Was the fire department right or wrong?

[Josie]

Was the fire department right or wrong when the let a home burn to the ground because the owner had not paid the $75 fee?

 

[Your Star]

They were wrong. Someone could have died, and the blood would have been on their hands. They should have fought the fire, and charged them after.

Though, this kind of system shouldn't be in place anyway. Things like these, should not be privatized.

 

[ptif219]

Was the fire department right or wrong when the let a home burn to the ground because the owner had not paid the $75 fee?

Wrong. They are paid to fight fires not play politics. I always thought the bill came after the fire not another government tax.

 

[Josie]

They were wrong. Someone could have died, and the blood would have been on their hands.

I'm guessing they knew no one was in the house.

I said "right" because it was the duty of the homeowner to pay the fee for the service. If the fire department just puts out fires for everyone no matter if they paid or not, then who would pay? Without that fee, there would be no fire department. Want your house protected by the fire department? Pay the fee. If you can't pay the fee, ask for help.

 

[Your Star]

I'm guessing they knew no one was in the house.

I said "right" because it was the duty of the homeowner to pay the fee for the service. If the fire department just puts out fires for everyone no matter if they paid or not, then who would pay? Without that fee, there would be no fire department. Want your house protected by the fire department? Pay the fee. If you can't pay the fee, ask for help.

Did they know everyone was out? What if there was someone in there, would they still have sat there? It's scary to think about.

These kind of services should be paid for in taxes, and should be a government service, plain and simple.

 

[theangryamerican]

They were completely in the right for the exact reasons I laid out in the actual thread about this story.

...and so far, the only opposition I have seen comes from people who aren't bothering to read the facts.

 

[Josie]

Did they know everyone was out? What if there was someone in there, would they still have sat there? It's scary to think about.

These kind of services should be paid for in taxes, and should be a government service, plain and simple.

I cannot imagine a fireman who knew someone was in the house, but still refused to put the fire out.

Yes, he should've paid for the service like he was supposed to. It's like insurance. You can't just not pay for insurance and then when your house is burning rush to the insurance office and say you'll pay for one month right now if they'll insure your burning house.

 

[ptif219]

I'm guessing they knew no one was in the house.

I said "right" because it was the duty of the homeowner to pay the fee for the service. If the fire department just puts out fires for everyone no matter if they paid or not, then who would pay? Without that fee, there would be no fire department. Want your house protected by the fire department? Pay the fee. If you can't pay the fee, ask for help.

Aren't they run by the government? Let the budget paid for with taxes pay it.

When I was young my uncle was fire chief of the local volunteer fire dept. They had ways of asking for money and had things like a picnic to make money. They did not tax people.

 

[theangryamerican]

Aren't they run by the government? Let the budget paid for with taxes pay it.

When I was young my uncle was fire chief of the local volunteer fire dept. They had ways of asking for money and had things like a picnic to make money. They did not tax people.

Wrong. This was NOT a volunteer FD.

 

[Your Star]

I cannot imagine a fireman who knew someone was in the house, but still refused to put the fire out.

Yes, he should've paid for the service like he was supposed to. It's like insurance. You can't just not pay for insurance and then when your house is burning rush to the insurance office and say you'll pay for one month right now if they'll insure your burning house.

That's my issue with this. There shouldn't have to be that fee. The firefighter's should be paid by the government to protect the people from fires. If you call the fire department, they should help you out. No matter what.

 

[Josie]

That's my issue with this. There shouldn't have to be that fee. The firefighter's should be paid by the government to protect the people from fires. If you call the fire department, they should help you out. No matter what.

That's a separate issue. In THIS scenario, there was a fee. He chose to not pay it, so he got no service. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[theangryamerican]

That's my issue with this. There shouldn't have to be that fee. The firefighter's should be paid by the government to protect the people from fires. If you call the fire department, they should help you out. No matter what.

Please....PLEASE. Read the articles, it pains me to repeat myself so much. :2razz:

The fire fighters are paid by a city government...to protect their city. Joe Cheapass and his burning home are not in the city.

 

[Your Star]

Please....PLEASE. Read the articles, it pains me to repeat myself so much. :2razz:

The fire fighters are paid by a city government...to protect their city. Joe Cheapass and his burning home are not in the city.

Please, thats like saying a cop shouldn't stop a rape because it's happening outside his jurisdiction.

 

[Your Star]

That's a separate issue. In THIS scenario, there was a fee. He chose to not pay it, so he got no service. Makes perfect sense to me.

But if they knew he didn't pay the fee, why did they dispatch to the scene? They responded, so they should have put out the fire, if they wanted to bill them after, fine, but don't watch the house burn. A burning house is a danger, and the danger should have been eliminated.

 

[ptif219]

I cannot imagine a fireman who knew someone was in the house, but still refused to put the fire out.

Yes, he should've paid for the service like he was supposed to. It's like insurance. You can't just not pay for insurance and then when your house is burning rush to the insurance office and say you'll pay for one month right now if they'll insure your burning house.

By not putting the fire out they but the neighbors houses at risk

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

That's my issue with this. There shouldn't have to be that fee. The firefighter's should be paid by the government to protect the people from fires. If you call the fire department, they should help you out. No matter what.

Here's the deal with this specific case.

The house fire was outside the taxing jurisdiction of the city, the city did provide fire service to county residents for a fee but it has to be optional because of the tax issue.
Now if they still serviced the area while taking payments, after the fact, the city FD would go bust in a short time.

They did state that, if there were lives in danger, that they would have intervened.

 

[Josie]

But if they knew he didn't pay the fee, why did they dispatch to the scene? They responded, so they should have put out the fire, if they wanted to bill them after, fine, but don't watch the house burn. A burning house is a danger, and the danger should have been eliminated.

I believe they were protecting the houses near his house.

 

[ptif219]

Wrong. This was NOT a volunteer FD.

So it was run by local government. This means the government is not protecting citizens

 

[hazlnut]

They were completely in the right for the exact reasons I laid out in the actual thread about this story.

...and so far, the only opposition I have seen comes from people who aren't bothering to read the facts.

What if there were kids in the house?

BTW - the firemen think they did the WRONG thing.

 

[ptif219]

That's a separate issue. In THIS scenario, there was a fee. He chose to not pay it, so he got no service. Makes perfect sense to me.

Not a fee a tax by the local government

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Not a fee a tax by the local government

It's a fee, the city is offering it to county residents because there is no county FD.
It's voluntary because the city has no tax jurisdiction.

 

[Your Star]

Here's the deal with this specific case.

The house fire was outside the taxing jurisdiction of the city, the city did provide fire service to county residents for a fee but it has to be optional because of the tax issue.
Now if they still serviced the area while taking payments, after the fact, the city FD would go bust in a short time.

They did state that, if there were lives in danger, that they would have intervened.

Well thats a problem with the taxing jurisdiction. IMO, everyone should have protection provided by the police, and fire departments.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Well thats a problem with the taxing jurisdiction. IMO, everyone should have protection provided by the police, and fire departments.

I agree, in this scenario though, the county and it's residents haven't lobbied to at least start a FD. :?

Even a lot of remote Alaskan towns have a FD.

 

[Helvidius]

But if they knew he didn't pay the fee, why did they dispatch to the scene? They responded, so they should have put out the fire, if they wanted to bill them after, fine, but don't watch the house burn. A burning house is a danger, and the danger should have been eliminated.

They responded to his neighbor who did pay the $75 annual fee. The neighbor was concerned the fire would spread to their house so they called the fire department. The fire department is in charge of a nearby city, not this rural area.

 

[theangryamerican]

So it was run by local government. This means the government is not protecting citizens

Wrong again. The local government doesn't provide any services at all. The FD is from a neighboring city.