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?
iclfan2's avatar

iclfan2

Reppin' the 330/216/843

6,360 posts
Oct 5, 2010 9:50 PM
I feel bad, but the rules are the rules. Nobody bends them for me, so I don't feel bad when they knew the consequences ahead of time.
Oct 5, 2010 9:50pm
Z

Zombaypirate

Senior Member

581 posts
Oct 5, 2010 9:57 PM
derek bomar;507743 wrote:http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

part of me thinks the people shoulda paid the fee...but the other part of me is kinda irked that the firefighters actually wouldn't put out a fire...much like Natalie Imbruglia, I'm torn.

Idiotic policy. Should have been worded like this. You have the option to pay $75.00 for fire protection, however if you choose to not accept we must PROTECT the other homes and you will be billed $3000.00 if your home must be put out and you are not part of the program.

People and community need to be first. This is where a Republican county fails miserably.
Oct 5, 2010 9:57pm
Fab1b's avatar

Fab1b

The Bald A-Hole!!

12,949 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:01 PM
^Keep the politics out of it. Well you know what I am saying, it is political I am sure the reason they have to pay but don't attack either party here, it was the homeowner's fault for not paying!
Oct 5, 2010 10:01pm
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Oct 5, 2010 11:14 PM
Zombaypirate;508714 wrote:Idiotic policy. Should have been worded like this. You have the option to pay $75.00 for fire protection, however if you choose to not accept we must PROTECT the other homes and you will be billed $3000.00 if your home must be put out and you are not part of the program.

People and community need to be first. This is where a Republican county fails miserably.
what happens when they dont pay you $3,000? do you get to burn their next house down?

but of course, blame the policy, not the idiots who didnt pay $75.
Oct 5, 2010 11:14pm
Z

Zombaypirate

Senior Member

581 posts
Oct 6, 2010 6:05 AM
Glory Days;508846 wrote:what happens when they dont pay you $3,000? do you get to burn their next house down?

but of course, blame the policy, not the idiots who didnt pay $75.

Garnish wages keep tax returns etc. You do not endanger others property, protecting people and property should be of first concern.

The policy is idiotic and put others and their properties in danger.
Oct 6, 2010 6:05am
Fly4Fun's avatar

Fly4Fun

Senior Member

7,730 posts
Oct 6, 2010 7:13 AM
The fire department should have definitely attempted to put out the fire. I doubt the fire department would have trouble receiving restitution or restitution on a realiance level of recovery in this situation. Argue a contract implied at law (quasi-contract) and go from there.

This would be akin to a doctor seeing an person being injured severely and knocked unconscious and unable to agree to a contract for service of medical aid. But a contract can be implied at law and the Dr. can recover monetary award for the value of the benefit received (restitution) or the normal compensation of his services (restitution at reliance level).

Heck, even in this situation the guy was there, I'm sure they could come to a quick verbal agreement regarding some kind of fee.

This is completely ridiculous on the fire department's part assuming there is not more to the story.
Oct 6, 2010 7:13am
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Oct 6, 2010 4:01 PM
Zombaypirate;508948 wrote:Garnish wages keep tax returns etc. You do not endanger others property, protecting people and property should be of first concern.

The policy is idiotic and put others and their properties in danger.

the policy is known to the public who live there. idiotic or not it comes down to personal responsibility for their actions(or inactions in this case). people seem to think they can always be the exception.

I wonder how long this policy has been in place for?
Oct 6, 2010 4:01pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Oct 7, 2010 8:41 AM
I was wondering if the insurance company would cover costs:

the Cranicks have received several thousand dollars from the insurance company to cover immediate costs and that plans have been made to cover all damage and property losses.
Oct 7, 2010 8:41am
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Oct 7, 2010 9:33 AM
Glory Days;509521 wrote:the policy is known to the public who live there. idiotic or not it comes down to personal responsibility for their actions(or inactions in this case). people seem to think they can always be the exception.

I wonder how long this policy has been in place for?
People shouldn't be held responsible for their actions!! I mean, the guy had a big decision to make, either pay $75 to protect your home from fire or don't pay the fee and let your house burn to the ground! Talk about tough decisions!! We, as a people, should bail out ignorance!!!

On a serious note, it would take me about 2 seconds to make the decision to pay the $75.
Oct 7, 2010 9:33am
Fab4Runner's avatar

Fab4Runner

Tits McGee

6,196 posts
Oct 7, 2010 9:35 AM
How is it bailing them out if they would end up paying far more to have the fire put out? They're still being held responsible just in a different way.
Oct 7, 2010 9:35am
M

mhs95_06

Senior Member

8,167 posts
Oct 7, 2010 10:17 AM
So is the database that shows who paid and who didn't made available to the insurance companies who insure the homes in the area outside of South Fulton so they can adjust the individual homeowners fire insurance rates based on whether or not they paid the $75 subscription fee? The insurance companies are falling asleep at the switch if they do not have separate rate structures for the paid and unpaid. I wonder if the difference is greater than $75?
Oct 7, 2010 10:17am
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Oct 7, 2010 10:21 AM
Fab4Runner;510360 wrote:How is it bailing them out if they would end up paying far more to have the fire put out? They're still being held responsible just in a different way.
It's bailing out blatant ignorance by allowing them to be responsible after the fact. Honestly, if you were given the option to pay $75 for fire protection or risk the chance of your house burning down, how long would it take you to make that decision?? Also, I'm sure that $75 is used to help fund the FD, these people not paying could possibly risk the lives of their neighbors if the FD is not funded properly. Now if you let them get away with paying after the fact, nobody pays the $75 and the FD is underfunded because you're spending years in the legal/insurance system trying to recover restitution for a fire 3 years ago. It was ignorant and irresponsible of these people not to pay the money.
Oct 7, 2010 10:21am
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Oct 7, 2010 3:55 PM
Not only that, but what happens if equipment or god forbid a fire fighter is hurt or killed putting out a fire outside their jurisidiction? what if their insurance or whatever doesnt cover them for that?
Oct 7, 2010 3:55pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 7, 2010 4:07 PM
se-alum;510402 wrote:It's bailing out blatant ignorance by allowing them to be responsible after the fact. Honestly, if you were given the option to pay $75 for fire protection or risk the chance of your house burning down, how long would it take you to make that decision?? Also, I'm sure that $75 is used to help fund the FD, these people not paying could possibly risk the lives of their neighbors if the FD is not funded properly. Now if you let them get away with paying after the fact, nobody pays the $75 and the FD is underfunded because you're spending years in the legal/insurance system trying to recover restitution for a fire 3 years ago. It was ignorant and irresponsible of these people not to pay the money.

I agree with most of this, if we were talking about private companies that compete with each other to put out fires, but that isn't the case here. It appears to be a public service department, that didn't perform its public service.
Oct 7, 2010 4:07pm
C

clickclickboom

Senior Member

242 posts
Oct 7, 2010 5:57 PM
PAY THE DAMN FEE!!! you cant just dodge it for years thinkin nothins gunna happen to your house.. if they woulda put out the fire noone would pay the fee anymore
Oct 7, 2010 5:57pm
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Oct 7, 2010 6:19 PM
Manhattan Buckeye;510824 wrote:I agree with most of this, if we were talking about private companies that compete with each other to put out fires, but that isn't the case here. It appears to be a public service department, that didn't perform its public service.

a public service department for the City of South Fulton, not somewhere 30 miles outside the city, not covered by the tax payers of South Fulton.
Oct 7, 2010 6:19pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Oct 8, 2010 3:07 PM
Glory Days;510930 wrote:a public service department for the City of South Fulton, not somewhere 30 miles outside the city, not covered by the tax payers of South Fulton.

Right. They don't owe anything except to the people who pay taxes to the town they are funded by.
Oct 8, 2010 3:07pm