Firefighters let home burn over $75 fee

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again

How can we call ourselves a first world country when this happens? And the response people have is just sad...

Is this how we want to run a country?

I swear we had this topic a few months ago. Yes, it's horrible, blah blah, but that's what you get when you have fee-for-service public safety — it's the logical outcome of a laissez-faire approach to services of this nature. Fix the system and you fix the problem.

edited 7th Dec '11 12:15:06 PM by Fighteer

This is the 2nd time it happened actually.

From what I understand, theres no tax system for people outside the city or something of the sort? I'm not too sure.

edited 7th Dec '11 12:15:40 PM by Thorn14

Lol America

American firefighters CHARGE to save your house?!

Not everywhere.

In America, that is.

edited 7th Dec '11 12:21:37 PM by DisasterGrind

Maybe they could change it so that they save the houses of nonpayers, but charge them higher for it.

Why I'm not surprised? -_-;

Good thing that its not everywhere though =/

x4 It's not as simple as that. It's more of a tax of sorts for folks who live outside of a fire department's jurisdiction and don't have a fire station in their own region. Their actual taxes wouldn't go towards supporting the service so there's a voluntary fee instead. A voluntary fee that's necessary for them to drive out of their way and put out your house fire.

edited 7th Dec '11 12:22:46 PM by Bur

Hey, when you make it so the system works that way you shouldn't get upset when the system works that way. It's just like not paying your insurance and still expecting coverage for medical bills.

So they have to pay taxes AND the fee?

Just because its the rule doesn't make it right. If the government said "Pay me 100 bucks a month or I break your legs" and you dont and they do, do you go "oh well, I should have paid!"

edited 7th Dec '11 12:24:19 PM by Thorn14

It's not the first time I heard about this but it was pretty dickish for the firefighters to show up and just stand there and watch the house burn down.

I reckon they brought marshmallows

When you know how the system works and refuse to go along with it you have no right to complain when the system doesn't work for you. Whether it's right or wrong has no meaning. It's just plain too-dumb-to-live thinking.

It probably would if it was a single case. I get the impression from the article that they're trying to head off a trend that would stick them with legal fees out the wazoo and trying to collect from people who don't have anything to take.

edited 7th Dec '11 12:32:37 PM by CDRW

Wouldn't it make infinitely more sense to put out the fire, then sue the owner for a set number of times the outstanding fee? It's much less wasteful for all parties.

The firefighters get their fees back (plus an extra for the inconvenience) and the homeowner keeps his home.

x3Marshmellows are good! Smores are even better if they also had chocolate and graham crackers!

edited 7th Dec '11 12:28:26 PM by secretist

They shouldn't have to. Its a basic first world country right. Hence why this is getting attention.

I don't remember when your house being saved from fire became a right.

Is there anything nowadays that isn't considered a right? Putting out fires is a service and one that is paid for by taxes.

Yes... But the people who've had their house burn while the Fire department watches didn't pay taxes for fire coverage(because their county doesn't have a fire department)...

And they didn't pay the fee from the town for fire coverage... They have no one to blame but themselves for the department not putting out the fire...

It's like complaining that the government won't give you money after your house floods when you didn't buy flood insurance...

It's this line that makes me side with the city.

"Bell and her boyfriend said they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them."

I mean how... wtf?

That was kinda my point in my posts. Those of us with fire stations in our towns/neighborhoods/what-have-you have to pay for them. It just happens to be built into our local taxes. Don't see why anyone who has to pay a special fee would bitch about it when, if they had a fire station in their area, they might be paying out that amount for it anyways in the form of some tax or other.

edited 7th Dec '11 12:44:59 PM by Bur

I don't know about you, but in Finland firefighters get their mkoney from taxes, no stuff like this. I mean, wouldn't it make sense to put out the fire when they could rather than wait untill it spreads and then start putting it out?

Having system like this doesn't make sense. There is difference between insurance and firefighting. Insurance is incase somethign happens you get compensated. This is just... stupid. Firefighting should be part of taxes, you pay taxes and firefighters appear no matter what. Even if you didn't pay(didn't have enough income to be taxed, just moved in before next tax), these guys should appear.

I wonder what firefighters feel.

Guy 1: There is a fire! Let's head out!
Guy 2: No wait, they didn't pay 110$ for firefighting service.
Guy 1: So... we jsut wait untill it spreads to area that paid for the service?
Guy 2: Yup.
Guy 1: I feel so dick right now. You can go tell this to owners.

As someone said, in most cases it is paid for by taxes, but if you live outside a jurisdiction they make you pay a fee.

The obvious solution is to make larger jurisdictions.

The owners are stupid for not paying the fee, the city firefighters are stupid for not intervening and then suing for the fee later, and the county is stupid for not having a firefighting solution of its own.

The city is offering this smaller county this service for a fee, right? If a household will not pay the bill afterwards, the city should sue the county for the bill. Is it fair for all the taxpayers to pay for the one guy who isn't ponying up? If not...then the county should hire its own fire department and make the funds for it accordingly.