Let it burn

Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=189592
Printed Date: 10 July 2026 at 4:46pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Let it burn

Posted By: Mack
Subject: Let it burn
Date Posted: 06 December 2011 at 6:29pm

I found http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html - 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 http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=159q7trku/EXP=1324423382/**http%3A//hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HOME_LEFT_TO_BURN%3FSITE=AP%26%2338;SECTION=HOME%26%2338;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT%26%2338;CTIME=2011-12-06-13-23-49 - 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 http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=13huioo1i/EXP=1324423382/**http%3A//www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-again-135069773.html - 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 http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate.html - 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.

-------------

Replies:

Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 December 2011 at 6:53pm

Nothing to see here, should have paid the 75 bucks.

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 December 2011 at 7:00pm

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.

Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 06 December 2011 at 8:18pm

Article wrote:

Helplessly watched

Nope, they could've paid the fee.

As long as lives are being saved, they had the option to cover their material possessions and didn't.

I would have had just slightly more compassion on the first family, however after this first time "shame on you" and whatnot.

-------------

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 06 December 2011 at 8:39pm

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

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 December 2011 at 9:06pm

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.

Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 06 December 2011 at 9:15pm

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.

Why do I somehow see this turning into a healthcare debate?

-------------

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 2:01am

Because socialized healthcare is a good idea.

Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 9:02am

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.

-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.

Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 9:03am

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!

-------------
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!

Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 9:05am

Ceesman762 wrote:

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.

-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.

Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 9:13am

oldpbnoob wrote:

Ceesman762 wrote:

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?

-------------
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!

Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 9:25am

Ceesman762 wrote:

oldpbnoob wrote:

Ceesman762 wrote:

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.

-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.

Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 9:28am

My thought is that the did not have insurance. They did not feel they needed to pay the fire department then they probably did not feel the need to have insurance. The " that can't happen to me" theory/Murphy's Law.

-------------
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!

Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 9:32am

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?

-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.

Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 9:36am

probably immediately.

-------------
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!

Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 10:10am

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.

Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 10:14am

scotchyscotch wrote:

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.

The Fire Department started it to bring in some more $$$$$. LOL

-------------
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 10:30am

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

-------------
?

Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 10:38am

Reb Cpl wrote:

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.

My guess is that if they won't pay the $75 fee, they probably are not capable of paying a "several thousand" dollar fee. My guess is, the couple chose to buy beer and cigarettes rather than pay the service fee. When you make bad choices, there should be consequences. Irony being, i would put money that a cigarette butt is probably what started the fire to begin with.

-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 11:35am

I'd wager that in most cases of not having the fee paid, its people gambling, not so much a question of affordability. "$75 for fire service? psshht. We won't need that." A large, penalizing fine in the case of used but not paid for services would lighten some of those numbers.

You'd be surprised how many people subscribe to the "It can't happen to me" school.

-------------
?

Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 11:37am

I am making my assumptions based on the fact that it was a single wide trailer in rural Tennessee. I could be wrong. From the looks of the trailer, these people were not living large.

-------------
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 12:34pm

Hell, even if they'd paid the $75...single wide trailers are almost always a total loss by the time anyone gets to the scene. They're not made of much,

-------------
?

Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 12:39pm

Posted By: pntbl freak
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 12:48pm

Go GI!

-------------

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 1:14pm

stratoaxe wrote:

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.

Why do I somehow see this turning into a healthcare debate?

It's a bigger problem than just health care and fires.

It's an issue pretty much every aspect of public improvement or lobbying faces. The mysterious and twisted mistress that is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem - Free Rider Problem.

It's the reason that the portion of the HCRA that concerned people, the mandatory inclusion clause, exists. Unless you get everyone to opt into the system, the system cannot support itself because of the people who will understand that they can get the benefits without paying.

Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 1:20pm

Isnt the fire department publicly funded? If so, shouldn't the taxes they pay cover them from these things?

What am I missing? Theres gotta be somthing.

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 1:27pm

little devil wrote:

Isnt the fire department publicly funded? If so, shouldn't the taxes they pay cover them from these things?

In some places, not at all. These tend to be very small volunteer forces that collect dues, like the one in the OP.

In some places, yes, but the fee is collected from those who have not paid.

For example, if you live in Awesome County out in the boonies, your county may not have a fire department.

It may rely on the fire department from Kickassville to cover the entire county. But, the Kickassville Fire Department is funded exclusively (Or in a majority fashion) by city taxes collected from people who live within the city limits of Kickassville.

People who live in Awesome County but not Kickassville didn't pay into the system with taxes, so they may be asked to pay a yearly (or bi-yearly) fee to compensate for their inclusion into the coverage area.

Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 1:41pm

Ahhh, it all makes sense. Thank you.

Shoulda paid the $75!

Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 4:36pm

stratoaxe wrote:

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.

Why do I somehow see this turning into a healthcare debate?

Drat . . . you have discovered my nefarious scheme.

oldpbnoob wrote:

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.

I'm thinking it would be treated like any other policy violation. If the policy required a fire suppression system or smoke alarms and they weren't present the company would refuse to pay. However, as was pointed out later, given the nature of the home and the location I consider the likelihood of insurance being maintained to be miniscule.

Reb Cpl wrote:

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.

Recompensing the FD for all man-hours and equipment usage would seem fair. However, I can't imagine that the people who chose to not pay the initial fee would willingly pay a later charge. Taking them to court might get expensive if it happened often enough.

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

-------------

Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 5:13pm

Reb, if you want to see what happens when people opt in for a higher charge after the fact, look at ER billing statistics. They almost never pay.

Reb brings up a valid point though-if I had a single wide and was more than a couple minutes from the local station, I probably wouldn't pay the 75 bucks. There's just not much to save, much less salvage to the point of habitation.

Whale wrote:

It's an issue pretty much every aspect of public improvement or lobbying faces. The mysterious and twisted mistress that is the Free Rider Problem.

It's amazing the way you can discuss something for years and not realize it has formal terminology attached to it

I'm reserving that term for my next round of classes, I'll bet there's a heck of an essay there.

-------------

Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 07 December 2011 at 9:05pm

I respect Reb for his view on the situation. Im sure there were firefighters on scene who probably wanted to help but their superiors prevented them from doing so. Honestly, its just a bad situation resulting from poor choices.

Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 08 December 2011 at 1:38am

stratoaxe wrote:

I'm reserving that term for my next round of classes, I'll bet there's a heck of an essay there.

There are entire fields of study spent on the Free Rider Problem in all of its various complexities and forms. It's a huge, huge, huge area of study.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Free+Rider+Problem&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C10&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 - Google Scholar has more than 33,000 articles that deal with it in some form.

It's in economics, politics, philosophy, even my area of media studies and communication.

Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 08 December 2011 at 2:10am

Rofl_Mao wrote:

I respect Reb for his view on the situation. Im sure there were firefighters on scene who probably wanted to help but their superiors prevented them from doing so. Honestly, its just a bad situation resulting from poor choices.

Yeah, if it came off like I was arguing with his point, that wasn't my intention. I just have little faith in humanity

-------------

Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 08 December 2011 at 7:32am

stratoaxe wrote:

Yeah, if it came off like I was arguing with his point, that wasn't my intention. I just have little faith in humanity

It didn't seem to me like you were arguing, so no worries.

I'll be honest, had I been a line officer on the scene, I don't know what I'd do. I've seen, as I'm sure those guys all have- people losing everything they own in a fire, and letting that happen over $75 would haunt me. But again, if you start rendering services to people who don't pay what could be life-giving funding to the department, then what's the incentive for ANYONE to pay it?

The more I think about it though, I'm starting to come around to the "Didn't pay? Sucks to be you" camp.

Especially since from what I'm reading, these people's tax money ISN'T going to the department since they're outside the immediate district. If you read the article, it says that the fee doesn't apply to people in the immediate area of the dept. which means that they are paying taxes to the town/city/whatever that are being cycled back into the emergency service departments. It looks to me like the people who are being asked to pay the fee are the ones who aren't paying taxes directly. So...yeah. When everyone but you is paying for their protection services, don't bawl when you're suddenly faced with loss. You gambled, you lost.

But man, if the firefighters are anything like all of the ones I've ever known....it had to kill them to stand there and watch that.

-------------
?