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

[chief1356]

No need to attack me, I was simply stating factors that may have gone into the decision making of the men on the scene rather than accuse them of lacking "integrity".

[wolverine]

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?

As long as the firemen there don't prevent a citizen like me from running in, trying to save someone in danger, even if it means endangering my own life.

In this case, sorry to disrespect you....or maybe I'm not.

I just can't imagine working for that fire department and thinking how I let a family's home burn over a fee. Screw "employer's directives" I'd quit the department the next day for this. Fortunately this would never be the case for most departments.

[gdogslim]

"RE: The conservative vision of utopia [[touted by many of the GOP
candidates in this election) is a society in which most government agencies are privatized, and unfettered free enterprise reigns supreme."

I haven't heard of a single politician who promotes that.
Democrats want citizens to be forced to buy health insurance at IRS gunpoint.
That sounds like Democrats are like Nazi thugs to me,

I do know that real conservatives want the complete elimanation of many government agencies and programs that are nooses on america's neck. I could only hope.

[Bearinabox]

Democrats want citizens to be forced to buy health insurance at IRS gunpoint.

I don't think you understand how the IRS works.

That sounds like Democrats are like Nazi thugs to me

I don't think you know what a Nazi is either.

[MaxDetroit]

IMO the villain is the state which should have mandated the coverage and the property taxation to pay for it. The state has ultimate power and responsibility over municipal incorporations and unincorporated regions.

The ability to wall off problems by drawing political and commercial lines creates a large number of problems and is at the base of our urban crises. It is the main reason for Detroit's and other older citiy's and village's malaise. They are stuck caring for their regions poor, disabled, felons, homeless and other people with problems who are unable to pay taxes and then being penalized with higher insurance rates and inferior services as a result.

The result is de facto vigilantism. Gated communities, private security forces and service providers create inward-focused islands that further destroy communal responsibility and concern.

By far the most intelligent comment I've seen on here to date. It all boils down to "us" vs "them". Pathetic.

[Goose]

By far the most intelligent comment I've seen on here to date. It all boils down to "us" vs "them". Pathetic.

so, in your opinion, people should be mandated, forced, by state government to do things that the state feels is in the persons best interest.... if government or the "majority" says its good, then by all means, everyone should be forced into this.....

instead of............. the person having the individual choice to decide on their own to buy or not to buy the insurance, and subsequently, face the ramifications of their decisions....

im for personal responsibility and choice

i hear the only choice and personal freedom the left are advocates of is gay rights and abortion rights.... all other freedoms/choices are at the pleasing of the state.....

[chief1356]

As long as the firemen there don't prevent a citizen like me from running in, trying to save someone in danger, even if it means endangering my own life.

In this case, sorry to disrespect you....or maybe I'm not.

I just can't imagine working for that fire department and thinking how I let a family's home burn over a fee. Screw "employer's directives" I'd quit the department the next day for this. Fortunately this would never be the case for most departments.

Sorry wolverine but when govt creates agencies they are given authority to act, that means at fire scenes the fire commander is in charge and i suspect that if you entered that scene the police would be instructed to immediately remove and arrest you for trespassing and interference with governmental administration. You see the person in charge is responsible for the safety of that scene and must keep damn fools from injuring themselves.

[tvaspen]

..There's some real empathetic bastards out there. You can take your $75 fee and shove it up your ass. Really, you're such pricks that you would let someones house burn down, killing his pets because of money? Society is really reaching new lows on a daily basis. Welcome to Teabag party Amerikkka.

[Hermod]

Maybe the city should tell the county that they will respond to fire calls in the county without asking for a subscription, but every fire call or false alarm they respond to results in a $5,000 bill to the county. If the county won't pay, our trucks don't roll past the city limits. Then let the county try to collect from the home owner.

[dtowncitylover]

I do know that real conservatives want the complete elimanation of many government agencies and programs that are nooses on america's neck. I could only hope.

Yeah, the Dept. of Education is such a "noose" on our society. Education is so overrated.

[Funaho]

Yeah, the Dept. of Education is such a "noose" on our society. Education is so overrated.

Well, that's what uneducated people think about it

[Goose]

a link to another story on this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/


it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that if you decide NOT to pay the $75 fire protection fee, then for F's sake, don't play with fire, the idiot son was burning trash in two cans that got out of control........

the son should be liable for any damage done to neighboring homes....

[Relayer76]

Yeah, let's get rid of that "Government by the people, of the people and for the people" shit and turn government into a system where you pay private companies for everything and if you didn't read the fine print, then fuck you. Great idea. I think you should move there right away.

I agree, justanotherboy should move there. I hope he moves in next door to someone who has not paid and if a fire starts in the neighbour's home, that it is a windy night blowing in the direction of justanotherboy's home.

[oladub]

Like Gazhekwe, I live in an unincorporated township. County government plays no role in fire protection where I live. My Township splits the cost of two fire trucks with a village. All fire fighters are volunteers who receive no pay. When the siren sounds, they drive to the fire station or try to catch up with wherever the fire truck went. We do not have enough of a population base to afford a professional fire employee. It there is a big fire, other such volunteer and a couple of professional fire departments will come from 7, 13, 15 and 21 miles away.

There is no reason that the township with the burned down house couldn't have established the same set up. It chose not to. These things are voted on in town halls by elected representative if the township has 'village powers'. If not, such a vote is taken at annual or special meeting by whichever town residents show up a la Norman Rockwell. This township apparently made the decision to allow residents to buy fire coverage for $75.

Jiminnm in post #11 wrote the most relevant post:

It seems that Mr. Cranick lives outside the city of South Fulton in a nonincorporated area. The city of South Fulton offers the $75 service to those who live outside the city and would otherwise have no fire service. Cranick apparently elected not to pay and the city is not required to provides city services to those outside the city.

We don't even know if the City of South Fulton fire fighters are insured to be fighting fires outside of their jurisdiction and without contracts. What if one of them was hurt fighting this fire and wasn't insured? Too bad though that the South Fulton fire truck didn't have a ready to sign contract in it's glove compartment offering to fight the fire at $10,000/hour. Such a contract would have made the point about paying $75 just as well as letting the house burn.

One more thing. What about public employees who go on strike leaving residents without fire, garbage, or medical services? Those of you who think that these fire employees had a moral abligation to put out the fire; what do you think? Should public employees similarly be compelled to work without the option of striking?

[Relayer76]

so, in your opinion, people should be mandated, forced, by state government to do things that the state feels is in the persons best interest.... if government or the "majority" says its good, then by all means, everyone should be forced into this.....

instead of............. the person having the individual choice to decide on their own to buy or not to buy the insurance, and subsequently, face the ramifications of their decisions....

im for personal responsibility and choice

Goose, you are no better than the anarchists of the left. What you are advocating is the law of the jungle. First of all, we are not talking about insurance here but basic fire services that are for the good of the whole community - fires, if not controlled by experts spread to other homes. Somethings like water, police, fire dept. services, health care should be rights for all in a well off, civilized society. It is just a decent Christian way of running a country. What makes you so damned sure that one day, you will not be the person who is down and out for some reason.

[DetroitDad]

Best quote comes from the comment section...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/04/...omment-6401408

Michiganmitch says:
Isn’t the middle class burning down as the Republicans stand and watch offering zero help in putting the fire out?

October 4th, 2010 at 9:57 am

Why not throw in the Democrats, while you're at it?

[Goose]

Goose, you are no better than the anarchists of the left. What you are advocating is the law of the jungle. First of all, we are not talking about insurance here but basic fire services that are for the good of the whole community - fires, if not controlled by experts spread to other homes. Somethings like water, police, fire dept. services, health care should be rights for all in a well off, civilized society. It is just a decent Christian way of running a country. What makes you so damned sure that one day, you will not be the person who is down and out for some reason.

first off, a right is not something that has to be provided to you by someone else, if there is no provider, then what happens to your "right"... what about the "right" of the other individual to refuse to perform this "service" that you deem as a right, are you advocating involuntary servitude? slavery????

second, THEY HAD THE OPTION TO GET FIRE COVERAGE FOR A PALTRY $75., they weren't denied access to this service, they TURNED IT DOWN......

[CLAUDE G]

This issue is no different than if you walk into an emergency room at a hospital. Some people buy insurance to cover their medical costs, while others choose not to and just stick the hospital with the bill.

The same applies here, the Fire department sends out bills to their customers and if their customers want service they pay the bill.

The problem is that people think that the fire department, just like the hospital emergency room, would be obligated to put out the fire reguardless if the $75 is paid or not.

The problem is that if the Fire department put this out, and allowed the homeowner to pay the past due invoice, it would serve as a bad example to the community and nobody would have an incentive to pay for fire protection.

Charging the homeowner a fine of $500, or even $5000 doesn't make a difference either because all your doing is telling people its ok not to pay their fire protection invoice and take a gamble that your house won't burn down.

As far as im concerned, this guys house had to burn to the ground to serve as an example in the community that people need to pay their bills for fire protection.

Im sure that the next day after this story broke, there where alot of other homeowners who also didn't pay, contact the fire department and make a payment. That would have never have happened if they just charged this customer a fine, or for the full costs to put out the fire.

[Meddle]

Some people on this thread clearly have NO ethics or moral code or sense of community

You don't let someone's house burn to the ground without doing something to help stop it. Period.

[DetroitDad]

This issue is no different than if you walk into an emergency room at a hospital. Some people buy insurance to cover their medical costs, while others choose not to and just stick the hospital with the bill.

The same applies here, the Fire department sends out bills to their customers and if their customers want service they pay the bill.

The problem is that people think that the fire department, just like the hospital emergency room, would be obligated to put out the fire reguardless if the $75 is paid or not.

The problem is that if the Fire department put this out, and allowed the homeowner to pay the past due invoice, it would serve as a bad example to the community and nobody would have an incentive to pay for fire protection.

Charging the homeowner a fine of $500, or even $5000 doesn't make a difference either because all your doing is telling people its ok not to pay their fire protection invoice and take a gamble that your house won't burn down.

As far as im concerned, this guys house had to burn to the ground to serve as an example in the community that people need to pay their bills for fire protection.

Im sure that the next day after this story broke, there where alot of other homeowners who also didn't pay, contact the fire department and make a payment. That would have never have happened if they just charged this customer a fine, or for the full costs to put out the fire.

Of course, the logical argument here is that a burned out house has horrible negative effects. Some negative effects may make fire coverage a issue to the well being of an entire area if enough property owners are not paying for fire department coverage. In a place like Detroit, this is why adequate fire department coverage is extremely important.

The owner of this property will likely end up sticking it to the surrounding community by allowing it to remain in such condition for a long enough period of time. Remember, all else being equal, the presence of an abandoned house reduces the value of all other property on that block by an average of $6,720[1].


--
References:

1. Care an editorial on abandoned buildings; page 2, 4th paragraph [[2010).

[laurin]

This issue is no different than if you walk into an emergency room at a hospital. Some people buy insurance to cover their medical costs, while others choose not to and just stick the hospital with the bill.

The same applies here, the Fire department sends out bills to their customers and if their customers want service they pay the bill.

The problem is that people think that the fire department, just like the hospital emergency room, would be obligated to put out the fire reguardless if the $75 is paid or not.

The problem is that if the Fire department put this out, and allowed the homeowner to pay the past due invoice, it would serve as a bad example to the community and nobody would have an incentive to pay for fire protection.

Charging the homeowner a fine of $500, or even $5000 doesn't make a difference either because all your doing is telling people its ok not to pay their fire protection invoice and take a gamble that your house won't burn down.

As far as im concerned, this guys house had to burn to the ground to serve as an example in the community that people need to pay their bills for fire protection.

Im sure that the next day after this story broke, there where alot of other homeowners who also didn't pay, contact the fire department and make a payment. That would have never have happened if they just charged this customer a fine, or for the full costs to put out the fire.

I'm trying to find the link, but I just read that the family also let the 75 fee lapse a couple of years ago and had a chimney fire. The fire department put it out and let them pay retroactively.

[jiminnm]

The owner of this property will likely end up sticking it to the surrounding community by allowing it to remain in such condition for a long enough period of time. Remember, all else being equal, the presence of an abandoned house reduces the value of all other property on that block by an average of $6,720

That's not an issue in this case because there is no block. In fact, there is no city there. As I stated above, this is farm country and the houses are hundreds of feet apart [[with more than a few abandoned houses scattered about). As they say there, the house was "out in the country."

[oladub]

Again, does anyone know if the fire department from a different municipality, South Fulton, with no contract to serve this house was insured to fight fires at places it is not authorized to serve? What if a fire fighter was hurt and the South Fulton fire department did not have insurance coverage in this instance?

Not only did the owner of this house not exercize an inexpensive option, but neither his township nor his county government chose to provide fire service. Maybe we should blame the voters of his township and county or their elected representatives for this situation instead of blaming the neighboring municipality which did offer their neighbors an ourstanding price for rural fire protection.

[Meddle]

^^ Bull.


The EPA should charge the FD under air pollution standards for not doing anything to put it out. That might cost the FD a few hundred thousand dollars more than the $75 fee they're whining about.

[laurin]

^^ Bull.


The EPA should charge the FD under air pollution standards for not doing anything to put it out. That might cost the FD a few hundred thousand dollars more than the $75 fee they're whining about.

Question: On what grounds would the EPA charge them? Are they required to put out the fire since they aren't contractually obligated and it's out of their jurisdiction [[technically)? Because they were there, they get charged although they technically had no obligation to put out the fire-- neither taxes nor fees. What would prevent the EPA from then leveraging that fee on other departments that were close but didn't show?