Did the firefighters do the right thing?

There's a heated debate about a news item at one of my DJ bulletin boards. The debate is whether or not the firefighters did the right thing. I'm not going to tell you where I stand on this issue, yet, but I'm curious to know what your opinions are. After I get some responses, I'll provide a link to that message board.

For the record, I've always thought that many of my DJ, ahem, bretheren, are idiots. Or at least idiots when sitting behind a keyboard.

On the flip side, I highly respect the opinion of almost everyone here.



Here's the MSNBC.com headline: Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee.

Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001

Well, the guy's cats and dogs died in fire, and though I suppose risking your life to save someone's pet should still be optional for a firefighter. So, while I think they could have done something to rescue the pets, I wouldn't hold them necessarily responsible if they didn't. (I personally would feel bad about the pets dying, but that's because the animals have nothing to do with the owner being smart, a dumbass, or forgetful as he claims)

As far the non-iiving property question goes, that seems easy enough. There's probaby a thousand or more people last night driving in the U.S who may have done something like veer off the road and run over a fire hydrant doing severe damage to the front end of the car. Unless their insurance company or state law supports a grace period, they're freakin' out of luck if they're not paid up. They can whine all they want about how they were going to pay their insurance, I don't think it will do them much good though.

If there was a child in the house, they would have saved the child. I HOPE! The firefighters didn't value the lives of the cats and dog, which is upsetting. If I was the firefighter, I would have tried to save the animals, and once that was done, my job would be done.

There is something about this story that rubs me the wrong way. I guess what it comes down to is, do we want to live in a society where the poorest citizens are not allowed access to the services of the fire department? It seems wrong to me.

I cant believe that actually happened. I am stunned. You would thinkthat there would have been a way of sorting something out without the guys house going up in smoke.

One thought that comes to my mind is problems like this could be avoided, and money saved, if homeowners were not nickel and dimed by various different government agencies and utilities. For example, here in Vegas not only do we pay payment hefty property taxes, but also get billed separately for sewer service and trash service. Why can't they roll that all together? It would save homeowners time and postage from writing out extra checks, and eliminate the need for two billing agencies. Also, as a business owner, I don't even want to think about the numerous taxing agencies I have to take care of. A few years ago I threw up my arms in disgust, and hired a payroll service to do it.


In the meantime, while we're waiting on my utopian society, what should be done in cases like this, where you have the choice to accept or decline fire service? $75 and one payment behind is ridiculous to warrant letting the house burn. I think the fire department should make at least three attempts to collect payment, with at least one by certified mail, before refusing service. Another option, that should be mutually agreeable to both sides, is that if you're not caught up on your payments, then you have to pay the actual cost of the service call. Both parties would probably have been happy if they charged say $10,000 to put out that fire.

This would have made for a good poll, by the way.

Water and Sewer are usually tied together into one bill based on your water usage. Trash is usually farmed out to a company like WM, and even if charged by the municipality, it just gets turned into a bill that they pay to WM. So I don't care if I get a bill from the city included in my taxes or the waste management company. I figure there's a level of bureaucracy being avoided at the city by having the waste company bill you directly instead of having the city process a payment on your behalf. I would feel the same about water and sewer if it were farmed out to a third party.

Fire departments can and have been known to charge a fee for smoke detector inspections which I think is a pile of crap. Police charge routinely for alarm false calls, which I think is fair.

However, fire and police, in my opinion are essential services in the interest of public safety. If a homeowner does not pay a bill, I don't think their services should be cut, ever. I have no problem however, with cutting off water, sewer and waste services to one who does not pay.

I don't know the details of this specific case, but it seems quite similar to the situation where I lived in South Carolina during my late teens.

There, the fire department was operated by the town, and all businesses and residences in the town had fire protection funded via their taxes. Those folks, including my family, who lived outside of the town limits, did not pay taxes to the town and did not automatically have fire protection. If you wanted the town to provide fire protection services to your business or residence for which the town taxes were not paid, you could purchase protection for an annual fee, which may have actually been the same $75 quoted in the story. Homeowner's insurance policies generally required that you purchase the fire services (or perhaps pay an extremely high premium -- don't remember). This essentially provided a means for a voluntary tax for non-residents of the town to receive a service as did the residents. There was no county or volunteer fire protection service available, as I recall.

If someone owned property outside the town and was foolish enough not to purchase the protection, they did not receive the services. The fire department would respond to a reported fire to protect the adjacent properties for which fees had been paid. I think they would also take action to rescue/protect human life -- don't know about saving pets. There were occasional tragedies just as described in this story.

However, if the fire department made a practice of protecting houses where the fee was not paid, or if they allowed the fee to be paid on the spot after a fire started, there would likely be a very large number of people who would choose not to pay the fee, gambling that they could get the services for free or via desperation payment. The loss in revenue would mean that the fire department would be less able to provide services to those who did pay for them either through taxes or "optional" fees. I thought it was a very reasonable practice, with the real alternative being no fire protection at all.

Edit: Just for clarification, I don't think that in the town where I lived there was any risk of a town resident not getting fire protection because they were delinquent on their taxes or anything like that. This was just an optional service being offered to non-residents who were not otherwise part of the population charged with supporting the fire department.

I've not heard anything about this particular incident but the issue has arisen before.

The usual procedure is to determine if there is a danger to life.
If not, that is it. The only measures that will be taken will be to prevent the fire from spreading to premises where the owners have paid for protection.

No agreements to buy protection on the spot are enforceable and any payment made at that time would be easily recovered in court.

First of all, lets have some history: In ancient Rome, fires were common and if you wanted a fire fought, you had to sell your home on the spot to the fire company and then rent it back from them. Did this provide a certain incentive? You bet it did. Heck, to this day the people in rural areas know that some of those vehicles sporting Forest Fires Prevent Poverty bumper stickers are being driven by the arsonists who set fires so as to be called out at high pay. And don't think that a good many of those firetrucks that get burned in a fast moving forest fire haven't been sold instead!

Private fire companies are common. Grants Pass, Oregon has TWO competing fire companies. Buy a home there and salesmen will show up and display their companies credentials and solicit your business. The companies have to demonstrate their training, equipment investment, response times, etc. ... ever get that from your municipal bureaucratic firemen?

Recently one homeowner prevented a fire truck from entering his land to fight a neighbor's grass fire (Yes, it was legal for him to do so) but later the fire grew in intensity and threatened his barn, so the fire company simply refused to respond to his sudden change of mind concerning entry onto his land.

The rule of law is simple. If you want fire protection, pay for it.
The rule of law is equally simple for the fire company. If they ain't paid in advance, then any payments made on the spot or any agreements to pay made on the spot are NOT enforceable. Not ever.

Its the same way at airports. A pilot can be billed for the material used to fight the fire but not the use of the equipment or the turn-out of the personnel. You want the runway foamed down for your arrival, you will be billed for the foam. Now usually the procedure is not to pay the lousy bill for $211.00 but instead to make a substantial donation from which they secretly deduct the amount of the bill but it is legal to get billed for it.

There is also the consideration of the danger to the adjacent houses in letting the fire burn.

This was a major concern, and still is for all I know, in Las Vegas. Most people don't know that most of what we consider "Las Vegas" isn't actually IN Las Vegas; the Strip, for example, is mostly in the town of Paradise. In the 80's, I remember that if you were on one side of Sahara Blvd. or the other, and you called the "wrong" fire department, they would arrive, see that the fire was out of their response area, turn around, and leave. Some friends of mine lost their pet store, all the animals inside burning to death, exactly because of this--they called the Las Vegas fire department, not realizing that the boundary ran down the middle of Sahara and they were on the wrong side of it. The fire truck arrived in plenty of time, but they just turned around and left.

Back then, there were very, very few basic services in the neighborhoods outside the casino core--there were very few parks, inadequate schools, only nine total bus routes for the entire valley, and the sidewalks were mostly unpaved. I thought then that the fire truck incident was just another example of Las Vegas assholery, but I've since perceived that the problem exists elsewhere. I can't fathom the actions of emergency service people in a situation like this, though--if I saw someone's house on fire, I'd run over there with a bucket of water. How rotten is it to not go over there and help when you've got, not just a bucket of water, but an entire fire truck?

If there were people trapped inside that house then there should be a law stating that firefighters do all they can to save them. I personally feel pets should have the same regs attached to them, but if they weren't then I wouldn't be saying anything nasty about the firemen. We don't know all the facts.

At the same time, people have to learn to pay their bills and pay them on time, or bad things can and do happen. Don't tell me this slacker didn't know he owed them. You have to be responsible for your actions and not cry about the consequences whatever they may be, if you push them aside. Chalk this one up to one of those "Obama teachable moments". Of course if this guy was black we'd have already heard from the pres saying how stupid the firemen were, of course and right on queue, without knowing all the facts.

Meanwhile in Socialist Britain... this isn't an issue.

Quote: thecesspit

Meanwhile in Socialist Britain... this isn't an issue.

But it has made me realise how much in this country I take for granted.

Quote: cardshark

There is something about this story that rubs me the wrong way. I guess what it comes down to is, do we want to live in a society where the poorest citizens are not allowed access to the services of the fire department? It seems wrong to me.

Was this because he was poor or careless or simply never knew the situation? It makes no difference. He didn't pay for coverage, so he didn't get it. Think of all the Search and Rescue cases wherein newspapers immediately try to dun the missing hikers for the costs of the search.

It may have been ignorance. Some people live in cites all their lives and then move to a rural area and don't realize fire protection has to be paid for. He probably got letters about it.

Some towns have fire insurance rates that double or triple in the middle of a street. One side pays absurd insurance rates, no one ever reads fine print anymore.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

There's a heated debate about a news item at one of my DJ bulletin boards. The debate is whether or not the firefighters did the right thing. I'm not going to tell you where I stand on this issue, yet, but I'm curious to know what your opinions are.

I was thinking of starting a thread on this so thank you. As cold as it sounds, the firefighters did the right thing. My first question is how on earth the guy got fire insurance without paying for the service. But think about it, they are totally right in that if you could pay on the spot no one would sign up until the house was on fire. A fire department cannot be supported at $75 per call. To not pay ahead of time and expect help when you need it is the same problem we have in USA Society at large--too many people want to ride in the cart and not enough are willing to help pull it. Imagine if the fire department responded to that guy (or any other freeloader) then another fire broke out from someone who did pay, they the person who paid lost their house!

Quote: Doc

However, if the fire department made a practice of protecting houses where the fee was not paid, or if they allowed the fee to be paid on the spot after a fire started, there would likely be a very large number of people who would choose not to pay the fee, gambling that they could get the services for free or via desperation payment. The loss in revenue would mean that the fire department would be less able to provide services to those who did pay for them either through taxes or "optional" fees. I thought it was a very reasonable practice, with the real alternative being no fire protection at all.

Exactly so. Insurers face the same problem when refusing to insure people with "prior conditions." If they did, then who'd pay for insurance? You'd have to be a sucker to do so. Best to wait til you got sick, then pay for insurance, you'd save a bundle and then some.

Of course insurers would go broke in the meantime.

BTW, why doesn't anyone consider it unfair that you can't get theft insurance after you've bene robbed, or accident insurance after you've been in an accident, but are up ina rms if you can't get health insurance after you've fallen ill?

Quote: FleaStiff

Was this because he was poor or careless or simply never knew the situation?
...
It may have been ignorance. Some people live in cites all their lives and then move to a rural area and don't realize fire protection has to be paid for.

You have to watch the video for more details.

For one thing, he knew about the fee. He says he forgot to pay.

For another, his son's house was on fire three years ago, and the fire department responded, even though his son had failed to pay. Maybe there was a precedent and he figured he didn't need to pay.

You can also ask why there are so many fires in his family.



On the DJ message board, the argument is rather heated. People fighting on both sides. I'm happy to see that most of the responses here are not only in agreement that the fire department did the right thing, but that the tone of the responses is rational.



Here's my response, from mid way down the first page of the DJ message board:

Quote: Dave Miller

I think the fire department ALMOST did the right thing.

They should have responded, and just made sure there were no people in the burning house, and to be ready to instantly jump in when the fire threatened the neighbor who DID pay.

FYI: I used my real name - Dave Miller - as my user name on that message board.


I don't know if you need to sign up to see it, but here's the thread on that message board: http://www.ourdjtalk.com/showthread.php?t=37167

there has to be a different arrangement than optionally paying or not. The state lawmakers should see to it. If property taxes / utilities / whatever can be collected then the portion for the fire department can be collected. Arrears can be settled in the same manner. Fire depts should not be put in this position.

Quote: odiousgambit

there has to be a different arrangement than optionally paying or not. The state lawmakers should see to it. If property taxes / utilities / whatever can be collected then the portion for the fire department can be collected. Arrears can be settled in the same manner. Fire depts should not be put in this position.

I think the issue was that the guy was in an unincorporated part of the state, the fire dept doesn't even need to offer the service. I see no need to bring the state into it.

BTW: as this is a Vegas board, I forget which one, but I believe an early strip casino burned to the ground for the same reason. Casino built outside LV City Limits. Though in that case there was some gangster involvement.

I bet everybody's paid up now.

There is a lot implied by the article.


First, it is almost certain that the FD knew the guy, and confirmed no human life was in danger.

Second, the FD did show up in time to save a neighboring house which had paid.

Third, if the fire started from burning trash away from the house, it implies that the guy would have had time to roust any pets from the house in plenty of time. Why did the guy stand idly by and let his pets die when the fire started to get out of control? There's a part of me that thinks this guy sacrificed his pets to spite the FD, with which he appears to be having a feud.


Something smells funny about this whole situation.