Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground

Remove all ads!

Another one from Absurdistan:

Read the rest here.

That's the spirit, man! You really got what governance and providing emergency services are about: Protection money. That's small government for you.

A local newspaper further pressed Mayor Crocker about the city’s policy, which has been in place since 1990. Crocker, a Republican who was elected in 2008 and serves with a county commission where every seat is also filled by a Republican, likened the policy to buying auto insurance. The paper said he told them that, after all, “if an auto owner allowed their vehicle insurance to lapse, they would not expect an insurance company to pay for an unprotected vehicle after it was wrecked.”

Ironically, in the county commission’s latest report on its fire services, which outlines which parts of the municipal area will receive fire services only through subscriptions, the commissioners and fire service officials brag that the county is “very progressive.”

h/t to ThinkProgress

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that no one else will ever decide not to pay the fee.

 

This is old news -- back from September or so. I even listened to the owners being interviewed on the radio and they weren't outraged at all (insurance was going to cover the damage). It was their choice to not pay and really didn't believe the firefighters could have done anything.

In general, firefighters in rural areas will not arrive in time to save a structure. They focus on ensuring the fire does not spread to other structures (often garden hoses will do that as well).

Oh the outrage. Oh the humanity. This wasn't even newsworthy back in September and certainly not worthy of being rehashed now.

 

Not really different from council tax. Except I don't think the council lets your home burn down, you just get fined for not paying alongside a horrible accident

 

T2, Snook,
since you like it that way, suit yourself.

I presume the US are about the only place in the world, say except for a genuine banana republic, where this doesn't raise eyebrows. Indeed, what's the big deal?

And I always thought the very point about having a voluntary or municipal fire department is about them actually helping, unconditionally, i.e. about them not being like an insurance. Silly me. I really need to wise up the ways of the world.

 

You are correct, but it appears that you are completely missing the point. My reading of the article that you posted to says that residents of Obion County can contract with the City of South Fulton for fire protection services. I interpreted that to mean that Obion County does not provide fire services to its residents or have a volunteer fire department.

 

You miss the point Ragusa, I actually heard interviews with the home owners. A key problem is there are no fire hydrants nearby and a pump engine arrives with only so much water, not nearly enough to actually put out a fire but enough to prevent the spread of a fire. The only possible way for the fire department to save the structure is if an engine arrives within the first few minutes of the fire -- tough to do when the drive is nearly 20 minutes at high speed.

The owners chose not to subscribe to the service because they were too far away for the fire department to arrive in time to save any structure with a significant fire (it should be noted that paramedic services are provided at no charge). This is just a fact of life when living in a rural area. I live in an area with a fire station about five minutes away, the pump engine holds enough water to fight the fire for ten minutes. After that they have to leave to refill water (which takes about 30 minutes). Without a fire hydrant in my neighborhood I can only count of the fire department to provide paramedics and help with a small fire.

You're reading a six month old news flash that simply went away in the states once everyone realized the real issues. The fire chief actually told the rural residents there was no point in subscribing to the service -- he would provide support whether or not the household "paid their bill." Many residents paid simply to help the fire district with their budget knowing full well the services the district could provide were minimal.

You're chasing windmills here.

 

That's coming from the "less government; don't take my money," conservative.

 

Wasn't so long ago it was the same in the UK, (in some areas) you paid for fire protection and they would place a small plaque on the front of your property to state that the building was protected, if you didnt pay, you could pay the fire service on the spot or they let your house/building burn down.

 

According to T2, and I beleive him, they would have taken his money and still not put the fire out. How's that for serivce?

 

Am I the only one who read the article? The homeowner's "government" doesn't provide fire service. A neighboring "government" offered to cover the service for a fee. This particular homeowner chose to not contract for the service. This homeowner should not be surprised that the service was not rendered.

This has nothing to do with some neo-con world domination plan, or racist tea-party supporters, or union busting evil republicans.

 

Speaking of not reading...WHAT service?

Oh, I see. Just change the word government "fee" to "tax" to prompt seething outrage.

 

The point is one about emergency services being dysfunctional (having fire department watching houses burn to ground, defies sort of the purpose of a fire department, especially when they could help, but deliberately don't) as a result of lack of a sensible funding agreement. Since in the US every little town and municipality funds it own police or fire department, and some have only little money, it is a natural consequence that some places can't afford a fire department. The Obion County Fire Department website says it very clearly:

Financing problems I can understand,. The [non-]solution found is something I cannot. One would have expect reasonable minds to get together and think about pooling and shared financing for, what is after all, emergency services. This has obviously not happened. What comes instead is a 'subscriber service'.

So being a resident alone doesn't suffice. Of course, making the fire department 'fee' mandatory, as it probably is in the rest of the world also is unacceptable (spectres of tyranny?).

And then you have folks who call that totally normal, after all the guys didn't pay their fee, and that's the end of the story story. I think not.

My point is that having such a crappy set-up and being content with it tells you a thing or two how these folks approach governance. (a) They don't think beyond their local communities and (b) they don't intent to pay for anything beyond their local communities. This is Schilda.

​

 

This has served as a perfect example of why I very rarely read the alleys these days. People on here see what they want to see and ignore or twist round whatever people say that is contrary to their own opinions. Way to go guys.

 

Clearly we have a few people on the boards who have never lived in a true rural area.

The fire department couldn't put out the fire. It wasn't that they didn't want to. It wasn't that the fire men just wanted to taunt the poor people whose house was burning down. It was simply the fire had progressed to the point the firemen would not be able stop it. At that point the firemen simply stayed to ensure the fire would not spread.

Here's something to take swings at the evil fire fighters for: The owners were initially miffed because the firemen refused to enter the burning structure to rescue the family cat. It died. Damn it and the fire fighters should have sent an entire team into the failing structure to rescue the little kitty -- the heartless bastards.

 

That is more than possible. One of the leaders in our Boy Scout Troop is an ex-firefighter. His standard joke is "We haven't lost a foundation yet"

 

The only thing I find odd is the "fee" isn't mandatory. Looking at the quote from the Obion County Fire Department (originally posted by Ragusa):

So to me, the obvious and simple solution would be to provide it those people for a fee. Afterall, the money people in the town pay in taxes (which evidently people in rural areas are exempt from paying) was going to fund the fire department, and paying about $6 a month certainly isn't excessive.

 

If the county cannot provide full-service to those people, why would they charge them a mandatory fee? As T2 points out it wasn't because they didn't want to put the fire out, it was because they didn't have the basic resources. So why would you take someone's money if you can't provide them a service in return. Hey, it's not Wall Street.

 

I don't know - T2B said that an engine carries about 10 minutes worth of water. I'd pay $75 a year to have a chance that they could possibly save my house and some of my belongings rather than have the whole damn house burn down to the ground. I easily waste more than $75 per year on crap I don't necessarily need. Heck, I'm legally required to carry auto insurance, but I haven't actually "used" auto insurance in years. I pay my company $1800 annually to cover me and my wife, and in the 10 years we've been on the policy together, we've made one claim. $75 per year for a chance? I'd take it.