Firefighting Fee

I'm sure some of you have already seem this. I saw it a few weeks ago and meant to post it here. Thoughts? Ideas?

 

My link

shoulda paid the fee...

 

Public services aren't free.

I'm with Eddo. He knew the fee was there. I watched the news report on this story. They guy said he forgot about it.

 

Then his house burned down. I think he learned one hell of a lesson, eh?

 

Before you call the firefighters assholes, realize that they have a job to do. Their wages have to get paid. If they started working for people that didn't pay, nobody would pay. Then they couldn't eat. Then we'd have no firefighters.

 

Notice, also, the neighbor tried to give them $500 to fight the fire, and the firefighters said it was too late. Seems reprehensible, right?

 

Let me put it this way: Do you pay your car insurance right when you get in an accident? No. You make regular payments before because if they have no money to pay for your damages, then your car doesn't get fixed. Flood insurance? Homeowners insurance? Same thing. If we "forget" to pay our car insurance long enough, we aren't insured. Simple as that. That's what happened to him.

 

Pay the damn fee.

My problem with this is the people pay taxes on their land but the County does not provide any services to the residents paying their taxes. What do their property taxes go to if not for any services like fire and rescue?

 

Yes, they should have paid the $75, but I don't think you refuse to put out a fire just because they did not pay the $75. What should happen is the city should charge an elevates fee to those who use services and did not pre-pay for them.

 

 

At the end of the day I believe it is heartless to just sit there and watch a family home burn to the ground and not lift a finger just because they did not pay $75. What is more important? Humanity or a $75 fee? Is that all each of us are to the Government? If we don't give them money we are no longer entitled to be treated like a human being?

it was heartless, but it was also practical.

 

If the fire department had put the fire out, why should anyone else pay the $75 from now on? I'm not gonna pay if I know they will put my fire out either way. Your elevated fee idea won't keep the Fire Department ready and standing by if something happens. They have to be on call all the time, not just when there is a fire- and they deserve to be paid for being on call.

 

 

 

and TJ, that is an excellent point about where the county property taxes are going. I would be looking into that if this were my home.

 

 

 

On a side note, I would hope if someone's life had been in jeopardy, that steps would have been taken to protect that life. Life > property or a $75 fee.

 

but it all goes back to the owner shoulda paid the fee.

it was heartless, but it was also practical.

 

If being practical also means you have to be heartless I don't want to be practical. Humanity should be more than if you can pay a fee to a Government agency or not.

 

 

 

If the fire department had put the fire out, why should anyone else pay the $75 from now on? I'm not gonna pay if I know they will put my fire out either way. Your elevated fee idea won't keep the Fire Department ready and standing by if something happens. They have to be on call all the time, not just when there is a fire- and they deserve to be paid for being on call.

 

I still don't see your point why an elevated fee would not work. If you pay ahead of time you get a discount, if not you pay a big fee. This happens all the time in the real world.

 

Take this example, the fire fighters were out there anyway, they responded to the neighbors who did pay the fee to be sure the fire did not spread to their homes. There was no added cost to put out the fire but I do believe there should have been a higher fee for not paying ahead of time.

 

I do not believe fire fighters should be put in the possition of watching a family home burn down. This is the wrong message, we are telling everyone that the only way they matter is if they pay a fee to the Government.

 

 

and TJ, that is an excellent point about where the county property taxes are going. I would be looking into that if this were my home.

 

Me too, I am sure it is a poor County but I would think the city nearby should consider that these County residents still go to their town to spend money and buy their groceries. I would think it just reasonable to work out some agreement at the County level to provide emergency services.

 

Just because these people do not live inside the city limits, that does not mean they do not add to the economy and vitality of the city.

 

On a side note, I would hope if someone's life had been in jeopardy, that steps would have been taken to protect that life. Life > property or a $75 fee.

 

According to the City, the only way the fire department will respond is if the address is on their list of people who paid their fee, so I am assuming a child trapped in a burning building would fall under that classification too.

 

but it all goes back to the owner shoulda paid the fee.

 

True, so what is next eddo? Pay a fee for the police? Where does it end? Fighting fires and crime should be considered basic servises for society, if we are going to make these things conditional to the ability to pay seperate fees, what does that say for how we have evolved as a society?

I agree with TJ.

My problem is that fires can be very dangerous. I think a life is worth more than $75, so if I were a firefighter all I would be thinking about is a child getting trapped inside. There are a lot of counties that have a fee, but if you don't pay the small fee, they still respond and then give you a large bill. I don't see a problem with that, but not responding to a life threatening situation, even after the person has stated they will pay, seems a little extreme.

My problem is that fires can be very dangerous. I think a life is worth more than $75, so if I were a firefighter all I would be thinking about is a child getting trapped inside. There are a lot of counties that have a fee, but if you don't pay the small fee, they still respond and then give you a large bill. I don't see a problem with that, but not responding to a life threatening situation, even after the person has stated they will pay, seems a little extreme.

 

I agree with Tori. Maybe they really did forget to pay the fee, whatever the reason, it's a really high price to pay for a measly $75 bucks. It's so petty on such a grand scale to be able to help someone and just choose not to because of such a stupid technicality. Someone could have died and/or been burned badly. Would they have just watched them burn alive, too?

 

Stupid law in place preventing them or not, isn't human compassion above that? How can they watch someone's home and entire possesions burn to the ground because of something so stupid? In cases like this, they should just fine people for not paying the fee before and help them anyway. It's not like someone mentioned about insurance, this is a case where they are able to help just choose not to. Insurance is different because you really do have to pay into it to use that money later in case you need to. This is a service, that should be available to everyone. There should be a fee for not paying timely and an even higher fee on top of that when you didn't pay and were helped anyways. It would suck, but still be better than losing everything, including possibly your life.

I agree with Chi. It takes a special breed of person to stand there watching while someone loses everything just for spite.

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.

 

"Everyone is entitled to firefighting services"-- Adolf Hitler

 

People that disagree with me agree with Hitler.

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.

 

 

Now we have fire fighters being buracratic pencil pushers and refusing to help families if their name is not on a list. You like names on lists Hugo? Interesting you mention Hitler, he liked to put names on lists too......

My problem is that fires can be very dangerous. I think a life is worth more than $75, so if I were a firefighter all I would be thinking about is a child getting trapped inside. There are a lot of counties that have a fee, but if you don't pay the small fee, they still respond and then give you a large bill. I don't see a problem with that, but not responding to a life threatening situation, even after the person has stated they will pay, seems a little extreme.

 

I agree with Tori. Maybe they really did forget to pay the fee, whatever the reason, it's a really high price to pay for a measly $75 bucks. It's so petty on such a grand scale to be able to help someone and just choose not to because of such a stupid technicality. Someone could have died and/or been burned badly. Would they have just watched them burn alive, too?

 

Stupid law in place preventing them or not, isn't human compassion above that? How can they watch someone's home and entire possesions burn to the ground because of something so stupid? In cases like this, they should just fine people for not paying the fee before and help them anyway. It's not like someone mentioned about insurance, this is a case where they are able to help just choose not to. Insurance is different because you really do have to pay into it to use that money later in case you need to. This is a service, that should be available to everyone. There should be a fee for not paying timely and an even higher fee on top of that when you didn't pay and were helped anyways. It would suck, but still be better than losing everything, including possibly your life.

 

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.

 

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?

Yeah..Jokers right..just let them burn. Oh...and seig heil Hugo

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

My problem is that fires can be very dangerous. I think a life is worth more than $75, so if I were a firefighter all I would be thinking about is a child getting trapped inside. There are a lot of counties that have a fee, but if you don't pay the small fee, they still respond and then give you a large bill. I don't see a problem with that, but not responding to a life threatening situation, even after the person has stated they will pay, seems a little extreme.

 

I agree with Tori. Maybe they really did forget to pay the fee, whatever the reason, it's a really high price to pay for a measly $75 bucks. It's so petty on such a grand scale to be able to help someone and just choose not to because of such a stupid technicality. Someone could have died and/or been burned badly. Would they have just watched them burn alive, too?

 

Stupid law in place preventing them or not, isn't human compassion above that? How can they watch someone's home and entire possesions burn to the ground because of something so stupid? In cases like this, they should just fine people for not paying the fee before and help them anyway. It's not like someone mentioned about insurance, this is a case where they are able to help just choose not to. Insurance is different because you really do have to pay into it to use that money later in case you need to. This is a service, that should be available to everyone. There should be a fee for not paying timely and an even higher fee on top of that when you didn't pay and were helped anyways. It would suck, but still be better than losing everything, including possibly your life.

 

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.

 

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?

 

Take whatever recourses they have to make them pay. Put them in jail, make them do community service, whatever. But I would think none of that would be necessary out of a family that would be so grateful that their home and life(s) were saved, that paying a stupid fee and penalty would be the first order of thanks they would be more than willing to do.

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.

 

 

Now we have fire fighters being buracratic pencil pushers and refusing to help families if their name is not on a list. You like names on lists Hugo? Interesting you mention Hitler, he liked to put names on lists too......

 

gasp I agree with TJ.

Take whatever recourses they have to make them pay.

 

they did. they let their house burn.

 

 

Bet they pay the $75 fee on the next house. Bet those others that hadn't paid up have done so as well.

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 Decree

by 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 Nazi 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.

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 Decree

by 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 Nazi 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:

[attach=full]3049[/attach]

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?

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.

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.

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 damn 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.