73-87chevytrucks.com
General Site Info => General Discussion => Topic started by: 78 Chevyrado on October 06, 2010, 01:05:37 pm
-
What the...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/)
-
Wow. just, wow
-
UNBELIEVABLE!!! I am glad it isn't that way in Indiana. Our tax structure helps the township we are a part of. Of course they have donation drives which I gladly help out as well...
-
I am betting the reporter is missing a lot of the facts. I would bet that he didn't "forget" to pay, I am betting he chose not to. That would be like saying you forgot to renew your car insurance and after it was dropped and you had an accident you expect to run down to the insurance company and pay up in full and they pay your claim. NOT going to happen.
I live in a rural area outside the city limits, we have volunteer fire departments. Each homeowner pays the yearly fee and is covered. If you do not pay for fire support, you don't get it. Many people think they can not pay and still get them to come put a fire out, doesn't happen.
-
I am in the same situation where I live, all volunteer fire departments. We have to pay a certain amount to them for them to be there in case we had a fire. Our neighbor and I once had a big cookout for all them so they'd come and watch us burn about an acre of woods we had pushed into a hole. Super nice guys.
-
Back in the old days, cities used to put metal or bronze plaques on your house if you paid and are covered by the fire dept. If no plaque, no service. Why is everyone in such an uproar now?
This guy lives outside the city limits, where it was mandatory to pay $75 a year. He admitted he forgot.
They watched his house burn.
What's the problem?
He offered to pay as the fire truck arrived. But, think about it, if everyone refused to pay and only paid when the fire truck comes down you driveway because your house in on fire, they would get absolutely no money. Everyone would stop paying and only pay as needed. They cannot start that precedence. Everyone would expect it.
If you have an auto accident and forgot to pay the premium then you call up you agent after you were in a wreck and tell them, "here, here is the premium from two months ago, now help me" They'll laugh in your face.
There is no dfference here. The mayor did right. PEOPLE NEED TO BECOME RESPONSIBLE AND STOP BEING HELD BY THE HAND ALL THE TIME!!!!!! They guy was an adult. He messed up. period.
-
Wow. just, wow
His insurance company (if he remembered to pay his premium) is going to laugh in his face. If he doesn't own his home you would think that his lending company would require fire protection, like how it's required to carry full coverage on a vehicle with a loan on it.
-
I never knew they did that kind of thing. Guess I'm used to the city, if there's a fire they put it out.
I see why they didn't help, cuz others would pay either, it just sounds like something from the 1880's to me...
Yeah I don't buy that he forgot to pay... no way in heck I'd a let that payment lapse... that's stupid.
-
from the article;
After the blaze, South Fulton police arrested one of Cranick's sons, Timothy Allen Cranick, on an aggravated assault charge, according to WPSD-TV, an NBC station in Paducah, Ky.
Police told WPSD that the younger Cranick attacked Fire Chief David Wilds at the firehouse because he was upset his father's house was allowed to burn
I would like to be on that jury just to let him go.
It also the city/counties fault for allowing this policy, the fee should just be added to the proprty tax.
it looks like the only innocent victim here is the insurance company-weird.
-
I live in a "rural" area in so much as we are still on wells, we dont have to pay for fire service (at least I dont know about it :) ) our (and neighbors) saving grace is I have a pond in our back yard that they will pull the water from. This guy seems like a hot head I read that after this he went to the firehouse and decked the chief so he was arrested but his wife agreed what the FD did and did not do
-
the article reads that it was his son who went to the firehouse
-
the article reads that it was his son who went to the firehouse
Not sure the article I read stated that the chief was attacked but the next line it stated the wife of the owner of the place agreed what they did so it seemed to me they were stating the husband (the owner) was the one who attacked the chief
-
his son should've decked his dad for forgetting. What did he want the chief to do? Had the chief neglected the mayor's orders, guess what, he'd be out of a job. So the guy's son hit him? Does that make sense?
Had his dad forgot car insurance and wrecked his car, would good ole son go to the insurance company and decked the agent?
These people need to stop being babied all the time. Now, because this happened, guess what? Bleeding libs will say that this is terrible. Why treat the homeowner that way? that's terrible and has to be rectified. HOCKEY PUCK!!
The guy refused or forgot to pay. I guarantee one thing, next week the fire dept will have thousands of doallars coming in from forgetful people. It'll take care of itself. Gov't does not need to interfere. But they will because it is in the media and politicians want the votes of the sympathetics. This is what is wrong with America. No one needs to be responsible anymore!
-
Its the local government's fault. You can't expect someone to be responsible for their own actions, that's the government's job. They should build him a new house and the son should sue the fire chief for hurting his hand. :P
-
It also the city/counties fault for allowing this policy, the fee should just be added to the proprty tax.
Hogwash! It's the gov't fault? So adults and homeowners are not able to make decisions for themselves? Or, they may forget therefore have gov't take care of that by putting it on the property tax? Geeze.
liberal thinking. I disagree completely. Just add it to the property tax? Make it mandatory? Have you been reading this obama health care stuff--they want it mandatory that everyone must buy this. No way! I must've been mistaking when I thought this was America. Freedom to choose--take repsonsibility.
Besides, the point is this, the city fire dept makes it optional for anyone outside the city to buy in to coverage....they guy didn't even live in the same city! He lived outside of it. So he should be forced to buy something? Again, he is an adult. He should weigh the pros and cons himself.
If he'd been able to pay as the fire trucks were coming down the driveway, guess what everyone else would do from that point on? Not pay until they smell smoke. Fire dept. will not even go outside their limits for that.
You're right on jaredts--love the sarcasm. ;D
-
Thankfully the chief didn't spill his hot coffee on himself when he got popped in the mouth or the next news story would be about suing the pants off of starbuck's.
-
I get that the city should be allowed to make this optional. however, what happens when insurance has to pay a claim for a total loss that could have been minimized by putting a small fire out? they'll just pass that cost along to everyone. Also I wasn't saying that it was the city faults completely. The point I was trying to make was it is shared by the city for allowing this, the owners fault for not paying and the FD fault for not getting this changed or simply by not putting the fire out. then what happens if your neighbors don't buy in? Do your fees go up? If your going to own real estate you should be required to have fire service-just tack it on like a water bill if not paid. (at least that is how it's done here). it's not so much about protecting the idiots as much as it is protecting everyone else from the idiots.
-
then what happens if your neighbors don't buy in?
the only reason the fire dept was there is because the neighbor had the coverage---they were there for the guy's neighbor, not him. Had it spread, they would've taken care of the neighbor.
what happens when insurance has to pay a claim for a total loss that could have been minimized by putting a small fire out? they'll just pass that cost along to everyone.
The homeowner's policy should have a clause in it reference to fire dept. coverage. Premiums would increase 400% if owner fails to arrange fire supression coverage or the policy is null and void. That would be incentive in and of itself to arrange coverage---$75 a year is much cheaper. Gov't doesn't need to get involved in every little frekkin aspect of our lives. The market will take care of itself.
the FD fault for not getting this changed or simply by not putting the fire out
no skin off their back. Not their responsibility. In fact, had they acted, their revenue for the next year would plummit by people not bothering to pay since they'd act anyway. That means, next budget year, no money for trucks, equipment, etc... The mayor controls the fire dept. The mayor is controlled by laws enacted by his/her constituents. The people wanted it this way or they'd change the laws. That's the way it is. So, i guess it is the "people's" fault if anyone. I still say it is the homeowner's fault solely.
I don't mean to blast anyone here, and I do apologize, but, I am sick and tired of the gov't being a nanny to everyone when something hits the media and politicians reacting to everything with more unneeded laws. People need to grow up and become adults and take personal responsibility like days of old when this country was great.
-
SgtDel,
While I see your point on the "principle" of not helping the guy because he didn't pay the fee, what about charging him a much higher fee to put out the fire. Making him homeless doesn't seem to me to be much of an incentive, well ethical incentive.
-
SgtDel,
While I see your point on the "principle" of not helping the guy because he didn't pay the fee, what about charging him a much higher fee to put out the fire. Making him homeless doesn't seem to me to be much of an incentive, well ethical incentive.
It's excellent incentive to all the people besides him who didnt pay the $75.
-
Yeah, better to make a family homeless, cause the insurance company to pay a ton of money to replace the house, cause untold amounts of animosity to the fire department, and instigate violence than it would be to accept at the minimum $1000 (about 13 times the $75 fee). The $75 is like an "just-in-case" premium. Why not figure up what it'll cost for all the firemen and truck and everything. Like a private business does now for any job it bids on/accepts.
I know of few if any private companies that would not find a way to help somebody willing to pay the $$.
But I guess it's good to know where you stand.
-
$1000 (about 13 times the $75 fee). The $75 is like an "just-in-case" premium. Why not figure up what it'll cost for all the firemen and truck and everything. Like a private business does now for any job it bids on/accepts
It will cost a heck of a lot more than that. If people know the FD can not ignore a fire, the FD will collect next to nothing for the $75 fees. Because some years, there will be no house fires, the FD will get ZERO dollars. You cannot start a pay as you go precedent. Then only 4 or 5 households will pay the entire FD budget for the year. Then there will be lawsuits because some would then say only one truck was needed or they didn't need 12 firemen....there would then be micro management of how the FD responds and nit pick the minimum type of response. Then, if the FD only sends a min amt of equipment one time and a life is lost, they will be sued for millions.
So, again, if they start that precedent when the citizens know the FD cannot ignore a fire, trust me, very few will pay unless you are talking a $30,000 response fee or something similar to make up the difference for few $75 fees being collected. Fire trucks and equipment is not cheap. The fire trucks we use here at the county are upwards of $700,000 each.
It's a no win situation if you take the responsibility away from the citizens.
Now, if blame is to be thrown around, as I mentioned earlier, the people, if they feel their procedures are not good, has the choice to change their own laws. But do not blame the FD or Mayor for following the laws enacted by the people. Most jurisdictions, like mine, don't have yearly fees. It is all ecompassed in the general fund--but, unless of a major fire where lives are at stake, we do not leave our jurisdiction. Now there are multi-jurisdictional search and rescue teams that several jurisdictions share resources and training and personnel, but that is different.
But I guess it's good to know where you stand.
I don't like this type of system, but, if enacted, it must be followed. As soon as exceptions are made, it falls apart. That's where I stand..don't have the system in place if you can't suffer the consequences.
This system probably has worked for decades for the thousands of people. Now, one ignoramous comes around and the whole sytem may crash---just because of one person. That's where I stand. My family would not be in that guy's predicament.
-
When I first saw the article I was like WOW. The headline got me for obvious reasons, and then I was thinking eh, i didnt know they functioned that way.
All insurance is a just-in-case premium. while I don't like somebody lost their home, If I had screwed up, I would accept it as my fault.
Then again, I'd have paid the money as long as I knew the service was available. Where I don't have sympathy though, is with carelessness in any form. The son went and hit the chief because he apparently was raised like most younger Americans, to expect that no matter what you do you will be taken care of. Sounds kinda dumb to me to not pay for fire protections and making the practice of burning stuff in your yard. There again more carelessness... who the heck burns stuff close enough to their home to catch it on fire?
And if they decide to charge the people the $1000 dollars like you said, well if they don't have $75 they sure aint gonna have $1000 on the spot and then the fire dept would have to start collecting on debts from people who couldn't pay but meant to pay them back.
No one was inside, and If they had stood there while somebody was trapped inside for any reason whatsoever, then I'd be flipping out about it.
I just have a pick about carelessness. about the only thing in this world worse than that is people who hurt children.
When I'm careless, I almost always draw back a nub and it teaches those lessons no person could drum into me. so why shouldn't he have hard lessons too. at least his family is alive and safe.
You just know the paper came around to pay the bill and they probably threw it away because aww it won't happen to us. all the while in a corner of their mind they think even of it does, they wouldn't let my house burn down, no matter if I pay or not. they'll help us out. it's not much money.
You know why experience is such a good teacher? It doesn't allow any drop outs.
-
well said Kenny. I bet he wouldn't make that mistake again--if he gets another house ;)
And, as I mentioned, the neighborhood will look at that and learn from his mistake and ensure they don't ignore/forget to pay. The market takes care of itself. One person should not put a screaching stop to something that may have worked fine for decades.
Isn't experience a great teacher?
-
You know why experience is such a good teacher? It doesn't allow any drop outs.
That's a great quote.
Since they lost pets in the fire I'm surprised that PETA isn't all over this already.
-
I almost have to doubt that it would cost $30k to put out the fire. Would not doubt it though when you factor in pensions, health care and other government goodies (oh but don't get government involved!) that a lot of public servents get. Unfortunately, there are few private options because government crowds out other investment. Case in point, you might point out, how many homes are there in the area that are covered by this opt-in system. Do you think that $75 is enough to really cover a fire? The response usually is "show me the free market's cheaper!!" well, I don't know if the government can do it for $75. I also said $1000 minimum. 13 homes would be less than $1000. I have a feeling that either the system is being subsidized somewhere down the line, either by the people in forced in portion or they plan to take it from future revenues.
They could also take a lien out on the guy's house or the insurance company could have coughed up the money and then it's like having full coverage on your vehicle. If someone hits you, your ins. company usually pays you and goes after the other driver.
I will say I'm glad he and his family are okay.
-
It seems ridiculous to me, surely the fire service should be included in other mandatory taxes?! Maybe he couldn’t afford the $75, maybe he’s just a complete idiot, either way his family now don’t have a home to live in, and surely that’ll cost the welfare system much more??
Surely any firefighter would WANT to put the fire out?? It seems like bureaucracy over common sense if you ask me.
It seems a shame that the dogs were left to perish too.
-
Do you think that $75 is enough to really cover a fire?
$75 isn't enough to put out a fire but when taken from the whole pool of $75 contributions, there's enough in the pot to cover the houses that catch fire depending on the odds. if even 1/4 of the houses that had paid the $75 caught fire, then the whole pot would be gone before they got well into their work. If too many houses were to catch fire, the system would collapse. they base it on probability. probably too many house won't burn down... they hope. they can only go by averaging how many houses actually did burn down in previous years and go off of that. anything that uses heavy equipment (trucks, especially pumps of any kind are crazy expensive and even if you don't need to them you have to run them to maintain them) and training it adds up. Diesel fuel, paying people to be on call 24 hours a day (makes the payroll double or triple what a normal 8 hour shift costs other companies)
Even with regular house or car insurance, if too many people claim, the companies can go out of business. and if the fire dept has to deal with liens, suddenly they have to have a legal dept, with lawyers-(biggest drain anywhere) and secrataries to handle the claims, benefits for these people and properties to house their offices.
I do feel bad for the animals, because they got killed for no reason because of negligence. I will be surprised if PETA doesn't say something. (me personally am all for PETA as long as you mean People Eating Tasty Animals)
This isn't too much different than flood victims. if you live in the flood plains and don't specifically add flood insurance to your plan, you're screwed. probably thousands of people lose everything when a flood happens. as far as I know flood insurance isn't standard for any policies. people don't check to see if the house they want to buy is in a flood plain. I don't want to pay for flood insurance because its expensive and unlikely to happen for a long time around here, so I check first thing and always put my house up on the hill. I feel bad about the people who got flooded, but wonder at all the empty space up on the hill around me that people didn't want to build on.
Citizens voluntarily give money to help when that kind of thing happens, but they shouldn't be required to help. People generally like to help others having a bad time, but if you force it on them, they quickly change their tune. Everyone expects to be taken care of. I cannot believe some people actually sued FEMA for more money... That would be like a bum on the street suing me because I gave him $1 instead of the $10 he really wanted so he could super-size his happy meal... If you want the super-sized meal with a pie, go get it for yourself, If i gotta get it for you, you're getting the cheap hamburger no cheese and small water.
-
it doesnt cost $30k to render aid to a burning house. My point is this: if FD can't ignore a burning house, there would be no one paying the $75 a year. A loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the budget of the FD. The FD would have to charge the very few number of houses that burn each year at least $30k to recoup their several hundred thousand dollar budget for trucks, equipment, staff, training, etc.. But, they would never be able to collect the money. So, they must ignore the fire for those who don't pay.
You can't just charge $1,000 for each house that burns....that may only be a few thousand dollars a year for the expensive FD to operate---it would have to be way, way more than that. Even a $10k fee would not motivate people to pay $75 a year--it's a gambling society, they'll take the risk. What are the odds your house will be destroyed by fire this year? Very slim.
-
PETA is so crazy, they are trying to push bills right now to shut down a 4-5 billion dollar reptile and herp industry. They have even tried passing laws at state levels banning ownership of any kind of any animals(dogs, cats, etc...). Sorry for the change of subject but they are nuts. I know of one case, where PETA affiliated group went to a mink factory released all the minks and most of the died fighting each other inside of the room, because minks can be very territorial. So what did they really do FOR the animal?
-
It should be a legally enforceable tax. It's completely ridiculous people should be allowed not to have fire cover.
Would they have put the house out if there were people trapped? Of course they would.
-
It should be a legally enforceable tax. It's completely ridiculous people should be allowed not to have fire cover.
Would they have put the house out if there were people trapped? Of course they would.
I have to completely disagree with you here. People need more common sense, not more taxes and laws.
That being said, nobody pays me $75 a year to help an old lady cross the street but you can bet that when I have the oppurtunity to help, I would. That's not welfare, irresponsibility, ignorance on her part, or the result of some socialist government program where old lady's think they need everything handed to them. That's called selfless service, helping others. It's a trait that most people have forgotten that represents the American spirit and helped build this country.
On the other hand, I am a huge supporter of natural selection and thinning the herd.
-
I am planning on building a house in the next few years, when I was picking my lots out, I was locking for terrain, ease of access, low traffic and close proximity to a fire hydrant.
Insurance in Alabama will jack your insurance up if you are X number of feet from a hydrant. If you are far enough away and the FD doesn't have enough hose you are relying on what they can carry in the truck to put it out, or control it enough to get close enough to fill it back up.
Living in the situation and being involved with the VOLUNTEER fire department Toolmaster was with them for 15+ years), you would be surprised at the sheer number of people the received a bill and ignored it or refused to pay. It isn't like they are supposed to remember, people receive a bill for it, which is why I say he didn't forget. When I moved to my first house, I got sent a bill and didn't pay because it was suppose to be deducted from my loan via equity, they sent a reminder 30 days later. Then they realized it was getting paid and sent another one stating that it was paid.
-
well said Grim. I'll help out anyone and give them the shirt off my back in a heartbeat--nothing asked. But I can't stand to see someone purposefully 'getting over' on the system that others must pay for. They think they are going to get the same services because of the 'bleeding hearts' of society. That simply has to end.
We don't need more taxes and more laws. We are overburdened by laws---laws that are simply reactionary on the part of the elected because the media gets involved. Darwin had something when he said, 'survival of the fittest'--if someone is such a knucklehead to put himself or his property in more danger and has no way to fix it after the effects, why do we need more laws to protect this one individual? nonsense. That will just hurt the populous where we as a society will never prosper--we'll go back to the dark ages.
-
It's just not normal to not have fire protection taken out of taxes. same as the roads, schools and police protection etc. what if you could opt out of paying any of these? Requiring necesary services to be taxed is not excessive.
-
It's just not normal to not have fire protection taken out of taxes. same as the roads, schools and police protection etc. what if you could opt out of paying any of these? Requiring necesary services to be taxed is not excessive.
X2, works pretty well in Indiana, I just never would have thought it would have been optional. I even pay a ditch fee because it runs in front of my property to aid when flooding occurs. No big deal. My $.02
-
normally fire protection does come from taxes, however, i think some are missing the point that this house was not in the jurisdiction of the city, where the FD belonged to. Those outside the city must pay in for they are not taxed by the city. That's my understanding anyway. They live outside the city where the FD belongs. There must be some type of an agreement therefore an add'l payment.
-
Well then those outside the jurisdiction should be taxed by the county and the county can then pay the city. Problem solved. The idiot's house doesn't burn to the ground, a fire cheif doesn't get a beat down, no ones arrested and the fire dept gets their money, insurance rates dont go up and so on....the whole community benefits.
-
let the idiot's house burn. I am sure their process has worked just fine for decades until this guy comes around. The books should not be rewritten just because of one idiot. Everyone should be forced to do something because of one idiot? (shaking my head). Too many laws, too many laws, too many laws. This is a nanny state because of a few losers in society we all must pay. It reminds me of no child left behind. One child who isn't forced to do their homework and it drags the entire class down because they can't fail the guy. The school must come down to his level. Why is Japan beating us in every frekkin comparison?
-
You can't just charge $1,000 for each house that burns....
I said $1,000, minimum. But I guess you took it to mean maximum as well.
-
You can't just charge $1,000 for each house that burns....
I said $1,000, minimum. But I guess you took it to mean maximum as well.
read on, not just partial...
I said
You can't just charge $1,000 for each house that burns....that may only be a few thousand dollars a year for the expensive FD to operate---it would have to be way, way more than that. Even a $10k fee would not motivate people to pay $75 a year--it's a gambling society, they'll take the risk. What are the odds your house will be destroyed by fire this year? Very slim.
and I said...
The FD would have to charge the very few number of houses that burn each year at least $30k to recoup their several hundred thousand dollar budget for trucks, equipment, staff, training, etc.. But, they would never be able to collect the money. So, they must ignore the fire for those who don't pay.
The FD will never be able to collect the the appropriate fees so it is a mute point. That plan will never work no matter the fee required 'as needed'.
-
I disagree that most people would just gamble. If the fee was high enough, they wouldn't. Look at AAA. Their yearly fee is almost a tow.
-
Try collecting a high fee. I say, no pay ahead of time, no water. I have levied on property, held sheriff's levy sales (they get pennies on the dollar of value of things), served warrant in debts, served garnishments, and if the defendants move, it is nearly impossible to collect fees awarded by the courts without spending as much money to find them. My guess is they would have to move after their house burns. Try finding them to collect fees after the county condemns the house. it never ends.
stepping down from this issue. I'm tired. 20 years in county gov't, i know what the difficulties are and how the mayor's, therefore fire chief's, hands are tied. no win situation if they worry about the one bad apple. Trick is ignore the one bad apple and everyone lives happily ever after and the citizen learn from the one bad apple. No need to spoil the whole bushel.
Bowing out of this discussion, i'm just repeating myself.
-
If the fee is high enough, it'd still bring the subscription from most folks. If your $120,000 house is burning, it'd be worth it to figure out how to pay $30,000 to get it put out quickly (no guarantees from the FD that it'll hold its value, and your dealings with the insurance company are still in limbo) as opposed to losing the entire investment. Most folks would be put off by this number enough to go ahead and pay the subscription fee.
As for the "Mandatory" crowd... it's NEVER right to require someone to pay a tax at gunpoint, which is EXACTLY what happens when it is mandatory.
Guy fails to pay... where does it go from there? County evicts the guy for nonpayment? Guy doesn't leave? County sends armed goons to force him out... why are they armed? Cuz he might not want to go, so the threat of death, however gently used, is there.
So... nope. Private property is the responsibility of the owner, especially when the value/usefulness of that property is affected. If you mail something valuable and it doesn't arrive (pretty common with the USPS, in my experience so far) and you either didn't get insurance or not enough, you're S.O.L.
...and that's with an organization you are forced to subsidize whether you use it or not.
-
velojym, are you aware of austrian economics or anarcho-capitalism?
-
velojym, are you aware of austrian economics or anarcho-capitalism?
Yep
-
My 2 cents is once his insurance company finds out he ignored the yearly fee they should deny him coverage.
I feel this way about other people that are morons as well. If you wreck your car under the influence, the insurance company should be able to say, so sorry your not covered! If an innocent person is injured etc. then yes they cover them but nothing else. They then should be able to get restitution from the responsible party, be it a lean on that persons equitable posesion etc.
-
like with my car accident. geico wouldn’t pay my medical cause of a 10,000 deductable and my heath care would pay because they said some other insurance was responsible. I wasn’t trying to be cheap but I thought since I had insurance I would been covered I think the saddest part of this story is the lost of the animals they should charge the home owner with animal cruelty ;D
-
Really an insurance company should add X fee into their bill, and charge like 150$ handling fee...hmmmm...