|
On October 06 2010 11:43 blahman3344 wrote:
Wait, so let me get this straight...Each member of that town has to individually pay some fee for the services of fire fighters?
I find the collective tax that pays for all public services to be a lot more efficient than something like that. Plus, it prevents stuff like this from happening. =\
The town where the firefighters came from have a tax that supports the firefighters. The person's house who caught on fire is not in the town, but the town offers him the choice of paying a fee (since they can't tax him) for firefighting services. It sounds like its a really scarcely populated area to begin with, and this person is living either further away from the town.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 06 2010 11:47 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 10:51 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 10:48 Chelmar wrote:On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote:
I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car. Troll alert  I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG. Excuse me? If I don't have my car than I can't work to make any money and can't pay for my house anymore. While if I lose my house I can keep working and can get a new one. So please, tell me how I am a troll? EDIT: Of course there is public transportation and the such, but that only goes so far. Pretty sure the economic hit of losing a house is more than tenfold of losing a car for most people (although I guess you'd still have the land.... scorched land). If you lose your car and you can't afford to get a shitty temporary lease (which I can't imagine it being that hard), then sell your damn house, buy a car, and repurchase a lesser house.... Why in the world would you rather lose your car? That's just stupid, unless you're living in a $75,000 house and have a $200,000 Ferrari that massively degenerates in value everytime you drive it...
Like I said, it completely depends on the financial situation at the time. Even if I have all this wealth invested in a house, it takes time to sell it and turn that into spendable cash. Plus there's the cost associated with selling a house in general. So if I have little to no extra money at the time, it's better to spend that money on a car so I can get to and from work rather then on a house which I'll lose anyways since I have no reliable transportation.
If I do have extra money lying around, then ya, I'll keep the house every time.
But anyways, this is getting off topic.
|
I can almost see how forcing a payment for firefighting services in very rural areas (that are far from any towns/cities) would be considered reasonable, but saying "its too late" when the guy offered money is just nonsense, especially since they were already there.
|
On October 06 2010 11:54 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 11:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 06 2010 10:51 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 10:48 Chelmar wrote:On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote:
I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car. Troll alert I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG. Excuse me? If I don't have my car than I can't work to make any money and can't pay for my house anymore. While if I lose my house I can keep working and can get a new one. So please, tell me how I am a troll? EDIT: Of course there is public transportation and the such, but that only goes so far. Pretty sure the economic hit of losing a house is more than tenfold of losing a car for most people (although I guess you'd still have the land.... scorched land). If you lose your car and you can't afford to get a shitty temporary lease (which I can't imagine it being that hard), then sell your damn house, buy a car, and repurchase a lesser house.... Why in the world would you rather lose your car? That's just stupid, unless you're living in a $75,000 house and have a $200,000 Ferrari that massively degenerates in value everytime you drive it... Like I said, it completely depends on the financial situation at the time. Even if I have all this wealth invested in a house, it takes time to sell it and turn that into spendable cash. Plus there's the cost associated with selling a house in general. So if I have little to no extra money at the time, it's better to spend that money on a car so I can get to and from work rather then on a house which I'll lose anyways since I have no reliable transportation. If I do have extra money lying around, then ya, I'll keep the house every time. But anyways, this is getting off topic.
Unless you have maxed out credit cards, terrible credit history, etc. you can easily get transportation. And no, it wouldn't take very long to sell the house if you want to sell it for significantly under the actual value because of the time factor. Your house worth $500,000? Put it on the market for $250,000 and I assure you it'll sell in a second.
You're trying to argue an incredibly rare situation as being the more viable alternative for the general population when in reality it applies to most likely < .0001% of the populus. If you have a house that's really cheap, like <$100,000, then you're most likely going to have a car < $5,000 as well. While public transportation might be "shit" wherever you live, as long as it's there, I'm sure you'd struggle for a good month, or even few months if you're slow on your shit, for something that's worth most likely more than your annual salary. If your job has no PTO, I'm also sure they'd give you unpaid time off for your HOUSE BURNING DOWN.
|
On October 06 2010 12:06 synapse wrote:
I can almost see how forcing a payment for firefighting services in very rural areas (that are far from any towns/cities) would be considered reasonable, but saying "its too late" when the guy offered money is just nonsense, especially since they were already there.
It's too late because unless they charge him total amount of money that goes into the fire deparment/ number of fires stopped a year, (which I would guess would be far far far above the cost of the actual house) the fire department cannot operate on a case-by-case basis.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 06 2010 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 11:54 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 11:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 06 2010 10:51 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 10:48 Chelmar wrote:On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote:
I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car. Troll alert I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG. Excuse me? If I don't have my car than I can't work to make any money and can't pay for my house anymore. While if I lose my house I can keep working and can get a new one. So please, tell me how I am a troll? EDIT: Of course there is public transportation and the such, but that only goes so far. Pretty sure the economic hit of losing a house is more than tenfold of losing a car for most people (although I guess you'd still have the land.... scorched land). If you lose your car and you can't afford to get a shitty temporary lease (which I can't imagine it being that hard), then sell your damn house, buy a car, and repurchase a lesser house.... Why in the world would you rather lose your car? That's just stupid, unless you're living in a $75,000 house and have a $200,000 Ferrari that massively degenerates in value everytime you drive it... Like I said, it completely depends on the financial situation at the time. Even if I have all this wealth invested in a house, it takes time to sell it and turn that into spendable cash. Plus there's the cost associated with selling a house in general. So if I have little to no extra money at the time, it's better to spend that money on a car so I can get to and from work rather then on a house which I'll lose anyways since I have no reliable transportation. If I do have extra money lying around, then ya, I'll keep the house every time. But anyways, this is getting off topic. Unless you have maxed out credit cards, terrible credit history, etc. you can easily get transportation. And no, it wouldn't take very long to sell the house if you want to sell it for significantly under the actual value because of the time factor. Your house worth $500,000? Put it on the market for $250,000 and I assure you it'll sell in a second. You're trying to argue an incredibly rare situation as being the more viable alternative for the general population when in reality it applies to most likely < .0001% of the populus. If you have a house that's really cheap, like <$100,000, then you're most likely going to have a car < $5,000 as well. While public transportation might be "shit" wherever you live, as long as it's there, I'm sure you'd struggle for a good month, or even few months if you're slow on your shit, for something that's worth most likely more than your annual salary. If your job has no PTO, I'm also sure they'd give you unpaid time off for your HOUSE BURNING DOWN.
You're aware at a time like this there are a ton of people with max credit cards, no room for more credit, and even undervalued houses aren't selling? You're right, in a normal situation it'd 99.9% of the time be better to keep the house. And I did make a pretty general comment to start, but I did then specify when it would be better.
|
It doesn't seem right to me.
I generally believe in "learning the hard way" and that people should face the consequences of their actions, but at the same time I don't think this principle applies when you are faced with substantial loss of property or life.
Obviously the firefighters in this case were within their rights to refuse to help, but that doesn't make their actions commendable.
Imagine that a guy has a heart attack on a plane, and there are calls for a doctor. One guy stands up and says "I'm a doctor! But you know what? Fuck it, this guy isn't my client...I don't owe him anything, just let him die". Or how about a lifeguard working on a beach, who sees a person in trouble in the water outside of his flagged area. "Sorry buddy, not my jurisdiction - not my problem"
We can all agree that these people have no legal duty to help, but at the same it doesn't feel right. This is because a lot of us feel that people who provide services like firefighters and lifeguards have a moral duty to help people when they can, regardless of what their contractual obligations are. To put it another way, if someone needs help and you are standing right there with the skills or equipment required to do so, you should provide the assistance first and ask questions later.
Whoever suggested putting out the fire and then charging him a hefty fee afterwards is on the right track. I don't see why it's necessary to make an example of the unfortunate homeowner in this case. Yes, he's a dumbass for not paying the fee. But does that mean he deserves to lose his house while the firefighters stand around watching? Maybe this guy willingly refused to pay the fee, but what if he never got the letter that told him he had to pay the fee? What if the house was owned by an immigrant family with poor English who didn't understand they had to pay the fee? People will always find ways to be stupid or ignorant, but that doesn't mean they should be denied emergency services in situations where they clearly need it. If it was my house on fire, I would be fucking outraged if these firemen just sat on their asses 50 metres away and watched.
Provide the service to EVERYONE. For those who pay the fee it's "free" (at no additional cost), and for everyone else who doesn't pay then charge an exorbitant amount after the fact.
|
On October 06 2010 12:15 randombum wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 12:06 synapse wrote:
I can almost see how forcing a payment for firefighting services in very rural areas (that are far from any towns/cities) would be considered reasonable, but saying "its too late" when the guy offered money is just nonsense, especially since they were already there. It's too late because unless they charge him total amount of money that goes into the fire deparment/ number of fires stopped a year, (which I would guess would be far far far above the cost of the actual house) the fire department cannot operate on a case-by-case basis.
The thing is, the fire department is part of the first response team..... Less than 10% of their job is actually putting out fires..... But they still need the equipment for it just in case.
It'll still be a lot of money though. Probably 100 000 bucks or more for his share of their time.....
WHICH IS WHY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FUCKING MANDATORY!!!!!!
The freaking government needs to make sure idiots don't do anything stupid..... Because if they do, it affects a lot more people than just themselves..... Freedom to make mistakes is nice in theory, but when it affects others, who have no say in your choices, you should be limited, they shouldn't have to suffer for your stupidity.....
And, one thing I've learned - Assume everyone (including yourself) is an idiot..... It makes things so much simpler.....
|
On October 06 2010 12:27 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 06 2010 11:54 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 11:47 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 06 2010 10:51 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 10:48 Chelmar wrote:On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote:
I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car. Troll alert I do sincerely hope you're not responsible for a family, but if you are, GL GG. Excuse me? If I don't have my car than I can't work to make any money and can't pay for my house anymore. While if I lose my house I can keep working and can get a new one. So please, tell me how I am a troll? EDIT: Of course there is public transportation and the such, but that only goes so far. Pretty sure the economic hit of losing a house is more than tenfold of losing a car for most people (although I guess you'd still have the land.... scorched land). If you lose your car and you can't afford to get a shitty temporary lease (which I can't imagine it being that hard), then sell your damn house, buy a car, and repurchase a lesser house.... Why in the world would you rather lose your car? That's just stupid, unless you're living in a $75,000 house and have a $200,000 Ferrari that massively degenerates in value everytime you drive it... Like I said, it completely depends on the financial situation at the time. Even if I have all this wealth invested in a house, it takes time to sell it and turn that into spendable cash. Plus there's the cost associated with selling a house in general. So if I have little to no extra money at the time, it's better to spend that money on a car so I can get to and from work rather then on a house which I'll lose anyways since I have no reliable transportation. If I do have extra money lying around, then ya, I'll keep the house every time. But anyways, this is getting off topic. Unless you have maxed out credit cards, terrible credit history, etc. you can easily get transportation. And no, it wouldn't take very long to sell the house if you want to sell it for significantly under the actual value because of the time factor. Your house worth $500,000? Put it on the market for $250,000 and I assure you it'll sell in a second. You're trying to argue an incredibly rare situation as being the more viable alternative for the general population when in reality it applies to most likely < .0001% of the populus. If you have a house that's really cheap, like <$100,000, then you're most likely going to have a car < $5,000 as well. While public transportation might be "shit" wherever you live, as long as it's there, I'm sure you'd struggle for a good month, or even few months if you're slow on your shit, for something that's worth most likely more than your annual salary. If your job has no PTO, I'm also sure they'd give you unpaid time off for your HOUSE BURNING DOWN. You're aware at a time like this there are a ton of people with max credit cards, no room for more credit, and even undervalued houses aren't selling? You're right, in a normal situation it'd 99.9% of the time be better to keep the house. And I did make a pretty general comment to start, but I did then specify when it would be better.
Alright, well we're at a consensus now, eh?  .
Although an undervalued house is still most likely going to be worth more than a car that devalues everyday you drive it, especially if you're in that financial situation!!!
|
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote:
This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there. Also, the firefighters would not be covered by whatever insurance they usually have for acting outside their jurisdiction, so the city would be liable for the full cost if anythig went wrong. Why should a tiny city that can barely afford to run a fire service risk being sued for millions to act outside their jurisdiction? Remember this is sue happy America, a lawyer would've approached the man of the firefighters did act, and the temptation of winning millions from "the government" would almost certainly have lead to disaster for the city.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Thank you for actually reading the article; I did too and I completely agree with you. I'm facepalming from reading all the ignorant sympathy posts from people who just read "Someone's house burned down  "
Awesome explanation of what happened. Hopefully it won't be completely disregarded. The firefighters not only did nothing wrong, but did everything completely right and responsible. The homeowners were the irresponsible ones, and they had to pay the consequences. It's a pity, but that's what happens.
|
On October 06 2010 12:31 FuRong wrote:
Provide the service to EVERYONE. For those who pay the fee it's "free" (at no additional cost), and for everyone else who doesn't pay then charge an exorbitant amount after the fact.
That's not how insurance companies work, or else they'd make no money off of 99% of their customers. They capitalize on probability and risk.
And besides, the guy didn't want to pay $75 to keep his house safe. What makes you think he'd want to pay "an exorbitant amount of money" afterwards? To him, his house wasn't worth $75. That's his decision, and he's gotta live with it.
And what if he couldn't afford the "exorbitant amount of money" afterwards? Gonna throw him in jail for not being able to afford an optional fee that he didn't want? That's simply not possible. Gonna take away his house? Oh, the irony 
|
Fire departments could make a living only by answering on-demand calls, who says they inherently cannot. It all depends on the demand of the region. It is also the type of question that a thousand entrepreneurs can approximate an answer to better than any single person or group thinking about it in a forum or congressional hearing alike.
|
On October 06 2010 12:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote:
This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there. Also, the firefighters would not be covered by whatever insurance they usually have for acting outside their jurisdiction, so the city would be liable for the full cost if anythig went wrong. Why should a tiny city that can barely afford to run a fire service risk being sued for millions to act outside their jurisdiction? Remember this is sue happy America, a lawyer would've approached the man of the firefighters did act, and the temptation of winning millions from "the government" would almost certainly have lead to disaster for the city.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you. Thank you for actually reading the article; I did too and I completely agree with you. I'm facepalming from reading all the ignorant sympathy posts from people who just read "Someone's house burned down " Awesome explanation of what happened. Hopefully it won't be completely disregarded. The firefighters not only did nothing wrong, but did everything completely right and responsible. The homeowners were the irresponsible ones, and they had to pay the consequences. It's a pity, but that's what happens.
both sides are at fault, but when you compare firefighters letting a house burn down as well as dogs and cats die to some guy not paying 75$, you'd have to cringe at the humanity if you were one of the firefighters. wouldn't you disobey authority to save something?
|
On October 06 2010 10:17 Myles wrote:
...
I'd say losing a car would be harder on you economically then losing a house. A house doesn't give you the possibility to travel while a car does give you the protection a home does. Is it emotionally worse to lose a house, probably to most people, but I'd find it much harder to stay financially sound without my car.
...
I'd say changing the system would be the best possible solution. However, with the system they had you can't provide people with services they didn't pay for or it just tells other people not to pay for them either.
I see there was already a discussion about the car-house importance, so I won't comment ont hat, especially after you admited that 99,9% (probably even more) of the population would have far more financial problems if they lost their houses rather than their cars. However, that's quite irrelevant to the topic anyway. Fact is that the family lost its whole livelihood. Fact is that the fire dept would have had very little trouble helping out. Fact is that not helping was a cruel act, no matter how retarded the victim is for not having paid the annual fee.
Also, they most certainly can "provide people with services they didn't pay for". The quesion is do they want to. From a humane point of view that's not even a question. Also, stating that the system would fail if they provided the service to a person who did not pay, is only an assumption (even though there is a pretty logical reasoning behind it). As far as the system is concerned, there is still the option to help and change the system thereafter, so it does not get abused. You still run the risk of one person unrightfully profiting, but this won't affect the future of the fire dept.
On October 06 2010 12:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote:
This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there. Also, the firefighters would not be covered by whatever insurance they usually have for acting outside their jurisdiction, so the city would be liable for the full cost if anythig went wrong. Why should a tiny city that can barely afford to run a fire service risk being sued for millions to act outside their jurisdiction? Remember this is sue happy America, a lawyer would've approached the man of the firefighters did act, and the temptation of winning millions from "the government" would almost certainly have lead to disaster for the city.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you. Thank you for actually reading the article; I did too and I completely agree with you. I'm facepalming from reading all the ignorant sympathy posts from people who just read "Someone's house burned down " Awesome explanation of what happened. Hopefully it won't be completely disregarded. The firefighters not only did nothing wrong, but did everything completely right and responsible. The homeowners were the irresponsible ones, and they had to pay the consequences. It's a pity, but that's what happens.
I can assure you that many people who condemn the action of the firefighters did read the article/watch the news coverage. Stating that all sympathy posts are ignorant is prejudiced and offensive.
First of all, nobody here argues that the victims weren't irresponsible or stupid or whatever else you want to call them. The major problem is the fact that the firefighters refused to assist in a situation that has very serious consequences for the victims even though it would have been only a slight trouble for them to do so. When you have the capability to save a family's whole livelihood (especially in this case where it seems that there was no danger for the firefighters), it is the most civilized and humane thing to do so. The firefighters decided otherwise and that's the reason why people are outraged. Not to mention that condemning somebody to a life of misery because he did not pay $75, $150 or even $1000 is a punishment as disproportionate as sentencing somebody to a life sentence over not having bought a train ticket.
|
^ it is also bad business, since the FD lost the opportunity of making easy bucks due to municipal law and policy.
|
All I know is I would have felt like a steaming pile of dog-crap if I was in front of his house just watching it burn.
|
Show up in the ER with no health insurance/money? They treat you. They don't let you bleed to death right in front of them.
This isn't right, its fucking selfish and retarded and the city government and the fire chief should be fucking sacked for making the call. This is effectively arson on the fire department's part, in my eyes.
|
The pets dying was purely the home owners fault. It took 2 HOURS for the fire to get from the barrels to his house. It's nobody else's fault that he never opened his door and let called his pets out, or even went in to get them when the fire hadn't even got to the house yet.
I don't even understand why a fire department had to be called. If the fire started in some barrels away from the house, why didn't he use his own garden hose to put it out?
|
WOW, I just read the article - apparently the guy needed to pay $75 to get fire protection. A burned-down house is worth way more than $75...especially when the firefighters are standing there watching. I can't believe this happened like this. Oh well...there's bad firefighters just like there's bad cops too. Heck, people are bad in general. We shouldn't be surprised.
|
United States3824 Posts
Destroying his net wealth will how him
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
