Firefighting Fee

[emkay64]

He should have been responsible. He was not. No more house. Mr. Freeloader did not get to ride on the backs of others. Cry me a river.

How is he a freeloader if he is charged a large fee to respond to the fire Hugo? Not one person here has said the fire fighting service should be free, we are saying that if he did not pay the lower fee ahead of time, there should still be an option to get fire fighting services at a higher fee.

Lets see....there was no legal contract that the individual had with either the city or county to extinguish the fire. Now if they had agreed to put out a fire for a designated fee at the time of the fire the man would have no obligation to pay it. Contracts initiated under duress are invalid. He was a freeloader. No house. Cry me a river. He should have been responsible.

The Reichstag Fire Decreeby Jonathan Rick

On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany. He assumed that office constitutionally but not as a result of the democratically expressed choice of the German people. In fact, in the last national election before Hitler’s appointment, held in November 1932, the N.S.D.A.P.’s vote dropped by two million, a loss that reduced its seats in the Reichstag from 230 to 196. Two out of every three voters had cast their ballots for other parties in this last fully free election before the imposition of the **** dictatorship. Nor did Hitler’s appointment flow from normal parliamentary coalition politics. Instead, a backroom intrigue jobbed him into office, as a cabal of conspirators overcame the doubts of aged President Hinderburg. And yet, even the chancellorship did not satisfy this megalomaniacal dreamer - he was not yet dictator - and so in February 1933 the Nazis resolved that if the electorate would not come to them, they would go after it, Machiavellian style.

The rise of Hitler started with a fire being put out for free.

good grief! :lol:

 

[hugo]

View attachment 3049

 

[timesjoke]

Lets see....there was no legal contract that the individual had with either the city or county to extinguish the fire. Now if they had agreed to put out a fire for a designated fee at the time of the fire the man would have no obligation to pay it. Contracts initiated under duress are invalid. He was a freeloader. No house. Cry me a river. He should have been responsible.

You know hugo, most of the time you are a hardazz but you still seem fairly smart most of the time if just a little misguided, but then sometimes you say something like this and I wonder if all that copy/pasting you do with other people's words is why you seem smarter than this drivel shows.

Emergency situations were time is an element of the decision process is given complete legal status for verbal contracts. Even people who are unconsious and flown to a hospital to save their life are held accountable for the bill to fly them because it is assumed any reasonable person would agree to the flight for those emergency reasons. There is not one Judge in America who would not enforce an emergency contract in this situation.

Other ways the fire department can help to cover their behinds is to send a information letter to the area homes and put it in the paper describing exactly how their policy and fees are set up and letting everyone know ahead of time. This kind of informed decision is how the fire fighters are now using to give them an excuse as to why they just stood there and watched the home burn.

The rise of Hitler started with a fire being put out for free.

Well it is a good thing that nobody here is wanting anything done for free then right?

There is no legal ground for the owner to refute the charges at a later date and the Government just leans the land and is paid before anyone can ever live on the property again so they will be paid for services rendered and the Government does not have to put firefighters in the possition of being uncaring buracrats who would just sit there and watch a family home burn to the ground just because their name is not on a list.

Another thing to consider is what if the people did pay their fee but some lazy Government worker who took the fee forgot to put their name on this list? What kind of liability does the City now put itself in because of a mistake made by one person? The logical and reasonable action is to put out fires, that is what fire fighters are supposed to do. Let the buracrats be the buracts.

You know, it was not that long ago that we never had professional fire fighters. Communities just put our fires because they just thought helping each other in a time like that was the right thing to do. Could we call this new development of people just watching someone's home burn down and not lifting a finger progress?

 

[hugo]

The point is nothing was set up in advance covering this situation unlike your example when standard ambulance fees are already in place. When the firefighters got there there is no way they could have entered into a legally binding agreement with the mobile home owner.

 

[hugo]

You are walking in the mall holding a pint of orange juice, suddenly a diabetic starts having seizures because of low blood sugar. You tell him "For 10K ya can have my orange juice , just sign this contract." The contract is voidable.

If you value your family, pets and property you should do the responsible thing and pay the $75.

 

[jokersarewild]

Does the fire department not require funding? It costs them extra to respond to calls out in the boondocks. You wanna live out there? Fine. But you have to cope with the extra costs of such.

Nobody is saying anything about not paying a fee, if we look at the example offered, we see that the fire department had to respond anyway to be sure the fire did not spread to one of the homes in the neighborhod that did pay the fee. While they were out there anyway, why not put out the fire and make an extra $500?

As it was, they drove all the way out there and sat watching the fire burn down that house and the firefighters were on the clock anyway.

Yeah. They were in the neighborhood. Because someone PAID THE FEE IN ADVANCE. The lesson: Pay the **** fee. Be responsible.

And they didn't put it out because the guy hadn't paid the fee. It's not like he didn't know the fee was there. He forgot. Guess next time he won't forget, eh?

So, say they charge them after the fire. Who's to say they'll pay? Now the fire dept. spent extra money coming out there, doing something they may not have the resources to do, and they possibly won't get any compensation for it. Then the fire dept. has fewer funds to fight fires. Local governments are cutting services to cope with not having money as it is. Would they rather be able to put out the fires of 99% of the population, or possibly not be able to put out any in the future because they have no money?

Well as this example shows, there is a good possibility that they will be responding to the calls anyway because while one person may not make the payment, the next guy most likely did and they have to be sure the fire does not spread to the home that did pay as what happened in this case.

And they showed up because the neighbor paid. The firefighters did their job. They stopped the neighbors house from burning down.

As far as getting paid, most States place lean rights to property in cases like this, so the City could get their money, maybe not right away but after a fire if they want to put a new home up on the land it cannot pass for a certificate of occupancy unless the leans are taken care of.

Perhaps. Still doesn't change the fact that the firefighters did their jobs. They followed the law.

 

[jokersarewild]

Lets see....there was no legal contract that the individual had with either the city or county to extinguish the fire. Now if they had agreed to put out a fire for a designated fee at the time of the fire the man would have no obligation to pay it. Contracts initiated under duress are invalid. He was a freeloader. No house. Cry me a river. He should have been responsible.

You know hugo, most of the time you are a hardazz but you still seem fairly smart most of the time if just a little misguided, but then sometimes you say something like this and I wonder if all that copy/pasting you do with other people's words is why you seem smarter than this drivel shows.

Emergency situations were time is an element of the decision process is given complete legal status for verbal contracts. Even people who are unconsious and flown to a hospital to save their life are held accountable for the bill to fly them because it is assumed any reasonable person would agree to the flight for those emergency reasons. There is not one Judge in America who would not enforce an emergency contract in this situation.

Other ways the fire department can help to cover their behinds is to send a information letter to the area homes and put it in the paper describing exactly how their policy and fees are set up and letting everyone know ahead of time. This kind of informed decision is how the fire fighters are now using to give them an excuse as to why they just stood there and watched the home burn.

The rise of Hitler started with a fire being put out for free.

Well it is a good thing that nobody here is wanting anything done for free then right?

There is no legal ground for the owner to refute the charges at a later date and the Government just leans the land and is paid before anyone can ever live on the property again so they will be paid for services rendered and the Government does not have to put firefighters in the possition of being uncaring buracrats who would just sit there and watch a family home burn to the ground just because their name is not on a list.

So we spend even MORE money going through a bureaucratic process to put a lien on this guy's land? So now not only have his irresponsible actions been no burden on him, the people in that city now have to help support his inability to follow the law.

Also, the "sending out the pamphlet" thing would have some relevance if he hadn't PAID IN PREVIOUS YEARS. He knew it was a necessity. It slipped his mind. He doesn't have a house. Now he needs to take responsibility. He wanted something for nothing, and he got nothing for nothing.

Another thing to consider is what if the people did pay their fee but some lazy Government worker who took the fee forgot to put their name on this list? What kind of liability does the City now put itself in because of a mistake made by one person? The logical and reasonable action is to put out fires, that is what fire fighters are supposed to do. Let the buracrats be the buracts.

That's what receipts are for.

 

[Old Salt]

That's what receipts are for.

The receipt was in the house when it burned to the ground.

 

[timesjoke]

The point is nothing was set up in advance covering this situation unlike your example when standard ambulance fees are already in place. When the firefighters got there there is no way they could have entered into a legally binding agreement with the mobile home owner.

Bullsh!t hugo, the person is dying and unconsious, there was no informed decision or authorization, there is an assumption by the courts that because this is the only option to save their life it is "assumed" they would agree to it and people are forced by the courts to pay those fees all the time. Sure, the city putting out a notice of the fee both ways would go a long way to proving peopel were informed of the higher charge to pay "as needed" but under the law, emergency services have always enjoyed the protection of knowing they are there to help society.

You are walking in the mall holding a pint of orange juice, suddenly a diabetic starts having seizures because of low blood sugar. You tell him "For 10K ya can have my orange juice , just sign this contract." The contract is voidable.

If you value your family, pets and property you should do the responsible thing and pay the $75.

Once again you show that maybe you are not as bright as I have been giving you credit for all this time.

These things go before a judge, a judge will look at the guy trying to scam $10,000 out of the people and toss him out on his ear, while the same judge will look at the fire department acting in good faith as a community service and they being the only option available to respond to this kind of emergency and there is no way that judge will toss that out.

Emergency services have long held the right to charge for services, consider that people have been charged for mountain rescues and fires that got out of a back yard and spread costing a lot of time and money to fight the fire so the person who lost control of their fire gets charged.

So your belief that the peopel would get something for "free" is dead wrong hugo.

Perhaps. Still doesn't change the fact that the firefighters did their jobs. They followed the law.

Say it with me....F I R E F I G H T E R.....not buracrat. As a child many kids will see firefighters as their heros because they put their life on the line to help people. Now we want them to be nothing more than a money grubbing greedy group of people? Democrats spend most of their time screaming about how evil companies and business people are because they are only motivated by "GREED", but it is okay if our Government is only motivated by greed? When does human life and safety attain a greater value than a $75 fee?

So we spend even MORE money going through a bureaucratic process to put a lien on this guy's land?

Um....you ever actually file a lien? It takes 5 minutes to file a lien, the Government workers who process these things are already sitting there, it would only cost the Government the price of the paper to make it official.

So now not only have his irresponsible actions been no burden on him, the people in that city now have to help support his inability to follow the law.

Now you are pulling a hugo, nobody said anything about not charging the homeowner, he should be charged a higher fee because he failed to pay the fee in the proper time. The Government has been doing this for years for things like paying your taxes and such. Stop trying to lean on the crutch that the guy will get anything for free because that is not the case.

Also, the "sending out the pamphlet" thing would have some relevance if he hadn't PAID IN PREVIOUS YEARS. He knew it was a necessity. It slipped his mind. He doesn't have a house. Now he needs to take responsibility. He wanted something for nothing, and he got nothing for nothing.

Humans are not robots, we don't do everything perfect. Yes, he should pay a price for not paying, but as with all mistakes in life, the punishment should fit the mistake. We don't execute people for speeding because that would be considered too harsh.

All I am trying to say is it seems a tad harsh to just sit there and watch his home burn down just to punish him for not paying his $75. If the fire fighters are there anyway, why not make some extra money in the process for the City? The homeowner has to pay a huge fee as punishment, the fire is put out ensuring the safety of even the whole community, the firefighters get to keep their image of being motivated to help people instead of just being motivated by greed........everyone wins.

That's what receipts are for.

When your home is on fire, every second counts. If a buractatic mistake had the family not on the list but they did pay, their home burns down anyway even if they paid. As OS said, the receipt is in the burning house, and taking the time to get it, and bring it down to the fire station would not be very productive now would it?

 

[hugo]

Turns out Cranick "forgot" to pay last year also.

I must admit if I had been a firefighter I would have sprung to action the minute he said three dogs were in the house. I would have let the cat burn.

This guy is right on.

Gene Cranick – you made your choice now deal with it Special note for all you libtards coming here – Mr. Cranick didn’t FORGET to pay his fee, he REFUSED to pay his fee. Get your facts straight!

Now…

You might be saying ‘who the **** is Gene Cranick?’

Well this local story for me has become a national debate of sorts and I have suffered through liberal blog, after liberal blog reading what the idiots on the left are failing to report as they seems to believe everything in life is free, well it’s not! Someone has to pay.

Choice have consequences…

The libtards say Cranick FORGOT to pay his fee – not true what Cranick said first was…

Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground
Mr Cranick said: “I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong.”

Yes you were wrong moocher … here is the deal the the libtards don’t seem understand – and might I add it caused a headache trying to understand their logic or the lack there of. In the rural country in most areas are volunteer fire departments and if those areas don’t have a volunteer fire department they contract with the city for fire protection for those in the county you have have to pay a fee for protection because that is how the fire department pays for trucks, suits, helmets, hoses, diesel, maintenance, the fire station, electricity and insurance. If no one pays the fee how are they going to pay for all those cost? The people in the city pay a tax, the people in the county pay a fee known as “pay to spray” as the city fire departments are full time tax funded and the fire departments in the county are member fee based volunteers.

Not a difficult concept to understand – both have operating cost and mechanisms in place to cover those cost – one is taxes (the urban city) the other is subscriber fees (the rural county).

Of course libtards disagree.

Notice the libtard disagreeing with me cannot cite one example where a contract to put out a fire at the time of the fire was held as valid. Cranick was a moocher. Equivalent to an illegal alien crossing the border for healthcare. He should be shot.

 

[hugo]

Another non-libtard opinion.

The situation is this: The city of South Fulton’s fire department, until a few years ago, would not respond to any fires outside of the city limits — which is to say, the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers. A reasonable position. Then, a few years ago, a fire broke out in a rural area that was not covered by the city fire department, and the city authorities felt bad about not being able to do anything to help. So they began to offer an opt-in service, for the very reasonable price of $75 a year. Which is to say: They greatly expanded the range of services they offer. The rural homeowners were, collectively, better off, rather than worse off. Before the opt-in program, they had no access to a fire department. Now they do.
And, for their trouble, the South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton’s firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives.

 

[hugo]

What kind of sorry **** hole does not let his pets out when his house catches fire? I guess he "forgot" they were in the house. When my house caught fire I made **** sure my dog got out. After getting the dog out I figured I better check on the wife.

 

[hugo]

Glenn Beck==warning he is not a libtard

Glenn Beck: Fireman let house burn over $75Audio Available:

October 5, 2010 - 14:52 ET

Glenn Beck is seen here on GlennBeck.TV, a feature available exclusively to Glenn Beck Insider Extreme members. Learn more...

GLENN: Homeowner Gene Cranick said he offered to pay whatever it would take for fire fighters to put out the flames, but he was told it was too late. They couldn't do anything to stop his house from burning. A county in Tennessee every year says you have to pay $75 if you want fire protection from the city of south fall ton. The Cranicks didn't play didn't pay. The mayor said if the homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck. This is what was on television the night after.

VOICE: A house goes up in flames and fire fighters don't respond, despite the homeowner's plea for help.

VOICE: I didn't pay my $75 and that's what they want, $75 and they don't care how much they burn down.

VOICE: Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department first won't respond, then watches it burn.

VOICE: That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight. A local neighborhood is furious after fire fighters watch as an Obion County Tennessee home burned to the ground. The homeowner said he offered to pay whatever it would take for fire fighters to put out the flames but was told it was too late and they wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning. Each year Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the City of South Fulton. This family did not pay and the mayor says if they don't pay, they're out of luck.

Local 6's Jason Heads joins us now with our top story tonight. Jason, we've talked about this issue before. Homes on fire but the family didn't pay the $75 fee. So, the fire department doesn't respond. What finally got those fire fighters to leave the station?

VOICE: Well, Jennifer, this fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property that the fire department would respond. It turns out the neighbor had paid the fee.

GLENN: Okay.

VOICE: I thought they would come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75.

PAT: Well, you're wrong.

GLENN: You're wrong.

Vote and Comment: Is Burning Home Sign of ‘Tea Party’ America?

PAT: Even if you pay your 75, I thought they would go ahead and put it out.

Glenn: Here's the thing. This is

PAT: And then put it out. I thought they would, but they didn't put it out.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

PAT: I wanted them to put it out, but I didn't pay $75 and they wouldn't put it out.

GLENN: Thank you. Here's the thing. Those who are just on raw feeling are not going to understand. It's $75 at the at the beginning of the year. You pay it and they put your house out. If you don't pay it, they don't put your house out.

PAT: Yeah, but I thought they were going to put the house out even though I didn't pay.

GLENN: Okay. If they did that, would anyone pay their $75?

PAT: Well, you would they would think that they were going to put it out, anyway, and when they don't come and put it out and watch your house burning to the ground, that ain't right.

GLENN: If they did if they did put the fire out and make an exception for your house and you didn't pay

PAT: Then others get bigger house put out, too. That's what the fire department does, put out fires.

GLENN: Right. They don't have the money to put the fires out. They can't keep the fire department

PAT: What's the fire department for if you don't put out fires?

GLENN: You won't have one because you can't afford it.

PAT: I thought they put out my fire even though I didn't pay the $75.

GLENN: See, this is the kind of argument that America will have.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: And it goes nowhere if you go on to well, compassion, compassion, compassion, compassion or, well, they should have put it out. What is the fire department for? No. What is the $75 for? To keep the firemen available, to keep the fire trucks running, to pay for the fire department to have people employed to put the fire out. If you don't pay your $75, then that hurts the fire department. They can't use those resources and you would be sponging off of your neighbor's $75 if you they put out your neighbor's house and you didn't pay for it I mean in your neighbor didn't pay for it, you did, and they put out their house, your neighbor is sponging off of your $75 inches and as soon as they put out the fire of somebody who didn't pay the 75 bucks, no one

GLENN: No one

PAT: will pay $275.

GLENN: Why would you pay the $75? You don't have to. They're going to put it out, anyway.

PAT: Yeah. End to the program.

GLENN: This is important for America to have this debate because, A, this is the kind of stuff that is going to happen. We are going to start to have to have these kinds of things.

Now, if you think that's insane, this is Obamacare. Obama has just changed the system. Now, ask yourself, have this debate with your friends: What happens if they put this fire out?

PAT: Well, they would have saved the house.

GLENN: Talk to me about the next time that you have to write a check for $75. When you have to write the check for the next and your neighbor's house was put out, even though they didn't pay the $75, are you going to pay the $75, especially when that $75 you can use for something else? Are you going to pay the $57? The answer, if you want to answer honestly, will be know? You will find, especially in tough times, something else to do with that $75.

Well, now, after you've answered that question about this fire insurance, let me ask you the same question about your health insurance. If you can get away with not paying for your health insurance because it's too expensive and why should you pay for it and, really, if I get sick, they'll only fine me a thousand dollars and they have to treat me, anyway, and I can just call up an insurance company if I've gotten if I have cancer and I say, Hey, I need to sign up for insurance. Well, do you have any preexisting conditions? Yes. Cancer. And they have no choice but to cover you, that's like calling 9 1 1. Well, did you pay your $75? No, but I'm going to when you get here.

PAT: Apparently they offered. Apparently they offered to pay it.

GLENN: Sure. Of course they did. That is the idea of insurance. You'll pay whatever when it happens. Well, no. Pay $75 and by paying that $75, it spreads the total out for everybody. Not everybody's house is not going to burn down and if it does, well, the fire department's not going to be able to put them all out.

STU: An important point here is that previous to the $75 policy, there was no fire coverage at all for these areas. It was a rural area and they didn't go out there for any reason, for any fire at any time. They implemented the $75 fee to give some access to fire services for these people. Before that both houses burned to the ground, both of them, and now only one of them did. So, I mean, it's a tough decision. I understand that you're there and everything else and it's a there's got to be

GLENN: There's no choice. If you put the fire out, no one will pay and then you are bankrupt and there's to pay for any fire insurance

STU: And after this everybody is paying the $75.

PAT: Everybody

STU: Everyone.

GLENN: They know.

PAT: This is the same argument that we have almost every day. It's social justice or equal justice. Equal justice is you didn't pay your 75 bucks, the house burns to the ground; because your neighbor did pay the 75 bucks, we're going to watch over their house. Social justice is, Well, your house is on fire, we're here, anyway. We're going to put it out.

GLENN: And equal justice, then requires you as somebody in the community or church or somebody else that now says we're going to help them rebuild the house, we're going to help them out, we're going to make sure they have a place to stay and a place to eat.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Social justice takes it and forces the community to do it, but real justice, real justice and real hope, real faith, real charity could have also said these guys could have come and said we know our responsibility for our house and it's $75 of the you go to the church and say, I don't have $75. Can I do anything? I'll work for the whole year on something for $75, but I want to be responsible. Can you help me pay the $75? And I know at least my church would give you they would write the check for you and then you would have to serve and you would work out of that $75. You would work at a soup kitchen or you would work at the pantry or something, that you would earn that money if it was really, truly necessary, you would person the money and they would help you do it and if your church isn't doing that, you need to talk to your church and say, Why aren't we helping each other? We've got to do these things. That's what it's about. But social justice will condemn this fire department. They will say they should have fought it. Social justice will now take it from other people and destroy the system. They will push it up to a government responsibility instead of the individual's responsibility, not just the people in the house but the neighbors and the community and the friends. That's just the way it is. $75 is a lot of money to some people, a lot of money, but if it is the house burning down, I think $75 is a reasonable amount of money to ask and say, I need help, can somebody help me with the $75? And if you if you're willing to work for it, yes, yes, $75? You can't tell your neighbors, your friends, you have no neighbors or friends that you can say, Hey, I'll do that. And can I mow your lawn for $10 this week? Can I mow your lawn for the next seven and a half weeks for $10 a week?

STU: You could probably work for the fire department to work out of $75. I mean go to them. They probably have something you could do for a weekend that would make you $75.

GLENN: You can work one shift at McDonald's that everybody likes to make fun of. Now, here is the caveat. If there is someone in the house, the fire fighters have a moral responsibility to go in and save people

STU: Yeah. You have to.

GLENN: But not stuff. As long as there's nobody in the house

PAT: What about a dog, cat, pets?

STU: Yeah. I say "yes," you've got to save the dogs.

GLENN: I say yes. It kills me, but I have

PAT: You've got to say "yes" on the dog.

GLENN: Unless it's putting the firemen in danger. I'm not going to put the house out, but I will back up the truck, let's get the dog. Let's make sure the dog is okay, unless it puts the firemen in danger. You don't risk lives for a cat or a dog a firemen.

PAT: No.

GLENN: I mean, I hate to say that because I love my dogs

STU: Oh, yeah. Human life is obviously the pentacle here. It's interesting, though. It's not cut and dry as most of these things are. You're sitting there. You have the opportunity. I mean, I would think as a policy, obviously it's, you know look. You didn't pay your money, but as you're standing there with the hose in your hands and all you've got to do is flip, you've got to think the fire fighters were very conflicted over that, standing right there.

GLENN: They have to. And fire fighters are heroes, man. They love to do this. They live for that. So, it's not the fire fighters.

In 2002 the residents of Obion County voted down a measure that would have paid for fire protection out of tax revenues.

It looks like the libtards have something against democracy.

It appears Cranick has "forgot" to pay for many years.

The good news, for the libtards, is that Obama is going to make sure all Americans have access to fore protection.

 

[jokersarewild]

That's what receipts are for.

The receipt was in the house when it burned to the ground.

Well, if it were something like that, I'd have like 5 copies made. Keep the original in a fireproof metal box. That way if anything happened, I could go "OH **** NO" and sue them so far up their *** I could see their spleen.

And those copies? See if a friend will hold one, family, etc. Do the same for them. That way you all can verify.

And yes, if they screwed that up, you'd probably lose your house. But at least you could get some money to build another one, and weren't out on the street. It would be a load of bull if such a thing happened, yes. But sh t does.

 

[jokersarewild]

To piggyback off of Hugo's posts:

So basically, the guy wanted something for nothing. He didn't pay for the protection he knew he had to in order to make sure his house didn't burn down. And now he's paying the price. It really is as simple as that.

Times, I understand your feelings here, and you're being compassionate, but compassion in cases where people have flaked on individual responsibility leads to a Welfare State, and people getting things for free from OUR tax dollars.

If he hadn't paid, then nobody would pay, as they would see no reason to. Then the FD loses the money it has to fight fires out in the boondocks, and guess what? Then nobody gets fire protection. So this **** hole either: (A) Wants everybody to pay except him, or (B ) wants nobody out there to get fire protection. Sounds like he got what he deserved.

 

[hugo]

Times, I understand your feelings here, and you're being compassionate, but compassion in cases where people have flaked on individual responsibility leads to a Welfare State, and people getting things for free from OUR tax dollars.

Compassionate conservatism is what got us 10 trillion dollars in debt. Libtardism is gonna double it.If ya gonna have government services they must be paid for. There is no free lunch.

 

[timesjoke]

Notice the libtard disagreeing with me cannot cite one example where a contract to put out a fire at the time of the fire was held as valid. Cranick was a moocher. Equivalent to an illegal alien crossing the border for healthcare. He should be shot.

There is no direct example because up to now, there has not been a need for it.

In my State we even have something called volunteer fire fighters. There is a volunteer fire fighter station about 8 miles from my main home. There is another one 16 miles from my river house. Imagine that, people working together to help community and not being motivated by greed to fight fires........I guess what is happeneing in that County is called progress to the radicals like hugo.

Anyway, I gave you several examples of how emergency services are protected by the courts. One example I offered was how a person can be life flighted and later charged with the cost of the flight "even without a contract, verbal or written". You dodged that point because you know it proves you wrong. You debate exactly like Bender, you simply ignore what proves you wrong while I address every point anyone makes.

Lots of States charge residents for fighting fires they caused such as wild fires, here is one example:

http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/CostRecovery.pdf

Hugo,

Not one person here is claiming the homeowner shoudl get fire fighting services for free. You are spending a lot of time copy/pasting (as usual) other people's words on a point not one person here is supporting.

What we have said it there should be a path that allows firefighters to remain firefighters and not buracrats. By allowing the home owner to pay a much increased fee you both fight the fire and tell the other residents that there is a huge cost for not paying the lower fee should they need fire fighting services.

There are things the city can do to make the emergency contract more solid such as letters to the residents and information in the local news papers, but there is not one Judge who would not uphold an emergency services need to act quickly to fight a fire.

Look at it this way hugo, you say the homeowner made an informed decision not to pay, so it stands to reason they would also be making an informed decision as to the greater cost for paying at the time services are needed. Most Courts take the "reasonable person" approach and paying a higer fee if you refused to pay the lower fee ahead of time is certainly reasonable.

Again, let me say that I nor anyone else wants the homeowner to get fire fighting services for free, that is not at issue or discussion here. The homeowner should pay a much higher penalty for not paying ahead of time. What I am saying is that there should be a path that allows a firefighter to fight fires, not watch as homes burn to the ground just because the home is not on a list.

If the only motivation to fight fires is for money, then something in this world is moving the wrong direction in my opinion.

 

[eddo]

Again, let me say that I nor anyone else wants the homeowner to get fire fighting services for free, that is not at issue or discussion here. The homeowner should pay a much higher penalty for not paying ahead of time.

he did pay a higher penalty.

He lost his house.

bet he pays up next time...

 

[timesjoke]

Again, let me say that I nor anyone else wants the homeowner to get fire fighting services for free, that is not at issue or discussion here. The homeowner should pay a much higher penalty for not paying ahead of time.

he did pay a higher penalty.

He lost his house.

bet he pays up next time...

True eddo, there was a huge penalty, and I am sure it was a glaring example to the rest of the County residents who don't want to pay up as well. I was trying to say that there could be some middle ground here, some place where we can say it was a bad decision not to pay the fee, and at the same time say that just watching a family home burn down is a tad harsh.

Many Countries find it very successful to punish a thief by cutting of the hands. While this method is very successful at teaching a lesson that stealing is wrong, I find that sucess in sending a message is not the only standard we should be living our life by eddo. There is more than just standing on the legality of things. Sure, I admit the firefighters and the city was well within their right to just watch the home burn, but were they showing a true spirit of community and fairness by imposing the most harsh penalty imaginable with no steps between?

I know without doubt that I could not watch a home burn and do nothing. I would help and lose my job if necessary but I would not just stand there and watch it burn down.

How about you eddo? You are the firefighter standing there watching the home burn, do you keep your hands in your pockets and refuse to help?

 

[hugo]

Actually, unless he valued his pets which I have seen little indication he did the penalty is basically the deductable on his home insurance policy and the loss of his priceless Billy Beer can collection. What surprises me is the free market does not act. That insurance companies don't require county residents to pay that fee or the fee is paid for by the insurance companies.

Boys snd girls, once you have entered an area with a governing body you are required to follow there rules. This may include having to pay for emergency services if you are injured. Now, boys and girls, if you are not in the area a governing body covers neither they, or an individual, can entice you to enter a contract while you are under duress. That is a good thing. No 10K for a drink of orange juice.

We got to 11 trillion dollars in debt mainly because of Republicans who decided taxes were bad but spending was good. The city has acted responsibly. Cranick did not. Responsibility is good. Be responsible. Don't "forget" to pay your fire protection insurance year after year after year.

The city of South Fulton has a duty to their citizens not to give services away to outsiders.