It begins in Tennessee.... Detroit after that?

**justanotherboy** · October-05-10, 09:46 AM

Did this guy have insurance on his house too or did he expect to sign up for it after it burned down?

**Crumbled_pavement** · October-05-10, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by justanotherboy

Did this guy have insurance on his house too or did he expect to sign up for it after it burned down?

I already answered this. Insurance companies are 'for profit' organizations that base their profits off paying out on as few insurance claims as possible. With that business model, why would an insurance company want to sell an insurance policy knowing they will have to pay out an insurance claim? Whether they pay out or not does change their profitability but does not change the fact of whether the house burns down or not. The fire department exists for the public good. What difference to their budget does it make when the $75 is paid? It's not raising or lowering their costs, and they are not making a profit either way. The SF fire dept. should have put out the fire and charged the family the costs [[whether it be $5 or $5,000) for the service. That way the family would still have a house to live in and would still being held accountable for their foolish decision.

Some would argue that if a person could pay $75 after the house catches on fire then everyone would do that and the fire dept. would lose funding. I agree with that 100%. That's why the fire department should fine the person for the complete cost of putting out the fire [[which is most likely way over $75). If the fine is $500 [[or greater), I think the point is made. Which would you rather pay, $75 or $500?

**gazhekwe** · October-05-10, 10:04 AM

To Goose: By some ideas, these areas of Detroit will be designated not to have services. It is the same, people living in an area not served by a tax supported fire service.

**Goose** · October-05-10, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

I already answered this. Insurance companies are 'for profit' organizations that base their profits off paying out on as few insurance claims as possible. With that business model, why would an insurance company want to sell an insurance policy knowing they will have to pay out an insurance claim? Whether they pay out or not does change their profitability but does not change the fact of whether the house burns down or not. The fire department exists for the public good. What difference to their budget does it make when the $75 is paid? It's not raising or lowering their costs, and they are not making a profit either way. The SF fire dept. should have put out the fire and charged the family the costs [[whether it be $5 or $5,000) for the service. That way the family would still have a house to live in and would still being held accountable for their foolish decision.

Some would argue that if a person could pay $75 after the house catches on fire then everyone would do that and the fire dept. would lose funding. I agree with that 100%. That's why you fine the person for the complete cost of putting out the fire [[which is most likely way over $75). If the fine is $500, I think the point is made. Which would you rather pay, $75 or $500?

Whats the authority to fine someone that lives OUTSIDE the city limits if they don't pay? If you are now giving the police/law/fire departments of one city the right to fine people outside their jurisdiction, then why not just make it easy and make these people outside the jurisdiction pay the $75 to begin with, why not annex the entire area and call it yours?

**Goose** · October-05-10, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

To Goose: By some ideas, these areas of Detroit will be designated not to have services. It is the same, people living in an area not served by a tax supported fire service.

to be honest, this would be fine if the system also said these people no longer have to pay INTO it, no income tax, no property tax........

**Crumbled_pavement** · October-05-10, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Goose

Whats the authority to fine someone that lives OUTSIDE the city limits if they don't pay? If you are now giving the police/law/fire departments of one city the right to fine people outside their jurisdiction, then why not just make it easy and make these people outside the jurisdiction pay the $75 to begin with, why not annex the entire area and call it yours?

You have the authority to fine them because they are requesting a service. Fine [[or charge, whatever term you want to use) them just like any other organization can charge someone for a service they owe on. If I go to the Emergency Room in a city I don't live in they will treat me even if I don't have insurance. Guess what? I'll get a bill for that since there is no insurance company to pay the bill on my behalf. As far as the SF fire dept., if I wasn't paid within a reasonable amount of time I'd sue the family. The cost of putting out the fire could be recuperated much easier than the cost of finding a new home.

**SWMAP** · October-05-10, 10:41 AM

crumbled pavement - if your idea worked then it would be in common use! How many people don't pay legitimate fines? How many people don't pay parking fines or late tax payment fines or ordinance violation fines?
Collecting after the fact [[I'll pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today) is just not too viable. Then you suggest suing - pretty heavy costs to the fire department in order to recoup a $500 fine.

**Crumbled_pavement** · October-05-10, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by SWMAP

crumbled pavement - if your idea worked then it would be in common use! How many people don't pay legitimate fines? How many people don't pay parking fines or late tax payment fines or ordinance violation fines?
Collecting after the fact [[I'll pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today) is just not too viable. Then you suggest suing - pretty heavy costs to the fire department in order to recoup a $500 fine.

I'd rather recoup the costs of suing than to have someone homeless. We're not talking about a hamburger either. I'm known to walk past beggers with little sympathy. I'm not one of these people to feel sympathetic to someone every time they stub their toe. But we're talking about a home where several people live. And yes, I'd sue to make a point. On top of the suit I'd stick the family with any legal charges or additional costs. The family might not like it, it might be time consuming, but these people would still have a place to live. We're not animals in the wild, we're people!

**Meddle** · October-05-10, 10:59 AM

I have a hard time accepting that a firefighter with any integrity would stand by and watch a house burn to the ground and leave a family homeless. That's pretty damn cold-blooded.

**Detroitnerd** · October-05-10, 11:03 AM

In the good old laissez-faire days of New York, fire departments were private. Before sending the fire company, they would send their biggest man to the fireplug to guard it. If another fire company got there first, he would fend them off so they couldn't get the job. There were many instances of houses burning down while a bruiser guarded the fire plug for the other company. They also had two different private police forces that would occasionally get into pitched battles with each other.

You won't hear this sort of history from the anti-taxers and privatizers ...

ferntruth · October-05-10, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Goose

THE KEY WORD IS THAT YOU PAY YOUR TAXES

this person lived in an area that was not taxed nor was it serviced by a municipal fire department....

they were offered service from a neighboring community for a fee

they didn't want to pay

end of story......

same crap when people live in a 100 year flood zone and refuse to buy flood insurance thinking it will never happen to them, then it happens, and they look for a public bailout......

All flood insurance is underwritten by the US Government [[i.e, us). It's ALL a public bailout

ferntruth · October-05-10, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Meddle

I have a hard time accepting that a firefighter with any integrity would stand by and watch a house burn to the ground and leave a family homeless. That's pretty damn cold-blooded.

Agreed, and I think the couples son felt the same way.

**gazhekwe** · October-05-10, 11:35 AM

One of my early jobs was for one the first nationwide fire insurance companies in the country. They started in 1863 in San Francisco selling little plaques for people's homes. If you had the plaque, the fire squad would put out the fire. If not, well, you had to figure out some way to pay for it or your house would burn down. Those plaques are collectibles now.

**chief1356** · October-05-10, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

I have a hard time accepting that a firefighter with any integrity would stand by and watch a house burn to the ground and leave a family homeless. That's pretty damn cold-blooded.

are you in the habit of deliberately going against your employers directives? the firemen work for the municipality, the municipality sets the policies of the dept.
maybe they wanted to put the fire out but if they had maybe they would be unemployed the next day. if they entered that house and got injured or killed, who would be financially responsible?

**Detroitnerd** · October-05-10, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by chief1356

are you in the habit of deliberately going against your employers directives? the firemen work for the municipality, the municipality sets the policies of the dept.
maybe they wanted to put the fire out but if they had maybe they would be unemployed the next day. if they entered that house and got injured or killed, who would be financially responsible?

Rationalize this any way that comforts you, chief. I'm not sure I'd want you on the hose, though, if my house were going up in flames!!

**laurin** · October-05-10, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Rationalize this any way that comforts you, chief. I'm not sure I'd want you on the hose, though, if my house were going up in flames!!

I think Chief's point is very valid. The fireman should put their lives and livelihood on the line because the guy didn't want to cough up the $75 for fire protection? At what point does the cycle stop? Do you think the gentleman would have then came to their aid? The line had to be drawn- it's a shame that it had to get that far, however. I just cannot see the issue as that cut and dry that they should have helped no matter what.

**Detroitnerd** · October-05-10, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by laurin

I think Chief's point is very valid. The fireman should put their lives and livelihood on the line because the guy didn't want to cough up the $75 for fire protection? At what point does the cycle stop? Do you think the gentleman would have then came to their aid? The line had to be drawn- it's a shame that it had to get that far, however. I just cannot see the issue as that cut and dry that they should have helped no matter what.

The chief's point is that sometimes it's perfectly OK for a fireman to watch a house burn down. Or, by extension, sometimes it's perfectly OK for a policeman to watch a crime and do nothing. These are acts so callous that no decent person would consider defending them. But then, hey, somebody didn't pay, so, I guess it's OK.

We are watching our society fall apart and explaining how it's normal and natural. This is appalling.

**Goose** · October-05-10, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

The chief's point is that sometimes it's perfectly OK for a fireman to watch a house burn down. Or, by extension, sometimes it's perfectly OK for a policeman to watch a crime and do nothing. These are acts so callous that no decent person would consider defending them. But then, hey, somebody didn't pay, so, I guess it's OK.

We are watching our society fall apart and explaining how it's normal and natural. This is appalling.

You can't understand the notion of putting the safety of the fire crew ahead of saving personal material possessions of someone who didn't opt into the system?

No one was in the house they let burn..... it was material possessions... sure it was a house, but I'm SURE they had insurance...... wait, probably NOT....... fools...

**SWMAP** · October-05-10, 02:34 PM

"We are watching our society fall apart and explaining how it's normal and natural. This is appalling"

No, society isn't falling apart - this has been the way of some rural fire protection for hundreds of years. You just caught now became aware of a historical fact - fire protection is often by garned by subscription. The trailer burned down because the man CHOSE not to protect it with a subscription. I understand that if life or limb had been in danger, then a rescue would have been made. But once it was settled that no life was in danger - just the household furnishings that the owner CHOSE to leave unprotected, then the consequences had to be paid.

**Detroitnerd** · October-05-10, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Goose

You can't understand the notion of putting the safety of the fire crew ahead of saving personal material possessions of someone who didn't opt into the system?

No one was in the house they let burn..... it was material possessions... sure it was a house, but I'm SURE they had insurance...... wait, probably NOT....... fools...

Oh, Jesus. Is it too much to ask to simply point a hose at a burning building? Nobody's talking about people rushing in there to save anybody. We're talking about a building that's on fire; a fire crew that has high-pressure hoses; a family watching its house burn down; and a chief apparently making a phone call and telling his crew not even to try to douse the flames at all.

So they lost their home, their belongings, nobody was saved, nobody apparently even did one token thing, like try to throw some water on it. And now, to add insult to injury, some yahoo is going to call them fools in an online forum.

You say our society isn't falling apart because people won't help each other? That's the only thing that ever kept a society together, man.

Pity the poor Jewish traveler stupid enough to take a road haunted by bandits.
Bless the wise priest and Levite for avoiding him; he brought it on himself.
Curse the stupid Samaritan for throwing away his time aiding a fool.

If you try to organize a society under these sorts of ideals, with these sorts of rationalizations, don't be surprised when it falls apart. [[Hint: It already is.)

**SWMAP** · October-05-10, 03:11 PM

Think you are misreading the story that Jesus told- it wasn't a commentary about man's inhumanity to man - it was a commentary on the state of Jewish salvation: the Levite and the priest walked on by, but the samaritan [[not someone expected and probably a type of Jesus)) picked up the traveler [[people in trouble) anointed him with healing oils [[the Sacraments) and brought him to a house [[the church) and said he "would be back" [[ the end of time).

No you probably need to look at Jesus' parable about the wise and foolish servants or the king who wanted to build a castle and first totaled up what it would cost. Those may be more leading for you.

But let's look at what will happen in wherever it was that the trailer burned down. Now everyone will pay up because they saw that, in this case, inaction and non-cooperation has a consequence. As a result, the fire department will be well-funded, can put more money into training and better equipment and all the residents will be better served.

**Detroitnerd** · October-05-10, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by SWMAP

Think you are misreading the story that Jesus told

You provide a rich subtext, but the fact is that the Samaritan, the lowly person who provided comfort and help with no expectation of help in return, is the worthiest person in the parable. I love his parables because they break down to comforting the afflicted -- and afflicting the comfortable, unlike so many latter day evangelists debased by Calvinism.

As for your point, though, Jesus here helps redefine the verse from Leviticus, from which we could take a page: Love your neighbor as yourself -- even if he lives outside township limits.

**SWMAP** · October-05-10, 03:25 PM

Okay, now I'm warming to your side! but I think a moral for the burned trailer story for Detroiters would be: do you say you "love" Detroit? Do you say you love your fellow man? If so, pay your taxes. Get in the pool with the rest of us so we can advance this city [[this means you Joann Watson and friends)!

**Hypestyles** · October-05-10, 03:38 PM

if Newt G's pitch for a 'tax-free Detroit' was adopted, then how do services like public safety get handled?

9mile&seneca · October-05-10, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Is that even legal? What would have happened if someone were trapped inside? Would the firefighters have stood by and let that person die?

I think that's why they were standing by, to make sure there was no loss of human life. Think of it as a "work slowdown". I subscribe to a private fire dept. My insurance would be astronomical if I let it lapse.