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...
I should clarify my previous post: members pay nothing for the airlift - your $79 membership covers you - it's like AAA in a sense. This distinguishes it from the ground transport billing model you're describing.
John Stossel on the O'Reilly Factor TOOK THE SIDE of the FIREFIGHTERS, stating "a contract is a contract. If they put the fire out, then who will pay the 75 bucks next year?"
What a smart man.
Take that, Keith Overdone.
I know....it's not my Great Grandfather's FS. This ballsch is nothing new but we have to grow times have changed. Just last year or more the Jake that killed his dogs threw them in a dumpster at the station because he didn't want to pay for boarding them before going on vacation the internet had that everywhere within minutes. We need to understand that we have a duty to protect the public but also the FS. Man oh man has she been getting kicked in the teeth with all this technology.
Chief, I can tell you that this would never happen in my bright blue corner of the world. We proudly reject the libertarian ethos that directly led to this CF.
Between you and me?
I'm a Reagan Republican.
Well, of course he did. Stossel's a libertarian - it was predictable that he would come down on the side of "let 'er burn".
Libertarians are big on avoiding "moral hazard", the incentivizing of bad behavior. In the libertarian worldview, putting out the fire of a "deadbeat" constitutes a moral hazard, as it would incentivize everyone skipping out.
There is truth on both sides but I wouldn't wish this issue on Solomon.
I realize there are always mitigating factors to issues such as these. And since I wasn't there I can neither condemn the homeowner nor side with him. However I do have issue with the only responding agency watching someone's home burn to the ground. Without taking action, how did they know the house was empty of all people and pets? if the house was burning why not at least take a defensive perimeter? I don't know about everyone else here but even as a reserve firefighter/paramedic, I swore an oath to protect life, life safety, and property whenever possible. A simple solution would have been to extinguish the fire and send the homeowner a bill or assign a lein on the property to be paid in monthly increments. Clearly the oath the Chief of that department took was forgotten. We can debate over placing the crew in undue danger but the truth of the matter is that for a measly $75, that department allowed not only thousands of dollars burn down, but that family's worldly possessions and private momentos. Again, as I stated in another post, when does the bottom line equal that of someone's life?
that's all well and good after the fact. but if we were to take the same instance to a guy complaining of a stomach ache and as we all know...at 2am, many will slow roll that call hoping to be canceled enroute. Again, duty to act as one other mentioned in the thread. This story just showed up on the national news and the IAFF has issued a statement condemning the situation stating that a department should not have to check a list to see who has paid prior to rolling on a call. They are pushing this city/county and others to re-evaluate how they collect fees.
yes, that is a whole different matter...we should start a thread about how organizations such as unions, politicians, and businesses like to come out of the woodwork when technology catches their silence when they had the opportunity to make statements well in advance. My point being that even if this guy started the fire intentionally to get money instead of accidentally starting the burn in his yard....why would we go against what we are sworn to do, regardless of $75? As I stated previous, extinguish the fire and bill the guy...he'll find it's a helluva lot more expensive and will probably start paying regularly
The Obion County Fire Department
A Presentation Regarding The Establishment
And Implementation of a County-Wide Fire Department
According to survey information, over 75% of all municipal fire department’s structure calls
are rural. All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas,
but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally
collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal
Explanation of the countywide fire protection plan
Our common goal is to provide fire protection to all areas of Obion County without
discrimination from lack of insurance, lack of subscription, ability to pay, or the decision that
it’s outside of a fire department’s designated area of operation. A major portion of Obion
County has been furnished rural fire protection free of charge for decades.
Statistics indicate that the majority of all fire calls are rural in nature and are responded to
by municipal fire departments. These departments are solely funded by the tax dollars
belonging to each individual town or city. It is becoming more difficult to convince municipal
leaders that the municipal fire departments responding to calls outside the municipal
boundaries and for which no compensation is guaranteed is “just the right thing to do”.
Fire service is an essential service that needs to be included in current and future plans for Obion County.
This presentation is from March 2008. The Obion County Commissioners chose NOT TO ACT ON IT.
People really need to READ and understand what the issues are. The County Government failed to act
in the better interests of the residents of the county.
Now the IAFF wants to tell volunteers how to run their business?
I doubt that Schaitberger would be interested in my thoughts on how to run an international union.
No disrespect to the union members.
But, don't you think that Harold is taking the opportunity to pile on?
Say it isn't so.