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
-
Sorry........I trampled on the Jack club.....and now must be punished.........oh..oh.. So you know the owner, and he was a cheapskate? Wow...look at you with all the FACTS...LOL He said he FORGOT......or did you miss that....wait...you know the facts...sorry!
The previous Chief was at fault for not enforcing the rules........Dude, your rules burn a man's home down to prove a point for $75?? The previous Chief decided it was more important to do a job...even for Cheapskates, that bring the wrath of the National Media down his throat.....LMAO! I hope it was worth the embarrassment. Being RIGHT has it's consequences...have fun with your being right and all!
-
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Sponge of thy neighbor.... hmmm interesting quote.
Most of which we the non-emotional people have been saying since all of these threads started.
-
-
-
Ummm...the fire Chief did have a say............but he decided to go through a media storm than put a fire out. Yeah...your right about the FACTS though. How does it feel to be right in this case...really....in your gut....you'd be fine watching the house burn???..........but now have the public view of the fire service in such a poor light? Talk to you civilian friends about this? Everyone I have has had a pretty strong opinion. You know what they said: How could they let it burn, when $75 is all that separates saving a home or not? Didn't they need every penny they can get?..LOL Dude...you should be a politician...you're so right and all.......
-
-
-
Your a fire investigator Herb, it was a double wide mobile home. How fast does fire travel through a trailer? Pretty friggin fast. They didn't respond and stand by and watch for two hours. They responded later after the house next door was threatened by fire. Knowing that, what was there to save? Nothing...
That stand by comment is BS and emotionally driven. Heck are you related to these people? Personal responsibility..... created this mess and it wasn't the fire chief lacking it.
-
-
-
Oh yeah.............freeloader doesn't pay..........so let it burn. I get that. While were at it, let's figure out who is not current on their taxes, and let them suffer too...LOL
Love the 3rd grade logic Ben. Oh...by the way........the Fulton Fire Chief said he doesn't like the current system........or did you miss that in the linked article?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Herb, when you say "...you'd be fine watching the house burn???" that is a Straw Man logical fallacy.
You are putting words in FETC's mouth there, dude.
What you're really doing is making up something he didn't say as if he had said it, then arguing against it. When you do that, you're actually arguing with yourself.
And Herb, since you apparently aren't concerned with the facts, yes, South Fulton needs every penny they can get.
It would be completely unethical for them to have fought this fire and let the freeloading cheapskate get away with free fire protection while his neighbors paid their fair share for theirs.
Apparenly, you're a fan of being unfair and letting cheaters get away with it because you...fell bad for them???
-
-
-
Herb, when you stoop to ridiculing someone else's logic, it generally means that you don't have anything factual on which to base your point.
It doesn't matter if the SOUTH Fulton fire chief likes the system or not - that's what the sytem is, and that's what he gets paid to manage. (Note: If you're going to talk facts, at least get the name of the fire department right.)
Your "...figure out who is not current on their taxes, and let them suffer too...LOL" is a False Dilemma logical fallacy. The area in question pays NO fire taxes. NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZERO, BUPKIS. They don't have a "local" fire department.
South Fulton responds out-of-jurisdiction to places where they have a legal, binding contract to do so. It would be immoral for them to provide the freeloader with the same services for free as they do their taxpayers in the city and their paid contractees in the city.
The situation in the City of South Fulton is different. They have a tax-funded fire department...INSIDE the city limits. They protect everyone there, regardless of tax status.
If you're going to complain about someone else's supposed level of logic when you've used a long string of logical fallacies in your arguments, that's pretty ironic, don't you think?
Logical fallacies just aren't....logical. They don't even pass the 3rd-grade test.
-
-
-
Of course the fire chief doesn't like the system, look what he is now dealing with by following the rules. I am sure there are probably thousands of freeloaders in the county. You see the city of 2,500 is trying to protect 30,000 residents of the county on an $8000 dollar budget.
If every county resident paid a fire tax, then maybe they could have their own volunteer fire department or maybe the city who has an 8,000 dollar operating budget would provide better services without worrying on who paid or not.
Its not rocket science but the fire chief who is doing his best with what he has got, has to follow the rules for which the county drafted.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
Herb:
I was involved in several arson fires.
You'll be pleased to know that I did just fine.
Got convictions on every one of them.
And the arson classes that I took? Water WAS a concern. Maybe not for you, but with the instructors that I had.
But yes; I am a funny dude.
-
-
-
Hey, Herb:
Go here and call in: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/firefighternetcast/2010/10/07/firefigh...
They're are discussing live on the air the South Fulton incident.
Bring your knowledge to the show.
-
-
-
Logical fallacies? Oxymoron!
-
-
Permalink Reply by M.J. 6821 on
-
Im going to ask a question that may sound stupid but here goes, is this department a paid on call department and if they are how long did they stay on the scene laughing and joking around after they were done. If they are and they were on the scene for an extended period of time there goes fiscal responsibility out the window. Not only that if they were just standing around watching and a fire broke out in town which according to some peoples stats is 11 minutes away what does that say about the chief then.
-
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
