Fire Dept won't put out fire for $75?

[goaliedad]

<p>

This whole situation is messed up on many levels. </p>

<p>First, for the county not providing a mechanism for (tax-provided) fire services, even if that means contracting with a neighboring county/city. What happens, I wonder, when a county property catches fire. Or an out of stater’s car catches fire, or is in a massive crash and needs extrication?

I’m sure the county has paid the city a fee for the protection of county buildings. They just choose not to force people to buy the protection for themselves. </p>

<p>In jurisdictions like this, they respond to the accidents on the road and generally send a bill for the services (ambulance service is not free anywhere). I would imagine EMT services are handled similarly. They don’t have the ability to put a lein on the visitor’s home, but they can ruin his/her credit if they don’t pay. If the car is on fire and nobody (or covered property) is in danger, they would let it burn out, although if it is on a public highway, the public safety issue (which I’m sure they have covered with the county like their buildigns) would probably compell them to douse the flames. You have to understand, emergency services do not put their people or assets in danger without a good reason.

Second, for the firefighters for not responding and putting out the fire, even when they are parked right in front of it!!! This is at the very least a massive breach of professional ethics (and I’ve seen a few national firefighters associations say so as well), and probably criminally negligent. They have a professional duty to act to prevent the loss of life and property when there is a fire right in front of them.

I choose to disagree here. I don’t think they have any legal requirement to provide service where they do not have a contract in force (either assisted aid or otherwise) that spells out the duties they are covered for. If they chose to fight the fire without a coverage agreement in place from the county (there is no fire authority in the county), they would be entirely liable for any harm to any of the firefighters (their own insurance would probably not cover the injuries) injured fighting the fire. You can’t force anyone to take on that risk. Since no life was ever at risk, they are not obligated to provide services (and once again risk their own people) outside their jurisdiction for free to protect property. The house was already engulfed when they arrived (remember the homeowner tried to fight the fire himself) and was going to be a total loss, so risking firefighter safety on that structure is not smart. They kept it from spreading to a neighbor’s house.</p>

<p>This is a problem that is entirely of the county government’s making, by not setting up a contract with the city whereby coverage is mandatory (either by subscription OR by enforcable lein for services provided) for all parcels. They left their constituents’ vulnerable by not having the guts to enforce financial liability for fire protection.

Third, for the guy, knowing that he lives in a very messed up place when fire services work like this, not paying the fee.

</p>

<p>From the story, he sounded unaware that he could not contract services on the spot when he failed to pay his bill. I’ll agree that this was a very poor calculated gamble.</p>

[nysmile]

<p>This is another example of why parents should reinforce to their kids the concept that all decisions have consequences. If one chooses to take a gamble and not pay the $75 dollars/yr for fire safety coverage, then one must also accept the consequence of such decision.</p>

[goaliedad]

<p>

I imagine that even if you have never called the fire department, you do not object to paying the taxes that pay for the fire department (and paying the same rate as everyone else, including those who call every week). </p>

<p>For those who would argue that he should be held accountable for not paying the fee in an area where that is required for fire service, how do you respond to the fact that there are a lot of people in New York, Los Angeles, etc. who are behind on their taxes, haven’t filed in years, don’t pay taxes in that area (tourists, etc.) - LAFD doesn’t check with the IRS before responding to a call. Would you prefer they did?</p>

<p>To answer the OP’s original question, police and fire/ems services, like the military, are a public good/necessity that we as a society should pay for to protect everyone.

</p>

<p>With regards to your argument about LA/NY, remember the authorities providing the service have legal status to put leins against and ultimately seize the property in question to recover the revenues to fund the FD. In this case the city government has no legal standing to recover anything from this property owner.</p>

<p>With regards to the public good argument, since fire/police protection is not covered in the US Constitution, by the 10th amendment, it is left to state/local jurisdictions to declare it a public good. Clearly, that is not the case in Tennessee. While you may think the people of Tennessee should think your way and may think they are idiots for not thinking that way, it is they way they choose to conduct their public affairs. They have chosen a low-tax, low-service strategy (as compared with other states) and if they wish to change that (highly unlikely), they will elect officials who have that legislative agenda.</p>

<p>You clearly have a government view. Please try to understand that different places have different views. I’m not saying theirs is right or wrong, but that they have that right to be different (and stupid if that is how it is characterized).</p>

[goaliedad]

<p>

This is another example of why parents should reinforce to their kids the concept that all decisions have consequences. If one chooses to take a gamble and not pay the $75 dollars/yr for fire safety coverage, then one must also accept the consequence of such decision.

Not that they listen before experiencing that first epic failure, but you hope that it isn’t on the scale of losing their house. Warning them does give you rights to say “I told you so”. ;)</p>

[goaliedad]

<p>

^^ no, I ran the footage and got Ally Bank ads.</p>

<p>I think some one should stir up a referendom so that $75 will be part of the property tax. I sure the home owner got billed for it and did not pay.

I guess they want you to have refinanced and pulled out all the equity before your house burns down? :D</p>

<p>Perhaps the locals will see the wisdom in his experience, but I seriously doubt it. You have to understand the economics of the rural south. $75 a year where 80% of the families earn less than $25K a year is a lot of money when your gallon of milk costs the same as for someone living in a wealthier area. Making it a required payment (not that the option of going without is attractive) is a big thing in places like that.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>Don’t pay the fee, don’t get the service.</p>

<p>Seems cut and dry.</p>

[Icarus]

<p>

Don’t pay the fee, don’t get the service.</p>

<p>Seems cut and dry.

</p>

<p>Again, not cut and dry unless you expect police and fire departments all over the place to get a list from the IRS of people they can’t serve until they pay up…</p>

[fendergirl]

<p>His house was probably destroyed anyway to be honest with you. I hate to say it but if it didn’t get destroyed from the fire it probably would have from the water. I had a friend whose apartment building had a fire and they are having to re-do the entire building.</p>

[Icarus]

<p>Goaliedad, having worked in emergency services for many years, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment.</p>

<p>

I would imagine EMT services are handled similarly. They don’t have the ability to put a lein on the visitor’s home, but they can ruin his/her credit if they don’t pay.

</p>

<p>Yes they bill, but they don’t have the ability to refuse to treat or transport someone if they request it (or need it) regardless of their ability to pay. Legally, they must do so or they are guilty of patient abandonment. Why shouldn’t it be the same for the fire service?</p>

<p>

If the car is on fire and nobody (or covered property) is in danger, they would let it burn out

</p>

<p>I very much doubt this - this is definitely not true where I have worked.</p>

<p>

You have to understand, emergency services do not put their people or assets in danger without a good reason.

</p>

<p>Their job description involves putting themseves in danger - no, we don’t do it needlessly, but putting out a fire isn’t needless - its their job. One of the more dangerous parts of a police officer’s job is pulling people over (esp on the freeway or highways) - doesn’t mean they don’t take proper precautions and do it anyway. </p>

<p>

I choose to disagree here. I don’t think they have any legal requirement to provide service where they do not have a contract in force (either assisted aid or otherwise) that spells out the duties they are covered for.

</p>

<p>Again, the fire was right in front of them and they stood by and did nothing. They are professional firefighters who are on duty. Here’s another relevantly similar scenario - police officers routinely leave their coverage area (their “contract area”, if you will) for various reasons - transporting people to jail, going to a distant court, etc. By your reasoning, if they drove up on a group of people beating up a family in the middle of the street, not only would they not be required to do anything, but they actually shouldn’t so as not to put themselves in danger. </p>

<p>

they would be entirely liable for any harm to any of the firefighters (their own insurance would probably not cover the injuries)

</p>

<p>Well, they are liable for harm to their on-duty staff at all times anyway, so I doubt that handling a fire outside of their main coverage area would change much, but this is not my area of expertise, so I won’t say more than that.</p>

<p>

You can’t force anyone to take on that risk.

</p>

<p>Its their job - no one is forcing them to hold it.</p>

<p>

Since no life was ever at risk, they are not obligated to provide services

</p>

<p>Life being at risk has nothing to do with whether they are required to provide services.</p>

<p>

and was going to be a total loss, so risking firefighter safety on that structure is not smart. They kept it from spreading to a neighbor’s house.

</p>

<p>Thats not how it works (if it was, there wouldn’t be such an uproar about this - they didn’t follow standard firefighting procedure on this fire) - you still work to control and put out the fire. </p>

<p>

This is a problem that is entirely of the county government’s making

</p>

<p>On this we completely agree.</p>

[Icarus]

<p>

With regards to your argument about LA/NY, remember the authorities providing the service have legal status to put leins against and ultimately seize the property in question to recover the revenues to fund the FD.

</p>

<p>No they dont - except in the most limited of circumstances, the fire department doesn’t directly bill people for fire services. They get funded from taxes - the state tax agency alone has legal authority to collect taxes.</p>

<p>

since fire/police protection is not covered in the US Constitution

</p>

<p>Well, I would have to think about this one some more, but prima facie, I would argue that at the very least police services are covered in the constitution (both US and individual states) - the executive branch is responsible for enforcing the laws created by the legislature. </p>

<p>

You clearly have a government view.

</p>

<p>You must not have read many of my political posts lol…</p>

[2VU0609]

<p>Our local news is now all over this story again because of the national interest. They said this morning that the family does have insurance coverage and has been given an initial disbursement for their immediate needs. Additional payments will be made as the claim for the home, a trailer, is completed. I’m assuming that a trailer won’t require as long to replace since it is manufactured housing and not constructed on the site. Evidently this is the fourth time overall that a structure has been allowed to burn. It seems the fire department does respond to the fire even if the fee hasn’t been paid. I assume that is to determine if there is anyone in the structure who needs to be rescued. They just won’t put out a fire where no one is inside and the fee hasn’t been paid.</p>

[tom1944]

<p>It seems weird to me that the first thing these need to do before leaving for a fire is to check the account receivable records</p>

[memphismom]

<p>we now live in (non-rural) Tn but went to college in rural upstate NY - 30 years ago dh explained the bizarre business of rural fire co. who charged a fee and ONLY responded if you paid it - so this isn’t just TN…</p>

<p>no one else here live in another state where rural areas run fire companies this way?</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>

how do you respond to the fact that there are a lot of people in New York, Los Angeles, etc. who are behind on their taxes, haven’t filed in years, don’t pay taxes in that area (tourists, etc.) - LAFD doesn’t check with the IRS before responding to a call. Would you prefer they did?

</p>

<p>

Again, not cut and dry unless you expect police and fire departments all over the place to get a list from the IRS of people they can’t serve until they pay up…

</p>

<p>Why do you keep bringing up the IRS? The IRS has no knowledge of whether or not you have paid local taxes that fund any kind of public services. And fire departments could not care less whether or not you have paid federal income taxes, so why would they be contacting the IRS?</p>

[motherbear332]

<p>

It seems weird to me that the first thing these need to do before leaving for a fire is to check the account receivable records

</p>

<p>Yes, and what happens if the accounts receivable at the fire station is incorrect. The homeowners are probably not going to be in a position to pull out their records to prove they’ve paid when their house is on fire.</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>

Second, for the firefighters for not responding and putting out the fire, even when they are parked right in front of it!!! This is at the very least a massive breach of professional ethics (and I’ve seen a few national firefighters associations say so as well), and probably criminally negligent.

</p>

<p>Not in Tennessee.</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>

Yes, and what happens if the accounts receivable at the fire station is incorrect. The homeowners are probably not going to be in a position to pull out their records to prove they’ve paid when their house is on fire.

</p>

<p>Good question. I guess it would pay to keep these kinds of records in a fireproof box in the home. If you could prove you had paid the tax, I suppose the county would then be liable for all damages.</p>

[ibdunne]

<p>Does the fire dept recieve any federal grant money for equipment purchase? I find it hard to believe that they are totally self sufficient on a $75 “user fee” I hope they have good insurance, because refusing service would have me in the lawyers office the next day!</p>

[Icarus]

<p>

Why do you keep bringing up the IRS? The IRS has no knowledge of whether or not you have paid local taxes that fund any kind of public services. And fire departments could not care less whether or not you have paid federal income taxes, so why would they be contacting the IRS?

</p>

<p>Thats a fair point - I meant the state/local tax agency, but since they all have different names and the IRS is pretty recognizable, thats what I went with. Is that the only problem you had with my arguments?</p>

<p>

I find it hard to believe that they are totally self sufficient on a $75 “user fee”

</p>

<p>They’re not - they are primarily funded by state/local taxes and provide service to the city in which they are based. They offer service to the surrounding area for a $75 per user fee.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

Again, not cut and dry unless you expect police and fire departments all over the place to get a list from the IRS of people they can’t serve until they pay up…

What do you mean? They are effectively private contractors outside their own jurisdiction (as determined by taxed boundaries).</p>