The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Why the TN home allowed to burn to the ground was an embarrassment to the Fire Service.
A lot has been said about the events that unfolded regarding a home that was allowed to burn to the ground in TN. One of the main arguments (in fact, the only valid argument) criticizing the homeowner was that he didn't pay the $75 Fee required by the fire department prior to the fire, as the response was outside of the regular district boundary required payment. Folks living outside of the boundary don't pay taxes that support the fire department, so a fee was implemented to offset the response. They all knew it too. OK Let's take a look at that...............
First....How does $75 dollars pay for an engine crew, let alone multiple crews to respond to a fire? Ans: It doesn't. But since they can't levy the true costs of a single response on to a homeowner (did you know that trying to charge for suppression efforts AFTER the incident is next to impossible based on the law?), they have to utilize a reasonable fee structure that requires some "skin" in the game, yet collectively, it covers expenses associated with fire suppression.
This is a basic insurance method of covering costs, in that, $75 won't pay for a response, but if 100 homeowners pay, and say there's only 2 fire calls per year in the area, the department receives $7500 for the two calls. (The 2 calls is just an example, for all you fact freaks, since I don't know how many times this particular FD responded out of district, nor do I know how many have paid the fee)
The way car insurance works (in case you forgot) is that if you wreck your car, and don't have insurance, you have to pay your own expenses. Sounds good so far? And you can't pay AFTER the fact to get coverage...YEAH. In fact, in some states, it's ILLEGAL to NOT have CAR insurance to protect other drivers... (stay with me here).................but if that uninsured car is on fire in the middle of the road, outside or inside the district boundary........the FD puts it out....right?
Now, if someone is in the car...well, that makes all the sense in the world. But if I didn't pay my fire taxes (say I live out of state and I'm sightseeing in beautiful TN), nor did I pay my car insurance (yeah...I'm a risk taker), but the car is on fire, they put it out...pat each other on the back, and then go have a cold one at the local watering hole and talk about the look on the guys face when his house burned to the ground.
But wait.....If my car's leaking gas as a result of an accident................here comes Haz Mat. Maybe I had some chemicals in the trunk (yeah...I moon light for a company trying to take over UPS's business..LOL), and it creates a cloud of methyl-ethyl bad stuff, and traffic has to be shut down, an area evacuated, detection gear, decontamination, the works... (that dang MSDS wasn't handy, and the bump on my head made my memory of what chemicals I had fuzzy), and you've got yourself a real honest to goodness S%#T-fest on your hands. How much does that cost tax payers? (I'm sure the FACTS Geeks will have a reasonable answer for this one).
So, let me get this straight...........you can cause one heck of an incident, costing tax payers a boat-load of money, shutting down a road, endangering residents, if it involves your car. But if your house catches on fire, spewing embers, causing spot fires, igniting stuff on fire that has to be extinguished, the "seat of the fire" is allowed to burn, with the potential to create more devastation, (and you've set a president by allowing a homeowner to pay a fee AFTER the fire was put out on prior incidents to prevent the aforementioned issues), but you say....naw....not this time.....you just let the home burn?
Now answer me this: If I was a neighbor, and I paid my $75, and I live a few houses away, how am I protected exactly? The unpaid homeowners home is going up in smoke, spewing a column of smoke and fire, and the engine crew arrives and breaks out the popcorn. The next thing I know, my wood shingle roof has gone..poof...and is on fire. They put the popcorn down, spray some water on my house. But dang... one of the embers got into the attic....and poof...their goes my house. Is there any MORAL responsibility on behalf of the department to have put the original fire out?
Of course, this particular department has allowed folks to pay AFTER THE FACT. It had something to to with not letting one structure fire turn into a whole neighborhood disaster (former fire chief's thinking at the time, but he's long gone). But can you honestly tell me, if that house on fire was surrounded by homes on three sides, that it wouldn't have been tactically prudent to put out the main fire if it was a eminent threat to the paid subscribers? So this poor guy's home burns down because they could AFFORD to let it burn based on geography?
So let me get this straight; You can pay the fee before the home burns and get protection. You can buy it after the home burns to the ground and get protection (rekindle anyone). But for the time it's on fire........NO DEAL?
Well boys and girls, there's the LETTER of the law, and the SPIRIT of the law. There's MORALITY, COMPASSION, ETHICS and PROFESSIONALISM. Regardless if the fee was paid was one second prior, or one second after the fire, it should have been extinguished, because its a THREAT to the paying customers (But not in this case...right FACT Geeks?)It's an area they had to respond to protect other homes. Put out the first fire to prevent anything else form happening. If you can come close to a moral argument as to why I'm wrong, well....I'm sure you'll tell me. A sad day indeed.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on
-
OK....the finance issue is your base of argument. So, when your department says....we don't have money to pay you for a raise, or to buy new equipment to make your job safer, you start whistling Dixie. No... because when it directly affects YOU, you probably aren't so strict to follow the rules. Who does?
Heck, the very worst thing that could have happened was that they used the fire as a Training opportunity. How many structure fires do you think they get with a call total of under 100 responses?
Making an example out of this guy is not what the Fire Service is about. They would have been much better served, from a PR standpoint, to have extinguished the blaze, and then have the guy speak to other community members as to why he made a mistake, but was so grateful that the department helped him.
Now...the insurance company is paying. Isn't it ironic, that insured people have to contribute to paying for a totally destroyed home because the FD wouldn't put it out over a $75 fee? Makes total sense; Pay out tens of thousands of dollars becasue of a $75 bet.
BTW, my department that I retired from is San Ramon Valley (www.Firedepartment.org), is very well funded. 11 Stations, about 225 folks (suppression, prevention and admin.) It's an ISO 2, with National Accreditation. If you have an Iphone, you can download our app (seriously...just search San Ramon Fire in the App store)..LOL
-
-
Permalink Reply by Karr Quintero on
-
see the mention of start/cause/origin IS A BIG ISSUE, why wasnt water lines (garden hoses) layd out and some one maning them to prevent a "controled burn" from getting out of control. in our county you cant burn unless theres water next to it is my understanding. when im asked to go check on a burn pile im told to look for water hoses.
kindda sounds like he knew what he was gonna get, and the media sympathy would devert any eyes from arson
-
-
-
Now you see why there was even more reasons to put this fire out. Anyone who doesn't pay can expect their house to burn, and get away with ARSON. So, if I buy a cheap house there, insure it and the contents (of course my contents are VERY valuable)......then light the match.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Engineer k7 on
-
With what happened it makes us look like a bunch of firefifghters who could give a ratsass less. Just because he forgot to pay the $75 fee is NO reason to let the FD stand around with they're finger up they're assess. Which ever county bigwigs mad that law they should be "FIRED". I wonder how they would feel if they forgot to pay there fire fee and the FD rolled to the scene and they did NOTHING.
-
-
-
thats what i belive, i just get that feeling when i see his interviews. i would be outraged if his story was justifiable and i was him,i'd be freeking out! but he seemed to calm, as if he's holding somthing in.
i dunno though, its just a vibe or somthing i get from this guy.
somthin aint right
-
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
How did the fire start/cause/origin?
The initial story from the homeowner stated that he was burning trash in the yard and the fire got away from him. In a later statement (once the thing had grown legs) he changed the story to the fire being started by his grandchildren, who were burning trash in barrels in the yard.
-
-
-
a small cange in story but a change still
-
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Sorry guys but all of you have missed the point. This is not a case of morality and compassion. It is all about business. This wasn't a volunteer fire department who chose to not provide a service to one of their fellow community residents because they refused to pay the subscription fee. This is a service contracted from another community, who has NO DUTY TO ACT to anyone who chooses to not subscribe.
Now let's look at the root of the problem. Where is the personal responsibility here????
Homeowner chose to live where there was NO FIRE DEPARTMENT, taxes are cheaper. 1st choice.
Homeowner chose not pay the subscription fee to another community's FD. 2nd choice.
Homeowner chose to not tend to an illegal burn. 3rd choice.
Homeowner could not control a barrell fire. 4th choice.
Homeowner calls 911 admits he didn't pay for the service but EXPECTS service for free. Let's stop bashing the fire service or more specifically City of South Fulton, becuase they were just protecting the assets of the city, their taxpayers, and their personnel.
Want to say shame shame shame on someone, tell it to the homeowner. The City of South Fulton did nothing wrong here. They didn't respond to the call initially because this guy did not pay for services. You don't get a free burger when you drive up to the burger king drive thru??? Only paying customers get service at BK. They responded later when the neighbor who had paid the service fee, said they were concerned about the fire next door was going to spread to his home. They didn't respond at the first call and do nothing. By the time they arrived the fire was well involved. If the FD had put out this fire, they might as well forget about having any county resident pay the 75 dollar fee in the future.
The FD has asked the county commissioners to tax all of the homeowners in the county and they refuse to, they said it should be a homeowners choice if the resident wants protection or not. The FD wants everyone taxed to have amore accurate budget as compared to having only some of them pay. When telling them this system is underfunded, the county told them to raise the subscription fee.
Do you understand the City FD protects 2,500 people, with a tax base of 2,500 paying for services? The county as 30,000 people who are allowed to pay or not, the FD simply can't cover all 30,000 for free. The fee they have now doesn't even cover the cost of fuel to run the trucks during a fire. Pretty cheap deal for the county residents... but you have to pay.
I say kudos to Fulton, hold your ground, because you were only trying to operate in these terrible economic times and EVERYONE wants something for free.
-
-
-
So....the FD didn't/couldn't extinguish the blaze.....it's reduced to rubble...... there's no chain of evidence......LOL Holding back that $75 is starting to look like a good investment. what do you think the homeowner will claim was inside the home: Flat Screen TV's in every room, a few Rolex watches, CASH.................. unbelievable.
-
-
-
dont forget the picaso! and the collection of rare velvet elvis's
-
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Williams on
-
Ok, I’m going to throw a few more thoughts out since this is turning into such a hot topic. Jack, I would agree with your statement about the City of South Fulton being less protected when they respond to a call outside the city limits and it raises a very rough issue for the city leaders at this time. How much protection do they wish to provide to the citizens who live outside the city limits is their next hard issue to debate locally.
Your questions about the greater moral obligation are very simply resolved by what you stated earlier. Having solid mutual aid plans in place would resolve this. Yes, a department’s primary obligation is to the area they respond to and right along with that is an officer’s or senior firefighter’s responsibility to take whatever means necessary to protect their primary coverage area when they can’t.
IMHO, there are times when fiscal responsibility can trump moral responsibility but that is a very fine line that has to be dealt with on a situation by situation basis. You talk about the hard realist having to cut through the moral fog and make real world decisions. That hard realist has to have big shoulders and be ready when their “real-world” decisions aren’t the most optimum decision for the “greater of all”.
Yes, I agree that there are a significant number of people who like to freeload for many things in our lovely world and not just the fire service, unfortunately that is life. It is up to each department, in this case, to handle that particular issue in a manner that best suits them.
Art, I’m going to take the moral side on this for the moment. I think Herb is pretty close to point of this one. Without a shadow of a doubt there are a number of facts presented but there are also a number of facts that aren’t known or haven’t been presented. I’ll agree that we shouldn’t be arm chair quarterbacking this for the people of Obion county or other areas. Fire service is a local issue that is handled differently in many ways but there are many things that we all do the same.
Bottom line is this, the firefighters & officers that responded to this incident had some really hard things to deal with “outside” the norm. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes, period. It is apparent that there are serous issues both financially and morally facing the citizens and governing bodies in Obion County, once again, wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.
Finally, I’ll go back to my previous statement. The Maltese Cross is made up of basic virtues from long, long ago, 2 of which are Morality and Compassion. These are virtues that we as firefighters and officers should still pride ourselves on today. All material things put aside, these 2 virtues were lacking or missed in this particular situation.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Triple J on
-
This only serves to make a case for mandatory funding (read taxes or fees) for public safety when there is no other adequate revenue source to properly provide Fire, EMS and Law Enforcement to an entire county, city or other municipality. In this day and age, the hue and cry is 'No new taxes', but we have to be realistic in knowing that subscription Fire Departments went out with horse-drawn fire engines. If everyone was to pay the fee or tax, the department would have adequate funding to perform their job. Those who didn't pay would be subject to a tax lien against their property. As for forclosures, I know in my state (FL), the bank that forclosed on a property is still responsible for paying all taxes and fees on it until it is resold. Seems like a fairly easy solution.
-
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
