• 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
The fire department was totally in the right for not putting out that fire.

1) While the homeowner's local government did not provide a fire department, an adjoining local government offered the services of the fire department for a $75 fee. The homeowner could have gotten it at any time.

2) The fire department must intervene if a life is in danger. But everybody was out of the home, and so nobody's life was in danger from the fire.

The blame can only be put on two:

1) The homeowner for not paying the $75 for the service.
2) The homeowner's local government for not bringing in tax revenue for fire department service.

In absolutely no way is the fire department at fault or to blame in this particular scenario.
 
Hard to tell in all truthfulness.
Best for a man to have his own fire suppression system, which is 95% prevention.
But, over and over again, private concerns shoot themselves in the foot.
How long is it going to take for the people to ignore right wing spin and see the light?
I'll be nice and change lies to spin.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

We get it, common sense conservatism.

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

The dogs and cats don't make the cut.
 
hazlnut said:
We get it, common sense conservatism.
Click to expand...

It's just like insurance, if everyone paid the fee after the fact, there would no longer be insurance companies because the claims would overwhelm the premiums.

hazlnut said:
The dogs and cats don't make the cut.
Click to expand...

Not really.
I hate to be an ass but risking human lives for pets, just isn't worth the cost of city services.
 
Despite the what-if situations, in this case the home owner stuffed up, however, I think the best solution to prevent this happening again would be for the local government to contract with the city FD, and just include the price of the services in taxes.
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
Despite the what-if situations, in this case the home owner stuffed up, however, I think the best solution to prevent this happening again would be for the local government to contract with the city PD, and just include the price of the services in taxes.
Click to expand...

An excellent idea.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's just like insurance, if everyone paid the fee after the fact, there would no longer be insurance companies because the claims would overwhelm the premiums.



Not really.
I hate to be an ass but risking human lives for pets, just isn't worth the cost of city services.
Click to expand...

The way the story reads is they were right there, ready to put it out. Seem like an extreme lesson in moral hazard.

The local pyro should teach the mayor a lesson in poetic justice.
 
spud_meister said:
Despite the what-if situations, in this case the home owner stuffed up, however, I think the best solution to prevent this happening again would be for the local government to contract with the city PD, and just include the price of the services in taxes.
Click to expand...

Yep, this would have prevented this whole messy situation.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is BS if they have a fire bill them. To prepay is a tax for a service you may never need. They do not call it a tax because it would be illegal
 
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...

The rural community this man lived in did not have a fire department. Nor did it apparely have a volunteer fire department.
These folks had to depend on coverage from a town far away, whose taxes they did not pay, for services.
Thus the 75 dollar fee.
Before 1990, there was no coverage in this rural county at all, the nearby town offered to assist them with coverage for a yearly 75 dollar fee. It was their choice, 75 bucks and fire coverage, or no money and no coverage.

This guy chose no coverage. And that is what he got.
 
hazlnut said:
The way the story reads is they were right there, ready to put it out. Seem like an extreme lesson in moral hazard.
Click to expand...

It attests to the fact that, there is no free lunch.
It may be extreme but small cities don't have boat loads of cash to play with.

hazlnut said:
The local pyro should teach the mayor a lesson in poetic justice.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's constructive at all.
The guy owns a house, with that comes all sorts of high dollar expenses.
The least he can do is pay $75 for emergency fire services.
 
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...

They are. They are paid for by their city/county government to cover fires within said city/county.
However, your not covered by FDNY down in Georgia are you?

Although my example is a little bit of an exaggeration, do you get my point?
 
ptif219 said:
It is BS if they have a fire bill them. To prepay is a tax for a service you may never need. They do not call it a tax because it would be illegal
Click to expand...

It's not a tax because it's voluntary.
You and I both know that if they were to continue the trend of putting out fires for free, that the rest of the county residents would have no reason to pay the fee for fire services.

That can quickly bankrupt a fire department.
 
IMO, this is more of a failure of the government than the fire department. Still I think the firefighters there should have disobeyed orders, and brought down the fire anyway.
 
Your Star said:
Please, thats like saying a cop shouldn't stop a rape because it's happening outside his jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Ummm..... He has no authority to do so. Thats completely different.

Thats like saying a human being shouldn't stop a rape because he isn't a cop.
 
ptif219 said:
By not putting the fire out they but the neighbors houses at risk
Click to expand...

They responded BECAUSE the neighbor was concerned about his home being at risk. They were on scene to ensure the neighbor's house/yard didn't catch.
 
Caine said:
They responded BECAUSE the neighbor was concerned about his home being at risk. They were on scene to ensure the neighbor's house/yard didn't catch.
Click to expand...

And putting out the main fire would have best insured that the neighbor's house didn't catch fire. I still see no logical reason why they didn't put out the fire.
 
ptif219 said:
So it was run by local government. This means the government is not protecting citizens
Click to expand...

Run by a not so local government where the residents of THIS community don't pay taxes to.

Pick a town outside of your county and 50 miles away. Do you pay taxes to them? No? Should they cover you if your house starts to burn?

Let us read and understand before we comment.
 
hazlnut said:
What if there were kids in the house?

BTW - the firemen think they did the WRONG thing.
Click to expand...

What if space alien came down from the sky?

These what ifs don't change anything!@
 
Your Star said:
IMO, this is more of a failure of the government than the fire department. Still I think the firefighters there should have disobeyed orders, and brought down the fire anyway.
Click to expand...

hazlnut said:
No, but it's an interesting setup for a Twilight Zone episode.
Click to expand...

It's the crummy part about being a responsible representative.

Doing the right thing, sometimes, goes against the interests of what "the people" want to be done.
 
Caine said:
Run by a not so local government where the residents of THIS community don't pay taxes to.

Pick a town outside of your county and 50 miles away. Do you pay taxes to them? No? Should they cover you if your house starts to burn?

Let us read and understand before we comment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom