Firefighters let home burn over $75 fee

What happens is that people want to live near a city or large municipality but don't want to pay the taxes, so they live outside the borders. Then instead of paying the taxes they do these things piecemeal.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

There's a thought experiment that I think is relevant: "If you were running late for a plane flight, and everyone else was walking past an old lady who'd fallen over in the terminal, would you take the time to help her up and risk missing the plane?" I can't say that anyone's obligated to help the old lady, but I still feel appalled that people are capable of saying they wouldn't help her. My feelings about this fire department are similar.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

On a slight tangent, I remember reading about a little experiment they had priests-to-be theology students partake in. they were told they needed to give a sermon on the good Samaritan in church but were running late. The experiment had placed an actor posing as a needy beggar on the way to the church. The majority of test subjects promptly ignored the beggar on route in order to preach about helping people. I'll see if I can find you a reference.

best I can do on short notice

edited 7th Dec '11 5:00:25 PM by GreatLich

I've heard of that experiment. They had some people giving a lecture about the good Samaritan and some giving lectures about whatever. Some had tons of time to get to the lecture while others would be late if they didn't bust their asses.

The only common factor for who helped out and who didn't was whether they had time or would be late.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

I truly wish people would read the Bible carefully before trying to use it as an example.

The Good Samaritan story referred to someone helping a helpless victim, not someone who willingly disregarded the policies and rules.

If you want to tout Scripture, the accurate parable would be the one about the foolish women who didn't bother to keep proper oil for their lamps and then tried to get the smarter women who did properly prepare to give them their oil.

It was an honor

Way to miss the point there, bro. upon re-reading, didn't sound as funny as I intended it to be...

Nobody was suggesting the bible or parts thereof be applicable here. I was merely pointing out a similarity to feotakahari's proposed thought experiment and an actual experiment carried out.

edited 7th Dec '11 6:41:57 PM by GreatLich

The topic is not about "They should have paid the fee" its about should they EVEN HAVE TO?

Bullshit. It is their problem. Fire prevention and combat is a communal issue. This.

Listen, there are individual responsibilities, but there are also collective responsibilities, that you owe to the collective and the collective owes to you. Firefighting would fall in this category. If the city is providing the county with fire services, it should charge the county. Usually this is handled by charging the individual in question, but if the individual won't pay, then the city should charge the county. Irresponsible deadbeats are the county's problem, not the city's.

And if the county finds that it can't afford this, then it either needs to make the fee mandatory, or raise applicable taxes and invest in its own firefighting department. Simple as that.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

TANSTAAFL. Fire brigade costs money. Whether by tax or by fee, you'll have to pay if you want it. Sucks to be those people, but this is one way to solve the free loader problem.

edited 7th Dec '11 6:48:44 PM by GreatLich

I guess this is the question:

Apparently this is the second that the house of someone who didn't pay the fee's has burned down. Have these people had the chance to pay the fee since the first house, or not, because they haven't paid property taxes/whatnot since then?

No... This is the second house in the county to burn because an owner didn't pay the fee...

The second house's owners knew the fee existed, and just didn't want to spend the money because they didn't think their house could burn down...

I'm not asking if they knew or not. I'm asking whether they had a chance to pay or not between the first house burning down and their house burning down.

The first house burning down is a huge reality check. However, as with optional government fees usually go, you only have one chance per year to pay it, correct? So even though they had seen what the fire department would do if their house burned down, they did not have a chance to pay the fee before next tax season.

If they did have a chance to pay the fee between the first house and their house, and they just didn't because they didn't want to spend the $75, then that's their problem. If they didn't, well I know it's technically fair, but it seems kind of cruel, don't you think?

It's been more than 6 months since the previous house in the county burned because of this issue... So I'd say, yes... They had a chance to pay.

Edit: According to the article, it's the second time in 2 years...

And they turned down the $2k "on the spot" payment... Likely because they didn't have $2k because their house was burning and it was nighttime...

edited 7th Dec '11 7:10:28 PM by Swish

@Great Lich - My post wasn't in response to you. I was clearly demonstrating that evoking the Good Samaritan in relation to this story is a gross misreading of the parable.

@Oh So - I sincerely doubt that there's any place in the United States where you only get one chance to pay a bill of any sort. And the story made clear that it was their arrogant dismissal of the laws of physics that made them think their house couldn't burn, not a lack of opportunity.

No they shouldn't have to. But then, they can buy their own fire trucks, hoses, fireproof gear, and they can train themselves to fight fires.

If not, then YES THEY FUCKING HAVE TO PAY.

It was an honor

I doubt they meant $2k in cash. They're a fire department, not the Mafia.

I love to see what they would have to say if anyone was in said burning house... And they died.

"Uh... They refused to pay?"

Riot ensues.

Under no circumstances should the FD just let the place burn down. That's really kind of disgusting. Even worse that it was only fucking $75. You can't give a couple of hours in pay in charity (which I agree you should make back, anyway, by charging the county) to someone losing their freaking home? Basic human decency fail.

edited 7th Dec '11 7:49:14 PM by sketch162000

As has been stated in this thread before, people =/= property.

That's why the firemen were there in the first place, to make sure nobody got hurt.

@Oh So: I doubt they meant cash too... But I'm not grabbing a checkbook as I leave my burning house(and I don't think anyone else would either)... Not to mention that the fire department probably won't let you put such a transaction on a credit card.

edited 7th Dec '11 7:52:11 PM by Swish

As someone was saying, it sounded like they were getting things out of the house as it was burning down, and a wallet seems like the first thing anyone would grab. And Why wouldn't they? It's not like the fire department wouldn't get as much money if you paid with a credit card than with debit. I remember a long time ago they used to say credit cards were for emergencies. Your house burning down kind of qualifies as one of those, don't you think?

edited 7th Dec '11 7:56:46 PM by ohsointocats

LOL at waiting for the transaction to clear before starting the firehoses

Around here, they charge people for making the fire-department mobilize unnecessarily (think crank calls and such). That runs you about €4500, from memory. So it is not just "a couple hours pay". And who's paying for that? The fire-department? With what money, they aren't a for profit organisation. The people who pay the fire department then? Surely they could pay. Oh but wait, that's your neighbours, the ones who did pay the fee...

So yeah, what amounts to sticking your neighbours with a €4500 bill because you're too cheap to pay a $75 fee is quite the "basic human decency fail" indeed.

I shouldn't even honour that with a response.

edited 7th Dec '11 11:03:54 PM by GreatLich

Because calling the fire department when your house is on fucking fire qualifies as "unnecessarily mobilizing..."

edited 7th Dec '11 8:56:53 PM by sketch162000

Human decency fail = having the gall do decide that everyone should have to kick in to support men and women doing a dangerous job EXCEPT you.

And if your house burning down qualifies as an emergency, I'd like to think it also qualifies for a $75 a year fee.

If your home's safety isn't worth that to you, it sure as fuck isn't worth it to me.

It was an honor

And because I've had it up to here with the whole "What if someone had died in the fire" crap, I have this to ask..

What if someone had died in the fire? One of the firefighters. What if they'd seen one of those arrogant owners screaming for help and charged in to help. ..And didn't come out??

Not only would they've died saving people who deemed their sacrifice not worth 75 fucking dollars, but the taxpayers who paid for that firefighter to be trained and outfitted are now deprived of a valued firefighter who would've provided services to the people who actually paid for them.

Shit, if a firefighter did die in that fire, many of you on this very thread would be here saying "Why did the city allow him/her to die in a place that wasn't their jurisdiction and on top of that for people who didn't pay??

It was an honor