This just makes me sick!

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:

Yea, not quite.

Besides, saves who money? Your sure not talking about saving the city money. Fighting a house fire here costs something like $10K. Fuel, mantanance, equipment. yada yada yada. No big deal with unlimited funds..

If they normally have 10 or so fires in the city a year they can assume they need something like $100K in the budget. If they are already cutting that close they have to make choices

Edited to add....


This is the end of the year. For all we know they are broke. They may not have backup gear on hand. They may not have rolls of replacement hose back at the hall. They may not have a second class A pumper to use as backup. An they may not have the money for all this. If not they cant afford to lose equipment that they need to protect the city.

 

[chickened]

Do they have fire protection in the county? we have overlapping districts and both agencies respond. Our fire districts cover regions and city fire departments cover the cities and clackamas fire district 1 covers unincorporated areas. It would seem they have a problem there.

I do see the cities' side with the costs and all and 75.00 is nothing really for service, you must admit putting out the fire would have been the logical thing to do just as much as paying the 75.00 would have been logical also.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

If money was no object putting the fire out would have been the right thing to do. But money is a object an a broke fire department saves nothing.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
Missed that part. No the county keeps voting it down apparent.

 

[dainerra]

Quote:
Spook posted a few pages ago. Apparently, they put an item on the budget to add a fee to property taxes to provide fire service in the county. The voters said NO!!!! and so the city said "we well let anyone interested pay a $75 to help with upkeep of the equipment" Some people chose yes, some people decided not to pay the fee.

Again, it's not about the cost to the firemen, yes they volunteer their TIME. Of course, that means that they also have day jobs and family obligations that means that they are not always available if there is a fire. So you have to train many more people to insure that you have enough responders for an emergency. So that is more $$ in training, even if volunteers pay a portion (firemen training is THOUSANDS $$ per person). Then is the equipment. "Hey, you want to volunteer? First go buy your own gear, another several thousand" And you're going to need some type of firetruck, but you guys can split the cost of that. A firetruck only costs about $70K+ And gas. Those things burn gas like nobodies business, so you guys are going to have to pay for that too. And hoses. Another several thousand per HOSE and you're going to need several per truck. And axes. And safety alarms. And insurance, coz you don't want to go into a burning building without some type of coverage. I'm sure THAT will be cheap.
Yeah, I'm sure they would have tons on people lining up to volunteer.

Instead, the city approved a proposal and charged a property tax on their citizens to buy the equipment and pay for the upkeep and all the expenses for that. The town bought the equipment and the citizens volunteered. Someone said "The people outside of town have no fire protection." The city looked at the numbers and said "To do that, we will need this many extra trucks, this much extra gear, and this many extra firemen. Our citizens aren't going to want to pay more taxes for all of that." So they went to the voters of the county and said "We will do this but you will have to pay" The voters all heard the word "TAX" and voted it down. So the city said "We will still offer service for a $75/year fee to anyone who wants to pay."
So, legally speaking, if you didn't pay your $75, the city could show up to make sure your neighbor's house didn't catch on fire and leave grandma inside your burning house. Now, of course, anyone who is a decent human being isn't going to let Grandma die over $75, so the firemen will show up to make sure that no one is inside. If there is, they risk their lives to go and save them, to heck with the fee.

To me, that seems pretty darn generous. You get protection for your life and it costs you nothing.

ETA: it would be cheaper for the citizens paying for the service to not show up at all. After all, every time out is wear and tear on equipment and gear. Too many calls out to homes that didn't pay the fee and those who DO pay are going to have to pick up the slack to pay for the extra maintenance. THAT is what would be unfair.

 

[dainerra]

One thing that I don't think anyone has pointed out. In many districts, the common approach to a mobile home fire is to just let it burn and insure the fire doesn't spread to neighboring structures.

The reason is that they burn so quickly that by the time firemen arrive the home is going to be a total loss anyway. It's too dangerous to go in, putting water on it isn't going to save anything, so just let it burn. Insurance companies know this as well and charge higher premiums if you want extra fire coverage.

If you look it up, it takes 34 minutes, give or take, for a mobile home to be nothing but a frame.
Call 911.
Call goes out to volunteers.
Volunteers wake up, get dressed, drive to station.
Get in gear, start trucks, drive to location.
Get off trucks unload hoses and hook up.
Too late, mobile home is too far gone.


It happened to my Great Grandfather when I was about 10. His trailer was in my grandmother's front yard and all the firemen did was keep the flames from spreading to her house. By the time they arrived, it wouldn't have made any difference to try to put it out. Shoot, it happened at night and the entire front of the trailer was toast before he made it out the back door. It's easier and safer to let the fire burn itself out and then check for hot spots in the ashes. And that is WITH a fire dept that is working to save your property.

 

[chickened]

Sometimes you do things because it is right not because of money or lack of money. The IMAGE of the fire department(s) suffers from these decisions and being a small town that is poor to begin with does not encourage wealth to move to that area... but that may be the plan also. You reap what you sow.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
Thats easy to say if you have never been there. You should walk a mile in someones bunker boots before questioning his choices.


I happen to know that there was a fire department hurting for funding so bad that they could afford almost no medical equipment. It was apparently so bad that people were dieing for the lack of this money an equipment. They made the decision to drive to a relitavly wealthy community an steal there whole rescue truck an strip it. Unfortunately this is not an isolated indecent. Many many departments have had to resort to theft as opposed to just watching people die.

Morels are easy when wealthy. Everything becomes complicated when you are not. Especially when it has to do with saving lives.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
Yes, and those homeowners who did not pay the fee had nothing to reap because they refused to sow.

 

[HHandbasket]

Where I live, our fire department was also in financial danger. In our most recent election this past November, the local citizenry voted for an increased property tax of $85/year per household to fund the fire department. It won OVERWHELMINGLY.

BTW, the original story by the OP about the fire department that stood and let that house burn over a $75 fee... that's a really old story. I first saw it on the evening news about a year, maybe year and a half ago. I remember seeing it on TV when we were still living in Sacramento.