Evil Fire Department

[SCNCY]

Question: If they do not live in city limits and do not pay the cities taxes for services, what about the county? I do not live in a city and follow county laws rather than the the closest city I live to. However, I know we are covered by the cities department. I live in Illinois if it matters.

 

[alarson]

And if you don't pay taxes to that local government you shouldn't expect to be covered by their basic functions.

true, upon further reading i edited my post. the fire department shouldve just had an adjusted amount for those who didnt pay in advance (and the homeowners according to the article offered to pay the firefigher's whatever cost it would take). Even 10x the amount for not paying in advance, still would be better than not responding and letting the home burn.

 

[RayShimley]

I understand that, that's my point though. just make it mandatory countywide.

It was in the South. They probably would have a riot if they tried to make anything mandatory that didn't involve when you can or can't consume alcohol.

 

[azn4cy]

It was in the South. They probably would have a riot if they tried to make anything mandatory that didn't involve when you can or can't consume alcohol.

Fair enough. Reminds me of the Family Guy where they move to Texas.

 

[RayShimley]

Question: If they do not live in city limits and do not pay the cities taxes for services, what about the county? I do not live in a city and follow county laws rather than the the closest city I live to. However, I know we are covered by the cities department. I live in Illinois if it matters.

Maybe your county pays a municipal fire station to cover it's residents (through county property taxes), or maybe even has their own department. Probably differs county to county or state to state.

 

[chuckd4735]

Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground | WPSD Local 6 - News, Sports, Weather - Paducah KY | Local



I'd sue so many people...you cannot show up and not use your hose.

Sounds like they showed up in case one of their paying customers homes caught fire from this one. Just like utilities...if you dont pay for them, you dont get to reap the benefits of their service. The homeowners obviously felt like the $75 charge was a joke, however, now the joke is on them.

 

[CloneIce]

I understand that, that's my point though. just make it mandatory countywide.

I am sure the local Fire Dept would like to but it would likely involve some sort of sales/property tax raise to pay for the $75/house fee that is currently in place and that may be politically unpopular and may require a vote that may not pass. Or else if you made the $75 fee mandatory it would be unpopular with geniuses like this guy who's house burned down because he wouldn't pay $75.

 

[CycoCyclone]

true, upon further reading i edited my post. the fire department shouldve just had an adjusted amount for those who didnt pay in advance (and the homeowners according to the article offered to pay the firefigher's whatever cost it would take). Even 10x the amount for not paying in advance, still would be better than not responding and letting the home burn.

This.

Seems like a total waste to arrive and not turn on the water. I bet the kid that beat up the fire chief gets off with justifiable *** kicking. :realmad:

 

[clone52]

true, upon further reading i edited my post. the fire department shouldve just had an adjusted amount for those who didnt pay in advance (and the homeowners according to the article offered to pay the firefigher's whatever cost it would take). Even 10x the amount for not paying in advance, still would be better than not responding and letting the home burn.

No one would pay the fee even if the penalty was 10x the fee.

 

[CloneAggie]

And if you don't pay taxes to that local government you shouldn't expect to be covered by their basic functions.

Provided you've been given ample opportunity to pay for said functions (which in this case they had).

Now, why their homeowner's insurance (assuming they had it) didn't ask about this or know about this and force their customers to pay the fee is a head scratcher.

 

[Clonefan94]

WOW, bunch of ******** on this board. We're not talking about a lost cat. It'd be one thing if they said, sorry, didn't pay, we're not coming out. But to come out and watch. Isn't it basic human decency to just lend a hand at some point? Yeah, they didn't pay, the rest did, I get it. But what if there were people in the house? Still not going to do anything.

I agree the guy should have paid, but honestly, it should just be on the books as a county tax then, that's paid to that city for use of their fire protection. City limits is BS. I lived out of city limits for most of my life, but I still had fire service through my county taxes.

Depending on how it's worded. I wouldn't be surprised if the city gets a fight from the insurance company on this as well. The fact that they were there and watched it burn, is really disturbing to me.

 

[chuckd4735]

true, upon further reading i edited my post. the fire department shouldve just had an adjusted amount for those who didnt pay in advance (and the homeowners according to the article offered to pay the firefigher's whatever cost it would take). Even 10x the amount for not paying in advance, still would be better than not responding and letting the home burn.

You cant do that. Charging 10x the amount for this situation would be price gauging. Plus, if you do that, who in gods name would ever pay the $75 fee. Residents would just not pay the fee and wait until a fire happens and than just pay the department $750 to put the fire out.

 

[azn4cy]

I am sure the local Fire Dept would like to but it would likely involve some sort of sales/property tax raise to pay for the $75/house fee that is currently in place and that may be politically unpopular and may require a vote that may not pass. Or else if you made the $75 fee mandatory it would be unpopular with geniuses like this guy who's house burned down because he wouldn't pay $75.

For sure. That's just the way it works.

Question though. Does this guy have homeowner's insurance? shouldn't that stipulate that you should have to pay for the fire dept fee?

Then again... It's the South.

 

[jsmith86]

It was in the South. They probably would have a riot if they tried to make anything mandatory that didn't involve when you can or can't consume alcohol.

Don't get me started on this one. Down here you can't buy anything alcoholic except for 3.2% beer in grocery stores. Not even cooking wine.


On the original topic, had the fire dept not been there in the first place, it wouldn't be such a big deal. The problem comes in when the fire dept is there, watching the house burn. This would be like a police officer showing up to to your neighbors house to stop a burglar but leaving without stopping the one next door at your house.


No the guy didn't pay his fee, but since they were there, there is no reason they could not have stopped the fire and billed him for the cost of it. Especially since he was already offering to pay for them to stop the fire.

 

[TykeClone]

Question: If they do not live in city limits and do not pay the cities taxes for services, what about the county? I do not live in a city and follow county laws rather than the the closest city I live to. However, I know we are covered by the cities department. I live in Illinois if it matters.

In Iowa, the townships pay a proportional amount to the cities that offer them fire protection each year.

 

[alarson]

No one would pay the fee even if the penalty was 10x the fee.

So charge them what it costs for the call and everything involved. Then it doesnt matter. whether they pay upfront. Once they offered to pay whatever the cost, the fire department should have acted.

Id like to know why the county wasnt covering this to begin with\what their tax situation is. Too often there's a budget cut somewhere and they say 'we're going to have to fire PD, fire, teachers' to scare people when they could find budget cuts elsewhere. Adding fees like this in many areas is the same. If the county is ultra-low tax thats one thing.. otherwise id be ****** about getting a bill when tax dollars should be supporting the service.

 

[clone52]

WOW, bunch of ******** on this board. We're not talking about a lost cat. It'd be one thing if they said, sorry, didn't pay, we're not coming out. But to come out and watch. Isn't it basic human decency to just lend a hand at some point? Yeah, they didn't pay, the rest did, I get it. But what if there were people in the house? Still not going to do anything.

I agree the guy should have paid, but honestly, it should just be on the books as a county tax then, that's paid to that city for use of their fire protection. City limits is BS. I lived out of city limits for most of my life, but I still had fire service through my county taxes.

Depending on how it's worded. I wouldn't be surprised if the city gets a fight from the insurance company on this as well. The fact that they were there and watched it burn, is really disturbing to me.

Why should anyone be forced to pay a tax for a service they don't want?

 

[HILLCYD]

Why should anyone be forced to pay a tax for a service they don't want?

This is America dude....we all do that everyday.

 

[alarson]

You cant do that. Charging 10x the amount for this situation would be price gauging. Plus, if you do that, who in gods name would ever pay the $75 fee. Residents would just not pay the fee and wait until a fire happens and than just pay the department $750 to put the fire out.

10x was just an example. Even if you just charged the cost of the fire call. (basically.. 75 would be insurance if you ever got a fire, but if you didnt pay that, you pay full price for fire service)

 

[chadm]

I can not believe some of the responses to this.

Why should every service be free for those that had an option to pay and recieve it?

This is a house outside the service area of the F.D. They did offer to help protect the house but the homeowner decided not to pay for it. I am sure the insurance companys of the houses in that county will be looking into if they should require the homeowners to pay the $75 to buy insurance. IMO, the insurance company it taking the biggest hit, not the homeowner.