The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
And they watched it burn, again...
Before you comment read my whole post...
Well the story has broke again. I made this prediction in the many threads from the last fire in 2010 that got the FFN boards lit up. History repeats itself in the fire service. The homeowner this time admits they knew the past story of "Pay for Spray" in 2010 and about the $75.00 fee. They said quote, "never thought it would happen to them."
Here is the news video: http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Home-burns-while-firefighters-...
In my opinion, the FD who refuses to put out the fire is doing the right thing. As hard as that may seem, if the FD provides the service for free, then nobody in the county will pay. This story has been going on for many years. For those who don't know, the county has NO fire department, the residents know this. Many move there because it is cheaper to live there. Past studies have been done to reccommend providing fire protection services but it will cost the homewowner more in their county taxes. The county administrators have decided to keep it "Pay for Spray" meaning a neighboring fire department who does NOT have any jurisdictional requirement to respond to your county residence, is allowed to offer their services to each individual homeowner for $75.00 per year. If you pay the $75.00 subscription service, you will get a response and mitigation from the neighboring FD. This is not mutual aid, this is not automatic aid. This is paying for fire protection from a contractor. If you don't pay the fee, the FD has told everyone numerous times, no pay = no service.
In my opinion the lack of FD action keeps the integrity of the lousy system in place. The people who pay are getting services when needed and they are NOT subsidizing their neighbors lack of payment. The fire department unfortunately gets caught up in the media and the "passion police" when the story of "they just watched it burn" After the last story unfolded, many neighboring chiefs came out and tried to explain how small of a budget this fire department has, one chief even mentioned the fire chief sometimes, empty's the soda machine to buy fuel for his trucks with change.
So instead of continuously being the bad guy, I suggest the Mayor and the Fire Chief tell the county administrators that they are done offering subscriptions next year. Therefore no more subscription service to the county and the COUNTY will now have to fund their own protection services. The administrators will then have to assess a fire tax to their residents to fund either a volunteer fire department(s) or pay for services from another FD for every county residence.
Time to end the subsciption mess...... it is a black eye to the one's who have to enforce the rules and the integrity.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
How is a city FD going to include a fire protection fee for property outside the city in city property taxes?
The city of South Fulton has no taxation power outside their city limits in unincorporated Obion County where they have the subscription program.
Or...are you telling us that the city residents' taxes should be increased to pay for county fire protection?
-
Permalink Reply by Greenman on
-
Why not levy a $75 tax on all residential occupancies in the county, rather than having a $75 subscription fee? That way everyone in the coverage area has to pay.
Or, how about if you pay your $75 and you have a fire, the FD comes and saves your lives and property without additional charge, but if you failed to pay, the FD still comes and saves your lives and property but you get a bill for the full cost of doing so...What does a full-blown house fire cost to extinguish? Several Thousand dollars when you account for fuel, water, wear & tear on equipment, manpower costs, supplies, etc... that way rather than the Fire Service looking like a bunch of protection racket thugs, we look honorable by doing the right thing, even when the homeowner failed to pay.
Greenman
-
Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on
-
Greenman,
The residents of the county have repeatedly voted down a tax to pay for fire protection.
The problem with billing after the fact is really quite simple. If no one pays before hand how does the FD plan to pay for costs associated with running the FD? Budgets are based on projected income not on maybes and I hope they pays. If people admit they knew and refused to pay it is their own damn fault that they face these dire circumstances.
You really need to apologize for the protection racket thugs comment, because not only is it wrong and insulting, it makes you look stupid and uneducated on this topic. The fire department and the city are not the bad guys, they have no legal obligation to offer fire protection to anyone outside the city. The bad guys are the county and the citizens who refuse to fund fire protection and support the subbscription plan. The city attempted to help and has tried to get the county to fund their services and the county has refused but offered up the subscription plan to allow funding to the city.
-
-
Greenman,
That has been proposed several times. The citizens of the unincorporated areas of Obion County have rejected ANY fire tax over and over. They don't want a county fire department, they don't want a county council that will vote to increase their taxes to support a fire department, and they live in a state where a new fire department cannot be chartered without the approval of the local governing body.
Your "protection racket thugs" comment is uncalled for and inaccurate. The SFFD in fact did the right thing, and they did exactly what the local system required that they do.
What makes you think that the homeowner will pay a large post-extinguishment bill if they refuse to pay a $75 subscription fee?
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
The politicians took the same oath and the tax payers made the decision to mooch off someone else's fire protection system so don't even go there with the "I took an oath" argument. It's not your fault and to be honest, aren't you following orders, if you are a part of a department that has no obligation to engage and your FD administration told you No Go?
After every incident, I hope your fire department's chief has sense enough to do damage control, using a Public Information Officer (PIO) to handle the media. This is the time for the fire department to make it clear that the option of standing by in case of a rescue, and watching a home burn is not their choice. The option is the tax payers and again, all for twenty-cents a day. Make sure the media asks that question for you. Have folks write into the local newspapers editorials to educate the public on not just how important it is to pay the annual fee but to get involved with THEIR local fire department. The life they save may be their own...
Be proactive on this and take advantage of the opportunity verses doing nothing. This can be changed but it starts with someone saying that the present system isn't working, and has a solution. Did you look into a surcharge on electricity to help fund the fire department? Think outside of the box for the good of your community and department.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
They probably won't pay any amount of a larger post extinguishment bill. It is highly probable that they do not have homeowners insurance either. NOW If they did, shame on the insurance company for not making sure the homeowner's subscription was paid up. Then again, it might be a racket in itself. Buy homeowners insurance, not pay your subscription and have a fire. Nobody responds and puts it out.
Greenman, sorry but your way offline and need to appologize. The homeowner who suffered the loss got exactly what they chose, no service. That has been proven when the homeowner stated they weren't mad at the SFFD. This unfortunately has become the media's choice to lynch the SFFD.
-
-
Has there been any other reply or statement other than I didn't think it would happen to me from home owners as to why they don't support basic services such as fire protection? And why is it even an option? All it does is create havoc and embarrassment for the involved fire department.
-
-
Why is it an option? Because the citizens of Obion County have voted over and over to keep it that way, and their county council continues to vote the will of the majority of the people.
"Bow down before the one you serve, you're gonna get what you deserve." Nine Inch Nails, Head Like A Hole lyrics
I believe NIN had it right in this case.
-
-
This would indeed be a good time for an eloquent PIO to educate the public.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew on
-
I'm very indifferent about this situation, and ones like it, as a whole.
On one hand, I understand the need to fund departments and that the fees were obvious. These people took fate into their own hands. I believe the owners even said they didn't pay the fee because they doubted a fire would ever occur in their household. Now they're out of a house because of their poor decision.
On the other hand, I took an oath as a firefighter to protect life and property. Firefighting, as a whole, should not be governed by money. We have a certain sense of pride when it comes to saving and retaining life and property. What's next with emergency services? CPR Fees? Police Patrol and Response Fees? Vehicle Extrication Fees? Is there going to start being a whole list of what each action costs? Vertical Ventilation Fee, Back-Up Hoseline Fee, Primary Search Fee, etc. - think of the options!
I think the fire department should've doused the flames and charged them a fee much larger than the $75. This way the manpower that responded was utilized and the people save money in the long run. Relations between the public and the FD wouldn't be hurt this way, either.
-
-
I didn't know that the taxpayers voted it down (idiocy in itself).
But these people pleaded for the FD to help them, despite their stupid decision to not pay the $75 (which they knew about prior, according to reports).
I say that the Chief should keep a waiver in their truck that states that homeowners who did NOT pay the $75 that DO want their house extinguished can have it done, but they must pay an exorbitant fee in comparison to the $75 (maybe like $1,000 or so). This way the people save money in the long run, the relations between the public and FD aren't torn, and the manpower that responded is properly utilized. Everyone wins. Just have the pleading homeowners sign it as soon as the Chief shows up on scene and have the responding apparatus do their duties when they show up on scene.
Of course, if the homeowners are in life-threatening trouble, then it's obvious as to what the FD should do. If there is a death of some sort, I think pursuing money isn't the most honorable thing to do, despite their stupidity for not paying a mere $75/year for fire protection.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
But these people pleaded for the FD to help them, despite their stupid decision to not pay the $75 (which they knew about prior, according to reports).
So what? How does this differ from someone who cancels, fails to renew, or just plain doesn't have auto insurance? They can get in a wreck and plead for the insurance, or any insurance, company to help them and they will pay more etc. Bottom line, TOO LATE.
A waiver is a bunch of crap too, this system is in place and that is how things work. The systems is stupid, crap, and creates issues and forced decisions like this, but in the end, there have been PSAs, there has been requests to change the system (voted down by residents), so in the end, it is personal responsibilty. You make the decisions and live with them.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
