+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: OK, what do you guys think about the firefighters letting this guy's house burn down?

  1. #1
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,889

    Default OK, what do you guys think about the firefighters letting this guy's house burn down?

    I've been reading all kinds of outrage on the internet over this story. A brief summation: Guy lives in a county where they have no fire service. A nearby municipality offers fire protection to individuals who live outside of their jurisdiction, for a $75 annual fee. This guy didn't pay it, and when his house caught fire, the fire department came to ensure the fire didn't spread outside the property line, but didn't attempt to put it out.

    I've seen a lot of people say that the firefighters should have put the fire out anyway, and I've seen a lot of people say maybe they didn't have an obligation to, but it shows that this type of system is fucked up and shouldn't be allowed.

    I personally don't agree with either stance. I think the firefighters were in the right. It's a shame that the guy's house burned down, but it wasn't their fault. Given the system that exists it's the only logical thing to do. If they allow free riders, the whole system risks collapsing.

    As far as the system existing, well, I probably wouldn't buy property in a county with no fire protection, but I acknowledge that it's a person's right to do so, if they choose. This guy chose to buy his house there, and he chose not to pay the fee. It's his risk, he took the gamble and he lost. It sucks, but it's a natural consequence that he was aware of when he made his choice. I think an adult who owns property is capable of making that choice and living with those consequences.

    What do y'all think?

  2. #2
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,912

    Default

    No problem for me. You stated it all as I see it.

    I do have a problem with the country though. Just assess another $75 in tax and provide universal Fire Protection. It is actually better in the long run for the county. Libertarian paradise I guess is another name for crap.

  3. #3
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,340

    Default

    I think the firefighters are totally wrong. They turned up and had the means to put the fire out and yet choose to do nothing and make sure it didn't spread. That kind of thing used to happen in London, in ye olden days, when firefighters would only put out buildings which carried a firefighters mark and leave everything else to burn. It didn't last too long before they became a national service instead.

    As to what they should have done, it's simple. Put the fire out.

    Then they should have billed him afterwards for the time and expenses in the firefighters attending. Do that once or twice and soon everybody takes out insurance or starts paying taxes towards a fire service everyone uses.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  4. #4
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,889

    Default

    I'm not sure that would work, CIAS. The cost of fighting a fire in rural areas is pretty high...chances are very few people would actually be able to pay it, and then what is the fire department going to to? And then when people see that the fire department will put out the fire and you don't really have to pay, you get a freeloader problem.

  5. #5
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,912

    Default

    CIAS I have to agree with Sarah again. In the system they set up which stinks they did what was best for the long term.

    But they really should just increase the local taxes and have full coverage. The current system stinks.

  6. #6
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,887

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    I think the firefighters are totally wrong. They turned up and had the means to put the fire out and yet choose to do nothing and make sure it didn't spread. That kind of thing used to happen in London, in ye olden days, when firefighters would only put out buildings which carried a firefighters mark and leave everything else to burn. It didn't last too long before they became a national service instead.

    As to what they should have done, it's simple. Put the fire out.

    Then they should have billed him afterwards for the time and expenses in the firefighters attending. Do that once or twice and soon everybody takes out insurance or starts paying taxes towards a fire service everyone uses.
    This is my stance as well. Since he didn't pay ahead of time, put the fire out and charge him three times what the yearly cost would have been (which would have come out to $225). Hardly an onerous cost. I doubt the majority of people are going to take the gamble of not paying, but if they do then start raising the prices of coming out to someone who hasn't paid.

    The firefighters stood around pretty uselessly while my house burned down, as they'd failed to check the hydrant like they were supposed to and it had no water and they didn't have a water truck. Having your house burn is such a horrific experience that I cannot advocate letting anyone's house burn down just to guard against "freeloaders". It's not like having your car wrecked. It is a massive, destructive force that eats up everything you own and is a danger to lives as well as neighboring property. For safety and basic human decency, it has to be put out.

  7. #7
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,340

    Default

    Somehow, the thought of people having their houses burned down and being freeloaders doesn't really fit together.

    What you are suggesting is that if the fire service does it once, then everyone will sto paying and expect it for free. It rarely works out like that and people will still contribute towards a fire service. Otherwise, no more fire service and I imagine peole would be very nervous should that happen.

    If they can't pay it all they can certainly pay towards it. Perhaps instead of taking them for everything, they retroactively charge them the $75 for the insurance.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  8. #8
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,340

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    CIAS I have to agree with Sarah again. In the system they set up which stinks they did what was best for the long term.

    But they really should just increase the local taxes and have full coverage. The current system stinks.
    ...and they are not going to change the system until something like this happens.

    It's the difference between doing what they were paid to do and doing what was right. It is not what is best for the long term. What happens if someone's insurance gets delayed and their house burns down because the Firefighters decide its not right?

    I totally agree in the increase in taxes would be best, but that doesn't change the actions of this group of people.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  9. #9
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,912

    Default

    Zuul, I understand your particular experience though I can't obviously directly relate to it but on average most of the times the houses are not saved anyway. In the town I grew up in almost no house that was burning was saved by the volunteer fire department. They actually mainly showed up for rescue and containment.

    But again the obvious solution is just charge everyone to annual fee as part of their taxes and be done with it.

  10. #10
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,912

    Default

    One clarification CIAS, In the US this is common outside of cities, "chief of the Hornbeak Volunteer Fire Department."

    These are not paid employees and if you want protection either pay the annual fee or get the stupid system changed. These guys risk their lives for next to nothing. I think passing judgment on them is unfair as someone chose to save $75 a year. Dumb system, but within the system I will defend them and say blame the county.

  11. #11
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,931

    Default

    I find it hard to fathom because it's just not something that would happen here, however it is a different system to what I'm used to, hence my puzzlement. I think perhaps they could have put out the fire and charged him a hefty fee thereafter. I wonder if there are other volunteer fire departments that do that.

  12. #12
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,887

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Zuul, I understand your particular experience though I can't obviously directly relate to it but on average most of the times the houses are not saved anyway. In the town I grew up in almost no house that was burning was saved by the volunteer fire department. They actually mainly showed up for rescue and containment.

    But again the obvious solution is just charge everyone to annual fee as part of their taxes and be done with it.
    No, they're not usually saved, but it's not just the property value that I'm talking about. There is a psychological element to it, one of absolute anguish and helplessness. If someone was shot and was most likely going to die from the wound, would you feel okay watching the doctors stand around and do nothing? The firefighters were there. They had everything in order to put the fire out. The cost of dragging them all out there had already occurred. And then they stood there and watched.

    Could you stand there and watch while someone's house burned down and they begged and you had the means to at least do something?

    I absolutely agree the system as implemented is flawed and should be handled better, but the firefighters themselves who stood there and watched baby pictures and great-grandma's china burn up without lifting a finger are reprehensible.

  13. #13
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,912

    Default

    I just can't agree Zuul, but I did not have your experience of course. They were ordered not to fight the fire. They followed orders. The whole situation stinks but the man should have paid the fee like his neighbor did. As they were ordered any distaste should be aimed at the Chief I guess that gave the order.

    Here is something from the article to think about, "Reavis said he operates his all-volunteer, unpaid fire department on $8,000 a year."

    These men and women should not risk their lives in my opinion for someone not willing to help out at least with a small annual fee.

    ETA: Oh, I didn't address the medical part. I don't think this is really the same. Medical Professional take a different type of oath to help.
    Last edited by What Exit?; 07 Oct 2010 at 11:18 AM.

  14. #14
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,340

    Default

    I appreciate they are volunteers, and put their lives on the line on a regular basis, but that does not change the fact that what they did was wrong.

    Oh and they were just following orders. So they have the guts to put out fires, rescue people from burning buildings and generally be heroes. But when the boss says no, they stand around and twiddle their thumbs.

    BTW, the UK also has volunteer fire services as well in our rural communities.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  15. #15
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,912

    Default

    Maybe, just maybe, this is the only way to change a broken system. I strongly suspect that is what is going on. It is not always easy and letting one gambler be the one sacrificed to change a bad system will be good in the long run.

  16. #16
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,889

    Default

    Zuul, I can understand your feelings, but there is a big difference between you and this guy, which is that he assumed the risk and you didn't.

    Here's how I look at it. Let's say the guy had an insurance policy on his house that cost $75 a year. This year he didn't pay, so it lapsed. Should the insurance company pay for his house now that it's burned down?

  17. #17
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,887

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    ETA: Oh, I didn't address the medical part. I don't think this is really the same. Medical Professional take a different type of oath to help.
    Well, I haven't taken any oaths at all, but if I walked up to a burning building with a fire extinguisher in my hand I'd try to do something, even if the owner owed me money.

    ETA: Sarah, but I see insurance payouts as a very different thing from actual action. I think the owner of the house was a moron for not paying. I certainly don't think he should be rewarded for his own poor judgment. But there are basic, human, empathetic actions I expect out of people that were lacking in this situation. If you have the power to help, you do. You worry about policy later. Had they put the fire out despite him not paying and then informed people of how much it cost to do this but, by God, they did it anyway, I'm sure donations would have come pouring in.

  18. #18
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,170

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    No, they're not usually saved, but it's not just the property value that I'm talking about. There is a psychological element to it, one of absolute anguish and helplessness. If someone was shot and was most likely going to die from the wound, would you feel okay watching the doctors stand around and do nothing? The firefighters were there. They had everything in order to put the fire out. The cost of dragging them all out there had already occurred. And then they stood there and watched.
    The bolded bit is what sticks in my craw when people say "he didn't pay his fee! Their hands were tied!"

    If the volunteer fire chief was trying to make a point, this was a shitty, shitty way to go about it.

  19. #19
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,889

    Default

    I get what you're saying, Zuul, but this is a different situation than someone taking it upon themselves individually to help. For instance, I wouldn't think much of a doctor who saw a guy have a heart attack and didn't stop to help. But in this case, it's not up to the fire fighters...in order to help, they are using community resources that other people paid for and this guy didn't (like water, for instance, which is sometimes scarce in these rural areas). Plus, they risk going majorly into the red when people don't pay for the cost of putting out the fire. Therefore, the decision to act puts people at risk who actually did their duty and paid the fee. On top of that, the fire fighters may not have been covered insurance-wise to put out fires for people who hadn't paid, so then they're putting themselves at even greater risk than they normally do. So...yeah, I think it would be nice if they went ahead and put out the fire, but I think in some cases people have to be tougher than just doing what seems right at the time. I don't think the fire fighters took the easy way out.

  20. #20
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,887

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    I get what you're saying, Zuul, but this is a different situation than someone taking it upon themselves individually to help. For instance, I wouldn't think much of a doctor who saw a guy have a heart attack and didn't stop to help. But in this case, it's not up to the fire fighters...in order to help, they are using community resources that other people paid for and this guy didn't (like water, for instance, which is sometimes scarce in these rural areas). Plus, they risk going majorly into the red when people don't pay for the cost of putting out the fire. Therefore, the decision to act puts people at risk who actually did their duty and paid the fee. On top of that, the fire fighters may not have been covered insurance-wise to put out fires for people who hadn't paid, so then they're putting themselves at even greater risk than they normally do. So...yeah, I think it would be nice if they went ahead and put out the fire, but I think in some cases people have to be tougher than just doing what seems right at the time. I don't think the fire fighters took the easy way out.
    I get what you're saying, too. You're making fine points, but I think what this comes down to is that there are two basic responses to this. One is from an absolutist, ethical stance and the other is from a practical viewpoint. I can certainly agree that there are good reasons to have your viewpoint, but I'm still coming at it from a place of "I find this flat out wrong and I can't accept it", you know?
    So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.

  21. #21
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,912

    Default

    I get it and clearly the only compromise is I think we can all agree the current system is bad, unfair and leads to tough choices.

  22. #22
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,887

    Default

    Absolutely, Jim. It's hard to fund rural, all-volunteer fire departments like that and funding them this way leaves no one a winner.
    So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.

  23. #23
    For whom nothing is written. Oliveloaf's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,179

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    I think the firefighters are totally wrong. They turned up and had the means to put the fire out and yet choose to do nothing and make sure it didn't spread. That kind of thing used to happen in London, in ye olden days, when firefighters would only put out buildings which carried a firefighters mark and leave everything else to burn. It didn't last too long before they became a national service instead.

    As to what they should have done, it's simple. Put the fire out.

    Then they should have billed him afterwards for the time and expenses in the firefighters attending. Do that once or twice and soon everybody takes out insurance or starts paying taxes towards a fire service everyone uses.

    I don't t think so. I think people then play the odds with little downside.

    You don't have to pay anything--ever--and the fire department will still save your house.

    Yes, you may get stuck with a bill after the fact, but it's not like anyone's going to burn your place down if you don't it promptly, or ever.
    "I won't kill for money, and I won't marry for it. Other than that, I'm open to just about anything."

    -Jim Rockford

  24. #24
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,889

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    I get what you're saying, Zuul, but this is a different situation than someone taking it upon themselves individually to help. For instance, I wouldn't think much of a doctor who saw a guy have a heart attack and didn't stop to help. But in this case, it's not up to the fire fighters...in order to help, they are using community resources that other people paid for and this guy didn't (like water, for instance, which is sometimes scarce in these rural areas). Plus, they risk going majorly into the red when people don't pay for the cost of putting out the fire. Therefore, the decision to act puts people at risk who actually did their duty and paid the fee. On top of that, the fire fighters may not have been covered insurance-wise to put out fires for people who hadn't paid, so then they're putting themselves at even greater risk than they normally do. So...yeah, I think it would be nice if they went ahead and put out the fire, but I think in some cases people have to be tougher than just doing what seems right at the time. I don't think the fire fighters took the easy way out.
    I get what you're saying, too. You're making fine points, but I think what this comes down to is that there are two basic responses to this. One is from an absolutist, ethical stance and the other is from a practical viewpoint. I can certainly agree that there are good reasons to have your viewpoint, but I'm still coming at it from a place of "I find this flat out wrong and I can't accept it", you know?
    Yeah, I think that's a reasonable point of view, of course. I do have a pragmatic mindset and I think it's short-sighted, but I get it. My only quibble with what you said is that I think my stance is based in ethics, too. Given that the citizens seem to want this system, it's everyone's ethical obligation to make it work the way it's supposed to. It's not ethical for some people to take without giving, nor to put anyone else at risk because they didn't want to pay.
    Last edited by Sarahfeena; 07 Oct 2010 at 12:49 PM.

  25. #25
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,887

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    Yeah, I think that's a reasonable point of view, of course. I do have a pragmatic mindset and I think it's short-sighted, but I get it. My only quibble with what you said is that I think my stance is based in ethics, too. Given that the citizens seem to want this system, it's everyone's ethical obligation to make it work the way it's supposed to. It's not ethical for some people to take without giving, nor to put anyone else at risk because they didn't want to pay.
    Well, that's why I described my position as "absolutist" as well. I can see the ethical side of everyone needing to take part in the system if they're going to receive the benefits of it; it just doesn't mesh with my absolutist take on the need for fire protection.

    Out of curiosity, has anyone else here ever lived somewhere so rural that you had to pay an extra fee for services?

    There are some benefits to it that I can see in some cases, but there's also an occasionally nasty human side. About five years ago when I first moved to Wisconsin (this is when you were up here, Marsilia, though I don't think you were aware of the arrangements?) I was living in such a rural area where if you wanted fire protection, snow-plowing, etc. you had to pay a fee. We paid for fire protection, but opted out of paying for snow-plowing since my mother had a tractor that could go from property to property as needed. The public roads were cleared using tax dollars, but any private roads or driveways were only covered if you paid for the service.

    How this translated into action was that the snow plows would drive all of the extra snow into huge berms blocking the driveways and private roads of those who hadn't paid for the service. Rather than being a service people could opt-in for, the payment came across more like protection money to keep the snow plows from barricading you in. Not having paid for the snow plow, I certainly never expected them to come and clear me out, but the active sabotage was ridiculous.

    Would a fire chief ever adopt a similar mindset to the snow plow driver? I don't know, but I dislike the idea of fire protection possibly being influenced by such considerations. For something like that, I think a mandatory rural tax would be safer all around. For the people who are too stupid to pay the fee voluntarily and for the firefighters so that they are always covered.
    So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.

  26. #26
    A Groupie Marsilia's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,988

    Default

    As someone who's lost everything I own, I'm not inclined to care if the guy plunked down seventy-five dollars or not. Bill him after the fact, give him a set amount of time to pay, then take him to court if he doesn't. Then, the fire department still gets to point to him and say "This is what happens to people who don't pay up," and the guy still has the one-of-a-kind drawing of his dead parents, or a few other mementos that might not have been eaten away by the flames.
    So, I'll whisper in the dark, hoping you'll hear me.

  27. #27
    A Groupie Marsilia's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,988

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    About five years ago when I first moved to Wisconsin (this is when you were up here, Marsilia, though I don't think you were aware of the arrangements?) I was living in such a rural area where if you wanted fire protection, snow-plowing, etc. you had to pay a fee. We paid for fire protection, but opted out of paying for snow-plowing since my mother had a tractor that could go from property to property as needed.
    I didn't know the specifics, but I remember the one guy who got free breakfast every morning because he plowed the restaurant parking lot.
    So, I'll whisper in the dark, hoping you'll hear me.

  28. #28
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,887

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Marsilia View post
    I didn't know the specifics, but I remember the one guy who got free breakfast every morning because he plowed the restaurant parking lot.
    Martin! I haven't thought about him in a long time. That one was a damn good deal all around.

  29. #29
    Wanna cuddle? RabbitMage's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The buttcleft of California
    Posts
    1,143

    Default

    No one posted this yet?



    Okay, here's my thing: there are some jobs (or volunteer positions) you take up because you believe in what you're doing. Teaching is a good example. So is medicine. So is fire fighting.

    If you hate children, you shouldn't be teaching in elementary schools because you will be a shitty teacher. If you let your personal morals get in the way of giving a patient needed treatment or medication, maybe medicine isn't the best field for you.

    And if you're willing to stand around and watch a house burn while the owner is begging you and offering to pay, then you shouldn't be a fucking fire fighter.
    Last edited by RabbitMage; 07 Oct 2010 at 01:47 PM.

  30. #30
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,887

    Default

    Okay, that video was pretty funny. However, I do have to point out that in this case it was an all-volunteer fire department and not really privatized.

    It did get me to thinking, though. I generally dislike "nanny state" type stuff wherein there are laws in place to protect people from themselves. Is a mandatory tax for fire protection the same? I think making it mandatory is different in the same way that mandatory seat belt laws are different. Yes, in a way you're protecting people from themselves, but it's more complicated.

    The insurance companies want people to wear seat belts, because then damages are reduced. Anyone who is unlucky enough to hit another car wants everyone in the car they hit to be wearing seat belts, because then the person causing the accident is less likely to be responsible for a death.

    In the same way, insurance companies want house fires to be put out, because then they can cover more people with less risk to themselves. Anyone who may have a fire that could spread to a neighbor's house wants that neighbor's fire put out, because they don't want to be responsible for the damages. It's not just the person whose house is burning down who is effected.

  31. #31
    Wanna cuddle? RabbitMage's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The buttcleft of California
    Posts
    1,143

    Default

    I may secretly be a socialist and I dislike there are apparently portions of this country that lack fire protection and that you can opt out of fire protection.

  32. #32
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,912

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    Okay, that video was pretty funny. However, I do have to point out that in this case it was an all-volunteer fire department and not really privatized.

    It did get me to thinking, though. I generally dislike "nanny state" type stuff wherein there are laws in place to protect people from themselves. Is a mandatory tax for fire protection the same? I think making it mandatory is different in the same way that mandatory seat belt laws are different. Yes, in a way you're protecting people from themselves, but it's more complicated.

    The insurance companies want people to wear seat belts, because then damages are reduced. Anyone who is unlucky enough to hit another car wants everyone in the car they hit to be wearing seat belts, because then the person causing the accident is less likely to be responsible for a death.

    In the same way, insurance companies want house fires to be put out, because then they can cover more people with less risk to themselves. Anyone who may have a fire that could spread to a neighbor's house wants that neighbor's fire put out, because they don't want to be responsible for the damages. It's not just the person whose house is burning down who is effected.
    I guess I am not against the Nanny state but to me opt out means opt out. You opt out of even Fire Protection you are taking a gamble. He took the risk he would never need it. A 3 year charge (CIAS's example above) is not really a suitable catch up. If he and all the other gamblers had been paying all those years they lived there, how much more coverage would the Fire Department be able to give to everyone. We don't have opt outs and I give to the local rescues services on top of my tax dollars. I know how much the EMTs and Fire Departments do for us for how little. To not support them and cry over it later is the criminal thing to me I guess. I have friends that are professionals and friends that were volunteers. They risk their lives in a way that few others do outside of the police. And outside of high crime areas more than anyone else. The volunteers are especially amazing to me. The have little material award for what they do. So no I cannot condemn them.

  33. #33
    Head Heathen Katriona's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    Somehow, the thought of people having their houses burned down and being freeloaders doesn't really fit together.

    What you are suggesting is that if the fire service does it once, then everyone will sto paying and expect it for free. It rarely works out like that and people will still contribute towards a fire service. Otherwise, no more fire service and I imagine peole would be very nervous should that happen.

    If they can't pay it all they can certainly pay towards it. Perhaps instead of taking them for everything, they retroactively charge them the $75 for the insurance.
    That is pretty much what happened here - the last time his house was on fire and he hadn't paid the fee, they put it out, so he just assumed he could get away without paying for it. It's a crappy system, but as I understand it, it's the system the people who live in that rural area voted for because they didn't want to pay more taxes. He tried to game the system and lost this time.

  34. #34
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,170

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Katriona View post
    That is pretty much what happened here - the last time his house was on fire and he hadn't paid the fee, they put it out, so he just assumed he could get away without paying for it.
    What the hell is going on that this guy's house is catching fire multiple times??
    Last edited by Orual; 08 Oct 2010 at 04:14 PM.

  35. #35
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,912

    Default

    I can think of several possibilities, some benign and some not.

    1) Heats with portable heaters, some old electrics were fire traps.
    2) Loves them Candles.
    3) Crappy old Electric in his double wide (yes they did say it was a double wide)
    4) Can we say Meth Lab?
    5) Cooks with too much grease.
    6) Halogen Lamps too close to the curtains.

  36. #36
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,887

    Default

    This was the second fire? I hadn't read that in any of the articles on it. If that's true, that certainly makes the actions of the firefighters a bit more understandable.

  37. #37
    The Apostabulous Inner Stickler's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Collegeville, MN
    Posts
    2,171

    Default

    There's certainly a part of me that says, if you're not going to put forth minimal effort, why should we expend resources on you. But another part says everyone deserves not to have their house burn down. So to sum up, I can't decide.
    I don't think so, therefore I'm probably not.

  38. #38
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,340

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Katriona View post
    That is pretty much what happened here - the last time his house was on fire and he hadn't paid the fee, they put it out, so he just assumed he could get away without paying for it. It's a crappy system, but as I understand it, it's the system the people who live in that rural area voted for because they didn't want to pay more taxes. He tried to game the system and lost this time.
    Oh

    It does make the actions more understandable. If they save his house once and he isn't grateful enough to start paying, then I guess Karma was watching him.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  39. #39
    Head Heathen Katriona's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    This was the second fire? I hadn't read that in any of the articles on it. If that's true, that certainly makes the actions of the firefighters a bit more understandable.
    I'm trying to find the article I saw - the way I remember it is that his son fell asleep with a lit cigarette and they put that fire out for him.

    I'm pretty sure it's here in one of these interviews somewhere where they say it was the 2nd time. I can't watch it at work, so I'm not sure where in the video it is.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7lY0NKPIa8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71f6B0AqZAU
    Last edited by Katriona; 12 Oct 2010 at 05:50 PM. Reason: Added city

  40. #40
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,340

    Default

    I wonder how much house insurance the guy has, if at all and if he just doesn't care.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  41. #41
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,887

    Default

    If he has insurance, I'd like to say I'm shocked, but...surprisingly, insurance can be very stupid at times. In many ways, it seems better set up for people out to scam than honest people. A man who is local here has had three house fires, all conveniently happening in the middle of the night when he just so happened to be gone. Every time he allegedly had expensive items destroyed in the fire and every time the insurance paid out.

  42. #42
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,340

    Default

    You would think if it occured more than once, his premiums would be through the roof.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts