Firefighters let house burn over $75

Are the firefighters at fault? Should they have put out the flames?

I personally believe they should have still put out the fire and then charged the family with a massive fine. $1,000 fine and then still offering them the chance to pay the yearly fee on top of it. Their possessions would have been saved, the city would have made more money, and everyone wins.

People are outraged that the firefighter's did nothing. These are the same people that most likely ignore local politics allowing politicians and governments to pass regulations like this. If they don't like it they need to take a stand where it matters, not in the media or newspapers, but by getting involved in politics to repeal and prevent laws like these.

The family's dogs and cats died in the fire because they were apparently locked in the basement. Also, this is the second house this family has lost to fire, this time the fire started in two barrels near the family's shed. This screams to me of insurance fraud (I wouldn't be surprised if they had insurance on their pets). I really hope there is an investigation into this family instead of just glossing over it because of the media coverage.

 

Well, my firest reaction is the the Ganicks are stupid. I mean, they choose not to pay the fee and juste expected the firefighters to come anyway. And the firefighters dont have any real blame in this in my opinion. Sure, they could have put it out anyway, but I don't see how they are abliged to do so.

The ones at fault here are the people in charge and those that put the people in charge, allowing them to pass shit like this.

 

They had it coming. This is like waiting till you've wrecked your car to try to buy insurance on it and expecting an insurance company to pay for it. Obviously, if you haven't been paying premiums, nobody owes you any coverage. And if the fire department started putting out fires for people who hadn't paid, nobody would pay the fee till their house caught fire, meaning most people would never pay, meaning there would be no funding for the fire department.

The only caveat I can think of is if there was a person trapped in the burning house. That's when you put it out anyway and slap them with a huge fine.

 

I guess this is what happens when you let money take precedence over your job. I think the fired dept. should have put the fire out. This puts a family out of their home, regardless of the $75 dollar fee. Then again, I guess they should have just paid in advance.

 

I saw this on Bay12, as well, and also stated there that this is what you get when you don't pay your bill.

Sucks for the guy, sure, but if everybody thinks they can get away with not paying their fire bill, there will be no fire department for anybody.

 

Well it naturally follows that a house, if left to burn, will catch other houses near it on fire. I think that the fire dept. should have put the fire out in the first place on those grounds. House fires spread!

 

I believe that is how it is in The States. That's something I should probably be certain about.

To me, it depends on how the $75 fee is collected. If it is a fee that is automatically collected or deducted from income and somebody has to deliberately opt not to pay it, then I think this played out as it should. A household saved itself $75 by playing the odds.

 

So what, they showed up and watched it burn? Cold, man. Cold. It's like they're running some sort of protection racket.

 

That's why I don't agree with it. If you're not going to put out a fire, don't even show up. To watch it is like some cruel comedy.
"Nice house you had there. You know, you really should've paid us our due."

 

The key point in this story that people are missing is that the fire protection is offered by one city to the rest of the county that is otherwise without fire protection. To those not inside the city limits and thus not paying taxes to support the fire department, protection is offered as an optional service, almost like insurance. If you don't opt in, don't expect to be served. They didn't show up just to watch the place burn, they showed up to protect the property of the neighbor who had opted in and was paying to support the fire department. The city can't make it mandatory for the rest of the county to support their fire department, but the rest of the county has no claim on their services if they aren't supporting them.

Moral of the story is this: Pay the measly $75 annual fee or move to a town that has its own fire department that will be obligated to extinguish your burning home.

 

From what I hear, they showed up to keep the fire away from other homes.

 

If everybody expects free everything simply because they need it, those services won't be around anymore as they won't have any means to sustain themselves.

They lived in an area with no basic fire protection (assuming because they lived in a rural/suburban area or something) and choose not to pay the fee. I really don't see the argument here. Laws and rules only apply except for when they don't?

 

Well I guess you can't really blame the fire dept at all, they're just following orders from the city. I retract my earlier statement.

 

It endangered the neighboring houses with the fire and possible some people with smoke, or at least property. People who may have paid the $75. It's pretty irresponsible not to put it out. As someone said, they could've just fined him afterwards.

 

Well, think about the manpower necessary. A house that's way out there in a rural area (like this one clearly is) is going to require not only an engine, but it's going to require at least one pumper truck as well. Probably several, meaning that'd they'd have to call on other local departments or volunteer fire brigades to suppliment. That's a LOT of extra man power and expenses. Especially for someone who refused to pay a $75 fee to get coverage.

Personally, the fact they couldn't put out the fire in the two hours it took the flames to get to the house is incredibly suspicious to me. Especially since it started in two burn barrels.


DE/et all: if you live within a city limits, your taxes pay for fire protection. If you live in most counties, they provide fire coverage as part of the taxes they take. However, some rural counties don't provide fire coverage, and leave it up to the individual cities to offer this service. In this case, the city is fully justified, in my opinion, in not doing anything. They paid nothing for fire protection, and they received nothing. It's really not the fire department's fault. You can't set a precedent of giving things away for free. It's bad for everyone.

Also: the city has no authority to extract fines from someone (without getting a court's intervention) who doesn't live in city limits, as far as I'm aware.

 

They showed up because I paid them $80 to make damn sure nobody else--especially a competing fire department--put out the fire.

 

Well then they actually did some good preventing after all. I didn't see one word about another dept. come to save the day. They know how to represent.