House Burning Down? Too bad.

[Sarge]

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local...104052668.html

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

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.


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"

[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 land

My 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

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.