Tennessee Firemen let House Burn

[bl8tant]

I think the firefighters did the right thing. If no one paid their $75 until after their house was saved, there wouldn't be the funds to keep the program running. It costs money to fight fires, and people are risking their lives. To fight fires for those who conveniently "forgot" to pay their fee is irresponsible, and risks taking the whole program down.

There's already a precedent for this kind of thing: rescue services. If you get lost in the backcountry, or have a mishap at sea, people will come try to save you, often at the risk of their own lives. If they succeed in rescuing you, oftentimes you'll get a bill.

I would argue that, because the homeowner offered to pay whatever the firefighting cost, the fire department should have put out the fire, then sent him a bill. I'd bet that he would have paid it. That solves all the problems in one go:

• the homeowner didn't have his house incinerated
• the fire department's actual expenses were covered
• homeowners who choose not to pay the $75 are put on notice that, if they need fire services, they will be much more expensive than $75

Does that seem like a reasonable alternative?

[talisyn]

I'm really not surprised to see how the opinions go on this topic

Unfortunately, we as a democratic society have reached a kind of break point. What I'm trying to get to is what kind of people are we when we'd rather see someone's house burn down for lack of $75 than show a weakness like compassion?

Edited October 6, 2010 by talisyn

[PrinceofLight2000]

I think they should have saved the house and then doubled the fee as penalty.

[prisonchaplain]

It's a bizarre situation, to be sure. Frankly, it might be a loss of freedom, but I'd argue that the fee should be mandatory. You have a house that's within say 100-feet of another one, then you have to pay whatever the tax or fee for fire rescue is. Allowing someone to opt out of fire rescue makes about as much sense as allowing middle class teens to drive without car insurance. :-)

[Dravin]

Thing is the city can't make the $75 fee mandatory* for folks like the man in the article, if I'm outside of city limits they don't have jurisdiction over me. Of course as a general principle it works, either by having the county/state provide service, or the county/state extracting the fee and paying the city.

* I assume you mean like a city making a gutter maintenance fee mandatory for home owners inside of city limits.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

It's a bizarre situation, to be sure. Frankly, it might be a loss of freedom, but I'd argue that the fee should be mandatory. You have a house that's within say 100-feet of another one, then you have to pay whatever the tax or fee for fire rescue is. Allowing someone to opt out of fire rescue makes about as much sense as allowing middle class teens to drive without car insurance. :-)

I don't know the way this particular location did it; but my parents have a vacation cabin where the "volunteer" fire department only serves paying customers. The dept's policy was that they'd show up regardless of whether you'd paid or not--but if you'd paid, they tried to put it out; if you hadn't, they just made sure that it didn't spread.

FWIW, there's an interesting Volokh post on the topic here. Some of the commenters draw parallels between this situation, and universal mandatory health coverage.

[talisyn]

There is a flaw in the treatment of out-of-bounds property, and it's a huge one, but the flaw is the county's responsibility to fix. I'm pretty sure a certain portion of my taxes go to pay for fire protection of out-of-cities property. Why don't they just add that fee to property taxes? I think even the most anti-tax person can see the usefulness of such a solution.

[Just_A_Guy]

*shrug* Apparently the voters of the county, through their elected county commissioners, didn't want to do that.

[PrinceofLight2000]

*shrug* Apparently the voters of the county, through their elected county commissioners, didn't want to do that.

I think if more people were aware of this kind of need they'd be willing to do something about it. Losing a house that costs a couple hundred thousand dollars to replace, along with the cost of all the stuff inside, is nowhere near equatable to not paying a $75 fee, or even for the time and expense it would have taken for the fire department to save the house.

[Dravin]

I think if more people were aware of this kind of need they'd be willing to do something about it. Losing a house that costs a couple hundred thousand dollars to replace, along with the cost of all the stuff inside, is nowhere near equatable to not paying a $75 fee, or even for the time and expense it would have taken for the fire department to save the house.

People are really, really, really good at convincing themselves that bad stuff is what happens to other people. It's one of the reasons car insurance is mandated, left to their own devices an awful lot of people wouldn't purchase car insurance because, "they'll just drive careful".

Edited October 6, 2010 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, that and the fact that a driver's actions can hurt other people beyond the individual driver's ability to make them (financially) whole.

[rameumptom]

I'm really not surprised to see how the opinions go on this topic

Unfortunately, we as a democratic society have reached a kind of break point. What I'm trying to get to is what kind of people are we when we'd rather see someone's house burn down for lack of $75 than show a weakness like compassion?

But on the other hand, how many people would take advantage of it? It is expensive to put out a fire. When everyone tosses in $75, it is like insurance. The cost is spread out over lots of people. Would it be better to just give every home a bill for the full cost of saving/attempting to save their house?

Compassion is important. But self-reliance and self responsibility is just as important. The article says they had been late with their payment on occasion in the past. I guess they'll now learn from their mistake, instead of expecting others to bail them out all the time. There is compassion, and then there is being taken advantage of.

Am I sorry they lost their home? Of course. But the fire fighters did the right thing. Was it compassionate to spend trillions of dollars to bail out big banks, GM, and other companies when the economy collapsed? Or do you think it would have been better in the long term to have them fail, so that society could learn the lesson they needed to learn? As it is, the banks, AIG, and others are still doing risky things that could put taxpayers out for hundreds of billions of dollars. They didn't learn their lesson, and it showed others that they too would be bailed out if they did the same thing.

There is compassion, and then there is enabling welfare and people to take advantage of the system.

[rameumptom]

I think they should have saved the house and then doubled the fee as penalty.

It would have cost much more than $150 to fight the fire. Suddenly you would have everyone waiting until their house burned down to pay, because a one time payment of $150 is cheaper than $75 every year. You would have to make it very steep, perhaps $1000 or more. And they could have billed them, but who is to say - they could refuse to pay the bill, or conveniently forget to pay it, as well.

[PrinceofLight2000]

It would have cost much more than $150 to fight the fire. Suddenly you would have everyone waiting until their house burned down to pay, because a one time payment of $150 is cheaper than $75 every year. You would have to make it very steep, perhaps $1000 or more. And they could have billed them, but who is to say - they could refuse to pay the bill, or conveniently forget to pay it, as well.

I think if more people were aware of this kind of need they'd be willing to do something about it. Losing a house that costs a couple hundred thousand dollars to replace, along with the cost of all the stuff inside, is nowhere near equatable to not paying a $75 fee, or even for the time and expense it would have taken for the fire department to save the house.

Also, lol. You honestly don't think they'd be legally held to account if they didn't pay? If I "conveniently forgot" to pay my taxes, I'd be looking at a nice big wage garnishment, and if I forgot to pay a bill I'd be looking at denial of service or possibly a lawsuit.

Look, I usually err on the conservative side of this sort of thing, but we're talking about someone's house here. It holds all their property, everything they've worked hard for years to gain. You don't think it's a little ridiculous that the policy favors that the homeowner loses easily a few hundred thousand dollars in property? Sure, maybe that person should have to pay a much higher fee that would account for the actual time and expenses for putting out the fire. But the fact remains that the loss of a house is much more expensive and any sane person would gladly pay the larger fee. I'm sure all these number crunchers the government has can figure out some way to calculate it. The firefighters would still get paid at the end of the day and their equipment would still be maintained. Matter of fact, why not just tax the fee instead of billing it? That way people won't have to think about it.

Edited October 7, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[talisyn]

Sorry, Ram. I still say that people who would rather see someone's house burn as punishment for not paying $75 is pretty sad. That's like letting a cow die because it got stuck in some mud..on a Sunday

[FunkyTown]

Sorry, Ram. I still say that people who would rather see someone's house burn as punishment for not paying $75 is pretty sad. That's like letting a cow die because it got stuck in some mud..on a Sunday

I cautiously have to say that I disagree. I don't think it was the $75 fee. What if they fought it and everyone realized they didn't have to pay? How much would the loss of income from rural customers affect the firehouse? Would they be able to stay open? Pay insurance? Buy equipment?

The rural customers avoided tax by living rurally. Should they have paid? I say yes.

However, there is a bigger lesson here:

Don't be stupid.

If you're thinking of burning trash in your back yard and don't have a handy fire department to bail you out or firefighting equipment in your house? Don't. Seriously. Don't.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, why the heck was he burning trash in his back yard? I've never done that. Is it that he didn't want to pay the junk yard to take his trash? If you live in a place because there aren't any taxes for social services, don't be surprised if you don't receive that social service when you need it.. ARGH! So stupid.

Edited October 7, 2010 by FunkyTown

[PrinceofLight2000]

I cautiously have to say that I disagree. I don't think it was the $75 fee. What if they fought it and everyone realized they didn't have to pay? How much would the loss of income from rural customers affect the firehouse? Would they be able to stay open? Pay insurance? Buy equipment?

The rural customers avoided tax by living rurally. Should they have paid? I say yes.

Who's to say they wouldn't have paid a fine? Honestly, as I said before, I don't see why any sane person wouldn't pay even a few thousand dollars in fines if it meant they didn't lose their house. This is definitely much better than having them "pay" by a few hundred thousand in losses.

However, there is a bigger lesson here:

Don't be stupid.

If you're thinking of burning trash in your back yard and don't have a handy fire department to bail you out or firefighting equipment in your house? Don't. Seriously. Don't.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, why the heck was he burning trash in his back yard? I've never done that. Is it that he didn't want to pay the junk yard to take his trash? If you live in a place because there aren't any taxes for social services, don't be surprised if you don't receive that social service when you need it.. ARGH! So stupid.

This, however, is spot on.

Edited October 7, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[prisonchaplain]

A thought on the whole, "Charge them full cost" notion. Even if it were $5000, most people would then forgo the $75 annual fee, and "play the odds." Then, after losing many of their treasures in the partial fire damage, incurring perhaps $20K in repair costs, they would be going to the TV stations with the sob story of how the cruel fire department, after all their heartaches, sent them a bill for $5000. And...we'd still be having this discussion.

[PrinceofLight2000]

A thought on the whole, "Charge them full cost" notion. Even if it were $5000, most people would then forgo the $75 annual fee, and "play the odds." Then, after losing many of their treasures in the partial fire damage, incurring perhaps $20K in repair costs, they would be going to the TV stations with the sob story of how the cruel fire department, after all their heartaches, sent them a bill for $5000. And...we'd still be having this discussion.

Except it's much less of an offense than letting a house burn over a missed $75 payment. Even with all the damage repair, it's better than losing the entire house. If the public is aware that they'll be facing a $5000 fine in the event of a fire, they're more apt to paying the fee. Not to mention the $75 fee is yearly. It would take 66 years for it to be worth not paying the fee if a fire didn't occur, and around 25 years for what I suggested, $2000.

Edited October 7, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[bl8tant]

A thought on the whole, "Charge them full cost" notion. Even if it were $5000, most people would then forgo the $75 annual fee, and "play the odds." Then, after losing many of their treasures in the partial fire damage, incurring perhaps $20K in repair costs, they would be going to the TV stations with the sob story of how the cruel fire department, after all their heartaches, sent them a bill for $5000. And...we'd still be having this discussion.

Sure, there would probably be some knuckleheads who would decide that the (low) probability of paying $5000 once was better than the 100% probability of paying $75/year. Those are the same people who don't buy fire insurance in the first place. Even with the sob stories, I still think this would be a better alternative than just letting the place burn down to the foundation.

[prisonchaplain]

We solved this issue in chat today. Emergency services are basic to government work. Find a way to tax or fee that is automatic. This situation is absurd, and puts firefighters in a horrific bind. This dilemma should never be.

[Just_A_Guy]

EDIT: Now that I think about it, why the heck was he burning trash in his back yard? I've never done that. Is it that he didn't want to pay the junk yard to take his trash? If you live in a place because there aren't any taxes for social services, don't be surprised if you don't receive that social service when you need it.. ARGH! So stupid.

One of the comments at the Volokh thread I linked earlier, said that this is actually pretty common in some parts of the US. Go figure.

Heck, we torch our brush pile annually (but never with fewer than three people with hoses around it).

[Wingnut]

I thought that I read that the fire department was out there anyway to stop the fire from spreading to the house next door which had paid the fee. If that is the case then I beleive they could have done something to try and save some of their things.

They weren't there anyway, they arrived eventually, once the fire spilled over onto the neighbor's property.

I think most of us would agree that legally, there is no obligation (nor should there be).

But morally? If I see someone's house burning down, and I'm already there with pumps and a hose and I'm not doing anything else . . . I'd have a hard time going to sleep that night knowing I'd just watched someone's house burn down over seventy five bucks.

I can't find a clip, but this reminds me of a scene from an episode of The West Wing. In the scene, two staffers (an assistant and her boss) are arguing about whether or not the US should bail Mexico out of their financial problems that came to a head during the night. The economy had completely collapsed, and one character saw a precedent and basic moral obligation for helping them, while the other didn't want her tax dollars being spent where people had just been irresponsible. The first character says to the second, something to the effect of, "When your neighbor's house is on fire, you don't haggle over the price of the garden hose." It's less of a comparison in this case, and -- unfortunately -- quite literal.

We solved this issue in chat today. Emergency services are basic to government work. Find a way to tax or fee that is automatic. This situation is absurd, and puts firefighters in a horrific bind. This dilemma should never be.

Agreed.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I can't find a clip, but this reminds me of a scene from an episode of The West Wing. In the scene, two staffers (an assistant and her boss) are arguing about whether or not the US should bail Mexico out of their financial problems that came to a head during the night. The economy had completely collapsed, and one character saw a precedent and basic moral obligation for helping them, while the other didn't want her tax dollars being spent where people had just been irresponsible. The first character says to the second, something to the effect of, "When your neighbor's house is on fire, you don't haggle over the price of the garden hose." It's less of a comparison in this case, and -- unfortunately -- quite literal.

Why does the moral obligation need to met with be tax dollars? It's not the government's job to decide what causes are worthy of attention and dollars, much less to force us to be charitable. What true good has one man done toward his brother when he is forced under penalty of law to do it? An organization as politicized as the US government needs to keep its nose out of the charity business except when using military personnel to help stabilize and secure a disaster zone. Leave the actual funding to the private non-profit organizations who are much more efficient and much less selective. This is a bad comparison, however literal it might be. Leave it to a liberal news network's series to blindly draw comparisons like this.

Edited October 14, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Wingnut]

Um, you do realize it's fiction, right?