:roflmao:

Sorry, BG - you bought it, you got it. For the record, I'm glad you were shocked :jet: because I couldn't believe it myself.Well, crap. :frown:

This day just can't get any worse for me, can it?

Oh, wait, my house could burn down. But that's ok, cuz I don't own a house. :burning:

Well, crap. :frown:

This day just can't get any worse for me, can it?

Oh, wait, my house could burn down. But that's ok, cuz I don't own a house. :burning:

Have a cup cake.

Oh, wait, my house could burn down. But that's ok, cuz I don't own a house. :burning:

OK, that was funny! Well, I mean, it's not. But it is. Know 'm saying??

:lol:

The Obion County Fire Department - A Presentation Regarding The Establishment And Implementation of a County-Wide Fire Department (March 18, 2008) (http://troy.troytn.com/Obion%20County%20Fire%20Department%20Presentation%20Presented%20to%20the%20County%20Commission.pdf)


On January 19, 1987, the Obion County Commission passed a resolution establishing an Obion County Fire Department, but no action was taken to implement the resolution. Therefore, Obion County has a county fire department on paper, but is unmanned, unfunded and not operational.

Currently there are 8 municipal departments in Obion County which are providing fire protection for most of Obion County’s rural areas. These departments are

• Hornbeak Fire Department
• Kenton Fire Department
• Obion Fire Department
• Rives Fire Department
• Samburg Fire Department
• South Fulton Fire Department
• Troy Fire Department
• Union City Fire Department

In addition, the Obion County Rescue Squad responds to rural grass and vehicle fires in designated areas. There are currently areas of Obion County which rely on fire departments from outside Obion County for their fire protection (Ridgely Fire Department from Lake County, Trimble Fire Department from Dyer County, and Sidonia Fire Department from Weakley County), and there is approximately 15 square miles of southwestern Obion County which has no fire protection.

Three (3) of the municipal departments are offering services on a subscription basis, and five (5) municipal departments are offering services on an as needed basis without subscription or ability to pay for response. The municipal fire departments which utilize a subscription service are not bound to and do not respond to fires on rural properties which do not have a subscription for fire service. The only rural property owners guaranteed to receive fire protection services are those who choose to pay for it. It they choose not to purchase an annual subscription and require fire protection services, they fall on the mercy of a municipal department who provide services on an as needed basis. When such occurs, the responding fire department normally provides those services without compensation.

According to survey information, over 75% of all municipal fire department’s structure calls are rural. All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas, but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal tax payer.

Okay, so if I don't want to buy homeowners insurance, and my house floods or catches on fire, can I just pay what my last year's premium would have been and the insurance company will cover my loss?

This guy knew the risks and he took a $75 gamble. And lost.

No because you are mandated by law to have insurance on your home and auto. Should you allow it to lapse then that is your loss. This is an optional charge, which actually I think is just moronic. One would think they would have this foolish charge to be mandatory paid in their taxes.

According to survey information, over 75% of all municipal fire department’s structure calls are rural. All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas, but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal tax payer.

Just to highlight what caught my attention the most, and answers the question some posters had.

One would think they would have this foolish charge to be mandatory paid in their taxes.

So you didn't read the story, either?

So you didn't read the story, either?

Maybe I missed something, please elaborate.

Maybe I missed something, please elaborate.

Read what Tilted posted right above. It pretty much explains the whole thing.

Well it turns out that Larry was right and the guy is an #######, and he didnt pay his subscription, so that makes it morally right to sit there with a functional Fire truck and crew and watch it burn.

Can't argue with that.

I still would have put it out, but if the Fire Chief can live with the fact that he let this man's house burn down, I guess it doesn't matter.


To be honest I see little difference between the two #######s, (The Fire Chief and the man who lost his house.) but that's just me.

I am beyond shocked at your position on this situation.

Who the hell are you, anyway? :tap: I thought I knew you.....but, apprently, I have no clue as to who you really are.

I want a divorce.Hey, You wanna hang wif me 'n Vrai on da boat?

Hey, You wanna hang wif me 'n Vrai on da boat?

Pssst...ask her to bring some raspberry cookies.

Pssst...ask her to bring some raspberry cookies.Ok. You grab some punkin ale and I'll grab a couple growlers of Oktoberfest from Ruddy. :yay:

Well it turns out that Larry was right

You're going to be sorry you posted that. :lol:

To me, this guy's disposition has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's pure practicality. You pay for a service, you get a service. You don't pay for a service, guess what?

The guy could be the biggest douche on the face of the earth, a guy who eats puppies, skins baby bunnies with his teeth, and spits on the grave of Mother Teresa. But if he pays for a service...then he gets his service.

Pretty simple stuff, nothing personal.

Figured THAT was more the man you married..

I'm still trying to figure out what is Beyond Shocker..

||_|| ?

I. Teaser
II pleaser
\\n/ shocker
\\// spocker
IIII the show stopper

Hey, You wanna hang wif me 'n Vrai on da boat?
What did you do with three honeys you had with you on Saturday?

Glenn Beck Weighs in .............

Fireman let house burn over $ 75 Bucks (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/46276/)

GLENN: And it goes nowhere if you go on to well, compassion, compassion, compassion, compassion or, well, they should have put it out. What is the fire department for? No. What is the $75 for? To keep the firemen available, to keep the fire trucks running, to pay for the fire department to have people employed to put the fire out. If you don't pay your $75, then that hurts the fire department. They can't use those resources and you would be sponging off of your neighbor's $75 if you they put out your neighbor's house and you didn't pay for it I mean in your neighbor didn't pay for it, you did, and they put out their house, your neighbor is sponging off of your $75 inches and as soon as they put out the fire of somebody who didn't pay the 75 bucks, no one

GLENN: No one

PAT: will pay $275.

GLENN: Why would you pay the $75? You don't have to. They're going to put it out, anyway.

PAT: Yeah. End to the program.

GLENN: This is important for America to have this debate because, A, this is the kind of stuff that is going to happen. We are going to start to have to have these kinds of things.

Now, if you think that's insane, this is Obamacare. Obama has just changed the system. Now, ask yourself, have this debate with your friends: What happens if they put this fire out?

PAT: Well, they would have saved the house.

GLENN: Talk to me about the next time that you have to write a check for $75. When you have to write the check for the next and your neighbor's house was put out, even though they didn't pay the $75, are you going to pay the $75, especially when that $75 you can use for something else? Are you going to pay the $57? The answer, if you want to answer honestly, will be know? You will find, especially in tough times, something else to do with that $75.

Well, now, after you've answered that question about this fire insurance, let me ask you the same question about your health insurance. If you can get away with not paying for your health insurance because it's too expensive and why should you pay for it and, really, if I get sick, they'll only fine me a thousand dollars and they have to treat me, anyway, and I can just call up an insurance company if I've gotten if I have cancer and I say, Hey, I need to sign up for insurance. Well, do you have any preexisting conditions? Yes. Cancer. And they have no choice but to cover you, that's like calling 9 1 1. Well, did you pay your $75? No, but I'm going to when you get here. :whistle: (Sounds Familiar)

PAT: Apparently they offered. Apparently they offered to pay it.

GLENN: Sure. Of course they did. That is the idea of insurance. You'll pay whatever when it happens. Well, no. Pay $75 and by paying that $75, it spreads the total out for everybody. Not everybody's house is not going to burn down and if it does, well, the fire department's not going to be able to put them all out.

STU: An important point here is that previous to the $75 policy, there was no fire coverage at all for these areas. It was a rural area and they didn't go out there for any reason, for any fire at any time. They implemented the $75 fee to give some access to fire services for these people. Before that both houses burned to the ground, both of them, and now only one of them did. So, I mean, it's a tough decision. I understand that you're there and everything else and it's a there's got to be

GLENN: There's no choice. If you put the fire out, no one will pay and then you are bankrupt and there's to pay for any fire insurance



:popcorn:

At the end of the day, why in the hell would ANYONE pay if you're gonna get served anyway?


Can you point out where I even implied anyone should get this for free? It's been put to me that I didn't read the article. Did anyone read what I wrote, or did they just skim it and begin ranting?

I don't think anyone should get stuff for free. But letting someone's house burn when something could be done - and I'm sorry, but if you're there with the equipment, yes, you can - is absurd.


These people, through their local government, chose this form of governance, this way to provide, oh, and pay for, a service.

By that reasoning, you're responsible for Obamacare. I can safely blame you for it.

And all our liberal friends are responsible for the Patriot Act and Iraq.

There's nothing wrong with these guys saying, hey, pay up your back payments and it's a deal. I've never said otherwise. Letting a guy's house burn over 75 bucks is a crime. The rest is just word games.

What did you do with three honeys you had with you on Saturday?
He deflated them and put them away for the winter.

What did you do with three honeys you had with you on Saturday?I still have them, I'm expanding the harem. :jet:

He deflated them and put them away for the winter.Never!! Takes too long to re-inflate.

What did you do with three honeys you had with you on Saturday?

He goes thru ladies faster than I can change my shorts.

But letting someone's house burn when something could be done -
You're right - something could have been done. The guy could have paid his $75 for fire service.

The end.

You're not going to convince me to feel sorry for this guy. #1, he burnt his own damn house down. And #2, he was too cheap or contrary or whatever to pay a mere $75 to ensure that his house would be serviced in the event of fire.

There's nothing wrong with these guys saying, hey, pay up your back payments and it's a deal.
They are firemen, not cashiers. And they are certainly not authorized to breech a city contract because they feel sorry for some damned fool who burnt his own house and wouldn't pay for their service. It's the guy's own fault, and his ruined house is tuition for the School of Hard Knocks and Poor Decision Making.

I fail to see what is so difficult to understand about this.

Also, some of you seem to feel that these evil, heartless firemen were just standing around laughing while the guy's house burnt down. And I'll bet you any amount of money that was not the case. I'm sure at least some of them were sick about it. But there was nothing they could do without opening up a whole new can of worms, with possible liability issues.

Sam, did you see where the guy's son hadn't paid his service fee, his house caught on fire, and the firemen put it out anyway? It makes perfect sense to me that the guy noted this, and THAT is why he didn't pay his fee - because he figured they'd put it out for him anyway and he'd get a freebie like his kid did.

So not only are they a family of sponger deadbeats, but they shouldn't be allowed to play with matches, either.

One more time. The guy should pay for the response to the house, not the $75. Firemen should not have stood around and watch the house burn. Technically, they did what they were charged to do, but I was always taught to do more even if it is a risk (what makes American's great). Firemen appear to be classless. City pollicy stupid and a very dumb individual. I do not even think it is close to Obamacare.

So not only are they a family of sponger deadbeats, but they shouldn't be allowed to play with matches, either.


But then next time they might kill themselves in the process and win the Darwin Award.

I still have them, I'm expanding the harem. :jet:

:yay:...always good to have more than one...and in several states...:coffee:

Can you point out where I even implied anyone should get this for free? It's been put to me that I didn't read the article. Did anyone read what I wrote, or did they just skim it and begin ranting?

I don't think anyone should get stuff for free. But letting someone's house burn when something could be done - and I'm sorry, but if you're there with the equipment, yes, you can - is absurd.
.

Well, Sam, while you are trying to make up new words because your argument is taking on water, you said they should have put the fire out even though he didn't pay, right? Then, you try to cover that by saying he should have to pay, when, later? Why can't he choose to not pay later?

And you contradict yourself right there in that second paragraph.


This isn't a simple case of heartless bureaucracy ignoring any sense of decency. This guy put himself at odds, out side the good graces and good relations with his community. And I said so. And karma bit that summbytch right in the ass.

You don't wanna give me credit for my instincts being right that there was more to the story, that's fine.

I know I was right and that's good enough for me.

$6,750

Sorry, I was referring to the TN property only, so I didn't include what he got from the KY farm.

:buddies:

taking on waterThis made me laugh. :lol:

Well, Sam, while you are trying to make up new words because your argument is taking on water, you said they should have put the fire out even though he didn't pay, right? Then, you try to cover that by saying he should have to pay, when, later? Why can't he choose to not pay later?

The premise is this, and it makes sense from the firefighter's point of view - if people can just pay when the fire is happening, they'll just opt not to pay until it happens.

But if at the time of the fateful fire they tell him, ok, pay, but it's five grand now. NOW do you wish you'd paid your 75 bucks? Paying a lot higher fee then is not a contradiction of what I've been saying.

I'm pretty sure I've made this point many times. No, he shouldn't get for *FREE* what everyone else is paying for, and no, he shouldn't be able to say, well can I pay my 75 NOW because it defeats the purpose of billing everyone. But almost any service you can get will re-connect you, restore service or provide service at a much steeper rate as a consequence.

And as I said, this ain't trash service, this is a man's home. They actually hosed down everything right up to the man's property line. Onlookers said the firefighters were *silent* about the matter.

BTW - I've been reading more and more about this guy and I just saw a video where he mentioned that he HAS been paying it for YEARS, but forgot to pay it this year. So the whole presumption that he's some kind of cheapskate who refuses to pay an unwanted fee was just after the fact justification. He had paid in the past. If you've never overlooked a bill or had to pay a bill late because you forgot about it, I relinquish the argument.

This made me laugh. :lol:

Damn it, and that was an accident, too. :lol:

Also, some of you seem to feel that these evil, heartless firemen were just standing around laughing while the guy's house burnt down. And I'll bet you any amount of money that was not the case. I'm sure at least some of them were sick about it. But there was nothing they could do without opening up a whole new can of worms, with possible liability issues.

Sam, did you see where the guy's son hadn't paid his service fee, his house caught on fire, and the firemen put it out anyway? It makes perfect sense to me that the guy noted this, and THAT is why he didn't pay his fee - because he figured they'd put it out for him anyway and he'd get a freebie like his kid did.

So not only are they a family of sponger deadbeats, but they shouldn't be allowed to play with matches, either.

The premise is this, and it makes sense from the firefighter's point of view - if people can just pay when the fire is happening, they'll just opt not to pay until it happens.

But if at the time of the fateful fire they tell him, ok, pay, but it's five grand now. NOW do you wish you'd paid your 75 bucks? Paying a lot higher fee then is not a contradiction of what I've been saying.

I'm pretty sure I've made this point many times. No, he shouldn't get for *FREE* what everyone else is paying for, and no, he shouldn't be able to say, well can I pay my 75 NOW because it defeats the purpose of billing everyone. But almost any service you can get will re-connect you, restore service or provide service at a much steeper rate as a consequence.

And as I said, this ain't trash service, this is a man's home. They actually hosed down everything right up to the man's property line. Onlookers said the firefighters were *silent* about the matter.

BTW - I've been reading more and more about this guy and I just saw a video where he mentioned that he HAS been paying it for YEARS, but forgot to pay it this year. So the whole presumption that he's some kind of cheapskate who refuses to pay an unwanted fee was just after the fact justification. He had paid in the past. If you've never overlooked a bill or had to pay a bill late because you forgot about it, I relinquish the argument.

No, no, Sam, by all means, keep doing what you accuse me of. I'm enjoying it. :popcorn:

The firefighters did NOT respond and stand around and watch; they did not RESPOND at all. The only standing around and watching they did is when they DID respond, later, to the neighbors call, the one who'd paid the bill, when the first house was already lost.

As I have said, repeatedly, there is NOT a simple case. But, you go ahead and hang onto it. You're not alone. Most people think service should be provided, no matter what, and we'll deal with the bill later.

As for paying a bill late, sure, I do. What I don't do is get away with it and then do it again. What I don't do is be on the wrong side of my community. My fire chief woulda cut me a break and yelled at me over a beer.

And made me buy. :lol:

The premise is this, and it makes sense from the firefighter's point of view - if people can just pay when the fire is happening, they'll just opt not to pay until it happens.

But if at the time of the fateful fire they tell him, ok, pay, but it's five grand now. NOW do you wish you'd paid your 75 bucks? Paying a lot higher fee then is not a contradiction of what I've been saying.

I'm pretty sure I've made this point many times. No, he shouldn't get for *FREE* what everyone else is paying for, and no, he shouldn't be able to say, well can I pay my 75 NOW because it defeats the purpose of billing everyone. But almost any service you can get will re-connect you, restore service or provide service at a much steeper rate as a consequence.

And as I said, this ain't trash service, this is a man's home. They actually hosed down everything right up to the man's property line. Onlookers said the firefighters were *silent* about the matter.

BTW - I've been reading more and more about this guy and I just saw a video where he mentioned that he HAS been paying it for YEARS, but forgot to pay it this year. So the whole presumption that he's some kind of cheapskate who refuses to pay an unwanted fee was just after the fact justification. He had paid in the past. If you've never overlooked a bill or had to pay a bill late because you forgot about it, I relinquish the argument.

You are playing against a stacked deck Sam, save your energy.
These guys arent Firefighters.

They wouldn't make a pimple on a Firefighter's ass.

Let it go. Larry has had his orgasm, and everyone has stated their views over and over and no one's mind has been changed. It needs to die out.

It will come up again in a couple of years when this crazy system burns down the next guys house.

You are playing against a stacked deck Sam, save your energy.
These guys arent Firefighters.

They wouldn't make a pimple on a Firefighter's ass.

Let it go. Larry has had his orgasm, and everyone has stated their views over and over and no one's mind has been changed. It needs to die out.

It will come up again in a couple of years when this crazy system burns down the next guys house.

No it won't. I guarantee you that you will win and firefighting will be free to all from now on in their area. The outrage of people like you will win. It always does.

Then, you can go back to complaining about Obama being a socialist.

:buddies:


Oh, and #### you if you think I get off on some man losing everything he has.

:buddies:

The firefighters did NOT respond and stand around and watch; they did not RESPOND at all. The only standing around and watching they did is when they DID respond, later, to the neighbors call, the one who'd paid the bill, when the first house was already lost.


Actually, it wasn't already lost yet.

You know Larry, give me some credit. I do know the timeline of the events. The trash fire spread out of control and endangered more than one house. It spread to Granick's house. And also to the neighbor. Yeah, they responded to the neighbor. As I mentioned just in the previous post, they watered down the property right up to the Granick's property line. According to what I've read, when they responded to the neighbor's house, his house was still burning but not lost. Maybe I don't know much about firefighting, but if it was too far gone to save, I suppose it might have been smart to water down what was left of his home to keep it from spreading again, but I don't know what the place looks like outside of the video.

And they did react silently to Gene Cranick's situation. At least that's what neighbors who commented in the articles I've read thus far. They didn't ridicule him and they didn't hem and haw frustrated over their ability or inability to help. They just put out the neighbor's fire.

And I found out he had paid his bill many times in the past, and forgot this one. I can't tell you how many times I've forgotten to pay bills especially if they're by check and not electronic.

I'm not sure we totally disagree because I think we both agree that for a higher cost, he ought to be penalized.

No it won't. I guarantee you that you will win and firefighting will be free to all from now on in their area. The outrage of people like you will win. It always does.

Then, you can go back to complaining about Obama being a socialist.



And this is the part that absolutely slays me, coming from these supposed conservatives.

But I would have put "free" in quotes because we all know how that works.

And this is the part that absolutely slays me, coming from these supposed conservatives.

But I would have put "free" in quotes because we all know how that works.

Pardon me for asking, but how much do you pay for your fire protection?

What I don't do is be on the wrong side of my community. My fire chief woulda cut me a break and yelled at me over a beer.

And made me buy. :lol:


you keep saying that but i havent seen anything other than not paying the bill that indicates he was disliked in his community. It fact the quotes fromt he article indicate that the community back him and are "furious"

Pardon me for asking, but how much do you pay for your fire protection?

Not sure - it's part of my local taxes. Plus whatever I give them voluntarily, of course. But make no mistake, the fire dept doesn't operate at no cost.

Well, one positive thing has come from this thread... I've always made it a point to support the fundraisers of the various VFD and VRS in the area, but have never been diligent in regards to mailing in a donation each year.

I now realize how important it is to do my part to support our volunteer squads and departments. I'm going to make a point to do so from now on.

Municipalities (Inc ones) that provide svcs such as water, sanitation, fire protection, police, etc... either collect taxes due, or you pay on a scheduled basis, or private businesses (trash collection, i.e.), or if you live outside an incorporated city, the county will tax appropriately. Especially if you are a home/property owner. Taxes are mandatory, so why not pay for protective svcs. If you rent same svcs are needed. Just smart.
Kinda like homeowners insurance, even if paid for even smarter. I mean vehicle insurance is mandatory in most cases, even @ the minimum.
Pay now or Pay Later. Health/Life Insurance is whatever you choose to do.
After the fact, you have no say so as to w/e happs anyway. Common Sense as well as basic comprehension. ok, some can afford more than others, based upon what your risk factor/locale is.

OMG, sounds like a programmed response. :-? don`t b :-/ quite simple.


:popcorn:

And I found out he had paid his bill many times in the past, and forgot this one. I can't tell you how many times I've forgotten to pay bills especially if they're by check and not electronic. He was sent the bill AND he was called. At the end of the enrollment month of July, the city goes a step further and makes phone calls to rural residents who have not responded to the mail-out.
“These folks were called and notified,” Vowell said. “I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to get it and be aware it’s available. It’s been there for 20 years, but it’s very important to follow up.”
Mayor Crocker added, “It’s my understanding with talking with the firefighters that these folks had received their bill and they had also contacted them by phone.”
Tempers flare in SF after house allowed to burn; fire chief hit on NWTNTODAY.COM (http://www.ucmessenger.com/news.php?viewStory=46801)

He was sent the bill AND he was called.

I heard on the news the following.. House was a trailer and 3 dogs and 1 cat died in the trailer
Trailers burn very quickly and very hot. Sorry about the animals.Can't believe the owner could kick a door open for the pets to get out!!??
My guess = It was too far gone when the FD got there..
Also, if you want coverage, pay for it. Very simple and very cut and dry.

And this is the part that absolutely slays me, coming from these supposed conservatives.

But I would have put "free" in quotes because we all know how that works.

Yeah, I considered it but, given we're all 'conservatives' I thought it might have a little more 'impact' if I just left it plain.

No it won't. I guarantee you that you will win and firefighting will be free to all from now on in their area. The outrage of people like you will win. It always does.

Then, you can go back to complaining about Obama being a socialist.

:buddies:


Oh, and #### you if you think I get off on some man losing everything he has.

:buddies:

The orgasm I was speaking of was when you found out you were right and the guy was an azzhole, but #### you too if you want to sink to profanities..

The orgasm I was speaking of was when you found out you were right and the guy was an azzhole, but #### you too.

No. I knew I was right. There was no finding out.


Your and others impulses are not wrong per se. I'd like to think most all of us would have helped or tried to or what have you. And I think the same goes for this guys community. So, my experience and my instincts told me there was more to it than just "Oops! Forgot to pay my bill! Burn to the ground! Oh, the humanity!"

I rejected, out of hand, that all the people down there were evil, heartless bastards and this one guy was some sort of poor, put upon victim.

I know people like him.

The orgasm I was speaking of was when you found out you were right and the guy was an azzhole, but #### you too if you want to sink to profanities..

:lmao:


Well said!


:buddies:

I'm sorry.

I think this behviour is ludicrous.. reprehensible.


That a town or gov't entity of any size will watch your house burn over $75 is criminal.

And reading the article it sounds like the house wasn't even involved when they showed up, but the field, and they just sat there and watched the flames overtake and burn down the house.

This would be on par with refusing to treat you at the hospital while having a heart attack, because you had an outstanding $75 balance from your last visit.

I have to tell you, if I was a firefighter on the job there I would have lost my job that day (though I'm guessing they are all volunteers) because I would have fought the fire despite what the "chief" said. Kind of like a Doctor taking the Hippocratic Oath.. It just goes against EVERYthing I was ever taught about treating my fellow man.

PURE Bull####.

I have to agree. This seems like letting someone bleed to death because they won't pay you back some money. If a bunch of people were at the scene of an accident where someone bled or burned to death and they all did nothing, I would think that would be criminal, Good Samaritan horror stories be damned.

You know, doctors usually go into the business to save lives. They make decent money, but the profession is rife with compassionate types who will put lives above compensation. I would think that fireman and policeman would have the same sense of duty. I've certainly known of policeman helping people while off-duty.

I'm still unclear why any town or jurisdiction would set up a separate fee for their fire department.

But I think if they're going to operate that way, they should allow for a little competition. If they're going to demand fee for service, they should have laws that allow someone ELSE to do the same thing.

If not, I think ambulance services and the cops should come up with a similar fee.

:yay:

To me, this guy's disposition has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's pure practicality. You pay for a service, you get a service. You don't pay for a service, guess what?
They still come and you get charged 500$ for their response

So if someone doesn't have car insurance and gets into a wreck (not his fault) and the first responders look up his tag number before saving his life... Guess what you have no car insurance we cant get you out of your car.. Die or get out yourself.. Is this what America is really coming to.. Got to look at this from a far... JMO

They still come and you get charged 500$ for their responseHere's where this logic is flawed. Once they see they don't have to pay, they won't. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, your chances of needing the FD is rather small. Now the FD has no source of income to maintain their equipment or it's not worth it to run $600K worth of equip. for a measly $500.00.

Now raise that $500 to actual costs and you may be on to something.

Also, some of you seem to feel that these evil, heartless firemen were just standing around laughing while the guy's house burnt down. And I'll bet you any amount of money that was not the case. I'm sure at least some of them were sick about it. But there was nothing they could do without opening up a whole new can of worms, with possible liability issues.

Sam, did you see where the guy's son hadn't paid his service fee, his house caught on fire, and the firemen put it out anyway? It makes perfect sense to me that the guy noted this, and THAT is why he didn't pay his fee - because he figured they'd put it out for him anyway and he'd get a freebie like his kid did.

So not only are they a family of sponger deadbeats, but they shouldn't be allowed to play with matches, either.
I'm sure Sam did see that, did you see (we know you did since you posted it) that there was a mechanism in place for those that dont pay the 75$ fee?

You are playing against a stacked deck Sam, save your energy.
These guys arent Firefighters.

They wouldn't make a pimple on a Firefighter's ass.

Let it go. Larry has had his orgasm, and everyone has stated their views over and over and no one's mind has been changed. It needs to die out.

It will come up again in a couple of years when this crazy system burns down the next guys house.

Whether or not someone is or is nto a fire fighter is not germain. There is a mechanism in place for those that dont pay the 75$. And if the fire fighters never responded at all to the fire, even if it was the schmucks neighbor, the Department would have had an out.

But the fire department did respond, whether or not the guy paid the 75$ doesnt matter since there is a policy in place for those that do noto pay

And this is the part that absolutely slays me, coming from these supposed conservatives.

But I would have put "free" in quotes because we all know how that works.

As Larry has stated this isnt conservatism either. The conservative would have leveraged the policy that was in place to charge the schmuck the fee that was created just for these instances.

Here's where this logic is flawed. Once they see they don't have to pay, they won't. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, your chances of needing the FD is rather small. Now the FD has no source of income to maintain their equipment or it's not worth it to run $600K worth of equip. for a measly $500.00.

Now raise that $500 to actual costs and you may be on to something.

You are arguing two different things at this point.

There is a service, and there is a fee, already established as an in place agreement. By not paying the 75$ fee, the schmuck automatically agrees to paying the $500 dollar fee if needed.

Collections is a totally seperate discussion

The ignores the non-disputed fact the guy was willing to pay whatever it took to get the department to operate under its own rules and guidelines

The ignores the non-disputed fact the guy was willing to pay whatever it took to get the department to operate under its own rules and guidelines

I'd have covered the entire FD budget for two years on this gig when he said "Whatever it costs!!!" and had a hell of a company picnic.

:evil:

If I was the County Commissioner in that county I would have Credit card swipe machines on the fire trucks the very next day.

See, I am a problem solver

I'd have covered the entire FD budget for two years on this gig when he said "Whatever it costs!!!" and had a hell of a company picnic.

:evil:

The other bleded ideal used in this argument, the Fire Department is not a Private Entity, like a business. If it was it could refuse service for no other reason than the schmuck was Gay (to apease the BCP's).

But that isnt the case, the Fire Department is a Government entity, even if it wasnt local to this guys municipality, they are still drawing money from TaxPayers.

There is a service, and there is a fee, already established as an in place agreement. By not paying the 75$ fee, the schmuck automatically agrees to paying the $500 dollar fee if needed.I didn't see that in the article. How can he be held to something he didn't agree to? Did he sign something?

I didn't see that in the article. How can he be held to something he didn't agree to? Did he sign something?

Its been posted numerous times in this thread. The Fire Department has a vehicle for those that dont pay the 75$ fee.

This guy did not pay the 75$ fee

This guy is subject to the same guidelines as those that done pay the 75$ fee

The Fire Department decided to say F-U instead, even though they should have responded

The other bleded ideal used in this argument, the Fire Department is not a Private Entity, like a business. If it was it could refuse service for no other reason than the schmuck was Gay (to apease the BCP's).

But that isnt the case, the Fire Department is a Government entity, even if it wasnt local to this guys municipality, they are still drawing money from TaxPayers.

As I say, all this will be over soon and one more entity will be socialized and run by feelings instead of logic and reason.

:shrug:

On another note, wouldn't it be a hoot if the FD was all gay and they went to bcp's, who'd refused to give a dime to married gay forepersons and they sit there in boa's and chaps and taunt him, making jokes about weeny roasts and stuff while his #### burns to the ground. :lol:

Monty Python skit.

Oh! And a fat one would bend over and tell him to put a $100 bill in his ass crack and kiss it and then he'd get to work.

:lol:

As I say, all this will be over soon and one more entity will be socialized and run by feelings instead of logic and reason.

:shrug:

On another note, wouldn't it be a hoot if the FD was all gay and they went to bcp's, who'd refused to give a dime to married gay forepersons and they sit there in boa's and chaps and taunt him, making jokes about weeny roasts and stuff while his #### burns to the ground. :lol:

Monty Python skit.

Oh! And a fat one would bend over and tell him to put a $100 bill in his ass crack and kiss it and then he'd get to work.

:lol:

Damn I need to get a new keyboard :killingme just noticed how many letters are missing or stuck when i typed

They still come and you get charged 500$ for their response

I'm sure Sam did see that, did you see (we know you did since you posted it) that there was a mechanism in place for those that dont pay the 75$ fee?

Whether or not someone is or is nto a fire fighter is not germain. There is a mechanism in place for those that dont pay the 75$. And if the fire fighters never responded at all to the fire, even if it was the schmucks neighbor, the Department would have had an out.

But the fire department did respond, whether or not the guy paid the 75$ doesnt matter since there is a policy in place for those that do noto pay

As Larry has stated this isnt conservatism either. The conservative would have leveraged the policy that was in place to charge the schmuck the fee that was created just for these instances.

You are arguing two different things at this point.

There is a service, and there is a fee, already established as an in place agreement. By not paying the 75$ fee, the schmuck automatically agrees to paying the $500 dollar fee if needed.

Collections is a totally seperate discussion

The ignores the non-disputed fact the guy was willing to pay whatever it took to get the department to operate under its own rules and guidelines

This is incorrect in this situation Nucklesack. The $500 fee is in addition to the $75 annual fee. Part of the reason for having to opt-in to the service is so that the fire department can verify that you have an insurance policy that will pay the department the $500 if they have a call to your property. Not only do you have to pay the $75 fee, but you have to provide proof to the fire department that you have the appropriate insurance coverage. If my memory serves me well, the ordinance calls for the fire chief to verify every 3 months that subscribers still have the insurance.

It is true that in some districts of the county, the municipal fire department that has kindly agreed to help rural (i.e. not municipal) residents has agreed to do so on a per call basis. You don't have to pay the annual fee and opt-in to the service (and, best I can tell, don't have to provide the proof of insurance). They will come out anyway and you are billed the $500. However, collection seems to be a problem and apparently the fire departments don't have a way to enforce the fee. In 3 of the districts, to include the one serviced by South Fulton, you have to be a subscriber for the department to respond at all (unless an exception applies).

This is incorrect in this situation Nucklesack. The $500 fee is in addition to the $75 annual fee. Part of the reason for having to opt-in to the service is so that the fire department can verify that you have an insurance policy that will pay the department the $500 if they have a call to your property. Not only do you have to pay the $75 fee, but you have to provide proof to the fire department that you have the appropriate insurance coverage. If my memory serves me well, the ordinance calls for the fire chief to verify every 3 months that subscribers still have the insurance.

It is true that in some districts of the county, the municipal fire department that has kindly agreed to help rural (i.e. not municipal) residents has agreed to do so on a per call basis. You don't have to pay the annual fee and opt-in to the service (and, best I can tell, don't have to provide the proof of insurance). They will come out anyway and you are billed the $500. However, collection seems to be a problem and apparently the fire departments don't have a way to enforce the fee. In 3 of the districts, to include the one serviced by South Fulton, you have to be a subscriber for the department to respond at all (unless an exception applies).

So if the South Fulton FD is called to assist the North Fulton FD on a big fire do they go? Do they check and see if North Fulton paid the $75?

As I say, all this will be over soon and one more entity will be socialized and run by feelings instead of logic and reason.
This isnt a conservative/socialism discussion. Well it is if you want to point out areas that are already socialistic and have been for a number of years.

The schmuck was presumably a Law Abiding Tax Paying Citizen (being an ass isnt illegal). Even though he didnt pay the 75$ fee, either at all or just one year, the Fire Department still had an obligation to respond (based on the information posted) and then charge the guy $500.

I'd have covered the entire FD budget for two years on this gig when he said "Whatever it costs!!!" and had a hell of a company picnic.

:evil:

If you managed to talk the guy into agreeing to a very large figure, you might have difficulty enforcing the agreement.

If you managed to talk the guy into agreeing to a very large figure, you might have difficulty enforcing the agreement.

C-O-D, baby. Cash or credit card.

:evil:

This is incorrect in this situation Nucklesack. The $500 fee is in addition to the $75 annual fee. Part of the reason for having to opt-in to the service is so that the fire department can verify that you have an insurance policy that will pay the department the $500 if they have a call to your property. Not only do you have to pay the $75 fee, but you have to provide proof to the fire department that you have the appropriate insurance coverage. If my memory serves me well, the ordinance calls for the fire chief to verify every 3 months that subscribers still have the insurance.

It is true that in some districts of the county, the municipal fire department that has kindly agreed to help rural (i.e. not municipal) residents has agreed to do so on a per call basis. You don't have to pay the annual fee and opt-in to the service (and, best I can tell, don't have to provide the proof of insurance). They will come out anyway and you are billed the $500. However, collection seems to be a problem and apparently the fire departments don't have a way to enforce the fee. In 3 of the districts, to include the one serviced by South Fulton, you have to be a subscriber for the department to respond at all (unless an exception applies).

Ok I stand corrected i misread about the 500$

So if the South Fulton FD is called to assist the North Fulton FD on a big fire do they go? Do they check and see if North Fulton paid the $75?

I'm not entirely sure, but I remember reading something (in either the town's ordinances or on the town's website) to the effect that they (Fulton, KY and South Fulton, TN) were part of an agreement whereby they responded to help each other deal with fires.

On another note, wouldn't it be a hoot if the FD was all gay and they went to bcp's, who'd refused to give a dime to married gay forepersons and they sit there in boa's and chaps and taunt him, making jokes about weeny roasts and stuff while his #### burns to the ground. :lol:

Monty Python skit.

Oh! And a fat one would bend over and tell him to put a $100 bill in his ass crack and kiss it and then he'd get to work.

:lol:
:roflmao:

C-O-D, baby. Cash or credit card.

:evil:

I anticipated that response. :lol:

Ya think the guy whose house is burning has enough cash on hand? Or, even, a big enough credit limit? I thought you were talking about 'extorting' (I keed, I keed) some major fund-age out of him?

The situation is this. The county's residents (acting through their elected officials) either can't afford or are too cheap to have a county fire department, are too cheap to pay more taxes to pay for service certain from the existing municipal departments, or are just too anti-socialist/communist/statist/fascist/pugilist/racist/sexist/conversationalist/pragmatist/whatever to believe that this is something that ought to be collectively provided for.

As a result, those residents are left to rely on the good will and desire for extra funding of the municipal taxpayers (acting through their officials) or those in adjacent counties. That being the case, they get what they can get. In some cases, they've been able to get the municipal taxpayers to agree to better terms for providing assistance. In other cases, the terms they could get weren't as good. Heck, according to that report I linked, 15 square miles of the county has no fire protection whatsoever (or didn't as of 2008).

At any rate, if there's fault here (beyond that of the homeowner I mean) it is that of the county and its residents. It's kinda lame to blame the city for being nice and helpful, but just not as nice and helpful (and consistently so) as you'd like.

Like I said earlier, no good deed goes unpunished.

I anticipated that response. :lol:

Ya think the guy whose house is burning has enough cash on hand? Or, even, a big enough credit limit? I thought you were talking about 'extorting' (I keed, I keed) some major fund-age out of him?

TITLE!!!!


:evil:

Ok I stand corrected i misread about the 500$
Why do you put the dollar sign behind the number?
glh also puts the % in front of his numbers when talking percents.

I just heard the wife say on TV "If they waived it one year, why couldn't they do it again?" She was referring to the $75.00 fee. Sounds like they did not pay it in the past...Their luck ran out.. Also, maybe they should NOT burn their trash.. take it to the dump instead. That is how this all started!

Why do you put the dollar sign behind the number?
glh also puts the % in front of his numbers when talking percents.

GLH? There is no rhyme or reason sometimes i put it before and others i put it after, same with the % sign.

I just heard the wife say on TV "If they waived it one year, why couldn't they do it again?" She was referring to the $75.00 fee. Sounds like they did not pay it in the past...Their luck ran out.. Also, maybe they should NOT burn their trash.. take it to the dump instead. That is how this all started!

And unfortunately, that's what happens sometimes when you cut people a break - they think they should ALWAYS get a break. Having raised a bunch of children that turned into teenagers, along with all the mistakes I made with them, I know how this works. "Well, you let me last time!"

Have you ever noticed that it's rarely the mean parents, who insist on their child being responsible or suffering the consequences, who end up with this 30 y/o child living rent-free in their house, unemployed and still staying out drinking all night?

It's the same with society at-large. If you insist people sink or swim, most of them will swim. But if you constantly bail them out of their self-inflicted problems, they never learn and now become dependent on the bailout.

The guy already had one shot to get righteous with the system and he blew it off. Tough luck.

This isnt a conservative/socialism discussion. Well it is if you want to point out areas that are already socialistic and have been for a number of years.

The schmuck was presumably a Law Abiding Tax Paying Citizen (being an ass isnt illegal). Even though he didnt pay the 75$ fee, either at all or just one year, the Fire Department still had an obligation to respond (based on the information posted) and then charge the guy $500.

I disagree, I think the guy should be charged like $15 K. He does not deserve the same level of service at the same price if he did not pay the $75. BTW, I heard they would waiver the $75 if you had a cup cake sale.

I've been giving this a lot of thought. Call me cold blooded, but I would not want to risk my health (the contents of your home release toxins when they burn, as any firefighter will tell you, such as benzene) for some skinflint who wouldn't pay his fair share for service. If the mayor says no, and the firefighters put it out anyway, and someone gets hurt or worse, who takes care of them? Not the city, is my guess. They may even get charged for misappropriation of government resources.


Yell at the mayor all you want, but you should be yelling at the homeowner and the county, those of you who think the firefighters are the bad guys. Do these people pay taxes to the county? Property tax? Then the county should arrange and pay for service.

I keep hearing on the radio where the wife says "they forgot". I call :bs:

I think everyone taking up for this guy is forgetting that this fee has been in place for 20 years and he was CALLED ON THE PHONE to be reminded.

I've got to stop reading this thread. Last night I dreamed that our house burned down. :lol: At least the firefighters tried to stop it. :lol:

I've got to stop reading this thread. Last night I dreamed that our house burned down. :lol: At least the firefighters tried to stop it. :lol:

Good thing your dream included writing that 75 dollar check.

TITLE!!!!


:evil:

I couldn't respond to this right away. I had to call my lawyer to see how long it would take her to draw up a contract and how quickly we could go to settlement. Her secretary just called and said she had an opening next Tuesday and that I could come in and discuss it with her then.

I tried to get ahold of my Realtor to see if there was a quickly process she could help me with. She hasn't returned my call yet.

By the way, is the fire out yet?

:evil:

I keep hearing on the radio where the wife says "they forgot". I call :bs:

I think everyone taking up for this guy is forgetting that this fee has been in place for 20 years and he was CALLED ON THE PHONE to be reminded.

Yup. The FD says they call and remind people, and had called and spoken with the Crannicks, and they still didn't pay.

Yup. The FD says they call and remind people, and had called and spoken with the Crannicks, and they still didn't pay.

The obvious solution is to require these folks to pay for the fire service instead of making it optional. Maybe Obama can help them with that.

98.3 was talking about it this morning. The callers were all ridiculous saying the 'fireman should be fired' and crap like that. Only one person called while I was listening saying 'it's a case of personal responsibility and the homeowner was at fault'. Others kept saying 'animals died' like somehow the firefighters were to blame for that as well. The dumbass homeowner should have opened his door and gotten his own animals out!

The obvious solution is to require these folks to pay for the fire service instead of making it optional. Maybe Obama can help them with that.

Perhaps the county should actually TAX the people outside Fulton and pay the FD for them. Problem solved?

98.3 was talking about it this morning. The callers were all ridiculous saying the 'fireman should be fired' and crap like that. Only one person called while I was listening saying 'it's a case of personal responsibility and the homeowner was at fault'. Others kept saying 'animals died' like somehow the firefighters were to blame for that as well. The dumbass homeowner should have opened his door and gotten his own animals out!

Didn't help that they didn't have their facts straight. They made it sound like Crannick lived IN Fulton, and the ciyt residents had to pay. Not true. They also left out the part about the MAYOR making the call to stay out of it, and blamed the firefighters. :rolleyes:

Can't really expect TBone and Heather to understand responsibilty as it lay when they themselves can't talk about a story responsibly I guess... :roflmao:

I've been giving this a lot of thought. Call me cold blooded, but I would not want to risk my health (the contents of your home release toxins when they burn, as any firefighter will tell you, such as benzene) for some skinflint who wouldn't pay his fair share for service. If the mayor says no, and the firefighters put it out anyway, and someone gets hurt or worse, who takes care of them? Not the city, is my guess. They may even get charged for misappropriation of government resources.



That is why you are not a fire fighter. Fire Fighter love putting out fires and most of the ones I know are chain smokers. I think you are thinking too much about this.

That is why you are not a fire fighter. Fire Fighter love putting out fires and most of the ones I know are chain smokers. I think you are thinking too much about this.

Somebody has to. We have enough problems as it is without think of all public services as free. Oh wait, we already do, don't we? :roflmao:


And the fires that they are told not to respond to they don't respond to. Happens all the time. Very rarely does PFVFD or Solomons shanghai their equipment and run over to Leonardtown because they heard on the scanner there was a fire there. And when they do, it's on 'mutual aid' knowing the other depts will support their AO if needed. County can't support Fulton because county doesn't have so much as a brush truck.


And actually, yes, I am a volunteer (inactive, back injury), and I do smoke. So :buttkiss:. :lmao:

Didn't help that they didn't have their facts straight. They made it sound like Crannick lived IN Fulton, and the ciyt residents had to pay. Not true. They also left out the part about the MAYOR making the call to stay out of it, and blamed the firefighters. :rolleyes:

Can't really expect TBone and Heather to understand responsibilty as it lay when they themselves can't talk about a story responsibly I guess... :roflmao:

They often get facts messed up when they're talking about something on-air. T-Bone did have one good suggestion though...

If a house is on fire and the owner had not paid the $75, the FD will still put the fire out; however, the homeowner will have to reimburse the FD for the actual cost of the service. Man hours, equipment usage, fuel, other consumables, everything.

They often get facts messed up when they're talking about something on-air. T-Bone did have one good suggestion though...

If a house is on fire and the owner had not paid the $75, the FD will still put the fire out; however, the homeowner will have to reimburse the FD for the actual cost of the service. Man hours, equipment usage, fuel, other consumables, everything.

That's exactly how many rural FD's with 'fee' based service work.

Then you can't pay the bill and they seize your house. :yay:

I've got to stop reading this thread. Last night I dreamed that our house burned down. :lol: At least the firefighters tried to stop it. :lol:

The irony of that comment is one night I dreamed my house burned down, when I was away from home.

It *did*. My family still jokes about my reaction and refusal to believe it. I hung up the phone on them because I thought they were jerking me around.

They often get facts messed up when they're talking about something on-air. T-Bone did have one good suggestion though...

If a house is on fire and the owner had not paid the $75, the FD will still put the fire out; however, the homeowner will have to reimburse the FD for the actual cost of the service. Man hours, equipment usage, fuel, other consumables, everything.


Yep, that is what I keep saying, bill them $15 K for it. The three calls made a verbal contract.

That's exactly how many rural FD's with 'fee' based service work.

Then you can't pay the bill and they seize your house. :yay:

Another reason why you don't want to let it burn down, or do you?

The irony of that comment is one night I dreamed my house burned down, when I was away from home.

It *did*. My family still jokes about my reaction and refusal to believe it. I hung up the phone on them because I thought they were jerking me around.

I hope your dad was not burning trash and caused the fire.

The irony of that comment is one night I dreamed my house burned down, when I was away from home.

It *did*. My family still jokes about my reaction and refusal to believe it. I hung up the phone on them because I thought they were jerking me around.

Oh no!! That's awful!

They often get facts messed up when they're talking about something on-air. T-Bone did have one good suggestion though...

If a house is on fire and the owner had not paid the $75, the FD will still put the fire out; however, the homeowner will have to reimburse the FD for the actual cost of the service. Man hours, equipment usage, fuel, other consumables, everything.

I know that where I used to live, if you took an ambulance ride, they charged you. Either you or your insurance had to pay. If the fire department didn't go there that's one thing, but then to stand by and watch to me is shameful. The guy is shameful for not paying his insurance, but so is the fire department.

Something I've read in more recent reports on this incident doesn't make sense to me. They indicate that the family had 3 dogs that were killed in the fire. I'll admit there could be details we're not aware of that might explain how that could be the case, but the initial reports gave the impression that the fire started in the yard and then spread to the house. How is it that they didn't let the dogs out before the house caught on fire or, after they realized it was going to, before the fire advanced too far? Did they just assume there wouldn't be a problem because the fire department would come put the fire out before it reached the house or before it burned much?

This puzzles me a bit.

Something I've read in more recent reports on this incident doesn't make sense to me. They indicate that the family had 3 dogs that were killed in the fire. I'll admit there could be details we're not aware of that might explain how that could be the case, but the initial reports gave the impression that the fire started in the yard and then spread to the house. How is it that they didn't let the dogs out before the house caught on fire or, after they realized it was going to, before the fire advanced too far? Did they just assume there wouldn't be a problem because the fire department would come put the fire out before it reached the house or before it burned much?

This puzzles me a bit.Also, how does a trash fire outside catch a house on fire to the extent it gets fully involved? If I am outside burning trash, leaves whatever and I see the fire spreading or blowing toward my house, I will douse it down with the garden hose.

I'm with you, things don't add up.