And now we have come back to the beginning of the circle.

Let's say they did save the house.

The family is not actually legally obligated to pay. The city would lose more money on a trial, which they are almost destined to lose, then they could hope to gain. So financial wise... they are fucked.

The rest of the county might here the story and next year more idiots would opt out. "They got saved anyway, so why should we worry"? So in the saving idiots department they are also fucked.

Basically by allowing this house to burn to the ground it's a message. A very clear and necessary message.

A system they choose.

edited 8th Dec '11 10:03:38 AM by TheDeadMansLife

Um, I'm pretty sure that saving a house that they were already present at to watch burn down wasn't going to destroy the fire department's fiscal viability.

Now if a whole bunch of people started doing what this couple did and consistently expected service without paying taxes, then we would have a systemic problem to be dealt with by some form of systemic solution. But that's not the case right now, and talk of it looks to me like just a smoke screen to justify feelings of superiority to the victim.

The direction of this thread reminds me of the European budget crisis thread quite a bit. Which do you value more - teaching someone a lesson, or helping people when they're down and out?

Firefighters are civil servants, they don't get to say who and who they don't save.

A message that they fucked up.

Fire prevention is a responsibility, right? It's either an individual or a collective responsibility. We've attempted to treat this an individual responsibility and now we've got the second family rendered destitute because it gambled and lost. A rural county doesn't need more people thrown into poverty out of bad luck, so now the collective has to step up - and as supplier to the collective, it is the responsibility of the city to ensuring that the services it's offering are being paid for and used for their purpose.

The city should charge the country. The county should either make the fee mandatory or roll it into property tax budgets.

It's not that complicated.

edited 8th Dec '11 10:17:37 AM by RadicalTaoist

And they would have saved the family, Van. They have no obligation to save the house.

Teach them a lesson.

That is even more complicated than you think. The county didn't decide this nor the city. The people did. The people wanted this. Some pay the fee and some didn't.

The people need to smarten the fuck up.

The fact that this is house number two that burned while firefighters watched indicates that people don't learn lessons. They do, however, adapt to systems. Install a system that works and they'll bitch and moan a bit over the initial implementation...then years later they'll wonder why they ever did it a different way.

Is it the right of the people to pursue stupid policies? Yes, up until the point that collectives of which they form a part are being unfairly inconvenienced. As for now, if the county insists on being retarded, the city should consider ceasing this interaction with them. It may be up to the county folk to choose stupidly, but I'm not going to pretend that it's a good choice.

This one sentence perfectly encapsulates the divide in opinion here, and for a great many issues between conservatives and liberals...well done.

...although on second thought "teaching someone a lesson" might be more accurate as "not having to give a shit about anyone else."

edited 8th Dec '11 11:07:06 AM by sketch162000

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'd never suggest something so obscene.

As Dead Man and Oh So so effectively illustrated, I'm talking the complete opposite. We are still living a real life, but only better because we ALL team up. Some of us study the bears, others map out their habitats, other create effective anti-bear strategies, and meanwhile a whole other team of people are working on the deer problem. And we ALL enjoy the benefits.

That's how America truly works, at its best. Every single great American accomplishment from kicking the Nazis asses, to stopping legalized racism, to walking on the Moon, is the result of teamwork.

It is arrogant, stupid, and selfish to not chip in and then complain.

As Mandemo pointed out, in his native county the folks simply pay taxes to the bigger cities to handle their fire and police duties.

Those morons in Obion were getting an EVER BETTER DEAL! 75 fucking dollars a YEAR! A week of flipping burgers at Mc Donald's would've paid that.

edited 8th Dec '11 11:09:52 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

"Hey, when you make it so the system works that way you shouldn't get upset when the system works that way."

They didn't make the system.

Then who did?

Agreed. I still feel the city should've acted first and billed later; if you absolutely must teach a lesson, withdraw the program when deadbeats start abusing the city's generosity. I try.

edited 8th Dec '11 11:40:17 AM by RadicalTaoist

^^ Neoliberals.

edited 8th Dec '11 11:40:13 AM by kashchei

The complainers. The statement implied that the people who were upset about the system are the same people who made the system that way.

Bitches gonna bitch.

Who populate the county, I suppose.

So perhaps it was not the actual homeowner's fault, but the fault of their neighbors.

edited 8th Dec '11 11:41:32 AM by ohsointocats

Then it's their own damn fault this went down. I don't think I can say anything else, except: reforms of this are needed here, if only so this DOES NOT happen too much more...

I could suggest the hanging of some city official scum here, but this is the people's own damn fault if they're the ones who suggested the $75 thing on this noise.

If it were a case of "we couldn't afford the fee" or "we didn't know about it", I'd have some sympathy, but the fact of the matter is, they knew about it and chose to take the risk. It'd be like a bunch of people at a party putting in for a pizza and one person saying "nah, I don't want any" and not paying, then complaining about it when the pizza gets there.

The whole reason everyone has to pay for service, either via taxes or otherwise, is because it's cheaper than having everyone pay at point of sale. Sure, it wouldn't break the bank for them to put out this fire, but it's one of those "sorry, gotta make an example of you" things. It's basically either pay the 75, don't have a fire department, or make everyone pay 2 grand when something catches fire...which means that they probably wouldn't have enough for the firefighters' salaries. It'd probably be smarter to just raise everyone's taxes 75$, but that proposition may well be shot down by the people who, like this couple, don't want to pay.

Hold up.

Let me see if I get this straight.

They didn't pay the 75$ a year fee.

They have a fire. Fire department shows up. They ask for money, 2000 dollars flat. Did they want it RIGHT THEN, as the house was burning, or later on?

Because if it was later on, I don't understand why the citizens would decide to forgo the payment in favor of watching their house burn down and lose hundreds of thousands.

And if it was right then, that's just wrong.

Close. If I understand the article correctly, it's another county with a similar setup that has the 75 a year, 2k later policy. This one has a 75 dollar a year policy or you're just S.O.L.

edited 8th Dec '11 1:45:29 PM by Wulf

This is essentially a Xanatos Roulette; the state government has much bigger issues on its plate, and there's no guarantee that they would institute a policy making the fees mandatory in a timely manner, or ever.