Firefighters Watch As Home Burns

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 5 years ago in Misc

Firemen refused to help because a fire fee hadn"t been paid. When the owner begged to pay now, they were told "too late"
There are 110 comments:
Male 17
THIS is why I oppose the gradual privatisation of public services in my country. America is barbaric, you wont heal the sick unless they can afford it, you wont put out a fire unless the owner can afford it. We are so much better than this as a species.
0
Reply
Male 40,272

"I want what I want when I want it" is a childish outlook on life.
They don`t actually live in that city so they don`t pay taxes to that city. But they expect the city to go out there and provide service {fire}. The city gave them the option of a low $75 fee but they chose not to pay it and STILL expect the city to provide services.

You make choices in life and you live with the consequences. Stop whining.
0
Reply
Male 36
Once again, Americans proving they are the dicks of the world.
0
Reply
Male 1,360
USA! USA !
United States of A-holes
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@MeGrendel

"And what do you do when the storage unit goes up in flames and your keepsakes are not insured?"

Bury them?

It worked for Samuel Pepys. :P
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Tsik

"The world doesn`t work like that. The funding has to come from somewhere, otherwise you`re asking a bunch of people to work for nothing."

When I visited Chile a few years back I learned that their firefighters are all unpaid volunteers (only the equipment was paid for by government).

So, for at least one part of the world, unless it`s changed since my visit, yes...yes it DOES work like that.
0
Reply
Male 237
damned aluminum wiringin those old trailers.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
There should be an option for the owner to pay the FULL cost of fighting the fire, including a share of the cost of the supplies, equipment, the fire house. For a trailer fire, that would maybe be about $2000.

"Want us to put that out? Sign here, and press hard; you`re making three copies."
0
Reply
Male 201
As a human, on a moral level, they probably should have saved their home; however, when you live in an area where there are fees to provide fire protection, and without those fees there are no: firefighters, fire engines, hoses, other equipment, etc - and you abstain from paying the fees, you also opt out of the protection. If NO ONE PAID there would be NO FIRE PROTECTION. People like this are why things like socialism and communism would never work, and they are why, to the detriment of most human beings alive on Earth, capitalism is so flagrant and valiantly fought for.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
So the firetruck is there. They have the means of combating the fire. They are, in fact, using the water to prevent the fire from spreading anyway.

...and yet, they refuse to help fellow human beings whose entire lives are going up in smoke?

What a sad, sad state of affairs. I don`t care if a person is the biggest non-nice individual in the world, or how many times they haven`t paid a fee--if you see a human being suffering in front of you, and you have the means to prevent further suffering sitting in your hands, you HELP THEM.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
I`m pretty sure this is a repost.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]That would cut not number of payers from `those who want protection` to `those who use the service`, which meant the `bill` would be to the tune of thousands of dollars. Many of those WOULD not pay, causing the Fire Department to lose money. Soon, the area would have NO fire protection? [/quote]

Not really, you`d still have the incentive to subscribe and pay cents each month which would easily be covered by your paycheck, as opposed to having to pay serious dollars for a usage fee that would potentially obliterate your savings account.

Either way, with or without the usage fee* that was administered for not subscribing earlier it would still be like calling up DAN and ask them to cover your trip to and stay in the hyperbaric chamber without subscribing beforehand.

*Reminder: the usage fee only comes if they DO help you.
0
Reply
Male 361
"IT`S A CONTROVERSIAL POLICY WE`VE DEALT WITH BEFORE..."

Woah, had my speakers full blast so I could hear the quiet woman, that made me jump out of my skin >:|
0
Reply
Male 8,715
alikabul-"Imagine someone coming into the ER mortally wounded."

Not equivalent. One deals with human life, the other with ~$200 worth of trailer.

Numerous findings by multiple courts has maintained that Municipal Fire Departments/Districts are not required to provide Fire Protection Services to areas that are not subject to taxes or levies by that municipality, or that have not entered into a contract with said municipality. (That may include unincorporated area or, in some cases, federal military reservations.)

Hospitals, on the other hand, are required BY LAW (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act amoung others) to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.

Please check your facts.
0
Reply
Male 695
Imagine someone coming into the ER mortally wounded: "Excuse me, did you pay yourhealth insurance? Oh well... Let him die!"
0
Reply
Male 8,715
AvatarJohn-"Hey idiots, PAY YOUR BILL!"

While I agree with the advice, tone it down on the insults. If you researched this you will find out that the couple REALIZES they made a mistake and do not hold the Fire Department accountable.

The couple also expressed appreciation for the firetruck being on scene to make sure the fire did not spread to neighbors, and also for the city for the assistance they`ve received since the fire.

They made a bad decision, and are not blaming anyone but themselves.
0
Reply
Male 8,715
Izaq-"It ought to be paid by the state"

And where is the state to get the money?

Fire departments in the United States are LOCAL. They are paid by taxes from the people in the area they cover, be it City, town or (sometimes) County.

In this case, these people live in an unincorporated part of the county. They chose to live outside the city. The wanted Fire service, but when the city tried to levy a tax to cover the expense the courts ruled they have no jurisdiction to levy taxes in the county (probably after someone in the county sued), which also means they have so jurisdiction of responsibility to provide fire service.

As a former member of a small town volunteer fire department I will tell you that the State & Feds only gives you regulations on how to run your departmen, not anyway to fund it.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
Hey idiots, PAY YOUR BILL! If you don`t pay your electric bill, they turn off your electricity. If you don`t pay your cable bill, they shut off your cable. If yout don`t pay your fire bill, they let your house burn down. Personal responsibility, half-wit morons! Guess what, it should be the same with your health insurance -- if you`re too irresponsible to buy it, you don`t get life-saving treatment. Welcome to real life!
0
Reply
Male 8,715
pigsnout5-"they can pay it later, like a bill"

That would cut not number of payers from `those who want protection` to `those who use the service`, which meant the `bill` would be to the tune of thousands of dollars. Many of those WOULD not pay, causing the Fire Department to lose money. Soon, the area would have NO fire protection?

pigsnout5-"city should stop taking all the taxpayers` money for themselves"

The city is not taking ANY of these taxpayers money. THAT`S the point. The City can not Levy Taxes on them, so they are not responsible for fire protection in that area. They OFFERED it for a fee.

patchgrabber-"should be allowed to levy a tax for those services."

Agreed, good thinking. They should, but it has been ruled they `don`t have the jurisdiction`. A non-jurisdiction is a non-jurisdiction, which means no-taxee, no-servicee.
0
Reply
Male 173
Fair enough: They didn`t pay so they get no service!

BUT, why do people need to pay a fire fee? It ought to be paid by the state. It`s really horrible how poor people are left completely on their own. How can a "civilized" country leave some people the choice between say education and fire fees. Horrible country...
0
Reply
Male 34
""Are you kidding me? In a civilized country both firedepartment and ambulance service should belong to everybody, free of charge no matter where you live."

The world doesn`t work like that. The funding has to come from somewhere, otherwise you`re asking a bunch of people to work for nothing."

One question. Where are the tax money go ? If not in social services (like firemen) Where ????
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]if there is a fee, they can pay it later, like a bill[/quote]

I actually agree with this. If I have to use an ambulance (in a non-life-threatening scenario), they send me a bill afterward in the mail. My health insurance covers a certain amount for ambulance services, so why wouldn`t a system like that work?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]why should the city be to blame?[/quote]

When did I say to blame the city? It`s a messed up system BECAUSE they should be allowed to levy a tax for those services.
0
Reply
Male 41,184
vv @drworm is on the ball! lolz!

@pigsnout5: Sure, they`ll put out the fire with the firetrucks they haven`t got, because NO ONE PAID for them! Imaginary firetrucks don`t work that well, eh?
0
Reply
Male 41,184
[quote]Wasn`t this old news months ago?[/quote]
I thought so too @vegascartman, but really this is like the 3rd time it`s happened in that area. The first time was a year or so ago and was a house. It was on IAB too (iirc).

So we should give people service that they DON`T pay for? And everyone who DOES pay is a sucker? Nice, liberal thinking there!
And if these folks are "so poor" they cannot afford $75, we`ll bill them thousands for the service? Great idea liberals!

How about this: you get what you pay for!
0
Reply
Male 662
2vegascartman no, this is the second time in the same place...
0
Reply
Male 934
"Are you kidding me? In a civilized country both firedepartment and ambulance service should belong to everybody, free of charge no matter where you live."

The world doesn`t work like that. The funding has to come from somewhere, otherwise you`re asking a bunch of people to work for nothing.
0
Reply
Female 546
ok by south fulton they mean GA right? i am so ashamed to say that i`m from this state. this is horrible. i don`t care if it`s a mobile home or a million+ mansion. FIRE`S SHOULD BE PUT OUT! if there is a fee, they can pay it later, like a bill. to just sit back and watch is just wrong! damn city should stop taking all the taxpayers` money for themselves.
0
Reply
Male 4,902
0
Reply
Male 4,902
Dat der wuz wun dam fyne traler home iffin ya ask me...
0
Reply
Male 734
Wasn`t this old news months ago?
0
Reply
Male 718
wow. humanity really is a worthless blight on the earth isnt it? i mean seriously. what a bunch of pricks.
0
Reply
Male 663
Would never happen in the UK either. This is disgraceful.
0
Reply
Female 7
they went in case there were injuries. not to fight the fire. They probably are the first responders for the area, i.e. the nerest trained rescue professionals, since even if they aren`t paid, they would save lives, not material goods. Thats sort of a clear-cut moral solution.
0
Reply
Male 2,513
I like that they wasted the resources just to go and watch a fire burn, that`s pretty good use of taxpayer money. Nevermind that they didn`t put it out, they wasted money NOT putting it out. Idiocy
0
Reply
Male 2,389
ever seen one of those trailers go up though? Honestly, what`s the point of putting the fire out? They burn so quickly that it really is better to let it go than risk injury to anyone. And I`m sorry, but I`m pretty sure they could have found the $6+ bucks a month to have fire service.
0
Reply
Male 67
If I`m not mistaken, her name is Vicki Vale. Should could have gotten Batman to help her if she had not been so rude to him back in 89.
0
Reply
Male 197
I would agree with SlothOfDoom, but this would never happen in Canada.
0
Reply
Male 8,715
CreamK-"In a civilized country"

Anytime a person starts off a statement with the words `In a civilized country`, you KNOW the remainder of the statement will involve distributing/controlling/confiscating the proceeds/property/services of the productive members of society.

This one was true to form.
0
Reply
Female 25
"Yeah everybody jump on the firefighters and blame them. But who`s going to pay if one of them is injured fighting a fire outside their jurisdiction? If these firefighters had worked the fire and been injured they would not have been covered by their insurance, they would have been on their own. If these people didn`t have the money, they could probably have set a payment plan with the department. Most insurance companies will pay part of, if not most, of the subscription fee.
0
Reply
Male 2,033
Maybe the firefighters just thought the area was being improved by a controlled burn?
0
Reply
Male 3,431
I would prefer to not pay for a military until we were actually under attack.

I would prefer to not pay for maintenance on a highway until I have to use it.

I would prefer to not pay for Life Insurance until I was on my death bed.

But since I don`t know when those things might happen I will hedge my bets and help out my community because the only way society will work is if everyone participates.
0
Reply
Male 15,342
Fire protection money.
0
Reply
Male 525
How outrageous! Because as we all know, someone "need" is instantly a moral blank check to claim the lives and effort of other people! How dare the firefighters set the standards and conditions for which they work!
0
Reply
Male 1,421
Are you kidding me? In a civilized country both firedepartment and ambulance service should belong to everybody, free of charge no matter where you live.
0
Reply
Male 8,715
snuffy2009-"aaarrrggghhhhh FOR THE LOVE OF GOD I`M BUUURRRRNINGGGG!!!!"

"NO REDNECKS WERE HARMED IN THE FILMING OF THIS ARTICLE"

Plus, there was no danger to life in this situation. And, if you paid attention to people who have actually researched it, there is a procedure in place that any person in danger is saved/treated no matter what.
0
Reply
Male 8,715
Rawrg-"the county should simply vote to levee a higher property tax."

The City attempted to get the County to do just that. They refused, and the Court determined that the City did not have any jurisdiction to levy a tax for this purpost. No jurisdiction for tax = no jurisdiction for fire coverage.

Thus, the City offered a voluntary fee. Those that chose not to participate chose not to have coverage.

Simple.

the_windy-" Like if you have to take an ambulance."

Generally speaking, an ambulance is a private enterprise. They charge you when you use them.

If you actually read follow up articles, the woman interviewed: 1) realizes it was a bad idea they didn`t opt to pay, 2) are not upset at the fire department and 3) were happy they were on hand to keep it from spreading.
0
Reply
Male 267
They refused to pay, they can suffer the consequences for their choice. If they just put out the fire, not only would it be telling everyone that they don`t really have to pay, but it would make everyone who DID pay pretty angry.
0
Reply
Male 241
aaarrrggghhhhh FOR THE LOVE OF GOD I`M BUUURRRRNINGGGG!!!! Sorry maam we will need your 75 dollar fee first.AAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH ok sure no problem wait here whilst i retrieve my wallet. ARGH I`M DEAD...
0
Reply
Male 1,920
"but it`s also a drated-up system overall."
Not really, they live outside the city`s jurisdiction, therefore the city cannot directly levy a tax on them. The city offers them services that they would not have otherwise, so if they refuse to pay for it, why should the city be to blame?
0
Reply
Male 934
@Windy

But then there would be no incentive for anyone to pay the fee except for those effected by fire, and thusly, there would be no money for the fire dept.

Now in reality, the county should simply vote to levee a higher property tax to avoid situations like this.
0
Reply
Female 1,589
Why didn`t they put out the fire, then bill them for it after? Like if you have to take an ambulance. "Sorry ma`am, I see you haven`t paid the ambulance tax, I`m going to have to let you die."
0
Reply
Male 8,715
robosnitz-"If somebody was in the house, would they let them burn?"

South Fulton Mayor David Crocker said firefighters will help when people are in danger, regardless of whether they have paid.

robosnitz-"Would they put out the fire if I was to pay in installments?"

Maybe they`d put it out in installments.
0
Reply
Male 8,715
obosnitz-"Pay $45 for a small metal storage unit per month to keep your keepsakes safe and F UCK the cowardly fire department"

And what do you do when the storage unit goes up in flames and your keepsakes are not insured?




And you DO realize that the owners of the storage units are not responsible for any damages to your stuff? It`s right there on the agreement you sign.
0
Reply
Male 2,737
Would they put out the fire if I was to pay in installments?
0
Reply
Male 2,737
If somebody was in the house, would they let them burn?
0
Reply
Male 8,715
trebowski-"With your level of intelligence, something tells me you couldn`t afford the $75."

Aaaaaannnnd, you continue to be wrong...(hey, why change now?)

trebowski-"Enjoy YOUR tax-payer funded fire protection, hypocrite."

I enjoy the tax-payer funded fire protection, as I PAY the taxes for it (and many enjoy it without paying the taxes). I do NOT expect my fire department to put put fires in the next town.

I`ve also lived in areas that HAD no tax funded fire protection, we had a volunteer force (which I was also a member of, along with being on the fire team at the plant I worked at), and each household was expected to pay an annual fee. The difference is that they would put out the fire no matter what. If you hadn`t paid the fee, you got charged several thousand dollars.

Why is it that you think they should receive services for no free? You DO realize that firetrucks, bunker gear, SCBA, and etc actually cost MONEY,
0
Reply
Male 2,737
Pay $45 for a small metal storage unit per month to keep your keepsakes safe and F UCK the cowardly fire department. All about the benjamins. What a bunch of ass HOLES. Worthless F uck-a-roonies.
Next time somebody falls down and hurt themselves, ask them for a fiver for help. WTF?
0
Reply
Male 8,715
Neagle-What backwards ass_poo state has an emergency service plan that permits for an optional fee instead of a tax?"

Generally speaking, states only have emergency service plans for emergencies that effect on the STATE level. (Such as hurricane, earthquake, etc...and even then each city has to have its own plan also, as it is the primary responder.)
0
Reply
Male 41,184
@jtrebowski: Um, yeah! He`ll enjoy the fire protection HE PAID FOR! You got a problem with that?

Shoe = fits, so wear your hypocricy proudly @jt...
0
Reply
Male 8,715
jendrian-"endangering everyone around them."

Sorry, but it wasn`t that big of a fire.

jendrian-"but the house burning should be covered federally. "

But it`s not, so it`s their repsonsibility.

endria-"isn`t the city responsible for the infrastructure of the water pipes?"

Many time, no. In some rural areas, the well is nothing but a pump with a pvc pipe going to the water table. The city has nothing to do with its installation nor its maintenence

it doesn`t matter if the city has a treatment plant or not, so my comment is spot on"

Nope, it`s not. (please try and get your facts straight)
0
Reply
Male 41,184
@Neagle: iirc, the courts ruled the city couldn`t levy a tax on them, since they were outside city limits (which makes sense, actually). BUT they can ask for money on a voluntary basis.

You pay? You get the service!
No pay? NO service.

Seems simple enough.
0
Reply
Male 3,372
@MeGrendel: With your level of intelligence, something tells me you couldn`t afford the $75. Enjoy YOUR tax-payer funded fire protection, hypocrite.
0
Reply
Male 8,715
Fwoggie2-"We got rid of this bs back in 1850`s."

I know that some people are trying real hard to get rid of this bs of personal responsibility in the US, but it still exists.
0
Reply
Male 1,404
What backwards ass_poo state has an emergency service plan that permits for an optional fee instead of a tax? I`m all for less government interference but government does serve a function.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
haha all I`m saying is they let the house burn just because they didn`t pay, endangering everyone around them. Sure if they didn`t get insurance to get their burnt stuff back that`s their problem, but the house burning should be covered federally.

as for my comment with the clean water, well isn`t the city responsible for the infrastructure of the water pipes? it doesn`t matter if the city has a treatment plant or not, so my comment is spot on
0
Reply
Male 416
Yeah, clearly the fee is optional and these people chose not to pay it (i.e., they paid for something else instead).

One other point, to add to the mix -- I`m fairly certain that some of the fees received go to covering insurance costs for the firefighters. There`s no point in a firefighter risking their life for someone who hasn`t paid the nominal fee - as pointed out in the story itself, this would set a dangerous precedent for others to not pay the fee.
0
Reply
Male 1,803
We got rid of this bs back in 1850`s. I`m shocked that it still exists in America, I had no idea. It`s farked up. That`s horrific.
0
Reply
Male 8,715
tleking536-"should be a right to have emergency personnel assist you."

So, you would FORCE someone to assist you for no charge? Hmm, I thought we did away with slavery... (Be careful what you call a `right`).

endrian-"The city doesn`t make itself responsible for people in the county around"

The city IS NOT responsible to anyone exept within its territory. It OFFERS the service, for a fee, to those outside the city limits. Personally, I`d pay the $75. (They probably weren`t insured, either...gonna claim that State Farm should replace their stuff anyway?)

endrian-We don`t make ourselves responsible for giving you clean water, get your own goddamn treatment plant if you want clean water"

More than likely, the area involved does NOT have a `goddamn treatment plant`. Many rural areas still use individual wells. And if they get water, they PAY for it. (bad comparison on more than one front)
0
Reply
Male 282
I`m sure the crony insurance companies would also call it fraud for not paying the $75. Keep it classy scum bags!!
0
Reply
Female 856
$75..what`s that £50? Oh sweetheart, that is a tight budget your on if you can`t afford that. Maybe services that important should be paid monthly in advance, with no exceptions.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
wait let me guess this straight. The city doesn`t make itself responsible for people in the county around it for fire-related accidents unless they pay a fee?

What`s next? "We don`t make ourselves responsible for giving you clean water, get your own goddamn treatment plant if you want clean water"
0
Reply
Male 69
Sorry was supposed to be firetruck.
0
Reply
Male 69
In my town if there is a fire a fire or more come and put the fire out. No fee. It should be a right to have emergency personnel assist you.
0
Reply
Male 1,231
Wait...what? So if you live outside the city you pay an annual fee instead of taxes?? Is that why volunteer firemen exist in small towns in the US?
0
Reply
Male 312
@freddyferret: In case someone is in danger, they don`t know from a simple 911 call if someone is in there.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
pmarren

No worries. They`re idiots for not paying for a service like that, but it`s also a drated-up system overall. This whole thing reminds me of Petoria.
0
Reply
Male 272
If i am not mistaken, living outside of the city limits you do not have to pay taxes for stuff like this, you instead pay an annual fee. If you don`t want the protection you don`t have to pay it.
0
Reply
Male 4,593
patchgrabber, dude, sorry. I didn`t pick up on your intent. My bad.
0
Reply
Male 439
@kilroy5555- and immediately after delivering that bill, they might as well write it off, because if those people weren`t willing to pay $75, they sure as hell aren`t paying the hundreds or thousands that bill would be. You would wind up with no money for the firehouse and a nice black mark on the credit of the people whose house just burnt down.

The "solution" was to pay the damn $75.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@pmarren

I must have misplaced the /sarcasm at the end of that last comment, I wasn`t being serious. I also know it`s not privatized fire dept. but if it were privatized that`s exactly what it would look like.
0
Reply
Male 206
Libertarian Paradise
0
Reply
Male 439
@patchouly- way to understand the story. Those people don`t live in the town where the fire fighters are. They pay NO taxes to that town. They live in an unincorporated area outside of it. The fire service is offered to them at a very reasonable price. If they start offering free service to people who don`t live in the town and pay no taxes, that increases the burden on taxpayer who reside there.
0
Reply
Male 4,593
patchgrabber, yeah, good plan. Tell them someone inside is dying so you don`t have to pay the $75 bucks. Something tells me that you`re not grasping this whole thing, but I respect that you have your opinion and seem to be stuck pretty hard to it.

Oh yeah, and it`s not a privatized service, this is the government at work here.
0
Reply
Male 496
freddyferret - they show up to ensure the fire doesn`t spread to their paying customers. It is kind of like adding insult to injury though.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
Crazy. It`s supposed to be covered by their taxes. More and more things that are covered by taxes, are starting to become things you pay extra for. What the Hell are they doing with the tax money?!?
0
Reply
Male 496
A similar situation happened a few months ago.

This is an unincorporated township which does not have typical municipal services (or pay a tax for those services). In order to get fire services, the residents have to pay a fee to receive fire coverage. If the fire company showed up and put the fire out to a nonpaying customer, then no one would pay. If they accepted the payment at the time of the fire, then no one would pay until their house caught fire; if this happened, no one would pay until their house caught fire.

While understanding that point, something still didn`t sit right with me. My solution is this: the fire department still puts your fire out, but charges you for the full amount of the actual cost it took to extinguish your fire (gasoline, labor/salary, etc). That way, there is still incentive to buy fire insurance (i.e. to avoid paying the full firefighting cost), but no one`s house burns down.
0
Reply
Male 120
What`s the purpose of taxes in USA if you have to pay for everything anyway?
0
Reply
Male 11,739
If they knew the people hadn`t paid, why bother showing up at all? When they called 911, they should have been told "Sorry, you didn`t pay". They were just being more insulting by showing up. I don`t believe they didn`t know before they showed up either. That`s a waste of money. If they have to take time to check it either way, do it before you send out people and trucks.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
So the moral of the story is: Always tell the fire dept. that someone is inside burning alive.
0
Reply
Male 4,593
Deviros is right. As usual, the media doesn`t give you all the facts. IF there had been a person in danger, they would`ve stepped in - fee paid or not. If it`s a fire that`s only destroying property, they will let it burn if you didn`t pay.

The homeowners don`t live in the city where the fire department is, they don`t pay taxes for that service like the residents in town, therefore, the fee.

I have no issue with this at all, it`s just sensationalism as usual by the media.
0
Reply
Female 2,769
On one hand I thought "But you are right there!!! Stop the fire!!" But on the other hand I was thinking "Well I bet you wish you paid that 75 dollars now don`t you?" My next question is, do they have a black list or something? Do they stop to check before each fire whether or not they are allowed to put it out?
0
Reply
Male 535
Ok. This has been hashed over and over again, but here`s what it comes down to:

The homeowner is in an area where fire coverage is optional. You can opt to not pay the fee. If you don`t pay the fee (I.E. don`t get taxed) then you don`t get fire coverage.

It`s pretty simple. People are blaming the fire department, or the government, or the town, when the person responsible for this is the home owner - and NO ONE ELSE.

It`s not inhumane. They will make sure that no one is hurt, dying, etc. But they aren`t going to put out the fire - because then they set a dangerous precedent where you don`t have to pay your fire tax to get fire coverage, and then no one will.

If you don`t pay your electric bill, do you expect to get electricity? No.
0
Reply
Male 1,178
Yes they should have paid. But at the same time, the firefighters should be joining the force to help people, not to adhere to rules. If I was a firefighter and was instructed not to help those people, I`d tell my boss to drat off and do it anyway. I`ll pay the damn $75 for them...
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Crassus allegedly came up with a "better" idea over 2000 years ago.

It`s said that he`d turn up to a burning house with his fire fighters and offer to buy it from the owner (currently watching his home burning) for a fraction of what it was worth. If the owner protested that it was worth much more, Crassus would remind them that it would be worth much less after it had burned down. He`d also offer to make sure the fire didn`t spread to neighbouring houses...if the owners of those houses paid him enough.

This city is missing a trick - they could acquire land and housing at a very low price. Since money is the key thing for them, that`s what they should be doing.
0
Reply
Male 1,445
Wait, there are places where you need to pay for public services? So, as an example, if you don`t pay the "police" they can`t give you parking tickets?
0
Reply
Male 645
pay taxes and you get fire fighters... how does it worK!?
0
Reply
Male 65
disturbing to hear that money comes first than humanity
0
Reply
Male 40,272

They know they aren`t covered unless they pay and they chose not to pay.
It is the same as any other type of insurance.

Stop Whining!
0
Reply
2,889
simple solution- if you pay your 75$, you can get your house put out unlimited times in the year.

if you dont pay, you can get your house put out but it costs 3500 each time.

keeps things like this from happening, and still leaves the incentive to pay.
0
Reply
Male 104
So much for being PUBLIC servants.
0
Reply
Male 312
agreed vVvBrock

@ggolbez: How would you sue? The rules are posted, the people knew about the payment, they didn`t pay.

@Buzard250: How much gas do you think a firetruck goes through when it has to get to a scene and then use the same gas to pump hundreds of gallons of water a minute. Then you have maintenance, and salaries on top of that as well as any taxes/bills etc that need paying to keep the fire station running.
0
Reply
Male 1,735
@ggolbez By-Laws are a bitch like that, they are different from city to city.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Well there`s your privatized services at work...or I guess NOT at work.
0
Reply
Male 1,312
This same thing happened to an older man last year. So messed up
0
Reply
Male 341
How else are we supposed to afford 3 new firetrucks every year. I cant even keep the lease on my Mercedes. oh the agony!
0
Reply
Male 177
It`s $75. Jesus Christ people, just pay the money. If I get into a car accident without insurance, and then I go to an insurance company and say "Okay, I`m ready to pay now, then you fix my car." No, it doesn`t work that way unfortunately. It`s not like lives were in danger here either, so I have no remorse if these people thought that saving $75 for risking everything they own was a good idea.
0
Reply
Male 330
Is it me or is half the video inaudible?
0
Reply
Male 1,931
That`s why there are taxes. I would sue SO HARD!
0
Reply
Female 8,043
Link: Firefighters Watch As Home Burns [Rate Link] - Firemen refused to help because a fire fee hadn`t been paid. When the owner begged to pay now, they were told `too late`
0
Reply