House Burning Down? Too bad.

[Sarge]

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

Woohoo. Public service at its best. And I thought it was just Police Officers everybody hates. :devil2:

In this case, the homeowner didn't pay a $75 usage fee for the Fire Department, so they refused to show up until the fire spread to the neighbors house, who did pay the fee. :wtf:


God Bless America, the land of "Pay me, or else." So much for "Public Service."

[fasterlaster]

On one end what a dick thing to do, but having lived in rural TN, WTF homeowners? They should have to pay none of the city property tax that pay for the firefighters, and expect to just call when needed? I sooooo don't miss TN.

[SOCAL4LIFE!!]

It was a risk the family took. They chose not to pay it. It sucks this happened, but I am sure the other people in the area that had not paid that $75 fee will rethink that idea now.

[Sarge]

That's true, and in that strict aspect of it, it make sense. But isn't the who point of the government in the first place to provide 3 things, eduction, police and fire protection? I mean, isn't that why we pay taxes? If you drove into the city, do THOSE people pay $75 for their fire protection? Do they have to pay a fee so their kids can go to public school?

[SOCAL4LIFE!!]

"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.
Everyone pays into education, police and fire protection with their property taxes. This house was outside the area but was offered a chance to have the protection for the $75 fee. The house wasn't in the city limits. Therefor they had to pay the fee to get the service and since they didn't they get to build a new house (hopefully they had insurance or they are really screwed). Yes it was a judgement call that the lead fire fighter on scene had to make. I read it as he did his job and kept it by the book. Would anyone have faulted him for trying to save the house? Probably not, but then again in this wacky world he might have been fired for not following orders.

[SOCAL4LIFE!!]

Here is a question I just thought of. Can the insurance company refuse to pay because the owners did not take all the preventative measures they could have i.e. paying the $75 to have fire fighter protection?

[Sarge]

Here is a question I just thought of. Can the insurance company refuse to pay because the owners did not take all the preventative measures they could have i.e. paying the $75 to have fire fighter protection?

But this isn't insurance, and it shouldn't be. Those people pay income tax, just like the rest of us, and though they might not pay the city who owned the Fire Department any property taxes, they are paying SOMEBODY, some other county, something. They are paying taxes just like everyone else, but not being provided the same services.

From the strict view of the Fire Department, I almost get it. "They live in a different town, our service is for our town." But where's the Fire service in that town? Why do these people have to pay extra for something everybody else gets included in their taxes? If that rural town doesn't have fire service, why doesn't the state or county work a deal to move tax dollars from sales taxes to state income tax to county property tax, into that fire department?

By forcing a fee, you're effectively privatizing what is essentially a public service provided to everyone else. If the Fire Department in YOUR town, turned around tomorrow and said "Hey, if you live on this street, you have to pay $75 or we won't help you, but if you live on THAT street, you're fine."

Or if the local school district said "Hey, we're funded by the state, and you pay state taxes, but because you live in a different part of the state, now YOU have to pay a school usage fee of $75, but your neighbor doesn't, his is included in his taxes."

I mean, it's a public service, it's why we have government and pay taxes in the first place. What if police services charged you a fee or they wouldn't respond to crimes? How is fire services any different?

[The GECCO]

But this isn't insurance, and it shouldn't be. Those people pay income tax, just like the rest of us, and though they might not pay the city who owned the Fire Department any property taxes, they are paying SOMEBODY, some other county, something. They are paying taxes just like everyone else, but not being provided the same services.

No, they aren't, that's the point. Whatever part of their taxes (which would be property taxes in this case) that pays for fire protection isn't being collected because there isn't any fire protection provided where they live. They have the OPTION of buying fire protection from another jurisdiction but CHOSE NOT TO!

It sucks to watch your house burn, but it could have been easily prevented...or at least lessened. I don't feel the fire dept owes them anything.

[SOCAL4LIFE!!]

Should that city have had a fire department? Probably. And if they did their property taxes would have been higher to pay for it.
No one was "forcing" a fee, it was offered to cover the additional costs to the fire department. That does not mean by offering the service at a $75 fee anyone is privatizing it. Maybe the city should vote to raise taxes to pay the next city over to provide fire services. If not maybe they should vote to build their own and raise taxes to pay for it.

People pay lower taxes in some areas because some services are not available. And pay higher taxes because they get more out of it. People in Cherry Creek pay higher taxes beacuse the school district is better than anywhere else in the state. Would it be fair to have everyone pay the same amount in taxes but Cherry Creek to get more money for schools than other communities? No. Its the same situation this city without a fire department is in. They chose not to have a fire department. I do not feel sorry for anyones house that burned down that made a decision not to take the offer. The people to blame are the voters in that city for not trying to get a fire department.

[SOCAL4LIFE!!]

It sucks to watch your house burn, but it could have been easily prevented...or at least lessened. I don't feel the fire dept owes them anything.

+1

[rforsythe]

But this isn't insurance, and it shouldn't be. Those people pay income tax, just like the rest of us, and though they might not pay the city who owned the Fire Department any property taxes, they are paying SOMEBODY, some other county, something. They are paying taxes just like everyone else, but not being provided the same services.

They might be paying somebody something, but it isn't for fire services. You can't collect tax from someone in a place they don't live, and the city is not going to tax people outside of its lines - it doesn't work that way.


From the strict view of the Fire Department, I almost get it. "They live in a different town, our service is for our town." But where's the Fire service in that town? Why do these people have to pay extra for something everybody else gets included in their taxes? If that rural town doesn't have fire service, why doesn't the state or county work a deal to move tax dollars from sales taxes to state income tax to county property tax, into that fire department?

By forcing a fee, you're effectively privatizing what is essentially a public service provided to everyone else. If the Fire Department in YOUR town, turned around tomorrow and said "Hey, if you live on this street, you have to pay $75 or we won't help you, but if you live on THAT street, you're fine."

Just because they don't have a fire dept does not mean neighboring ones are mandated to show up and deal with it. Departments have mutual aid agreements with other departments, but if a department is expected to drastically expand its service boundaries, it needs to get paid for that. And yes there are boundaries to where you respond, often one street or another. It may even go deeper though; that $75 fee may cover things like insurance for the department, such that going into a non-covered property in an unofficial capacity (which is what it would be in this case, since the property was not covered and no other agency requested aid) would mean firefighters might not get injuries covered, or benefits paid to their families if they were killed on duty. The captain probably had a bit more to think about than the fee itself, and in that respect I wouldn't have put lives at risk to save possessions without knowing they'd be taken care of if something happened either.


Or if the local school district said "Hey, we're funded by the state, and you pay state taxes, but because you live in a different part of the state, now YOU have to pay a school usage fee of $75, but your neighbor doesn't, his is included in his taxes."

I may be wrong, but I believe if you take your kid to a school outside of your district (like say I live in Denver, I pay Denver school taxes - not just state - but wanted to put my kid in Jeffco for example) you will pay extra for that because they are not collecting the money to pay for your kid's education.


I mean, it's a public service, it's why we have government and pay taxes in the first place. What if police services charged you a fee or they wouldn't respond to crimes? How is fire services any different?

If an area was not covered by an LE agency for some reason, you'd very likely have to pay a fee (whether it's redirection of taxes, or something else) to have a neighboring agency show up; or wait for the staties to get there. LE has different boundaries and organization however, typically at the city, county, and state level, so generally there is always at least someone that oversees an area even though it may take a long time to get there.

Bottom line the FD did what they had to do. It sucks that someone lost their home over $75, but I think there was more than basic politics at play honestly. I suppose his insurance could deny coverage, but it would depend on the policy (like if the homeowner was required to pay the fee, or the ins co knew there was no FD out there). I know when I was a kid my parents along with a bunch of the neighbors started a volunteer FD since we were in BFE, which reduced the insurance by a metric ton and helped with what would otherwise be a 45 minute response (your house would be ashes by then). Perhaps these TN folks should consider doing something along those lines, or cough up the $75 and realize that if you choose to live in the middle of nowhere and pay less taxes for less "city" services, that sometimes you don't get those services for free just because you're independent and special.

[Rhino]

But this isn't insurance, and it shouldn't be. Those people pay income tax, just like the rest of us, and though they might not pay the city who owned the Fire Department any property taxes, they are paying SOMEBODY, some other county, something. They are paying taxes just like everyone else, but not being provided the same services.



Shot in the dark here: You're in your young 20's, joined the military right out of HS and have never owned property.

There are MANY levels of government. The FEDERAL government, which collects the largest amount of income tax does not provide any of the local services. For the most part, they pay for the military, major highways, the post office, etc. Paying FEDERAL INCOME taxes does not provide you with police, fire, libraries, school funds, etc.

Some STATES have income taxes as well. They are usually small by comparison to the Fed. Some states institute a sales tax.

Counties are mostly funded by PROPERTY taxes, but those are broken down into smaller portions as well, such as school districts. That's how you can be in Arapahoe county, city of Aurora, but one side of the street is Aurora Public schools, which has lower property values/taxes and less quality schools, or on the other side of the street be in Cherry Creek school district. Higher values/taxes.

Cities usually only charge a sales tax, but a few started a "head" tax if a company had an employee work in that city. City taxes are usually the highest, as its their main source of income. I.e. Colorado only charges 2.9%, but Aurora charges 3.75%.

Here's an example of law enforcement:
Federal level: Military, FBI, DEA, etc.
State: Colorado State Patrol
County: Sheriff
City: Police Department.

If you live out of city limits and call 911, you don't get the police, you get the sheriff.

This fire issue isn't about 2 cities, its about a CITY funded fire dept. and people living in the surrounding COUNTY.

[Sarge]

Rhino, not quite.

I'm 24, joined about 21. Own a house, married, have a kid, have the title to my truck and my wifes car, wife has a Master's, working on mine.

I keep reading over this and I give in, you guys have valid points. I absolutely understand the difference between local, state, federal, etc, and I was very specific to mention that they are paying taxes to the state and county, at the very least.

And don't get me wrong, I strongly feel the guy should have just bucked up and paid the fee, it's what I would have done, my issue with the whole thing is that there's a fee to begin with. I don't really see how the Fire Department is really any different than the Police Department. I mean, the town might not have a Fire Department, but I bet you anything you can still get a parking ticket for parking in a Fire Zone other otherwise illegally. And somewhere in that town has to be some sort of county and town owned building, that I'm sure is covered by this Fire plan, and if there's a fee associated with protecting the county buildings, somehow its going to be paid by the taxes of the people living in the outside county, which basically means his taxes are going to protect public property is his neighborhood is case of fire, but not his own?

If you read the article, it mentions the Fire Department also put out the fire in the field outside the guys house. This is obviously county property, and not owned by this guy, but someone was still covering the cost of fire services to put THAT fire out, on public land. Is that cost being fronted by the town nearby? Somebody's paying the bill, and I'd put money on the notion that this guy who's house burned down, has paid SOME state or county tax that has trickled down into that fire department.


*edit*
This just popped back into my head. At one point the man tried to throw money at the situation, to pay the fire department whatever it took to compensate them for their services, obviously well above the original $75 fee, and they flat out refused. In most places, if you call the Fire Department and there's not actually an emergency, they send you the bill. He offered to pay the bill and they still refused, even though they were there. Sure, don't give him the option to pay the $75 when its took late, but don't refuse to help the guy when he's willing to pay the bill.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

It's retarded that it's voluntary. That they sat there and watched it burn, well, that't what they were supposed to do, but it's dangerous to LET it get that big and endanger other people's houses. what if it spread too quickly and the neighbor's house HAD been lost too? Stupid, and dangerous. Make it mandatory, end of story.

[Sarge]

It's retarded that it's voluntary. That they sat there and watched it burn, well, that't what they were supposed to do, but it's dangerous to LET it get that big and endanger other people's houses. what if it spread too quickly and the neighbor's house HAD been lost too? Stupid, and dangerous. Make it mandatory, end of story.


Thank you, this sums up my entire point. The F*ed up thing is that it ever came down to even having the choice. Fire protection has a LOT to do with public safety. In this case, because of whatever politics in the local area, the Fire Department literally conducted a controlled burn. They sat and watched, and just kept the fire under control in the vicinity of the guys house, and refused to help him even if he paid them. I mean, it mentions that the neighbors house and the field caught fire. Is the neighbor going to have to file a claim with his insurance company, because his house caught on fire because the fire department refused to put out a nearby fire? Really? What if one of the neighbors had died, or the field fire went out of control and burned thousands of acres and other houses, all because the fire department refused to put it out. How does this make any sense? Collect the damn taxes and give everybody fire services.

[salsashark]

Oh, the ironicallness...

cops enforce policy, everyone wants them run out of town on a rail

firemen enforce policy, overwhelming opinion - "deal with it"

:wtf:

[The GECCO]

If you read the article, it mentions the Fire Department also put out the fire in the field outside the guys house. This is obviously county property, and not owned by this guy, but someone was still covering the cost of fire services to put THAT fire out, on public land. Is that cost being fronted by the town nearby? Somebody's paying the bill, and I'd put money on the notion that this guy who's house burned down, has paid SOME state or county tax that has trickled down into that fire department.
Read the article again. The field was owned by an adjacent property owner who HAD paid the fee...

[Sarge]

Another point to note, especially because fires can endanger public safety as well as public and private property, but places like that offer "subscription services" for the fire department, what about schools and police? Can those people opt out of paying school taxes to the county if there aren't nearby schools or if they don't have kids? Same thing with the police, and I really don't see how the fire department is any different.

[Sarge]

Read the article again. The field was owned by an adjacent property owner who HAD paid the fee...


Right, I get that, I never said he didn't. My argument is that his field wouldn't have caught on fire in the first place if the fire department had done more to put out the fire at the first guys house. Now, if he suffered any property damages, does he fork up the deductible for his insurance company, or does the fire department for basically allowing his property to catch fire in the first place?

[The GECCO]

Right, I get that, I never said he didn't.

No, you said:

This is obviously county property, and not owned by this guy, but someone was still covering the cost of fire services to put THAT fire out, on public landMy point is that it was not "public land". It was land owned by a private person who had paid the fee.


My argument is that his field wouldn't have caught on fire in the first place if the fire department had done more to put out the fire at the first guys house. Now, if he suffered any property damages, does he fork up the deductible for his insurance company, or does the fire department for basically allowing his property to catch fire in the first place?

I see your point. In my opinion the fire department has no liability because they were under no obligation to act, until the fire reached the "covered" property.

Of course, this gets back to what I think is the core argument - did the fire department have an obligation to act? I think not. The owner made the choice not to pay an optional fee. Owner was quoted as saying
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
That argument doesn't fly. You don't assume about shit like that, you find out for sure. He was playing the odds and lost.


Another point to note, especially because fires can endanger public safety as well as public and private property, but places like that offer "subscription services" for the fire department, what about schools and police? Can those people opt out of paying school taxes to the county if there aren't nearby schools or if they don't have kids? Same thing with the police, and I really don't see how the fire department is any different.You never have the ability to "opt out" of paying for services that exist where you live. You chose to move there, pay for the coverage. This guy chose to move to a place without mandatory coverage, then chose not to pay an optional fee for coverage. Sorry, you're screwed...

[rforsythe]

I should also add that firefighters HAVE been denied medical coverage and line-of-duty death benefits for going into a fire when they were not technically supposed to. These guys have families and obligations too, does that suddenly not matter because something, somewhere is on fire? Homes are important, but not so important as to take on the very real risk of destroying your life and everyone around you just to play hero and save what ultimately amounts to wood, paint, and the things within.

I would think if someone was trapped inside it would have happened differently, but at the end of the day these guys had to make a hard decision on whether the risk of uninsured injury or death was worth saving some material things. Yes I am speculating on whether they would have been covered, but making an educated assumption that they would not have been, since this property was *not* within their coverage boundary and *not* within the special additions because the *homeowner chose not to have it be*.

You're trying to lynch the FD for not acting, but where does the responsibility lie with the homeowner? He knew it was a possibility and didn't care. I mean we're talking $75 a YEAR - fuck, I spend more than that on coffee. I bet they had their TV hooked up at $100/mo+ though. When you have priorities out of sorts, this is what happens. Sounds like the FD made it clear they would only protect homes under this plan, so while it sucks for this guy and his family, it isn't like they were unaware. They just assumed they could ignore it, and let someone else deal with it when the time came. Oops.

From the article:


Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.
"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."
Even the homeowner isn't pissed at the FD, perhaps you are taking this a bit far?

[Sarge]

Ok, maybe this is turning into a bit of argument just for arguments sake.

I don't place any of the blame on the Firemen themselves, they were doing what they were told. The issue was that the fire department, and subsequently at least some government department, prevented the fire department from acting.

My point in this whole thing is that basically if something is burning, the fire department should put it out. Just like I can't opt out of police or school services, I shouldn't be able to opt out of fire services. People are arguing that there was no fire service in this area, yet the fire department was actually on the scene. If they're close enough to offer "subscription services" then are are close to enough to cover the area and charge taxes to the individuals as necessary. They were close enough that they basically showed up to supervise the burn so that it didn't touch anything else, which it did anyway.

What if this entire neighborhood was burning in a giant woodland fire? Does the fire department move in and only hit every other house that paid the fee? What if this guy's fire had spread to another property that also didn't pay the fee, does the fire department just let the whole neighborhood burn down and just protect the woods? Where do you draw the line?

Or better yet, hypothetically, if there is a public school in that neighborhood, does the fire department show up to protect it, even if nobody in the neighborhood paid the fee? And if they do, who pays for it? The county or the city? And if the county just paid the fee, they're doing it with the taxes provided by those in the neighborhood, so why would those taxes used for fire protection services only apply to protecting government property?

[Keyser Soze]

Ok, maybe this is turning into a bit of argument just for arguments sake.

Welcome to CSC :lol:

I'd have a hard time pullin up to someones house and watching it burn to the ground. Put the fucker out and bill em.

[rforsythe]

Woodlands would probably trigger a request for mutual aid from federal agencies. This fire did not rise to that level. If multiple homes were on fire they would probably start with the ones that were covered, and decide what to do if additional help were called in.

If the FD should just deal with whatever happens, then at a state or national level they need to be covered if something happens. Fire protection is not a right, it is something we all pay for every year to have provided for us as a service of the communities we live in. It was not a service of this guy's community, and he chose not to contribute a very tiny amount of money to have his home covered. You can't opt out of fire/police/school/etc in your area because it's provided by your local government and is a condition of living there. It's not a part of this guy's community, so he technically didn't "opt out" of a damn thing, he just actively chose not to "opt in" to a service an adjacent community was offering. There is a subtle but important difference between those two. ;)

[dirkterrell]

If they're close enough to offer "subscription services" then are are close to enough to cover the area and charge taxes to the individuals as necessary.

That would be illegal and I'll bet Mr. Cranick would have (correctly) argued so. A government cannot levy taxes on citizens it does not represent. As Ralph said, he gambled and lost. Nobody to blame but himself.

Dirk

[Canuck]

Actually Ralph, if you pay taxes for social services, technically it's a right to receive them. Social Security and Medicare come to mind. Now there is going to be a fight about jurisdiction of who paid for what and who is responsible. But what do you expect for a Libertarian who was living out his dream only to watch it go up in smoke (pun intended). BTW, the Federal taxes that you pay for do go back into the local budgets as in, education, roads, etc, etc.

This discussion is one of the reasons why I'm a recovering Libertarian.

[rforsythe]

Actually Ralph, if you pay taxes for social services, technically it's a right to receive them. Social Security and Medicare come to mind. Now there is going to be a fight about jurisdiction of who paid for what and who is responsible. But what do you expect for a Libertarian who was living out his dream only to watch it go up in smoke (pun intended). BTW, the Federal taxes that you pay for do go back into the local budgets as in, education, roads, etc, etc.

This discussion is one of the reasons why I'm a recovering Libertarian.

IF you pay taxes for it, yes. This guy paid no tax to receive fire protection, because there was no fire protection to pay tax for. He was offered optional coverage from a neighboring dept and refused. Bummer.

[Sarge]

IF you pay taxes for it, yes. This guy paid no tax to receive fire protection, because there was no fire protection to pay tax for. He was offered optional coverage from a neighboring dept and refused. Bummer.


Ok, not really to add to the argument, but just to pose another question:

The Fire Department did show up. They were close enough that they were readily able to respond. I fully understand that they were a City agency, not a County one, and technically it was outside their jurisdiction, but why isn't the County just directing some of these property taxes or whatever into the City budge for the Fire Department in order to provide these people with Fire Services.

I mean, what if the fee wasn't so reasonable, at only $75? What's to stop the city from sending the ENTIRE bill to these people, because they don't pay taxes to support the City Fire Department? Really, where do you draw the line?

In most places, Counties receive tax money from the state, based on population, just like the City likely receives money from the County, for things like schools, police and fire services. It all comes around full circle.

[TurboGizzmo]

Makes since to me, i pay WAY more in property tax a year to get all the services the town i live in provides......and this is why i have to pay more in car insurance to cover those uninsured motorist that choose not to have coverage.....

If they would have put that fire out as a exception they would have been sued the next time it happened and they didnt respond......

[TFOGGuys]

Gotta wonder: Assuming he had insurance on the house, does the insurance company have a viable legal stance in not paying at least a portion of the claim because he failed to take reasonable precautions by not paying the $75 fee for fire protection? Hmmm....this thread could have legs.... :devil2:

[TFOGGuys]

Ok, not really to add to the argument, but just to pose another question:

The Fire Department did show up. They were close enough that they were readily able to respond. I fully understand that they were a City agency, not a County one, and technically it was outside their jurisdiction, but why isn't the County just directing some of these property taxes or whatever into the City budge for the Fire Department in order to provide these people with Fire Services.

I mean, what if the fee wasn't so reasonable, at only $75? What's to stop the city from sending the ENTIRE bill to these people, because they don't pay taxes to support the City Fire Department? Really, where do you draw the line?

In most places, Counties receive tax money from the state, based on population, just like the City likely receives money from the County, for things like schools, police and fire services. It all comes around full circle.

People are billed for emergency services all the time. Example: In Colorado your hunting or fishing license is $xx.25, with that .25 being applied to a search and rescue fund. If you require the services of search and rescue, and you have a license, then you are not billed for the search and rescue expenses(although you are still on the hook for any medical expenses). If you do not have a license, and haven't bothered to get a "Hiker card", you can be billed for the entire cost of the search.

[Sarge]

People are billed for emergency services all the time. Example: In Colorado your hunting or fishing license is $xx.25, with that .25 being applied to a search and rescue fund. If you require the services of search and rescue, and you have a license, then you are not billed for the search and rescue expenses(although you are still on the hook for any medical expenses). If you do not have a license, and haven't bothered to get a "Hiker card", you can be billed for the entire cost of the search.


That absolutely makes sense, but in that case, whether or not the person paid the fee, they still get the search and rescue service, even if they do get the bill. In this case though, even though the homeownder didn't pay the fee, and the Fire Department was even ON SCENE, they still denied him that service.

[dirkterrell]

Actually Ralph, if you pay taxes for social services, technically it's a right to receive them. Social Security and Medicare come to mind.

Not in the case of Social Security. Read up on the SCOTUS ruling in Flemming v. Nestor (1960).

Dirk

[SOCAL4LIFE!!]

Welcome to CSC :lol:

I'd have a hard time pullin up to someones house and watching it burn to the ground. Put the fucker out and bill em.

Thick skin is needed here. You need like 10 inch thick leather skin to be on some of the other forums I browse through.

[SOCAL4LIFE!!]

Gotta wonder: Assuming he had insurance on the house, does the insurance company have a viable legal stance in not paying at least a portion of the claim because he failed to take reasonable precautions by not paying the $75 fee for fire protection? Hmmm....this thread could have legs.... :devil2:

I wondered about this as well. I do not want to be the guy that calls my insurance company and asks though. With my luck the house would catch on fire shortly after just because I asked. Anyone wanna take that chance for me?

[Canuck]

Not in the case of Social Security. Read up on the SCOTUS ruling in Flemming v. Nestor (1960).

Dirk

My argument is still for the right of Social Security. That case was about a deported alien and his right to still collect SS after deportation. Which the court ruled that he didn't. It's no different than the second amendment right to bear arms under a well regulated Militia, (which, lets face it, is a vague statute for guns rights) and the limitations that right has for the general public.
*edit* I'm not going to argue the second amendment because I'm actually 'pro-gun'; just making a point about rights having limitations.

[dirkterrell]

My argument is still for the right of Social Security. That case was about a deported alien and his right to still collect SS after deportation. Which the court ruled that he didn't.

From the SCOTUS ruling:


The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of social insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress' power to "spend money in aid of the `general welfare,'" Helvering v. Davis, supra, at 640, whereby persons gainfully employed, and those who employ them, are taxed to permit the payment of benefits to the retired and disabled, and their dependents. Plainly the expectation is that many members of the present productive work force will in turn become beneficiaries rather than supporters of the program. But each worker's benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made to the [363 U.S. 603, 610] national economy while actively employed, are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation. It is apparent that the noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.

and


We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.


To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands. See Wollenberg, Vested Rights in Social-Security Benefits, 37 Ore. L. Rev. 299, 359. It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and [363 U.S. 603, 611] has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of the Act. 1104, 49 Stat. 648, 42 U.S.C. 1304.


Text of the ruling (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=363&page=603).

So, the ultimate decision makers disagree with you (and are in clear disagreement with the way politicians talk about Social Security.) And, of course, with the ability to "alter, amend, or repeal an provision" of Social Security, the politicians can (and I'm betting in my lifetime, will) declare it out of existence when the chickens come home to roost.

Dirk

[GreenGobblin]

I got tired of reading all the long posts, so here is my response from back when I was a fireman/ EMT.

If I were to show up to a fire that was not in my area or part of my responsibility (they didn't pay $75) and something happened, we can be held responsible.

Ever hear about people helping people or saving someones life and later be sued for something? It happens and isn't in the news as much anymore because we are taught not to unless we are required to by law.

[Captain Obvious]

Sad. But the reality is they knew it was a service that had to be paid for, they gambled, they lost.

Why should they expect to get services for free that others pay for?

[Captain Obvious]

But isn't the who point of the government in the first place to provide 3 things, eduction, police and fire protection? I mean, isn't that why we pay taxes?


Ahhhh, no.

[Wrider]

If I were to show up to a fire that was not in my area or part of my responsibility (they didn't pay $75) and something happened, we can be held responsible.

Ever hear about people helping people or saving someones life and later be sued for something? It happens and isn't in the news as much anymore because we are taught not to unless we are required to by law.

A very valid point.

I've gotta chime in with the history of fire departments too here. Most cities didn't used to provide fire protection services as a civil service. It used to be up to privately owned companies, and they had the same motto. If you paid you were helped out, if not, sucks to be you... What really changed that was the Great Chicago Fire in 1871. (Ironically right at this time during that year too.)

Most smaller places still have a volunteer fire protection district, and a lot of those require subscriptions too, because let's face it... The firefighters may be volunteer, but their gear, the vehicles, the firehouse, the fuel to get to the fire, etc etc etc is above and beyond the hundreds of hours a year they already spend training, the fuel they use to get to the fire house, etc.

[Sleev]

Dummy should have wrote them a check for $75 as soon as his house caught fire. Or do firemen take credit cards?

[Dietrich_R1]

"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said

Sounds like they live outside city limits. They don't have to pay city taxes, yet expect the city to take care of them? The city offered it's fire services to them, yet they declined. Why would the city be responsible for something outside of city limits???



"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

Duh!!



"The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house."

There's no way he could afford the bill after the city put out the fire!!! Then he'ld be complaining about that!!!

[Rhino]

Aaaaaaaaaand round 2. $75/12 = $6.25/month. A starbucks Venti... >2 gallons of gas, etc.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html

[Ghost]

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

Woohoo. Public service at its best. And I thought it was just Police Officers everybody hates. :devil2:

In this case, the homeowner didn't pay a $75 usage fee for the Fire Department, so they refused to show up until the fire spread to the neighbors house, who did pay the fee. :wtf:


God Bless America, the land of "Pay me, or else." So much for "Public Service."


Public Service = Socialism, so this is better.

[Ezzzzy1]

There has to be a reason that the fire department is keeping track. Would be a little weird if they were checking a list before responding to the situation. OOP, you are on the no pay list? Well we aint commin.

[mxer]

As hokie as this system is, they should be able to write the firemen a check/pay with cash when the arrive.

[dirkterrell]

As hokie as this system is, they should be able to write the firemen a check/pay with cash when the arrive.

Then they'd have to pay a lot more. You can't buy an insurance policy on your car and then have it pay for the wreck you just had.

[tecknojoe]

The entire community has to give money for services like police roads and schools. If they opt out of fire department payments then they're fucked.

Life is hard

[dragos13]

First, it sucks to be the homeowner.

Second, the fire department isn't required to offer services to anyone outside of their district. By offering fire service for only $75 per year, you would be a retard to refuse. Also, to think you can pay after the fact just isn't logical either. Like said before, you can't order insurance to pay for a wreck you just had. I can't end up in the hospital with thousands in medical bills then call Cobra to sign a policy to cover the expense.

The guy made a bad assumption that the fire department would provide protection to someone who refused to pay the $75 fee. I mean, give me a break. That doesn't even cover the expense to get an engine on scene, much less time spent for fire attack, salvage and overhaul. While putting the fire out would have been the right thing to do on a moral level, there are politics in play and also policy that has to be followed. This isn't the first time and won't be the last time that a department will watch an out of district house burn whose owner opts out of paying for the coverage.

[dragos13]

Here is a great quote for the most recent incident:

"Bell admitted that she was aware of the fee, but never thought it would happen to them."

[#1Townie]

Wow this country really has turned to shit.

[modette99]

Help they neighbor.

My parents living in TN, property taxes are $1,200 on the house and $200 more on the land. As far as I know they get fire service with their tax money they pay. Otherwise what else is the money going towards!!!!

Fire, Police, and Ambulance I believe should of be included and in everyone's property taxes. Insurance companies are all different but I read how a lot of times the fire department will submit them a bill and they pay it. Maybe that is how the law should read or be written, that everyone is covered but Insurance companies get a bill for the service used. After all it SAVES them money if they can save a place and only need to do minor repairs vs a whole house build, plus loss of items that were in the home.

[birchyboy]

As hard as it seems, I agree with everyone here that the FD had the right to not extend services to these homeowners. If their property taxes don't cover the services and they opt out of coverage, then they shouldn't receive the benefit subsidized by others. If the FD started fighting fires for everyone regardless of payment, then the other owners that DO pay would stop paying and the city that pays the FD would lose out.

[modette99]

As hard as it seems, I agree with everyone here that the FD had the right to not extend services to these homeowners. If their property taxes don't cover the services and they opt out of coverage, then they shouldn't receive the benefit subsidized by others. If the FD started fighting fires for everyone regardless of payment, then the other owners that DO pay would stop paying and the city that pays the FD would lose out.

No they just imposes taxes. so really no one would loose out. Chances of the home being saved anyways is slim when you live in the country.

[birchyboy]

No they just imposes taxes. so really no one would loose out. Chances of the home being saved anyways is slim when you live in the country.

Yeah...the FD where I grew up (rural Maine) was volunteer. Their own building burned down a few years ago with their fire truck in it.

[modette99]

Yeah...the FD where I grew up (rural Maine) was volunteer. Their own building burned down a few years ago with their fire truck in it.

Come to think of it, I think my parents home would be a loss and Insurance be replacing everything (they have replacement/art values on items). For one no water nearby, although they are on city water for being in the middle of nowhere. No close ponds to pump from, and the steep hill and driveway means one truck would have room...yeah it can not be saved.

But that is why they have great insurance...yeah it would suck to loose everything...but shit happens as long as they and the animals are okay everything be fine. Things are just that things. We all get too attached to our toys usually items that can be replaced...they have a lot of one offs so they would loss a lot of unique and historical artifacts.

I have a feeling though someone not paying $75 probably does not have insurance or has very shitty insurance.

A fire happening is slim, most that you hear about was do to someone being a fool. Like Turkey Fryer fires....

http://youtu.be/KHrSXLuEx3U

[dragos13]

Come to think of it, I think my parents home would be a loss and Insurance be replacing everything (they have replacement/art values on items). For one no water nearby, although they are on city water for being in the middle of nowhere. No close ponds to pump from, and the steep hill and driveway means one truck would have room...yeah it can not be saved.

But that is why they have great insurance...yeah it would suck to loose everything...but shit happens as long as they and the animals are okay everything be fine. Things are just that things. We all get too attached to our toys usually items that can be replaced...they have a lot of one offs so they would loss a lot of unique and historical artifacts.

I have a feeling though someone not paying $75 probably does not have insurance or has very shitty insurance.

A fire happening is slim, most that you hear about was do to someone being a fool. Like Turkey Fryer fires....

http://youtu.be/KHrSXLuEx3U

That is why rural departments have water tenders. It's not uncommon for a rural department to rely solely on bringing water to a fire scene.

Also, cities cannot tax residents outside of their limits, as mentioned before.

People frying turkeys like that make me laugh. I like how he protects his house with the plywood lol.

[laspariahs]

I'd be pretty pissed if I were the guy who owned the house which the fire spread too. He paid for fire protection yet they let his house burn just to prove a point.

[bornwildnfree]

In doing a little further research, the homeowner called the FD and they refused to respond because he had not paid the fee. The neighbor, who had coverage, called and said his field was on fire and they responded to him because he had paid the fee. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-10-06/news/27077378_1_fire-protection-fire-department-fee

The fire started in barrels outside of the home and the homeowner watched the fire slowly get closer and closer to his house. He had time to go in after his pets and didn't. I don't know about you all, but I've been in a forest fire and if it were me, I'd do anything to protect my animals. His son went to the fire chief and punched him. That to me says he's more than willing to blame anyone and everyone else for his misfortune instead of manning up and taking responsibility for his own actions and he's raising his family the same way. He lost his house and killed his animals because of pride and the inability to admit he was wrong. Also, what the heck did he have in those barrels that caused such a fire?

[modette99]

That is why rural departments have water tenders. It's not uncommon for a rural department to rely solely on bringing water to a fire scene.

Also, cities cannot tax residents outside of their limits, as mentioned before.

People frying turkeys like that make me laugh. I like how he protects his house with the plywood lol.

Point being...was my parents house would be burned down...and I do realize they have trucks to carry water not enough room at the house to have all those there...that assumes they can get across the bridge even. And my parents did a fancy concrete bridge so maybe so...but most people have what looks to be welded bed frames as their bridges....probably not rated at all for a fire truck...LOL Plus the steep hill, I doubt they could get up there.

I know in CO, at least the area I looked at property the guy selling said the fire department required the width and slope of the driveway to be a certain amount...no limits in TN (at least in my parents area).

It all comes down to, that is why you have insurance.

Yeah, I remember this story...the home owner is an idiot too. He surely could of gotten water or a rake and managed the fire. I remember the short time (1 year) I lived with my Grandparents in GA....we would rake the hill sides around the house and burn the leafs. Of course we stood around with rakes and managed the fire. So I think the guy should of been able to manage a slow moving fire with water, and a shovel and rake.

Yeah, Turkey fires...I can not believe what people do or lack of (common sense is no longer common). So many of them at Youtube...so many say "GET THE WATER"...huh did these people fail science class!!! Or the ones frying a Turkey on their wooden deck...not so smart. How about the common sense to have a fire extinguisher on hand...just a thought.

[bornwildnfree]

We had fire extinguishers just in case when Spiderman fried the turkey for Black Sheep.

[grim]

We had fire extinguishers just in case when Spiderman fried the turkey for Black Sheep.

People usually do that outside too.

[TinkerinWstuff]

wow - so much "what-if"...

So what if the fire dept showed up and was standing there. If they fought the fire, then NO ONE would pay the fee.

I hope they had marshmallows

Shit isn't free folks. even gov't services.

we don't allow kids to fail in school and they don't understand failure when they're adults

[bornwildnfree]

That too...out by the front door on the concrete.

[grim]

That too...out by the front door on the concrete.

That is usually what smart people do :)

[bornwildnfree]

Well, I was having a bunch of black sheep over and letting them play with flame, dead animal and oil. Seemed like the smrt thing to do lol.

[#1Townie]

wow - so much "what-if"...

So what if the fire dept showed up and was standing there. If they fought the fire, then NO ONE would pay the fee.

I hope they had marshmallows

Shit isn't free folks. even gov't services.

we don't allow kids to fail in school and they don't understand failure when they're adults
Ummmmmmmm but if the person is WILLING TO PAY whatever they wanted to put the fire out than shouldn't they have done their job?? That's like saying tough deal your car broke down the tow truck is just going to watch you push it off the road. If the firefighters are there anyways and the guy is willing to pay the bill wouldn't it make more sense financially to get paid for having your guys there?

[TinkerinWstuff]

Ummmmmmmm but if the person is WILLING TO PAY whatever they wanted to put the fire out than shouldn't they have done their job?? That's like saying tough deal your car broke down the tow truck is just going to watch you push it off the road. If the firefighters are there anyways and the guy is willing to pay the bill wouldn't it make more sense financially to get paid for having your guys there?

the article said $2,200 for the 1st two hours and $1,100 for each hour afterword.

sort of like my medical insurance. I can pay the $340/mo or I can choose to have no insurance.

but if I chose no insurance, I can't change my mind when I'm diagnosed with cancer and think I can just pay some marginal fee like $340. You get to pony up and pay the real charges it costs for the services rendered.

[CraigB]

this was an annual fee, right? what is that, like $6.50 a month? and, they opted out of the fee w/o doing anything to protect themselves in case of fire?! they certainly aren't doing anything to help disprove negative stereotypes about the intelligence of rural midwesterners.

[csmith]

My parents living in TN, property taxes are $1,200 on the house and $200 more on the land. As far as I know they get fire service with their tax money they pay. Otherwise what else is the money going towards!!!!

Tennessee doesn't have an income tax. Elevated property taxes make up for that.


they certainly aren't doing anything to help disprove negative stereotypes about the intelligence of rural midwesterners.

That's because most of your stereotypes about them are true. We're talking about the region that provided the world with a gem like "Hold mah beer while I (insert random activity that usually results in a trip to the ER)!" Take it from the guy from Tennessee. Although Tennesse isn't in the midwest..

[#1Townie]

the article said $2,200 for the 1st two hours and $1,100 for each hour afterword.

sort of like my medical insurance. I can pay the $340/mo or I can choose to have no insurance.

but if I chose no insurance, I can't change my mind when I'm diagnosed with cancer and think I can just pay some marginal fee like $340. You get to pony up and pay the real charges it costs for the services rendered.
Yeah ummmm isn't that what he was offering by stating he will pay WHATEVER they wanted?

[Wrider]

Yeah ummmm isn't that what he was offering by stating he will pay WHATEVER they wanted?

Actual quote from the article says:

"My neighbor called [the fire department], saying whatever it takes, we want them to put it out, we'll pay $500," said Cranick. "They told us, 'It's too late.'"

And like I posted on page 2, this was an extremely common (and in a lot of cases the only) way of life when fires were much much more common in the 1800s.

Have you guys seen Gangs of New York? You know the scene where the two fire companies respond, but instead of fighting the fire, they fight each other? That's based on fact, not Hollywood fiction.

You know the cute cuddly Dalmatians that is the mascot of every fire department? Originally used to 1. Keep horses near the wagon when they were at the fire and the firefighters were fighting the blaze/each other; 2. Attack other departments' horses and run them off; 3. Defend their own horses from attacks by the other stations. Dalmatians are a vicious breed by nature.

I honestly feel bad for the family, but at the same time I see where the city is coming from. It's expensive just to send out an engine, and can cost 10s of 1000s to fight a single fire.

[#1Townie]

Yeah but this isn't exactly the 1800's now is it?

[mxer]

Then they'd have to pay a lot more. You can't buy an insurance policy on your car and then have it pay for the wreck you just had.

Why? Comparing a public service to insurance is incorrect. The insurance company is there to make money of course they won't insure a wrecked car. A fire department is there to serve the public. It is not there to make money. The 75 dollar fee is what they calculate as the cost for fighting x number of fires outside there district. It shouldn't matter when they get their fee.

Hospitals are required by law to accept people who can't pay. This is almost the same scenario. If they were trapped inside would the FD just stand there and watch?

If anything they should fight the fire then send them the bill for the actual cost but to just stand and watch is pretty heartless and goes against everything the FD stands for IMO.

[modette99]

Ummmmmmmm but if the person is WILLING TO PAY whatever they wanted to put the fire out than shouldn't they have done their job?? That's like saying tough deal your car broke down the tow truck is just going to watch you push it off the road. If the firefighters are there anyways and the guy is willing to pay the bill wouldn't it make more sense financially to get paid for having your guys there?

Yep, because they already spent more then $75 in responding...to a neighbors field...LOL

[modette99]

How many times does a rural fire department get called out anyways??? Seeing as they were there what would it hurt!!! Nothing....they already used resources in responding might as well work a little (good practice probably don't get many calls anyways).

I just think the whole thing could be avoided by taxing them on the county level, surely that city falls into that county...so then respond. Simple, easy and one of the few services people would not try and argue with on their property taxes.

If these are Professionals hired full time, then they were on the clock whether fighting this fire or not. So they could be siting around watching TV and playing on their smartphones but instead they were asked to work. By responding to the neighbors call of the field, they used assets anyways.

From a small business stand point if a guy asked me if he could pay $500, sure...that means we at least made $575 from the call instead of $75. Tax payers should be happy about it.

Its like if you catch a snow plow driver out plowing, and you say here is $20...a lot of them will say okay as that is $20 more to quickly hit yours as they are there anyways. I know my father in-law has done that. Once in a blue moon there be some plow guy that quote some nutty price.....most will not and are happy for the $20.

I see it as bad morals, bad business and the county should tax everyone for fire...solves a problem, and doe snot put them in a bad light.

[dragos13]

Ummmmmmmm but if the person is WILLING TO PAY whatever they wanted to put the fire out than shouldn't they have done their job?? That's like saying tough deal your car broke down the tow truck is just going to watch you push it off the road. If the firefighters are there anyways and the guy is willing to pay the bill wouldn't it make more sense financially to get paid for having your guys there?

The job of the fire department is not to put out every fire that ever starts anywhere in the world. They have a specific district to cover in which that district pays for their service. Like any business, the fire department needs a source of income to operate.

Departments do not offer a "pay as you go" program. It's not at all like calling a tow truck. Tow services work on a call to call basis. Bottom line, they offered their service and the "customers" refused it. They opted to NOT have fire coverage. It was a black and white decision. It was also their own fault to assume the fire department would still help even if they decided not to pay for the coverage. Everyone wants something for nothing and in this case, the fire department unfortunately had to make a point. There is more to the case of just doing what is right and people need to understand that if they are NOT covered, they will NOT get service.

I'm sure the other neighbors who "thought" the fire department would still help even if they decided to be cheap and not pay $75/year will think again now. Trust me, $75/year is extremely reasonable given the costs it takes to just get an engine on scene.

If you own a house in an area that doesn't have fire protection and the nearest department offers you their service for a fee, take it.

[TinkerinWstuff]

this whole debate is pointless. Fact - shit's not fucking free people. The fire dept costs money to be staffed and have equipment standing by at the ready.

The business model they are using is similar to an insurance company. Yes, insurance companies are in business to make money - and thus if the people in question were dealing with an insurance company, the fee would be MORE to cover profit and administration costs.

regardless, neither is free. It's simple, pay the fee or accept the consequences.

BTW - of course if someone's life was in danger they would go in the house rescue a person. But your private property is your own loss.

[tecknojoe]

this whole debate is pointless. Fact - shit's not fucking free people. The fire dept costs money to be staffed and have equipment standing by at the ready.

The business model they are using is similar to an insurance company. Yes, insurance companies are in business to make money - and thus if the people in question were dealing with an insurance company, the fee would be MORE to cover profit and administration costs.

regardless, neither is free. It's simple, pay the fee or accept the consequences.

BTW - of course if someone's life was in danger they would go in the house rescue a person. But your private property is your own loss.

Don't feed the trolls, it's pointless

Here everyone. Now shut the fuck up

http://cdn.iomtt.com/images/productimages/1/N297.jpg

[#1Townie]

The job of a fire department is to put out ALL fires. Im sure just because these people live in the county there are no stores out there so they have to drive into town to buy things. So the money they use to buy things is taxed. I know the y had to pay taxes for their property on some level. This whole thing about having to pay more money is bullshit. Fire departments are not businesses they are not smell corporation. They are civil servants. Just like cops or anything else. Do they have to pay more for cops to come out if their home is broke into? Fuck no.this isn't the 1800'speople. This is flat out extortion. The fire department coming out to watch the fire burn makes even less sense. Im happy one of those Fuck head firefighters got assaulted. They want to act like its the old days then let them get dep't with like the old days. You people have no idea what the Fuck you're talking about. I watched the area around where I grew up go up in flames a bunch of times. Fires from other county spread and the fire departments from all over worked together to put it out. This is Nevada so we don't pay alot of the taxes you guys are used to. We don't have to pay extra money for protecting and we lived a good 15rifle miles away from the nearest town in our county. Another city was closer to us but in a deferent county. The ignorance in how this is all setup is the problem. I hope they find a way to sue the Fuck out if the fire department.

[dirkterrell]

So the money they use to buy things is taxed. I know the y had to pay taxes for their property on some level. This whole thing about having to pay more money is bullshit.

Fire protection has always been a specific line item in property taxes everywhere I've ever lived. I have voted on numerous specific taxes for fire protection over the years. In the county where these people live, they apparently have no line item for fire protection (or they would have their own fire fighting facilities). I would bet that the tax issue has come up and been voted down. The taxes you are talking about pay for other things, not a fire department. A neighboring fire department offered their services for a reasonable fee (less than half what I pay every year) and they, again, chose not to pay the fee (a protection coverage, not the cost of fighting a fire which as Casey points out is much higher).

They paid the price for their decision to skimp on paying for the coverage and that's the way it should be. You either pay for the coverage or you foot the bill when your house burns down. Your attempt to deflect it by saying that they pay taxes for other things is flawed because those taxes pay for other services, not firefighting. That's like saying that my homeowners insurance should cover my car accidents if I didn't have auto insurance. You point out that law enforcement will come out out to their house, and that's because they pay taxes specifically for that service, the county sheriff's office. I'll bet the neighboring city police won't come out if they call them.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Im happy one of those Fuck head firefighters got assaulted. ......

...... The ignorance in how this is all setup is the problem. I hope they find a way to sue the Fuck out if the fire department.

....another child that wasn't taught to accept the consequences of their decisions, now throws a tantrum wishing physical harm on others. If children were allowed to fail, they'd get along better as adults.

Here's the cool part about this country Townie; those folks had a vote (or several) in how their current system setup - what you call "the problem"

they lived, and got burned, by their decisions

If we all chip in $100, we can buy those hillbillies another trailer and put this issue behind us.


I watched the area around where I grew up go up in flames a bunch of times. Fires from other county spread and the fire departments from all over worked together to put it out. This is Nevada so we don't pay alot of the taxes you guys are used to. We don't have to pay extra money for protecting and we lived a good 15rifle miles away from the nearest town in our county. Another city was closer to us but in a deferent county.

If the hillbillies had the revenue from tourism that Nevada has, the cost of maintaining a fire department would probably come from other areas

I'm sure it's not your fault Townie, the public school system has failed you by not doing a better job of teaching civics.

[Scatterbrain]

That's rediculous. Think about your life's things in that house. Not just paying some fucking fee that the city wants. I mean christ think if your motorcycle was in there or your dog!! WTF is wrong with you people. A fire is a tragic thing that only one thing can stop and that's firefighters they should have to put out your fire just out of sympathy for losing all of your stuff. That is a life changing event that even crackheads shouldn't have to go thru.

[TinkerinWstuff]

socialism runs rampant on this board

will say it again - shit isn't free

firefighters have families to support, even after they die attempting to put out your deep fried turkey fire. Firefighters want to earn a decent living. Go be a firefighter and see if you feel the same way.

guess they should have thought about their life belongings when they neglected to pay the $75 fee to help fund the fire dept. It's not just about this one trailer. The fire department puts out this one fire for pennies on the dollar, next no one pays the fee, and next there is NO fire department at all - because SHIT AINT FREE

[TinkerinWstuff]

I see now that it is true - this country will go the way of the Romans if there isn't a real war on home soil

some of you will love this:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/OAOrT0OcHh0?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0&showi

[The GECCO]

That's rediculous. Think about your life's things in that house. Not just paying some fucking fee that the city wants. I mean christ think if your motorcycle was in there or your dog!! WTF is wrong with you people. A fire is a tragic thing that only one thing can stop and that's firefighters they should have to put out your fire just out of sympathy for losing all of your stuff. That is a life changing event that even crackheads shouldn't have to go thru.

Yup, a fire sure is a tragic thing....sounds like $75 is a pretty fair price to avoid something so awful.

[dirkterrell]

That's rediculous. Think about your life's things in that house. Not just paying some fucking fee that the city wants. I mean christ think if your motorcycle was in there or your dog!!

I think about it every year I pay $150+ to the county for fire protection. They thought about it and chose to take the risk of not paying. That "fucking fee" is what pays for the resources to fight fires. You don't pay, you risk watching your house burn down. So, if all of that stuff is so precious to you, pay the (quite reasonable) fee.

[CraigB]

had the fire dept accepted the offer for payment on the spot and asked for something like $2k, they probably could have given out holiday bonuses (the cost of being there was already covered), the family's home may've been saved, and it's likely that they would've paid the $75 going forward.

the fire dept was not under any obligation to do that but it seems like it would've been a way to deal with the problem in everyone's best interest. fire dept gets paid, home is saved, family learns their lesson, neighbor's home isn't threatened by fire.

[TinkerinWstuff]

the fire dept was not under any obligation to do that but it seems like it would've been a way to deal with the problem in everyone's best interest. fire dept gets paid, home is saved, family learns their lesson, neighbor's home isn't threatened by fire...going forward, no one pays the fee because they know they don't have to, the fire department goes broke or starts having to charge their home city more money, next there's no fire protection services at all.

Fixed it for ya Craig

The insurance I DIDN'T pay for should just go ahead and fix my broken leg for a co-pay - because going forward I'll be sure to pay my premium

I think the garbage man should pick up my trash for free. I mean, he already drives by my house anyway. My neighbors don't want to look at my trash piling up. They should just do it in everyone's best interest.

[TinkerinWstuff]

How about if you have a home within the city who has tax appropriations to fund the fire department... Your home starts on fire and the fire department is off fighting this trailer fire for $500. I'm pretty pissed when I paid the fee and the fire department is off fighting fires for a buck.

Same thing happens in Denver right now folks. The nearest fire department to your home isn't always the one to respond because of boundary lines and who pays for what department.

[CraigB]

I doubt that if people have the option of paying a $75 fee to ensure their homes are protected or a $2k fee that might protect their homes, people are going to opt for the potential $2k fee. Most people who can pay for insurance do out of the fear of not having it when they need it.

But, if they didn't pay the $75 and the fire dept closes, everyone would learn their lesson if/when a fire broke out.

[TinkerinWstuff]

and as I said;

If I pay my protection fee, of if I lived in the city limits which had tax appropriations who paid for the fire department, and my house starts fire - you can bet there will be a lawsuit when the fire department has it's hoses drug out on a fire for hire and they are not available to provide the services I've paid for.

[modette99]

How about if you have a home within the city who has tax appropriations to fund the fire department... Your home starts on fire and the fire department is off fighting this trailer fire for $500. I'm pretty pissed when I paid the fee and the fire department is off fighting fires for a buck.

Same thing happens in Denver right now folks. The nearest fire department to your home isn't always the one to respond because of boundary lines and who pays for what department.

Could that happen sure...but that town is a blink your eye town...so chances of two fires in a day...not likely going to happen. Be a bad bet to make. Most small town fire departments sit around day after day, clean the truck, inspect shit...busy work to somewhat earn their pay.

The whole boundary lines is why I think it should be a county tax, thus those departments should be like County Sheriff's and be able to respond county wide. They should not be city only departments...that is the issue I have, I see it as a county issue...your looking at it as a city issue. I think things need to change.

Fire departments send resources without the public's input to various fires around the country (the big fires) all the time. Maybe the Feds pick up some of the bill, maybe that area picks up some...I have no clue but they put fires out I the tax payer for that department did not have a say in. Nor did that area of the country pay to train and equip those firefighters.

Personnel I believe we break stuff down too much: State Police, County Police, City Police...why not just a County Police staffed better!!!....oh wait that be too simple.

[dragos13]

The job of a fire department is to put out ALL fires. Im sure just because these people live in the county there are no stores out there so they have to drive into town to buy things. So the money they use to buy things is taxed. I know the y had to pay taxes for their property on some level. This whole thing about having to pay more money is bullshit. Fire departments are not businesses they are not smell corporation. They are civil servants. Just like cops or anything else. Do they have to pay more for cops to come out if their home is broke into? Fuck no.this isn't the 1800'speople. This is flat out extortion. The fire department coming out to watch the fire burn makes even less sense. Im happy one of those Fuck head firefighters got assaulted. They want to act like its the old days then let them get dep't with like the old days. You people have no idea what the Fuck you're talking about. I watched the area around where I grew up go up in flames a bunch of times. Fires from other county spread and the fire departments from all over worked together to put it out. This is Nevada so we don't pay alot of the taxes you guys are used to. We don't have to pay extra money for protecting and we lived a good 15rifle miles away from the nearest town in our county. Another city was closer to us but in a deferent county. The ignorance in how this is all setup is the problem. I hope they find a way to sue the Fuck out if the fire department.

Yeah sounds like you know what you're talking about... :roll:

[modette99]

Chicken shit firefighters is what I say. Lets call the police...huh!!! Not their property even the police blew the fire department off.

http://youtu.be/a3Kuiwu5N5g

About Charging money to put out fires if the department is called even if they don't put out the fire or send people out. One family got a bill for $28K, another guy $390 because the Chief showed up because neighbor called 911 but the guy put out his brush fire with a hose himself...LOL

http://youtu.be/hwsbNtBJsSA

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Well, if I cancelled my auto insurance, and then wrecked my car, think State Farm would help????

Holy Zombie thread!

[modette99]

Forget it...done arguing...

All I can say if you crash on a ride with me, I ain't helping because you failed to pay me my $75 helpers fee.

[Ghost]

Forget it...done arguing...


On that note:

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

[#1Townie]

....another child that wasn't taught to accept the consequences of their decisions, now throws a tantrum wishing physical harm on others. If children were allowed to fail, they'd get along better as adults.

Here's the cool part about this country Townie; those folks had a vote (or several) in how their current system setup - what you call "the problem"

they lived, and got burned, by their decisions

If we all chip in $100, we can buy those hillbillies another trailer and put this issue behind us.



If the hillbillies had the revenue from tourism that Nevada has, the cost of maintaining a fire department would probably come from other areas

I'm sure it's not your fault Townie, the public school system has failed you by not doing a better job of teaching civics.

im not the one trying to compaire 2011 to the 1800s. in the 1800s thats how things were done. if you offended another man then you most lickly got bitch slapped for it. but then again i dont expect a pussified coloradian like you to understand that. you would probably just hide in your cubical until you thought the person forgot about you.

as for nv yes things are a little different with tourism but lets face it not a whole hell of alot of people are going to nv to blow tons of cash now days.... you know the whole economic downturn and what have you. im talking about fires that would make you guys wet your pants. not a home or two. whole mountain ranges. i would also like to point out im not from vegas and people do not fly in from all over the world to see what i grew up with. vegas is its own shit whole. you morons that fly there to blow thousands of dollers on hopes of stricking it big make me laugh.

as for the bashing of trailer parks and lower rent socity i will merly laugh at you. i grew up on a dirt road in the middle of no where with most of my friends growing up in the parks... drunk parents... blowing all the food money on things like ummmm gambling.. i didnt make it past the tenth grade. never got a ged or any other kind of schooling. was hooked on meth at the age 14. was in a neighborhood gang. i made 10 grand last month. legaly i might add. i own my company. no boss. what the fuck have you ever done with your life that makes you sooo much better then everyone else?

look bottom line the way that system is setup is whats wrong. the fire department had no right to refuse service. expecialy now days that we give free healthcare to anyone. they should have put out the fire and then sent the home owner the bill. just sitting around watching it burn is why one of their guys got assulted. there are other ways around people not paying the bill and still collecting then just watch their house burn.

now imagine that, my redneck un educated ass being smarter then lets send our guys out pay them to watch a house burn and in the end they put the fire out anyways and we still dont get paid. you fuck heads with to much education loose grasp to solve simple problems.

[#1Townie]

Forget it...done arguing...

All I can say if you crash on a ride with me, I ain't helping because you failed to pay me my $75 helpers fee.
:spit:

[#1Townie]

Well, if I cancelled my auto insurance, and then wrecked my car, think State Farm would help????

Holy Zombie thread!
no but police and fire would still show up.

[TinkerinWstuff]

no but police and fire would still show up.

Not for free

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Not for free
Exactly. ;)

[TinkerinWstuff]

I have heard there are states that will allow you to pay on the spot if you use the services of a law enforcement officer. :)

[#1Townie]

Not for free
really??? so im in california and my car goes off the cliff and police and fire come out.... do i pay for it??

last few times i had interactions with leo i dont remember having to pay them. no tickets and they came to my aid. infact besides bullshit traffic tickets i have never heard of police "charging" people reponders fee.... just saying. never once have i heard for 911 to respond for an officer the term oh ummmm you didnt pay for that so we cant help you.

[#1Townie]

Exactly. ;)

really do tell me kind sir what was the bill on your last accident for police and fire to respond? not counting medical. that im asuming the insurance payed. not to mention even if you had no insurance what sooooooo ever if you had complained about any kind of injury you would have been treated for it ANYWAYS.

[TinkerinWstuff]

really do tell me kind sir what was the bill on your last accident for police and fire to respond? not counting medical. that im asuming the insurance payed. not to mention even if you had no insurance what sooooooo ever if you had complained about any kind of injury you would have been treated for it ANYWAYS.

the police who responded were funded by taxes collected in the jurisdiction. They operate under a different business model - because even government services are not free. Ya know, broke cities, states, and the 15trillion national debt?


it's been said like 5 fucking times but you fail to comprehend. The people who's house burned down could have VOTED to have fire protection services in their area operate under a different model similar to police. Or they could have paid the $75 fee. pretty simple shit really.

Boy you're gonna be shocked if you need search and rescue services in a county who may send you a bill. http://www.coloradoconnection.com/news/story.aspx?id=484724#.TuGHN_LhcqM

[Wrider]

Boy you're gonna be shocked if you need search and rescue services in a county who may send you a bill. http://www.coloradoconnection.com/news/story.aspx?id=484724#.TuGHN_LhcqM

Yup, I sell hunting/fishing licenses, and there are a lot of people coming in asking for the cheapest license that has the S&R fee tacked onto it. (FWIW, it's the annual fishing license, small game hunting is same price, but you need a hunters' safety card) so that they have the "insurance" of not having to pay for a Search and Rescue operation.

Tens of thousands of dollars or a 75 cent tax on a 20 dollar license? Personally I'd rather pay the 21 bucks and then I can fish too.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

really do tell me kind sir what was the bill on your last accident for police and fire to respond? not counting medical. that im asuming the insurance payed. not to mention even if you had no insurance what sooooooo ever if you had complained about any kind of injury you would have been treated for it ANYWAYS.
Seriously different story there Clownie. ;) The police and fire dept.'s here get a salary from the taxes, which we all pay, so EVERYONE gets served. That was a volunteer effort, not paid by taxes. 2 totally different things.