Firemen watch as home burns to the ground

[madbrian]

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

[StockardFan]

Posted: 10/5/10 at 7:28am

That's terrible!

[latitudex1]

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

[Weez]

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]

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.)

[mikem]

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.

[romantico]

Posted: 10/5/10 at 11:15am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRaskxVjkXc

[latitudex1]

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.

[StockardFan]

Posted: 10/5/10 at 11:42am

I understand but it still breaks my heart. I don't understand why one wouldn't just pay the $75 a year.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 10/6/10 at 7:01pm

The same reason people don't buy insurance...

"It will never happen to ME"

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/6/10 at 7:07pm

Someone suggested that the firemen should respond to those who haven't paid the $75, but then bill them $5,000 or whatever.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 10/6/10 at 7:21pm

If 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.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/6/10 at 8:31pm

Well, presumably their house wouldn't have burned down.

But no, they probably wouldn't.

[StockardFan]

Posted: 10/6/10 at 8:53pm

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? Seems like something needs to be re-zoned or something.

[latitudex1]

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.

[mikem]

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.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 10/7/10 at 9:28pm

Unless they were in cages...

Just open the f*cki*ng door.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 10/7/10 at 9:37pm

I'd have been doing everything within my power to get my cats out. But then again I would have paid my $75

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/7/10 at 9:54pm

I'm really sorry for anyone who loses their home, but everything I read about this situation points the finger at the home owner.