Firefighters let house burn because owners did not pay fee

[Bill the Cat]

Fire Departments should put out fires. Period.

[Darth Executor]

I personally think its a travesty that emergency services are billed by that jurisdiction.

By what jurisdiction? If they're in the middle of nowhere like the article implies, they don't have any local fire department.

That is one of the things that government should do without hesitation. It is in the public good that fires be put out. The costs for the fire department should be included in the county property taxes. They should NOT be billed separately.

If you choose to live in the middle of nowhere and the middle of nowhere is not under any fire department's jurisdiction,you're on your own. You'll have to provide for your own fire safety (or pay someone to do it, like this guy should have done instead of thinking he can get away with fleecing other people of 75 dollars).

[Darth Executor]

If he did as you said and made an individual, deliberate, long term decision not to subscribe to the services, then I might agree. However, the original article seems to indicate that he had missed a single payment.

No it doesn't. Quite the opposite, it indicates the owner thought he could get away with not paying it because he's quoted as having figured they'd come anyway. Nowhere does the article says he "missed a payment", it just says he didn't pay the fee.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sent him a bill for the total cost of the service, not just the 75 dollar fee that everyone else chipped into for pooled service.

That would be a good solution. It is what happens somewhat when a person lets their house go to pot, when the city demolishes it, they charge the person for the service.

Additionally, if this guy had a mortgage (and who doesn't these days, very few), I bet that his mortgage company required him to pay the fire fee.

[Bill the Cat]

The fee was stupid. The county commissioner earlier this year overturned a resolution that would have established a county fire department. This woul dhave qualified the county for FEMA monies totalling in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the establishment and support of the fire department to provide a public good that the private sector is simply not capable of doing on their own.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thank you.



Thankfully.



I find this to be an interesting ethical issue. If you have the ability to help someone, even though you're not obligated to, and it may actually cost you something to do so, should you? No? Okay, would you? Why? Why not?

It seems to me that your answer would be, "I wouldn't save the house if I wasn't obligated to unless I knew there was a child in it." Fine. What if there was a dog in it? Would you save a burning house that had pets? I'm just trying to figure out where the line would be crossed.

Are you feeding the starving pets in your neighborhood or just dowsing the burning ones?

[Darth Executor]

That would be a good solution. It is what happens somewhat when a person lets their house go to pot, when the city demolishes it, they charge the person for the service.

Additionally, if this guy had a mortgage (and who doesn't these days, very few), I bet that his mortgage company required him to pay the fire fee.

The video shows him. He's a pretty old guy. So he's probably retired and owned the place.

[Dee Dee Warren]

The video shows him. He's a pretty old guy. So he's probably retired and owned the place.

If he couldn't afford to keep it safe, then he should have sold it and found other living arrangements for his old age. That is his responsibility to himself and to the community.

[Dee Dee Warren]

If you were the Fire Chief, would you let a house burn down in front of you that had children in it because the father didn't pay his fee?

I don't care to mine the subjunctive and play a violin. Again, all of this bleeding heart stuff when in your own neighborhood there are probably animals and children suffering greatly.

Funds don't drop out of the sky.

[Darth Executor]

If he couldn't afford to keep it safe, then he should have sold it and found other living arrangements for his old age. That is his responsibility to himself and to the community.

I highly doubt he couldn't afford it. His quote in the article indicates he just figured he could get away with not paying the fee and still receive the service anyway.

Anyway I agree. If he couldn't afford the fee (as opposed to wouldn't, which I suspect is the case), he should downsize and live within his means.

[Bill the Cat]

I don't care to mine the subjunctive and play a violin. Again, all of this bleeding heart stuff when in your own neighborhood there are probably animals and children suffering greatly.

Funds don't drop out of the sky.

In this case, they could have, but the council voted it down.

[Raphael]

And in other news, all Boston fire engines are going to be equipped with masks for cats and dogs.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10...men_cat_masks/

[Lazarus43]

Sent him a bill for the total cost of the service, not just the 75 dollar fee that everyone else chipped into for pooled service.

Indeed, best case would have been to put out the fire and bill the owner (who already had agreed to pay whatever was necessary to put out the fire) the several hundred or several thousand dollars for the service. They just decided to make an example out of this fire to keep the 75 dollar payments rolling.

[Adrift]

Are you feeding the starving pets in your neighborhood or just dowsing the burning ones?

umm... what? Are you saying I have to feed all the animals in my neighborhood to justify a fire team putting out a house fire they're in front of with animals in it? For the record, if I saw an animal starving to death, I'd feed it and call an animal shelter. If I saw one on fire, I'd put it out.

[Meta Knight]

I can't understand this "just put it out and send him a bill later" argument. If he didn't already pay the $75, what makes people think he would've paid a few thousand later?