Firefighters let house burn, owner hadnt paid fees

[Grim 82]

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.

[1980c10]

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.

[Lt.Del]

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.

[TexasRed]

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.

[78 Chevyrado]

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. 

[TexasRed]

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.

[Lt.Del]

$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.

[78 Chevyrado]

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.  

[Lt.Del]

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?

[Grim 82]

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.

[TexasRed]

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.

[Laderhosen]

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.

[78 Chevyrado]

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.

[Lt.Del]

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.  

[three8six]

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?