Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

How do you feel about this?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ How do you feel about this?
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:10 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;507880 wrote:"Their duty is to react to a fire situation on the property of a paid owner in this situation"

So if my neighbor is delinquent in his property taxes, the city FD won't put out a fire in his house until it spreads on to my property?

I'm not arguing that is your position. It is just a question.

I think that would be the difference in funding protective services and flat out paying for fire protection. Taxes help to fund our protective services and other public services afforded to all citizens by the city, in this situation the residents are paying for "fire protection". I'm certainly no expert on city gov'ts, so I could be wrong. It would be interesting to see how the tax system is set up in this town/county. Do they give citizens the option of paying so that they can have a lower property tax rate??
Oct 5, 2010 11:10am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:14 AM
FatHobbit;507792 wrote:After thinking about it some more, I think they could have put out the fire but they should have charged him a lot more than $75.
se-alum;507797 wrote:So he shouldn't be held responsible for his decision not to pay??
Con_Alma;507870 wrote:In my community you can do exactly that Belly. You can choose to pay annually $150.00 for EMS services. If you choose not to you pay the true cost of services provided when/if you are need.

Con_Alma said it better than I did. If you have a heart attack and no insurance they don't deny you medical help, they just charge you the full amount. They should have put out the fire out and then charged this guy whatever the full amount was for the services he should have already paid for. I don't think just the hourly rate of the firefighters would be sufficient. They should also include the cost of the equipment and training that the firefighters have had as well.
Oct 5, 2010 11:14am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:20 AM
FatHobbit;507903 wrote:Con_Alma said it better than I did. If you have a heart attack and no insurance they don't deny you medical help, they just charge you the full amount. They should have put out the fire out and then charged this guy whatever the full amount was for the services he should have already paid for. I don't think just the hourly rate of the firefighters would be sufficient. They should also include the cost of the equipment and training that the firefighters have had as well.
Completely agree. I don't know if I would call that scenario a "win-win" rather than calling it a "making the best out of a bad situation." But the article positions a "lose-lose" situation. The dude lost his house. And the authorities look like cretins for ignoring 9-11 calls and being non-responsive. The article seemed to have a bit of a bias, so certainly it is difficult to really to tell what happened - but seems like a lot of waste.
Oct 5, 2010 11:20am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:36 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;507906 wrote:Completely agree. I don't know if I would call that scenario a "win-win" rather than calling it a "making the best out of a bad situation." But the article positions a "lose-lose" situation. The dude lost his house. And the authorities look like cretins for ignoring 9-11 calls and being non-responsive. The article seemed to have a bit of a bias, so certainly it is difficult to really to tell what happened - but seems like a lot of waste.

Yep. There doesn't seem to be a likely moral high-ground here.
Oct 5, 2010 11:36am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:47 AM
If the City appears immoral for not responding doesn't the homeowner also appear immoral for his lack of willingness to help fund civil services in his area?
Oct 5, 2010 11:47am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:50 AM
Con_Alma;507936 wrote:If the City appears immoral for not responding doesn't the homeowner also appear immoral for his lack of willingness to help fund civil services in his area?

Yes, but it appears the homeowner got punished a bit more. The FD will likely get some negative media attention (deservedly or not), but in the 24/7 news cycle it will blow over.

Homeower lost everything.
Oct 5, 2010 11:50am
-Society-'s avatar

-Society-

Senior Member

1,348 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:53 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;507941 wrote:Yes, but it appears the homeowner got punished a bit more. The FD will likely get some negative media attention (deservedly or not), but in the 24/7 news cycle it will blow over.

Homeower lost everything.

He didn't lose his life.
Oct 5, 2010 11:53am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:55 AM
-Society-;507944 wrote:He didn't lose his life.

LOL indeed, but if he was in the home, would the FD have put out the fire! Or would they have stuck to their $75 principles?
Oct 5, 2010 11:55am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:55 AM
No doubt in my mind the homeowner lost the most.

My point or question related to what I thought was going to be an insistence that the fire department had a moral responsibility to act. I might agree that they do but unless the FD had reason to believe a life was immanently in danger I think the lack of moral fortitude existed on the part of the homeowner.
Oct 5, 2010 11:55am
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:55 AM
Here is the property tax table for Obion County.

http://www.comptroller1.state.tn.us/PAnew/CountyAssessmentSummary.asp?c=066

I honestly don't know much about property taxes, so maybe this sheds some light on the situation or maybe not.
Oct 5, 2010 11:55am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:59 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;507946 wrote:LOL indeed, but if he was in the home, would the FD have put out the fire! Or would they have stuck to their $75 principles?

Ahhh, here's another way to twist this....If the FD knew that a life was not in danger do they have an obligation to risk their own to put a fire out on a house that the owner opted to not pay for services to protect it?
Oct 5, 2010 11:59am
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Oct 5, 2010 12:00 PM
Con_Alma;507953 wrote:Ahhh, here's another way to twist this....If the FD knew that a life was not in danger do they have an obligation to risk their own to put a fire out on a house that the owner opted to not pay for services to protect it?
And if a firefighter was injured or killed while putting out said fire, does the homeowner have liability in the injury or death??
Oct 5, 2010 12:00pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 12:10 PM
"If the FD knew that a life was not in danger do they have an obligation to risk their own to put a fire out on a house that the owner opted to not pay for services to protect it? "

A fair point, but taking the story at face value that isn't what happened. This is some pretty bad inaction if accurate:

"They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come."

"It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded."

That is pretty nasty stuff. again the article doesn't need to be given 100% credibility.
Oct 5, 2010 12:10pm
Fab1b's avatar

Fab1b

The Bald A-Hole!!

12,949 posts
Oct 5, 2010 12:13 PM
Another question I have then about this; when a person calls 911 or the FD for FD assistance with a fire do they first pull up some sort of database to see if they paid? I mean how does this work?
Oct 5, 2010 12:13pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 12:14 PM
Manhattan

No. no. I hope I didn't come across as my hypothetical being part of the above case. It was really just a different way / an opposite view to your question of what would the FD have done if the owner was still inside.
Oct 5, 2010 12:14pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 12:14 PM
Fab1b;507983 wrote:Another question I have then about this; when a person calls 911 or the FD for FD assistance with a fire do they first pull up some sort of database to see if they paid?

I would bet that they do.

If they don't why would anyone pay??
Oct 5, 2010 12:14pm
-Society-'s avatar

-Society-

Senior Member

1,348 posts
Oct 5, 2010 12:16 PM
Fab1b;507983 wrote:Another question I have then about this; when a person calls 911 or the FD for FD assistance with a fire do they first pull up some sort of database to see if they paid? I mean how does this work?

I'm sure once they pull up their address it alerts them right away, at least I would hope.
Oct 5, 2010 12:16pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 12:21 PM
Fab1b;507983 wrote:Another question I have then about this; when a person calls 911 or the FD for FD assistance with a fire do they first pull up some sort of database to see if they paid? I mean how does this work?

It is a very good question, and is why my Spidey sense tells me there is a LOT more to this story. I've been fortunate to have only called 9-11 once, and given that the emergency was 300 miles away, I wasn't even a taxpayer in the jurisdiction. The authorities still responded. Perhaps fires are different, but I'm unsure why.
Oct 5, 2010 12:21pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Oct 5, 2010 1:04 PM
Couple of other things to consider.

1. Not all fire departments and ambulance services are publicly funded. There are many private companies and paying city taxes doesn't mean squat.
2. In Ohio, a township that doesn't have it's own department will typically contract with a neighboring township or city fire department for it's fire protection. In that case, I believe a portion of your property tax goes to the township, which in turn helps pay for the fire protection.

Now, the situation of charging individual property owners rather than a township for fire protection is more common than you may think. Not necessarily here, but across the country. This topic comes up here and there in the fire service. Another similar situation that occurs is when 2 neighboring departments are feuding and will not allow the other to respond to their fires. So a department gets wrongly dispatched to house just across their border and they won't do anything. Yes, it's happened.

It's sad for the homeowner, but at the same time I have trouble feeling sorry for them.

With that said, I am a volunteer firefighter and I cannot see us allowing this to happen. We'd put the fire out and worry about the rest later.
Oct 5, 2010 1:04pm
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Oct 5, 2010 1:34 PM
I just talked to a friend of mine who is a volunteer firefighter. He had a good point. Imagine that the fire dept did go to put out this fire for someone who hasn't been paying. While they are there someone else, who did pay for this service, has a fire and the fire fighters are all busy responding to this fire while the paying person's house burns.
Oct 5, 2010 1:34pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 2:51 PM
But they didn't go out to put out the fire, they went out and watched it. They'd still miss another fire in another neighborhood, presumedly.
Oct 5, 2010 2:51pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 2:58 PM
BTW, good arguments here on both sides.

I guess I don't understand why when many normal citizens would do everything possible to help their neighbors even without being paid or otherwise part of a public service organization - that those involved in public service don't act. My neighbors don't pay me $75/year for anything, but if their house was on fire I'd do anything safely possible to put out the fire even if it cost me $75 in water bills to hose it down.
Oct 5, 2010 2:58pm
S

Sonofanump

Oct 5, 2010 9:07 PM
I wonder how many will now forgo not paying the fee?
Oct 5, 2010 9:07pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Oct 5, 2010 9:11 PM
Put the fire out and bill the people the full cost of the operation not just $75 if you want. (This is what the family tried to have them do). But not putting out the fire is not the righ thing to do.
Oct 5, 2010 9:11pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Oct 5, 2010 9:12 PM
FatHobbit;508095 wrote:I just talked to a friend of mine who is a volunteer firefighter. He had a good point. Imagine that the fire dept did go to put out this fire for someone who hasn't been paying. While they are there someone else, who did pay for this service, has a fire and the fire fighters are all busy responding to this fire while the paying person's house burns.
Do they not have radios?
Oct 5, 2010 9:12pm