Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
#1Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/5/10 at 6:42am
This is difficult to read. In Tennessee, firemen watched as a home burned to the ground. Why? Because the homeowner lived outside the city limits, and hadn't paid the $75 fee for fire service. Would those with libertarian tendencies like to remind me how privatizing is a good idea?
Let's privatize everything
#2Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/5/10 at 7:53am
LOL, that's not what happened. They didn't even respond. The Huffington Post straight up lied about the "Firemen watch as home burns to the ground" part.
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/More-fallout-following-house-fire-104113489.html
http://wbbjtv.com/NewsStories/100930FireinObionCounty.html
South Fulton is a very small municipality. They just don't have the resources to respond to non-tax, non-fee paying citizens.
Updated On: 10/5/10 at 07:53 AM
#3Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/5/10 at 8:26am
I don't like the statement that this fire was non-life threatening when three dogs and a cat reportedly died. That's the bit that really sticks in the craw, even though I could go either way on the "should they/shouldn't they have put the fire out?" debate. I hope there's rather more to the story, because other than the pets apparently not having lives, none of it feels complete enough to draw a fair conclusion.
Q
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/3/05
#4Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/5/10 at 8:27am
"Would those with libertarian tendencies like to remind me how privatizing is a good idea?"
The discussion could start by looking at this (snarky) comment from the Huffpo article:
"where paying taxes isn't enough to cover basic services. Fire protection, it turns out, is a privilege in some communities"
The idea is that taxes SHOULD be enough to cover "basic services", but it obviously isn't, because the money gets spent in other ways - or simply wasted. Believe it or not, there are different ideologies as to what constitutes 'basic services', but that discussion got trampled long ago by those in power who turned their reality into a self-perpetuating machine.
So, a sort of Libertarian jumping off point says we'd be better off to pay for the services WE (as individuals) decide are 'basic and essential' on our own, thereby knowing exactly what we're getting for the money spent. And I know that in our particular situation, we'd end up paying a LOT less overall than we do now (in combined taxes.)
#5Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/5/10 at 11:09am
From my understanding of the situation, that original article isn't accurate at all. The family lived in an area (outside the city limits) that doesn't have a fire department. None of their taxes went to a fire department. They had the option of paying the $75 annual fee to have the city fire department be available to them if necessary. They were sent letters and were also called about the situation, and they chose not to pay the fee. The family got fair warning.
The general premise has been true for twenty years in that area -- it was not a surprise to them. Apparently, a similar situation happened within the past few years in the area, and still the family chose not to pay the fee. The homeowner was quoted as saying something like, "I thought they would put out the fire anyway even if I didn't pay the fee." The city gave the analogy that you can't call an auto insurance company and say you want insurance after you've had a car accident.
I think one can certainly discuss whether one should have the right to decline fire coverage, or whether fire coverage should be an expectation as to part of the way your taxes should be spent, but I don't think it's legitimate to imply (as I think the first article does) that the family was misled in any way.
#6Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/5/10 at 11:15am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRaskxVjkXc
#7Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/5/10 at 11:32am
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRaskxVjkXc"
That's a real one-sided interview. This law has been in place for 20 years, and he knew about 4 other houses succumbing to the same fate. But he STILL didn't pay his rural fire protection fee. I just can not feel all that outraged about what happened to him.
#8Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/5/10 at 11:42amI understand but it still breaks my heart. I don't understand why one wouldn't just pay the $75 a year.
#9Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/6/10 at 7:01pm
The same reason people don't buy insurance...
"It will never happen to ME"
#10Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/6/10 at 7:07pmSomeone suggested that the firemen should respond to those who haven't paid the $75, but then bill them $5,000 or whatever.
#11Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/6/10 at 7:21pmIf they didn't want to pay the 75.00 a month for service, they certainly won't pay a bill that comes after their house was burnt down.
#12Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/6/10 at 8:31pm
Well, presumably their house wouldn't have burned down.
But no, they probably wouldn't.
#13Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/6/10 at 8:53pmWhy can't they just include these residents in taxing for fire fighting services? Is it because it is a town fire station, and they are only in the county not the town? Seems like something needs to be re-zoned or something.
#14Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/6/10 at 9:02pm
"Why can't they just include these residents in taxing for fire fighting services? Is it because it is a town fire station, and they are only in the county not the town?"
Yes
"Seems like something needs to be re-zoned or something."
One of the reasons for living outside of a municipality is so you don't have to pay city taxes. I pretty sure that all the farmers there would shut any annexation attempts down lickety split.
#15Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/7/10 at 9:19pm
Supposedly one of the neighboring communities bills after the fact for non-payers, and only about 50% of the people whose fires were put out end up paying the bill.
In terms of the animals, supposedly there was a decent amount of time between the time the fire was first noticed to be out of control and the time the fire reached the house -- one source said it was over an hour. (The fire started outside, not in the house.) So I'm not really sure what happened with the animals -- it seems there should have been plenty of time for the family to ensure their safety.
#16Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/7/10 at 9:28pm
Unless they were in cages...
Just open the f*cki*ng door.
#17Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/7/10 at 9:37pmI'd have been doing everything within my power to get my cats out. But then again I would have paid my $75
#18Firemen watch as home burns to the ground
Posted: 10/7/10 at 9:54pmI'm really sorry for anyone who loses their home, but everything I read about this situation points the finger at the home owner.
Videos







