Tennessee House Fire Subscription Dilema

0 members like this

Tags:

Add a Comment

Comment by Steve / 467 on October 10, 2010 at 2:42pm: Per this homeowner's own words in the above video:

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if ye hadn't paid ye $75. but, I was wrong"

I guess ye was sir.....

It is not the responsibility of the citizens of the city of South Fulton Tennessee to provide fire services to residents of Obion county. Yet they have offered to make that commitment to respond to your call for help for a mere $75 subscription. You chose to play the odds and bet the value of your home away for 75 bucks, and you lost.

As much as any firefighter would desire to help you out of his natural instincts and his oath to serve, that fire engine belongs to the city, paid for by it's citizen's taxes. If you are not willing to help pay (a measly $75) for the upkeep on the equipment, then it is not available for your use. That should not be hard to comprehend.

Maybe your County Commission will finally vote to envoke that 75 bucks as a tax to ensure all county residents have fire services, that way the wrong decision will not be yours to make.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tlejTAAQ6g

Comment by John Karl Ambrusch, III on October 7, 2010 at 10:31am: Your right, James. His failure to pay a $75.00 could very well have shut down the department because of "economics" (which you seem to be very well versed on) and he did deserve to have his house burned to the ground. It's totally unreasonable to think he could've been billed for the incident afterwards. MY hats off to the firefighters for standing around to watch. Job well done.

Comment by John Karl Ambrusch, III on October 7, 2010 at 10:21am: Excuse me.

Comment by John Karl Ambrusch, III on October 7, 2010 at 9:35am: As Frank said earlier Jim, the fact that the department refused to take the payment when the home owner offered was a bit over the line. He didn't pay his $75.00. Did he really deserve what he got? That's the bottom line.

Comment by John Karl Ambrusch, III on October 7, 2010 at 8:54am: I disagree James. Even though he was outside their fire district, their mutual aid agreement put them there for a reason. Defensive posture was still in order. Much more may have been able to get done even to prevent spread to the neighbor's house had they responded when they were first dispatched as opposed to waiting. Their failure to hold an obligation to "duty to act" resulted in spread to an exposure and that should serve as a lesson learned. We have a responsibility to protect life AND property. It's politics 100%.

Comment by frank white on October 7, 2010 at 12:03am: i couldnt stand there and watch someone house burn down regardless if he payed it or not

Comment by John Karl Ambrusch, III on October 6, 2010 at 10:22pm: I totally agree, Mike. Like I said before, there's a reason we all do this job. It's not to let some one lose their home and I personally don' want to be a hero. That department is a shame to the fire service.

Comment by Mike Johnson on October 6, 2010 at 8:34pm: The members of this department dont deserve to call themselves "firefighters"!!!! A red light on a dash doesnt make you a firefighter.

Comment by Robert Bowen, Jr on October 6, 2010 at 5:50pm: Beyond a doubt, the local governments absolutely need to resolve the fire department funding issue. Here in PA, we are allowed to tax property owners up to 1.5% of their assessed value for fire protection. The boroughs and townships then contract with the fire company for emergency and non-emergency/assist the public services including EMS. Maybe that's the way to proceed. That said, I'm a volunteer firefighter for 43 years and if my local colleagues and I arrived on the scene, we'd fight the fire.