illegal threat, to me. Granted, the house represents a very serious economic and emotional loss to this man and his family. I don't want to belittle that. But it's not like the firefighters set the man's house on fire, in the first place.
Now, there are some situations where a society will legally or socially obligate an individual member to act on behalf of his fellow man in a time of need. Some jurisdictions even have laws requiring you to aid another human being in distress, as long as you're not putting yourself in harm's way (like in the Seinfeld finale). So everything I said, above, assumes that this little Tennessee burg isn't one of situations.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Informative)
they could charge the homeowner whatever turns out to be the actual cost of the service (the annual cost of having the resources available divided by the average number of fires per year, plus a surcharge for "forgetting" to pay). It might be several thousand dollars, and it's up to the homeowner to decide whether his house is worth paying for the service or not.
All fine and dandy except for one niggling problem:
Federal law limits post-fire bills to $500. This isn't enough to keep people paying the $75, nor enough to cover actual expenses. So they let it burn.
Nope, not kidding. (Score:3, Insightful)
Load of shit? Ok, I have 200 people under this arrangement. 100 pay, 100 don't. One of the 100 who don't pay end up needing the service. I bill him $75 but the other 99 don't pay but, in effect, got the service.
What is the incentive for ANYONE to pay in this type of arrangement?
Re:Nope, not kidding. (Score:5, Insightful)
You've essentially described one of the fundamental problems with public goods -- if it's provided for the benefit of all, how do you avoid free-riders?
While there are several solutions (and theories) in place, the fact remains that you'll always have a percentage of free-riders. Of course, in a purely capitalistic model, this is solved because every service has an associated cost with it, and those that don't pay the cost don't get the service (e.g. this case). In socialism, you pay a larger chunk (e.g. taxes) and you get a plethora of services, freeing you from the worry of particular services -- but then, you do not get to pick and choose.
Typically, life-or-death services (e.g. police/fire) fall under the latter, but I guess rural Tennessee is different.
Re:Nope, not kidding. (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate dealing with subscription districts. One of the reasons why they still survive in my area is that we don't have authority to set and enforce fire codes there. Keeping the Ebil Goberment out of their lives is the goal of some of the people in the area.
That said, I think the solution to handling non-payers is to inform their Homeowners Insurance and/or mortgage holder about the requirement. Guarenteed if those people knew about the situation they would make sure the fee got paid.
Re:Nope, not kidding. (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically you are now forcing firefighters to be bill collectors. What do they do, negotiate with the guy on the spot?
No, the real problem is with having a voluntary fee for a collective, necessary service. Don't blame the firefighters. Blame the government that set up a no-win situation.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nope, not kidding. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo.
So instead of pointing at the big bad nasty firefighters, go point the finger at the "government is evil" crowd who insists that any tax is bad and that we would be better off living in a libertarian utopia.
Shhh! (Score:4, Funny)
The whole reason we have a government is to have someone to blame when things go wrong. That doesn't really work if we remember we are the government, so shut it. Comforting myths are comforting.
Re:Nope, not kidding. (Score:5, Insightful)
"No, the real problem is with having a voluntary fee for a collective, necessary service. Don't blame the firefighters. Blame the government that set up a no-win situation."
I think you mean "Blame the voters who are so anti-tax that they refuse to provide the necessary funds to even cover collective, necessary services."
Re:Nope, not kidding. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you nuts? What if all of government did this? Want police? Pay up front. Want to call 911? That's $5 a minute. Want to drive on the road? Charged by the mile via GPS. [usatoday.com] Want your kids to go to school? All schools charge, public schools don't exist. Want to walk on the sidewalk? Toll sidewalks every 100 yards.
No food stamps, no welfare, no Medicaid, no WIC for low-income pregnant women [pregnancyandchildren.com], no Section 8 [wikipedia.org], no child or adult care programs [wikipedia.org], no free school lunches for children of low-income families, etc.
Of course this would have no impact on your taxes, your taxes would be just as high. Yes, the homeowner says he pays taxes so he's not getting a huge break here, sounds like he's just getting screwed with no fire department.
They should have done what hospitals do when a ambulance shows up: you get a bill in the mail, thousands of dollars for the ambulance ride.
Re:Nope, not kidding. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course this would have no impact on your taxes, your taxes would be just as high.
Why?
Re:Nope, not kidding. (Score:4, Informative)
There is one problem - being the neighbor of the guy who didn't pay. Now your house is more likely to catch on fire.
In TFA, the neighbor's property did catch fire, and the firefighters fought it up to the property line. IMHO, paying taxes for firefighting services for the whole community is a better idea, but in some areas I guess the collective decision is to let everyone make their own choice. It's the way that things used to be - you can see the "fire marks" (usually a metal star or suchlike) on older buildings; you'd get the mark from your insurance company, and their private fire fighters would only put out fires at properties with the right mark.
Re:Nope, not kidding. (Score:4, Insightful)
There isn't a fire department where he lives. It'd be like you suing the fire department in the next town over for problems with the fire department in your own town.
And if he paid any substantial amount of taxes, his county'd probably have a fire department (it's generally considered a critical service). Tennessee doesn't have a state income tax, so no money from there either.
People want really low taxes, but this is the result: really poor services.
The Better Policy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was thinking he should get a fine, like parking meters, it's only 50 cents an hour to park YMMV and no one's watching too closely and you could park and not pay, but if you're caught it's a $50+ fine.
I say put out the fire and bill him $7500+. If he don't pay put a lien on the house and take the house. [wikipedia.org]
But to just stand there and watch it burn? That should be criminal, what if people died? I think the firefighters should go to jail. What has his world come to when the people sworn to serve and protect decide not to? Sounds like anarchy.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Why not put out the fire and then bill him for the $75?"
But to just stand there and watch it burn? That should be criminal, what if people died? I think the firefighters should go to jail. What has his world come to when the people sworn to serve and protect decide not to? Sounds like anarchy.
When did the firefighters of South Fulton Kentucky ever swear to serve and protect the people of Obion County Kentucky? They have no legal responsibility to protect anyone outside of their jurisdiction. The subscription fee puts them in their jurisdiction. No subscription fee, no jurisdiction.
And honestly, 90% of the Volunteer Fire Departments in my area of the country don't take any kind of Oath. I didn't take one when I was an EMT either.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Informative)
OSHA considers a house fire to be "Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health"
All my personal protective equipment comes with warning labels that even when wearing the equipment properly, I can still be killed in a fire that the equipment will survive.
Every time I enter a building that is on fire it counts as "substantial personal risk". I am definitely at less risk than someone without the training or equipment, but I am still at risk.
If I am injured on a fire that my department has no legal responsibility to respond to, the Workman Comp Insurance provider can deny my claims.
Unless there is a pre-written agreement between the County and my Community, responding to a non-subscribers house fire is an out of jurisdiction response. The Subscription fee is what gives my fire department jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fire dept and police department services are NOT optional. This isn't a cell phone subscription or some opt in bullshit. These are required services needed to live.
If the voters in that district agreed with you, they would have approved the tax.
Thankfully this is America, where democracy still holds some kind of value, and the actual residents of the county get to decide what their laws say.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In small towns, the taxes may barely be enough to pay for utilities, police, and roads. Some towns don't even have their own fire department and must pay fees to neighboring cities.
Re:Well Duh (Score:4, Informative)
This is fucking incomprehensible to me.
County and city taxes pay for county and city services and infrastructure. Federal taxes pay for federal services, to which the military belongs. They are completely different taxes.
Now some cities and municipalities may qualify for grants and what-not from federal and state sources, but none of that changes that this idiot gambled and lost. Paying $75/hr for fire service is an easy, low IQ decision. Not to mention dirt cheap.
The real failure, IMOHO, is the fact the fee is not mandatory.
Re:Well Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
If the people were inside, then it's an emergency. But no one's life was in danger, so now we're talking about a Fireman risking HIS life to save someone's crap that's probably already insured anyway.
Actually, it was the chief's call. So when two fireman die on this call what's the chief going to tell the firemen's little girls?
We sent your daddies in to save the shit of someone who didn't think their home was worth paying the fire fee?
And BTW, if you just try putting the fire out from the outside where it's safe, the house is still going to burn from the outside in. You have to go INTO the house to put it out.
Re:Well Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't work for some idiot who made a really poor chain of decisions including not paying promptly for his protection and burning garbage near his house?
Sounds like it worked well for society. Lots of people are checking that they made their fire payments in that county today.
Gambling with your home is a bad bet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if you RTFA, you'd hear that he didn't not pay his taxes, he forgot to pay an annual fee. He didn't say anything about not wanting "government interference". Granted, he might be lying, but either way this seems like a pretty stupid thing to let happen. Over $75 you let a house burn down that does how many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars in damage? He's got insurance too, which kind of supports the idea that he wasn't trying to weasel out of paying for anything (if he's willing to pay insuran
Re:Gambling with your home is a bad bet (Score:5, Informative)
There is a lot more information about this out there from other sources
According to the Mayor of the Town involved
1. The policy is if there is human life at risk, the department responds and rescues, but only fights the fire enough to effect the rescue
2. This person did not "forget" to pay. The fire department called him in August to tell him that they had not received his payment and he would not receive fire protection until he did
3. In an earlier interview, the guy said "I knew I didn't pay, but I thought they would come anyway". Now in interviews he says he forgot
4. Fire Service should be tax based, but in Tennessee, to put a new tax in place, like a fire protection district, requires a positive vote in favor of the tax. For 20 years, this County has regularly voted against such a tax.
5. The Community of South Fulton, who's fire department responded, is located in Kentucky. So not only do you have a city fire department responding out of their protection area, they are responding into another STATE.
socialism (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what happens when you don't have socialism.
Re:socialism (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when you don't have socialism.
Translation: "When you don't have socialism, the prick that refuses to subscribe to a voluntary fire service from a neighboring city because he doesn't want to have to pay money for things he doesn't think he needs doesn't get fire service. When you DO have socialism, the prick is FORCED to pay for the fire service that he doesn't want." Yeah, sounds like a great plan.
Though, to be fair, there are a few things that really ought to be socialized, fire service being one of them. I'm more using the above as a metaphor for other various government and non-government services that aren't as important to the lives of other people around you.
Re:socialism (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see the problem here - the guy was so cheap he didn't want to pay $6.25/month for fire department protection, so he didn't get the services. Exactly the same as getting cancer after choosing not to pay for health insurance.
I think the problem with offering a one time fire-fighting fee of $7500 or whatever is that people would fight it in court as a decision made under duress, and might actually win.
This happened to me once! (Score:3, Insightful)
This one time I didn't have contents insurance and got robbed and all the insurance companies stood around doing nothing because I didn't have a policy with any of them!
Re:This happened to me once! (Score:4, Insightful)
All I'm saying is that it's a good thing EMS services don't operate under the same principal...
Another win (Score:4, Insightful)
for libertarians everywhere.
Re:Another win (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarianism has the same flaws as communism: it doesn't really work--especially on a large scale---because actual people are involved, and people are not neat little Randian or Marxist entities but complex, real-world things. Arguing that "it's better" or "real libertarianism has never been tried" is exactly the same kind of self-delusional wankery that Marxists exercise.
You couldn't guarantee that "a libertarian would have put out the fire" because it's equally likely that a libertarian might buy the fire department and then go around starting fires in order to make money. Libertarians are people, too, and subject to the same nobility and failings as people everywhere.
This is why democratic socialism will win every single damn time: it's not perfect (far from it) but it's built assuming that people will be people, whereas know-it-all totalitarism or anarchism are divorced from how people actually act.
Libertarian Paradise (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuff sed.
yup (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to believe more than you just read on the internet about what some guy told you these other guys believe.
The roof, (Score:3, Funny)
What is next a cop fee and if you don't pay rape (Score:5, Insightful)
What is next a cop fee and if you don't pay the cops will just stand there as you get raped as you did not pay the fee?
fireman and cops should be payed for with taxes!
also will the fireman pass up a burning car as they don't know if the people in the car payed?
This what the republic want for health care but with health care buying on your own can cost $1000+ month with a big list of stuff not coved and if you are sick then it can be hard to get it at all. Some job only have that min med that cost about $700+ year + copays with $2000 MAX YEAR PAY OUT AND that is joke care.
Re:What is next a cop fee and if you don't pay rap (Score:5, Informative)
Bad news: the scotus has already ruled that police can, in fact, legally stand by as you are raped. Even if they know about it. Even if you call for help.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia [wikipedia.org]
Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html [nytimes.com]
A Libertarian World (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a lot of libertarians here on Slashdot. Well, this is what a libertarian utopia looks like, kids. If this strikes you as unjust and cruel, you'd probably better stop listening to Glen Beck on the teevee, and start voting for candidates who believe that government is a useful thing.
(If, on the other hand, you're happy with the outcome of this story, that's cool, you're not a hypocrite, and, we can agree to disagree.)
As for "why not put out the fire and then bill him", the $75 fee is not to put out the fire, it's to keep the fire department running when there *isn't* a fire. You can no more pay the bill after you need the service than you can wait until after you get cancer to start paying for medical insurance. The system can't work that way.
Oh shut up (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing that tires me more than a frothing libertarian is a frothing libertarian hater, of which there seem to be more than actual libertarians.
If you knew anything about what the hell you were talking about you'd realize that libertarians aren't opposed to all government, just parts of it. As with any group of humans there's variance, some are quite moderate, some are more extreme. However you find that things like military and public safety, which fire departments are, are things they almost universally are ok with taxes paying for.
There's a big difference between saying "Reduce or eliminate many government programs," and saying "Eliminate ALL government." That would be anarchists, not libertarians.
Also please realize the people suggesting bill him mean "Bill him for the cost of putting out the fire." It would be a case of "Pay $75/year in insurance, or pay the full cost if there is a fire."
That is the proper way to handle a situation like this, since fire is a public safety issue. Not putting out a fire should never be an option since the problems isn't that a house may burn down, it is that all of them may burn down. Ask London what happens when you lack proper fire control.
Re:A Libertarian World (Score:5, Insightful)
it can't if the fee for 'on the spot' payment is very low, but it could if the fee was high enough to keep the department running between fires. If the fire department takes 20K to run every month, and there's on average one fire a month, a non-subscription fee of 20K for putting out a fire without subscription would allow the fire department to run with a minimum initial investment, either by a private party or the government.
The problem here is that there was no procedure whatsoever to deal with a non-payer whose house can be saved. A form contract in the fire truck that the owner can sign to accept some kind of lien on the property to pay for the fire extinguishing costs plus a penalty would have saved the house, taught the homeowner a lesson and made the fire department richer.
Re:A Libertarian World (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, they're not *his* firefighters, they're from the next town over. His nonexistent local government has no fire service: I bet it would have no objection if you wanted to buy yourself a tanker truck and set up your own private fire company.
But nobody does this, because fire protection is an absolutely shitty way to make a living in the 21st century. There's no profit in it unless you run around setting fires yourself.
Unprofitable but indispensable social services: this is what government is good at.
This is why Libertarians are morally bankrupt (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is why Libertarians are morally bankrupt (Score:4, Interesting)
Your argument is overly-simplistic. First off, if someone is a libertarian and is happy with this situation then they are not "morally bankrupt" at all. You assume that just because you don't like the outcome tat no one does either. A number of posters have already said they are fine with what happened.
The bigger flaw, however, is that you automatically assume libertarian as an absolute philosophy. By that reasoning, your desire for socialism must mean that you are in favor of a government seizure of businesses, houses, property, and everything else. Few people are so obtuse.
Most "libertarians" (including much of the "Tea Party" movement) are perfectly fine with some level of government services. Perhaps they do not like some current programs. Or proposed programs. They often take the label as an effort to distinguish themselves from conservatives and the Republican Party. While the GOP has fancied itself a "small government" party, it really is not in any practical sense. And often seems more concerned with social agendas (media censorship, abortion, homosexual rights) with which these libertarians are not interested in.
Won't anyone think of the animals? (Score:4, Interesting)
Animal cruelty charges should be brought, they allowed 4 pets to die...frankly I would be more pissed about that than losing my stuff.
Everybody hates the government (Score:5, Insightful)
Right up until the moment they need the government. Ain't it a bitch?
I was raised liberal in a redneck part of the country. And a lot of kids I grew up with thought it was clever to call the cops "the pigs". The first time my mom caught me pulling that shit, she pulled me aside and bitched me out, telling me, "You won't be calling a pig on the day you need a cop."
Frankly, I like nice roads. I like a school tax that enables stores to hire cashiers who can read. I like the idea that if any brown people overthrow their government while I'm on vacation that I can go to the embassy and the Marines will fly me the fuck out of there.
I'm a supporter of paying higher taxes -- just make sure I get some decent services to go with it.
Sad, but I can't help but be thrilled. (Score:5, Insightful)
While yes it is sad that this happened to the family, I think this is a fantastic example of what happens when right wing capitalist values meet reality. They are so obsessed over the evils of socialism, how forcing people to pay for services 'used by other people' is anathema.
So here is what happens when you don't feel you should have to put money into the collective pool for social services. Thanks but no thanks. If some relatively small taxes is the price I have to pay for this kind of peace of mind, I'll take it every time.
Re:Sad, but I can't help but be thrilled. (Score:5, Insightful)
This would also happen in ancient Rome. (Score:4, Informative)
Even 3rd world African countries have free fire protection.
In fact, as far has I know, the last state that asked a fee for fire protection was Rome. I think that says a lot about USA. Even more when I see so many comments here in Slashdot supporting the fire department action.
Hey idiot grandson, did you learn your lesson? (Score:5, Interesting)
what about clerical errors? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how long it will be until we hear they let someone's house burn down due to a clerical error,
i.e. they actually paid but the computer says they didn't. Or the 911 operator types in the wrong
address when they call. Seems sure to happen sooner or later.
Re:This is what taxes are for (Score:5, Insightful)
A publicly funded fire brigade? What's next? Public healthcare? You dirty socialist!
Re:This is what taxes are for (Score:5, Funny)
You're ignoring the greater problem: socialised defense! The federal government is taking your money, and using it to protect poor people from terrorism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I absolutely disagree with the idea that the state should have to pay for this joker's bad decisions. That's money out of all of our pockets because he can't make a rational choice.
Forcing everyone to pay for fire coverage (via taxes) is fine. But that doesn't mean that we owe some joker in some county that didn't feel the need.
Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, it's the state, not the country. Don't blame fricking Obama for the problems of Fulton County Tennesee's rural fire department! That's just absurd.
In most other states, there'd be a state income tax, or a hefty county tax, or a sales tax or something to support fire coverage for all the citizens in the county. They didn't want that there, so there is a fee. And if you don't pay it, you're screwed. And it's their own bed to lie in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As decent human beings, I would imagine that many of the firefighters wanted to help the guy out. On the other hand, what kind of precedent does that set? Don't pay and your house is on fire? Well, I guess we'll help out this time. What incentive would there be for anyone to pay the fee if they all knew that the fire department would come and help them out anyway? No... as much as it pains me to say it, the fire department made the right choice, if they had done anything else the whole system would fal
Re:Uh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It set the precedent that your human beings.
I don't know why this is missed by people here, but OBVIOUSLY you would bill him for putting it out. OBVIOUSLY I mean the entire cost not the 75 dollars.
I would get fired before I let someones home burn down. To hide behind 'policy' and rules is a way to cover up entrenched callousness and cowardice.
The whole thing reeks of 3rd world policy.
Re:Uh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
NO, you bill them for the cost, not the missed payment. The entire cost. which I believe is about 7500 dollars.
Why is that surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidents like this would become an almost daily affair.