Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department.

Vicky Bell told the NBC affiliate WPSD-TV that she called 911 when her mobile home in Obion County caught fire. Firefighters arrived on the scene but as the fire raged, they simply stood by and did nothing. "In an emergency, the first thing you think of, 'Call 9-1-1," homeowner Bell said. However, Bell and her husband were forced to walk into the burning home in an attempt to retrieve their own belongings. "You could look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance," Bell said. "We just wished we could've gotten more out."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/te ... 41763.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have a sense of deja vu about this. Wasn't there a similar story about a month ago?

Shouldn't the fee be a tax so things like this don't happen?

Ivytalk wrote:I have a sense of deja vu about this. Wasn't there a similar story about a month ago?

Last year. Same Fire Department, same rural area. They didn't learn.

andy7171 wrote:Shouldn't the fee be a tax so things like this don't happen?

The Fire Department is the city's. The City can not levy a tax outside of it's boundaries. The city allows non-residents to subscribe to the FD's services for $75/year.

If you are too stupid to do so, then that is your problem.

dbackjon wrote:If you are too stupid to do so, then that is your problem.

I disagree. As a country, we shouldn't lose our morality over money (which seems to be increasingly the case). Help them first and then deal with their stupidity afterwards.

∞∞∞ wrote:

dbackjon wrote:If you are too stupid to do so, then that is your problem.

I disagree. As a country, we shouldn't lose our morality over money (which seems to be increasingly the case). Help them first and then deal with their stupidity afterwards.

Yes and no. They had the chance to pay. If the FD helps the non-subcribers, what incentive is there for anyone to pay?


We need to help, but there is a need for some personal responsibility as well.

dbackjon wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: I disagree. As a country, we shouldn't lose our morality over money (which seems to be increasingly the case). Help them first and then deal with their stupidity afterwards.

Yes and no. They had the chance to pay. If the FD helps the non-subcribers, what incentive is there for anyone to pay?


We need to help, but there is a need for some personal responsibility as well.

I don't know, maybe the family could be made to pay for all the years they didn't pay, fine them for another ten year's worth, and give the homeowners 75-100 hours of community service. I just can't fathom a fire department sitting there watching someone's life burn away when they can do something about it. Humanity > Money.

∞∞∞ wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Yes and no. They had the chance to pay. If the FD helps the non-subcribers, what incentive is there for anyone to pay?


We need to help, but there is a need for some personal responsibility as well.

I don't know, maybe the family could be made to pay for all the years they didn't pay, fine them for another ten year's worth, and give the homeowners 75-100 hours of community service. I just can't fathom a fire department sitting there watching someone's life burn away when they can do something about it. Humanity > Money.

THIS.

More to the point - not even that.

When we let a families home burn like this - we become no better than a 3rd world country. We are better people than this... to let someones home burn to the ground in the name of budget cuts... it's an outrage.

Fire protection, like police protection, should be universal.

This is the worst of what happens if you have not had the brains morans to form rural fire districts, levy a tax to support a real fire department presence. $75.00 sounds good, but another factor is things like response time, water supply and distance for properties outside city limits, if the $75.00 fire department can't get on the scene of a structure fire in less than ten minutes likely the place will be a total loss anyway. Sometimes valiant efforts by late on the scene fire fighting efforts just leaves a much bigger mess to clean up when all is said and done.

Yes, things like EMS, Fire Protection, Police Protection, and Health Care should be taxed so things like this and worse can't happen.

dbackjon wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: I disagree. As a country, we shouldn't lose our morality over money (which seems to be increasingly the case). Help them first and then deal with their stupidity afterwards.

Yes and no. They had the chance to pay. If the FD helps the non-subcribers, what incentive is there for anyone to pay?


We need to help, but there is a need for some personal responsibility as well.

FD's ought to be paid out of general tax dollars - this notion of charging a "fee" (which is code for "tax we are too cowardly to assess") for freaking FIRE services in the 21st century is just loathsome...

∞∞∞ wrote:

dbackjon wrote:If you are too stupid to do so, then that is your problem.

I disagree. As a country, we shouldn't lose our morality over money (which seems to be increasingly the case). Help them first and then deal with their stupidity afterwards.

Agreed. I'm going to stop paying my car insurance until I have an accident.

89Hen wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: I disagree. As a country, we shouldn't lose our morality over money (which seems to be increasingly the case). Help them first and then deal with their stupidity afterwards.

Agreed. I'm going to stop paying my car insurance until I have an accident.

and if you get in an accident - the EMT's and first responders will be there to attend to you - no matter what. because that's what we do... your car won't be replaced by the EMT's... but the emergency situation will be resolved as a matter of PUBLIC GOOD.

/pokes hole in your glib analogy

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

89Hen wrote: Agreed. I'm going to stop paying my car insurance until I have an accident.

and if you get in an accident - the EMT's and first responders will be there to attend to you - no matter what. because that's what we do... your car won't be replaced by the EMT's... but the emergency situation will be resolved as a matter of PUBLIC GOOD.

/pokes hole in your glib analogy

Insurance is not included in my taxes, EMT is. If EMT weren't included in my taxes, I'd pay for it like I pay for insurance.

/ eat me

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

89Hen wrote: Agreed. I'm going to stop paying my car insurance until I have an accident.

and if you get in an accident - the EMT's and first responders will be there to attend to you - no matter what. because that's what we do... your car won't be replaced by the EMT's... but the emergency situation will be resolved as a matter of PUBLIC GOOD.

/pokes hole in your glib analogy

What if I get into an accident while driving my mobile home that had all of my possessions in it? Will the EMT's help me out with that?

/pokes hole in the poking of the previous glib analogy

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

89Hen wrote: Agreed. I'm going to stop paying my car insurance until I have an accident.

and if you get in an accident - the EMT's and first responders will be there to attend to you - no matter what. because that's what we do... your car won't be replaced by the EMT's... but the emergency situation will be resolved as a matter of PUBLIC GOOD.

/pokes hole in your glib analogy

If there had been a safety issue, like a person trapped in the home, the firefighters would have helped, paid or not.

Shoots downs your poking.

Ideally, yes, this would be a universal service paid by all. But it is not.

I am very familar with this area - my ex grew up 10 miles from there. I know the mentality of these people - they are anti-government types that want to be left alone (until of course, they need something). Sorry, but fuck'em if they won't pay for service.

dbackjon wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
and if you get in an accident - the EMT's and first responders will be there to attend to you - no matter what. because that's what we do... your car won't be replaced by the EMT's... but the emergency situation will be resolved as a matter of PUBLIC GOOD.

/pokes hole in your glib analogy

If there had been a safety issue, like a person trapped in the home, the firefighters would have helped, paid or not.

Shoots downs your poking.

Ideally, yes, this would be a universal service paid by all. But it is not.

I am very familar with this area - my ex grew up 10 miles from there. I know the mentality of these people - they are anti-government types that want to be left alone (until of course, they need something). Sorry, but fuck'em if they won't pay for service.

Sliding towards Somalia... gotta love libertarian ideology run amok...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Yes and no. They had the chance to pay. If the FD helps the non-subcribers, what incentive is there for anyone to pay?


We need to help, but there is a need for some personal responsibility as well.

FD's ought to be paid out of general tax dollars - this notion of charging a "fee" (which is code for "tax we are too cowardly to assess") for freaking FIRE services in the 21st century is just loathsome...

I agree - it should be part of a tax for the local area. However, if it's not, then it should be broadcast very clearly that fire services are not automatic and if you want fire services then you need to pay up front.

Thing is, though, I wouldn't want to live in places that ran their local government like that, but at the same time I have no problem with people choosing to live that way. If you know clearly and well in advance that you need to pay a fee to get fire service, and if the people in that area have agreed to that through their government, and it's clear that they have, then I'm fine with it. Like I said, I wouldn't live there, but who am I to tell others how to live and make choices like that?

GannonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
FD's ought to be paid out of general tax dollars - this notion of charging a "fee" (which is code for "tax we are too cowardly to assess") for freaking FIRE services in the 21st century is just loathsome...

I agree - it should be part of a tax for the local area. However, if it's not, then it should be broadcast very clearly that fire services are not automatic and if you want fire services then you need to pay up front.

Thing is, though, I wouldn't want to live in places that ran their local government like that, but at the same time I have no problem with people choosing to live that way. If you know clearly and well in advance that you need to pay a fee to get fire service, and if the people in that area have agreed to that through their government, and it's clear that they have, then I'm fine with it. Like I said, I wouldn't live there, but who am I to tell others how to live and make choices like that?

/thread

Wedgie nailed it. The rural area should create a fire district, contract with the city fire department, and levy a tax to pay the city.

I have no sympathy for these people. This happened in the same area a year ago. I may have some sympathy for the people that lost their home a year ago because they were the first to have the problem. Not these people. Fool me once, fool me twice........

I think that most firefighters are not going to sit by and watch a house burn, particularly if there might be someone inside. At least I would hope not.

That said, they could always perform their services and then bill the owners afterwards.

There is certainly a little slant to the headlines though. Guess the papers need to suck in their readership.

CID1990 wrote:That said, they could always perform their services and then bill the owners afterwards.

How does that work?

89Hen wrote:

CID1990 wrote:That said, they could always perform their services and then bill the owners afterwards.

How does that work?

I see. A user fee. But the only way that works is if there are enough fires to help pay for the equipment. Highway tolls are and example of a user fee system. But there are enough users to pay for the road maintenance. In NJ, you have to pay to go to the beach. This is another example of a user fee system. Again, there are enough beachgoers that make the system work. I am in favor of certain user fee systems, including the two examples I gave, in lieu of taxing everyone whether they use it or not. But the user fee system does not fit in every situation.

CAA Flagship wrote:

89Hen wrote: How does that work?

I see. A user fee. But the only way that works is if there are enough fires to help pay for the equipment. Highway tolls are and example of a user fee system. But there are enough users to pay for the road maintenance. In NJ, you have to pay to go to the beach. This is another example of a user fee system. Again, there are enough beachgoers that make the system work. I am in favor of certain user fee systems, including the two examples I gave, in lieu of taxing everyone whether they use it or not. But the user fee system does not fit in every situation.

Yup. We'd love to put out your fire, but we ran out of money because everyone has been good this year and there haven't been many fires. We had to sell our truck and layoff half our force.

89Hen wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: I see. A user fee. But the only way that works is if there are enough fires to help pay for the equipment. Highway tolls are and example of a user fee system. But there are enough users to pay for the road maintenance. In NJ, you have to pay to go to the beach. This is another example of a user fee system. Again, there are enough beachgoers that make the system work. I am in favor of certain user fee systems, including the two examples I gave, in lieu of taxing everyone whether they use it or not. But the user fee system does not fit in every situation.

Yup. We'd love to put out your fire, but we ran out of money because everyone has been good this year and there haven't been many fires. We had to sell our truck and layoff half our force.

I surely thought I baited you to make a snide comment on having to pay to go to the beach in NJ.