I found this article interesting because I remembered a conversation that we had on here related to this topic quite a while back.

article wrote: Tennessee family home burns while firefighters watch A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department. Vicky Bell told the NBC affiliate WPSD-TV that she called 911 when her mobile home in Obion County caught fire. Firefighters arrived on the scene but as the fire raged, they simply stood by and did nothing. "In an emergency, the first thing you think of, 'Call 9-1-1," homeowner Bell said. However, Bell and her husband were forced to walk into the burning home in an attempt to retrieve their own belongings. "You could look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance," Bell said. "We just wished we could've gotten more out." South Fulton Mayor David Crocker defended the fire department, saying that if firefighters responded to non-subscribers, no one would have an incentive to pay the fee. Residents in the city of South Fulton receive the service automatically, but it is not extended to those living in the greater county-wide area. "There's no way to go to every fire and keep up the manpower, the equipment, and just the funding for the fire department," Crocker said. The South Fulton policy produced precisely the same nightmare scenario last year, when homeowner Gene Cranick--who had likewise failed to pay the $75 annual fee for rural Obion County residents--saw his house engulfed by flames as South Fulton firefighter watched close by. That incident sparked a debate among conservative pundits over the limits of fee-for-service approaches to government. For his part, Mayor Crocker stressed that the city's  firefighters will help people in danger, even those who haven't paid the fee. "After the last situation, I would hope that everybody would be well aware of the rural fire fees, this time," Crocker said.

I have no problem with this.  The fire victims in question are not taxed as they are not town residents so they get to choose whether or not they want to pay for fire service. 

They chose poorly.

Yeah I agree with this too. I grew up outside of the city limits of Whitehorse in a wooden house, well aware that it could 1) burn down very quickly, and 2) the fire department didn't HAVE to show up.
Thankfully there is now a volunteer fire service that covers my area back home, but I would have zero problem with a $75 fee to make sure they have sufficient funding, equipment, etc. They're putting their time and lives on the line to save my material possessions, I'm not really in a position to argue against that.

I guess nobody in the family rescued their checkbook or a wallet with $75 in it.

choopie911 wrote: That still wouldn't work, because then nobody would pay until they needed it, and they'd only get $75 from the...10 residents who have fires instead of all of them.

Mack beat me to posting this story as I just came across it on Yahoo. I find it amazing after last years incident that some residents still decided not to pay the fee. This just proves that you can't fix stupid.

Ceesman762 wrote: oldpbnoob wrote: Mack beat me to posting this story as I just came across it on Yahoo. I find it amazing after last years incident that some residents still decided not to pay the fee. This just proves that you can't fix stupid. Sure can! Don't pay the fee and die in a fire, stupid is fixed!

Maybe the fire was "Gods" attempt at thinning the herd.

Ceesman762 wrote: oldpbnoob wrote: Ceesman762 wrote: oldpbnoob wrote: Mack beat me to posting this story as I just came across it on Yahoo. I find it amazing after last years incident that some residents still decided not to pay the fee. This just proves that you can't fix stupid. Sure can! Don't pay the fee and die in a fire, stupid is fixed! Maybe the fire was "Gods" attempt at thinning the herd. Darwin, God, Karma, fate, what ever floats your boat!  My next question is.....  did they have insurance on their home?

Brings up an interesting question actually. If they did, how would the insurance company handle this? I would imagine the first question that would come up from the insurance adjuster is asking why the firefighters didnt put the fire out. I would think not paying for the service would pretty much make your policy null and void. My guess is, they didnt have insurance as I also would think that the agent in the area would know about the pay for service policy and the couple either would have been denied a policy or had to pay so much more for it that paying for fire service would have been cheaper.

Of course all of this is totally "unfair" to them. Wonder how long it will take for them to contact the local Churches and/or charitable organizaitons looking for a handout?

Does the $75 cover you for the year? If so I'd say that's pretty good going. If it's per month then I can see people taking the risk and when a lot of them do take the gamble it makes sense that some of them lose.

 The thought of having fully capable firefighters standing there with the equipment and know how to put it out but not doing so would definitely make me think a lot harder about paying it. I bet they got a few more people signing up after this news story.

I've got mixed feelings about this.

These guys joined the fire service with the intention of protecting life and property. To abandon the main principals of the job over a $75 fee is a bit over the top for me.

On the flip side of the coin, if they DID save the house, the message is there that nobody needs to pay the fee because the department would do their job regardless, and then they'd be missing out on much needed funding. I don't know many departments out there that aren't strapped for cash so the $75 is huge when considering a whole town's population.

What should have happened, was that whatever entity drew up the $75 fee to the department should have a provision where if someone did NOT pay it, they'd be subject to a higher service charge leveled at them by the municipality in the event that the fire department would be needed.....say several thousand dollars.

This way, the department doesn't have to ignore the principals of their profession over a trivial amount of money, the homes could be saved, and the 'I didn't pay $75' fee would be large enough to scare people off from not paying the initial charge.

What I wonder is what the homeowners insurance would do in this case. Having been facing the ugly side of insurance companies in the wake of Irene, I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't get any compensation from their insurance policy since they didn't pay a fee that would have guaranteed protection in the event of a fire. So not only did they LOSE the house, I'd put money on the fact that they're up a creek. *****

****This was apparently covered. I need to begin reading the entire thread before I respond, not just the OP


Edited by Reb Cpl - 07 December 2011 at 10:35am