This just makes me sick!

[Chickerdoodle13]

I did not read all the posts, but it is a very common thing here for firemen to let a house or building burn down. Often times, if the fire gets into the structure, there is nothing you can do but stop the spread of fire to other houses. Usually, this means all of us (firemen, EMS, police) get called out only to sit for a few hours and watch the house burn. If you live out here, it's just one of the things you come to accept. Not only are response times slow because of distance, but resources are limited. Our fire department is fairly well off, but many houses are still lost due to a variety of things.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
Same town, same story, different fire an home.

 

[dainerra]

Quote:
No, this is a new story. Same town, different family, same decision to not pay.

 

[Charon]

isnt there some like good samaritan laws? would these departments say allow people to be burned to death? there is law and then there is also morality.

 

[dainerra]

Quote:
They already stated several times that they showed up to make sure no one was inside the structure. If someone had been trapped, they were prepared to go in. But they wouldn't work to protect the building for free

A good samaratin law just means that you can't be sued for tryung to help someone. For example, you are driving down the road and see a car crash. You pull the driver from the car and he is paralyed. He can't sue you for helping him.

 

[chickened]

If the city is paying them to be on call 24/7 are they working for free? or does the city get a break on the costs if they are out of town for a few hours? I think the city pays the same if there are no fires or fires all the time. If it were about the costs I do not buy that argument... it was about punishment for not paying. Unless of course the city can predict how many fires they are pre-paying for... not!

 

[chickened]

Yes, and I think the fire department is learning this reaping and sowing concept as well... good service is adequately funded.
Quote:
Yes, and those homeowners who did not pay the fee had nothing to reap because they refused to sow.

 

[dainerra]

Exactly what we have been saying all along. Good service is adequetly funded. So if the county wants to keep receiving service, they are going to have to pay for it. What the city is learning is "no good deed goes unpunished"

The city bought enough equipment and trained volunteers to serve their town. The offered services to the county at an increased tax rate and were voted down. The city offered to let individuals opt in on a personal basis. The point you seem to be missing is that THE COUNTY DID NOT WANT TO PAY FOR FIRE SERVICE,

It's like if you bought a new car and your friend is mad that you said he couldn't drive it. You agree and then he sues you when he wrecks the car.

The city would be perfectly within their rights to tell the people in the county that, after the year paid for is up, they will no longer provide services.

Again, in all these years the service has been provided, we have 2 individuals who seem to not be grasping the concept of "pay to play". "I forgot" isn't anymore of an excuse here than in the rest of life. You can't forget to pay your bills and still expect services. try not paying your trash bill. They'll leave it sitting on the curb, no matter how many times you put it out.

The fire deptartment sh owed up to make sure that no one was injured, which is more than they were required to do. Perhaps next time they should just stay homre when the call is outside their area.

 

[chickened]

Well I guess there are 2 ways to look at it, as a business owner I can only do what is required of me as I am paid for with my service or I can go ABOVE and BEYOND with my service so when my name is brought up in a conversation someone will say hey that guy did a great job and even did more I recommend him and was glad to pay him. Communities help each other or at least the one I live in does. Don't think for a minute that I think the guy should have not paid he should have. The county not wanting to pay for fire service is a funding/legislative issue not something that firemen decide when arriving on site. This would be like saying to someone starving, sorry I cannot give you any food you did not pay with a warehouse full of food. This is just wrong behaviour and selfish, I probably would have just paid the guys' 75.00 if I were his neighbor as a gesture of human kindness and if I were a volunteer fireman I would have helped but I do not think I would want to be a volunteer in that fire department really anyhow. I guess I missed the "good deed". Like I said it is a disgrace to call them firemen to real firemen that do what is right at the time. I know several firemen and they would never allow this period. I guess region and cultures are different.

 

[dainerra]

the "good deed" is that the city is providing a service that would otherwise be unavailable to the people in the county. The city is paying the bulk of the funding, the training, and the equipment.

It's more like someone saying "I'm hungry and you have a warehouse full of food. I can just walk in and help myself to all I want. You've already paid for the food, so I can take what I want for free"

As a business owner, it is like all your customers finding out that you will give them a service even if they never pay for it. "Yeah, he sent me a bill and I never paid it. When I ordered again, he still sent me stuff so I think I'll just keep not paying." Then all your other customers hear about that and say "well why the heck am I paying? I bet he's going to raise the rates to pay for all these freeloaders anyway"

The decision to not fight the fire was never made by the firemen. The word comes from the dispatch office "This home is outside your area. Do not provide service" I can't say that the firemen would have been "fired" since they are volunteers after all, but what if one of them got hurt. Do you realize that they would have no insurance? Worker's comp would not pay because the house wasn't owned by a "customer"
What if 1 firefighter decided to put out the fire anyway or to help carry stuff out. Then the roof collapses. Now you have the entire crew in danger trying to get him out. They save him, but now he has horrible burn injuries. There is no insurance coverage so he is left with all the bills for medical treatment. He can't work, so now his family is in danger of being homeless. He is permanently scarred and disabled, living on government assistance. All because someone couldn't be bothered to pay a lousy $75 fee.