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 Greenman on
-
Don,
Fair enough the county residents voted down the tax. Stupid decision, but their right.
You missed my point about billing afterward. You only bill afterward for those residents who choose not to pay their annual subscription fee ($75), and then you bill the whole cost of firefighting, which is easily several thousand dollars or more in many cases.
As for my comment, "rather than the Fire Service looking like a bunch of protection racket thugs." I will NOT change, retract or apologize for it because it is accurate. To the general public, any fire department that sits by and lets someone's home burn to the ground because they didn't pay their subscription fee looks like they are extorting money from their local residents. Legal or not, as the Army likes to say, "Perception is reality," and you can give the public a positive perception of the department, or a negative one and every time you let a house burn down because you didn't get paid ahead of time, gives the public a negative perception of your fire department and you absolutely do look like a protection racket to members of the public.
Sometimes, just because you have a legal right to do something, like watching someone's home bun down, doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Greemnan
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Greenman, where do you think those fees would come from AFTER the fact? That aspect has been raised and shot down because the collections, if any, are no where near the costs incurred.
As for the "racket" comment, yes, you are still out of line and are not seeing the bigger picture. The dept has operated in the past irregardless of subscription or not, but kept seeing more costs and it was determined that such policy of "pay to spray" would be enforced. This is a direct order implemented by the elected official of the jurisdiction that has authority over the city dept. The county and residents stupidly continue to have such a policy and thus, individual contracts with the nearest FD.
Call it a damn racket if you want, but the reality is much different than your perception. It IS an order and orders are followed, are you going to argue that fact? The FD has no obligation to protect property outside the jurisdiction that doesn't pay, just like an insurance company has no obligation to honor a policy that isn't paid. I suppose that is a racket too then, right?
I'm curious though on your outlook of welfare. Or perhaps more to the point, people capable of working but refusing to because they just get things for free anyway. Is it right for everyone else to contribute and pay for something that such people don't want to pay for? Should all costs for services be incurred by one municipality so that people outside the jurisdiction get the same services for free? After all, isn't that the same "racket" going on here.
Besides, the "victims" even stated they didn't pay because they didn't think it would happen to them. Yep, but go ahead and claim a racket despite the reality it is the residents and county refusing to have a better more fair system in place and thus forcing such "racket" ORDERS to be made and subsequently enforced.
-
Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on
-
Grreenman,
This has been explained to you OVER and OVER and either through brute stubborness or ignorance you still stand firm on your slanderous accusations against the fire department. I find your charecterizing them as "protection racket thugs" despicable and frankly indefensible.
The truth is the city FD has NO responsibility for fire protection to the rural area. They offer the subscription service as a benefit to those who want fire protection. The cheapskates and the stupid that won't or don't pay get exactly what they deserve.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Your "protection racket thugs" comment is not appropriate.
It has been explained - repeatedly - that the citizens of Obion County have voted over and over to fund NO FIRE PROTECTION. If an individual homeowner wants fire protection, he/she has the INDIVIDUAL OBLIGATION to purchase the subscription.
The South Fulton FD tried the post-fire billing in the past, unsuccessfully. Homeowners who refuse to pay a $75 pre-fire subscription don't pay a much larger post-fire subscription. You see, Greenman, without the subscription, the homeowner has no obligation to the FD in the same way that the FD has no obligation to the homeowner.
In fact, the post-fire bill is a lot more like a protection racket than a subscription. The subscription is a business contract, pure and simple. Without a contract, there is no obligation for the FD to do anything.
Failure to engage in a rational economic agreement on the homeowner's part in no way equals a protection racket on the FD's part.
Your claim that your "protection racket" statement is accurate is way off the mark. We should not be helping the media sensationalize their inaccurate news stories.
-
-
How does it differ? Short answer, "It doesn't".
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
So you respond outside of your district to a reported structure fire where you are advised that they didn't pay the $75.00 fee. Assuming that you do a size up and make the call to perform a rescue, what mechanism is in place to bill for the $75.00 considering that there is no current written agreement to recover costs. Assuming that this is a real scenario, it sure brings to question as to why you help these folks and not others. You can't bend the rules for just one situation or scenario type. You have to be fair and consistent with your approach to avoid both civil and personal liability.
Just the fact that the fire department is put into the position to sit and watch while someone's house burned down is just wrong. If you are showing up, you really need to do something other than just watch... The hard line here is that if you don't pay, then there's no spray. That's fine. I get the part where you get what you pay for, but to make the weak excuse to respond to watch, in case of a rescue is nonsense. Unless you have made entry, or engaged with the property owner or resident as to rescue potential, then aren't you kind of starting to do something but then pulling back? That's not right. If you show up, the publics expectation is to do something, not taunt the residents with a fire truck and folks shaking their head that they should have paid. Put the fire out and bill them for the services and make it clear to other residences that if there is a fire, then you will put it out, and will send a bill. The argument that there is not a contract is valid, but is negated by an engine responding and being in a position to do something, but doesn't. God help the engine company Captain that takes this stance and a fatality results from a kid hiding under a bed or in a closet. If I was the attorney, I'd have the town named after the family and the first born of all involved. What a nightmare legally should something go wrong. I really think you would be better off not going at all if you aren't going to do your job.
As I read these posts, and trying my best to distance myself from the politics, but instead, looking at this as an ordinary citizen who is watching a house burn down and a fire truck with crew watching. This is an impression of something other than what the public expects the fire department to do and I can see how you can characterize the fire department being the bad guy here. It's not a stretch by any means.
If there is not an agreement, then don't respond. Let the place burn to the ground. If folks make the decision to play the lottery, and roll the proverbial dice, then they get what they planned for, which is nothing. By having a fire engine close by, watching others suffer and lose their possessions... it gives the impression of being downright mean spirited and will do nothing but make folks hate the fire department, for years.
Bottom line in my opinion is that if you respond then plan on doing your job. Let folks with higher pay work this out but don't put this on the firefighters. It's not fair to put them into this position. No one wins here... And to make things worse, the fact that this poor management decision was made, even seasoned veteran firefighters are arguing about whether or not they would engage because this is a moral decision for many of us, which of course means lots of emotions. Again, it's not right to put firefighters into this kind of situation because it forces someone to totally go against everything they / we stand for. We help people. We don't watch people suffer.
Fraternally and humbly submitted,
Mike Schlags, Fire Captain/Paramedic (Retd.) x30 years
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Briggs on
-
My Opinion on this, Please do not bash me for it!:
If they knew that was no lives in danger and no subscription fee paid then why did they even respond? If they do respond knowing this then they should have to fight the fire instead of just stand or sit there and do nothing. By doing this they are still wasting money by running the unit / units when they say they don't have much money.
-
-
Why not bash Ron?
However, your opinion can be easily answered too, just like in the first incident, the FD responded because a paid subscribing neighbor called. The FD still does have a contract with those who do pay and could be in jeopardy of a fire spread if the FD doesn't rerspond.
-
-
They have an obligation to protect exposures for the neighbors that ARE their subscribers.
The lack of a contractual obligation to one property owner does not remove their contractual obligation to their other subscribers in the same neighborhood.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Out, damn facts! Out I say!
W.W.S.D? What Would Superman Do? While many people believe that Superman is honorable, moral and law abiding, whose honor, morals and laws does he abide by?
Does Superman make up his own rules as he goes along?
Does Superman follow the laws of the local Authority Having Jurisdiction?
Does Superman follow his own whims as to what is right and wrong, essentially being a Freelancer.
Of course, Superman is a fictional character created to promote Truth, Justice and the American Way (all easily debatable and temporally flexible.) And let's not forget one very important fact: Superman Is An Illegal Alien!
So put your superhero capes away boys, RTFF (Read The F*^$ing Facts) and stop moralizing.
-
Permalink Reply by Engineer k7 on
-
Well it pretty much boils down to the taxpayers, they need to replace the county commission with people who have more realistic thoughts and idea that would really work for all county residents.
-
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
Its time to STOP the subscription for fire service which is very retarded. The depts in that area apparently do not know about fund raising and operating expenes through the collection of property taxes.