About that fire rescue fee..... - Page 2

Logan · 10-05-2010, 01:14 PM

The fire dept was from South Fulton, TN according to an article. This is their website.

South Fulton, Tennessee

"Chief Wilds has been affiliated with the Fire Department since 1998, coming on as a volunteer."

So it seems at least that part of the department is volunteer.

JonInMiddleGA · 10-05-2010, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logan

Someone mentioned it before but you're right in that I haven't seen it spelled out. I think it's a fair assumption when you're considering a $75 pay-in fire protection type atmosphere and the amount of revenue that can produce.

I think the discussion here is maybe clouding the situation a bit.

South Fulton is a city -- 17 firefighters on the roster & 5 trucks in the station -- which pays for various services for residents with city taxes & such.

The house that burned is located outside their jurisdiction, but for the $75/yr they are willing to go outside the territory they're responsible for in the event they're needed. In other words, they aren't covering their entire territory for the $75/yr per, that's just an add-on deal.

JediKooter · 10-05-2010, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Easier call here on a msg board than when you have to feed your family, pay your mortgage, etc.

Not really, given the context of the article. I believe it was a rural volunteer department. I understand your point though. I think if I was at a paid department, my guess is that there probably won't be a 'pay for service' kind of set up in that area?

Regardless, the right thing to do is put the fire out. This is a fellow human being. Yea, the guy was a dumb ass to not pay the fee, it's also dumb that there is no structure to collect the fee via property taxes or a local sales tax or some other means.

JonInMiddleGA · 10-05-2010, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Not really, given the context of the article. I believe it was a rural volunteer department.

Nope, this is a city fire department that offers some coverage to non-residents outside their territory.

Quote:

I think if I was at a paid department, my guess is that there probably won't be a 'pay for service' kind of set up in that area?

Actually that's pretty much the core of this whole story. The subscription service exists for non-residents who have no other fire coverage.

Quote:

it's also dumb that there is no structure to collect the fee via property taxes or a local sales tax or some other means.

You'd have to take that up with the county government, who pretty clearly chooses not have a fire department for whatever reason.

Ben E Lou · 10-05-2010, 01:31 PM

I'm getting a kick out of this one. It's remarkable that people evidently can't understand the difference between city and county gubmint. Heck, I grew up in a consolidated gubmint town (Columbus, GA/Muscogee County..one of the first such in the SE), and even *I* can get this one straight, I'm fairly sure:

FIRE DEPARTMENT = city
DUMMY WHO WON'T PAY = county
$75 = extra fee for county people if they want to opt in

Have I got it right here?

Lathum · 10-05-2010, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm getting a kick out of this one. It's remarkable that people evidently can't understand the difference between city and county gubmint. Heck, I grew up in a consolidated gubmint town (Columbus, GA/Muscogee County..one of the first such in the SE), and even *I* can get this one straight, I'm fairly sure:

FIRE DEPARTMENT = city
DUMMY WHO WON'T PAY = county
$75 = extra fee for county people if they want to opt in

Have I got it right here?

You are correct and bolded for truth.

Ronnie Dobbs2 · 10-05-2010, 01:40 PM

How about this - why doesn't the county secure protection for everyone in unincorporated areas and then raise the county taxes appropriately?

larrymcg421 · 10-05-2010, 01:41 PM

Not sure why anyone feels the need to point out that the guy is a dummy as if that's an argument that anyone here disagrees with.

JonInMiddleGA · 10-05-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Have I got it right here?

Yup.

JonInMiddleGA · 10-05-2010, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

How about this - why doesn't the county secure protection for everyone in unincorporated areas and then raise the county taxes appropriately?

I imagine that's because they fear being voted out on their asses if they do.

edit to clarify: If there was a demand or desire for that to happen, it would have happened already.

JediKooter · 10-05-2010, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Nope, this is a city fire department that offers some coverage to non-residents outside their territory.

No problems with that from me.

Quote:

Actually that's pretty much the core of this whole story. The subscription service exists for non-residents who have no other fire coverage.

Ok, that makes sense. However, you don't let a persons house burn down. I can understand slower response times and outdated equipment, but, you don't let someone's house burn down when you get there.

Quote:

You'd have to take that up with the county government, who pretty clearly chooses not have a fire department for whatever reason.

Not sure why this is so complex for the state of Tennessee (or at least that county). It's simple in San Diego. You live in an un-incorporated portion of the county, you pay your property taxes to the county. You live in a incorporated part of the county, the taxes go to that city. Maybe I'm thinking that this should not be so difficult for that Tennessee county? This is definitely some short sightedness by that county.

Lathum · 10-05-2010, 01:43 PM

dola- Did anyone read the part about how the fire chief got punched out by either the guy whose house it was or a family member ( the article wasn't very clear). Way to blame others for your own stupidity. $75 a year is roughly 21 cents a day. Why on earth wouldn't you pay it?

Sometimes the decisions you make in life have consequences, he made an exceptionally stupid decision and unfortunately for him was an expensive lesson.

Lathum · 10-05-2010, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Not sure why anyone feels the need to point out that the guy is a dummy as if that's an argument that anyone here disagrees with.

Because for me anyway it is hard to feel bad for someone who is so colossally stupid.

Logan · 10-05-2010, 01:45 PM

I think this being a full-on city fire department actually makes the whole thing worse. How much extra revenue is being kicked in by the $75/year from these rural homeowners? If it's not about the money, what's the point?

k0ruptr · 10-05-2010, 01:45 PM

I feel bad for this guy, sure he didnt pay the 75 dollars, but he still didn't deserve to have his house burn down.

Lathum · 10-05-2010, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

How about this - why doesn't the county secure protection for everyone in unincorporated areas and then raise the county taxes appropriately?

Probably because people would throw a fit. Everyone wants more social services but someone else to pay for them.

Ronnie Dobbs2 · 10-05-2010, 01:48 PM

You and Jon are probably right, I just find a $75 raise in property tax so that the fire department will fight a fire in your house to be a reasonable instance of taxation.

Ben E Lou · 10-05-2010, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I imagine that's because they fear being voted out on their asses if they do.

edit to clarify: If there was a demand or desire for that to happen, it would have happened already.

Yeah, that's my guess here. It's probably an area where people feel that they can protect and take care of themselves and their families, and don't want higher taxes for something as unnecessary as a fire department.

And you're right, it's not as easy a decision for the firefighters as some seem to make it out to be. (And yeah, I read that info as indicating that these guys are making a living this way.) If they're volunteers, then it's another thing entirely.

JonInMiddleGA · 10-05-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Not sure why this is so complex for the state of Tennessee (or at least that county). It's simple in San Diego. You live in an un-incorporated portion of the county, you pay your property taxes to the county. You live in a incorporated part of the county, the taxes go to that city. Maybe I'm thinking that this should not be so difficult for that Tennessee county? This is definitely some short sightedness by that county.

It isn't particularly complicated for this county either. I have zero doubt that they collect taxes just like everyone else, they just haven't opted to put taxes toward a fire department.

JediKooter · 10-05-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It isn't particularly complicated for this county either. I have zero doubt that they collect taxes just like everyone else, they just haven't opted to put taxes toward a fire department.

Well, I know there's at least one guy in that county that wished they did.

Ben E Lou · 10-05-2010, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Well, I know there's at least one guy in that county that wished they did.

illinifan999 · 10-05-2010, 01:53 PM

Quote:

“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

Really?

Say you don't have car insurance. You get into an accident. You call an insurance company and ask to get some insurance for the car you just totaled. Are they going to give it to you, or are they going to tell you that you are out of luck?

AlexB · 10-05-2010, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew

Pay-to-Spray Firefighters Watch as Home Burns - By Daniel Foster - The Corner - National Review Online

In short, dude doesn't opt-in to firefighter coverage. House burns. Firefighters only show up when neighbor's house(who paid) is in danger of catching on fire.

This is how it used to be in good ol' days of NY according to Herbert Asbury

JonInMiddleGA · 10-05-2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

You and Jon are probably right, I just find a $75 raise in property tax so that the fire department will fight a fire in your house to be a reasonable instance of taxation.

But that isn't going to come close to covering it.

There are roughly 15,000 housing units in the county as of 2008.
Roughly half the population lives inside one of the 3 city limits (who presumably all have fire coverage)

That leaves, give or take, half to pay some hypothetical county surcharge. So 7500 units X $75 = $526,500

That's enough to maybe buy a couple of decent trucks, but does nothing to provide for salaries, expenses (have to insure even volunteers & their equipment), facilities maintenance, etc, etc, etc. And two trucks to cover a county of 555 square miles would be a joke, it'd be an accident if they manage to get to a fire in time to accomplish anything. (By comparsion, the rural county I moved out of has nearly a dozen trucks to cover 375 sq miles)

Lathum · 10-05-2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

And you're right, it's not as easy a decision for the firefighters as some seem to make it out to be. (And yeah, I read that info as indicating that these guys are making a living this way.) If they're volunteers, then it's another thing entirely.

Totally agree. The part of the country I live in firefighters are paid, a good friend of mine is one, and if your captain gives an order you follow it. It is all fine and good to talk about morality and such, but if you have a family to provide for it isn't such an easy call to make.

If they are volunteers I think it somewhat changes the equation. Just because the captain came on as a volunteer doesn't mean the whole force is, that could be poor journalism. He may have started as a volunteer washing trucks or something to get a foot in the door.

Ronnie Dobbs2 · 10-05-2010, 01:57 PM

Sorry Jon, I should have clarified, I meant the county taxes $75, the county then gives that $75 to the appropriate existing FD that is offering coverage for that price.

Essentially forcing everyone not under a FD jurisdiction to buy in to one of these plans. It would save these sorts of scenes from ever happening.

Lathum · 10-05-2010, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Sorry Jon, I should have clarified, I meant the county taxes $75, the county then gives that $75 to the appropriate existing FD that is offering coverage for that price.

Essentially forcing everyone not under a FD jurisdiction to buy in to one of these plans. It would save these sorts of scenes from ever happening.

I think that goes back to people being pissed off about it. Anyone who would be OK with a tax hike will likely be the same people who pay the fee, while the people who don't pay the fee will be pissed off that they have a tax increase for something they don't feel is necessary.

JonInMiddleGA · 10-05-2010, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Sorry Jon, I should have clarified, I meant the county taxes $75, the county then gives that $75 to the appropriate existing FD that is offering coverage for that price.

The county certainly seems to have the option to do that, they've chosen not to for whatever reason.

There are several ways around this, creation of a separate fire protection district political subdivision seems like an obvious option to me.

Abe Sargent · 10-05-2010, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

I feel like any idiot that refuses to pay $75 for fire department coverage is going to stiff you on any bill you send him.

That doesn't address the legitimate concern of neighboring houses, but I wonder how much of a threat that is in rural counties where you have a lot of space between houses.

I think the cities should just get out of the private firefighting contracting business. Especially if they're expected to cover the cost of deadbeats in surrounding areas. How can that be worth it? If the rural area wants fire service, they can organize it themselves.

If this is in Appalachia, then they were probably very, very close together - like urban close.

Passacaglia · 10-05-2010, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Sorry Jon, I should have clarified, I meant the county taxes $75, the county then gives that $75 to the appropriate existing FD that is offering coverage for that price.

Essentially forcing everyone not under a FD jurisdiction to buy in to one of these plans. It would save these sorts of scenes from ever happening.

And it would increase response speed, since the FD won't have to check to see if someone calling in has paid.

Passacaglia · 10-05-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- Did anyone read the part about how the fire chief got punched out by either the guy whose house it was or a family member ( the article wasn't very clear). Way to blame others for your own stupidity. $75 a year is roughly 21 cents a day. Why on earth wouldn't you pay it?

Sometimes the decisions you make in life have consequences, he made an exceptionally stupid decision and unfortunately for him was an expensive lesson.

Since the article didn't say who did it, I thought it could have been someone unrelated to the house -- just a "concerned citizen."

k0ruptr · 10-05-2010, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum

Totally agree. The part of the country I live in firefighters are paid, a good friend of mine is one, and if your captain gives an order you follow it. It is all fine and good to talk about morality and such, but if you have a family to provide for it isn't such an easy call to make.

If they are volunteers I think it somewhat changes the equation. Just because the captain came on as a volunteer doesn't mean the whole force is, that could be poor journalism. He may have started as a volunteer washing trucks or something to get a foot in the door.

I could be different from most people, but I look at it like its a very easy decision,if I'm there with the means to put it out, and if its possible I lose my job, or 100%that I will. I still put that fire out. easier for me to find a new job than for this guy to get a new house. And I am definitely willing to make that sacrifice.

JonInMiddleGA · 10-05-2010, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

And it would increase response speed, since the FD won't have to check to see if someone calling in has paid.

Only for the relative handful that would be covered.

Check the map - all three cities in the county (who appear to be the source of the subscription coverage) are on the northern border adjacent to the Kentucky state line. In the case of South Fulton they appear to offer the option to residents within 5 miles of their city limits.

The rest of the county? Damned if I know, although at least a couple of the little towns/unincorporated areas are also border territories that lie partially within other counties.

Autumn · 10-05-2010, 02:10 PM

I think this clarifies well why history here has trended towards publicly funded fire departments rather than private ones. given that a fire in my neighbor's house is a threat to mine, it's really the most sensible solution. Maybe this will be enough to convince the people in that county to pony up and start paying for one.

JonInMiddleGA · 10-05-2010, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

easier for me to find a new job than for this guy to get a new house.

You obviously haven't been looking for a job lately. At least in Georgia, there are considerably more trained firefighters than there are paid positions these days.

k0ruptr · 10-05-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You obviously haven't been looking for a job lately. At least in Georgia, there are considerably more trained firefighters than there are paid positions these days.

not a problem with me, I still do it. like I said maybe I'm just different.

larrymcg421 · 10-05-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Really?

Say you don't have car insurance. You get into an accident. You call an insurance company and ask to get some insurance for the car you just totaled. Are they going to give it to you, or are they going to tell you that you are out of luck?

That brings me back to the medical analogy I presented earlier and no one responded to. Should medical professionals refuse to treat critically ill patients who have no insurance and/or means of paying for such treatment?

Lathum · 10-05-2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

I could be different from most people, but I look at it like its a very easy decision,if I'm therewith the means to put it out, and if its possible I lose my job, or 100%that I will. I still put that fire out. easier for me to find a new job than for this guy to get a new house.

I have to heavily disagree with this statement. I have a family, mortgage, children, health insurance etc... and in this economy it isn't easy to find a job. No way I am giving up my entire livelihood, and my families future and well being because some moron made a horrible decision.

Except for the part about you being different

, that I agree with.

k0ruptr · 10-05-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum

I have to heavily disagree with this statement. I have a family, mortgage, children, health insurance etc... and in this economy it isn't easy to find a job. No way I am giving up my entire livelihood, and my families future and well being because some moron made a horrible decision.

Except for the part about you being different

, that I agree with.

totally understand. it may be a dumb decision on my part, but I could still feel good about it.

illinifan999 · 10-05-2010, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

easier for me to find a new job than for this guy to get a new house. And I am definitely willing to make that sacrifice.

It would actually probably almost be impossible for you to find another job as a firefighter. Becoming a firefighter is as difficult as becoming a police officer. The testing process is long, and having a "fired with cause" or "resigned in lieu of termination" on your application is going to be pretty much be a kiss of death.

JonInMiddleGA · 10-05-2010, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Should medical professionals refuse to treat critically ill patients who have no insurance and/or means of paying for such treatment?

Should they? Yeah, probably so.

TroyF · 10-05-2010, 02:17 PM

So the guy refuses to pay. They call him up to make sure he's aware of the coverage and he still chooses not to pay. Then his house burns to the ground and he's upset because the fire department is doing nothing.

Good lord.

I'm surprised an insurance company would provide home insurance to someone who didn't pay the fee. I don't wish harm on anyone, but the guy was warned and made his decision. Thankfully nobody died. Beyond human life, he chose poorly and needs to deal with it.

Lathum · 10-05-2010, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That brings me back to the medical analogy I presented earlier and no one responded to. Should medical professionals refuse to treat critically ill patients who have no insurance and/or means of paying for such treatment?

I think this takes a leap into a gray area.

Everyone has a right to basic health care, IMO, but I think it is apples and oranges.

This man voluntarily chose to not pay a nominal fee, full well knowing the risks involved. If he couldn't afford the $75 then there is a whole different argument, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that.

Logan · 10-05-2010, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Really?

Say you don't have car insurance. You get into an accident. You call an insurance company and ask to get some insurance for the car you just totaled. Are they going to give it to you, or are they going to tell you that you are out of luck?

Did this guy ask for the fire dept to rebuild his home? No...that's what homeowner's insurance is for. Like Larry says, this is like getting into that same accident, being pinned under your car, and the ambulance and FD coming out to the scene but not using the jaws of life because you're uninsured.

Lathum · 10-05-2010, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

totally understand. it may be a dumb decision on my part, but I could still feel good about it.

Feeling good won't feed you kids, pay your mortgage, provide health insurance, save money for college, etc...

SteveMax58 · 10-05-2010, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That brings me back to the medical analogy I presented earlier and no one responded to. Should medical professionals refuse to treat critically ill patients who have no insurance and/or means of paying for such treatment?

I think you are making an uneven comparison though...whereas the car insurance is a little more similar.

You are talking about life & death and this story (as well as the insurance analogy) are talking about material possessions.

By contrast...if there were a trapped person in the house, I would believe it to be a different case. And in that event...you are there to get the person out of the house...not necessarily put the fire out.

TroyF · 10-05-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logan

Did this guy ask for the fire dept to rebuild his home? No...that's what homeowner's insurance is for. Like Larry says, this is like getting into that same accident, being pinned under your car, and the ambulance and FD coming out to the scene but not using the jaws of life because you're uninsured.

But it isn't like that. The medical analogy only holds if the firefighters refused to save lives. They didn't refuse to do that, they refused to save a house. The difference is monumental.

Autumn · 10-05-2010, 02:27 PM

It's a bit of an assumption (unless there's been something to suggest it's definitely the case) that the only choice was A) Do nothing for the guy's house or B) do something and get fired. While certainly it must be against their policy to respond to calls from people who haven't paid, in this case they were right there. Would people have been so upset at them putting out the fire that people got fired? We don't know that.

DaddyTorgo · 10-05-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Yeah, that's my guess here. It's probably an area where people feel that they can protect and take care of themselves and their families, and don't want higher taxes for something as unnecessary as a fire department.

Are you claiming a fire department is unnecessary? Or just stating that that's probably the way these people felt?

Because if you really think it's unnecessary...*facepalm*

Lathum · 10-05-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Autumn

It's a bit of an assumption (unless there's been something to suggest it's definitely the case) that the only choice was A) Do nothing for the guy's house or B) do something and get fired. While certainly it must be against their policy to respond to calls from people who haven't paid, in this case they were right there. Would people have been so upset at them putting out the fire that people got fired? We don't know that.

Their superior obviously told them to not put the fire out. In most walks of life if your superior gives and order, and you do the direct opposite it is safe to assume you are toast.

View Poll Results: Fire dept should have
Let it burn down	18	33.33%
put it out even though this guy didnt pay to opt in	35	64.81%
roasted trout on a stick	1	1.85%
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll

10-05-2010, 01:31 PM	#55
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	I'm getting a kick out of this one. It's remarkable that people evidently can't understand the difference between city and county gubmint. Heck, I grew up in a consolidated gubmint town (Columbus, GA/Muscogee County..one of the first such in the SE), and even I can get this one straight, I'm fairly sure: FIRE DEPARTMENT = city DUMMY WHO WON'T PAY = county $75 = extra fee for county people if they want to opt in Have I got it right here? __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'! Last edited by Ben E Lou : 10-05-2010 at 01:31 PM.

10-05-2010, 01:40 PM	#57
Ronnie Dobbs2 Pro Rookie Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Bahston Mass	How about this - why doesn't the county secure protection for everyone in unincorporated areas and then raise the county taxes appropriately? __________________ There's no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think

10-05-2010, 01:41 PM	#58
larrymcg421 Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Georgia	Not sure why anyone feels the need to point out that the guy is a dummy as if that's an argument that anyone here disagrees with. __________________ Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner

10-05-2010, 01:45 PM	#65
k0ruptr Pro Starter Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Las Vegas	I feel bad for this guy, sure he didnt pay the 75 dollars, but he still didn't deserve to have his house burn down. __________________ Xbox Live Gamertag: k0ruptr My Favorite Teams : Chicago White Sox - Carolina Panthers - Orlando Magic - Phoenix Suns - Anaheim Ducks - Hawaii Warriors - Oregon Ducks

10-05-2010, 01:43 PM	#62
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	dola- Did anyone read the part about how the fire chief got punched out by either the guy whose house it was or a family member ( the article wasn't very clear). Way to blame others for your own stupidity. $75 a year is roughly 21 cents a day. Why on earth wouldn't you pay it? Sometimes the decisions you make in life have consequences, he made an exceptionally stupid decision and unfortunately for him was an expensive lesson.

10-05-2010, 01:45 PM	#64
Logan Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: NYC	I think this being a full-on city fire department actually makes the whole thing worse. How much extra revenue is being kicked in by the $75/year from these rural homeowners? If it's not about the money, what's the point?

10-05-2010, 01:48 PM	#67
Ronnie Dobbs2 Pro Rookie Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Bahston Mass	You and Jon are probably right, I just find a $75 raise in property tax so that the fire department will fight a fire in your house to be a reasonable instance of taxation. __________________ There's no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think

10-05-2010, 01:57 PM	#76
Ronnie Dobbs2 Pro Rookie Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Bahston Mass	Sorry Jon, I should have clarified, I meant the county taxes $75, the county then gives that $75 to the appropriate existing FD that is offering coverage for that price. Essentially forcing everyone not under a FD jurisdiction to buy in to one of these plans. It would save these sorts of scenes from ever happening. __________________ There's no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think Last edited by Ronnie Dobbs2 : 10-05-2010 at 01:58 PM.

10-05-2010, 02:10 PM	#84
Autumn Head Coach Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bath, ME	I think this clarifies well why history here has trended towards publicly funded fire departments rather than private ones. given that a fire in my neighbor's house is a threat to mine, it's really the most sensible solution. Maybe this will be enough to convince the people in that county to pony up and start paying for one.

10-05-2010, 02:17 PM	#92
TroyF Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	So the guy refuses to pay. They call him up to make sure he's aware of the coverage and he still chooses not to pay. Then his house burns to the ground and he's upset because the fire department is doing nothing. Good lord. I'm surprised an insurance company would provide home insurance to someone who didn't pay the fee. I don't wish harm on anyone, but the guy was warned and made his decision. Thankfully nobody died. Beyond human life, he chose poorly and needs to deal with it.

10-05-2010, 02:27 PM	#98
Autumn Head Coach Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bath, ME	It's a bit of an assumption (unless there's been something to suggest it's definitely the case) that the only choice was A) Do nothing for the guy's house or B) do something and get fired. While certainly it must be against their policy to respond to calls from people who haven't paid, in this case they were right there. Would people have been so upset at them putting out the fire that people got fired? We don't know that.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)