• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Firefighters let a home burn down because $75 fee wasn't paid!

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Adrenaline said:
If nobody was there the fire would most likely have been put out in case someone was inside.
If someone was inside it would have been put out to save the life.

The guy was there, and everyone accounted for and he got what he paid for the fire department to do which would be......

NOTHING.

Let me search for a previous post for you that I made........
Click to expand...

Still not answering it...
 
ViviTheMage said:
I am all for rules, but maybe they should add .. you pay an extra $15,000 if you haven't made your yearly payment, and you sign on the spot, or something?
Click to expand...

I was thinking that but I think a lawyer could argue his way out of that by saying the contract was signed under duress.

Although I'm not sure I agree with the argument that he might not pay the bill and thus he shouldn't be allowed to agree to pay it. That could be said of any bill. Mail it out, most people will pay it, send those who don't to collections. Do they turn people away from hospitals because they might not pay their bill?
 
bignateyk said:
I'm gonna have to stop you right there seeing as how you know nothing about volunteer fire departments. :colbert:

Volunteer fire departments buy their equipment using donations and money from fundraisers. Our local volunteer FD raised a couple hundred thousand dollars to buy a new truck.

Also, the city has NO authority WHATSOEVER to tax people who live outside the city limits. They are offering a service, simple as that. If people pay for it, they will go out of their way to accommodate them.

This wasn't a matter of life and death. Had it been, like others have said, I'm sure they would have gotten his dumb ass out of the house, and then let it burn to the ground.

Firefighting is NOT a basic government service. Only large cities have fire departments paid for by the city, and they ONLY SERVE THE CITY. In this case, this fire department was going above and beyond the call of duty by even offering this service to begin with.
Click to expand...

Read the thread.
 
Somehow, I doubt this arrangement will continue. This example here is why true libertarianism (sic?) doesn't work in the real world. The conservatives have won this battle but they'll lose the war. That proposal to build a firehouse in the county will be accepted when it comes around again because losing your house over a measely $75 is not something anyone wants to go through. Yeah, insurance may give you the money for the house but it's the things in the house that makes it a home and those may be gone forever. Taxes will go up. Funny how the conservative people don't want to pay more for services until they need them. As I said many times before, the government should've just forced it on these fools.
 
Last edited:
The law should be changed so that if a homeowner doesn't pay the $75 yearly fee, the full cost of fighting the fire is charged to the homeowner. The $75 is kind of like a pre-payment for services rendered in the future (can also be thought of like insurance since there is no guarantee you will actual need the service). But if you don't pre-pay, then you get the full cost of the fire fighting attempt.

Then, the homeowners who don't pay will still get a service (though at increased cost) and those that are paying $75 a year will not feel that they should stop paying. There is no outcome that would have an undesirable outcome for the homeowner's house. Either way, the fire will be fought.

This thread is like one huge political argument, when I don't see this as political at all. I see it as a horrible business model by the firefighter/city (or whoever set the law & cost up). Fix the model.
 
Narmer said:
Somehow, I doubt this arrangement will continue. This example here is why true libertarianism (sic?) doesn't work in the real world. The conservatives have won this battle but they'll lose the war. That proposal to build a firehouse in the county will be accepted when it comes around again because losing your house over a measely $75 is not something anyone wants to go through. Yeah, insurance may give you the money for the house but it's the things in the house that makes it a home and those may be gone forever. Taxes will go up. Funny how the conservative people don't want to pay more for services until they need them. As I said many times before, the government should've just forced it on these fools.
Click to expand...

In your opinion... Me on the other hand, I live 7 miles from the nearest town. Takes 10 minutes to drive. If my house caught fire, I'm guessing by the time I made my call, it would take firemen 20 minutes to get there by the drive time and the time it takes firemen to come sliding down the pole to the truck and get it started up. In 20 minutes, the fire would be established and it's likely the house would end up destroyed anyways. So why pay the $75? Waste of money in my opinion.
 
Evadman said:
The law should be changed so that if a homeowner doesn't pay the $75 yearly fee, the full cost of fighting the fire is charged to the homeowner. The $75 is kind of like a pre-payment for services rendered in the future (can also be thought of like insurance since there is no guarantee you will actual need the service). But if you don't pre-pay, then you get the full cost of the fire fighting attempt.

Then, the homeowners who don't pay will still get a service (though at increased cost) and those that are paying $75 a year will not feel that they should stop paying. There is no outcome that would have an undesirable outcome for the homeowner's house. Either way, the fire will be fought.

This thread is like one huge political argument, when I don't see this as political at all. I see it as a horrible business model by the firefighter/city (or whoever set the law & cost up). Fix the model.
Click to expand...

Except the problem is with the county and not the city. If someone is not willing to pay $75, what are the odds that the city isn't going to be able to collect on a non-city resident for thousands of dollars? Zero.
 
Capt Caveman said:
Except the problem is with the county and not the city. If someone is not willing to pay $75, what are the odds that the city isn't going to be able to collect on a non-city resident for thousands of dollars? Zero.
Click to expand...

I'll bet that if the debt came packaged with a lien on the house that had been saved, the odds go above zero.
 
This is completely boneheaded bullshit.
The whole concept of using a "fee" to pay for fire service. What the fvck is this, a lo cart shit.

Services like fire, police, library, parks should always and only be budgeted through taxes. Not fees. They should cover everybody. And, if people don't pay their property tax, then the land should be reposessed and sold at auction.

Adding stupid fees for shit like this just doesn't make sense. If they don't have enough money for their budget, then they need to raise taxes directly, not create a new one. Or, perhaps they could simply streamline their expenses and cut out some fat and actually work within a reasonable budget! seems like every frickin city/state/county is bloated all to hell!
 
BurnItDwn said:
This is completely boneheaded bullshit.
The whole concept of using a "fee" to pay for fire service. What the fvck is this, a lo cart shit.

Services like fire, police, library, parks should always and only be budgeted through taxes. Not fees. They should cover everybody. And, if people don't pay their property tax, then the land should be reposessed and sold at auction.

Adding stupid fees for shit like this just doesn't make sense. If they don't have enough money for their budget, then they need to raise taxes directly, not create a new one. Or, perhaps they could simply streamline their expenses and cut out some fat and actually work within a reasonable budget! seems like every frickin city/state/county is bloated all to hell!
Click to expand...

Blame the county that these rural homeowners live in for not providing any fire protection service to their citizens. And since it's these homeowner's that voted for their country government officials for the last 20 years, blame the homeowners themselves for not wanting to be taxed for fire protection. The neighboring town is being nice to even offer the service.
 
BurnItDwn said:
This is completely boneheaded bullshit.
The whole concept of using a "fee" to pay for fire service. What the fvck is this, a lo cart shit.

Services like fire, police, library, parks should always and only be budgeted through taxes. Not fees. They should cover everybody. And, if people don't pay their property tax, then the land should be reposessed and sold at auction.

Adding stupid fees for shit like this just doesn't make sense. If they don't have enough money for their budget, then they need to raise taxes directly, not create a new one. Or, perhaps they could simply streamline their expenses and cut out some fat and actually work within a reasonable budget! seems like every frickin city/state/county is bloated all to hell!
Click to expand...

Please read the OP, the COUNTY voted NOT to etablish its own fire service. The fire Department belonged to a CITY nearby whose residents voted TO establish a fire service.

The county is outside the city's jurisdiction. The only people that this guy should be blaming is his fellow county voters.
 
Some relevant pics:

jtx5w4.jpg


81437d18ed68.jpg
 
Unbelievable. Humanity completely lost for $75. I thought fighting fires was also about saving and protecting lives. What they did was legal but not ethical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top