And they watched it burn, again...

Before you comment read my whole post...

Well the story has broke again. I made this prediction in the many threads from the last fire in 2010 that got the FFN boards lit up. History repeats itself in the fire service. The homeowner this time admits they knew the past story of "Pay for Spray" in 2010 and about the $75.00 fee. They said quote, "never thought it would happen to them."

Here is the news video: http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Home-burns-while-firefighters-...

In my opinion, the FD who refuses to put out the fire is doing the right thing. As hard as that may seem, if the FD provides the service for free, then nobody in the county will pay. This story has been going on for many years. For those who don't know, the county has NO fire department, the residents know this. Many move there because it is cheaper to live there. Past studies have been done to reccommend providing fire protection services but it will cost the homewowner more in their county taxes. The county administrators have decided to keep it "Pay for Spray" meaning a neighboring fire department who does NOT have any jurisdictional requirement to respond to your county residence, is allowed to offer their services to each individual homeowner for $75.00 per year. If you pay the $75.00 subscription service, you will get a response and mitigation from the neighboring FD. This is not mutual aid, this is not automatic aid. This is paying for fire protection from a contractor. If you don't pay the fee, the FD has told everyone numerous times, no pay = no service.

In my opinion the lack of FD action keeps the integrity of the lousy system in place. The people who pay are getting services when needed and they are NOT subsidizing their neighbors lack of payment. The fire department unfortunately gets caught up in the media and the "passion police" when the story of "they just watched it burn" After the last story unfolded, many neighboring chiefs came out and tried to explain how small of a budget this fire department has, one chief even mentioned the fire chief sometimes, empty's the soda machine to buy fuel for his trucks with change.

So instead of continuously being the bad guy, I suggest the Mayor and the Fire Chief tell the county administrators that they are done offering subscriptions next year. Therefore no more subscription service to the county and the COUNTY will now have to fund their own protection services. The administrators will then have to assess a fire tax to their residents to fund either a volunteer fire department(s) or pay for services from another FD for every county residence.

Time to end the subsciption mess...... it is a black eye to the one's who have to enforce the rules and the integrity.

7 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bradley Webb on December 22, 2011 at 5:39pm

Thanks Jack, that PDF listed almost everything I wanted to know. It's interesting that they have on paper a county-wide FD but never acted on it. I did not know that until now. Thanks. I just hope the plan outlined in the PDF goes into affect. If you follow this story more so than this thread which it seems like you do or at least know how to research very well, please keep me informed if you don't mind. I'd appreciate it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on December 22, 2011 at 5:47pm

Bradley,

When this came out last year, there was a huge discussion in here, just like this one. A lot of what some of us have been pointing is from what we learned last year. Which was why, when FETC first posted this discussion, I bumped the older ones. If you go back 4,5,6(?) pages of discussion, you'll find them.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on December 22, 2011 at 6:26pm

Short answer, Bradley. Yes, you are wrong.

You used three different straw man logical fallacies there, Bradley.

First, no on in South Fulton pays the $75 fee - that is a county-only subscription fee and it is not pertinent to the city fire tax millage rate, whatever it is. Regardless, it is silly to think that they are going to tax their city residents to a level that they can afford to give away free fire service to county residents who contribute zero to the costs of that service.

Second, no one except YOU said that South Fulton "NEEDS this contract service so much". When you made that statement, you are just putting words in others' mouths. South Fulton doesn't "NEED" the subscription service. They charge the subscriptions to their Out-Of-Jurisdiction customers who would otherwise have NO fire protection because they are good guys who try to help their neighbors out.

Third straw man - No one except YOU has said that South Fulton gets much money from the contract service, and you twisted words when you said that they "will go bankrupt if they don't have it". What was actually said is that South Fulton can't afford to give away FREE fire service outside the city, and if they were forced to that they might go bankrupt.

As has already been pointed out to you, that would mean that a large slice of the county would have NO FIRE PROTECTION. Since SFFD and its' members are the good guys, they don't want to punish their responsible neighbors simply because a handful of their other neighbors are not responsible.

South Fulton's residents - not you - get to decide what is a "reasonable amount of fire tax" within the city limits. Remember, their municipality is located in one of the most anti-tax places in the country, and it is their RIGHT to keep their taxes low in return for reduced services if they wish.