The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
No Pay? No Play!
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...
TCSS.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Tony, I agree completely.
What happened there would never happen where I live, but we have tax-funded all-career fire departments with no coverage gaps.
A lot of the folks that are ranting about Obion County, as you said, assume that everyone can afford the type of system they have and that they all want it.
Obviously, nothing could be farther from the truth.
I am a former member of a mostly-volly department that was funded by subscriptions outside of the city, and that had similar instances to this one back in the 1970's. We switched from the "let it burn" option for non-subscribers to the massive response bill option. That way, the fire chief and the firefighters didn't have to decide about whether or not to extinguish, and we occasionally got a windfall payment from the non-subscribers' insurance companies.
It is frustrating that some people are so closed-minded that they refuse to look either at the facts or to consider that there are more than one rational way to provide services, based upon local circumstances.
When they resort to playing fast and loose with the facts, it adds nothing of value to the conversation, at best.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Honestly I think it's the cape crusader syndrome. Rather than operate on a logical, risk/benefit analysis mode, some people seem to think that there's a 'high moral obligation' to risk lives for nothing. That then translates to this issue, willfully ignoring the facts of the issue it instead becomes an issue about morals. Yet...I have to wonder where many of these 'moral obligation' people stand on paying a bit more to ensure that the uninsured/underinsured have at least basic humanitarian health care. Or do they then stand on principal and feel that it's every man for himself?
Of course, beyond the moral issue at play here is a baser one, that of money. What people here are espousing is that it is the moral obligation of the citizens of South Fulton, Tenn. to provide an unfunded fire department to those people who have little interest in funding one themselve.
Was it shame that someone's house burnt down? Indeed. Should the fire department, since already on scene, have put it out? Since there was no life safety issue, why should they put themselves at risk to put out a fire in the home of which the homeowner himself had decided that it wasn't worth his bother for the extra $75/year and then potential $500 charge.
As I pointed out earlier, the 2008 report indicated that less than 50% of those $500 fees were uncollectable and there is no legal means for the fire department to recoup those fees. So once again we come back around to having about 2500 people, already paying for their own fire protection being "morally obligated" to paying for an few thousand others fire protection, at no cost to those other few thousand. Hardly seems fair or moral to me.
Finally, the intital statement from the homeowner indicated he didn't want to pay the $75 subscription, and that being the case why would anyone then think he would pony up $75 PLUS the fire department charge of $500 for responding to a fire? Penny wise and pound foolish does not easily reverse itself.
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on
-
Good read. Thanks for the honest response to my question chief. As a B/C, I would have used it as a "training situation" and let the boys/girls play with some water (as they always wanted to do). My justification would have been that through training, they gain valuable "live fire" experience, and that we needed to dampen down the blaze to ensure our paid customers were not at an increased risk. Heck, we would have just fired up the Deck Gun...LOL But I would have done just about anything to avoid be filmed doing nothing.
This situation would have played out very differently though, if there was other structures next to the home, or weather conditions were extreme (heat/wind). There's no way they could have made an "example" out of a non-paying resident under the previous circumstances.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
Herb:
Did you catch Mike Ward's segment on FirefighterNetcast?
He reported on information that he received that the burning barrels were on "adjoining" property, it was an illegal burn apparently because permits to burn are required in the county. Plus, he said that the structure was valued at $0 dollars and contents, I believe was $1300. The stucture was described as a "shack on a slab". I am going back to listen to it again. I'd be curious to know more about it. I still have this nagging itch that something just don't add up.
-
-
You might want to give this a read.
It's from a "local": http://roguemedic.com/2010/10/comment-from-a-fire-fighter-in-obion-...
And this: http://statter911.com/2010/10/07/raw-video-neighboring-chief-speaks...
And still: the NVFC remains silent.
-
-
Good stuff. I liked the part where the Chief said "as bad as we might want to do something that seems right, we can't". POLITICS............don't ya love em.
In some countries, if you cause a fire (something we deem an accident, like a cooking fire, or this trash barrel debacle), you are criminally responsible. Justice would have been to put the fire out so no other paid members homes were at risk, and then arrest the homeowner for doing something so stupid.
-
Permalink Reply by Wade Seely on
-
Is it groundhog day I feel like Bill Murrey, I keep reading the same responces over and over and over again. "That would never happen here, how dare they, I would have grabbed a hose and put it out. " The people chose this route, the homeowner is at fault, get the facts."
Wow I have a headache, and am going to bed; maybe when I get up it wont be groundhog day anymore.
So whats your helmet color
TCSS
TCSS
-
Permalink Reply by Fireman Quis on
-
Cant imagine how mad i would be if I was the homeowner!!!
-
-
Why would you be mad?
You should be happy.
Homeowner didn't pay for fire protection and he didn't get any.
I'd be mad if I was a homeowner who paid my money, he didn't but got the service anyway.
I know, I know; firefighters aren't supposed to think like that.
But we are trained to follow procedures and do what we are told.
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
Learn your logical fallacies! Don't make me bust out my pictures:
- Attachments:
-
-
PoisonWell.jpg, 31 KB -
falsecontinuumgi5.jpg, 13 KB
-
-
-
I could throttle Keith Olberman. He was the first media personality in the last few years to openly lean to the left, but as he grew, he became more bombastic and like an Ed Murrow wanna-be. Even when I agree with him (and I often do) I just wish he'd shut the hell up.
That said, I think we all agree here that a more efficient (both cheaper and safer) way to provide fire protection is to lay a tax on the property owners that it serves. You can call that socialism, but in doing so, you paint the entire modern system of government across the globe as socialist. It's funny you say that Herb should give his money to Tennessee. Tennessee (red state) soaks up HUGE amounts of federal dollars, California (blue state) is a massive net contributor. You could argue that Herb is already donating money to Tennessee. The red state's ability to spend federal money while at the same time decrying federal spending never ceases to amaze me.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_state_r...
-
Permalink Reply by paula beckham on
-
in new zealand the fireservice is funded thru a levy on all house, contents and vehicle insurance its about $76 for the house $15 for contents and $6 for a car yearly the insurance company collects and forwards $$ to the fire service however we still need to be topped up by central government.
if you are uninsured we still respond deal to it and take the hit from what i gather about 10% of property is not insured
That may decline after the quake we just had its opened a few peoples eyes as to what a total loss is as traditionally its only one house here and there so no one batts a eyelid however the quake has left a mass of uninsured ppl in the crap
and personally ive lived on beans and bread to make sure i kept my insurance
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
