• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the fire department right or wrong?

Right or wrong?

  • Total voters
    42
MaggieD said:
Let us not be so condescending.

The answer is that a policy that asks residents to pay a separate fee for fire protection is bad policy. Every home, every single one, should be covered by fire protection automatically -- on their real estate tax bill. If one lives in a rural area, outside city limits, then that particular area should have a contract with a 'closest town' to provide fire protection for each and every residence. And it should be paid for by putting a separate line item on one's real estate bill. Sending a yearly statement is ridiculous. Bill gets lost in the mail. Check gets lost in the mail. Somebody forgets.
Click to expand...

Yet this man's Bill did not get lost in the mail.
This man's check did not get lost in the mail.
Because this man voluntarily chose not to pay.

Let us not make up and create excuses for someone who made the voluntary decision not to pay for services.

Its obvious to me, and anyone who thinks about it really, that the residents of this county had two decades to elect officials that would either enact a better policy, or find funding to create volunteer fire departments in the area. The failure of the residents to do so shows that they were happy/content with this method of fire protection services. Who are we to tell them what they SHOULD do when it was obvious that they were happy and or at least content with it.
 
Caine said:
Yet this man's Bill did not get lost in the mail.
This man's check did not get lost in the mail.
Because this man voluntarily chose not to pay.

Let us not make up and create excuses for someone who made the voluntary decision not to pay for services.

Its obvious to me, and anyone who thinks about it really, that the residents of this county had two decades to elect officials that would either enact a better policy, or find funding to create volunteer fire departments in the area. The failure of the residents to do so shows that they were happy/content with this method of fire protection services. Who are we to tell them what they SHOULD do when it was obvious that they were happy and or at least content with it.
Click to expand...

I'm not making up anything. It's poor public policy. The poorest, as far as I'm concerned.

In my neck of the woods, which seems to make a difference, this is absolutely unheard of. Everyone has fire protection provided by pre-designated fire departments. No bills are sent because the fee-for-service is included in everyone's property tax bills.

Please tell me you don't check to see if someone's property tax bill is current before you respond to a domestic dispute. Please.

The fire department's sole purpose is to put out fires. Had they been asked by a nearby community to assist in a large fire, off they'd go. But here, they checked their records, saw the guy hadn't paid his $75, and let the freakin' house burn down. Inexcusable, imo.
 
Caine said:
They responded BECAUSE the neighbor was concerned about his home being at risk.
Click to expand...

And if he wasn't living there, then they wouldn't have responded and I'm sure the fire would be far more out of control. The fact that a "paying customer" was the neighbor to the house that caught fire is luck given this completely asinine system.
 
Can't they both be wrong? They guy should have paid the $75 but it was a dick move not to put his house out. Nobody really profited here. The dude isn't more likely to pay his $75 now that his house has burned down and the rest of the neighborhood may pay but they are going to hate those people who let the house burn. The community is no better off.
 
ptif219 said:
So it was run by local government. This means the government is not protecting citizens
Click to expand...

The firemen do protect the citizens of the local government. This individual was outside of the boundaries of the local government that the firedepartment worked for.
 
buck said:
The firemen do protect the citizens of the local government. This individual was outside of the boundaries of the local government that the firedepartment worked for.
Click to expand...

Firemen were playing politics. So know saving property and lives is about money
 
ptif219 said:
Firemen were playing politics. So know saving property and lives is about money
Click to expand...

Correction: The fire fighters were following their orders. Keeping your job is about playing by the rules.
 
ptif219 said:
Firemen were playing politics. So know saving property and lives is about money
Click to expand...

I guess it always has been. They can't save lives and property without money/funding. If no one paid for the service (like this guy) the fire department would cease to exist. The fire department exists to save people within ther boundaries. This guy was outside of their boundaries.

They have an agreement with those outside of their boundaries, if you pay for the service, we will assist. If you don't pay for the service, we will not. This guy, knowing the consequences and having had a previous issue with a fire and 3 years ago, made his choice. He made this choice even after recieving a reminder call after the fire department didn't recieve the necessary fee.
 
buck said:
I guess it always has been. They can't save lives and property without money/funding. If no one paid for the service (like this guy) the fire department would cease to exist. The fire department exists to save people within ther boundaries. This guy was outside of their boundaries.

They have an agreement with those outside of their boundaries, if you pay for the service, we will assist. If you don't pay for the service, we will not. This guy, knowing the consequences and having had a previous issue with a fire and 3 years ago, made his choice. He made this choice even after recieving a reminder call after the fire department didn't recieve the necessary fee.
Click to expand...

So then let his house burn and endanger property of those that paid? They should be charged when they have a fire. There is no expense if they do not go out of there jurisdiction.

Was the guy stupid? YES but that does not justify watching his house burn down.
 
ptif219 said:
So then let his house burn and endanger property of those that paid? They should be charged when they have a fire. There is no expense if they do not go out of there jurisdiction.

Was the guy stupid? YES but that does not justify watching his house burn down.
Click to expand...

Of course there is an expense. additionally there are risks to firemen that are responding to the fire. Lastly, if they're going to put everyones fire out even if they don't pay, what's the incentive for someone to pay? You're just making it more likely that people will take the gamble, not pay and hope they don't have a fire. A fine after the fact just adds additional collection costs without any assurance that the fire department will ever be paid.

BTW, I personally think the county should add fire protection to all of the property tax bills. However, until they do that, this is the way it is handled.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
So then let his house burn and endanger property of those that paid? They should be charged when they have a fire. There is no expense if they do not go out of there jurisdiction.

Was the guy stupid? YES but that does not justify watching his house burn down.
Click to expand...

A post from the other thread about this:
I'm actually amazed by the fact that there are people advocating that the homeowner shouldn't have to bear any responsibility for his actions.

Seriously, should I be able to go to Vegas and blow my life's savings gambling and then be given it all back because...well...I didn't REALLY think they would take my money, I thought I could just play and they would give it back when I was done?

What this guy did was gamble with his personal property. He lost. Hopefully he takes something from this hard lesson in personal responsibility.
Click to expand...
 
The guy should have paid his bill, no doubt. He chose not to, so that gives him zero right to complain about anything.

That said, given that the fire department showed up with full equipment after the neighbor called them, they should have put out the fire and billed the guy later. I read he was willing to pay the fee right then and there.

Also, what an incredibly stupid, completely irresponsible system. I agree with Maggie, every single house or building should be automatically covered and the fee added to the property tax bill. It should never be optional.
 
Several animals died.. They fire fighters should be charged with animal cruelty at a minimum.
 
PeteEU said:
Several animals died.. They fire fighters should be charged with animal cruelty at a minimum.
Click to expand...

Why should the firefighters be charged, why not the person that started the fire, it is a result of their direct actions that the animals died, rather than the inaction of the firefighters.
 
Something that should be blindingly obvious to anyone from fire country, this was not the right course of action. Fire can easily spread to other structures and go out of control. If for NO other reason, the fire department should have put the fire out to keep it from spreading to a larger area and potentially becoming un-manageable. The person who kept the firemen from acting should be fired immediately.
 
The don't think the fire department was wrong. The guy didn't pay for the service, so he shouldn't be able to enjoy the benefits of that service. However, this whole situation was handled very badly.

The county that the guy lives in is very much in the wrong for not providing fire protection to the people who live in that county.

The fire department could have handled things better by simply putting out the fire and then giving the guy a bill for their services (and making it expensive enough that $75/year is an attractive option)

If the county persists in not providing their own fire department, they should pass a law making it mandatory to pay the $75/year to the other town for the services of their fire department.

The really sad part of the story is that the neighbor of the house that originally caught fire also had their house damaged. Something needs to change so that that kind of stuff doesn't happen again.
 
Legally they were right in that they followed the law.

Morally they were right. They did their duty as proscribed.

The law itself was right in that the city did not have the authority to tax the citizenry in the county.

The whole situation is fubar, but it was there was no intentional harm done by any party. A better situation would be a proper fire department in the county or some agreement between the country and city.
 
PeteEU said:
Several animals died.. They fire fighters should be charged with animal cruelty at a minimum.
Click to expand...

Animals are only important if they are being tossed in the garbage, or in the river. Standing there with your hose turned off while they barbecue is standard fireman hero policy. They become merely possessions.
 
Mickey Shane said:
Animals are only important if they are being tossed in the garbage, or in the river. Standing there with your hose turned off while they barbecue is standard fireman hero policy. They become merely possessions.
Click to expand...

... And in the lengthy period of time as they were watching the fire creep towards their house, the owners couldn't have saved their own valuable property? Stop with the damn appeals to emotion, people. It just makes your argument look tacky.
 
theangryamerican said:
... And in the lengthy period of time as they were watching the fire creep towards their house, the owners couldn't have saved their own valuable property? .
Click to expand...

Why should they have to when people capable of putting it out, with the right equipment on hand were right there?

megaprogman said:
Morally they were right. They did their duty as proscribed.
Click to expand...

IMO, if they were doing their duties, trhey would have put out the fire before it spread - insteasd of WAITING until it reached [and damaged] the neighbor's house. For Christ's sake, they are firefighters, they shoulod KNOW how unpredictable and dangerous fires can be.
 
Last edited:
Travelsonic said:
Why should they have to when people capable of putting it out, with the right equipment on hand were right there?



IMO, if they were doing their duties, trhey would have put out the fire before it spread - insteasd of WAITING until it reached [and damaged] the neighbor's house. For Christ's sake, they are firefighters, they shoulod KNOW how unpredictable and dangerous fires can be.
Click to expand...

The fire burned for a period of time after the family set their own house on fire and before the FD showed up. That's ample time to run in and get your valuables. These people lived in the country, it's not like the FD was immediately on scene. I'm fact, they only responded when they received the call from the paying customer.
 
Last edited:
Mellie said:
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?
Click to expand...

After mulling it overi n another thread I think the guy was a douche - it seems he didn't pay on purpose and his attitude was crappy. He knew his house was likely to be engulfed (when eventually it was after several hours) but didn't lift his own little nubbs to help his animals - and then tried to pin it all on the firefighters.

However - on a moral and accountability level - the firefighters have now brought a heap of problems on them. People *trust* them to do their job. What if there was a clerical error which shows that "someone didn't pay their due" - but they actually did and *if* they had some time they could get a statement from the bank to prove it. :shrug:

If you're a full time, paid firefighter - fighting fires is your job. . . deal with the riff raff AFTER you do your job.

If it's money - then the people who should deal with that are the bill-intakes and others who live in the realm at the office.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom