Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom Williams on October 6, 2010 at 6:55am

Herb, I think you've head the nail on the head.  Being an Asst. Chief on a volunteer department who relies on subscription fees to make up the biggest portion of our budget, the biggest part of this dilemma comes down to morality and compassion.  I fully understand having rules in place and following those rules.  I also believe there is a time and place that rules can be broken for the better good. 

 

It is very frustrating when we receive the list of taxpayers in our coverage area who have "opted out" of paying their subscription fee.  This is something that gets discussed annually in our dept and we do our best to further educate the public on the importance of paying the fire subscription fee.    There have been numerous times we've had "coffee table" talks about not responding to emergencies on properties that belong to non-paying "customers" but it has never gone any further than that.  This is a very hard question for volunteer departments to deal with.

 

I think we all need to take a moment to re-visit our history of the fire service.  Morality & Compassion are two of the virtues that make up the maltese cross which is the badge we proudly utilize every day.  Maybe we all need to take a little time, reflect on this tragic incident, and remember where our true virtues come from.

Permalink Reply by Mike Moore on October 6, 2010 at 7:34am

#1.  The fire service didn't start the fire.  DOn't make it our fault you had a fire.

 

#2.  The fire service is just that...you want service...you pay for it.  If you don't pay your phone service bill you don't get phone service.  You want entitlements?...go to the government.

 

#3.  The fire department in question showed up becuase the neighbor DID pay and they were protecting the subscribers residence.

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on October 6, 2010 at 9:55am

Herb,

 

You appear to have some disdain for those people that seek out facts, clear in your repeated comments about "fact geeks."  But arguing a point solely on emotion to the exclusion of facts is nothing more than an overblown opinion.  Let me at least provide some basic facts:

[There are 8 municipal departments in Obion county with 186 municipal FF's, 42 career, 144 volies.  There were 245 rural responses for structure fires in the county and a total of 1389 calls (including EMS) in-town.  South Fulton F.D. made 23 rural runs with 30 in-town runs for structure fires.  South Fulton F.D. has 2 engines, 1 tanker, 1 service and 1 brush truck.   Average time from municipal dept. to rural scene, 11 minutes.  Of the 10 counties in Tenn. only 2 provide NO annual funding for fire; Obion and Lake counties.  In the other 8 funding ranges from a low of $19,000 to a high of $430,343.]

 

The 8 municipal departments in Obion county provide fire protection contracts for $75/yr. with a $500 charge when dispatched for a fire.  Less than half of that is collected and there is no legal means for the departments to collect the balance.  This means that the taxpayers of the 8 municipalities, already paying for their own fire protection are concurrently subsidizing county resident's fire protection as well.

 

There are mutual aid agreements in place with the 8 municipal departments, as is common throughout the country.  We likewise operate with MA with surrounding departments.  We are also fortunate that if we're tied up on a big incident surrounding departments come in for stand-by coverage.  Both our town and contributing towns are not left unprotected.  In a rather tightly populated and small state we can function this way with no loss of coverage to any community.  That's not the case with South Fulton.

 

When SFFD responds to a rural worker they are leaving their town un- or less protected.  This means that the city residents now have less fire protection than they're paying for, at their expense while providing essentially free fire protection to the non-contributing or under-contributing "subscribers."  This raises the issue of just how long a city like South Fulton can continue to support both in-town tax-based fire protection AND un-supported rural fire protection.  With the wide-spread economic down turn nationwide it takes no imagination to predict a fiscal rupture for both South Fulton and all of the other municipalities.  Clearly a case of diminishing returns.

 

Now, where is the greater moral obligation?  To the South Fulton residents who fund their fire department or to those that may or may not pay or subscribe to fire protection?  Should a municipal FD onscene at a rural call be allowed to take up and return to their city for a call there?  After all, isn't their first obligation (both moral and financial) to the people that actually pay and support them? 

 

So while SFFD was on scene late into the incident, they were there because they had a contractual and moral obligation to respond and protect a paying customer.  Regardless of how little compensation received.  Did they sit and wait until the fire impinged on the paying customer's property?  Yes (according to reports).  Were they wrong?  That seems to be the issue.  They were on scene, they should have put out the fire.  But they were ordered to take no action.

 

Interestingly, in a televised interview with the homeowner, he stated that the present Chief has been there since (I believe it was) December.  Under the previous Chief, fires had been extinguished whether or not the homeowner was a subscriber.  This strongly suggests that the Mayor of SF felt that the city needed a Fire Chief that would do as instructed, namely to respond only to subscribers.  Granted this appears to be a rather cold-hearted attitude but, in the name of fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers of South Fulton I suspect that the Mayor was working to reign-in spending, to include unnecessary calls to un-funded areas.  Is that wrong?  Doesn't the Mayor have a moral obligation to serve the taxpayers he serves to the best of his ability?  Isn't that what we all hope to find in our elected officals?

 

I don't think that there is any doubt that had there been a life safety issue the SFFD would have acted without regard to who had or hadn't paid.  Life safety trumps everything.  But had the SFFD responded initially and extinguished the fire, with or without pay it would have reinforced the message county-wide that subscriptions and fees were 'voluntary.'  Even if a precident had been set, fiscal responsibility has to trump 'moral' obligations at some point, otherwise the moral obligations will eventually bankrupt the moral obligation bound municipal departments.  To the detriment of those municipal taxpayers.  Hardly seems moral to me.

 

What was taught was a lesson by example.  If you don't pay you don't receive fire protection (life safety not withstanding).  By taking a hard line approach in this instance it reinforces the need for county residents to subscribe.  Looking at the SFFD appartus they are sorely underfunded as it is.  Who pays for repairs to the apparatus when one breaks down?  The city of South Fulton (taxpayers).  Who covers workman's comp and insurance for the SFFD?  Who pays for the maintenance of the fire station?  Who is going to pay for new apparatus?

 

Talking about moral obligation is all well and good but at some point reality has to be accounted for.  If any communty operated solely on moral obligation it would quickly spiral into insolvency.  It simply can't be maintained working only on moral obligation.  That's what churches are for.  And while the over arching attitude on this issue appears to be moral, it is really a self-presumed one.  It's always easy dictating how other people's money should be spent, especially when one takes the 'high moral ground.'  But it falls to the hard realist to cut through the moral fog and make the real-world decisions.

 

Of course, taking the high moral ground makes a person appear to be just that, morally higher but it really is a specious argument.  Once you pick through the hyperbole of morality and its obligations there is and will always be, the cold hard facts of who pays for it all.  I am all in favor of ensuring  that everyone has basic health care, fire and police protection (among others) and I believe that those that can afford to should have a moral obligation to pay more to cover those that have little or nothing.  But I draw the line at supporting people who have the ability to pay but simply choose NOT to.  In fact they are the ones who are failing their moral obligations.  Imagine, some number of people who knowingly and willingl live in an area without fire protection and have little if any care as to who pays for their fire protection (when needed) but secure in the knowledge that when they need fire protection, it will respond to assist them despite their lack of contribution.  They are happy to freeload on the backs of (probably) less well off city dwellers.  It would appear that their indifference to their moral obligations negates any presumed obligation on the part of the municipalities.

Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on October 6, 2010 at 10:43am

This belongs in the Blogs section.

And as long as you take the moral ground, you are missing the point.

Jack has provided you with many fact-based answers.

Yet; you STILL insist that some people outside of South Fulton were allowed to pay AFTER they had an incident, but you have not provided any FACTS to support your claim.

Who are we anyway to tell the people in this region of the country what they need or don't need?

Fire service is and should be a local issue.

Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on October 6, 2010 at 11:16am

So if I understand you correctly Jack, if an "uninsured" home is on fire, and it's "Tactically" essential to extinguish the flames to prevent its spread.............you say "Wait"...he's not paid his BILL?

 Interestingly, one of your points you make is about the department having to leave its area for a "worker". So let me ask you this:...they already have to leave (like this scenario in TN), to protect "exposures" (homeowners who have paid).  So, they arrive to protect the home "next door". When they arrive, the fire in the unpaid home is a "room & contents" as the homeowner was wicked with a garden hose and held the fire in check (haven't seen that before...LOL).  

But there are exposures directly affected. The Captain orders exposure lines..... because he knows the fire has to be left to build to a point where the whole home is involved. In the meantime, your crew, who could have knocked down the fire in a few minutes, now is tied up on scene to protect multiple exposures (say to the North & South).  Where is the concern for Firefighter Safety (let alone the higher degree of risk posed to the "paid" homeowners home), making them wait, exposing them to more potential harm?

 

You say....Well Herb...it's a part of the job.  I say...Well Jack.....Say the home is a Multi-Story. Say the housing density is 24 per acre. In fact, say this scenario is in sunny CA, where they shove houses on top of each other. In fact, why don't we make it a Townhouse development. (Do you think that there's a possibility that one Townhouse owner pays his fee, but the guy attached to him doesn't)????  How do you apply your facts/theory here?  

 

What if you have to wait for a home to burn completely, but you're stuck in the alley protecting exposures, and there is a risk of collapse?  Oh...simple....order the firefighters out.....then the exposure goes up, when it could have been prevented. I know Jack....my moral high ground. Sorry I confuse that for Tactics & Strategy, firefighter safety, environmental hazard prevention, freeing up the engine crew to go back home....all those silly reasons. 

 

You're right Jack (I know that's important to you...me too..LOL). Let it burn. Let's create a public relations debacle and draw national attention on our department, because the guy didn't pay his $75.  We put our foot down now..........no payment after the fact even though we've done it before. We don't care that the bigger the fire gets, the more inherit risk there is to the paid homeowners or firefighters.  Let's put the firefighters in the middle politics (since the county can't provide protection). Let's put everyone else at risk, because one guy didn't pay.  Let's let $75 be the principle we stand on.......... because we can't figure out a better way............LMAO 

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on October 6, 2010 at 11:38am

Herb,

 

I'm only going to stick to the facts as they are known.  You're presenting 'what ifs' serves no real purpose.  Case in point I don't believe that there is anywhere that has housing density of 24 units/acre that doesn't have fire protection.  You're using this as an argument is an absurdity.

 

Herb you haven't really bothered to read what I wrote.  By constantly and predicatably responding and extinguishing fires out-of-town places and extraordinary burden on the shoulders of the in-town taxpayers.  Really, how difficulty is that for you to grasp?  Would YOU tolerate seeing your taxes increasing every year to fund services for an area that just chooses NOT to support those services themselves?  You really don't respond to these issues but instead harp about what ifs and supposition.

 

The incident was a lesson by example; pay up or do without.  Fire service can NOT be provided by one community for the benefit of another.  It's not fair and it's certainly NOT moral.  But again you choose to NOT address these issues and instead go on about moral obligation.  And it isn't that the County can NOT afford to provide fire protection, they choose NOT to provide, in order to keep taxes low.  THAT is the real issue.

 

You're just choosing to be smug and arrogant with your attitude without benefit of any facts, evident by your smug LMAO.  What exactly are you LYAO about?  That my opinion, based on facts and realities somehow rubs your high moral value system the wrong way?  If that were the case you'd be working to try very hard to convice me you're correct and I'm wrong and doing it in a way that, at the least, would want me to want to believe you.  Instead you make a mocking LMAO as if that not only sums up but fully validates your argument.  Fail.

 

Assuming that you are in the Petaluma FD you appear to be very well funded.  And you serve a large population.  And perhaps there may be some unincorporated areas to which you respond, but I do doubt that your FD is responsible for full fire protection in an area without a FD and that does not contribute.  And if you look back, SFFD did 30 runs in-town and 23 rural, so slightly less than half of all working fires occur out-of-town.  Can your community support a fire department that operates half of the time in another community with out reimbursement?

Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on October 6, 2010 at 11:49am

Look.....the facts were well presented on National Television.  The whole reason the guy DIDN'T pay, is because the former fire chief had allowed retroactive payments before.  I feel perfectly comfortable telling TN residents they need a BETTER system, so everyone is PROTECTED.  Yeah.... Jack has facts, and in a perfect world........they are applicable....but...

 

If this home was near an urban/wild-land interface, and the weather conditions were right (high temps, low humidity)...do you let it burn and try to chase down the spot fires?  If there were exposures to three sides, and there was risk of collapse.......what do you do? The whole resaon this home burned is because it didn't pose any further risks...........that's NOT right.

I hope the $75 was worth the headaches, and public relations disaster for this organization. The firefighters got placed in between politics and doing their job. That county commission should be recalled, and a new one put in place with the backbone to do the job of protecting is citizens.  Typical politicians at work.

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on October 6, 2010 at 11:58am

Really it wasn't the "typical politicians at work."  It was a choice by the residents of Obion County that choose NOT to have their own fire protection.  It really isn't that hard a concept to get around.

 

And while neither of us has the information, I for one would strongly believe that if the fire had presented a threat as a wild fire it probably would have been extinguished, supposition on my part.  As for multiple exposures, paid or not that would have been an IC decision.  But again you're plainly refusing to acknowledge that this is an overall financial issue.  Put out one, put them all out and you have one community paying for full fire protection for another.  Maybe this will work, think of it as a kind of triage.  Letting one or two houses burn down (with no life safety issues) convinces all the others that they NEED to contribute for further fire protection.  You are going to lose a few but to the benefit of many others.  By being better financed you can then maintain fire protection for both communities with better funding, better/more apparatus and equipment as well as increased staffing.

Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on October 6, 2010 at 12:30pm

You can't muster up the courage to say what happened in TN was wrong, because your world is black and white. But the world is not that way. I'll try to explain why:

#1) The guy didn't pay, because the department had allowed retroactive payments before, so he thought he'd get service. #2) The engine crew was already there (so they were not available to serve their initial response zone) ,  and were available to extinguish spot fires in the neighbors corn filed. That same neighbor asked the firefighters to extinguish the flames, as to not pose a threat to his property, and to save the home. #3) If that home was burning during a "Red Flag" day, or was within feet of other exposures, it would have had to have been addressed directly, so the FD simply lucked out due to its location and lack of threat to "paying" customers.

 

If I'm a non paying homeowner in TN, I know how to get free service. Call 911, and tell them that someone is trapped inside. Then the FD is stuck...right?  And the LMAO was my complete and udder disbelief of how your FACTS cloud your JUDGEMENT IMHO. Did you see the response to this thread by the Asst. Chief? 

 

We, as a country, are facing the biggest economic divide ever witnessed. More people are in poverty than ever before (the majority being kids). If, during these times, we choose to stand on principal and not recognize compassion needed for our neighbors, more than a home burns; the fabric of our society burns too. 

 

For the last time Jack...........No...he didn't pay. But, do you think those firefighters, and the community feel GOOD about what happened and appreciate the subsequent national attention? Do you think the homeowner knows he made a mistake? (most of us do make mistakes Jack).  Some of you insist that this guy got what he deserved....................but should his house been allowed to burn for $75?  do you really feel that way about somebodies home burning to the ground? 

 

Rules help society function properly Jack....I know. You've probably never got a "warning" in lieu of a speeding ticket. You've probably never been late on a credit card, house, rent, car payment. You've probably never lied to save the embarrassment of a friend or co-worker. That's life in a Black & White world. I don't understand it, so I guess I'm subservient to your advanced understanding of the world Jack.

But common sense needs to prevail when a home is on fire, the homeowner's asking for help, and the checkbook is in his hand. If you don't get that.......God Bless you Jack.

 

Permalink Reply by Karr Quintero on October 6, 2010 at 12:39pm

you belive television? wow!

if he forgot to pay, wouldnt he get a few notices to remind him? or he would not if he hasnt been a subscriber for a while...

and retro payments? lets see an interview from one of thoses people and see how late they were? days? week? years?

weather or not the FF's were there, they were told to stand down and followed orders as we all have to!! period.....

Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on October 6, 2010 at 12:41pm

1) Nobody made it "Your Fault" so it's not about you. It's the counties fault for failing to provide the services. By the way, firefighters don't start the fires they repsond to, they just put them OUT last time I checked.

 

2) So, if you respond to a fire in your area, and you discover that the home is in Foreclosure, you don't extinguish the blaze?  Taxes aren't being paid...right?

 

3) The paying subscriber of the exposure property asked the FD to point the hoses on the burning house, so it reduced the risk of flames causing damage to his property...............and it was the compassionate thing to do. This former fire chief of this TN department had allowed retroactive payments of the fee in lieu of services. That's why the unprotected homeworker didn't pay in advance. He thought he could do what others were allowed to do.

 

Let me make myself clear.............the firefighters followed orders. They performed their duty. This is a political decision, made at the sacrifice of those firefighters, who are now probably suffering a public humiliation none of us have ever experienced.   Just sayin'.

Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on October 6, 2010 at 1:04pm

My issue is not with the Firefighters (do I really have to repeat myself AGAIN). My issue is that The department, as reported by MSNBC, had allowed folks in that area to pay their fee AFTER they put out the fire.

The homeowner mentioned that he thought the FD would help, because they've allowed that policy of retroactive payments.   If the conditions were different: Wild-land Interface, close proximity to exposures, risk of collapse, they department would have been forced to extinguish the blaze.................so what they (the chief) did was SELECTIVE enforcement of the letter of the law. In my 25 years as a firefighter/paramedic, I never once asked a person if they paid their taxes or subscription (yes...I did once work in a subscription based Medic system). We took care of the problem, and asked questions later. 

 

Just form a fire investigation standpoint this was a joke. How did the fire start/cause/origin? Is there prevention measures that need to be taken under consideration? oops...there I go with my compassion again...LOL

I hope that department likes all the media attention they're getting. I hope it's worth the $75 they refused to accept on the scene...LOL

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page