Here's another story of a homeowner who didn't pay the subscription fee for fire protection, believing that, if he had a fire, the fire department would come anyway.
He was wrong.
This follows the same line of thinking of districts who shut down their departments, believing that, if they needed fire protection, they could rely on mutual aid.
What is wrong with that thinking?
Read the story from Tennessee: http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-bur...
TCSS.
Tags:
The fire dept. needs to make an effort to save property even if there is no pay. Property taxes are paid in our district and if something goes wrong at dispatch and we get called out of our area we will still fight the fire and not worry about where the money comes from.
We respond to a township that pays us a nothing, But we always go. They have a fire budget but only one firefighter with no training and a truck that does not run. As a firefighter I don't mind to respond but as a taxpayer it's not right for me to pay for there fire protection. So I can see both sides.
Joel,
In this case, the fire services outside the city are NOT publically funded.
If that were the case, the county residents wouldn't be paying - or not paying - subscription fees to the city.
If you don't understand that my point is a huge part of this discussion, that is unfortunate. (and the conversation is bigger than just this guy)
We are a society of haves and have nots.
I can not tell you how many men will say I "chose" to do something, when really they were forced due to economics.
So if you do not pay your taxes the police and military will not protect you?
So if you do not pay taxes no one will maintain your roads and community services?
So if you do not pay taxes no one will permit you to attend school?
So if you have no health insurance you can not get medical care in the U.S.?
Just like if you do not pay for electricity you have none.
Just like if you do not pay for housing then you have none.
I am disgusted that we would rather have an un-civilized country where basic human care for others in our society is a luxury. My service as a fire fighter is out of care for all people, not just those that are living up to their community financial obligations.
By the way. I do see both sides of the issue. And could support either side, so I am not trying to pick a fight with you. I am just saying... there is more to consider.
If your work for a department funded by taxes, then you work for exactly the kind of department you "hope you never see".
The difference for subscription departments is that they don't get public funds, so their choice is between subscriptions or no fire protection.
If you are financially able to buy a home mortgage, then typically maintaining fire insurance on the home is part of the contract agreement.
That isn't "blackmail", it's just part of the business agreement. Either you can afford the home and the fire insurance that protects the lender's investment, or you can't.
Heather,
You missed the point. In the case in question, NO ONE pays fire protection taxes in the unincorporated area.
That makes anything you said about paying taxes and not receiving services a non sequitur. All of that simply doesn't apply.
Further, in the case in question, the homeowner was obvously one of the "haves", since he had a home mortgage. Unless his insurance company has some very unusual language, they'll be buying the homeowner a new home and contents.
As Art says, Heather, the guy in question COULD pay, so your "inability to pay" complaints simply don't apply here.
If you worked for the city in question, you'd only do it once, then you'd be fired for insubordination.
The property in question is in an uncorporated area that CHOSE to have not fire protection.
The homeowners have the option to pay a subscription fee to a neighboring jurisdiction in order to receive fire protection - and coincidentally, better fire insurance rates since they now have fire protection instead of none.
That decision is a business decision by the county, the county residents, and the city. The city residents should not be obligated to pay for non-residents' fire protection, and in this case, they don't.
I have no problem with it, either.
The homeowner made a stupid business decision, and now both he and his insurance company will have to pay for it.
Some departments do that, but the "suppression fee" can easily run to $10,000 or more.
If the insurance company and/or homeowner balks at paying the fee, then it won't get paid.
Putting a lien on the property won't work, because that will keep the homeowner from rebuilding. That will guarantee a long-term, dangerous eyesore for the community and a possible mortgage default by the homeowner.
That will leave the insurance company with an expensive problem. They'll get stuck with this problem - once - then they'll do two things.
1) They will mandate a fire subscription policy for any homeowner who buys a mortgage in that fire district.
2) They'll refuse to sell fire insurance to anyone who doesn't buy a subscription.
Here's the problem - there will be new construction, home sales, and other property transactions that haven't caught up to the FD's subscription database. If one of them burns, then either the FD does a free extinguishment, or we're back to that expensive suppression fee that started the merry-go-round in the first place.
Are you saying that no one pays for fire protection in OZ?
Or - are you saying that everyone pays for it through taxes and that they don't have a choice in the matter?
75 dollars is not worth letting somebodys house burn down... I guess I would have gotten fired...Because I would have been pullin a hose line off and fighting that fire....To Protect Lives and Property,,,Dont say nothing about getting paid.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief. Powered by