View Full Version : Man's home burns down in front of Fireman...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101005/pl_yblog_upshot/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate
Personally I agree w. the Fire dept., this guy was a cheap ass and brought his own misfortune upon himself imho. This was just crazy to hear about so I figured I would post it up:)
Did the department receive tax dollars from the victim?
The writer of that article is a moron.
not sure, good question though. It did make reference to the fact that the $75 fee was for the subscription to fire protection service offered to the county's rural residents. Makes me think that they were kinda off the grid.
The writer of that article is a moron.
Hell, I just googled the story and that was the first link that popped up...it still tells the gist of the story though.
eta...edited the source for the story:)
lethal dose
10-06-10, 10:47
I hope he has insurance. I agree, however... if you live in a community where there is a fire service fee and you decline to pay it, then if your house burns down, it's your problem.
DocHolliday01
10-06-10, 10:57
I wish ERs and doctors would do the same thing with people who refuse to pay or carry insurance to pay, so I could stop hearing about how "we" have to pay for all of these freeloaders.
It's amazing to me that somebody can afford a house (and probably lots of stuff to put in it) but won't pay a whopping $75 a year for a fire department.
Exactly. This tightass didn't pay his $75 for the year and got burned, literally. Tough shit.
woodandsteel
10-06-10, 10:58
Something about this strikes me as wrong. I understand he chose not to pay the fee. But, do firefighters take some type of oath?
Would it be acceptable for a police officer to refuse to help someone who is being vicitmized, because the vicitm is from another jurisdiction? I know, apples and oranges. It just seems wrong to help when someone is in need.
Maybe instead of the fee (or in addition to it), the fire department should be able to charge the homeowner, or put a lien on the homeowners property, covering the Fire Department's costs.
I mean really, how can you just stand around and watch someone's property burn to the ground? Especially when you have the tools needed to help.
Hell, I just googled the story and that was the first link that popped up...it still tells the gist of the story though.
eta...edited the source for the story:)
I know =) That comment wasn't aimed at you. The writer is simply an advocate of socialistic society, where everything should be offered to you and you should therefore pay for everything, regardless of whether you need or use it.
I dont see how they can get away with it. Where do his property taxes go? I find it hard to believe that the department is not funded with his money somehow.
I dont see how they can get away with it. Where do his property taxes go? I find it hard to believe that the department is not funded with his money somehow.
Most fire departments are city-based and therefore covered only by city taxes (at least in Middle TN). People outside city limits only have to pay county taxes (whereas people IN city have to pay both county and city taxes). If you don't have a fire department that is already payed from your county taxes, and you're outside the city, many departments give you an opt-in choice. This guy obviously didn't want to pay it.
It's just like health insurance. Frankly, it's better off this way. I live in the country (or at least outside city limits) in TN and those in-city pay double the taxes we pay, hence why many people purposely move outside / away from city limits.
It's not a private fire department, they're wrong for not putting out the fire and will find themselves with a massive lawsuit that would have been far cheaper.
Every county in the country has property tax. Even if he hadn't it's not the job of the fire department to make sure he's up to date on his dues.
What would happen if the county had a $75 tax penalty for police support of those who lived in a rural county and a wife getting beaten by her drunk husband called the county police department. Should they not intervene because they haven't been 'paid'?
Would it be acceptable for a police officer to refuse to help someone who is being vicitmized, because the vicitm is from another jurisdiction?
Yes. Actually, it would be acceptable - at least legally - for a police officer to do nothing at all, even while on duty, for any particular person in his jurisdiction. There are tons of cases on this. The police owe a duty only to the public at large and not to any particular individual.
They - and firefighters - also have sovereign immunity, which protects them from claims of negligence in the performance of their duties. You could argue that the firefighters were willful or grossly negligent, but then you come back to the fundamental issue of whether they owed this stingy homeowner any duty in the first place.
Maybe instead of the fee (or in addition to it), the fire department should be able to charge the homeowner, or put a lien on the homeowners property, covering the Fire Department's costs.
Hospitals already do that with uninsured people and non-paying people. Problem is collecting on it. Good luck.
woodandsteel
10-06-10, 11:51
Yes. Actually, it would be acceptable - at least legally - for a police officer to do nothing at all, even while on duty, for any particular person in his jurisdiction. There are tons of cases on this. The police owe a duty only to the public at large and not to any particular individual.
They - and firefighters - also have sovereign immunity, which protects them from claims of negligence in the performance of their duties. You could argue that the firefighters were willful or grossly negligent, but then you come back to the fundamental issue of whether they owed this stingy homeowner any duty in the first place.
Hospitals already do that with uninsured people and non-paying people. Problem is collecting on it. Good luck.
That was a stupid analogy on my part, i'll admit that.
I guess I'm looking at this from more of a personal point of view than an agency point of view.
I wonder how many fire fighters from that department feel a little bit bad about what happened. If for no other reason than they train and train to fight fires. When their chance arrives, they are denied the opportunity.
In some rural areas, fire protection is provided for via a special tax assessment or fee assessment district that is not a part of the local governmental subdivision. Failure to pay those assessments or fees would likely relieve the department of its legal obligation to provide services.
Even with no legal obligation, I would hope that those working the fireground would feel some sort of moral or ethical obligation to render aid.
I usually stay out of GD, but this doesn't make sense to me. Not the actions, but people's lack of outrage.
It makes sense that the guy didn't get the services that he didn't pay for, but this is way past reasonable in my opinion. Not picking up his trash if he didn't pay the bill is one thing; letting his home burn down is another. What kind of discretion is that? What if his check didn't clear yet or he had some financial troubles? Believe it or not, $75 is a burden for some people. If he didn't want to pay the fee, send him a bill for services rendered. That seventy-five dollars should be treated more like an insurance payment. Don't pay your insurance bill? Pay for the results.
If this were a situation of on-duty police not helping someone, I know the response would be opposite, with accusations of negligence or disregarding oath, and demands of lawsuits and terminations. Forget about the obvious situations of crimes against persons in progress, like murder, battery, assault, etc.. It wasn't that long ago that on this very site, the whooping and hollering ensued when it was reported that officers wouldn't respond to report-writing jobs in Oakland(?).
Police are paid to protect the interests of the public and maintain their safety, no matter what. Fireman are paid to put out fires.
No disrespect intended to firemen in general. I love you guys. I know and work with a bunch of you well-rested gentlemen. ;) (That's an inside joke where I'm from.)
What would be the legal theory/theories behind the lawsuit?
What would happen? The same thing that would happen if you or I or anyone called 911 and the police didn't show up, or showed up too late. Nothing. They have no legal duty to you or I in particular.
LMAO, we'll you better go live in a cave, because this man live in Obion County and it's a municipal fire department located in Obion County. It's not a free market fire department and he has paid for their firetrucks and equipment even if he didn't pay the dumb ass tax.
The IAFF is speaking out against this, and lawyers are lining up. Some backwards local goverment is going to lose it's ass over a dumb ass policy.
If you want to tax some one for service you need not make it an optional tax since he had no other choice but the municipal fire department. If they want to allow him the choice of paying or not paying the city for fire protection, give him the option of having more than one department to choose from. This is a monopoly.
I'm ranting so I'm all over the place :P
I'll bet all the tightwads in that area couldn't write their $75 check fast enough after this incident.
If you look at the demographics of the area, probably not since most couldn't afford to pay $75. It's not a rich county.
I usually stay out of GD, but this doesn't make sense to me. Not the actions, but people's lack of outrage.
It makes sense that the guy didn't get the services that he didn't pay for, but this is way past reasonable in my opinion. Not picking up his trash if he didn't pay the bill is one thing; letting his home burn down is another. What kind of discretion is that? What if his check didn't clear yet or he had some financial troubles? Believe it or not, $75 is a burden for some people. If he didn't want to pay the fee, send him a bill for services rendered. That seventy-five dollars should be treated more like an insurance payment. Don't pay your insurance bill? Pay for the results.
If this were a situation of on-duty police not helping someone, I know the response would be opposite, with accusations of negligence or disregarding oath, and demands of lawsuits and terminations. Forget about the obvious situations of crimes against persons in progress, like murder, battery, assault, etc.. It wasn't that long ago that on this very site, the whooping and hollering ensued when it was reported that officers wouldn't respond to report-writing jobs in Oakland(?).
Police are paid to protect the interests of the public and maintain their safety, no matter what. Fireman are paid to put out fires.
No disrespect intended to firemen in general. I love you guys. I know and work with a bunch of you well-rested gentlemen. ;) (That's an inside joke where I'm from.)
Since when should you require service when you have not paid for it? That's an entitled, socialist attitude. Yes, it's sad it was the guy's house, but it was his choice and he must live with the consequences.
If the department had put it out, what good is the fee? Seriously, if they had helped him, think of what would happen with the next house that wasn't covered caught fire. Do you put that one out too? And the next one? And the next? Why bother paying the fee if they'll put the fire out anyways?
He MADE the choice not to pay for the coverage and now he's a perfect example of why it should be payed.
Now if he hadn't received a notice of the fees due, or they thought he didn't pay when in fact he did, then you'd see outrage. That isn't the case. The man made a choice. Now he must live with it. Isn't that why most of us carry?
If you look at the demographics of the area, probably not since most couldn't afford to pay $75. It's not a rich county.
Which probably means the fire department was already under-funded. Good point!
I'm sure it works differently in different areas. Around here, those that live outside of the city still pay township taxes, which in turn are kicked back to the closest VFD. Even so, I wouldn't mind paying $75 additional to those guys. Our local VFD's are really excellent. Hell, I'd pay 'em $75/year just for the fireworks show they sponsor every July 4th.
As to letting the house burn...that's disgusting. The fire department should have done their job and put out the fire...they could have sued the owners later for the entire cost of the effort. That would make the point just as effectively as letting the house burn down. The local governmental entity is stupid if they don't already have such a policy in place. Then, no lawsuit would be necessary...just send 'em the bill.
One additional consideration re: insurance. On my policy, I have to state whether or not I have fire department coverage. If I check yes, the VFD will come to my house, I get a discount. If I check yes and I'm NOT covered, the policy is void. These people many not have valid insurance.
The concept of firefighters standing around watching a house burn down is despicable. No different than a policeman or doctor refusing to treat in an emergency. There were alternate ways to make the point instead of this chickenshit method. How dare they call themselves public servants?
ForTehNguyen
10-06-10, 12:26
1. House is outside city jurisdiction (therefore does not pay property taxes) and in a county that does not provide FD services.
2. City offers FD services for $75/year. Guy doesnt pay it
3. Guy starts burning stuff in a barrel in an unsafe manner, house catches on fire.
4. Tough shit
Moral of the story:
Try to live in an area where there is FD service, if not better pony up $75/year for some peace of mind.
If he didnt want to pay $75/year, wanna bet he doesnt have homeowners insurance also?
This reminds me of a Stossel special about people taking dumb risks and expecting the rescue to be paid for. Part 3: 5/8/09 John Stossel's "You Can't Even Talk About It" WARNING: This will increase your blood pressure, and make you wanna choke a hippy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P531IaBGRHU
So does anybody have both Tax payer Fire Dept. services as well as a voluntary fire service....we have the typical "Red" firetrucks that are city tax funded and then we have a "Yellow" all volonteer service that actual beats the "Red" payed firefighters to my home. Both are outstanding professional squads.
jklaughrey
10-06-10, 12:42
Darwinism wins again! Moron, by law we have to have vehicle insurance to drive right. Well if law states to pay a fee for fire service...DO IT.
Even with no legal obligation, I would hope that those working the fireground would feel some sort of moral or ethical obligation to render aid.
This would seem to be a no brainier, wouldn't it? Yet the majority of the replies are somehow in support of them just sitting there and watching it burn. :confused:
I'll tell you that while some of the far-right folks on this board are usually great to interact with overall, they are also flat out scary sometimes. The lack of compassion in the name of ideology can be...disheartening.
jklaughrey
10-06-10, 12:54
We are just cold, heartless, Republican bastards aren't we. :rolleyes:
ForTehNguyen
10-06-10, 12:54
the thing is if you put out this guy's fire when he didn't pay, what kinda precedent does that set for the other people living in that county that probably are paying?
Wonder if the situation would be any different if someone was inside
the thing is if you put out this guy's fire when he didn't pay, what kinda precedent does that set for the other people living in that county that probably are paying?
What prevents the VFD from putting out the fire then sending the guy a bill afterwards?
Wonder if the situation would be any different if someone was inside
Key question, isn't it? It appears that a substantial number of the posters here would say "tough shit".
>
Which probably means the fire department was already under-funded. Good point!
And was more than likely getting federal funding... Great Point :D
I'll bet all the tightwads in that area couldn't write their $75 check fast enough after this incident.
With mouths agape, and a "holy #$*& they're serious!" I'm sure.
We are just cold, heartless, Republican bastards aren't we. :rolleyes:
Republican's? How does that term relate to this discussion? This issue goes far beyond the term Republican.
Regardless, to envision a truck full of capable firemen simply watching a house burn down over $75 is loathsome. The day my entire course in life is determined by the dollar is the day I hope I am swiftly run over by a train so I can rid the world of my selfish ass.
This would seem to be a no brainier, wouldn't it? Yet the majority of the replies are somehow in support of them just sitting there and watching it burn. :confused:
The same ones will talk about how they would step in to defend some one with their firearm, even if it doesn't involve them. They're such good neighbors as long as it involves shooting some one :sarcastic:
I haven't done any research but it would seem odd that people there pay taxes, presumably to fund the fire department, and then you have to pay an additional fee to utilize their services. Where did their trucks, uniforms & equipment come from? I assume it's tax money, and not a carwash, then to pay an additional fee reminds me of paying protection money to the mob and especially when there's no competition for their services, possibly due to laws?
What prevents the VFD from putting out the fire then sending the guy a bill afterwards?
In the article it states that he offered to pay all the expenses incurred and they told him to **** off. I wouldn't blame him if he would've shot them for putting a pinkie toe on his property in order to defend the neighbor's house who paid the $75.
The same ones will talk about how they would step in to defend some one with their firearm, even if it doesn't involve them. They're such good neighbors as long as it involves shooting some one :sarcastic:
As often as I am inclined to disagree with you (about 99% of the time or so it seems :)), you hit a home run with this one. Suddenly a "moral" obligation emerges when a firearm is involved.
Incredible how that works, isn't it?
In the article it states that he offered to pay all the expenses incurred and they told him to **** off. I wouldn't blame him if he would've shot them for putting a pinkie toe on his property in order to defend the neighbor's house who paid the $75.
Yeah, I was assuming that these "firefighters" (they don't deserve the title) would actually WANT to serve their neighbor and be responsible citizens.
To even put these water-squirting clowns in the same general category as the firefighters who died in NYC on 9/11 is a travesty.
As often as I am inclined to disagree with you (about 99% of the time or so it seems :)), you hit a home run with this one. Suddenly a "moral" obligation emerges when a firearm is involved.
Incredible how that works, isn't it?
There is a BIG difference between voluntarily doing the "moral" thing and forcing others to do the "moral" thing.
Would I protect someone else who needed it? Of course. But I do not and would not have any compassion from someone who expected me to protect them nor tried to force me to, especially if they had just told me they didn't want any help from me - it's not my responsibility, just like it's not the Fire Department's responsibility to spend money and give resources and time to those who flatly refuse their services.
This is a classic example of someone making a bad choice and complaining about the consequences. Either we live with people making their own decisions and living with the consequences, or we end up with laws like Obamacare. There's a reason the liberals wanted to pass it and it's because of nutcakes like the guy in question - they don't want to pay the premium, but by God they want help when they need it!
Do I think the FD was a jerk over this? Yep. But do they have any obligation to cover someone who said they didn't want their services? Nope.
jklaughrey
10-06-10, 13:27
Republican's? How does that term relate to this discussion? This issue goes far beyond the term Republican.
Regardless, to envision a truck full of capable firemen simply watching a house burn down over $75 is loathsome. The day my entire course in life is determined by the dollar is the day I hope I am swiftly run over by a train so I can rid the world of my selfish ass.
It was meant as a joke, lighten up. Take a valium and relax.
There is a BIG difference between voluntarily doing the "moral" thing and forcing others to do the "moral" thing.
I completely agree. But they already drove to the scene ready to fight the fire, didn't they?
And that doesn't mean that most of the hardliners here who would watch the house burn down would also not waste 1/10th of a second running over to a neighbors house armed and ready to go if such neighbor's teenage daughter Mary was being assaulted, does it?
Guess it just depends on who you deem worthy and why.
It was meant as a joke, lighten up. Take a valium and relax.
Ok, will do and good advice. But I'll pass on the Valium and get some needed work done before my son gets off the bus instead.
And that doesn't mean that most of the hardliners here who would watch the house burn down would also not waste 1/10th of a second running over to a neighbors house armed and ready to go if such neighbor's teenage daughter Mary was being assaulted, does it?
Not a legitimate comparison.
The guy REFUSED service from fire department, then asked for it after the fact when he needed it. The scenario with the girl next door assumes that she is simply a good, innocent neighbor who needs help. What if "Mary" routinely had called the cops on you (although they did nothing, since you weren't breaking any laws) because she saw your guns and had threatened to sue you if you ever came over to her property? Would you still hold the same view?
Most, myself included, would help someone who needed it; most would not, however, help someone who tried to game the system or told you not to help them, like this guy.
jklaughrey
10-06-10, 14:08
Mine thinks he is too old for the bus and runs home!
Not a legitimate comparison.
The guy REFUSED service from fire department, then asked for it after the fact when he needed it. The scenario with the girl next door assumes that she is simply a good, innocent neighbor who needs help. What if "Mary" routinely had called the cops on you (although they did nothing, since you weren't breaking any laws) because she saw your guns and had threatened to sue you if you ever came over to her property? Would you still hold the same view?
Most, myself included, would help someone who needed it; most would not, however, help someone who tried to game the system or told you not to help them, like this guy.
So this guy wasn't innocent? Did he torch his house for insurance money, do you have any new juicy details?
Most here who are bitching that nothing was done, are bitching that the fire fighters on scene sat back and watched another mans house burn to the ground, rules or not. How can any decent person who has the means to prevent such hardship for another person do nothing?
Have you never helped another person even though you didn't agree with their choices? Is that how you decide who to help or not to help, not based on your own morality but instead the basis of theirs?
For all the Christians posting how letting the house burn was the right decision, I can just say read your bible. Starting with Matthew.
Doesn't Jesus tell Christians to help those in need, even sinners. I'm pretty sure this is a pretty big deal but I could be wrong but Jesus was all about compassion. His whole life was based on compassion for those who had screwed up in their life some where and needed help. He died for your dumb ass mistakes. And you guys feel $75 is worth this guys house burning to the ground because he made the mistake and believing he didn't need to pay it :rolleyes:
So this guy wasn't innocent? Did he torch his house for insurance money, do you have any new juicy details?
Most here who are bitching that nothing was done, are bitching that the fire fighters on scene sat back and watched another mans house burn to the ground, rules or not. How can any decent person who has the means to prevent such hardship for another person do nothing?
Have you never helped another person even though you didn't agree with their choices? Is that how you decide who to help or not to help, not based on your own morality but instead the basis of theirs?
For all the Christians posting how letting the house burn was the right decision, I can just say read your bible. Starting with Matthew.
Doesn't Jesus tell Christians to help those in need, even sinners. I'm pretty sure this is a pretty big deal but I could be wrong but Jesus was all about compassion. His whole life was based on compassion for those who had screwed up in their life some where and needed help. He died for your dumb ass mistakes. And you guys feel $75 is worth this guys house burning to the ground because he made the mistake and believing he didn't need to pay it :rolleyes:
You're confusing voluntarily doing the right thing with demanding the right thing. Jesus didn't demand people to do the right thing. Go read the Bible for yourself. He asked it of those who followed him, but NEVER demanded it (like you are). Ironically, He DID say "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," and for those familiar with that passage, He was saying "Follow the law and do what is required to meet it." This man decided not to follow the laws of his area which require payment to the Fire Department, therefore it was also the law's choice not to protect him, therefore he put himself at "Caesar's" (the government) mercy.
Christians (at least, myself) are not advocating letting his house burn down. Rather, we're against making courtesy into law. Every nation that starts making courtesy law ultimately ends up robbing from those that have and give to those who don't. Where does it end? "Well you have too much food here, so we're going to take it and give to those who need it." Once you make helping others law, no one pulls their weight, no one pays their dues (as is the case with this man), and everything spirals downward.
There is nothing legally OR morally wrong with letting his house burn. He chose not to pay, therefore there's no obligation to protect him. No, the term you're looking for is "mercy," which would be to help him in spite of his choices and in spite of the fact his house should burn.
The Bible already covers the scenario above and this man brought it on himself. Would it have been nice to help him? Yes. Would I have helped him? Yes. Would Jesus have demanded it? No, not at all. In fact, he addressed issues exactly like this one.
This moron brought it on himself.
Has anyone considered that fighting fires is dangerous? It's actually quite common for firemen to get minor to moderate injuries (bruises, heat exhaustion, smoke inhalation, sprains, burns, etc.) while dealing with what most would presume is a routine fire for them.
So if we're talking about moral obligations and what's "fair," why should they risk their bodies for somebody who doesn't even think enough of them to chip in $75 a year?
I was a firefighter ?
I think the same as police might that the bruises or other things are never in ones mind to hold you back from helping others ?
so dont think that would ever play into it ? and like most firemen they answer to the white hats they answer to someone else and up the food chain !!!
Its a strange thing I can see both sides
maybe he thought the $75 was a scam to pay for more political BS and the firefighters are paid regardless etc.. ? both sides to a story ?
I can see let one person not pay nobody will pay ?
its a bad situation all the way around and he took the gamble and lost !!!!!
I pay for private security ? meaning alarm company ? our HOA also pays off duty to patrol !! what a scam cops should protect us anyway !! but I dont feel that way ? some do ? me I say cool we get more concentrated protection in our area I have called them once and they were here in a few minutes ? better 2-3 than 15-30 I say ?
granted I am the first line like most of us here :)
Not a legitimate comparison.
The guy REFUSED service from fire department....
Just curious because I honestly missed it, but how did he refuse service? Not simply because he missed his payment of course.
jklaughrey
10-06-10, 14:53
I know foe EMS/medical service a patient can refuse service. People to a lesser extent can refuse police service. So if indeed he refused service, did he by law sign a waiver, or is it in the bylaws of said contractual agreement that if you refuse to pay, you thereby refuse service? Either way his choice.
Just curious because I honestly missed it, but how did he refuse service? Not simply because he missed his payment of course.
Maybe you didn't read the entire article, but he chose not to pay, on purpose. Quoting him:
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
If he had missed a payment, then it'd be outrageous. However, he chose not to pay, even after their local mayor told the entire area covered by the FD that those not paying the fee would not be covered.
Littlelebowski
10-06-10, 15:02
I'd love to know how much taxpayer money that department gets.
Jesus didn't demand people to do the right thing.
I guess that comes down to your interpretation, God doesn't demand your salvation but he highly suggests it. :sarcastic:
Maybe you didn't read the entire article, but he chose not to pay, on purpose. Quoting him:
But it only states that he said he thought they would have put the fire out, even though he hadn't made his payment on time. Nowhere here does it state that he refused anything or had no intention of paying at all. This is your assumption.
Last thing I will say with this silly idealogical argument is that it would likely be an embarrassment to the vast majority of firefighters, especially those of volunteer status (imagine that, volunteer firefighters). In fact I'd bet one million dollars on it.
Now who has the million to put up? We can split the proceeds and with all these hardliners there should be more than enough money on their end when they lose. :D
But it only states that he said he thought they would have put the fire out, even though he hadn't made his payment on time. Nowhere here does it state that he refused anything or had no intention of paying at all. This is your assumption.
I see what you're saying, but if you want to get technical, any non-payment of one's bills is willful negligence and therefore their choice. He knew of the policy (by his own admission in the article), he knew he had to pay for that protection, therefore it was his duty to make sure his dues were paid.
Let's also use common sense here and say that no reasonable department is going to deny coverage to someone who missed their payment, but has a history of paying their bills. No, my guess is this guy never payed his bill and passed up the chance to pay it several times.
Maybe you didn't read the entire article, but he chose not to pay, on purpose. Quoting him:
That quote does not support the notion that he willingly refused to pay and wanted service anyway. It supports just as much what an article I read and quoted him saying. That he just overlooked or forgot to pay the fee. He can still assume that they would come put it out and charge him after the fact.
If he had missed a payment, then it'd be outrageous. However, he chose not to pay, even after their local mayor told the entire area covered by the FD that those not paying the fee would not be covered.
The article I read quotes him as saying he forgot to send it in. Not that he willingly decided not to pay and see what happened. He could still have been under the assumption that they would come out anyway and bill him afterwards. He may not have taken it seriously enough which lead to him missing the payment, etc.
I still support the FD from a legal standpoint since he did not pay. I personally would change the rule that people who don't pay, who sign on the dotted line when the fire dept shows up and agree to pay 100x the amount or all costs associated plus $500, whichever is more, would still get service, or something like that. But this guy messed up. You can't go rewarding people's screwups as that creates "moral hazard" which is what caused the Wall Street crash and this ongoing bad economy. It is also what leads to things like Obamacare.
The article I read also said that it was not the firefighters who refused, but the command and the firefighters had to obey their command. It said some were crying and some got sick when they got home over the whole thing.
The article I read also said that the firefighters did not show up immediately and just watch. They were summoned when the neighbor's property was threatened (and that person had paid the $75).
The guy whose house burned down, in the article I read, seems to have accepted the fact that he screwed up and was not blaming the FD based on quotes from him. He claimed he had insurance which would partially help him rebuild (he may or may not be in for a surprise).
CarlosDJackal
10-06-10, 15:31
Cheap homeless guy aside. Could something like this be negated by a Good Samaritan Law? I'm thinking that those laws require someone who is properly trained to perform the duties that they were trained in should they come across such a situation.
Being that these guys are properly certified Firefighters. The fact that they were in a situation to prevent any further damage not only to the first victim's property, but also his neighbor's but did not; might make them libel. Especially if they were organized and "licensed" by the local government (I don't think on can just open up a Fire Department without the proper permits, zoning and such) and were probably housed in a public facility.
As far as this guy, if he was too cheap to pay the $75; then he pretty much asked for this situation. He may not have been paying for years until this happened. It's like refusing to help pay for private security and then offering to pay only when you are in need of it.
I'd love to know how much taxpayer money that department gets.
No shit! If we're getting "a la carte" government services show me where I can not pay for any of the other bullshit they waste my money on.
According to this Countdown video report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39535911/ns/us_news-life/ Their proposal for a county wide fire department, @3:30, says that no one will pay a subscription service so a big what the ****?!?!
"Good Samaritan Laws" protect people who render aid in good faith, in reasonable accordance with their level of training. It means that if a CPR-trained citizen tries to render CPR to an accident victim, that victim cannot later sue the caregiver because a few ribs were cracked in the process.
The laws exist to encourage "Good Samaritan" behavior by offering protection in our overly-litigious society. I am not aware of any laws that make Person X liable for any self-inflicted damages by Person Y, just because Person X was trained to offer assistance and did not.
Perhaps such laws exist, but they generally would not be referred to under the umbrella of "Good Samaritan Laws."
There are a lot of articles about this particular case, and each of them seems to focus on slightly different details. I haven't seen a single one that has said that the homeowner couldn't afford to pay the annual fee. Everything I have read indicates that he knew he was asked to pay the fee, but chose not to pay it.
I see the phrase on this forum all the time: "How much is your life worth?" Well how about the lives of your family members and your pets? I'm guessing that for most people, their family is worth more than $0.21 per day.
If you can afford to keep a home and a family, I think you can afford to pay $0.21 per day to protect them against fire. Work an extra hour every couple weeks. Don't eat out so much. Get rid of the cable. Get rid of the internet. Trim the cell phone plan. Whatever it takes.
You can't crash your car and then expect an insurance company you've never paid before to replace it for you.
You can't undergo expensive medical procedures and then sign up for health insurance afterward, hoping they'll work it all out for you.
People take more offense to this situation than those because it is so much more visceral. If a faceless company refuses to help you with bills, that's one thing: they aren't usually there to witness the problem, however.
But just because fire service is a given in many areas of the country, does not mean it is the case everywhere. This is actually not the first time I've read a story like this. The last time I read about it, the result was the same: smoldering foundation. And in that last case I read about, these annual fees were the only funding that department in question got. I have no idea how much this department makes and where all that money comes from, so I have no idea if the same ideas are applicable. I do know that annual protection fees like this aren't uncommon in areas with very sparse populations.
I have very mixed thoughts as to how the fire department should have responded. As far as I'm concerned though, this homeowner has no one but himself to blame at the end of the day.
Kinda like the mob does extortion. Break some guy's arm cause he didn't pay and then everybody else will... I hope their children's faces are burned off while playing in a field outside of city limits.
Nobody's mentioned the 3 dogs and 1 cat that were trapped inside and burned to death even after the owner and the neighbor volunteered to pay for the assholes to put out the fire.
Or like refusing to pay for health insurance and then trying to get on a plan right after you get diagnosed with cancer (after not chipping in for years), then wondering why they say "no." Or like trying to buy life insurance for the first time when you're 85 and wondering why nobody will write you a policy.
You think he hasn't paid any property or other taxes that would normally include emergency services? The difference is the insurance company isn't stealing your money, deducting taxes, from your check to give it to others withour your permission.
You think he hasn't paid any property or other taxes that would normally include emergency services? The difference is the insurance company isn't stealing your money, deducting taxes, from your check to give it to others withour your permission.
I don't think a lot of people are familiar with rural areas. I live in Middle TN and setups where you have to opt-in to services isn't uncommon, Fire Department included.
We don't have police (just a county sheriff). We don't even have trash pickup in my neighborhood. Heck, the only local restaurant in my town is 80+ years old. It's not bad - just saying most people from urban/suburban areas or Northern states don't always understand that this is normal for a lot of people.
Luckily I only live 12 miles from the city limits of Murfreesboro (huge college town). That 12 miles means I have really low taxes and I can shoot my rifles in my backyard, but it also means I don't have a lot of the amenities and services that people within city limits have.
I don't think a lot of people are familiar with rural areas. I live in Middle TN and setups where you have to opt-in to services isn't uncommon, Fire Department included.
Thanks for the insight. You are correct... I've always lived in or on the outskirts of a decent sized city.
His locality doesn't have a fire department, so no, he hasn't paid for that. He chose not to buy into the neighboring locality's department. It's sort of like what would happen if I stopped paying my natural gas bill to the city near me that supplies gas to my home in the county - they'd shut it off.
I'm not following your analogy here. This guy's taxes aren't supporting the fire department that didn't put out his house fire. The department was funded and run by another jurisdiction, and he and the people in his area could opt in to response coverage by paying the fee.
I get what you're saying... Mostly it pisses me off that they stood around right there with their thumbs up their asses rather than doing something with the taxpayer provided equipment that they had at their disposal.
Did you watch the report I linked to on the last page? It specifically states, in several different places, that the proposal for a County wide FD would NOT require people to pay a monthly fee or subscription.
SW-Shooter
10-06-10, 17:43
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101005/pl_yblog_upshot/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate
Personally I agree w. the Fire dept., this guy was a cheap ass and brought his own misfortune upon himself imho. This was just crazy to hear about so I figured I would post it up:)
Obviously you've never taken an oath. Just wanted to get your attention. When you work in the public safety sector you have a responsibility to actually do so without any expectations of personal gain. These Firefighters were wrong, they should all be reprimanded and the person in charge should be fired. Do we really want to revert to that time period?
ETA: This is the kind of bribery and graft that was prevalent in the early years of this country, and was accurately depicted in the gangs of New York.
Did you watch the report I linked to on the last page? It specifically states, in several different places, that the proposal for a County wide FD would NOT require people to pay a monthly fee or subscription.
That video is misleading. Either it's the same county proposing a FD that doesn't exist yet, or it's in a different county than the one that came to his home.
The fact it's an opt-in department means it doesn't cover his area, so it's done on an individual basis.
Moose-Knuckle
10-06-10, 19:06
Anyone can sue anyone in this country, hire the right attorney to do the digging and he can sue and win money for the lack of action by the FD.
Anyone can sue anyone in this country, hire the right attorney to do the digging and he can sue and win money for the lack of action by the FD.
No. :rolleyes:
PrivateCitizen
10-06-10, 19:49
It might be worth adding that if people were screaming inside I doubt the axe-men would have stood idly by.
People in danger of death becomes a moral obligation …
In this case the FD shows up, owner knew he hadn't paid in and wanted to buy in while on with dispatch. FD sees no person in mortal danger. They let the owners property burn.
He knew better and F'd up. He needs to own his own decisions.
TDB.
I wish all Government services were so flexible.
There are a ton of programs dedicated entirely to deadbeats that couldn't exist under such a system. SO MANY programs that I would opt out of. Police/Fire/EMS wouldn't be among the ones I would refuse to pay for however.
I don't think a lot of people are familiar with rural areas. I live in Middle TN and setups where you have to opt-in to services isn't uncommon, Fire Department included.
We don't have police (just a county sheriff). We don't even have trash pickup in my neighborhood. Heck, the only local restaurant in my town is 80+ years old. It's not bad - just saying most people from urban/suburban areas or Northern states don't always understand that this is normal for a lot of people.
Luckily I only live 12 miles from the city limits of Murfreesboro (huge college town). That 12 miles means I have really low taxes and I can shoot my rifles in my backyard, but it also means I don't have a lot of the amenities and services that people within city limits have.
Exactly! For seven years (2001-2008), I lived in rural Dyer County (next county south from Obion County). We had the same deal with the City of Dyersburg - pay the $75 subscription fee and the City FD would come fight fires on your property. Don't pay, and you're at the mercy of the local volunteer FD (actually, ours was nearby & pretty good). We paid every year, fortunately never needed the service.
We paid no city tax, had no city utilities, rural electric co-op, etc. Dyer County tax covered very little beyond schools, road maintenance and Sheriff's Dept. Remember - TN has no state individual income tax (except on interest & dividends), so most funds come from property taxes.
If the tightwad in question had any brains, the $75 subscription fee is more than offset by the reduction in the cost of homeowner's insurance for those that subscribed.
There's probably more to the story anyway. Probably some ol' boy got his ass up on his shoulders and refused to pay the fee. Bet there was a long-standing disputin' going on between him and the county. House burned, now he's all butt-hurt about it. Welcome to country life, Bubba...
If any FD sat around and didn't do their job while my animals were trapped inside I would be in jail for murder.
I dont see how they can get away with it. Where do his property taxes go? I find it hard to believe that the department is not funded with his money somehow.
The "victim" lives in an unincorporated section of his county. The county has 5 municipalities. Each has their own fire dept that is funded through property taxes. The county neither collects for nor provides fire service. The cities will provide service to those areas, but its not for free. County residents have the option of paying $75 per year ($0.21 per day) and $500 per incident to get protection from one of the cities. This is done because they FD (and the city) need to cover their costs for providing this service.
Now for some facts about the "victim". This is not the first time that he has called for FD services and not been current. His claim that he was on vacation when the checks came in does not wash. All he had to do was make the payment late. In fact he is on record for not paying the fee for several years. Then there is the illegal burn he was doing on his property. From my understanding its not like the burn was done next to the house. There was a fair bit of distance between the two. With that in mind I am willing to bet that he started the illegal fire, it got out of control, he tried to fight it and keep it quiet, he realized that he was SOL, THEN he called the FD.
As far as I have been able to tell the FD did ask if any human lives were in danger and that when told that there was no such danger the FD simply told him something along the lines of being ready to provide pro bono services to save a life, but not property.
This is a classic case of someone not being responsible for their own well being and then wanting the gub'mint to save him from his own stupidity. This is the mindset that is helping to kill this nation.
Or like refusing to pay for health insurance and then trying to get on a plan right after you get diagnosed with cancer (after not chipping in for years), then wondering why they say "no." Or like trying to buy life insurance for the first time when you're 85 and wondering why nobody will write you a policy.
Great example.
I read the article and came away with the understanding that the house was on fire for quite a while BEFORE Mr. Homeowner decided to call the fire department as he had been fighting it with a garden hose before calling. I imagine that the house was either fully engulfed, or close to it when the fire department arrived on scene. At that point preventing spread to adjoining or nearby structures is always the priority over wasting time, water, and manpower on what is a essentially a lost cause.
$75 bucks is nothing. At our old house the subscription fee to the Rural Metro Fire Dept was $300 per year. The homeowners insurance wouldn't pay out if you didn't purchase it and suffered property loss in a fire. We paid it.
Look at the poll....awesome divide of opinions on this matter...very enjoyable to read all the feedback, thanks for weighing in to all those who have.
eta....the guy is still a cheap ass that paid the cost to be the boss;)
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 01:39
That county fire department gets general tax dollars.
Its not morally right to tax people to provide a service, and then refuse to provide that service because they didn't pay a little kicker on top. Its also morally repugnant they would watch a family's home burn over $75 dollars. I hope they slept good that night. I have some other choice words but Ill keep my fingers off those keys....
Edit: I should also mention with the loss of that home next year the property value is going to cost the county more than that $75 dollars he didn't pay. Worth it? They just lost more money, and are going to go to court over it with what...? $250/hr lawyers? But heh its just people's homes who pay taxes, and tax dollars going to some lawyers.
Everyone assumes that this guys house was savable when the FD arrived, I argue that it probably was already a loss when they showed up.
Remember, most rural fire units must show up with a ladder truck and a rescue engine/pumper. A pumper usually has a 1000-2000 gallon water tank. That is all the water there is and it goes really fast out of a couple of two inch hoses.
What do you do with a 1000 gallons when there is no hydrant to hook to? Piss it away on the total loss or use that water to prevent the spread of fire to other structures? It's easy; you cut your losses and save what you can.
Sure, this guy is pissed he lost his house but that is his fault. He fought the fire with a garden hose BEFORE he called the FD. He can't fault them for arriving at an unwinnable situation of his creation and then they chose to prevent the spread of the fire to his neighbors; they did what they could.
That county fire department gets general tax dollars.
Its not morally right to tax people to provide a service, and then refuse to provide that service because they didn't pay a little kicker on top. Its also morally repugnant they would watch a family's home burn over $75 dollars. I hope they slept good that night. I have some other choice words but Ill keep my fingers off those keys....
Edit: I should also mention with the loss of that home next year the property value is going to cost the county more than that $75 dollars he didn't pay. Worth it? They just lost more money, and are going to go to court over it with what...? $250/hr lawyers? But heh its just people's homes who pay taxes, and tax dollars going to some lawyers.
It wasn't his county's fire department, it was a neighboring city's. This means that, whatever this guy payed in taxes (his property tax was WELL under $500 / year), $0 of it went to the FD.
Again, I live in TN, in a rural area with a similar setup. These aren't big cities with big budgets, these are small towns offering services to people way out in the country because their county in general can't support a county-wide FD. It isn't an issue of a county or city not helping one of its citizens, it's simply another city not giving aid to a someone outside its limits, nothing more. Yeah, it means you have to pay for a lot of services, but it also means you don't pay for what you don't need and the cost of living is relatively MUCH lower.
This guy thought he could get away with not needing FD coverage. He realized he was wrong and tried to game the system, much like someone else described with an uninsured trying to get healthcare coverage at the last second. It doesn't work like that.
He can't sue them any more than anyone else could sue one of you guys for not helping them take out a mugger, knowing you CCW'd. The mid-south states have things like this happen all the time and, while it might seem outrageous to you city/urban/suburban folks, it's an every-day way of life here (outside of the major cities anyway).
It wasn't his county's fire department, it was a neighboring city's. This means that, whatever this guy payed in taxes (his property tax was WELL under $500 / year), $0 of it went to the FD.
Again, I live in TN, in a rural area with a similar setup. These aren't big cities with big budgets, these are small towns offering services to people way out in the country because their county in general can't support a county-wide FD. It isn't an issue of a county or city not helping one of its citizens, it's simply another city not giving aid to a someone outside its limits, nothing more. Yeah, it means you have to pay for a lot of services, but it also means you don't pay for what you don't need and the cost of living is relatively MUCH lower.
This guy thought he could get away with not needing FD coverage. He realized he was wrong and tried to game the system, much like someone else described with an uninsured trying to get healthcare coverage at the last second. It doesn't work like that.
He can't sue them any more than anyone else could sue one of you guys for not helping them take out a mugger, knowing you CCW'd. The mid-south states have things like this happen all the time and, while it might seem outrageous to you city/urban/suburban folks, it's an every-day way of life here (outside of the major cities anyway).
This is an excellent summany imho.....My interpretation is that the FD in the case got ZERO tax dollars from this cheap skate.
We are not talkin Manhattan here but Bum****Egypt....Firemen actual deserve every red damn penny they can get from JQ Public, thereby this cheapass just should of ponied up for the overall good cause and service. If this guy would have called 911 with a Heart Attack and the FD beat the actual EMS unit on the scene, you can bet your ass they would have performed emergency medical care..defib or whatever it called for.
variablebinary
10-07-10, 04:50
I can only speak for myself, but I would have fought that fire, fee or no fee paid.
That is the right thing to do. That is the ethical thing to do.
You have to be pretty messed up to watch someones life burn down, and you had the means to make a difference, but chose to sit back with popcorn.
Integrity, and selfless service...
Sometimes what YOU do, is far more important than what someone else does. Lord knows, that guy probably would have wrote the FD a check ten seconds after, and been their biggest supporter after.
It's like someone's sig line, you are what you do when it counts.
It might be worth adding that if people were screaming inside I doubt the axe-men would have stood idly by.
TDB.
They seem to have no problem letting animals die. I question if they would have cared if it had been a person instead.
Once again this was not a private organization. It is a government organized and sanctioned Fire Department. And even if it had been private I don't feel it should have mattered. I feel that if you are in a situation to help someone in need you have a moral obligation to do so. I don't think a single person here would stand idly by while someone was hurt or in peril mere feet in front of them. I am also willing to bet that if a neighbor or friends house was on fire most, if not all of you, would lend a hand if you could.
These people were not only nearby where they could have helped, they had the tools and training to do it. Yet they stood around and went Haha no pay no play.
Another thing. I see a lot of people saying that this guys tax dollars don't go towards that FD so screw him. But that isn't how it works. You pay taxes you get the benefits. The largest chunk of my taxes goes towards Schools. Yet I have no children and if I did I would not send them to public schools. So I should get that money back correct? Also a more direct analogy, a few years ago there was a major fire in the downtown of the closest city to me (~20 miles away) every FD in the area, including those from a neighboring state, rolled out. Of the 3 or 4 FDs on site only one actually got the tax dollars of the businesses that were burning down. Funny enough I didn't see a single Firefighter standing around watching the places burn.
They actually did their job, unlike these guys.
I can only speak for myself, but I would have fought that fire, fee or no fee paid.
That is the right thing to do. That is the ethical thing to do.
You have to be pretty messed up to watch someones life burn down, and you had the means to make a difference, but chose to sit back with popcorn.
Integrity, and selfless service...
Sometimes what YOU do, is far more important than what someone else does. Lord knows, that guy probably would have wrote the FD a check ten seconds after, and been their biggest supporter after.
It's like someone's sig line, you are what you do when it counts.
Your a stand up cat doing it for personal reasons such a self pride, dedication to your personal work ethic, etc....however I cannot say that morality plays into this equation considering life nor limb was at stake or was harmed by letting the house finish burning to the ground. It was not an ethical delimma the fire cheif faced imho, but rather a fiscal dilemma and prob. a bit of personal emotions on behalf of a abused Fire Chief tired of putting his fireman's lives on the line for some cheap ass who refuses to pay for arguably the finest service on earth....9-1-1.
I just think that ethics or morality are staining this argument and do not really have much merit in the above topic as I believe most of us here would give aid to the sick or hurt/dying and all prob. have a moral compass pointing north....so with that said, a house is always a possession and never a life or limb.
Burn, Baby, Burn:sarcastic:
ColdDeadHands
10-07-10, 07:06
IMO he should have paid but it is really about doing the right thing. How can the FD just stand by and watch his house burn down?
The "victim" lives in an unincorporated section of his county. The county has 5 municipalities. Each has their own fire dept that is funded through property taxes. The county neither collects for nor provides fire service. The cities will provide service to those areas, but its not for free. County residents have the option of paying $75 per year ($0.21 per day) and $500 per incident to get protection from one of the cities. This is done because they FD (and the city) need to cover their costs for providing this service.
Now for some facts about the "victim". This is not the first time that he has called for FD services and not been current. His claim that he was on vacation when the checks came in does not wash. All he had to do was make the payment late. In fact he is on record for not paying the fee for several years. Then there is the illegal burn he was doing on his property. From my understanding its not like the burn was done next to the house. There was a fair bit of distance between the two. With that in mind I am willing to bet that he started the illegal fire, it got out of control, he tried to fight it and keep it quiet, he realized that he was SOL, THEN he called the FD.
As far as I have been able to tell the FD did ask if any human lives were in danger and that when told that there was no such danger the FD simply told him something along the lines of being ready to provide pro bono services to save a life, but not property.
This is a classic case of someone not being responsible for their own well being and then wanting the gub'mint to save him from his own stupidity. This is the mindset that is helping to kill this nation.
Great example.
After reading a little more in a few places, it does seem to fall more on the guy, but the whole "subscription" thing still seems ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous to have to sign up and pay for a service that you are not otherwise entitled to - and this guy isn't entitled to it because he doesn't live in the juridiction that funds and organizes the fire department.
Do you expect Merry Maids to come clean your house just because you call them and tell them it's dirty when they require a paid contract?
Ridiculous in many ways, one being that this is nonstandard relative to what I have seen/am used to. My local department is funded from my taxes (one way or another) and is all volunteer. This has been the same way in the last 4 residences I have lived in.
So this rises to the level of "ridiculous" just because it doesn't match your narrow, provincial world view based on the 4 places you've lived? Also, what part of this guy's taxes didn't fund the department and that's why he was supposed to pay a user fee did you miss?
I didnt miss that, but I would rather see it come out from taxes (assuming he is forced to pay taxes of sort) rather than 4 different departments running after subscription fees and presenting people bills. In this case, he got exactly what he paid for...
It's been mentioned numerous times, but it's worth stating again: different localities will have different needs. They will have different budgets. They will have different logistical capabilities. This last point is one that I think really gets overlooked by some people.
Without trying to get into buzzwords, a more 'collective' approach makes a lot of sense in a city or other well-populated area. Not only will everyone be within quick response distance of a given fire station, but you can't just let a structure burn in a city: it is going to take an entire block (or more) with it.
But out in the country? Out in the middle of nowhere? Not only are the implications completely different for burning structures, but in many areas of this country, response times will be awful.
I think it would be much more ridiculous to say, "Hey Jim - we are going to force you to pay taxes to support a fire department that can't even reach you within 45 minutes."
With a fee system instead of mandatory taxes, the homeowner has a choice of how to spend his money and how to protect his family and investment. Maybe a landowner will decide that the fire department would be no help to him anyway, simply because of his remote location. "They can't make it to me in time to stop a fire anyway - why should I pay them anything?"
I don't see how it's ridiculous to therefore use a fee system in such places. Let the people decide what services they need.
Would it be ridiculous to use such a system in an urban center? Of course. But different areas have different needs.
Ridiculous in many ways, one being that this is nonstandard relative to what I have seen/am used to. My local department is funded from my taxes (one way or another) and is all volunteer. This has been the same way in the last 4 residences I have lived in.
I agree that it sounds crazy. I never had to deal with that until I found out that it cost us $300 a year for Fire Dept coverage at the previous house. When we purchased the house, it was made abundantly clear that this MUST be done in order for the insurance to cover us. In many small cities that are growing larger, there are many unincorporated/initially rural areas that don't have the larger services of a city. Eventually the city expands the area gets more populated, but the city government hasn't begun to take control of the areas services. The area we were in wasn't even rural, just a smaller town adjacent to Tucson.
I would have helped this guy, coverage or no coverage. Being a good human being demands it. Besides, they were already there at his neighbor's house. However, let's not all put the blame on the firefighters. On the "moral side", none of us would stand around and watch this guy's house burn down. On the other hand, most of us here believe in personal responsibility. This guy is a perfect example of someone who tried to game the system and lost. There are many articles on this describing that he refused to pay the annual fee for YEARS because he figured that he'd just pay them the $75 on the spot. How many of you would fault the auto insurance carrier for not covering you AFTER you got into a car accident? Hell, they could just take your measly premium right there at the accident and provide coverage too. Right?
But all of us are Monday monday morning QB'ing the situation. The Fire Dept has a primary responsibility to the paying customer, who they helped. Is it possible that many suggested, that by that time this man's house was declared a loss?
ForTehNguyen
10-07-10, 10:09
$75 bucks is nothing. At our old house the subscription fee to the Rural Metro Fire Dept was $300 per year. The homeowners insurance wouldn't pay out if you didn't purchase it and suffered property loss in a fire. We paid it.
pretty sure he didn't have home owners insurance either because of his non payment to the FD. Insurance wouldnt be that stupid to insure the house. Also the fact that if he didnt want to pay $75/year what makes anyone think he will pay homeowner's insurance.
pretty sure he didn't have home owners insurance either because of his non payment to the FD. Insurance wouldnt be that stupid to insure the house. Also the fact that if he didnt want to pay $75/year what makes anyone think he will pay homeowner's insurance.
He did have HOI according to the articles I have read.
Lots of information going around. I still stand by my opinion that these guys don't deserve to be Firefighters. I know in Indiana when you go through any kind of EMT or lifesaving training you are told that you have an obligation to help if at all possible.
I am as capatalist as anyone here. But I feel there are some services that the local, state, and federal government all should provide to the people. These include Police, fire, and BASIC Emergency medial help. Of course we pay for these things through our taxes so it isn't like it is free.
pretty sure he didn't have home owners insurance either because of his non payment to the FD. Insurance wouldnt be that stupid to insure the house. Also the fact that if he didnt want to pay $75/year what makes anyone think he will pay homeowner's insurance.
It's entirely possible he paid for insurance and then neglected to pay for the fire services. But then again, it's likely that they would require proof that he had fire coverage.
Well he probably felt that it was more important to pay $75 a month for his cell phone! :sarcastic:
ForTehNguyen
10-07-10, 10:18
something id like to know is how bad was the fire when the FD arrived? If it was already engulfing the house I dont think it would have mattered. Always a good idea to be careful what you are burning and keep fire extinguisher handy. Especially when you live out rurally.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 10:31
It wasn't his county's fire department, it was a neighboring city's. This means that, whatever this guy payed in taxes (his property tax was WELL under $500 / year), $0 of it went to the FD.
Again, I live in TN, in a rural area with a similar setup. These aren't big cities with big budgets, these are small towns offering services to people way out in the country because their county in general can't support a county-wide FD. It isn't an issue of a county or city not helping one of its citizens, it's simply another city not giving aid to a someone outside its limits, nothing more. Yeah, it means you have to pay for a lot of services, but it also means you don't pay for what you don't need and the cost of living is relatively MUCH lower.
This guy thought he could get away with not needing FD coverage. He realized he was wrong and tried to game the system, much like someone else described with an uninsured trying to get healthcare coverage at the last second. It doesn't work like that.
He can't sue them any more than anyone else could sue one of you guys for not helping them take out a mugger, knowing you CCW'd. The mid-south states have things like this happen all the time and, while it might seem outrageous to you city/urban/suburban folks, it's an every-day way of life here (outside of the major cities anyway).
Again I looked up the stats and that county and the people in that county get around 100,000,000 a year just in Federal tax dollars.
I don't really care if he paid for it or not. They rolled out there, and for what? To watch the show?
I think its a real sucky thing to do to not help despite the $75 bucks.
Littlelebowski
10-07-10, 10:33
It would have been much better publicity for the FD to fight the fire and pro rate it. It would have brought attention to their supposed funding woes.
I don't really care if he paid for it or not. They rolled out there, and for what? To watch the show?
They rolled out there to protect the neighbors property once it was threatened.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 10:33
Your a stand up cat doing it for personal reasons such a self pride, dedication to your personal work ethic, etc....however I cannot say that morality plays into this equation considering life nor limb was at stake or was harmed by letting the house finish burning to the ground. It was not an ethical delimma the fire cheif faced imho, but rather a fiscal dilemma and prob. a bit of personal emotions on behalf of a abused Fire Chief tired of putting his fireman's lives on the line for some cheap ass who refuses to pay for arguably the finest service on earth....9-1-1.
I just think that ethics or morality are staining this argument and do not really have much merit in the above topic as I believe most of us here would give aid to the sick or hurt/dying and all prob. have a moral compass pointing north....so with that said, a house is always a possession and never a life or limb.
Burn, Baby, Burn:sarcastic:
If its a fiscal issue they spent more than 75 bucks rolling out there.
Just filing a lawsuit against them will cost them more than 75 dollars even if it gets dismissed. They still have to pay a lawyer to prepare a case and show up in court. If it doesn't get dismissed they are going to be out thousands at the very least.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 10:35
They rolled out there to protect the neighbors property once it was threatened.
And now look like an ass to the rest of the country for watching this guys house burn down.
Edit: From what I understand the neighbors property was only put in danger because they watched this guys house burn down, and then the fire spread.
If its a fiscal issue they spent more than 75 bucks rolling out there.
Just filing a lawsuit against them will cost them more than 75 dollars even if it gets dismissed. They still have to pay a lawyer to prepare a case and show up in court. If it doesn't get dismissed they are going to be out thousands at the very least.
No, it is not this guys $75. It is ALL the $75 that no one would pay if they did not enforce the regulation on everyone.
You are totally missing the point.
And now look like an ass to the rest of the country for watching this guys house burn down.
Edit: From what I understand the neighbors property was only put in danger because they watched this guys house burn down, and then the fire spread.
The report I read mentioned that they did not roll until they got a call from the neighbor who was concerned about his property. The fire spread not because they were watching but because the guy spent time trying to fight it himself.
Again I looked up the stats and that county and the people in that county get around 100,000,000 a year just in Federal tax dollars.
I don't really care if he paid for it or not. They rolled out there, and for what? To watch the show?
I think its a real sucky thing to do to not help despite the $75 bucks.
I am really surprised at your attitude. You are the big personal responsibility champion on M4C and how we are being killed by a nanny govt yet you think this guy should get a pass? He should be your poster boy.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 10:48
No, it is not this guys $75. It is ALL the $75 that no one would pay if they did not enforce the regulation on everyone.
You are totally missing the point.
Which is why its stupid to have an opt in/out fee like this.
Does that fire dept benefit from tax dollars?
Moose-Knuckle
10-07-10, 10:50
No. :rolleyes:
Umm, anyone can have a suit brought against them in this republic of ours. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/011.gif
You've been listening to too much talk radio. Not how it works in the real world.
No I turned off the radio, unplugged the television set, and threw away the newspapers long ago as I don't buy into the propaganda. In the real world people, municipalities, counties, corporations, etc all are subject to litigation.
Fire Departments, whether they are municipal or "volunteer" have obligations, period. This is a cut and dry case of dereliction of duty.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 10:54
It will probably be a salaried local govt attorney who defends any ridiculous lawsuit, which will likely and hopefully be tossed on demurrer or MSJ early on.
This is much bigger than $75. This is sending a message to freeloaders that they can no longer be freeloaders, at least in that county. If the fire department showed up and put out the fire regardless of whether the household paid the fee, why would anyone every pay it at all? See the problem there?
Nope. Its public record that FD gets public tax money.
Nope. Its public record that FD gets public tax money.
The guy whose house burned was in a different tax jurisdiction and does not pay taxes that go to that FD.
Where is the personal responsibility in this? The guy chose to have a house in a jurisdiction that does not provide fire coverage.
He chose not to avail himself of fire coverage subscription from a neighboring jurisdiction that offered it to adjoining areas on an opt-in basis.
He chose to burn stuff in his yard in an unsafe manner.
From some reports he tried to fight the fire himself until it got out of hand and then he tried to call in fire coverage he was not eligible for from a neighboring jurisdiction to which he pays no taxes.
Where is the personal responsibility in this?
Fire Departments, whether they are municipal or "volunteer" have obligations, period. This is a cut and dry case of dereliction of duty.
No, it is a clear cut case of a guy who screwed up. The FD had no obligation to this guy. They are from a different tax jurisdiction even. It is like I have a fire in my house here in West Jordan and I expect the Salt Lake City fire department to put it out and I sue them if they don't.
Just filing a lawsuit against them will cost them more than 75 dollars even if it gets dismissed. They still have to pay a lawyer to prepare a case and show up in court. If it doesn't get dismissed they are going to be out thousands at the very least.
There won't be one. This is Tennessee, man.
A home burned down like this one last year. The guy called the fire department but they didn't come because he didn't pay the fees. No lawsuits were (or could be) filed.
There was a guy in the next county over a few months ago who had his home for sale. He shot a sheriff from the next county over who tried to enter the door after looking through the windows hours (mistaking him for a burglar). No charges were filed. The sheriff trespassed, even if it wasn't with malicious intent.
A black woman (of the riff-raff type) got stabbed last year and she ran into a gas station and collapsed on the floor, bleeding out. Several people walked by her to the checkout counter and no one stopped to help her (police and paramedics were called though). One woman even snapped a picture on her camera phone (I don't agree with this). They even showed the video from the gas station on the news. The family tried to sue the people who didn't help her - no judge would allow the lawsuit. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it happened.
We have a "it's your own responsibility" attitude out here. That's just the way it is. I'm hoping it stays that way for years to come.
CarlosDJackal
10-07-10, 11:40
"Good Samaritan Laws" protect people who render aid in good faith, in reasonable accordance with their level of training. It means that if a CPR-trained citizen tries to render CPR to an accident victim, that victim cannot later sue the caregiver because a few ribs were cracked in the process.
The laws exist to encourage "Good Samaritan" behavior by offering protection in our overly-litigious society. I am not aware of any laws that make Person X liable for any self-inflicted damages by Person Y, just because Person X was trained to offer assistance and did not...
FYI, it depends on the jurisdiction and how the law was written. Some Good Samaritan Law allows for the prosecution of individuals who opted not to use their training, knowledge or expertise to assist a fellow human being. The law basically REQUIRES you to act in your normal capacity (IE: EMT, Nurse, Doctor, CPR-certified card holder, etc.).
In other words, someone who is CPR certified decides that they would rather not get involved in helping out a heart attack victim; they can be prosecuted under the law. FWIW.
FYI, it depends on the jurisdiction and how the law was written. Some Good Samaritan Law allows for the prosecution of individuals who opted not to use their training, knowledge or expertise to assist a fellow human being. The law basically REQUIRES you to act in your normal capacity (IE: EMT, Nurse, Doctor, CPR-certified card holder, etc.).
In other words, someone who is CPR certified decides that they would rather not get involved in helping out a heart attack victim; they can be prosecuted under the law. FWIW.
The only law we have like that in TN is in regards to motor vehicle accidents. I'm not sure of the specifics, I'll have to read up on it.
Woof. ;)
Moose-Knuckle
10-07-10, 12:18
No, it is a clear cut case of a guy who screwed up. The FD had no obligation to this guy. They are from a different tax jurisdiction even. It is like I have a fire in my house here in West Jordan and I expect the Salt Lake City fire department to put it out and I sue them if they don't.
Most of my friends from high school all went FD after graduation where I went PD. I will have to ask them what their obligations are as they are all 10 + year veterans of their respective departments. As for LEO's they have to obtain a certification whether they are full time peace officers or reserves (aka volunteers). The certification comes from either the state in which they reside and work in or the feds if they are a federal LEO. If a LEO is off the clock and in a different city (aka different "tax jurisdiction") and there is a crime perpetrated in front of him then he has a legal obligation to act same as if he came upon a vehicular accident and witnessed injured motorist.
If I only helped people who payed taxes then I wouldn’t have a job.
If a LEO is off the clock and in a different city (aka different "tax jurisdiction") and there is a crime perpetrated in front of him then he has a legal obligation to act same as if he came upon a vehicular accident and witnessed injured motorist.
No he does not. What are you smoking?
The SUPREME COURT has already ruled on this.
Moose-Knuckle
10-07-10, 12:32
No he does not. What are you smoking?
You really can't stand it when people don't agree with you do you? :big_boss:
Moose-Knuckle
10-07-10, 12:37
I work every day in the real world of litigation, and while they are "subject to litigation," there are numerous substantive and procedural hurdles that make it much more burdensome and more difficult to prevail when you sue a governmental entity at any level. It's hard enough to win a bullshit, frivolous lawsuit against a private party (as it should be), it's damn near impossible to do it against the government.
Even the lowest bottom feeder of a plaintiff's lawyer isn't going to take this case, as he'd be working on a continent fee and 33% of $0 is $0 and wasted time.
The municipality in which I work in every day, as well as a few neighboring ones have an unwritten rule that they will settle out of court for ANYTHING as the only they care about is perceived public image.
As someone else stated, the FD would be out a little more than just the $75 if the home owner decides to sue.
You really can't stand it when people don't agree with you do you? :big_boss:
It has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing with me; it has everything to do with someone (you) spewing blatant misinformation.
The Supreme Court has ruled:
1) Police officers have ZERO obligation to individuals or their safety, nor are they required to protect them, only the public at large.
2) Police officers have ZERO authority outside of their jurisdiction (or rather they have the authority a common citizen would have), which virtually always ends at city limits unless they are actively pursuing a fugitive across those limits.
The SUPREME COURT ruled this, the final word on the law in this nation. Claiming that a police officer has a LEGAL obligation to protect someone else, especially outside their jurisdiction, is a blatant lie. The ONLY law that might apply is Good Samaritan laws, which do not apply to this case in Tennessee.
It has nothing to do with agreeing with me; it has everything to do with you making up crap to support what you would like to be the case.
The municipality in which I work in every day, as well as a few neighboring ones have an unwritten rule that they will settle out of court for ANYTHING as the only they care about is perceived public image.
As someone else stated, the FD would be out a little more than just the $75 if the home owner decides to sue.
I'll defer to the legal eagles among us, but I am not yet seeing where the FD had a legal duty to act/protect, and breached that duty.
(I still think they should have handled it differently, but they appear to be within the law.)
Can you provide an example, with a cite, for this proposition? I've never heard of this, and in fact this would be contrary to 100+ years of Anglo-American law as well as the very purpose of Good Samaritan laws.
Found a write up on it on Wikipedia. I used to live in Wisconsin, so I knew they existed, I just couldn't remember them exactly.
They're known as "Good Samaritan" laws, but legally are called "Duty to Rescue Laws." Here's the excerpt from Wikipedia:
Contrary to common law, eight states have laws requiring people to help strangers in peril: Florida,[10] Massachusetts,[11] Minnesota,[11] Ohio,[statute verification needed] Rhode Island,[11] Vermont,[11] Washington,[11] and Wisconsin.[statute verification needed] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person.[1] These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.[1]
Do you have something better than a Wikipedia entry full of "verification needed" footnotes?
I don't really consider that a reliable source of raw information, let alone correct interpretation.
Yeah, let me pull them up. I was hoping you'd let me take the easy route out and not have to dig for them :P Lemme find them.
Found one (of many):
Minnesota Stat. Ann. § 604A.01 - "Duty to Assist"
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=604A.01
What would they have done if a person was in the house and needed to be rescued?
The ambulance service in the town I work is a private company. They always respond. They offer yearly membership to people and if you need services they are covered completely for the annual membership. In all other cases the ambulance bills the person and or the automobile insurance in a crash case to cover their expenses. This fire department should have done the same. They could have billed the home owner and or his insurance company.
It is disgusting to see fire trucks and fire fighters watch a home burn over $75. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I wonder if the home owners insurance will refuse to cover the damages here because he did not pay the $75 fee.
ForTehNguyen
10-07-10, 14:02
I wonder if the home owners insurance will refuse to cover the damages here because he did not pay the $75 fee.
if there was a history of him not paying, then probably. Shows a lack of due diligence. If it was just some late payment, maybe they will cover.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 14:28
I am really surprised at your attitude. You are the big personal responsibility champion on M4C and how we are being killed by a nanny govt yet you think this guy should get a pass? He should be your poster boy.
No my point is if this FD is going to benefit from public tax dollars then they need to be there to serve everyone. If they need additional resources besides public tax dollars then they should hold fund raisers, ask for donations, increase the sale tax half a percent or whatever.
Either that or make it completely run off ZERO public tax dollars, and that means they operate like a private company. They pay road tax, fuel tax, ect. Then they can start denying people services.
I don't really care if he paid the 75 bucks or not because they benefited from his tax dollars in the past. If they don't want to provide a service over some additional fee then they don't deserve to benefit from his tax dollars in the first place. Don't tax people, make them help pay for the service you provided, and then deny them your service over 75 dollars.
Sure he should have paid the 75 dollars and had homeowners insurance. His mistake. However that doesn't excuse the FD from benefiting from this guys tax money, and then denying him what he helped pay for 75 dollars or not.
I think the FD and every other public service department should be held to a higher standard than joe blow homeowner.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 14:30
No, it is a clear cut case of a guy who screwed up. The FD had no obligation to this guy. They are from a different tax jurisdiction even. It is like I have a fire in my house here in West Jordan and I expect the Salt Lake City fire department to put it out and I sue them if they don't.
No...its a city FD who also provides rural service. Pretty sure the city benefits from the rural tax dollars that comes in as well as general tax dollars.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 14:33
Yeah - from the taxpayers in its jurisdiction. Not from the people who are asked whether they want to opt in and pay a fee, in the neighboring jurisdiction.
Where do rural people spend their money? In the city.
I grew up in a rural area, and our address still said what the closest town was. If we did any shopping we paid sales tax which benefited the city and helped pay for services.
No...its a city FD who also provides rural service. Pretty sure the city benefits from the rural tax dollars that comes in as well as general tax dollars.
sounds like that is a big and wrong assumption. Different jurisdiction. Different taxes.
---
on a different note, are you opposed to toll roads? Fees for entry to national parks? The roads are paid for by taxes as are the national park facilities...
No my point is if this FD is going to benefit from public tax dollars then they need to be there to serve everyone. If they need additional resources besides public tax dollars then they should hold fund raisers, ask for donations, increase the sale tax half a percent or whatever.
You are still not getting it. The guy lives in a different jurisdiction. He is not paying taxes that go to that FD. (As far as I can tell on the previous 2). He had the option to buy into their services nevetheless for $75 per year. He did not do so. He chose not to. It was his personal responsibility to take care of his own needs. He did not. He suffers the consequences.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 14:51
You are still not getting it. The guy lives in a different jurisdiction. He is not paying taxes that go to that FD. (As far as I can tell on the previous 2). He had the option to buy into their services nevetheless for $75 per year. He did not do so. He chose not to. It was his personal responsibility to take care of his own needs. He did not. He suffers the consequences.
So are rural people excused from paying sales taxes that go to the city when they are in the City of Obion?
Does the city get any grants from the county, state, or feds? I know the county gets around 50,000,000 a year in federal grants.
So you're telling me this city gets ALL of its money from only people who reside within the city, and from NOWHERE else. Not any rural people, higher government, ect? Most of this hole in the wall cities and counties would have nothing without lots of outside money...just like this Obion county getting close to 50,000,000 a year just in Federal grants. That doesn't include other Fed government spending, state spending, ect which is an easy $100,000,000 on top of that.
I don't really care if he paid the 75 bucks or not because they benefited from his tax dollars in the past.
Do you have anything to substantiate the claim that he paid taxes that supported the FD? Numerous posters in this thread have already expressed first-hand knowledge of US regions where fire departments require annual fees from smaller areas that do not pay them taxes. I have seen nothing at all to support the notion that this gentleman paid any taxes that went to this FD.
As for him possibly paying sales taxes while visiting the region that houses the FD? I don't find it to be a compelling argument. I travel to VA to visit family quite frequently and have spent a good chunk of change there in the past. No matter how much I spend, however, I can't demand their public services here in MD.
I don't understand the divide in logic that I'm witnessing in this thread. When other issues of taxes and public resources come up, the general attitude I see around here is, "F 'em!!" For example, if a news story airs about illegal immigrants, the majority opinion here is about how they shouldn't get crap, regardless of their work status, because they aren't playing by the rules. People talk about how illegals game the system, don't pay the right taxes, etc etc, and how they should be thrown out on their asses for burdening the system.
Then this guy comes along, who made a choice not to pay for a social service (that was based on an opt-in system), and a lot of people are suddenly saying he is a victim of the government.
I just don't get how those two philosophies can go together.
Either resources are finite, money matters, and people need to play by the rules...
Or money doesn't really matter, the rules don't really matter, and resources should be spread out as far as possible until they are too thin to spread any more.
I am sure that the FD would have gone in had humans been in the structure. It is very unfortunate that pets died, but we still don't know how far along the fire was when the call was made.
If I set my own house on fire, you can bet I'll be running in to get my pet out well before the FD shows up. Maybe a stupid move, but if I'm at fault then I'm gonna try my best to set it right by those under my care.
Frankly, even in my area where firefighting is covered by my taxes, I do not expect another man to risk his life to save my cat. Nice if he does, sure - but ultimately his life is worth more.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 14:57
Oh, ok. So if I live 1200 miles away and I stay at a hotel and eat at restaurants in a city (and pay local taxes on all of that), that entitles me to call their fire department to my house somewhere else, or send my kids to their schools?
If you're within their service area yes.
See things like police, fire, ems, ect. should be there to serve the public at large not just those people who pay their little fees even though they pay taxes that benefit these service providers.
If they want to do it like a pay for service or opt out then they need to be operating 100% on nothing but these fees not general tax dollars.
They are having it "both ways", and that is not right. It should be one way or the other. If they want to provide a public at large service (which they are not) then they stand to deserve to be funded with tax dollars. If they want to be a pay for service type operation then that is perfectly fine by me but they don't get a single damn penny from the general coffers everyone is contributing to. They also then need to be not tax exempt for anything, and treated just like a regular business. They pay vehicle licensing fees, fuel tax on their gas, sales tax for equipment purchases, ect. The full shabang.
I don't have a single issue with them denying savings someone house if its ONLY the people paying their fee that are funding them not everyone who pays taxes and/or spends money in Obion City.
variablebinary
10-07-10, 15:02
You don't watch homes burn down for $75
Some of my most racist friends from back east are Irish and Italian FDNY, and every single one of them would run into burning inner city projects and save people who are black, live on welfare, and sure as hell pay no taxes.
You're a fireman. Probably the most respected civil servant in the country. They shouldn't have let this happen. I would have pulled the $75 bucks out of my own pocket and ordered my guys to put that fire out.
So are rural people excused from paying sales taxes that go to the city when they are in the City of Obion?
Does the city get any grants from the county, state, or feds? I know the county gets around 50,000,000 a year in federal grants.
So you're telling me this city gets ALL of its money from only people who reside within the city, and from NOWHERE else. Not any rural people, higher government, ect? Most of this hole in the wall cities and counties would have nothing without lots of outside money...just like this Obion county getting close to 50,000,000 a year just in Federal grants. That doesn't include other Fed government spending, state spending, ect which is an easy $100,000,000 on top of that.
Are you really making this argument? You are much smarter than that.
You are equating the small amount of sales tax someone pays with the sales tax plus property tax and other taxes and fees that a resident of the city pays?
When they go to the city, the rural people use city services. Their sales tax is their contribution for those services. They have police protection, fire protection, and other emergency services while in the city. They also travel on city roads maintained by the city.
This guy did not live in the normal service area and was not part of the tax base. He has no right to fire service. He was extended the opportunity to subscribe to another jurisdictions service, where he does not pay taxes on a regular basis (property taxes etc whatever the main taxes are in that area) and he refused.
You are really claiming that someone has the right to demand services from the government and is not responsible for his own actions? The same argument the socialists use to provide healthcare, foodstamps, etc? Really?
You don't watch homes burn down for $75
Some of my most racist friends from back east are Irish and Italian FDNY, and every single one of them would run into burning inner city projects and save people who are black, live on welfare, and sure as hell pay no taxes.
And are within their jurisdiction.
You're a fireman. Probably the most respected civil servant in the country. They shouldn't have let this happen. I would have pulled the $75 bucks out of my own pocket and ordered my guys to put that fire out.
If you're within their service area yes.
See things like police, fire, ems, ect. should be there to serve the public at large not just those people who pay their little fees even though they pay taxes that benefit these service providers.
If they want to do it like a pay for service or opt out then they need to be operating 100% on nothing but these fees not general tax dollars.
They are having it "both ways", and that is not right. It should be one way or the other. If they want to provide a public at large service (which they are not) then they stand to deserve to be funded with tax dollars. If they want to be a pay for service type operation then that is perfectly fine by me but they don't get a single damn penny from the general coffers everyone is contributing to. They also then need to be not tax exempt for anything, and treated just like a regular business. They pay vehicle licensing fees, fuel tax on their gas, sales tax for equipment purchases, ect. The full shabang.
They are not having it both ways. The guys house was not in their jurisdiction. Period. They have no obligation to people who are not in their jurisdiction / regular field of service. The fact that they offer an extended service area for people who want to subscribe in no way obligates them to that whole service area. They cover their normal service area. Paying sales tax in a city does not make that city's FD liable for your house outside the city. That makes no sense.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 15:23
This guy's house wasn't within their service area. It was in another jurisdiction, and he was permitted to opt in for a fee. He didn't.
Again with the "both ways" thing...either they serve the area or they don't.
Why am I going to pay a fee if I'm going to get the service anyway? And how did this guy's tax dollars benefit the fire department when he doesn't live in their tax base?
Because rural people shop and buy things in the cities which helps pay for the services. They pay fuel, sales taxes, vehicle fees, and all kinds of other taxes which benefit the FD. What roads do the FD use? Are their vehicles tax exempt? Do they pay sales tax on equipment purchases?
The fee idea is lame, and stupid in the first place.
They provide a service to their jurisdiction, and as a courtesy, not an obligation, they allow people in an outlying area who do not pay their juridiction's taxes to pay to opt in.
Are rural people exempt from Obion City sales taxes? Do they pay a different rate than city residents? Who pays for the roads?
See the entire behind public service operations is they are there for the public at large because everyone contributes to pay for them. Go buy groceries in the city if you live in a rural area? You are helping pay for those services. Own a vehicle? you are helping pay for the roads. Government services are tax exempt which means they aren't paying sales taxes on items, they get gas without taxes added to it, ect. At least from everything Ive seen.
Again I don't have an issue with a pay for service type of operation but then they need to pay for everything with just the fees alone. If they want to benefit from tax dollars everyone is paying for then they need to serve everyone. It needs to be one or either not a mixture of both. Then you get this situation where general tax dollars are helping pay for this fire department but not everyone is benefiting from it (despite the 75 dollar rural fee). This gives us a cluster****, and no one likes a cluster****. You have general tax dollars going to help this FD out but they are not serving everyone. If they want everyone to help pay for their operation then they need to be there for everyone. By paying for their operation that means they are benefiting from tax dollars being used to build roads they use, them being most likely exempt from taxes everyone else pays, taxes people pay in the city from rural areas when they spend money there, and everything else.
The idea behind a public service is everyone helps pay for it, and then everyone benefits from it. If you're homeless you still pay sales taxes on items you buy yet the FD or PD will still help you the same as the millionaire who contributes thousands in taxes. If they want to be there to benefit on a select group of people for whatever reason (obligation or courtesy) then they need to get funding only from those benefiting from the service. No tax breaks, no general tax dollars, no nothing. When you no longer serve the public at large then you don't get the public at larges tax dollars either direct or indirect.
See the entire behind public service operations is they are there for the public at large because everyone contributes to pay for them. Go buy groceries in the city if you live in a rural area? You are helping pay for those services. Own a vehicle? you are helping pay for the roads. Government services are tax exempt which means they aren't paying sales taxes on items, they get gas without taxes added to it, ect. At least from everything Ive seen.
Again I don't have an issue with a pay for service type of operation but then they need to pay for everything with just the fees alone. If they want to benefit from tax dollars everyone is paying for then they need to serve everyone. It needs to be one or either not a mixture of both. Then you get this situation where general tax dollars are helping pay for this fire department but not everyone is benefiting from it (despite the 75 dollar rural fee). This gives us a cluster****, and no one likes a cluster****. You have general tax dollars going to help this FD out but they are not serving everyone. If they want everyone to help pay for their operation then they need to be there for everyone. By paying for their operation that means they are benefiting from tax dollars being used to build roads they use, them being most likely exempt from taxes everyone else pays, taxes people pay in the city from rural areas when they spend money there, and everything else.
The idea behind a public service is everyone helps pay for it, and then everyone benefits from it. If you're homeless you still pay sales taxes on items you buy yet the FD or PD will still help you the same as the millionaire who contributes thousands in taxes. If they want to be there to benefit on a select group of people for whatever reason (obligation or courtesy) then they need to get funding only from those benefiting from the service. No tax breaks, no general tax dollars, no nothing. When you no longer serve the public at large then you don't get the public at larges tax dollars either direct or indirect.
When this guy is in the city, buying stuff and paying his sales tax, he is covered by fire, police, EMS services and is driving on city streets. No one is denying him.
His house was not in the normal service area of the FD so he gets no service from them. He is in the extended service area but he chose not to participate.
It is very simple.
Because rural people shop and buy things in the cities which helps pay for the services. They pay fuel, sales taxes, vehicle fees, and all kinds of other taxes which benefit the FD. What roads do the FD use? Are their vehicles tax exempt? Do they pay sales tax on equipment purchases?
The fee idea is lame, and stupid in the first place.
Vehicle fees and fuel taxes generally go to the state, not the city FD. Most sales tax probably goes to the state as well though, at least in Utah, a city can add their own in if they want and I suspect other states are similar in that regard (at least some of them).
So very little if any of the taxes you mentioned probably go to the FD.
Try again.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 15:32
They are not having it both ways. The guys house was not in their jurisdiction. Period. They have no obligation to people who are not in their jurisdiction / regular field of service. The fact that they offer an extended service area for people who want to subscribe in no way obligates them to that whole service area. They cover their normal service area. Paying sales tax in a city does not make that city's FD liable for your house outside the city. That makes no sense.
Yep it sure does. They benefit from this rural people's tax dollars, and its unethical for a government body to deny service in an area they cover on a normal basis anyways (for any reasonable reason such as these fees).
Thats why I said its a dumb idea in the first place. For sake of clarity it needs to be one or the either. Either they are a true public service operation or they are not. Not a half way kinda thing based on if you pay us or not despite us benefiting from your tax money. Whoever came with that idea needs to be flogged.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 15:36
Vehicle fees and fuel taxes generally go to the state, not the city FD. Most sales tax probably goes to the state as well though, at least in Utah, a city can add their own in if they want and I suspect other states are similar in that regard (at least some of them).
So very little if any of the taxes you mentioned probably go to the FD.
Try again.
The state then gives out grants to lower governments to pay for these things.
Ive already been to the county website, and read their reports. Ive looked up other public data on their funding as well. Have you?
Just like in my city they are building roads like crazy with federal stimulus dollars.
Yep it sure does. They benefit from this rural people's tax dollars, and its unethical for a government body to deny service in an area they cover on a normal basis anyways (for any reasonable reason such as these fees).
The rural people do not pay taxes to the city and the taxes you mentioned, such as vehicle, sales tax, and fuel taxes are almost always state taxes and most if not all of that money goes to the state.
This guy lived outside the normal service area. He has no expectation of public services from a jurisdiction he is not part of. Period. This is so easy to understand. This FD does NOT cover his area as part of their normal operations. They offer an extended area on a pay to play basis. That is not unethical nor immoral. You might have an argument if this occurred within city limits.
Period. This is black and white in this case.
Thats why I said its a dumb idea in the first place. For sake of clarity it needs to be one or the either. Either they are a true public service operation or they are not. Not a half way kinda thing based on if you pay us or not despite us benefiting from your tax money. Whoever came with that idea needs to be flogged.
It is actually a smart idea. One that should be practiced more. Taxation is immoral -- we call it extortion when the govt is not engaging in it. Alternative systems set up that do not rely on forced extortion by the govt are preferable in the long run. Make people really responsible for their lives.
The state then gives out grants to lower governments to pay for these things.
Ive already been to the county website, and read their reports. Ive looked up other public data on their funding as well. Have you?
Just like in my city they are building roads like crazy with federal stimulus dollars.
This is all irrelevant. Your logic would mean that I should have claim on public school support from Arizona where I have paid lots of sales tax on visits. Or even better, since I pay Federal taxes and those taxes get bundled up and passed out as grants then my taxes are funding services in your part of Texas and I should be able to demand school services from your city or town or county. Same logic applies.
I don't have a problem with not responding but getting there with people and equipment and then doing nothing. Ouch! One way to protect the.house next door who paid would be to knock the fire down next door! This will be an interesting one to watch.
Belmont31R
You have not yet answered my questions about national parks and toll roads.
Those are paid for by taxes yet have fees attached.
What about citizenship paperwork? My wife paid income tax to the US for years but still had to fork out large fees to apply for citizenship.
How do you feel about these fees?
If you are entitled to public services outside your jurisdiction because they may receive your dollars indirectly via taxes, are you also entitled to private services, because they also benefit from your tax dollars indirectly? You cite Federal stimulus for roads, but plenty of people benefit from roads. Should I get free USPS services because they benefit from those roads? How about UPS or FedEx?
ShortytheFirefighter
10-07-10, 15:51
I figured that I might chime in on this, it's been going around in the firefighting circles as well.
Coming from a metro area department, I've heard of this type of arrangement but it's about as foreign to me as speaking Dutch. In our area, if it's burning we go. However, I can see the basis of this arrangement. Just because it sounds strange to me doesn't mean it's wrong. If that's the way it works around there, then it's how it works down there. I'm not going to judge them one way or another. That's the way they've decided to do things.
One thing I think needs to be cleared up right off the bat, the inital decision for responding likely didn't fall on the fire department but instead on the dispatcher. I'm sure that they have a notation in their CAD or a binder of locations that are or are not on the paid subscription list. They (the department) likely didn't even get the initial call, something that's hinted at but not actually said in the article. Calling 911 merely gets you to the dispatch center, they're the ones who make the decision on who goes. The FD didn't even know they had a fire until the dispatchers called them for the neighbors house. So those of you saying that they just went there and stood around need to stop and think about what was actually happening. What sense would it make for them to roll trucks if they knew beforehand that they wouldn't be doing anything? The article saying the firefighters refused to do anything is misleading. The dispatchers likely never even relayed the call.
As others have said, it sounds like it was a while before the department got called in the first place. It also takes a fair amount of time in a paid on call/volunteer department to get crews out the door, and if the homeowner was trying to put the fire out for some time before the department was called in the first place who knows how involved the house was. It was probably a loss well before they got there. The homeowner could also have devoted some time to getting his animals out, or at least block the doors open for them. I can also tell you that the survivability window drops pretty rapidly in a smoke filled environment. By the time those guys got there, the animals were probably long dead. It sucks, but the blame isn't on the department for this either.
No one has said how far gone the house was by the time the department showed up, either. If the house was already down to the ground, then the first priority isn't putting that out but rather protecting the viable structures around it, especially when you're working in a rural area with limited water. I'm not using my first due companies water supply on a lost cause when I can be using it to actively protect a viable structure. It takes time to set up draft tanks and get a tanker operation started and a supply chain in place. Even then, you're limited as to how much water you can actually flow. Also, I highly doubt that they were there just "standing around". I've seen that phrase get used on fire scenes before, even if crews are working their tails off.
Given the location, I'm going to assume that this was an older balloon frame farmhouse. For those of you not familiar with this type of construction, they burn extremely well due to the lack of vertical fire stops within the walls. Once a fire gets in there, it's going to travel. If this was a newer home with lightweight construction, then they're even worse. The biggest killer of firefighters out there is newer, lightweight construction. Instead of using nails, screws and lumber to put houses together the focus has shifted to laminates and composites that are usually glued together. They tend to give way without warning and very quickly compared to traditional construction.
Do I think they should have done more? I think they did what they could within the boundaries of what the local laws were. Not one person in this conversation was there and can tell us how much time was elapsed, how involved the house was, etc. Personally, I think they should've been called from the start (by dispatch) and make the arrangements to repay the fee and/or costs incurred by the FD to extinguish the fire. A clause in the contract where non-payment of the yearly fee means that the department will still show up, but the homeowner is liable for any and all costs incurred in the extinguishment/overhaul would probably be a better option.
I'm glad I'm not burdened by issues like this on my own department. I did find it interesting that some people were saying that if they were there, they'd have been putting the fire out. The chain of command exists for us just as it does for the military. We don't do anything unless our Chiefs, our Captains and our Lieutenants tell us to. Think of our SOP/SOGs (standard operating procedures/guidelines) as our sets of ROE. We may not like them at times, but thats what we have to operate under. I think a number of people in here have made their own assumptions as to how things went down and the department may be getting more blame than is really due.
Just my .02 and then some.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 15:53
This is all irrelevant. Your logic would mean that I should have claim on public school support from Arizona where I have paid lots of sales tax on visits. Or even better, since I pay Federal taxes and those taxes get bundled up and passed out as grants then my taxes are funding services in your part of Texas and I should be able to demand school services from your city or town or county. Same logic applies.
If you moved here you would be eligible for those services. You don't have to wait until you pay property taxes to have your kids attend school. If you were passing through, and never paid a single dime of taxes in TX our FD would still respond to you. Nobody would tell you to f-off because you haven't paid taxes here.
This is the entire idea behind public service. You serve the public at large.
A pay for service idea is different but then it needs to be funded with only payments for those services not general tax dollars at large.
Its pretty simple: benefit from tax dollars at large you need to serve the public at large.
And for the entire idea of the rural area not being their normal jurisdiction:
http://troy.troytn.com/Obion%20County%20Fire%20Department%20Presentation%20Presented%20to%20the%20County%20Commission.pdf
75% of the calls the municipal FD's in Obion County are rural areas.
And yes from what Ive read the county has given up funds for rural fire protection.
If you moved here you would be eligible for those services. You don't have to wait until you pay property taxes to have your kids attend school. If you were passing through, and never paid a single dime of taxes in TX our FD would still respond to you. Nobody would tell you to f-off because you haven't paid taxes here.
Bingo! If I moved there. If this guy in this case lived in the city he would have been covered too. Thanks for making my/our point.
Also, you are the one who brought up taxes as the key to his being due services.
This is the entire idea behind public service. You serve the public at large.
A pay for service idea is different but then it needs to be funded with only payments for those services not general tax dollars at large.
Its pretty simple: benefit from tax dollars at large you need to serve the public at large.
They do. In their city
And for the entire idea of the rural area not being their normal jurisdiction:
http://troy.troytn.com/Obion%20County%20Fire%20Department%20Presentation%20Presented%20to%20the%20County%20Commission.pdf
75% of the calls the municipal FD's in Obion County are rural areas.
So? That does not define their service area. The fact that they are municipal departments means that their service area is defined by the organization under which they are chartered, the municipality. The fact that the rural people have needs too and make use of the services to which they subscribe does not change that.
Did you read this:
The municipal fire departments which utilize a subscription service are not bound to and do not respond to fires on rural properties which do not have a subscription for fire service. The only rural property owners guaranteed to receive fire protection services are those who choose to pay for it. It they choose not to purchase an annual subscription and require fire protection services, they fall on the mercy of a municipal department who provide services on an as needed basis. When such occurs, the responding fire department normally provides those services without compensation.
According to survey information, over 75% of all municipal fire department’s structure calls are rural. All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas, but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal tax payer.
It lays it out right there. Service is at the expense of the municipal tax payer. Funding is limited and they set limits to what services they provide. Those limits are set to provide services within their municipalities. This is not rocket science.
And yes from what Ive read the county has given up funds for rural fire protection.
On paper the county has a FD. If they wanted it to be real, the people would make it real and set up funding for it. It is telling that it has not happened in the 23 years since it passed as a resolution.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 16:10
Bingo! If I moved there. If this guy in this case lived in the city he would have been covered too. Thanks for making my/our point.
Also, you are the one who brought up taxes as the key to his being due services.
They do. In their city
So? That does not define their service area. The fact that they are municipal departments means that their service area is defined by the organization under which they are chartered, the municipality. The fact that the rural people have needs too and make use of the services to which they subscribe does not change that.
Did you read this:
It lays it out right there. Service is at the expense of the municipal tax payer. Funding is limited and they set limits to what services they provide. Those limits are set to provide services within their municipalities. This is not rocket science.
On paper the county has a FD. If they wanted it to be real, the people would make it real and set up funding for it. It is telling that it has not happened in the 23 years since it passed as a resolution.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
You didn't read the entire thing nor my entire post.
You didn't read the entire thing nor my entire post.
I did read your entire post. And refuted the entire post.
I did not read all 37 pages of the county commission paper. No need to. I read the first part which talks about the NOW, and skimmed the rest which talks about plans for or need for a FUTURE county FD.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 16:18
I did read your entire post. And refuted the entire post.
I did not read all 37 pages of the county commission paper. No need to. I read the first part which talks about the NOW, and skimmed the rest which talks about plans for or need for a FUTURE county FD.
Then you missed the part about the county giving funds for rural fire protection to cover the entire county out of the city FD's.
Do some research. Follow the money. The conclusion you are reaching are based off incomplete data.
And yes the FD is DIRECTLY funded off city dollars. Where do city dollars come from?
How does the FD benefit indirectly off tax dollars?
Then you missed the part about the county giving funds for rural fire protection to cover the entire county out of the city FD's.
Except I did read that (or skimmed it twice at least). That is not how it CURRENTLY WORKS in the NOW. Or can you show a page number that shows otherwise?
Page 18 show Obion county has $0 fire budget currently (meaning when this report was written it seems as all the data is 2006 or 2007)
Do some research. Follow the money. The conclusion you are reaching are based off incomplete data.
I think yours are based on incomplete or faulty data. There is no data in the PDF you linked to that shows that the city FDs currently get money from the county.
Page 24 for example shows an example disbursement if the plan as outlined in the paper were to be implemented.
And yes the FD is DIRECTLY funded off city dollars. Where do city dollars come from?
How does the FD benefit indirectly off tax dollars?
From the tax payers in the city. Not the county. That is what the plan you linked to was planning on changing.
Shorty
Good response/info.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 16:56
Except I did read that (or skimmed it twice at least). That is not how it CURRENTLY WORKS in the NOW. Or can you show a page number that shows otherwise?
Page 18 show Obion county has $0 fire budget currently (meaning when this report was written it seems as all the data is 2006 or 2007)
I think yours are based on incomplete or faulty data. There is no data in the PDF you linked to that shows that the city FDs currently get money from the county.
Page 24 for example shows an example disbursement if the plan as outlined in the paper were to be implemented.
From the tax payers in the city. Not the county. That is what the plan you linked to was planning on changing.
I didnt say there was.
Again....are you saying 100% of the FD's budget comes 100% only from residents within the city?
What happens when a non city resident buys something in the city? Do they pay a lower sales tax rate?
Does the FD use roads not paid for by the city?
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 17:13
I can't be more clear.
If the city FD benefits directly or indirectly from tax dollars from residents within their normal service area (again 75% of their calls are rural which means that is their service area, too) then they have an obligation to provide a service for whoever is helping pay for their ability to provide such service.
If they want to pick and choose who to respond to then the people who do not get a response have no obligiation to help pay for their services in any capacity. That means sales taxes, road taxes, fuel taxes, anything at all.
If they expect people to help pay for the roads they operate on, pay sales taxes in their city (and their city is higher than the state sales tax...I looked that up too) then they have an obligation to help them when they can. If not then they (the FD) need to pay 100% of their own way. No benefiting from services like roads other people are paying for without paying for it themselves, too. They need to pay taxes on the money they take in to pay for things like fire hydrants.
There are a multitude of ways this FD is benefiting from public tax dollars....thus they have an obligation to provide service to everyone they can within their normal operating area (which includes both the city and rural areas).
What it boils down to is they want to take in the dollars they get, and use the things the tax money has paid for but dont want to pay for it themselves then get to pick and choose who they respond to.
If they respond to a rural area home who has paid the 75 dollars then they drove on county roads which this guy helped pay for. Who paid for the hydrants? Is the city getting money in other ways besides FD duties? Then that frees up money for the FD doesnt it. There is no doubt this FD is benefiting from tax money. They need to provide a service to everyone they can in their normal area (which, again, is both city and rural). If not then they become a business, and a business has to pay its own way within the tax laws. Then they can pick and choose and provide a service based on payment for such service. They can start paying taxes on their fees like a profit, start paying gas taxes, vehicle fees, ect.
I didnt say there was.
Again....are you saying 100% of the FD's budget comes 100% only from residents within the city?
What happens when a non city resident buys something in the city? Do they pay a lower sales tax rate?
Does the FD use roads not paid for by the city?
And how is this relevant?
None of these points are relevant.
The city owns the FD and has set their service area to be the city. The city tax payers pay for the FD.
The FD offers an optional service area for subscribers. It could not be more simple.
Sales tax has nothing to do with this and as has been mentioned multiple times before, sales tax is usually a mostly state thing, not a city thing.
The rural people can take advantage of fire, police, ems services that might be indirectly funded through their sales tax when they are within city limits. Again, this is not rocket science.
I can't be more clear.
If the city FD benefits directly or indirectly from tax dollars from residents within their normal service area (again 75% of their calls are rural which means that is their service area, too)
No. The rural areas are not their service area. The FD was set up and is funded by the city to service the city. This is indisputable fact. That document you linked to more or less says that.
The fact that some of the cities in the county offer a subscription service to rural areas, ie, a subscription service to an extended service area that has been defined as a subscription only area does not change this in the least.
then they have an obligation to provide a service for whoever is helping pay for their ability to provide such service.
Yep. Those people who pay the subscription fee. That document you linked to shows $0 fire budget in the county and no money going to the city FD from the county tax base. The rural county inhabitants are not financing the city FD except through incidental indirect means.
If they want to pick and choose who to respond to then the people who do not get a response have no obligiation to help pay for their services in any capacity. That means sales taxes, road taxes, fuel taxes, anything at all.
Those people are not paying for it Sales taxes, road taxes, fuel taxes are state level taxes in most areas and I would bet that TN is no different. Those taxes pay for all sorts of things that the rural inhabitants do get to use in terms of state services.
If they expect people to help pay for the roads they operate on, pay sales taxes in their city (and their city is higher than the state sales tax...I looked that up too)
If the city has a higher sales tax then that money may be earmarked for something specific (like our county has a few percentage points that make it higher than the state rate set for specific things like mass transit and arts programs == there may be some other local specific stuff too) or if used by the general fund, then the roads, fire - police - ems that the rural people use WHEN IN THE CITY VISITING etc are paid for by that incidental tax income that the rural people pay in sales tax when visiting the county. And the city people who visit the county and pay sales tax in the county area get the same sort of thing when visiting the county.
People do not get to pick and choose what their taxes are for and have no right for services from areas they do not reside in.
Again, that you are even arguing this amazes me as it is dead simple and logical that there is no obligation on the side of the city FD to service this guy who did not pay. This is not a new system and if it were an illegal thing then I am sure it would have been litigated long ago. This is a settled matter and your arguments do not make sense.
Especially coming from you based on other positions you have taken about freeloaders, forced govt services, taxes, etc.
then they have an obligation to help them when they can. If not then they (the FD) need to pay 100% of their own way. No benefiting from services like roads other people are paying for without paying for it themselves, too. They need to pay taxes on the money they take in to pay for things like fire hydrants.
There are a multitude of ways this FD is benefiting from public tax dollars....thus they have an obligation to provide service to everyone they can within their normal operating area (which includes both the city and rural areas).
Their normal operating areas do not include the rural areas. That is a fact. That is an extended operating area that is subscription only.
What it boils down to is they want to take in the dollars they get, and use the things the tax money has paid for but dont want to pay for it themselves then get to pick and choose who they respond to.
They are not picking and choosing. It is all laid out in ordinances/laws/regulations whatever they call them in that area.
If they respond to a rural area home who has paid the 75 dollars then they drove on county roads which this guy helped pay for. Who paid for the hydrants?
What hydrants. I seriously doubt that there are hydrants out in the rural area.
Is the city getting money in other ways besides FD duties? Then that frees up money for the FD doesnt it. There is no doubt this FD is benefiting from tax money.
No one is disputing that they benefit from tax money. PAID BY THE CITY TAXPAYERS WHO LIVE THERE.
They need to provide a service to everyone they can in their normal area (which, again, is both city and rural).
There is no evidence that their service area is both city and rural and ample evidence to support the opposite.
If not then they become a business, and a business has to pay its own way within the tax laws. Then they can pick and choose and provide a service based on payment for such service. They can start paying taxes on their fees like a profit, start paying gas taxes, vehicle fees, ect.
Please answer my questions about toll roads, national parks, and citizenship applications. All of which have fees associated with them even though the users of them generally have paid income taxes out the wazoo.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 17:41
And how is this relevant?
None of these points are relevant.
The city owns the FD and has set their service area to be the city. The city tax payers pay for the FD.
Nope they have set their service area to include the rural areas by their own choice.
The FD offers an optional service area for subscribers. It could not be more simple.
Then if someone choose not to subscribe then they are no longer on the hook for paying any taxes that benefit the FD in any single way.
Sales tax has nothing to do with this and as has been mentioned multiple times before, sales tax is usually a mostly state thing, not a city thing.
Key word...MOSTLY. Rural people are still helping fund the city FD.
The rural people can take advantage of fire, police, ems services that might be indirectly funded through their sales tax when they are within city limits. Again, this is not rocket science.
Nope. Within their normal service area which includes city and rural by the FD's own choice.
Funny you can words like "mostly" and "might" when it comes to the FD but when it comes to the citizen its either black and white. Try applying the same standard to the FD as you do the citizen. You'll come to the same understanding I have.
This citizen is helping pay for the services the FD provides, and thus they have a responsibility to him to give those services to him when he needs them. If they don't want to provide services to him then he needs to be under ZERO obligation to help them in any way. He needs a lower tax rate when spending money in their city, reduced property taxes so he doesn't have to help pay for the roads they use, reduced taxes so he doesn't have to help pay for the fire hydrants they use, the grants that benefit the city, ect.
If this is about principle (which has already been made clear) then principle needs to apply to both parties. They don't want to provide a service to him then he needs to not be responsible for helping them conduct their services in any capacity. ZERO. Black and white for both sides not just one. If they want to say f-you then he gets to say it right back, and not pay for them at all. Even if its a single penny. Its about the principle right and not about the dollar?
This is just a foreign thought to most of us. I know in my area and I am sure most of the country fire departments back each other up all of the time. They also have mutual aid agreements and have worked these things out ahead of time. They send their people and equipment all over the area, they get called and they go. I don’t think we are unique. The town bordering the village I work for contracts with our fire department and several others because they do not have a fire department. The money exchanged, if any, is dealt with much later. Money is obviously a serious issue for all of us.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 18:04
This is just a foreign thought to most of us. I know in my area and I am sure most of the country fire departments back each other up all of the time. They also have mutual aid agreements and have worked these things out ahead of time. They send their people and equipment all over the area, they get called and they go. I don’t think we are unique. The town bordering the village I work for contracts with our fire department and several others because they do not have a fire department. The money exchanged, if any, is dealt with much later. Money is obviously a serious issue for all of us.
I really don't have a problem with entire pay for service public functions but its needs to be 100% funded with those fees. Not pay most of it with tax dollars, and then deny service over some pidily extra fee on top of the taxes people are already paying.
Thats why Ive said the two don't mix. If you want to use public tax dollars to your benefit then everyone gets your services to your ability. If you don't then don't expect the tax dollars to roll in to fund to your operation.
If a business operates in an area they pay taxes to help fund the operation of their business. They only have to service those who pay for it. They pay for the roads they use in gas taxes, licensing fees, general taxes, ect. They also pay a tax on the money they take in. If a government entity wants to operate in the same way then they need to be subject to the same rules of a business, and pay their share of the costs. If they want the tax money and other benefits of being a public service operation then they need to serve the public at large. Right now they have the benefit of both but the negative of neither one. That is not right.
Further I also believe this to be along the lines of the old saying.."Taxation without representation." This guy is getting taxed but not getting any representation from the FD. Our founders went batshit revolutionary over some tea and stamps. This guys house burns to the ground while getting taxed to help pay for the services yet saw zero benefit.
And yes it is a foreign concept. Id be deeply ashamed of my city's FD if they did something like this. Letting 75 dollars get in the way of a family's house. Maybe its just me but I always thought the idea of public service included concepts like selfless service. That is the entire idea behind being a public SERVANT. You are choosing to give up something in exchange for doing the greater good a service. Every society needs such people to operate. If everyone has this same approach this FD did society would be MUCH worse off, and by becoming a public servant you are agreeing to such an ideology.
That is the basic premise of why we have government at all. To do things that people cannot do for themselves either as an individual or as a small group than government can do. Why we have a military. Because the people themselves would not be capable of the same thing a military would by themselves as individuals. Why we have police. Because the people could not do the same job as effectively or with the same grace.
Well said Belmont
We've been given some unfunded mandates here in VT in the past year and it is frustrating a hell. And health care reform, man that is a whole different issue! Making people buy something they don’t want.
They should not have messed with the Tea! I grew up in Massachusetts and remember well trips to the USS Constitution. I liked being able to throw the bail of "tea" overboard and haul it back up for the next kid.
This guy is getting taxed but not getting any representation from the FD.
Just because you keep saying it does not mean that it is true. He is not being taxed to pay for the FD. If he goes and spends money in that town, that is his choice.
Income Tax = no choice
Property Tax = no choice
FD Fee = choice
Sales Tax = choice (in the sense that you can choose where to spend your money)
You are saying that just because some money trickled down through indirect means, that gives full access to services.
By your logic, everyone should also have free access to full healthcare, full driving privileges, free education wherever they want, etc etc. If that's what you are arguing, that's fine, but call it what it is: socialism.
I bet you could trace some of the money I spend on consumable goods to some crazy things. Maybe the sales tax I spent went to some public coffer which eventually got routed to a hospital grant which paid for some expensive medical equipment.
By your logic, I should be able to just walk into the hospital and say, "Hey I want my free MRI scan now. What? You won't give me a free MRI? But I paid sales taxes! Taxation without representation!!!"
You are describing socialism. I don't understand how you aren't able to see your position for what it is.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 18:32
So we should get rid of toll roads, public universities, sewer and water systems, courts, DMV, many National Parks, and so on?
No. I said it should be one or the either not both. (And within context and proportionality.)
No. I said it should be one or the either not both. (And within context and proportionality.)
That was his point. Those things are all "both." Taxes go to parks, but parks charge fees. Roads uses taxes, but they also use tolls. I went to a college that gets massive amounts of public funding, but you can bet I still had to pay a huge tuition. Sewers use taxes, but I still have to pay a water bill. Courts use taxes, but there are still court fees. etc etc etc etc
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 18:38
That was his point. Those things are all "both." Taxes go to parks, but parks charge fees. Roads uses taxes, but they also use tolls. I went to a college that gets massive amounts of public funding, but you can bet I still had to pay a huge tuition. Sewers use taxes, but I still have to pay a water bill. Courts use taxes, but there are still court fees. etc etc etc etc
And my opinion is that it should be either one but not both.
I never said the way things are currently done is right.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 18:50
Just because you keep saying it does not mean that it is true. He is not being taxed to pay for the FD. If he goes and spends money in that town, that is his choice.
Income Tax = no choice
Property Tax = no choice
FD Fee = choice
Sales Tax = choice (in the sense that you can choose where to spend your money)
You are saying that just because some money trickled down through indirect means, that gives full access to services.
By your logic, everyone should also have free access to full healthcare, full driving privileges, free education wherever they want, etc etc. If that's what you are arguing, that's fine, but call it what it is: socialism.
I bet you could trace some of the money I spend on consumable goods to some crazy things. Maybe the sales tax I spent went to some public coffer which eventually got routed to a hospital grant which paid for some expensive medical equipment.
By your logic, I should be able to just walk into the hospital and say, "Hey I want my free MRI scan now. What? You won't give me a free MRI? But I paid sales taxes! Taxation without representation!!!"
You are describing socialism. I don't understand how you aren't able to see your position for what it is.
I never said how things are being run right now are right, and yes if you put taxes into something you should get benefit out of it.
No its not socialism. Socialism is an economic model that descrbibes worker and government owned means of production. Has nothing to do with public services which are common among all 3 of the major economic models (capitalism, socialism, and communism).
Tax dollars should be used to benefit the public at large. That was the original meaning of the general welfare clause. To do things, and pay for things that would be of benefit to everyone not just a select group of people. Its why I don't agree with welfare or anything else that doesn't directly benefit everyone if they so choose.
Funny you can words like "mostly" and "might" when it comes to the FD but when it comes to the citizen its either black and white.
??? What are you talking about. I do not have the complete set of ordinances, nor the books, nor tax facts and figures for this county in front of me so I have to use words like mostly and might. However, the concepts here are black and white. The county residents don't pay taxes in the city except on a peripheral basis and have no claim to city services outside the city.
Try applying the same standard to the FD as you do the citizen. You'll come to the same understanding I have.
?? Your understanding is wrong. The FD does not include the rural areas in its normal service area. This is made clear in that document you posted from the county. The cities provide FD services to their cities. They also have made the service available outside their city to people who want to subscribe. This is very clearly defining two different service areas.
And please do not make your responses RED inside a quote of mine. Break it up with the quote /quote marks -- not any harder than changing font color but much easier to respond too.
No, the county residents are not helping fund the city FD through sales taxes. This is a ridiculous statement. Besides the fact that most sales tax revenue goes to the states, the county residents, for their share of sales tax that they pay in the city that actually ends up in the city goes towards those services, conceptually speaking since the money ends up in a big pot most likely if it is not guaranteed to a specific fund like arts or transit or similar, and once in the big pot you cannot trace it. But when the rural county residents come to the big city they use the roads, they enjoy police/fire/ems protection, and other services that the taxes are used for while they are in the city. The amount of sales tax paid by any given county resident when visiting a city that stays in that city is probably quite small and not in the same order of magnitude as the total taxes paid to the city by the city residents.
This citizen is helping pay for the services the FD provides, and thus they have a responsibility to him to give those services to him when he needs them.
They do. When he is in the city. Which is where those taxes provide fire service.
If they don't want to provide services to him then he needs to be under ZERO obligation to help them in any way. He needs a lower tax rate when spending money in their city, reduced property taxes so he doesn't have to help pay for the roads they use, reduced taxes so he doesn't have to help pay for the fire hydrants they use, the grants that benefit the city, ect.
That is funny. Hilarious even. That you can say this with a straight face. Taxes are evil. But since we have them, the principal is, I believe, legally clear that a tax payer has no specific ability to designate where his taxes go.
The county resident pays no taxes in the city except peripherally through a sales tax when he is visiting. WHILE HE IS IN THE CITY he enjoys the services those taxes provide including fire/ema/police and roads and other services (if he takes a dump in a public restroom while there he uses the sewer services for example). Conversely, the city residents when they go to the county and buy stuff, pay sales tax, a small amount of which probably ends up in the county and is used for roads, sheriff, etc and the city resident gets to use the roads, enjoy police protection, etc while he is visiting the county.
If this is about principle (which has already been made clear) then principle needs to apply to both parties. They don't want to provide a service to him then he needs to not be responsible for helping them conduct their services in any capacity. ZERO. Black and white for both sides not just one. If they want to say f-you then he gets to say it right back, and not pay for them at all. Even if its a single penny. Its about the principle right and not about the dollar?
What you are trying to apply the black and white principle to is flawed. They DO provide him these services when he is within the service boundaries. Ie, in the city.
I really don't have a problem with entire pay for service public functions but its needs to be 100% funded with those fees. Not pay most of it with tax dollars, and then deny service over some pidily extra fee on top of the taxes people are already paying.
What about parks, citizenship applications, passports, toll roads, etc?
And btw, that is not what is happening in this case. The city has no obligation to provide fire service in the county but, as a service to the county, allows the county residents to subscribe to receive the service even though they are outside the service area. They do not have to do this (and some of the cities in that county do not do it according to that document you posted). They however do it to provide a service to the county people who are willing to pay for it since they do not seem to have other alternatives. I am sure that their cost to roll on a county fire is more than the $75 yearly fee plus the $500 incident fee they charge. This is not a money making endeavor I would bet. The fee is to partially offset the costs of offering the service to people who do not pay taxes in the city (except your "sales tax" argument which is minimal since sales tax is a small amount of money compared to other taxes and most of it does not stay in the city anyway)
Thats why Ive said the two don't mix. If you want to use public tax dollars to your benefit then everyone gets your services to your ability. If you don't then don't expect the tax dollars to roll in to fund to your operation.
Again, that is not what is happening. (Though it does happen in some areas -- I recently read articles about people who get bills from the police services for coming to their accident after someone calls 911 even if they are not needed or wanted).
This city does not seem to require that city residents pay fees in order to enjoy fire service. They provide fire services to the complete city. Only when they are asked to go outside their service area -- outside the area where the people are funding them through taxes -- do they charge a fee. Very simple.
If a business operates in an area they pay taxes to help fund the operation of their business. They only have to service those who pay for it. They pay for the roads they use in gas taxes, licensing fees, general taxes, ect. They also pay a tax on the money they take in. If a government entity wants to operate in the same way then they need to be subject to the same rules of a business, and pay their share of the costs. If they want the tax money and other benefits of being a public service operation then they need to serve the public at large. Right now they have the benefit of both but the negative of neither one. That is not right.
Further I also believe this to be along the lines of the old saying.."Taxation without representation." This guy is getting taxed but not getting any representation from the FD. Our founders went batshit revolutionary over some tea and stamps. This guys house burns to the ground while getting taxed to help pay for the services yet saw zero benefit.
This guy is not getting taxed. The county pays $0 to the city for fire services according to that document you posted and the city does not collect property tax or other taxes from the guy. He may pay a small amount of taxes that end up in the city if he chooses to buy things in the city and pays sales tax, the majority of which goes to the state, not the city, but while he is in the city, he enjoys the same protections. If this guy's car were to catch fire while he was in the city, I would safely bet that the FD would come to handle it, even though he was a county dweller and not a city dweller.
And yes it is a foreign concept. Id be deeply ashamed of my city's FD if they did something like this. Letting 75 dollars get in the way of a family's house. Maybe its just me but I always thought the idea of public service included concepts like selfless service. That is the entire idea behind being a public SERVANT. You are choosing to give up something in exchange for doing the greater good a service. Every society needs such people to operate. If everyone has this same approach this FD did society would be MUCH worse off, and by becoming a public servant you are agreeing to such an ideology.
The FD is not a public service in the county. It is a subscription service. It is only a public service in the city that funds it.
That is the basic premise of why we have government at all. To do things that people cannot do for themselves either as an individual or as a small group than government can do. Why we have a military. Because the people themselves would not be capable of the same thing a military would by themselves as individuals. Why we have police. Because the people could not do the same job as effectively or with the same grace.
The county could have a FD if they wanted to or make official plans to get the city to cover them and pay for it through taxes if they wanted to. In fact that document you posted shows they have been talking about it for something like 23 years but have not gotten around to implementing it. Must not be a high priority.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 19:50
Ok whatever.
Ive already expended too much energy on this.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 20:05
??? What are you talking about. I do not have the complete set of ordinances, nor the books, nor tax facts and figures for this county in front of me so I have to use words like mostly and might. However, the concepts here are black and white. The county residents don't pay taxes in the city except on a peripheral basis and have no claim to city services outside the city.
They pay some taxes but have no claim. Sounds like a winning combination. But if they just pay a little more to this government then they do get services. What a ****ed up idea.
?? Your understanding is wrong. The FD does not include the rural areas in its normal service area. This is made clear in that document you posted from the county. The cities provide FD services to their cities. They also have made the service available outside their city to people who want to subscribe. This is very clearly defining two different service areas.
Yet all the residents of the rural areas pay taxes to fund the roads this FD provides it service for "subscribers" yet the FD pays no taxes to help pay for these roads they use. Maybe the county should impose a toll on every fire truck to help pay for the roads?
And please do not make your responses RED inside a quote of mine. Break it up with the quote /quote marks -- not any harder than changing font color but much easier to respond too.
Ill respond how I want to. Respond or not. I don't really care.
No, the county residents are not helping fund the city FD through sales taxes. This is a ridiculous statement. Besides the fact that most sales tax revenue goes to the states, the county residents, for their share of sales tax that they pay in the city that actually ends up in the city goes towards those services, conceptually speaking since the money ends up in a big pot most likely if it is not guaranteed to a specific fund like arts or transit or similar, and once in the big pot you cannot trace it. But when the rural county residents come to the big city they use the roads, they enjoy police/fire/ems protection, and other services that the taxes are used for while they are in the city. The amount of sales tax paid by any given county resident when visiting a city that stays in that city is probably quite small and not in the same order of magnitude as the total taxes paid to the city by the city residents.
So when rural residents spend money in the city that doesn't help fund the FD?
Most does not equal all.
They do. When he is in the city. Which is where those taxes provide fire service.
And helps fund their adventures in the rural areas to "subscribers".
That is funny. Hilarious even. That you can say this with a straight face. Taxes are evil. But since we have them, the principal is, I believe, legally clear that a tax payer has no specific ability to designate where his taxes go.
Nope.
The county resident pays no taxes in the city except peripherally through a sales tax when he is visiting. WHILE HE IS IN THE CITY he enjoys the services those taxes provide including fire/ema/police and roads and other services (if he takes a dump in a public restroom while there he uses the sewer services for example). Conversely, the city residents when they go to the county and buy stuff, pay sales tax, a small amount of which probably ends up in the county and is used for roads, sheriff, etc and the city resident gets to use the roads, enjoy police protection, etc while he is visiting the county.
So when is the FD going to help pay for the rural roads they use?
What you are trying to apply the black and white principle to is flawed. They DO provide him these services when he is within the service boundaries. Ie, in the city.
And he helps pay their services outside the city even though he doesn't benefit from them.
Mine in red.
Mine in red.
factually incorrect assessment of the situation.
And that RED bit is obnoxious.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 20:16
factually incorrect assessment of the situation.
And that RED bit is obnoxious.
Whatever you want to believe.
Whatever you want to believe.
I don't care if you write your own postings in red. The obnoxious part is using quotes wrong and then littering it with your red replies.
It has nothing to do with what I believe. It has to do with the facts of the matter.
Moose-Knuckle
10-07-10, 21:02
You don't watch homes burn down for $75
Some of my most racist friends from back east are Irish and Italian FDNY, and every single one of them would run into burning inner city projects and save people who are black, live on welfare, and sure as hell pay no taxes.
You're a fireman. Probably the most respected civil servant in the country. They shouldn't have let this happen. I would have pulled the $75 bucks out of my own pocket and ordered my guys to put that fire out.
Your about the only one in this thread that has any common sense. Some people have no concept of the basic notion of right from wrong. Instead they have to filibuster a geo-political debate. :rolleyes:
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 21:05
I don't care if you write your own postings in red. The obnoxious part is using quotes wrong and then littering it with your red replies.
It has nothing to do with what I believe. It has to do with the facts of the matter.
Assuming all your previous opinions are true who pays for the FD's ability to provide a service outside of the city?
Are any rural "opt out" residents helping pay for rural responses with money that never goes through the city?
Assuming all your previous opinions are true who pays for the FD's ability to provide a service outside of the city?
The opt-ins, lol. That's exactly why they have to opt in, to pay for the costs incurred going beyond the regular coverage areas. In-city taxes and payments only cover in-city residents. Coverage outside is only funded by outside payment (opt-ins).
Are any rural "opt out" residents helping pay for rural responses with money that never goes through the city?
No. These opt-ins are only covered by payments from other opt-ins. This is precisely why they (the FD) don't cover those who don't pay, because anyone they cover outside of the city is an additional, unfactored-in cost. When you view it in this light, it makes perfect sense.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 21:14
The opt-ins, lol. That's exactly why they have to opt in, to pay for the costs incurred going beyond the regular coverage areas. In-city taxes and payments only cover in-city residents. Coverage outside is only funded by outside payment (opt-ins).
No. These opt-ins are only covered by payments from other opt-ins. This is precisely why they (the FD) don't cover those who don't pay, because anyone they cover outside of the city is an additional, unfactored-in cost. When you view it in this light, it makes perfect sense.
The opt in money goes to the city not the county. Is the city paying for rural roads, fire hydrants, and water?
The opt in money goes to the city not the county. Is the city paying for rural roads, fire hydrants, and water?
That's what I was referring to - the opt-in money goes to the city, which funds the FD.
No, the city does not pay for the roads, except for those within its own limits. The county and land developers pay for the county roads.
Your about the only one in this thread that has any common sense. Some people have no concept of the basic notion of right from wrong. Instead they have to filibuster a geo-political debate. :rolleyes:
Have you even read one sentence here? This is NOT a right vs wrong debate, it's a legal vs illegal debate.
No one said they shouldn't have helped; just that they shouldn't have been forced to help.
Anyone who thinks that "right" should be made law is a socialistic moron, because "right" will always change based on who's interpreting it. That is why we have laws like this. Yep, someone got screwed, but it's better that he gets screwed than to raise every homeowner's taxes throughout the nation just to cover an idiot who didn't pay his FD fee for YEARS and then ended up burning down his own house. Trying to save stupid people, like this man, from themselves is the exact same reason Obamacare got passed.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 21:28
That's what I was referring to - the opt-in money goes to the city, which funds the FD.
No, the city does not pay for the roads, except for those within its own limits. The county and land developers pay for the county roads.
Where does the county get the money to pay for county roads the city FD uses?
Where does the county get the money to pay for county roads the city FD uses?
From federal funding, state funding from sales tax, and county sales taxes.
Where does the county get the Federal government funding from? :rolleyes:
You're trying to make an issue where their isn't one. Technically, EVERY state contributes money to the county through federal tax money. Should Hawaiians expect coverage from this TN FD because their money funded the roads? Careful with your answer, because whatever it is, it has to apply equally to ALL situations.
Belmont -
I think you'd better give this one up. It is obvious from your posts that you have never been in Obion County, TN. Like I stated in my post somewhere around page 3 of this thread - I lived in a rural area of Dyer County (the next county to the south) for 7 years. I worked in Newbern, which is a few miles south of the Dyer/Obion county line. I find your discussion of Obion City somewhat humorous. The Town of Obion is very small (~2sq miles and 1,100 residents) and the guy lives at the opposite end of the county from it. The main city in that county is Union City, which is much closer to South Fulton. Thus endeth the geography lesson.
In NW TN, the city FDs are under no compulsion to aid homeowners outside of the city jurisdiction (generally, city limits) that do not subscribe to the rural service. This is no secret to those that live there. This may seem strange to those that are unfamiliar with the area, but ya have to know the people there. Most choose to be in the county because they like the low impact lifestyle. It's very simple: County residents do not pay city property tax - period. As a result, they do not gain the services of said city. This includes utilities, trash collection, law enforcement and yes, firefighting. It is a service to these people that the cities offer the FD subscription. Don't want it, don't pay it, but don't go crying about it if the worst should happen.
As to the sales tax argument, I'd be willing to bet that a resident near South Fulton did the majority of their shopping across the border in Fulton, KY (there's a Walmart there) to take advantage of the lower sales tax rates in that state. This is very common practice in the area.
The structure in this case was a doublewide trailer. From the timeline related in the reports, it is highly likely that the structure was fully engulfed (and therefore unsalvageable) by the time the FD arrived at the neighbor's location. No reason to risk injury to the firefighters if the residents are accounted for and the structure is not salvageable.
As to the pets inside the structure, if the residents had time to attempt to fight the fire themselves, one of those present likely had time to get the critters out. Open the door at least.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 21:42
From federal funding, state funding from sales tax, and county sales taxes.
Where does the county get the Federal government funding from? :rolleyes:
You're trying to make an issue where their isn't one. Technically, EVERY state contributes money to the county through federal tax money. Should Hawaiians expect coverage from this TN FD because their money funded the roads? Careful with your answer, because whatever it is, it has to apply equally to ALL situations.
Any public service organization that benefits from public tax dollars should provide services within their ability to the public at large within their operational area regardless of anything else.
If someone from New Zealand was in a crash here our ES units would respond to them just as anyone else. Thats the way it should be. Its the right thing to do.
Any public service organization that benefits from public tax dollars should provide services within their ability to the public at large within their operational area regardless of anything else.
If someone from New Zealand was in a crash here our ES units would respond to them just as anyone else. Thats the way it should be. Its the right thing to do.
You're making an assumption. The person from New Zealand would ONLY receive treatment if the area they crashed in HAD an emergency response team. If they crashed out in the middle on Montana, chances are someone would have to drive them to a hospital, if they were even found by someone before they died.
This city in Tennessee does not have a fire department. Again, it's obvious you're not familiar with rural country life. The counties are so large and the homes so far apart you CANNOT run a fire department for the entire county solely off the funding intended for a city. This goes for EVERY public service, all the way down to trash pickup. These are not rich counties, they can't afford to extend the fire department for every call. It would literally run them broke and into the ground. That's why it's common practice to let structures burn in the country unless there's a high property value or chance of life loss. This is country life for you.
No one's arguing it was wrong to let it burn, but it was completely legal.
Heavy Metal
10-07-10, 21:54
Anyone can sue anyone in this country, hire the right attorney to do the digging and he can sue and win money for the lack of action by the FD.
And if they win, they will just stop offering ALL service outside the city limit.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 21:57
Belmont -
I think you'd better give this one up. It is obvious from your posts that you have never been in Obion County, TN. Like I stated in my post somewhere around page 3 of this thread - I lived in a rural area of Dyer County (the next county to the south) for 7 years. I worked in Newbern, which is a few miles south of the Dyer/Obion county line. I find your discussion of Obion City somewhat humorous. The Town of Obion is very small (~2sq miles and 1,100 residents) and the guy lives at the opposite end of the county from it. The main city in that county is Union City, which is much closer to South Fulton. Thus endeth the geography lesson.
In NW TN, the city FDs are under no compulsion to aid homeowners outside of the city jurisdiction (generally, city limits) that do not subscribe to the rural service. This is no secret to those that live there. This may seem strange to those that are unfamiliar with the area, but ya have to know the people there. Most choose to be in the county because they like the low impact lifestyle. It's very simple: County residents do not pay city property tax - period. As a result, they do not gain the services of said city. This includes utilities, trash collection, law enforcement and yes, firefighting. It is a service to these people that the cities offer the FD subscription. Don't want it, don't pay it, but don't go crying about it if the worst should happen.
As to the sales tax argument, I'd be willing to bet that a resident near South Fulton did the majority of their shopping across the border in Fulton, KY (there's a Walmart there) to take advantage of the lower sales tax rates in that state. This is very common practice in the area.
The structure in this case was a doublewide trailer. From the timeline related in the reports, it is highly likely that the structure was fully engulfed (and therefore unsalvageable) by the time the FD arrived at the neighbor's location. No reason to risk injury to the firefighters if the residents are accounted for and the structure is not salvageable.
As to the pets inside the structure, if the residents had time to attempt to fight the fire themselves, one of those present likely had time to get the critters out. Open the door at least.
So why do the residents of the rural areas have to pay for the roads the FD uses but see no benefit unless they pay additional money?
I don't really have an issue with the city FD sticking within the city.
I have issue with them going outside the city to fight fires for those who pay the fee but then use the roads the opt out people helped pay for along with things like water usage, hydrants, and everything else the city is NOT paying for.
If they want to venture outside the city then they need to help pay for the roads they are using, the hydrants, any water they use, ect.
The "this is how we do it here" excuse doesn't really work when how you guys are doing to violates the general principals of how this country is supposed to work. Tax dollars are supposed to be there for the benefit of everyone not just a select few. I suggest you go read some writings of the Founding Fathers, and you'll get an understanding of where I am coming from. Specifically look at the General Welfare Clause which is very close to this case, and how public monies are supposed to be spent. They are supposed to be spent to the benefit of every person in this country not just in a specific locality or to a specific group of people.
This city expects outside groups to pay for the roads they use which are funded with public tax dollars yet refuse to provide their services to the very people paying for their ability to provide the service in the first place. That is a conflict plain and simple until they start paying for the roads just the same as anyone else would have to.
Also it was not me who made the money issue about principle and not the amount. Im sure the sale tax rural residents pay to the city is quite a small amount. Since the 75 dollars was made about principal and not about the dollar amount I took the same stance for the sake of argument. If the rural residents (and they are) are helping the city FD provide a service then the city FD has an obligation to them to provide that service to them, too, and that includes outside of the city within the area they cover anyways. As it stands now unless the rural residents do not pay the extra fee they do not get coverage yet their tax money is going to pay for the service.
If you agree with that then you cannot complain when your wealth is taken from you and given to others via welfare, social security, or anything else. You can't because its based on the same premise of taking from those who have to the benefit of others while not getting anything in return.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 22:03
You're making an assumption. The person from New Zealand would ONLY receive treatment if the area they crashed in HAD an emergency response team. If they crashed out in the middle on Montana, chances are someone would have to drive them to a hospital, if they were even found by someone before they died.
This city in Tennessee does not have a fire department. Again, it's obvious you're not familiar with rural country life. The counties are so large and the homes so far apart you CANNOT run a fire department for the entire county solely off the funding intended for a city. This goes for EVERY public service, all the way down to trash pickup. These are not rich counties, they can't afford to extend the fire department for every call. It would literally run them broke and into the ground. That's why it's common practice to let structures burn in the country unless there's a high property value or chance of life loss. This is country life for you.
No one's arguing it was wrong to let it burn, but it was completely legal.
Thats not what happened in this case. It was not about an inability to fight the fire (and it may have burned to the ground anyways) but about a service being denied in which this resident helped pay for.
I said earlier I grew up in a rural area. We rarely saw any ES people out there, and if you did need them it would take 1-2 hours for them to show up. Then half the time they wouldn't even be able to find the home/address because the housing numbers were not in numerical order. We had a brush fire pop up about 5 miles from our house, and we had to show the FD how to get up there. I can completely understand them not being able to respond to every call in a timely manner or that they don't have the resources. Thats why Ive kept saying "within their ability".
I also already said I wouldn't really care if the city FD stuck within their city limits, and didn't venture out. If they are, and they are going to benefit from rural people's tax money then that services needs to be extended to everyone.
The "this is how we do it here" excuse doesn't really work when how you guys are doing to violates the general principals of how this country is supposed to work.
Man, I usually agree with you, but are you listening to yourself?
No one in this country is guaranteed fire department protection. If you want that, you either provide it for yourself or pay for the service. Anything else is socialism. These services CANNOT reasonably be provided to everyone in these rural counties - it would drive them broke. If you don't like it, move into a city and pay the double-or-more taxes that city residents pay.
Thats not what happened in this case. It was not about an inability to fight the fire (and it may have burned to the ground anyways) but about a service being denied in which this resident helped pay for.
This man hadn't payed in YEARS. It wasn't once, twice, or thrice, but YEARS of payments he didn't make. He was the perfect person to make an example of, which is probably why he wasn't helped.
His sales tax that he payed doesn't count as "paying" for the service. If that's the case, then federal tax money from the other 49 states would dictate that fire department has to provide service to those states too.
Thats not what happened in this case. It was not about an inability to fight the fire (and it may have burned to the ground anyways) but about a service being denied in which this resident helped pay for.
Cut it out. You keep bringing up this argument. However, it is false. The resident of the county did NOT help pay for the city FD.
I said earlier I grew up in a rural area. We rarely saw any ES people out there, and if you did need them it would take 1-2 hours for them to show up. Then half the time they wouldn't even be able to find the home/address because the housing numbers were not in numerical order. We had a brush fire pop up about 5 miles from our house, and we had to show the FD how to get up there. I can completely understand them not being able to respond to every call in a timely manner or that they don't have the resources. Thats why Ive kept saying "within their ability".
I also already said I wouldn't really care if the city FD stuck within their city limits, and didn't venture out. If they are, and they are going to benefit from rural people's tax money then that services needs to be extended to everyone.
They are not benefitting from the rural folks' tax money. The rural folk do not pay taxes to the city. Sales tax ain't it buddy. That is a mostly state thing. The the small amount that may get sent back to the cities goes into a large pot that is used for all sorts of things, which the rural resident does get the benefit of. When the rural resident visits the city he gets the benefit of all sorts of services including fire, police, ems, sewer, roads, etc.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 22:11
This man hadn't payed in YEARS. It wasn't once, twice, or thrice, but YEARS of payments he didn't make. He was the perfect person to make an example of, which is probably why he wasn't helped.
His sales tax that he payed doesn't count as "paying" for the service. If that's the case, then federal tax money from the other 49 states would dictate that fire department has to provide service to those states too.
No...thats why there is more than 1 FD in the country, and according to our country's founding principals the money is supposed to spent "blindly". That means one location doesn't get favor other than for population levels. For instance CA should not get more tax money because they vote D in presidential elections, and TX gets half because they voted R.
What the FD does have an obligation to is the public at large as long as they benefit from the public at large's tax dollars, and within their normal areas (which includes the rural areas they service already if they are going to service anyone out there at all). If not then stay within the city, and don't benefit from tax dollars you are not providing a service in return for.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 22:12
Cut it out. You keep bringing up this argument. However, it is false. The resident of the county did NOT help pay for the city FD.
They are not benefitting from the rural folks' tax money. The rural folk do not pay taxes to the city. Sales tax ain't it buddy. That is a mostly state thing. The the small amount that may get sent back to the cities goes into a large pot that is used for all sorts of things, which the rural resident does get the benefit of. When the rural resident visits the city he gets the benefit of all sorts of services including fire, police, ems, sewer, roads, etc.
He is helping them pay for providing a service OUTSIDE of the city.
So why do the residents of the rural areas have to pay for the roads the FD uses but see no benefit unless they pay additional money?
listen to yourself. This is the dumbest argument one could make.
If your sales tax argument holds any water, then the city residents who go into the county to buy stuff pay sales tax which helped to pay for those roads that their FD uses. There. Happy?
I don't really have an issue with the city FD sticking within the city.
Really? Your argument relies on it being otherwise. If the county residents pay the taxes they they should get the service. Does not matter if the FD does not venture outside the city limits. Same argument applies.
I have issue with them going outside the city to fight fires for those who pay the fee but then use the roads the opt out people helped pay for along with things like water usage, hydrants, and everything else the city is NOT paying for.
The city people pay sales taxes when shopping in the county so they do help pay for it. Just as much as the county people are helping to pay for the FD through their sales tax, at least.
And what hydrants? This is the rural county. I bet they don't have one hydrant not inside city limits.
If they want to venture outside the city then they need to help pay for the roads they are using, the hydrants, any water they use, ect.
They do, just as much as the county folk help pay for the city FD.
And I hope you chip in to all the counties you pass through for their roads as well.
(And I am betting both city and county get significant state or federal money to help with roads and they all pay income taxes)
The "this is how we do it here" excuse doesn't really work when how you guys are doing to violates the general principals of how this country is supposed to work.
What principles are those? There is no violation. Your scheme is a violation.
Tax dollars are supposed to be there for the benefit of everyone not just a select few.
They are there for everyone. In the city where they are collected. The city has no obligation at all to provide services to the county who does not pay taxes into the city.
I suggest you go read some writings of the Founding Fathers, and you'll get an understanding of where I am coming from. Specifically look at the General Welfare Clause which is very close to this case, and how public monies are supposed to be spent. They are supposed to be spent to the benefit of every person in this country not just in a specific locality or to a specific group of people.
And they are being spent according to that principle. The city collects taxes for which they provide "basic services" to the people of the city and all visitors to the city as well. The county folk get their money's worth when they visit and use the roads, enjoy ems/police/fire, take a crap and flush in a public toilet, etc.
The city is not providing Fire service to a select few. They are providing it to all who reside in their city. No violation of principle here.
This city expects outside groups to pay for the roads they use which are funded with public tax dollars yet refuse to provide their services to the very people paying for their ability to provide the service in the first place. That is a conflict plain and simple until they start paying for the roads just the same as anyone else would have to.
????? This is a brain twister to figure out what you are attempting to say.
The roads have nothing to do with it. And as mentioned, the roads are paid for by taxes for use of all in the area where they are built. The same way the county dweller is not restricted from the roads when visiting the city, the city dweller (or FD) is not restricted from the roads when venturing out into the county.
Also it was not me who made the money issue about principle and not the amount. Im sure the sale tax rural residents pay to the city is quite a small amount. Since the 75 dollars was made about principal and not about the dollar amount I took the same stance for the sake of argument. If the rural residents (and they are) are helping the city FD provide a service then the city FD has an obligation to them to provide that service to them, too, and that includes outside of the city within the area they cover anyways. As it stands now unless the rural residents do not pay the extra fee they do not get coverage yet their tax money is going to pay for the service.
no its not.
If you agree with that then you cannot complain when your wealth is taken from you and given to others via welfare, social security, or anything else. You can't because its based on the same premise of taking from those who have to the benefit of others while not getting anything in return.
You are the one who cannot complain when your wealth is taken away and given to others. You are the one advocating service for all, whether they pay or not.
If the city said only people on even numbered sides of the street could get fire service but all have to pay the same taxes, you would have a point. But that is not the case. The city does not discriminate on recipients of these "basic services" that they provide in the city.
He is helping them pay for providing a service OUTSIDE of the city.
Please be more specific. Who is hekoing whom provide a service outside of the city?
It cannot be the county dweller who is helping the city pay for a service outside the city as that is not true. He did not pay the fee which is the only money that he is paying to the city. Your sales tax argument is irrelevant.
So why do the residents of the rural areas have to pay for the roads the FD uses but see no benefit unless they pay additional money?
You are so far away from a coherent argument that it is astounding.
People pay for roads because they tend to drive on the freakin' roads. What does that have to do with the FD? Because the FD uses those roads? So does the traveling circus. Should the circus be free to the county residents because it traveled on the county's roads?
Spending money blindly across all localities is one of the more asinine ideas I've heard in a long time. Sure would be fun to sink all those local economies though, right?
Different areas have different needs. There are no one-size-fits-all resources out there in the world.
I also already said I wouldn't really care if the city FD stuck within their city limits, and didn't venture out. If they are, and they are going to benefit from rural people's tax money then that services needs to be extended to everyone.
I want free plumbing. The plumber cashed in on my tax dollars by driving on my roads.
And I'm still waiting for my free MRI scan.
And my friend who is here illegally wants one too because he bought a candy bar and that candy bar had a tax on it and a fraction of that tax went to a fraction of a budget for a resource that is fractionally funded through public means while fractionally funded through private means.
What the FD does have an obligation to is the public at large as long as they benefit from the public at large's tax dollars, and within their normal areas (which includes the rural areas they service already if they are going to service anyone out there at all). If not then stay within the city, and don't benefit from tax dollars you are not providing a service in return for.
The public at large does benefit blindly in the arrangement as it is. The city dwellers benefit blindly from the city fire service. The fact that the fire service has volunteered to help others in time of need if they subscribe is immaterial. The fire departments area of service is the city. Period. Their expanded area of service includes parts of the county. That area is defined as a subscription service since it is not in the normal area. It is very simple and in line with the principles of the country as they existed at the time of the founding fathers.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 22:37
listen to yourself. This is the dumbest argument one could make.
If your sales tax argument holds any water, then the city residents who go into the county to buy stuff pay sales tax which helped to pay for those roads that their FD uses. There. Happy?
Really? Your argument relies on it being otherwise. If the county residents pay the taxes they they should get the service. Does not matter if the FD does not venture outside the city limits. Same argument applies.
The city people pay sales taxes when shopping in the county so they do help pay for it. Just as much as the county people are helping to pay for the FD through their sales tax, at least.
And what hydrants? This is the rural county. I bet they don't have one hydrant not inside city limits.
They do, just as much as the county folk help pay for the city FD.
And I hope you chip in to all the counties you pass through for their roads as well.
(And I am betting both city and county get significant state or federal money to help with roads and they all pay income taxes)
What principles are those? There is no violation. Your scheme is a violation.
They are there for everyone. In the city where they are collected. The city has no obligation at all to provide services to the county who does not pay taxes into the city.
And they are being spent according to that principle. The city collects taxes for which they provide "basic services" to the people of the city and all visitors to the city as well. The county folk get their money's worth when they visit and use the roads, enjoy ems/police/fire, take a crap and flush in a public toilet, etc.
The city is not providing Fire service to a select few. They are providing it to all who reside in their city. No violation of principle here.
????? This is a brain twister to figure out what you are attempting to say.
The roads have nothing to do with it. And as mentioned, the roads are paid for by taxes for use of all in the area where they are built. The same way the county dweller is not restricted from the roads when visiting the city, the city dweller (or FD) is not restricted from the roads when venturing out into the county.
no its not.
You are the one who cannot complain when your wealth is taken away and given to others. You are the one advocating service for all, whether they pay or not.
If the city said only people on even numbered sides of the street could get fire service but all have to pay the same taxes, you would have a point. But that is not the case. The city does not discriminate on recipients of these "basic services" that they provide in the city.
You're not keeping up.
When the CITY FD provides a service to someone OUTSIDE of the city they are providing that service with the help of tax dollars from OUTSIDE of the city yet selectively provide that service OUTSIDE of the city.
The fact even more money than just OUTSIDE of the city but within the county goes to help pay for services OUTSIDE of the city just furthers my argument, and why a public service who helps anyone with an area has an obligation to help anyone within their a ability in an area they already service.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 22:40
Please be more specific. Who is hekoing whom provide a service outside of the city?
It cannot be the county dweller who is helping the city pay for a service outside the city as that is not true. He did not pay the fee which is the only money that he is paying to the city. Your sales tax argument is irrelevant.
I havent said anything about a sales tax in about 2 pages.
Outside city tax money is being used to pay the city's ability to provide a service outside of the city but the only people benefiting from that service is those who opt in. Even those who opt out or don't even live in the same state are paying for this city to go to these rural areas by paying for the roads, their water usage, ect.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 22:45
You are so far away from a coherent argument that it is astounding.
People pay for roads because they tend to drive on the freakin' roads. What does that have to do with the FD? Because the FD uses those roads? So does the traveling circus. Should the circus be free to the county residents because it traveled on the county's roads?
Spending money blindly across all localities is one of the more asinine ideas I've heard in a long time. Sure would be fun to sink all those local economies though, right?
Different areas have different needs. There are no one-size-fits-all resources out there in the world.
I want free plumbing. The plumber cashed in on my tax dollars by driving on my roads.
And I'm still waiting for my free MRI scan.
And my friend who is here illegally wants one too because he bought a candy bar and that candy bar had a tax on it and a fraction of that tax went to a fraction of a budget for a resource that is fractionally funded through public means while fractionally funded through private means.
Nope the circus pays vehicle licensing fees, gas taxes, and every other tax a business has to pay for.
You can't prove this situation is right by presenting another equally ****ed up one like the gov buying a hospital an MRI machine.
You're not keeping up.
I beg to differ.
When the CITY FD provides a service to someone OUTSIDE of the city they are providing that service with the help of tax dollars from OUTSIDE of the city yet selectively provide that service OUTSIDE of the city.
This is not true. What tax dollars from outside the city, beyond generic statewide grants or federal grants, are being used to provide the service? Inside or out?
Hint: it is likely that there are not any. The city FD is funded through the city budget which gets its money from city taxes. There may be grants from the state or feds for certain things but those things are usually targeted and made to help the city provide services to its residents. Not people outside its jurisdiction.
The fact even more money than just OUTSIDE of the city but within the county goes to help pay for services OUTSIDE of the city just furthers my argument, and why a public service who helps anyone with an area has an obligation to help anyone within their a ability in an area they already service.
And what money is this?
I havent said anything about a sales tax in about 2 pages.
It is still the only outside tax money you have been able to come up with.
Outside city tax money is being used to pay the city's ability to provide a service outside of the city but the only people benefiting from that service is those who opt in. Even those who opt out or don't even live in the same state are paying for this city to go to these rural areas by paying for the roads, their water usage, ect.
First of all, what outside tax money are you talking about?
And your point is? The city collects tax money, predominantly from its residents to provide services to those residents. To help out the county they allow the county to opt-in by paying a fee to get coverage as well. The county residents are NOT paying taxes to the city.
Nope the circus pays vehicle licensing fees, gas taxes, and every other tax a business has to pay for.
and the city residents pay income taxes to the state and feds, pay sales taxes which go to the state and get dispersed to the county, pay fuel taxes which go to pay for roads state and nation wide. The city has paid its share for use of the roads.
The roads are for public use and all contribute through various taxes to their sustainment.
You can't prove this situation is right by presenting another equally ****ed up one like the gov buying a hospital an MRI machine.
It is called argument of the absurd. You make an absurd argument that that parallels your antagonists argument to show the absurdity of that argument. I am glad you have come to the realization that your argument is f-ed up.
vicious_cb
10-07-10, 22:54
You're not keeping up.
When the CITY FD provides a service to someone OUTSIDE of the city they are providing that service with the help of tax dollars from OUTSIDE of the city yet selectively provide that service OUTSIDE of the city.
The fact even more money than just OUTSIDE of the city but within the county goes to help pay for services OUTSIDE of the city just furthers my argument, and why a public service who helps anyone with an area has an obligation to help anyone within their a ability in an area they already service.
Hmmm... If fire depts. get federal money does that mean its a public good? Like national defense for example?
For those rusty on economics:
public good
Hide links within definitionsShow links within definitions
Definition
Item whose consumption is not decided by the individual consumer but by the society as a whole, and which is financed by taxation. A public good (or service) may be consumed without reducing the amount available for others, and cannot be withheld from who do not pay for it. Public goods (and services) include economic statistics and other information, law-and-order enforcement, national defense, national parks, etc. No market exists for such goods, and they must be provided to everyone by the government. See also good and private good.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/public-good.html#ixzz11jhKifxs
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 23:11
I beg to differ.
This is not true. What tax dollars from outside the city, beyond generic statewide grants or federal grants, are being used to provide the service? Inside or out?
Hint: it is likely that there are not any. The city FD is funded through the city budget which gets its money from city taxes. There may be grants from the state or feds for certain things but those things are usually targeted and made to help the city provide services to its residents. Not people outside its jurisdiction.
And what money is this?
Ill break this down to as low of level as I can.
The county taxes people through property taxes, and then build roads.
The state taxes people through things like sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other forms of taxation.
The Federal government taxes people, and then gives lower governments money to build roads. The Federal government gets money from many various forms of taxes such as gasoline taxes, income taxes, ect ect.
There are many forms of taxes we all pay.
So the county and state build roads with money everyone pays for, and then this city FD ventures out on these roads everyone pays for.
Without those roads the city FD would not be able to provide this service.
Without money like this guy's tax dollars.
So he is helping the city FD provide this service yet he is not seeing any benefit from it.
The fee this city FD charges goes to help their expenses not the county's expenses for road maintenance, ect.
Item whose consumption is not decided by the individual consumer but by the society as a whole, and which is financed by taxation. A public good (or service) may be consumed without reducing the amount available for others, and cannot be withheld from who do not pay for it. Public goods (and services) include economic statistics and other information, law-and-order enforcement, national defense, national parks, etc. No market exists for such goods, and they must be provided to everyone by the government. See also good and private good.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/public-good.html#ixzz11jhKifxs
Under this definition many of these things are not public goods. Law and order enforcement for example. There are not infinite cops. If too many people screw up at once they take away from others abilities to use those goods (ie get police help) since all the police are busy with the screwups.
National defense is another. We are having a hard enough time fighting 1.5 wars. Usage of national defense by some does preclude it being used by others.
Ill break this down to as low of level as I can.
The county taxes people through property taxes, and then build roads.
The state taxes people through things like sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other forms of taxation.
The Federal government taxes people, and then gives lower governments money to build roads. The Federal government gets money from many various forms of taxes such as gasoline taxes, income taxes, ect ect.
There are many forms of taxes we all pay.
So the county and state build roads with money everyone pays for, and then this city FD ventures out on these roads everyone pays for.
Without those roads the city FD would not be able to provide this service.
Without money like this guy's tax dollars.
So he is helping the city FD provide this service yet he is not seeing any benefit from it.
No. This is such a stretch that I think if this disagreement were being held by others and you ventured into it you would be embarrassed by the person who made the argument you just made.
The city is a governmental body that is part of the "state". The state owns the public ways. The state can use said public ways as the ultimate owner of them. The fact that this guy's taxes helped build the roads does not mean he has a right of fire service from a different jurisdiction even if that fire service uses those roads. That is a ludicrous argument.
The fee this city FD charges goes to help their expenses not the county's expenses for road maintenance, ect.
Which is as it should be. I am sure that the city people are already subsidizing the rural people's fire service as it is even with the $75 yearly fee and the $500 per incident fee.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 23:22
and the city residents pay income taxes to the state and feds, pay sales taxes which go to the state and get dispersed to the county, pay fuel taxes which go to pay for roads state and nation wide. The city has paid its share for use of the roads.
The roads are for public use and all contribute through various taxes to their sustainment.
It is called argument of the absurd. You make an absurd argument that that parallels your antagonists argument to show the absurdity of that argument. I am glad you have come to the realization that your argument is f-ed up.
Ive never heard of a city paying taxes.
Exactly. Everyone pitches in and everyone benefits.
This is everyone pitches in and only some people benefit. Doesn't matter if its a single penny or a million dollars someone is paying in. If you pitch in you should benefit. The cost to run this FD both within the city, and outside the city is paid for both both city and rural residents.
Oh and chad try to keep debates civil. You'll thread locks if you cant debate someone without resorting to attacks.
And with that Im out.
Ive never heard of a city paying taxes.
I did not say it did. I said (in other posts) that the inhabitants of the city have paid the taxes so that their services in their city can function.
Exactly. Everyone pitches in and everyone benefits.
This is everyone pitches in and only some people benefit.
No its not. It is everyone pitches in and everyone benefits. The city collects taxes and provides a city FD. The county guy is not pitching in. What he pitches in for, he benefits from (roads, fire services while in the city, etc). His county has chosen not to have a fire service and he does not pitch in to any fire service.
Doesn't matter if its a single penny or a million dollars someone is paying in. If you pitch in you should benefit. The cost to run this FD both within the city, and outside the city is paid for both both city and rural residents.
no it is not. The rural residents do not pay taxes that go to benefit the FD. They may pay taxes that go into the roads, and they get to make use of the roads. How others make use of those roads is irrelevant.
The FD use of the roads does not in any way diminish or take away from the county residents whose taxes go to support those roads uses of the roads.
The county residents are NOT paying for use of the FD service unless they pay the $75 and in that case they get to benefit. Everyone who pays gets to benefit. That is how it is today in the existing system.
Oh and chad try to keep debates civil. You'll thread locks if you cant debate someone without resorting to attacks.
And with that Im out.
I did not attack you. I used argumentation of the absurd and you applied it to yourself.
I did ask you to not be obnoxious with the red. That is not how the quote system of the forum is supposed to work.
ShortytheFirefighter
10-08-10, 00:16
Not to step into the middle of a skirmish, but I really think that this story (hell, even this thread title) is misleading.
To initially read the story, one would think that the FD showed up when the house first started on fire, refused to do anything and stood around with marshmallows on sticks while the homeowner begged and pleaded for them to save his house and his animals. Meanwhile, the neighbor asked if they could come and protect his house because things were starting to look a bit scary.
Let's take a look at reality.
Like I said before, the firefighters likely weren't even paged out for the initial call. Dispatch there likely has a list of people who are and aren't on the opt in list. If you're not on the list, they're not sending the department. When the call came in from the neighbor saying that his house was in danger, that's probably when they got the initial call...
...Which leads me to my next point. The homeowner had tried to put out the fire before the FD was even called from the sounds of it. This was a doublewide trailer to boot. Have any of you seen a doublewide on fire? They go down quicker than Monica with a blue dress on. There is no way that thing was even standing by the time a rural vollie department would have gotten there. By the time they'd have shown up even if they had gone to put out the house it'd be a pile of molten aluminum and charred wood. And yes, if he had time to try and fight the fire he had time to get the animals out, or at least block the door.
The firefighters "standing around" is probably another example of the news reporter not knowing what they're talking about. If you've got a structure that's a total loss, and one you're trying to save but isn't on fire yet, then you'll probably put down drop tanks (in a rural area) stretch your lines and get ready. What are they expecting them to do, run rings around the truck until something happens? No, they're going to stand by and wait for orders.
The comparison that VB made regarding his friends in the FDNY doesn't apply in this situation. For the scenario he gave, they're in their area of responsibility and would be obligated to respond and help. This homeowner chose to opt out of the service, and he paid the price. Like I said in my last post, I think a better policy would be to extinguish the fire, and make the homeowner liable for any damages or costs incurred during the extinguishment/overhaul. This is more common than one might think, and this isn't the first time it's happened. The assumption here goes back to what I said in the first paragraph, that they were there during the entire thing and did nothing. By the time they showed up, there probably wasn't anything left to do anything with. Apples to oranges.
The taxation arguments are getting a bit out of hand. The homeowner had every chance to opt into the agreement. From what I've heard, he had been given 3 chances and hadn't done anything about it. Do I agree with the system? No, but that's because I'm used to my own SOPs and the way we do things here. If that's how that area works, then who am I to question it? They made their decisions, they get to deal with them. That's the crux of this. The homeowner made his decision, and now he's got to live with the consequences. Just because the municipality that we live in does things differently doesn't make them wrong and us right. It means that we do things differently. If one doesn't like it, they don't have to move there. Like I said, if there was anything left to put out then I think it would have been a better idea to put it out but if that's how things are there then I'm not going to MMQB them.
I think some people are looking at this backwards and it's leading them to a false conclusion.
No one forced these people to live where they did. They chose to live in an unincorporated area where basic services are limited. By making this choice, they assumed the risks inherent to this decision. The benefit to this decision is that they paid a significantly lower property tax rate than if they lived "in town" where services are better. They also enjoyed a significantly less restrictive lifestyle as well. If one wished improved government services, then move to an area where said services exist - but you're gonna pay for it.
Now if the government compelled (i.e., forced) them to live in an unincorporated area, then the government is compelled to provide basic services to said inhabitants and there would be a viable argument regarding the events related to the fire. But this is not the case, so the argument is moot.
As I stated, my wife and I made the same choice. Much like Obion County, Dyer County did not provide electricity, gas, trash pickup, sewer, water, etc., as basic services (fire hydrants?! - there wasn't a fire hydrant within 5 miles of our house). Law enforcement was very limited - at any given time the county sheriff's department had a total of two vehicles on patrol in a ~525sq. mile area. Fire protection was provided in the form of a local VFD or you could buy a subscription to the FD in the city nearest to your location as a supplement to the VFD. But, our property tax was about half of what it would have been had we lived in town.
How ever did we survive? Simple, we had a well for water, septic system for sewage, a 1200gal propane tank and a rural electric co-op for utilities (a gas-powered generator for the frequent power outages, too). We paid $20 to a company that would weekly pick up what trash we didn't burn or we could haul it to the county landfill for free. Because county tax did fund schools, we could send our child to any school in the county (on a space-available basis), but bus service was limited to the closest school only. If we chose another school - in our case, the Dyersburg City school system - then we were responsible for transportation of our child to/from said school. (Again, a choice.)
Our taxes also went toward maintenance of county roads which were very "basic" (a portion of which were also unpaved). The cities took care of city streets, state took care of state roads and feds took care of US51.
In return, I could shoot on my property without fear of being arrested, there were no zoning ordinances, I could put up out buildings without paying for a permit, and we could generally live our lives with minimal government interference. I could walk the half mile down our road to the WMA with a rifle slung over my shoulder and no one said boo about it (try doing that in town).
Lastly, and importantly, we had good neighbors. Because of the self-sufficient nature of life in the unincorporated areas, folks naturally took care of their own business. Calling the law was very much a last resort. We knew each other, helped each other out, and pretty much just got along. Now if someone moved in nearby and made an ass of themselves, there would be no such cooperation and they would be made to feel quite unwelcome. Issues and disputes were usually "dealt with" and worked out without resorting to legal measures.
It is important to understand this independent mindset of the people in rural NW TN when considering the events in Obion County. Very proud, generous people who mainly want to be left alone. If your family hasn't been there for several generations, you are an outsider (or "newcomer" as they call it).
I am, frankly, quite surprised that this story even made it into the MSM. It leads me to believe that there is an agenda behind the scenes driving all the publicity - such as the previously mentioned push for a county-wide fire department modeled, I'm sure, along the lines of Shelby and Davidson Counties.
Finally, I must correct an error I made in a previous post where I called Kentucky a State. Kentucky is a Commonwealth, not a State. Apologies to the Kentuckians out there.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.