US

Firefighters Let Home Burn After Owners Didn’t Pay $75 Protection Fee — Again

It’s happened again in Obion County, Tenn. Firefighters were called to the scene of a house fire, but when they arrived, they didn’t put out the blaze. Why? Because the homeowners hadn’t paid the $75 fire protection fee. If the story sounds familiar, that’s because the same thing happened last October. And back then, just like now, it sparked quite the debate.

Before we look at what happened last time, WPSD-TV reports what happened this time to Vicky Bell and her boyfriend:

“In an emergency, the first thing you think of, ‘Call 9-1-1,” homeowner Vicky Bell said.

Firefighters came out.

Bell said, “9-1-1 said they were in fact dispatched and they showed that they were on the scene.”

But once on the scene, they only watched.

“You could look out my mom’s trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance,” Bell said.

For Bell, that sight was almost as disturbing as the fire itself.

“We just wished we could’ve gotten more out,” Bell said.

It‘s a controversial policy that we’ve dealt with before. If you live in the city, you get fire protection but if not, you have to pay the $75 fire protection fee each year. With this policy, the city makes no exceptions.

“There’s no way to go to every fire and keep up the manpower, the equipment, and just the funding for the fire department,” Mayor David Crocker said.

Bell did admit that she and her boyfriend were aware of the fee but simply refused to pay because they never thought they would be hit by a fire:

That’s a similar story to Gene Cranick, the homeowner who lost his house last year when it burned down to the ground after he didn’t pay the fee either.

Last October, his incident garnered national attention. Keith Olbermann called it a sign of Tea Party America, another blogger said it was an example of “what would happen if we let basic government decisions be made by right-wing ideologues,” and Glenn Beck siding with the fire department. You can listen to his thoughts below:

If you’re still confused, here’s some background from our report last year:

Kevin Williamson gave a little more background on South Fulton’s policy and argued that the $75 fee is actually an example of expanded service:

Dan, you are 100 percent wrong.

The situation is this: The city of South Fulton’s fire department, until a few years ago, would not respond to any fires outside of the city limits — which is to say, the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers. A reasonable position. Then, a few years ago, a fire broke out in a rural area that was not covered by the city fire department, and the city authorities felt bad about not being able to do anything to help. So they began to offer an opt-in service, for the very reasonable price of $75 a year. Which is to say: They greatly expanded the range of services they offer. The rural homeowners were, collectively, better off, rather than worse off. Before the opt-in program, they had no access to a fire department. Now they do.

Back then, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg noted that the incident would lessen the chance of the same thing happening in the future.

“Here’s the more important part of the story, letting the house burn — while, I admit sad — will probably save more houses over the long haul. I know that if I opted out of the program before, I would be more likely to opt-in now,” he wrote.

Vicky Bell must not have been paying attention.

What do you think? When we posted the story last year, we posed a poll. We’re going to post another similar poll to see if your thoughts have changed. You can see last year’s results here.


Comments (435)

1 2 3 ... 10
  • stogieguy7
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:29am

    This story is great fodder for an interesting debate. And, if it’s “just” a fire, I can certainly see both sides here. In theory, I would agree with the folks who say ‘pay the fee or else…’

    However, where it gets tricky is this: what if someone is trapped in the house? What if it was a child? Does the fire department still stand there and watch as someone burns to death? What if their inattention to the fire contributed to that. This issue hasn’t been addressed in this debate, but it’s worth asking.

    And it also illustrates the difference between an “ivory tower” idea (usually invented by liberals) and the real world. In the real world, fire protection is a different kind of service than garbage collection is. Perhaps the jurisdiction in which these people live needs to form a fire department of its own. That would certainly solve the problem. Of course, even a volunteer fire department costs money.

    Report Post » stogieguy7  
    • vrodder
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:34am

      Your talking about apples and oranges. Saving a life versus saving a structure. Why do you think they responded? To protect the surrounding property and to make sure no one was hurt. Come on! These people willingly rolled the dice and lost.

      Report Post »  
    • marthasusan40
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:38am

      Sorry, but there is not a firefighter in America that would allow a person to die in a fire…even in this case they would have preformed a rescue..they showed up didn’t they?

      Report Post »  
    • ThemDemsLie2much
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:50am

      You would think that free 401K contributions, no cost top notch healthcare and a union that protects you from loosing your job if you break the law would have a little more compasion for a taxpayers house. Wonder if they do the same for section 8 or government housing? I thick they responded so they could gloat at the owners in a typical union Mob type fasion.

      Report Post » ThemDemsLie2much  
    • Conkuur
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:57am

      If a child is in there then the parents should have their children removed. This is neglect. less than 6 dollars a month can prevent the whole scenario from occurring.A good parent protects the family first.Plus most here are forgetting the vital part of the article. There was NO fire service at all in these rural areas before the 75 dollars made it all possible. Things cost money people seem to forget that.

      Report Post » Conkuur  
    • AJAYW
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:17am

      @marthasusan40
      How did they know there wasn’t someone in the home- your assumeing as they did

      Report Post »  
    • JAYBECONSERVATIVE
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:24am

      you’re right. Why don’t the form a rural volunteer fire department? i‘ll bet the city would give them guidance and then they wouldn’t have the problem. It would still take some kind of tax or revenue to pay for it, though. then you’re right back to the $75.00 fee! I would assume the asked and made sure no one was in the house. If there was, i‘d hope they’d save the person. I think there is laws requiring that. Like a Dr. can’t pass someone having a heart attack and not help. I may be mistaken though.

      Report Post »  
    • MidWestMom
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:26am

      I think the fire trucks are dispatched in case there is someone trapped in the structure. If so, they go in. I find it hard to believe the city would send them out just to sit there. Based on the firemen I know, I’m sure it was exceedingly difficult for them to sit there and watch it burn. But they were following the city policy, they were doing their job. If they don’t like the policy, they can either seek employment elsewhere or work to change the policy.

      I’m siding with the city on this one. The homeowners knew about the fee & what it covered. They chose not to pay it. And now, harsh as it is, they must deal with the consequences of their decision. People must take personal responsibility for their actions.

      Debating the fairness of the policy and the fee itself is an entirely different matter. Right or wrong, thats the way it is now. If the citizens don’t like it, it’s up to them to work towards a different policy. Or they can just sit around muttering and complaining to themselves.

      It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and gripe about something. But if you seriously want things to be different, you need to get off your butt, inform yourself and work constructively towards change.

      Report Post »  
    • yougottabekidding
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:35am

      I’ll say it again pick an insurance company pay a premium now, and they will pay for the house. The heck with the what if stuff.

      Report Post »  
    • MidWestMom
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:36am

      @AJAYW – The story indicates the homeowners were on the scene. I’m betting the firemen asked if there could be anyone inside the structure. And I’m sure they were dispatched for that very reason.

      @ThemDemsLie2much – Their benefits have nothing to do with this. They were doing their job as instructed by their employer. They choose to work for that employer knowing full well what the policies are. If doing their job compromises their personal compassion or morality, they don’t have to work there.

      Report Post »  
    • ashestoashes
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:11am

      There is really no excuse for this…if the people didn’t pay the $75 protection fee…then the firemen should have put out the fire and sent them the bill with a deadline..if they didn’t pay by the deadline..then I believe that a lien can be placed against it…that is what the city usually does if someone doesn’t mow their lawn and the city does it for them and attaches a lien..it is inexcusable for a fire department to behave in this way.

      Report Post »  
    • Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:11am

      Money Money Money Moneyyyy MON – NAY!

      Report Post » Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American  
    • Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:13am

      Since I don’t believe in an afterlife, I don’t intend to chase money my whole life. Enjoy it while you’re here because dead is dead.

      Report Post » Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American  
    • jzs
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:13am

      The Fire Department is a socialist organization. Fire Fighters are paid by the government and the government owns all the equipment and whatever water is used. YOU are forced by the government to pay for this socialist organization whether you use the service or not and whether you are safe or not. It’s a service that you are required by law to buy.

      It’s time that Americans getting rid of this form of communism, and switch to a profit driven system owned by private capitalists. The government can’t run anything well, and the Fire Department is a prime example.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • encinom
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:22am

      This is nothing more than the true face of an Ayn Rand America, were basic service go to those that can afford them, while the poor suffer. This is more proof that the Tea Party are nothing more than greedy individuals more concerned withthe pennys in their pockets than the safety of their neighbors.

      Some service the State must provide for without cost, fire protection is one of them.

      Report Post »  
    • Johnny Cocheroo
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:02am

      @grfd703

      “I’ve been a firefighter for 21 years. I would NEVER just sit there and let a house burn. The real fix to this is to offer the 75.00 per year fee for fire protection, and if people don’t pay it, fine. You show up anyway, put the fire out and send them a bill. A bill for 500.00″

      Knowing many firefighters, I have no doubt those there were begging to put the fire out. However, everything costs money. If there is not enough money to pay, there is no service.

      Have you ever asked your chief what the actual costs would be to charge people on a “per fire” basis? I’d be curious to know. I’d be willing to bet it would be AT LEAST $15,000 – not $500.

      Report Post »  
    • texasfireguy
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:07am

      The policy is to respond, make sure no one is inside, then keep the fire from spreading to any other structure.

      Report Post » texasfireguy  
    • BSdetector
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:11am

      Did soros just order post this linked up on media matters? Soros says jump and all the trolls show up at once with their nonsense. It’s amusing really.

      As for the story, $75 doesn’t cover the depts costs at all. $75 from every household covered may but if they were to charge after the fact, it would probably be a several thousand and no one would pay the 75/yr. That being said, it should be an option.

      Report Post » BSdetector  
    • Pearsontech
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:14am

      While I feel bad for these people’s loss and hope they have a good church or community or family that can help them out I do not find any fault at all with the fire department here. These people knew of the fee they made the choice not to pay it that is their own fault. And shame on you Stogie trying to imply that the fire department possibly would let someone die in a fire. There is nothing in either story that shows or says that they would have let someone die in either fire. They showed up at the fire if someone were trapped they would have saved them but not put the fire out. Property can be replaced. Trying to connect dots that do not exist or imply that connections exist like this really sounds like a liberal, socialist, ploy to me. If you don’t identify yourself as a liberal or left person you should watch it because you sure are starting to sound like one.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:16am

      $75/yr or $ 6.75/month. They let their home burn down for the cost of a 6 pack. I bet Vicki Bell could with one less 6 pack of beer a month. Do we have any pictures?

      Report Post »  
    • Dustoff
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:19am

      As a fire fighter. If someones life is in danger. We go, paid bill or not.

      Now I did notice it’s a mobile home and I have to tell you. When these things catch of fire. They burn darn fast, so there usually isn’t much to save.

      I won’t get into the part if they should have put it out or not. That’s the cities decision and the fire fighters have to follow the set rules.

      Report Post » Dustoff  
    • Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:20am

      JZS

      Read a history book. Fire departments and Police departments were, at one time, profit driven and privately owned and it didn’t work out so well. That’s why they became a service like they are today. Not everything works under a profit motive.

      Report Post » Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American  
    • Go Glenn
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:24am

      The real question is why did they respond to the fire in the first place?

      They had two choices………1) refuse to respond because they had not been paid or 2) respond and fight the fire

      But they drove to the fire and then sat there and watched. This is wrong.

      They say they can’t respond to all fires and this is true……….they just drove to one fire and by being in the rural area left their city at risk. If they have the manpower to drive out there without risking the city then why not at least put out the fire?

      Report Post »  
    • palerider54
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:48am

      If they put out the fire for people who refused to pay the fee then NO ONE would pay the fee.

      If you want protection you have to pay for it.

      Report Post »  
    • Libertarian
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:51am

      The service is putting out the fire, it is our human duty to save others. One does not need a fire fighter, police or rescue uniform to save a life.

      The house should have burned because they did not pay for fire service. I really like the fact that there is an opt in plan for fire.

      Report Post » Libertarian  
    • Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:11pm

      It’s the american way to make people pay for the potential of something happening. Where are all you socialism haters out there and why are you not complaining about all the people who have to subsidize other fires even though you’ll likely not have one.

      Report Post » Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American  
    • Viet Vet
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:13pm

      The people in this rural trailer park want the city to provide fire protection, but they want other people (in the city) to pay for it. I guess their home wasn’t worth the 20 cents a day fire insurance.

      Report Post »  
    • SeekerEmerald
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:24pm

      @ ASHESTOASHES:

      Great idea. Let’s all do that with our auto insurance also. IF we have an accident, we THEN will go and pay the premium to get coverage.

      $75 does not cover the cost of fighting a fire, and 75000 does not cover the cost of fighting 1000 fires. The fee is something that everyone contributes to IN CASE they have a fire. They are all pitching in to share the cost of running the department, and those that share the cost get to reap the benefits.

      I certainly do not expect my house to catch fire, but I have insurance to cover me if it does. How is this any different? You can‘t tell me that they can’t afford it, either. Surely there is SOMETHING in their budget that can be squeezed by 6.25 a month. If you say this is not possible, then you also must be trying to tell me they did not own a TV, or smoke, or drink, or eat snacks. I’m sure they are SOME people out there like this, but statistically they are a small number.

      Also, I’m sure there is SOMETHING they could do to make $75 a year. Mow someone’s lawn? Clean someone’s house?

      Yeah, it’s ONLY a trailer, but think about how many people in the world would LOVE to live a trailer. Even people living in trailers live GREAT compared to a HUGE number of people in the world.

      Report Post » SeekerEmerald  
    • lilfingirl
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 1:01pm

      The fire department did the right thing. They cannot go in & put out the fire if the fee was not paid for insurance reasons, if a FF had gottn injured or killed it would nothave been covered. Trust me as a wife of a firefighter it was very hard for them to not to put it out.

      As to the question, “what if someone had been inside?” well them they would have done an extraction & then let the house burn. They would not & could not allow someone to be injured. Your property on the otherhand is another matter. the FD was called on scence just for the sole purpose of making sure the fire did not spread to the property of someone who did pay the fee & to assist anyone who was injured. In a city your fire protection is paid for with taxes. In this rural area it is a fee as decided by thier local government & the city FD. It is a form of insurance. They knew the consequences.

      Report Post »  
    • Tordil
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 1:06pm

      Last year the news reported a bill after the fact would be about $10,000. Furthermore, the city cannot place a lien on a home outside of its jurisdiction and they cannot ask the victim while their house is burning to agree to pay $10,000 later- they are under duress and any agreement would likely not be upheld by courts.

      If they put the fire out then most people wouldn’t pay, then no one would have fire protection.

      For the argument that poor can’t afford the protection… $6 a month – the owner could hold off buying a drink at the bar to pay for the service that protects their family.

      If push comes to shove, the city will resend its fire protection to those outside of its jurisdiction.

      Report Post »  
    • poverty.sucks
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 1:26pm

      Are you saved? If you were to die today, would you go to Heaven?

      There isn’t any money to pay, just confess you are a sinner, ask Jesus into your heart, for only he is the into the kingdome of Heaven.

      Similar to the fire protection plan, must submit your heart prior to death, no exceptions.

      http://www.PeaceWithGod.Jesus.Net

      Report Post » poverty.sucks  
    • RabidPatriot
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 1:32pm

      If nobody noticed, it is an old trailer home made of light, flammable materials with a thin aluminum sheet skin. Even if the Fire Department was right next door it would have been fully engulfed and a complete loss within a few minutes. Firefighters would never be sent into a structure like that if there was a large fire in it. They should have hosed it down just to contain the blaze.

      Report Post » RabidPatriot  
    • skitrees
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:24pm

      I don’t understand this story. Don’t pay – don’t get service – okay, I am totally with you so far…BUT what is the point of sending out the fire squad (incurring the same cost as you would if they actually DID something) to just stand there?! This makes no sense.

      If we simply eliminated all forms of insurance…I bet people would buy/build in a much more self-sufficient manner. Yes – occasionally, bad things would happen…but how is that different than now? Shoot – I bet it would even take care of 99% of the health care issues (knowing that you’d die as a result of your own stupidity).

      (Total side thought: Why is it that Obamacaresnot never talks about how all the mountain climbers, marathoners, skiers, bicyclists, etc. are going to run up our costs even more than the fat guy is? When was the last time a fat guy blew out his ACL or tore his biceps? When was the last time the fat guy lost control and ran into a tree costing months of medical care in ICU? What about NFL players – we gotta pay for their care too? What about all the athletes using performance enhancing drugs – destroying their hearts and kidneys? Yep – blame the fat guy and ignore these other high-cost activities.)

      We live in a world where we believe everyone else is supposed to save us from our own choices…then we’re confused when no one shows up?! Amazing.

      Report Post »  
    • guntotinsquaw
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:24pm

      @ThemDemsLie2much…what 401k and bennies.. what union…this is in the south and probably a VOLUNTEER dept..that means you pay your dues…the equipment isn’t cheap…Our dept. will put out the fire, but the bill will put you on your knees…these people gambled and lost, next time pay your DUES!!

      TEA 2012
      One If By Land

      Report Post » guntotinsquaw  
    • Shupp
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:27pm

      Two options here pure and simple:

      The City Fire teams go back to original coverage and only provide service to the city limits to protect the citytaxpayers who fund the City Fire Team and Equipment.

      This option leaves the non-paying rural citizens who are obviously not goverened by the City ordinances, through their own township council/mayor or whatever governance they have to create a volunteer company that is paid for through charity. Or to create their own permanent Fire Squad paid for by the rural taxpayers. Stuff ain’t free people. If the citizens decide they do not wish either option then their houses burn down because they reverted back to the stone age and decided to roll the dice and attempt to put the fire out on their own terms if one happened.

      Option 2….pay the city to come into their township to put out their fires…

      Report Post »  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:32pm

      you should pay for your own fire protection… the government is not an isurance policy you dolts… wake up. the government is PURELY a middleman who mismanages all of our money… a CHIMP could do a better job.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 2:53pm

      Viet Vet
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:13pm
      The people in this rural trailer park want the city to provide fire protection, but they want other people (in the city) to pay for it. I guess their home wasn’t worth the 20 cents a day fire insurance.
      ______________________
      A portion of any taxes they pay to the state or federal government also go to this Fire Department. As Fire Departments receive state and federal subsidies. The Tea Party, profit driven model for america will leave the poor homeless, sick and dead in the streets, the working class will become the new serfs and the Koch brothers and the rest of the Fats Cats will sit on their piles of gold. Yet the Beckerheads will be happy with the crumbs they are given.

      Report Post »  
    • Brooke Lorren
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:42pm

      I wonder why everybody assumes that these people drink alcohol? Acting as if they drank one less six-pack of beer or one less drink at the bar, then they could pay for the fire protection? Maybe I’m clueless, but most of the people that I hang out with don’t keep beer in their house or go to the bars, so there would be nothing to cut back.

      That being said, I think that the firemen shouldn’t have helped, but should have given them the option of paying for the full cost of the fire at the time of the fire. But someone does make a good point that one could argue that it was made under duress… perhaps give them the option to pay on the spot if they had the money? More than likely, these people did not have the money to pay on the spot, but if that was an option, then that would be nice.

      Report Post »  
    • Memphismerlin
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 4:01pm

      encinom, does that mean that a fire department from the next county over should of come if South Fulton’s did not respond. After all, they got tax money also.

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 4:39pm

      This is nothing more than an example of the cheap political trick of cutting taxes, but not really cutting taxes. Fees for things that used to be included in taxes are taxes. To present fire protection as a service that should not be included under local or country taxes is just plain stupid. This is just Reagan “tax cuts” on steroids. For the history buffs here, Reagan did not actually reduce what people paid to the government, he merely reduced the tax rates and then eliminated deductions and increase government fees dramatically along with reductions in aid to states and education. The net result was higher taxes, just spread out differently. Reagan ran up the first significant federal deficit by his military supply side economics. You know an economic stimulus.

      Report Post »  
    • ltb
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 4:53pm

      encinom wrote: This is nothing more than the true face of an Ayn Rand America, were basic service go to those that can afford them, while the poor suffer…. Some service the State must provide for without cost, fire protection is one of them.

      —–

      Actually, this is proof that spending our country into oblivion is going to have dire consequences. This GOVERNMENT RUN FIRE DEPARTMENT refused to put out a fire, because its budget doesn’t allow for saving the homes of people who don’t pay into the system. Kind of like how the federal government is going to have to make hard choices when Bejing cuts our Chinese Express credit card in half and there’s only enough money to pay for either the military or social security.

      NOTHING IS WITHOUT COST. Do you think it doesn’t cost anything to run those fire engines? Do you think that South Fulton has a money tree behind the mayor’s house that he can pluck dollars off of whenever there’s a budget shortfall? In a Tea Party America, there wouldn’t be towns that can‘t afford to fuel their fire trucks because they’re paying 70% of their budgets towards the retirement accounts of union fire fighters who sit around while homes burn.

      Report Post » ltb  
    • Moshy1
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 5:10pm

      You’re positing something similar to the well-worn liberal argument “what about the kids?” Basically you can apply that argument everywhere society so as to allow adults to avoid any responsibility and society has to bail them about because if we don’t then the kids will suffer or whatever. So it begs the question, why have the fee in the first place? What about health insurance? Why should anybody pay that if society will have to pay because if we don’t somebody will die? What about mortgages? What if someone doesn’t pay that and gets put out in the street? The kids will suffer so I suppose we have to pay for that also? Why should parents buy food for their kids? They can just go to school to eat and society will pay for that. etc What if people don’t pay to fix the breaks on their cars when they should? that could cause someone to die, so we should all pay for that as well then. This same argument was the basis for the Community Reinvestment Act that we should all help people get houses even thought they couldn’t pay for them and look how well that turned out. Everybody’s underwater on their mortgage, but hey, it was worth it right?

      Report Post » Moshy1  
    • banjarmon
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 5:43pm

      Is the South Fulton government in the business of selling fire insurance??

      Report Post » banjarmon  
    • ltb
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 6:18pm

      @encinom, Nobody is saying that fire protection, police protection and mail service aren’t basic functions of the government. What we are saying is that in order to provide these basic functions we need to cut out things like taxpayer funded pension plans for government workers, palatial public schools that look like ivy league universities, college-like football stadiums for public schools, free public education to illegal immigrants, publicly funded power lines for green energy, etc., etc., etc. Get it?

      Report Post » ltb  
    • ltb
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 6:22pm

      PS encinom, when you use words like “Tea ******,” it really makes you look like an idiot.

      Report Post » ltb  
    • dirtydog1776
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 6:38pm

      The fire department has already stated they would intervene in the event of danger to life.

      Report Post » dirtydog1776  
    • n8isgrate
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 7:13pm

      Normally I would agree that people shouldnt expect a free ride nothing is free in life but at the same time we are taxed way too much and local firefighter coverage should be part of what I pay for local and state taxes not an extra fee if they truly do not have money they need to cut pensions and benifits for teachers and other government employees who make much more then the national average and firefighters and police officers who exploit overtime to make more money. Then we would be able to expect that our fire fighters will protect us included in our taxes we already pay.

      Report Post »  
    • The Crismil
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:17pm

      Here’s a novel idea; If they want to make the coverage universal, vote to have the county or township add $75 to their tax bill and forward the $ to the city. Otherwise form a volunteer fire company and man it, pay up or shut up.

      Report Post » The Crismil  
    • Drifter
      Posted on December 8, 2011 at 6:22am

      As a former member of a rural fire protection district we responded to calls in non paid area’s just in case someone was trapped. We did not respond to fight the fire only for life safety only. This fire district did the right thing.

      Report Post » Drifter  
    • Croaker
      Posted on December 8, 2011 at 6:59am

      @encicom and other Trolls,

      In the community in which I live, and among the type of people I live among, I can tell you this: If there was no fire service or police service in our community we would get together and do something about it. We would make provisions for at least a makeshift volunteer force and upgrade it as we found donations or provided funds. We would get together as a community and handle the need. We might even contract a private firm to provide such services. Hopefully there would be a couple of choices. In the end we might decide to pay the 75 bucks if it is the best service for the price. Anyway you slice it there are costs involved. We would be wary of any Government provided services or programs because the GOVT is the least efficient most corrupt organization I can think of…even compared to corporations. The only sin my community might be guilty of is that we would probably protect the stupid and shortsighted who made no provisions. I would not criticize Obien County for not doing so, because that is their perogative. In our community if someones house DID burn down we would all get together and pass the hat to get the family back on their feet. I don’t know if that makes me a ********* or not… its just how we do things.

      Report Post » Croaker  
    • Exiled
      Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:07am

      @ThemDemsLie2much: It was NOT a taxpayer’s house. The house was OUTSIDE of the city, OUTSIDE of the taxing district. It’s similar to complaining that a fire-station in North Carolina won’t go put out a fire in South Carolina, if South Carolina had refused to fund their own fire-department. By your logic, the city taxpayers should also be paying to run water and sewer lines to all of the people outside of the city. The people in this article didn’t want to pay the “tax”. The didn’t want to carry fire insurance. What in the world did they expect to happen if they had a fire? In my neck of the woods, if there’s a fire in an area without a fire district, NOBODY shows up (except for perhaps BLM if it happens to border their land).

      Report Post »  
    • Exiled
      Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:10am

      @ashestoashes: No, the city couldn’t put a lean on it, the property wasn’t IN THE CITY! Besides, a lean on a trailer that has burned down? If a trailer catches fire, there’s not much chance that anything will be salvageable. This is one of the trade-offs for living in the COUNTY and not within city limits.

      Report Post »  
    • mayihelpyou
      Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:39am

      I understand the argument of “expanding services previously unavailable” and give kudos to the FD for it. But not paying $75.00 is no excuse for not putting out the fire. They drove out there. Put out the fire and collect the 75.00.If you’re not going to put out the fire then tell the people while you have them on the phone. Intentionally allowing someone’s property to be destroyed for such a pittance should be criminal. We need smarter people in govt, not self righteous idiots.

      Report Post »  
    • The Voice of Libertarian Reason
      Posted on December 8, 2011 at 12:59pm

      @Stogieguy’s original question and all of the comments related to it.

      “Does the fire department still stand there and watch as someone burns to death?”

      Very interesting question to which we already have a real world answer. Actually he didn’t burn to death he drowned; read it for yourself. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=8161285.

      Truly disturbing.

      Maybe if we cut off social programs and all the other nonsense programs we could afford the basic protective services that every tax paying citizen deserves.

      Report Post »  
    • svan71
      Posted on December 8, 2011 at 2:35pm

      I like retards with avatars ie tea bags…i see it and i know not to bother reading the rants of an ignorant jackass…

      Report Post » svan71  
    • Sprinklerman
      Posted on December 8, 2011 at 4:16pm

      The policy allows them to respond to the reported emergency and save a life or protect any property that has paid the fee from the fire.

      Report Post »  
    • Tex_Rabbit
      Posted on December 8, 2011 at 6:48pm

      They can start their own VFD. That is not free, but BBQ can be sold, bake sale all the normal way to raise money. They could have the county add a fee to their taxes. Then you have to be trained. Some government loans, grants, forest service equipment. I have been a Volunteer Fireman and keeping money coming takes some work, but it can be done. A VFM would not do this, but I can see the cities point. $75 is petty cheep. Practice once a week, going to fire school that last a week to two weeks, Personal gear, Scott air-pack and so on… A $50,000 tanker, a $100,000 fire engine takes money to buy this stuff it is not free. You can buy used equipment sometimes. We had a WWII deuce and half as a grass fire rig and tanker. We just retired it last year. All the repairs were done by a member who had a repair shop, with us buying the parts. People who sound off on this should walk a mile in a Volunteers Shoes…. Maybe a paid Fireman too.
      We have Volunteer EMS service too where I live… They try to bill for their service. 95% are never collected. We have the ambulance the EMT’s have separate Trucks, equipment and more. I am a First Responder who goes to the house if it is near where we live. We have oxygen, the smart defibrillators(which were donated to us) Basic Medical training, Red Cross Trained. We are the guys that will get there before the others do…..

      Report Post »  
    • softunderbelly
      Posted on December 8, 2011 at 9:09pm

      I think that if you live in a rural area and can afford $0.20 cents per day, it’s dumb to gamble. It’s the cost, ironically, of ONE cigarette per day. County-wide service would be far far more expensive. As you say even volunteer fire departments are expensive. I think the call-out occurs precisely to prevent what you suggest. Were there lives in danger they would respond. After all, they can know before they roll out or in route whether the “insurance” has been paid.
      I could be totally wrong, but my two cents are in.

      Report Post »  
  • donh2
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:24am

    Jesus was scolded for breaking the law of healing on a Sunday…put out the damn fire and slap a $500 lien on the house. These firemen have put God to the test that they shall burn in Hell for violating the command to love your neighbor….and the Lord hears not their screams ..

     
    • JAYBECONSERVATIVE
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:25am

      such hate filled vitriol. the love of GOD is not in you. if you think God is looking for reasons to burn people in hell you don’t know him. maybe you ought to read the scripture again and look at all he did to save pharisees like you.

      Report Post »  
    • Link8on
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:38am

      Keith Olbermann could have prepaid last year for that $ 75 fee on this house and the entire rural area.

      Keith Olbermann could also pay the moving expenses for relocating that entire rural population into the fire department jurisdiction so everybody pays the taxes allocated to South Fulton for the coverage.

      Talk is nice, but that county fire department has bills and pensions to pay. Extra bills when they go beyond their normal jurisdiction.

      McDonalds does not volunteer their employees to the Starbuck down the block, and vise versa.

      Report Post » Link8on  
    • Detroit paperboy
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:52am

      To serve and protect…… For protection money, sounds a littlle like union thuggery…

      Report Post »  
    • donh2
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:16am

      and I am now the hatefull “pharisee” for reminding all your fraud “ conservative ” holy rollers about the parable of the good samaritan ? The love of God speaks concern for Hell being an abode for those in FAKE love of Jesus. As you like to think yourself saved this cruel behavior shows God may not know you at all. Tennesee is the Volunteer state not the Rackateer state.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:08am

      Was not the Firefighter’s fault, nor is their evidence that the Fire fighters are union members. The Fault lies witht he Tea Party supported mayor. These policy is a direct result of the theories that the Tea Party puts forth about every service needing to be profitible. Beck supports letting the home of the poor burn down to the ground.

      Report Post »  
    • Dan_o
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:15am

      @DonH2, thankfully, your opinion about the fire-fighter’s state of salvation, and anyone else’s for that matter, is absolutely meaningless. Their actions, or lack of, are shameful, but so are mine and so are yours, if you are honest with yourself.

      Jesus saves those who are drawn by the Father. He did not come to save the righteous. Which are you?

      Report Post » Dan_o  
    • Dustoff
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:21am

      O-brother. If someones life had been endanger. I “might” follow your line.

      Report Post » Dustoff  
    • Viet Vet
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:31pm

      LOL…the left can always be counted on to demonstrate OWS mentality. The city should have stuck with their old policy of just providing fire fighting protection to their city residents who pay for the trucks, equipment, insurance, buildings, personnel, etc. through their city taxes.

      Although, of course this story was written and intended for political purposes, and it might be that almost all the other rural residents near this city were glad to pay the 20 cents per day, and glad to have the fire insurance. The politics of it are always the same with the left, they think others should pay their way.

      Report Post »  
    • Memphismerlin
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:49pm

      It is simple. You pay for the service you get it. You don‘t pay you don’t. It cost way more than $75 dollars to fight a fire. The $75 dollars is the amount that this town has figured would cover their cost to cover this rual area. They responded to it because they are to make sure that no one’s life is at risk and to make sure that the fire does not threaten anyone else. Furthermore, if you quit paying your car or health insurance, would it still be their responcibility to cover you in the event of an accident or illness?

      And before you start trying to rip into me as one that does not get understand or I would feel different if I lived in area like this, I do. As a matter of fact I only live two counties over from Obion. I am “lucky” to have a volunteer fire department where I live which means that if my house catches on fire that I have to hope that there are some of the fire fighters available and then hope that they are trained properly. I would love to have the city offer me a $75 fee for their service.

      Report Post »  
    • Link8on
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 7:30pm

      @donh2

      I grew up in Tennessee. Good folks there will volunteer for worthy causes. This household, who did not pay the $ 75, did not qualify.

      The South Fulton fire department volunteers that $ 75 offer every year. This fire department did not have to oblige themselves to such an offer.

      There is no guarantee that they will actually make money from that off of the rural neighbors.

      Even in years without a single rural fire, they might roll $ 25 , give or take, of that fee, into the next year.

      Running a fire department is not cheap, or else every house and trailer would have one on site.

      “”"
      After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”
      25 “Yes, he does,” he replied.

      When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?”

      26 “From others,” Peter answered.

      “Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27 “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.
      “”"
      – Matt 17:24-27

      Report Post » Link8on  
    • Exiled
      Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:11am

      A $500 lean? On a burned-out trailer house? I have never seen a trailer even have a minor fire and not require complete demolition.

      Report Post »  
  • kuhl
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:24am

    “There’s no way to go to every fire and keep up the manpower, the equipment, and just the funding for the fire department,” Mayor David Crocker said.

    That might have held water if they hadn’t dispatched the truck to have them sit there and watch. Sure sounds like the old “protection” programs the Mafia used in Chicago. The least they should have done was put out the fire and charged the family after the fact.

    Report Post »  
    • Stoic one
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:08am

      What do you think our current tax system is other than ‘protection’?

      Report Post » Stoic one  
    • SHvnDave
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:35am

      The reason they responded is obvious – I have never met a fireman who is not willing to trade their life to rescue another human being – anywhere – anytime. Deprtment safety officers pull their hair out trying to protect their crews from going places they should not go. Had there been a person inside this home, the firemen would have been in there -even if it cost them their jobs (or their lives). For anyoone to even suggest fire otherwise is disgusting.

      That being said, what we really need is ObamaFireCare where the Fire Departments would not only put out every fire throughout the country, they would build you a new house and buy you a new car (volt). They tell me that would only cost about $1,000 per year (well, maybe $10,000), and will be paid for by the 1% – well, maybe the 10% – and, of course, new rules would prevent you from smoking in your home, or having any combustible material (Wood, paper, Plastics, etc) or any source of ignition (Stove, furnace, water heater, candle) in your house, but we will all be safer everyday and isn’t that what is really important?

      Report Post » SHvnDave  
    • Link8on
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:52am

      The protection money collected by the mafia prevents them from attacking you if you paid. That same mafia may not necessarily protect you from other local mafias.

      Fire departments generally do not go around starting fires for non-payment of their fees.

      Report Post » Link8on  
    • L0WRYDER
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:53am

      There’s no way to go to every fire and keep up the manpower and the equipment well hell thay showed up why. Thats a wast of manpower and it puts stress on the equipment dont the Mayor David Crocker know this its a wast of money and manpower and equipment. I think the Mayor should pay the fuel bill just to show up and watch the fire and pay for the manpower allso after all theres no such thing as a FREE lunch bet that will be more than 75 bucks bet that mayor is a democrat

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:47am

      Charge them & they turn around & declare bankruptcy. Meanwhile they go to 711 buy booze, go to the local dealer & buy drugs, etc, etc, ad naseum. Any bets on whether the shirkers deny themselves?

      Report Post »  
  • stickandtwig.com
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:21am

    Govt. is the result of a social contract between the people in a community or society. If the people agree, through their representatives, that they must pay a yearly fee for services, then to not pay that fee and still expect those services is a violation of the contract. It is also an unjust claim on the labor and life of everyone in the community who did pay their fair share for those protections. This story may seem unjust on the surface, but that is because it is easy for our emotions to take over and for our rational minds to miss the underlying principle involved. What if a private insurance company never got paid until AFTER we had a crash? You wreck your $50,000 car, yet you expect them to cover it after the crash and only because you then make a $200 payment? This is not how the world works, and the fact that we are dealing with a government doesn’t change this. We need to consider why we think it does or should. That is the mission of Stick and Twig: to help explain Natural Rights, Natural Law and how they work under the Social Contract that is America.

    Report Post » stickandtwig.com  
    • ohiochili
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:36am

      Rationalize this all you want. Where is the humanity?
      If this family wasn’t on public assistance before, they surely will be now over $75 bucks. I guess we really showed them!

      Report Post »  
    • Blackhawk1
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:01am

      Your argument might have held more credence if the Firefighters hadn’t already responded and then just sat and watched the home burn to the ground. Now the fact that it was a trailer had they tried to put it out it probably would have burned to the ground anyway. Trailers are like a a pile of paper burning.

      Report Post » Blackhawk1  
    • copatriots
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:59am

      This story reminds me of a conversation between Davy Crockett and a voter/taxpayer entitled “Not Yours to Give”. Ignore or enjoy the brief intro music. The lesson is valuable and relevant.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEJ-D2bgc0

      Report Post »  
    • hucksqr
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:01am

      Yet you still fail to realize, just because they responded to the fire, did NOT mean they should use tax payer money (this area does not pay the city property taxes), in such a manner. How more inhuman would it have been if they had been fighting this fire, and they received a call for a fire in the city that they are under contract to fight? Sorry, these folks deserve the consequences of their behavior. They refused to “pay their fair share”, even though they knew they would have no fire protection if they did. The Fire Fighters are employees of the city they work for, meaning they are the employees of the tax payer. It is their duty to serve the people that pay for their equipment, pay and benefits.

      Report Post »  
    • thetreyman
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:14am

      stickandtwig is exactly right. if you read the story you know that these people knew about the fee and chose not to pay the $75 per year. if the city starts making exceptions then no one will pay and the city will have to suspend all rural fire services. then they wont even show up to make sure there is no one in the house that might be trapped. remember, the rural areas are not paying city taxes for this service and the city does not have to offer this at all. as for them already being there, it takes more time and money and is more dangerous to put out a fire than to let it burn and keep it contained in this instance. that is why you pay the $75 per year fee.

      Report Post » thetreyman  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:52am

      Exactly right.

      Report Post »  
    • Viet Vet
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:42pm

      @stickandtwig.com

      Leftists are emotional basket-cases, there is nothing rational or logical in their “thinking”, it’s an alien proposition for them.

      Report Post »  
  • we are screwed
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:20am

    So now people need to pay “protection” money to the fire department so they will spray water on the house? Might as well be dealing with the mob. Is this not why we pay property taxes? I bet the park and rec department is fully funded and the play equipment and grass is kept in good condition yet a house burns to the ground because they didn’t pay the “protection” fee. Just another way government has spent money on things we don’t need and has given up on protecting the citizens. You know the guys who showed up got paid to respond to the fire. If you‘re going to let it burn then don’t even show up.

    Report Post »  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:30am

      “The city of South Fulton’s fire department, until a few years ago, would not respond to any fires outside of the city limits — which is to say, the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers”
      —————————————
      Re-read the story

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • ghheath
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:34am

      You are 100% wrong. The residents of the county do not pay property taxes to fund the fire dept. The city residents do, as it is a city fire department. The fire department is providing an additional optional service to county residents who wish to pay for it. The homeowner in this case decided not to pay since she thought a fire would not strike her. Roll of the dice I guess. Also, firefighters are covered by workmans comp only if they are responding to events that they are legally required to cover.

      Report Post »  
    • blazer809
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:34am

      That was my question, do the “out of city” residents pay ANY taxes that funnel towards first responder protection agencies? If so, then the extra 75$ should not be a requirement.

      Report Post »  
    • booger71
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:34am

      The people in the county DO NOT pay property taxes for fire protection, only people in the city. The people know if you live outside the city you have to pay $75 a year . This is a VOLUNTEER fire dept. The lady even admitted she refused to pay because she never thought it would happen. She made a gamble and lost.

      Report Post » booger71  
    • we are screwed
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:56am

      OK, missed that part. Regardless, they showed up, got paid for showing up, and let it burn anyway. I still stand behind my previous comments that government has spent money on wants instead of needs and now does not have the money to actually do what it is supposed to do, protect citizens.

      Report Post »  
    • OUTRIDER WRITER
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:04am

      Property taxes paid for my county’s fire protection (and law enforcement, etc.) until a couple of years ago when county commissioners decided to “lower” property taxes, then charged a separate tax (fee) for fire protection (added to our electric bill; tricky dicky politics….).
      …
      Regardless of how the fire tax is paid, we get fire service. I don‘t understand why the fire service tax isn’t mandatory and considered as valuable a service as law enforcement protection.
      …
      Liberatrian purists would argue mandatory payment, but I can’t imagine a society where critical emergency services must be generated by fund-raising events.

      Report Post »  
    • thekuligs
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:13am

      we are screwed:

      I believe this is a volunteer fire department, meaning no one got paid. Well, they probably got their water paid for like back when my dad did it. But these are not the big bucks making union members. AND even if this was a regular fire dept… which I believe it was not, they would have still been paid for sitting in the fire station, and they showed up to make sure no one died and the fire didn’t spread. Use some common sense! These people pay no taxes to support the services in the city, if they received the services for nothing they would be living off the back of the tax payer in town.

      Report Post » thekuligs  
    • Dismayed Veteran
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:53am

      GhGheath

      I agree with your posting. The city fire department is paid for by the taxes from the citizens of the city. For the city to offer a nominal fee of $75/year is very fair. These folks, sad as it is, chose not to opt in.

      As a former volunteer fireman, I would have first found out if anyone was in the trailer. If so, you go to rescue. If not, you keep the fire from spreading. Trailers go fast. In many cases, the occupants don’t get out.

      Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
  • ME
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:19am

    If the fire department operates on only the fees collected then I am all for it. If they receive any federal, state or local tax dollars they are just greedy pigs that can not get enough from the trough of the tax payers and should never see another public dollar. Getting it both ways is what Unions and (public servants HAHA) are all about and giving it to the people they (server HAHA) is what they do best.

    Report Post » ME  
    • Dismayed Veteran
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 12:09pm

      If I understand you correctly, no one should pay a tax to their city and/or county to fund a fire department. A fire department should be funded only by a charge for the service rendered. If that is incorrect, help me understand what you mean.

      If it is correct, then be prepared to pay a lot more for fire department services. I was a volunteer fire fighter and received no payment for my time. I did have the cost of outside training paid by the county. I had to buy my own turnout gear. I promise you that the cost of maintaining a single fire house with a ladder, pumper and rescue/ambulance is expensive.

      Here is the most current cost of fire trucks I could find:

      Quick Attack Pumper (4X4 Pick-up Frame) – $120k – $200k

      Engine/Pumper Commercial Cab – $250k to $400k

      Engine Pumper Custom Cab – $350k – $700k

      Tender (Water Tanker) – $110k – $350k

      Rescue (No Pump, Commercial and Custom Cab) – $120k – $650k

      Ladder (With Pump, 50′ – 110′) – $500k – $1.3 million

      That is just one cost area. I bet that my hours which I gave willing and at no cost would now be charged hours in order offset operating costs. All you have to do is keep listing cost centers to figure out how much you would be charged in fees.

      Taxes spread the cost. Fee for service is a private business and you can be charged whatever the fire department deems a proper fee.

      Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
  • semihardrock
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:18am

    I have seen the RESULTS of the question and AM NOT surprised that UNION MEMBERS have been “brainwashed” into belief in the Communist System of Firefighting!

    PROOF: If this were Obamacare, they would not have to pay the “fee” until AFTER the house caught on fire.

    Report Post » semihardrock  
  • Mikes MuuMuus - Home of the Big Boy Burqa
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:15am

    @NHWINTER.
    Without the so-called Extortion Fee (as you call it), how would there be a fire truck to sit outside the burning house? The fire truck, fire equipment & facilities to upkeep it are paid for by the people who pay the $75.00 fee. Why is it Extortion to ask your neighbors to be responsible? Why do you think that YOUR neighbors owe you free fire protection (or a park to camp in, a street on which to protest, or a cop car on which to crap)?

    Report Post » Mikes MuuMuus - Home of the Big Boy Burqa  
  • Lowcal
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:12am

    Lets just make everything free. Big daddy government will take care of us. Those trucks all run for free

    Report Post »  
  • CanteenBoy
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:11am

    I get not putting out the fire, but seriously, send the trucks and men TO WATCH??

    Report Post » CanteenBoy  
    • Charlie Justice
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:16am

      I imagine they showed up to prevent loss of life.

      Report Post » Charlie Justice  
    • AJAYW
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:19am

      Went to beg for money for their up coming firemans ball and dance

      Report Post »  
    • texasfireguy
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:13am

      They respond to make sure no one is inside, and to prevent the fire from spreading to other structures.

      Report Post » texasfireguy  
  • lgccac
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:10am

    Personal responsibility.

    Report Post »  
  • Tea Party Animal
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:10am

    For all you Blazers who say the fire dept should just “put out the fire” Here’s an idea from Maritime Law: IF the fee was not paid in advance, and the fire dept puts out the fire, then the fire dept (county, city, whoever) now OWNS the property. It is the “salvage” fee just like when a ship is salvaged at sea.

    So, the homeowner gets to keep their “stuff”, but they have to buy back the house to pay for the salvage.

    Report Post » Tea Party Animal  
  • EgoBrain
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:08am

    Pay the freaking fee. It’s either in your tax bill, or a separate bill, but it’s got to be paid.

    I lived in Savannah and had to pay the yearly fee, or else. Big deal, less than $10 a month. Big deal.

    Report Post » EgoBrain  
  • paleoman
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:06am

    Life is not FAIR. If you pay you play if you don’t you burn.

    Report Post »  
    • we are screwed
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:21am

      Yep, just like the Obama administration.

      Report Post »  
    • mrsmileyface
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:26am

      Love the compassion. Im sure GOD would approve.

      Report Post » mrsmileyface  
    • booger71
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:36am

      God has nothing to do with it. It is about being responsible for yourself.

      Report Post » booger71  
    • Lord_Frostwind
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 4:32pm

      If you want to bring God into this argument, remember the story of the virgins awaiting the bridegroom. Half of the virgins were wise and purchased extra oil for their lamps while the others were frivolous. The night came and the bridegroom tarried, and so the virgins who had not taken extra oil for their lamps ran out and begged the others to give some of theirs, but they did not because that would have simply drained all of the oil that remained. So when the unwise virgins returned the bridegroom knew them not and did not allow them into the celebration.

      Refusing to assist someone because of a lack preparation is not a lack of compassion, you can’t save everyone especially when people are being foolish. I guarantee you one thing, after watching that persons house burn down, most of the people in that community are going to make sure they are paying their $75.

      Report Post » Lord_Frostwind  
  • cemerius
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:05am

    Why dispatch the fire trucks to the scene then? If this story was written accurately, didn’t the victims see the fire truck lights as their trailer burned down? If, they didn’t have the Fire Protection then DO NOT waste the fire truck gas but, if they are dispatched and have the ability to help….THEN HELP!!! I am just glad no one was injured, imagine if an infant could have been saved but the Fire Department that was ON the scene did nothing?!?! I do understand the “expanded services” and why the need for the $75 but, the fire trucks were dispatched and just watched feels like the city strong arming these rural citizens with a “pay or we will just sit here and watch it burn”!!!

    Report Post » cemerius  
    • hillbillyinny
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:15am

      If other “houses/structures” around had paid, the trucks are there to protect PAYING CUSTOMERS!

      Report Post »  
    • SDmom
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:17am

      I would think they are dispatched in case someone is trapped inside. In that case, I am sure they would do everything possible to save human life.

      Report Post »  
  • Tea Party Animal
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:04am

    Hey Gonzo and Keystonestate: Letting someone pay “after the fact” is like paying for health insurance after you get cancer. The point is, IF people can pay the fee after a fire, then no one will pay except for those that have a fire and the fee would need to be in the tens of thousands to fund the fire dept. If everyone pays the $75 in advance, then they all get the protection at a reasonable fee.

    Report Post » Tea Party Animal  
    • KeystoneState
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:18am

      Point taken TPA, but like I said, put out the fire first, than sort out the details. If they don’t pay the $75 up front, bill them for the entire service and clean up afterward. Duh!

      Report Post » KeystoneState  
    • raybojabo
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:06am

      @KEYSTONESTATE
      If I lived their and they put some deadbeats house fire out, why would I be a chump and ever pay again? Maybe they could reduce the charge to a monthly installment for a small fee like homeowners insurance does.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:51am

      Sorry KEYSTONE, but if the lien (for services, attorney & filing fees as well as tying up the court system) that would place on the home would likely be more than the value of the home and mobile home combined. If they refused to pay the mere $75 annually, I’m guessing they would have walked away from the property with a lien placed on it.

      A very sad lesson these people learned but they willfully made that decision. It was insurance they refused to pay. There are, indeed, consequences for our actions.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:06am

      Ooops……meant “land and mobile home combined”

      Report Post »  
  • SpankDaMonkey
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:02am

    .
    Bell did admit that she and her boyfriend were aware of the fee but simply refused to pay because they never thought they would be hit by a fire…….

    Should have paid the 75 bucks, instead of buying cigarettes……

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:11am

      Are you seeing the LSU avatar yet? Sign out, clear your cookies, sign back in and it you’ll see it. I’m not welching on our bet.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • SpankDaMonkey
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:23am

      .
      No LSU icon yet Gonzo……….

      Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:05am

      Honest to goodness I see it, I don’t know what else to do. Are you still seeing Archie?

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • HorseCrazy
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:46am

      I am sure they are paying taxes, as a rural resident who pays over 20k a year in property taxes I resent stories like this. There should be no 75$ a year fee, the county should be allocating taxes properly to cover fire fighters. I am sure they are finding several ways to waste tax payer dollars and then stick there hands out in standard bully fasion. My 20k a year goes to pay for health services for the poor and green projects but they won’t respond to property crime where the loss is less than 10k and wont plow roads. Then they raise my taxes and wont fill a pot hole. I feel for these folks.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on December 8, 2011 at 2:28am

      HorseCrazy
      20K a year? How many square feet is your house & how many acres? And what part of the country?

      Report Post »  
  • HKS
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:02am

    If they could have afforded to pay it they probably would have, so is this just another thorn in the side of poor people? It’s always about follow the money? Do we make the poor choose between food and insurance? Is this really America? Why is there not a plan B to raise money if that’s the issue? Maybe the people who can’t afford it could work at the fire department? As Obama would say, “is this fair”? IE since you are worthless let all you have burn, that’s the message.

    Report Post » HKS  
    • HoosierHunter
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:21am

      No, the message is: Nothing is free. Your neighbors shouldn’t have to pay for the services you receive.

      Report Post » HoosierHunter  
    • SDmom
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:24am

      It’s about choices, what is important to you. They could have paid this fee and done without something else. I know people who say they can’t afford health insurance, but drive a new car. The other day, a gentleman bought a cartoon of cigarettes and a beer, his total was $65.00!

      Report Post »  
    • Conkuur
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:49am

      I think you are missing THE most important part of the article. There was NO fire protection for anyone in rural areas they added the rural areas for a fee (75 dollars) a year because the money was not available in the budget. It is more than fair. If you have a Mortgage you have to pay Insurance if you have a car you have to have and pay insurance. Obama is the antithesis of FAIRNESS! He is about the money sorry you are totally blind to see the blatant examples.The message is simple things cost money ,gas,firetrucks and their maintenance,people’s time and risk to personal safety etc..Pay the freaking 75 bucks it’s less than 6 dollars a month, or burn. Plus if you have children and don’t pay you should have your children taken for neglect.

      Report Post » Conkuur  
    • Memphismerlin
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:34pm

      HKS, if they could not pay it would of been in the story. Plus, your insurance on your residence goes down if you are covered by a fire department. I’m pretty sure that would offset most of the fee.

      Report Post »  
  • itsmyfirstday
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 7:59am

    I lived in a rural community growing up. I watched several homes go up in flames while the firemen watched because the home owner did not pay there dues for fire protection. I thought then and still now that was wrong.
    A more humane idea is to go ahead and put the fire out then bill the home owner for the fire service…worst case place a lien against the property.

    Report Post » itsmyfirstday  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:04am

      Agreed. What else did they have to do anyway? Wash the truck for the 20th time that week?

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • old white guy
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:10am

      jeez, there are so many people who think it is ok to let someone’s house burn down. are you all liberals? or are you all just ignorant? this has to be love your neighbour unless he does’t live close enough to the fire hall.

      Report Post »  
    • Johnny Cocheroo
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:27am

      @oldwhiteguy,

      So what happens when there are no fire trucks because nobody paid $75 dollars?

      Report Post »  
    • svan71
      Posted on December 8, 2011 at 2:46pm

      If no fires occurred $75 wouldn’t be paid by anyone and there would be no fire dept to do the ignoring. The dam $75 is what keeps the fire dept there it helps pay there bills without it they don’t exist GET IT ! They cant tell the bill collectors wait for a fire so we can save a house collect $$$ then pay you. Dam you people are retarded its $75 dollars pay it and shut up ! Think with your heads that why it above your hearts…

      Report Post » svan71  
  • Tea Party Animal
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 7:58am

    Admitted they “knew about the fee but REFUSED to pay because they THOUGHT they would never have a fire.” Well, isn’t that a damn shame?……I’m wiping the tears from my eyes as I write….

    Report Post » Tea Party Animal  
    • AJAYW
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:08am

      Well I’ll be darn –if you let weeds and trash pile up in your yard they come clean it up and bill you for it. I understand that that is more inportant than saving a home or life your right on it- Tea Party Animal

      Report Post »  
  • KeystoneState
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 7:58am

    Maybe I’m totally off base here, but I doubt it, if the trucks are sitting there, I say put out the damn fire and sort out the details later! Common sense people, please!

    Report Post » KeystoneState  
    • jasmer
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:08am

      Sorry, but yes you’re off. Should I drive to your house neglecting my own duties and neighbors to do something you refuse to pay for? Read Kevin Williamson’s piece linked above.

      Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 7:56am

    How about $75 before the fire and $500 if you pay after a fire? Wouldn’t that be fair to all sides?

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Johnny Cocheroo
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:09am

      So what… 10,000 households (made up number) would stop paying the $75 per year and instead opt for the $500. So instead of getting $750,000 per year from all owners to cover costs, they only get $500 per fire. If there were only 5 fires a year…….

      Would you be willing to purchase a fire truck, maintain it, house it it, train crew & keep them on staff if you only got $500 per fire? Its all about safety in numbers. Its how we afford our kick butt army & sometimes nice roads.

      Report Post »  
    • 1proud_Texan
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:34am

      I like your thinking. People like a bargain.

      Report Post »  
    • we are screwed
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:43am

      What has this community built/bought since they enacted the $75 “protection” fee? Could it be that this town has spent money on frivolous “wants” instead of first providing money for “needs” ie police and fire protection? Are people being charged to use the City park? How about going to the community center or library? Or did they really need a big fire truck and the night vision camera, the hover boat, etc. (just an example).
      We need to know where the tax money is being spent.

      Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 1:04pm

      Johnny Cocheroo
      I would bet the exact same number of people would pay the $75. Any responsible home owner would. If your irresponsible, it costs a lot more, make it whatever number you like. If your house is burning, you’ll agree to pay it.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Memphismerlin
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 3:49pm

      Wearescrewed, they, the rual residents of Obion County, have voted against establishing a county wide fire department twice because they did not want their taxes to go up. Now, they refuse to pay the $75 fee. It really looks like these people who don’t pay the fee really just want a hand out. Remember, this happened to another family last year, you would of thought that they would of wised up.

      Report Post »  
  • AJAYW
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 7:55am

    This just proves that firefighters are not what they make themselves out to be – Most can’t make it outside in a job that requires thinking and work. you can bet that they will be out begging for money being the beggers that they are, for their firemans ball and dances-

    Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 7:58am

      Firemen risk their lives to save people who are in danger (usually for very stupid reasons). You are an idiot.

      Report Post »  
    • Lowcal
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:10am

      Apparently you can’t think at all. You are a complete idiot for making a comment like that

      Report Post »  
    • booger71
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:47am

      My son is a volunteer fireman like those in this county. He does this while maintaining a full time job. He trains on his own time. He took necessary classes at his own expense. He gets calls to go to fires and car wrecks all through the night. He gets a whopping $5/call. The county he lives in could not afford to buy any equipment if no one paid the up front fee. These men and women who do this risk their lives on a daily basis to help their neighbors.

      Report Post » booger71  
    • AJAYW
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:59am

      @booger71
      His choice no one is making him do it your hero not mine

      Report Post »  
    • ddajs
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:02am

      I beleave the firemen should have put the fire out, then placed a lean on the house to collect the un-payed fees. I do not agree that the firemen are greedy. Firemen in our community work to help children and the charities that support children. The firemen in my community were a great help when my daughter was going thru cancer treatments. I say God bless them and protect them

      Report Post »  
    • AJAYW
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 9:23am

      @ddajs
      I agree take care of the problem then handle the money problem. Sorry about your daughter hope all worked out. Not all fire departments are the same I agree, but some are questional at best

      Report Post »  
    • booger71
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:03am

      I beleave the firemen should have put the fire out, then placed a lean on the house to collect the un-payed fees
      ——————————————
      That would be illegal Again I stress, without the upfront money, the city would not have the money to offer this service to the rest of the county. The city is under no obligation to offer fire protection of any kind to the county. This particular county has voted down a county wide fire protection district at least twice (volunteer) because they did not want their property taxes to go up.

      Report Post » booger71  
    • texasfireguy
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:18am

      Ajay, I bet you couldnt do what I do.

      Report Post » texasfireguy  
    • AJAYW
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 1:03pm

      @texasfireguy
      You never know might be better at than you

      Report Post »  
    • otobesane1
      Posted on December 9, 2011 at 8:03pm

      What an absolutely ignorant comment! I’m a volunteer, (emphasize VOLUNTEER) firefighter. I volunteered in order to help my small community. I also have a master’s degree, am an ex-USAF officer and a successful business owner. We have one paid position on our fire department and it’s the Chief. (Not me) Every single one of the rest of our fire fighters are volunteers. We don’t do it for the money. We surely don’t do it for the prestige. And we obviously don‘t do it because we can’t hold regular jobs. Your comment shows a lack of a cogent argument or a fact based thought process.

      Report Post »  
  • mrsmileyface
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 7:54am

    So let me get this straight….if you dont pay the extortion fee of $75 and you have a fire in your house, AND lets say your inside the house trapped by the fire…..the fire fighters and the trucks will just sit there idle watching you and the house burn. Im just blown away by this. And this is why America is well into its decline as a superior nation.

    Report Post » mrsmileyface  
    • AJAYW
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:04am

      Yes they would let them burn up – How do they know if someone is in there or not. They would just say we could have saved them if they would have given us the money. But you let one of them dead beats get injuried or killed and that want the nation to chip in and pay for them.

      Report Post »  
    • EgoBrain
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:10am

      So you don’t pay the fee….but your neighbors do, for you?
      And you want free service? Nanny state?
      Someone has to pay for this service.

      Report Post » EgoBrain  
    • MrObvious
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 8:24am

      How exactly is $75 a YEAR, extortion?
      Is it a large sum of money?
      Will someone come out and burn their double wide down if they don’t pay it?
      No, No and No.
      It’s a service charge and a small one at that.
      The policy may seem strict; but, it’s also reasonable.
      Odds are, individual owners, like the ones in these stories, probably could not cover the costs from saving their homes, no mater how much they might want to at the time of the fire.
      If you lived in the area wouldn’t you pay the $75 a year?
      The city has no direct tax authority over the county residents. This is a true fee.
      They can’t take your home for failure to pay, like the true extortion that are federal income taxes and the property taxes in most states.

      Report Post »  
    • Link8on
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 10:09am

      The fire department offered a service for a fee, a choice for the trailer owners who lived outside of the South Fulton jurisdiction.

      It can be assumed that South Fulton forces a fee on the jurisdiction, in return, that fire department must respond and put out fires in the South Fulton jurisdiction. This is a dual extortion.

      I suspect this fire department does not start fires in the surrounding rural areas.

      $ 75 pays for a truck, gas, equipment , etc… Way more than the value of the trailer that burned down.

      The decline of our nation is due to entitled lazy bums who need to be refined and burned out by fire.
      These residents chose to not build the local economy. They spent their $75 elsewhere.

      Folks who do not sacrifice strive towards exceptionalism, are by default, sliding down toward mediocrity and decline. If they want others around them to pay for their own indulgences, then yes, they will drag the nation down too.

      Report Post » Link8on  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on December 7, 2011 at 11:58am

      $ 75 / year
      $ 6.75 /month

      The cost of one 6 pack per month.
      Less than the cost of a movie ticket.
      Less than the cost of a online game.

      Before they cry poverty, before they cry wolf, let us see their shopping receipts & income.

      Government charity done correctly, they want you to bring in your wage statements. People hate to do so. But you have a choice. Get a better job or bring in your wage statements. These people are either pleading poverty or pleading douchery.

      Report Post »  
  • NHwinter
    Posted on December 7, 2011 at 7:52am

    Everything should be free – isn’t that what the OWS people want. Why pay for protection. Just move into an foreclosed home like the protesters want and Obama supports them. So, lets all stop paying taxes and our mortgages and demand everything be free including fire protection. Concern for others and common sense has left America. Thank you Obama.

    Report Post » NHwinter  
1 2 3 ... 10

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love