Test How Good of a Republican You Are!

[Cats Cats Cats]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101005/pl_yblog_upshot/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate

Short Version:  Guy didn't pay $75 subscription fee to neighboring town's fire dept.  There was a fire, they let it burn.  The guys neighbor paid the $75 and they came out to make sure that the guys house didn't catch his on fire.

So which is it?  They should have made an attempt to save his house anyway?  Or screw him, he didn't pay for it.

[swake]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101005/pl_yblog_upshot/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate

Short Version:  Guy didn't pay $75 subscription fee to neighboring town's fire dept.  There was a fire, they let it burn.  The guys neighbor paid the $75 and they came out to make sure that the guys house didn't catch his on fire.

So which is it?  They should have made an attempt to save his house anyway?  Or screw him, he didn't pay for it.

The correct answer is that they should have offered him to put the fire out if he agreed to pay the actual cost of putting the fire out.

[Townsend]

The correct answer is that they should have offered him to put the fire out if he agreed to pay the actual cost of putting the fire out.

Per CNN, he offered when he called.

[Cats Cats Cats]

The correct answer is that they should have offered him to put the fire out if he agreed to pay the actual cost of putting the fire out.

*WROONG***  The correct answer is to ask the man to run into his house (or hopefully for him he has an iphone) and bring get his bank account information to see if he can indeed pay for putting the fire out.  Then put it out.

However, for the most part they tend to do the socialist thing and do what you mention.  But $75 x everybody is more money than just the $ for putting out one fire.

[Conan71]

The correct answer is that they should have offered him to put the fire out if he agreed to pay the actual cost of putting the fire out.

And the homeowner apparently agreed as much when he was on the line with 911, yet they still watched it burn.  I read this earlier today and was tempted to re-post, but the liberal vs. compassionate conservative angle the story took is nothing but bait.  We have enough around here already.

It is an interesting notion though, legally the fire department had no obligation to put the fire out since he didn't pay his annual assessment.  So they teach him a lesson that since he was too cheap to pay $75 he loses everything.  I'm curious how his insurance will handle this, if they will deny a claim since he didn't make a personal assurance he would have fire protection.

Ethically, I think the fire fighters should have put out the fire.

[Cats Cats Cats]

My Gordon Gecko ethics says that the most ethical thing to do is what makes you the most money.  Which is to sit and watch.

[Gaspar]

This is a straw-man if I ever saw one.  The primary obligation of the fire department is public safety.  They should have extinguished the fire and billed the owner for the expense, unless the owner requested that they let it burn.

Just like DNR orders for ambulance service, or any other FEE based public safety system, when it's a question of life, or property, you assume contract unless a release has been previously established.

This was stupid!

[Ed W]

One of my co-workers had a fire on rural property outside Owasso.  Apparently there's a similar subscription plan for those outside the city limits, but he didn't purchase it.  Owasso FD showed up, put out the fire, and then presented him with a bill. To me, that seems fair.  You have the choice of paying a small annual fee or running the risk of having a fire and paying more.  But it's unconscionable to allow someone's home to burn to the ground.

Another interesting question is this - what would the fire department do if there were a person still in the structure?  Would Granny have to die for lack of a 75 dollar fee?  I thought it was us liberals who were supposed to be in favor of death panels, but apparently in rural Tennessee, the ability to pay is more important.

[waterboy]

I can see why the firemen would hesitate or in fact refuse to put the fire out if they were sure there was no souls in it. There may be legal issues that could prevent them from doing so. The owner had opportunity to contract with an outside service. He refused to do so. Perhaps he felt they were overpriced, incompetent or he had specific operations he wanted to keep private (illegal operations?). At any rate, he made it clear. For them to ignore his refusal of service might make it difficult for them to get paid. Any offer to pay once the fire started would have to be signed, witnessed and services spelled out in detail wouldn't they? Otherwise he could argue in court about the level of services being sub par or overly pricey.

I vote for affirming what the firemen did. It must have been hard for them. But, he moved out of the municipal area to lower his taxes which means lower services generally. In balance, he probably made a poor choice to chase lower cost over safety.

[guido911]

The correct answer is that they should have offered him to put the fire out if he agreed to pay the actual cost of putting the fire out.

Then what incentive would there be for anyone to pay that $75 subscription fee? Just asking.

I have listened to both the far right and far left on this issue and honestly do not know who's right. I agree with Conan that there may be an ethical responsibility for the fire dept. to act, but that rests solely with them. It still does not change the fact that the homeowner took a gamble and lost.

[GG]

I own property in Northern Craig County in Oklahoma.   The nearest town is Edna, Kansas 3 miles to the north.  For $50 a year the Edna, Kansas volunteer fire department will come and fight a fire on my property even though my property is in Oklahoma.  (long story short, the road in front of my property is the dividing line between Kansas and Oklahoma.)  

Rural Fire Districts are pretty much on their own, with volunteers and antiquated equipment to fight grass, forest and building fires.

They exist on the fees from the residents in their districts who pay those fees for their protection such as it is.

They don't have a Visa/Master Card machine for a fire victim to swipe their cards through.  

[Red Arrow]

I was taught as a volunteer fireman that the duty of a fireman is to save lives and protect property.  I was lucky enough to live in a town that completely supported the fire company with taxes.  I think the community didn't want to put up with cake sales etc.  We had good equipment and firefighters.  The community was rewarded with some of the lowest fire insurance rates in the area.  Fire fighting equipment is NOT CHEAP.  The company in question is tax funded by its community.  The house in question is outside the tax area.  It is absurd not to pay $75/year to support the fire company that may save your stuff. 

The pictures I have seen show the building fully involved in flames.  It may not have been possible to save much depending on how much fire there was when the fire company arrived.  Was the primary response to save lives?  Were there any hydrants in the area?  If not, the water would be limited to whatever the trucks carry, sometimes only a few hundred gallons.  At 90 gallons/min for an 1-1/2" line, that doesn't last long.  That water may have been held back to protect the exposure of surrounding property.  There are too many unknowns for me to make a definitive judgement but my inclination would have been to try to put out the fire.

[guido911]

It is absurd not to pay $75/year to support the fire company that may save your stuff.

That is perhaps the money quote in your post, and what many in this thread refuse to acknowledge. I have read so much on this event that I am at a loss at who is ultimately "at fault". But had the homeowner followed your observation, we would not be having this discussion--especially in the context of how this is somehow one political party's fault.

[Conan71]

Red raises some valid points about possible reasons for the FD's lack of action. If it was fully involved by the time they got there and all people were out of the structure why waste what may have been a limited amount of water and risk injury to fire fighters? My personal impulse would have been to put it out, but faced with what Red offered, I can see why I might not.

Making this into a Lib V Con story though is seriously ham-handed reporting or op-ed.

Are libs that scared? "Don't vote GOP, they will let your house burn to the slab over $75"

[Quinton]

Surely this has to be political thing. How dumb.We all know uncle money bags should have had that already paid for.Our savior in Washington.Lets all bow our heads,face the East and thank out moslem leader.We definately hold the guy RESPONSABLE for his OWN ACTIONS.