In the news today

[DeathscytheVII]

Shouldn't they put out the fire, then charge the guy the $11,000? Sure the guy tried to cheat the system, but firefighters should still stop the fire because it is a hazard to the neighbourhood, plus the potential for people being trapped inside. A person's life is not worth less than a $75 monthly fee.

I liken this scenario to a hiker getting lost in the wilderness. They call for a rescue chopper. The chopper has to get them since they are in the business of saving lives, but the hiker is billed for the rescue for being a dumb ass.

[UChessmaster]

If they put out the fire, then other people would ask for the same treatment, thus rendering the whole system useless, when the fire spreaded to a neighboors house then they took action (neighboor payed his tax), there was no one at the house, from what i understand, they have the obligation to save a persons life even if they didn`t payed the 75$.

Which begs the question, what if they refuse to put down a fire and the owner decides to jump into the fire filled house?

[Carnage]

there was no one at the house, from what i understand

I believe there were 3 puppies inside, if I'm not mistaken

If they put out the fire, then other people would ask for the same treatment, thus rendering the whole system useless,

Not if, as Deathscythe said, the guy paid $11,000 for them to save him. The people would really take the lesson as to rather just pay the $75 up front.

[Uchiha Barles]

Shouldn't they put out the fire, then charge the guy the $11,000? Sure the guy tried to cheat the system, but firefighters should still stop the fire because it is a hazard to the neighbourhood, plus the potential for people being trapped inside. A person's life is not worth less than a $75 monthly fee.

I liken this scenario to a hiker getting lost in the wilderness. They call for a rescue chopper. The chopper has to get them since they are in the business of saving lives, but the hiker is billed for the rescue for being a dumb ass.

There's one important similarity between this and the hiker scenario. You have to opt in to both services. When you go hiking, there are a few forms and wavers you're supposed to fill out letting the authorities know you're in the woods, how long you're going to be there, what trails you're planning to take, etc. There are also a few lines on those forms telling you the consequences of needing to be rescued, assuming you avoid death. If no one knows you're in the woods, you can't quite be rescued should you need it.

I'm with the firefighters on this. It is absolutely infuriating when people willingly ignore the importance of things, and behave as if there are no consequences for doing so. As a society, we're desperately in need of a sense of logic and accountability. Do A), and B) will happen. You deserve it. Do not do A), and B) will not happen. You deserve it. I understand how people may feel about human life and its importance, but I also see how the lack of these senses negatively impact human life.

[Animeniax]

Shouldn't they put out the fire, then charge the guy the $11,000? Sure the guy tried to cheat the system, but firefighters should still stop the fire because it is a hazard to the neighbourhood, plus the potential for people being trapped inside. A person's life is not worth less than a $75 monthly fee.

I liken this scenario to a hiker getting lost in the wilderness. They call for a rescue chopper. The chopper has to get them since they are in the business of saving lives, but the hiker is billed for the rescue for being a dumb ass.

It's a rural area so the neighborhood probably consists of 5 houses in a square mile.

Search and rescue is different from other public utilities. S&R deals with life-threatening situations. Fire departments are called out for all kinds of menial tasks (like getting a cat out of a tree). If there is no loss of life involved, then it's a paid service, so if you don't pay, you don't get served. This is particularly so for rural areas outside of municipal jurisdictions.

[Ryllharu]

Shouldn't they put out the fire, then charge the guy the $11,000? Sure the guy tried to cheat the system, but firefighters should still stop the fire because it is a hazard to the neighbourhood, plus the potential for people being trapped inside. A person's life is not worth less than a $75 monthly fee.

The fire department is legally obligated to protect human lives. They are not legally obligated to save property or pets, which is what happened.

Not if, as Deathscythe said, the guy paid $11,000 for them to save him. The people would really take the lesson as to rather just pay the $75 up front.

No, they wouldn't take the lesson to heart. It's simple, most people just wouldn't pay that either. Once their house is safe, what do they care? Default on the payment, declare bankruptcy, whatever. Fire Departments can't afford the time and additional money it would take to get them to actually pay up.

The only way you could incorporate that kind of solution is to have the fire dept put a lien on the house, and that's not much of a solution either. The fire department doesn't want to end up owning a half-dozen half-burnt homes.

Not all national parks charge to helicopter rides either, so that is sort of a poor analogy. That recently became an news issue too, when one group of unprepared yuppies called the park service three times, twice because they got themselves lost, and a third time because they freaked out when their water tasted a little salty. Like the firefighters, they can't take the risk of NOT responding in order to save lives. They take stupid risks, but the rescue services can't afford not to. In this fire fighting instance, they could afford not to take any further risk, no additional human beings were inside the house.

[Kraco]

I find it a bit strange that if a rotten tree falls on you and you break a leg, the emergency service would award you with a 5000 dollars bill for saving you (doing their job). I do understand that finding some punks who simply set out ill prepared and think they got lost would be another matter.

[Assertn]

The 11000 would be a decent fine to someone who was negligent, but I'm sure in the grand scheme of things the fire department would be far less funded if they only made 11,000 for each fire they put out, rather than 75 per year per household under their supervision.

[Animeniax]

The 11000 would be a decent fine to someone who was negligent, but I'm sure in the grand scheme of things the fire department would be far less funded if they only made 11,000 for each fire they put out, rather than 75 per year per household under their supervision.

I think the $75 per family is only for the rural families outside the normal service area, and that's a small number of customers relative to the thousands they service in the city who pay for services through taxes.

[Carnage]

and that's a small number of customers relative to the thousands they service in the city who pay for services through taxes.

So in the end it wouldnt make a big difference if they had just allowed the guy to pay the $11,000 fee since there really doesnt need to be a message sent, SINCE they get most of their money through taxes.

[Ryllharu]

So in the end it wouldnt make a big difference if they had just allowed the guy to pay the $11,000 fee since there really doesnt need to be a message sent, SINCE they get most of their money through taxes.

Taxes from their home municipality. The house that burnt down does not reside in the town where the fire department is funded by taxes. That's the whole idea behind the annual fee.

Financially disadvantaged family hasn't been paying the annual $75. House catches on fire, fire department comes, bills them for $11,000. They don't pay it, or simply can't afford it. Suddenly the fire dept is doing work unfunded. Others follow suit, do the same thing. If the fire dept can't collect, they're working unfunded. I fail to see why this is hard to understand.

Fire dept runs out of funds working in a different town that refuses to fund them through taxes of their own. Which the fee essential is, it is an opt-in tax.

Option A: Increase taxes on their home municipality, now one town is funding the rural one, who gets services for free.
Option B: Stop ever coming to rural area, houses burn to the ground, people die.
Option C: Close fire dept, both towns' houses burn to the ground, people die.

The answer is going to be Option B.

Conclusion: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Either pay the fee, or vote for a new fire house (volunteer likely) funded by taxes.

[Marik]

Hotelier leaves home for a week so it can be decorated . . . then 15 jobless Italian squatters move in

And the police can't do anything to stop them.

[Splash!]

Taxes from their home municipality. The house that burnt down does not reside in the town where the fire department is funded by taxes. That's the whole idea behind the annual fee.

Financially disadvantaged family hasn't been paying the annual $75. House catches on fire, fire department comes, bills them for $11,000. They don't pay it, or simply can't afford it. Suddenly the fire dept is doing work unfunded. Others follow suit, do the same thing. If the fire dept can't collect, they're working unfunded. I fail to see why this is hard to understand.

Fire dept runs out of funds working in a different town that refuses to fund them through taxes of their own. Which the fee essential is, it is an opt-in tax.

Option A: Increase taxes on their home municipality, now one town is funding the rural one, who gets services for free.
Option B: Stop ever coming to rural area, houses burn to the ground, people die.
Option C: Close fire dept, both towns' houses burn to the ground, people die.

The answer is going to be Option B.

Conclusion: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Either pay the fee, or vote for a new fire house (volunteer likely) funded by taxes.

No, option B pretty asinine. We are talking about someone's house burning down here, which is an emergency service. You should put out the fire first and ask questions later, even if the person whose property you are saving is a dick. If you are worried about the "message it would send to other people", then also consider the message being sent out when the fire authorities just sit by and do nothing as someone's house burns down (even if it is within their means). It creates a lack of trust.

If people not paying is resulting in serious underfunding as you say, then there are better ways to resolve the problem. Maybe some sort of contractual mechanism whereby, if you have not been making your payments, and request a fire to be put out, any property saved can be used as collateral if the the service is not paid for after the fact. Of course, there might be other loose ends to tie in this scenario, but still, a complicated situation like this demands a slightly more refined solution, not just "no money, burn in hell". Option B is screwing over people that actually might have a change of heart after having their house saved and decide to pay (especially if their house is worth more than $11,000).

Yes, there should be serious repercussions for those who refuse to pay after having their house saved. Maybe more effort should be spent on accountability, rather than resorting to oversimplified and selfish solutions because lack of accountability is assumed to be a general and immutable fact.

[fahoumh]

Hotelier leaves home for a week so it can be decorated . . . then 15 jobless Italian squatters move in

And the police can't do anything to stop them.

That is totally fucked. I would burn the house down if I were the owner....with the squatters in there, preferably. Just because you have no money doesn't give you the right to take the property of someone else.

[Ryllharu]

No, option B pretty asinine. We are talking about someone's house burning down here, which is an emergency service. You should put out the fire first and ask questions later, even if the person whose property you are saving is a dick. If you are worried about the "message it would send to other people", then also consider the message being sent out when the fire authorities just sit by and do nothing as someone's house burns down (even if it is within their means). It creates a lack of trust.

If people not paying is resulting in serious underfunding as you say, then there are better ways to resolve the problem. Maybe some sort of contractual mechanism whereby, if you have not been making your payments, and request a fire to be put out, any property saved can be used as collateral if the the service is not paid for after the fact. Of course, there might be other loose ends to tie in this scenario, but still, a complicated situation like this demands a slightly more refined solution, not just "no money, burn in hell". Option B is screwing over people that actually might have a change of heart after having their house saved and decide to pay (especially if their house is worth more than $11,000).

Yes, there should be serious repercussions for those who refuse to pay after having their house saved. Maybe more effort should be spent on accountability, rather than resorting to oversimplified and selfish solutions because lack of accountability is assumed to be a general and immutable fact.

You're not understanding the situation. First and foremost, regardless of the fee, they are obligated to save human lives...and that is where their job ends if they haven't been paying the fee. People saved? House can burn down. The property is never a priority. Only lives. Property protection costs money and comes with an increased risk, one that the city cannot afford if they aren't being funded, which the rural area is paying for only on a case-by-case basis.

This is like Toronto's fire department putting out fires in all of Ontario or New York City putting out fires in all of upstate NY. They are in no way obligated to provide service to this rural municipality, they do it as a favor, for a small annual fee that covers the costs in a premiums/incident style, similar to auto-insurance or life-insurance (or Health Care in the US).

The fire department must never get involved in debt collection. That isn't their job, they have better things to do (using all their funds to save lives), so an after-the-fact "business model" can not exist. Not to mention the historical repercussions of a suddenly "private" fire house now functionally saving houses and lives as part of a services-rendered model. The last time the US had that, we had a whole lot more fireman-arsonists.

People were not paying in the rural area because they are fucking cheap. They voted AGAINST a fire dept in their own municipality for the last decade or more. This man helped to create this problem, he chose to not pay the fee, their lives were saved, and his house burned. There's no room for a change of heart just because the fate you gambled against occurred. That man CHOSE to keep his money, and only relented when he suddenly needed the service he believed he never needed.

It's called owning up to the decisions you willingly made. "You made the bed, now sleep in it."


It's this kind of behavior that got us into the current economic crisis and subsequent bailouts. When there is no downside to taking a risk because someone will always cover everything in case the gamble goes poorly, everyone will take the risk to excess because there is literally nothing to lose. Seriously...fuck that. It's called taking responsibility, and part of being an adult member of society.

[Carnage]

You're not understanding the situation. First and foremost, regardless of the fee, they are obligated to save human lives...and that is where their job ends if they haven't been paying the fee. People saved? House can burn down. The property is never a priority. Only lives.

There were pets in the house.

[Ryllharu]

Pets are not humans. Cruel as it is, that's the way things are. Humans are considered "essential" lives, animals are not.

No firefighter (possibly with a family of his/her own to provide for) should risk their life for a household pet.

[Carnage]

Pets are not humans. Cruel as it is, that's the way things are. Humans are considered "essential" lives, animals are not.

No firefighter (possibly with a family of his/her own to provide for) should risk their life for a household pet.

Wooooow.

[Splash!]

The fire department must never get involved in debt collection. That isn't their job, they have better things to do (using all their funds to save lives), so an after-the-fact "business model" can not exist.

They shouldn't be ones worrying about debt collection, but someone ought to put laws in place so that firemen can put out a fire whenever they want to without having to check up on whose been paying the bills. By that I mean, if they put out a fire in such a situation, then the person is seriously liable for covering their costs.

It's called owning up to the decisions you willingly made. "You made the bed, now sleep in it."

It's this kind of behavior that got us into the current economic crisis and subsequent bailouts. When there is no downside to taking a risk because someone will always cover everything in case the gamble goes poorly, everyone will take the risk to excess because there is literally nothing to lose. Seriously...fuck that. It's called taking responsibility, and part of being an adult member of society.

I KNOW, thats why I am saying... If there was a concept of economic accountability and "DEBT=bad", this really wouldn't be much of an issue.

A person who doesn't pay a monthly premium should be able to ask for one time help to put out a fire and it is perfectly acceptable so long as that person covers the cost later. The real problem is that they should not be allowed default on something they are liable for. You are just venting on the wrong issue.

Dont compare the bailout to this. A fire is still a freak accident. I would fully support bailing out critical companies if they failed by some 'freak accident'. That really wasn't the case. The whole bailout situation is actually tantamount to someone playing with fireworks everyday and setting their house on fire, having the firemen put it out, and then not covering their costs later.

[XanBcoo]

They shouldn't be ones worrying about debt collection, but someone ought to put laws in place so that firemen can put out a fire whenever they want to without having to check up on whose been paying the bills. By that I mean, if they put out a fire in such a situation, then the person is seriously liable for covering their costs.

He's already addressed this point. I don't think you're fully understanding the issue.

People were not paying in the rural area because they are fucking cheap. They voted AGAINST a fire dept in their own municipality for the last decade or more. This man helped to create this problem, he chose to not pay the fee, their lives were saved, and his house burned. There's no room for a change of heart just because the fate you gambled against occurred. That man CHOSE to keep his money, and only relented when he suddenly needed the service he believed he never needed.