1271: What's Your Price?

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by fluxquanta

Semantics. Replace the word "fine" with "bill" and any smart homeowner would have insurance to cover that.



Volunteer fire departments, such as this one, can and do take donations regularly. Not all of their funding comes from taxes.

And I think people are aware that this type of system of "pay for service at the time it is provided" doesn't exist, and that's where the whole argument comes from. If your house is on fire, and the department is there, you should be able to negotiate a price with them. Hell, call it a "donation" for tax/legal purposes, put the fire out, keep the media away, and call it a day.

Really? You think insurance would pay out when this guy neglected to get firefighting coverage?

And again, firefighting is not a billable service, VFD or not.

It's not a firefighter's job to haggle a price at the scene, and they're not necessarily even allowed to do it, or even qualified. Even if they could do it there's no guarantee that it would be a reasonable price given risk assessment.

All of which is why he should have paid out for coverage beforehand. Expecting to get service you clearly stated you didn't want is just dumb.

[bofadeeznizzles]

I had a hard time figuring this firefighter thing out, but to me it comes down to this. Firefighters are employed by the government to protect citizens and their property from fire damage. The paying of a service fee or whatever seems so irrelevant to me. Police Officers are public servants in the same way. So, if they implemented a service fee and Citizen A didn't pay it, wouldn't the cops still help when Citizen A got their house broken into? Of course, b/c it really just comes down to 1.) it's your job, and 2.) for fucks sake you are a human being and if you are able to help, and even formed a fucking crew to help... maybe you just fuckin' help eh?

[fluxquanta]

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

Really? You think insurance would pay out when this guy neglected to get firefighting coverage?

And again, firefighting is not a billable service, VFD or not.

It's not a firefighter's job to haggle a price at the scene, and they're not necessarily even allowed to do it, or even qualified. Even if they could do it there's no guarantee that it would be a reasonable price given risk assessment.

All of which is why he should have paid out for coverage beforehand. Expecting to get service you clearly stated you didn't want is just dumb.

Let me reiterate: Nobody is saying that's the way it does work. It's like you're trying to convince me that what I think is truth is incorrect. Everyone's suggesting the way it should be.

[mcbane89]

Uh oh. Turns out the guy had two cats and a dog in the house that all died. The city manager finally gave a statment, and he essentially said that you have to pay, and like an insurance company, you don't get considerations after the fact. Well, considering 3 pets died, and now the International Association of Firefighters gave this statement:

“The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family’s home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible. This tragic loss of property was completely avoidable. Because of South Fulton’s pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home. Everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities."

“Instead, South Fulton wants to charge citizens outside the city for fire protection. We condemn South Fulton’s ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go.”


I'm thinking the county may rethink this policy. I still hold to the belief the fire department got the call when it was far too late. If dispatch got it and didn't relay it because of county policy I can see that. Remember Keith's story about getting robbed and how 911 basically treated him like an asshole? That wasn't the police, that was the dispatch. I work for a utility out here in CA, and let me tell you, something can ALWAYS be done. You can make exceptions, you can bill after the fact, you can waive fees, and any one of the employees who knew in time to save the place could have paid for this fee themselves. I'm sorry, but there's no excuse for letting this home burn, and an entire fire department got hung out to dry. I've seen first hand how the press isn't really concerned with accuracy, but "the story" and will craft something to fit what they want to put out. This sounds completely like a beuracratic decision made without knowledge or training in fire, and the decision was based on it being a fire in a field, and then when it spread to the home, because these city workers are fucking idiots, it was far too late. And now not only is the Association of Firefighters pissed, the Humane Society is asking the local Sheriff to intervene in some capacity because the city let the animals die over $75. Good. Fuck those city workers. A precedent needs to be set in the case of untrained and uneducated city workers making decisions about public safety and the repercussions if they feel they have to do that.

[amyuilani]

Originally Posted by DWarrior

Although your conclusion concides with mine, you're wrong on both things you guaranteed happened. First, the family was burning trash near their house, which got out of control. They couldn't put it out with their hoses, so they called 911. Since they didn't pay the service fee, they were told the firemen would not be coming to the rescue. A couple of hours later, and since they were still unable to put the fire out by themselves, it spread to their trailer home.

Doesn't matter how the fire started. If it is determined that the family was negligent in taking precautions to prevent foreseeable damage to their home, then their insurance company may deny their claim for their fire damages. That has nothing to do with the fire department. The fire department has to deal with the fire, first and foremost.

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

Teaching a guy respect by ignoring his house fire sounds a bit like something the mob would do, but shitheads also should be taught to respect rules. And brute force is the only lanbguage some douches understand.

True, it's sad that things have sunk to this level. But a guy like that. should be made an example.

Ok, very tough choice but in these times of general douchery the firemen did the right thing.

The fire department has a responsibility to the community, and that responsibility is not dependent on how the firemen feel about an individual who they are tasked in protecting. If this was a person having a medical emergency and the fireman recognized him as someone he had a road rage incident with earlier that day, is it okay to let him continue to suffer? No, because he has a responsibility as a professional to maintain safety and prevent emergencies from getting out of control. The firemen were lucky the fire did not get so far out of control that more foreseeable damage could have been caused, but by no means did they do the right thing.

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

The solid points have already been made for why the fire department let the fire burn, but there's one issue that has yet to be contested that I thought I'd approach: the notion of fining the family after the fact and using that to recoup expenses.

That is not a feasible possibility in this situation. What, exactly, would you fine them for? They were offered a service and turned it down. The service is not mandatory. There's simply no way to fine them for what they did, because there was nothing illegal.

If the city makes it clear that not having this fee means having to pay the full bill for the services they use, then the family should have to pony up the money. That's money for the firemen's time, vehicles, equipment, and other expenses that were incurred. It's not about legality, it's about a contract between the city and the resident. The terms of the contract say you pay full fees if you don't purchase the annual plan. If you violate the contract, you pay the penalty.

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

There are also no procedures in place for a fire department to accept outside payments to put out fires. They're not freelancers. They don't do that. They're paid by the town/county, not by individuals, and have no experience with providing that kind of service. I'm not even sure they'd be allowed to, or know how to, put this fire out for pay from the owner.

Many government services are now being contracted by private companies as a means for budget cuts. This includes fire services, especially in smaller towns. Smaller towns will save additional money and prevent overlapping functions by consolidating services with neighboring towns. If for some reason fire department A responded to a call in an area that is normally covered by fire department B, then the cities can work out billing each other for the service without involving the citizen. However, it's also on the 911 dispatcher to be sure he sends the right department out to the right area, especially if his dispatch center covers many areas. (I've been through 911 training and I know many cities - which are often contracted by private agencies - do this.)

I have serious doubts as to whether the fire department checked out a map ahead of time to make sure the house didn't fall on the other side of a service line. Again, they have a responsibility to take care of the community first and ask questions later.

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

The issue here is that these folks can't be fined, and they have basically no way to pay for what they need paid for. The only way the fire department could put this fire out is for free. That's really the only scenario.

Yes they can be billed, and if they have no way to pay for what they need, assuming insurance denies their claim, that's too bad for them. The fire department would be paid for their services out of tax money.

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

As has been stated, firefighting is costly and dangerous. If someone died fighting this fire, or were injured, or the costs were high, those burdens would be paid for by others, not by the Crannicks.

If the fire department stood by and let the house burn, and someone died as a result, you really don't think the fire department would be held liable for that? Good luck getting a judge to buy that when the family of the deceased sues the city.

[mcbane89]

Originally Posted by amyuilani

Doesn't matter how the fire started. If it is determined that the family was negligent in taking precautions to prevent foreseeable damage to their home, then their insurance company may deny their claim for their fire damages. That has nothing to do with the fire department. The fire department has to deal with the fire, first and foremost.

Exactly. And I think any fire department would. I still fully believe the that the dispatch person jerked around the man on the recommendations of the city council, people who have no right determining what should be considered an emergency, and they're lucky no one died. Something I didn't even think of until now is that in the event of a fire the electric and gas need to be shut off, and then, even though no one was trapped in the home, you have civilians trying to put out a fire they are not trained to handle, with no equipment. Any one of the family/neighbors could have been burned, died of smoke inhalation, been electrocuted, or if the gas or propane had ignited... I don't really have to explain that one.

I can just imagine the firefighters reaction when they first got on the scene because they finally got the call, or because the neighbor called it in - "Motherfuck". They would have known they just got made into the assholes, because I still believe the house was too far gone and the firefighters could only watch and make sure nothing else got damaged. The homeowner won't get that. He doesn't know what procedure is, even if he wasn't totally out of his mind at losing his home. Why do you think the firefighters basically said "talk to the city manager"? They could have stuck up for the policy, or the decision, but they didn't. City managers/council people have no knowledge of the law, they have no knowledge of what they can and can't do, and neither does dispatch, so whatever the dumbshit city officials told them to implement, they will. The firefighters can't help that, they can only respond to the calls they get.

[DWarrior]

Actually, turns out the homeowner was a muslim who opposed gay rights and was against abortion. The house that burned down housed an active terrorist cell conspiring to bomb the Empire state building.