Liberty, choices, fairness and .... ooops.

[eddd]

As a firefighter, and leaving the payment/nonpayment issue aside, I can not imagine how you could not respond.

 

But bringing a different twist to the discussion...I'm sure I've responded to many fires over the years for people who have not paid their taxes.

 

 

 

 

 

You don't count, your fire department is a private company.

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, we are a 501c(3) not-for-profit corporation. As such we are not a part of any government entity. We provide service to the county ESD (Emergency Service District), and two municipalities who chose not to be a part of the ESD when it was initially set up. The biggest benefit of this arrangement is that the fire department is run by its members.

[russell_bynum]

Whether or not it would be collectable later (i.e. the opt-out person has the financial where withal) is a valid, but separate subject. The social moral responsibility to put out the fire trumps the financial issues. IMHO.

 

Care to put your money where your mouth is?

 

I'm sure you'd have no problem finding a fire dept somewhere that would agree to allow you to cover the cost of their next engagement.

 

All in the name of the common good, of course.

 

 

Or is the almighty dollar only evil when it's someone else's money?

[Quinn]

So, what happens if the 911 operator misreads her listing of covered houses and says that you're not covered?

 

My wierd mind wants to know if I have to mark my property boundries when I get coverage so they don't accidentally spray over the line.

 

Next what if: My neighbor's house catches fire while noone is home and I call. They don't have coverage and I think they'd be willing to pay for service. Can I obligate them? Can they deny payment?

 

Just looks like a mess to me if we have opted out people for such a basic, necessary service. Wonder what their county taxes pay for?

 

-----

 

 

[philbytx]

Run by it's members and NOT FOR PROFIT? I just love that term....

[Ken H.]

Just looks like a mess to me if we have opted out people for such a basic, necessary service.

Yeah, despite the fact that I think they should have put out the fire, at the core the whole program/policy is just fraught with pitfalls. This is an example of where personal freedom (e.g. the freedom to opt-out of fire protection) has run amuck. Freedoms have to be balanced with responsibilities. The freedoms a society provides requires a responsibility to that society, which at times means giving up some of those very freedoms. E.g. having to pay for fire protection whether you ever use it or not.

[Dave McReynolds]

As I said earlier, I don't think the fire dept had a responsibility to put out the fire. But with a fire truck sitting right next to the fire, I can certainly see why some of you think they should have put it out. Maybe the problem was with the fire company taking on any responsibility at all in the unincorporated areas of Obion county. If they hadn't agreed to put out ANY fires in Obion county, then I don't think anyone would say they had a responsibility to put out the Cranick's fire. If the fire dept comes under a lot of criticism for not putting out the Cranick's fire, I wouldn't be surprised if they back away from covering anyone's property in Obion county. No good deed goes unpunished....

[Ken H.]

Whether or not it would be collectable later (i.e. the opt-out person has the financial where withal) is a valid, but separate subject. The social moral responsibility to put out the fire trumps the financial issues. IMHO.

 

Care to put your money where your mouth is?

 

I'm sure you'd have no problem finding a fire dept somewhere that would agree to allow you to cover the cost of their next engagement.

 

All in the name of the common good, of course.

That’s a nonsensical argument. Services that are better provided in mass (fire protection, police protection, road building, snow removal, it’s a long list) must be paid for in mass. We can’t all own our own fire trucks after all.

 

All that I’m saying is that moral responsibility (societal morality, not ‘god’ morality), should at times take president over the dollar. Seventy-five of them in this case.

 

Should he have opted out of the fire protection system for a measly $75. Of course not. But people do stupid things some times and a functional society has a certain level of tolerance of and accommodation for stupidness. In this case – put out the damn fire anyway. If would have been the compassionate thing to do. The $75 be damned.

 

 

[SeanC]

Maybe there's a legal term for this, but when Mrs. Cranick dialed 911 and requested emergency fire assistance, couldn't that be construed as "asking" for the department's services? Maybe you can explain what "ask" means to us lay users of English....

 

I wasn't referring to the Cranicks. I was referring to the mandatory payment to a government entity, simply because they rolled, regardless of whether such services were requested.

But if no one requested such services, why would they roll? If no one "asks" for help, then rolling is merely joy riding, right? The residents of Fulton will have to pick up the tab for that.

 

I have a contract with Lloyd's Pest Control for termite eradication. They regularly inspect my property, but I can call them whenever I suspect termites might be engaging in termitic activities, and Lloyd's will roll. No matter how much it costs them to deal with termites or termite damage, I'm only responsible for the yearly fee. But anyone can call Lloyd's and have their house spot-treated, tented, etc., whether they have a contract or not. If they don't have a yearly contract, it will cost them more. In fact, they'll be liable for all costs associated with eradication and repair.

 

To the best of my knowledge, Lloyd's only rolls when requested.

[russell_bynum]

Whether or not it would be collectable later (i.e. the opt-out person has the financial where withal) is a valid, but separate subject. The social moral responsibility to put out the fire trumps the financial issues. IMHO.

 

Care to put your money where your mouth is?

 

I'm sure you'd have no problem finding a fire dept somewhere that would agree to allow you to cover the cost of their next engagement.

 

All in the name of the common good, of course.

That’s a nonsensical argument. Services that are better provided in mass (fire protection, police protection, road building, snow removal, it’s a long list) must be paid for in mass. We can’t all own our own fire trucks after all.

 

All that I’m saying is that moral responsibility (societal morality, not ‘god’ morality), should at times take president over the dollar. Seventy-five of them in this case.

 

Hey...if the common good is more important than the almighty dollar, then you shouldn't mind handing over any spare almighty dollars that you have to go to the common good. After all, you have a moral responsibility. Unless you're exempt from that sort of thing.

 

Besides...$75 was essentially his insurance premium. The actual cost of fighting the fire would have presumably been much higher.

 

If he'd opted out of getting collision insurance on his car and then crashed it (his fault) would you be demanding that the insurance company accept his premium after the fact and covered the accident, or would you be OK with him having to pay the body shop the actual repair cost?

 

 

Should he have opted out of the fire protection system for a measly $75. Of course not. But people do stupid things some times and a functional society has a certain level of tolerance of and accommodation for stupidness. In this case – put out the damn fire anyway. If would have been the compassionate thing to do. The $75 be damned.

 

 

Compassion is great. But what happens when the fire department comes up with a huge shortfall because nobody is paying for their services? As much as you pretend money isn't an important factor...it is. As long as fire trucks, and fire houses, and firemen cost money....money will be a very important factor and must be considered.

 

In this case, the voters in the area decided that this is how they want to run things and the system appears to have worked exactly as they intended. That's not the way I would vote for fire service to be run in my suburban neighborhood, but that's how they voted and it worked as designed.

 

As an aside...I'm curious about their cost. $75/year/household sounds pretty reasonable. I'm not sure what level of service they get for that $75, but I'd be interested to see how that compares with the state-funded fire departments around the country.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

As an aside...I'm curious about their cost. $75/year/household sounds pretty reasonable. I'm not sure what level of service they get for that $75, but I'd be interested to see how that compares with the state-funded fire departments around the country.

 

According to Wikipedia, there are 14,489 housing units in Obion county. If every residence ponied up $75, that's $1.08M per year for firefighting.

 

Now I guess we need to find out what the typical budget is for a couple of firehouses...

 

[russell_bynum]

As an aside...I'm curious about their cost. $75/year/household sounds pretty reasonable. I'm not sure what level of service they get for that $75, but I'd be interested to see how that compares with the state-funded fire departments around the country.

 

According to Wikipedia, there are 14,489 housing units in Obion county. If every residence ponied up $75, that's $1.08M per year for firefighting.

 

Now I guess we need to find out what the typical budget is for a couple of firehouses...

 

 

...and what you get for that budget.

[EffBee]

There was no fire service in that part of Obion county for years. If something caught fire, it burned unless locals could contain it. And if it burned, it was accepted as the price for living, without fire protection, so far out in the sticks.

 

Then the county offered to extend its coverage if the public would pay the $75 annual fee. Those who paid got coverage. Those who did not were accepting the status quo.

 

The victims here, accepted the status quo, the same conditions under which they had lived for years. They paid no money and got no change in service. It was OK with them.

 

I don't see a problem with what took place. It was offered. It was refused. Incorrect decision. Undesired consequence. But nevertheless agreed to in advance.

[Ken H.]

Hey...if the common good is more important than the almighty dollar, then you shouldn't mind handing over any spare almighty dollars that you have to go to the common good. After all, you have a moral responsibility. Unless you're exempt from that sort of thing.

That’s an irrelevant personal attack.

[eddd]

Run by it's members and NOT FOR PROFIT? I just love that term....

 

??? Phil, I'm missing something here. I don't get your comment.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

As an aside...I'm curious about their cost. $75/year/household sounds pretty reasonable. I'm not sure what level of service they get for that $75, but I'd be interested to see how that compares with the state-funded fire departments around the country.

 

According to Wikipedia, there are 14,489 housing units in Obion county. If every residence ponied up $75, that's $1.08M per year for firefighting.

 

Now I guess we need to find out what the typical budget is for a couple of firehouses...

 

 

...and what you get for that budget.

 

Perhaps the numbers we seek are in here:

 

The Obion County Fire Department:

A Presentation Regarding The Establishment And Implementation of a County-Wide Fire Department

[upflying]

This actually happened recently on Bradford Island.

http://cbs13.com/local/bradford.island.fire.2.1793171.html

 

[russell_bynum]

That’s an irrelevant personal attack.

 

I'm just asking if you're willing to take your own advice. If you're calling your own advice an irrelevant personal attack, then all I can say is that hopefully the Canadian healthcare system covers straight jackets and padded rooms.

 

If "Society" needs to do this stuff regardless of cost because they have a moral obligation which trumps the almighty dollar, and if you're are member of society, then you have a moral obligation to do this stuff regardless of the cost.

[philbytx]

Eddddd,

 

I was just being facetious about the term...."not for profit".

Sounds positively Un'Merican don't it

 

 

 

 

[elkroeger]

The best line I heard on the topic went something like this: The minute you put out the fire for a guy who opted out, then everyone will stop paying to opt-in because it's meaningless.

 

The real culprits here are the people who voted for this flawed system.

 

[russell_bynum]

The best line I heard on the topic went something like this: The minute you put out the fire for a guy who opted out, then everyone will stop paying to opt-in because it's meaningless.

 

The real culprits here are the people who voted for this flawed system.

 

There's nothing wrong with the system and from what I can see it worked exactly as intended.

 

It's not the sort of thing I'd want in my densely populated suburban neighborhood, but out in the boonies lots of space between households it could make sense.

[Joel]

It's not the sort of thing I'd want in my densely populated suburban neighborhood, but out in the boonies lots of space between households it could make sense.

 

As a resident of the boonies, with lots of space between households, but also as someone who is no fan of big government, here's why I think it is bad policy: In a typical rural VFD, a key concern about a structure fire is that it could easily become a wildland fire. If my department decided to let my opted-out neighbor's house burn, from the center of his 80-acre parcel, until it became a threat to my property, there is a very serious risk that fire would grow into a substantial wildland fire that will be challenging and expensive, at best, for my department to contain at the property line. It would be far less dangerous, and a much more efficient use of resources, to fight the house fire ASAP.

 

Even with full-on responses beyond the resources of the local VFDs, the recent Fourmile Canyon fire west of Boulder, CO burned nearly 7,000 acres, did more than $75 million in property damage, and cost more than $5 million to fight. It was the most expensive wildfire in Colorado history, even though the footprint was a small fraction of the Hayman fire several years ago that burned over 100,000 acres. If any firefighting efforts had been scaled back due to people opting out, things probably would have been even worse.

 

Some color on economics of fire protection, from my VFD: We cover approximately 300 square miles of high prairie, foothill and mountain terrain, including 28 miles of US Hwy 287 which sees about 7,500 cars per day; this area contains about 900 residents in roughly 350 households; we maintain 2 small stations, each with an engine, brush truck, tender and a squad SUV, plus we have one ambulance for the entire district; our force is 15-20 volunteer responders who are on call whenever they are in the district; our operating budget is about $200k, which does not include the substantial capital costs for stations or apparatus (those capital costs are often funded by public and private grants); about $150 of my property taxes on a modestly-valued 40-acre property are allocated to our VFD.

 

My homeowner's insurance premiums are about 2.5x what they were when I lived in town, even though the house I live in now is a considerable downgrade over what I had in town. That's almost entirely attributable to the fire risk.

 

I've got no complaints. I consider that cost, and the high risk of a total loss in the event of a fire, to be worth it for the lifestyle I now enjoy. I no longer take fire protection for granted. That is a large part of why I decided earlier this year that, even in midlife, it wasn't too late to grow up to be a firefighter. So I joined our VFD.

[elkroeger]

...it worked exactly as intended.

 

I agree, it certainly did. And I'll bet they change that policy at the next election.

[KMG_365]

...it worked exactly as intended.

 

I agree, it certainly did. And I'll bet they change that policy at the next election.

This is the crux here.

 

I just got sent this news piece by another firefighter and when I posted it to FB I got a head's up that is was under discussion here. I should have known, as all the interesting news hits here first!

 

This very problem is what has sucked me away from here to work full time at solving for my County. It is a failure of government not to protect its citizens--against their will if need be--for the greater good as Joel pointed out above. And GOOD ON YA, JOEL for stepping up, you stud!

 

As James mentioned parents make decisions for their children to protect them from their own ignorance (the "nanny state" folks are gonna LOVE this line of argument! ). True, death is not a learning experience (unless your a Hindu), so we try to use what vicarious experiences we've gathered in these big brains of ours to protect those who don't know any better (for whatever reason). It's one thing to say "yeah, I know my diet and smoking will kill me, but it's my choice and I'm an adult" and another to let your child live on Sugar Pops, Soda and Cookies until he dies in his early teens from diabetes. I'll leave the social cost of poor life choices for another diatribe . . . .

 

The people of the County should not have been allowed by their leaders/parents to be given the choice of whether to opt in or not--they should have seen to it that coverage to all was provided and figured out a funding model to support it. It didn't have to be ISO Class 1 , but no population of 30,000 people should be allowed to live in a Class 10. These horrible consequences are the predictable result of a poor choice, based on ignorance of the consequences. What if this had been a wind-driven Santa Ana wildfire and had burned 100k's of acres and killed someone? How does a "civilized" society conscience that?

 

I see my firefighting brethren condemning the FF's for standing by (as they were ordered to!) while the house burned, but we have a chain of command that looks very grimly on freelancing. As professionals, we have to protect those we are sworn to protect--in this case there was no "duty to act". They could have put together a volunteer FD, but even those need money for equipment and other significant costs. Besides, as was already pointed out, the "cost" of firefighting is more like how an insurance premium is calculated. The risk and the associated cost must be spread among many to realize the economy of scale or no one can afford anything. If people are allowed to "opt out", or worse: pay the premium (or even one ten times higher) only at the time of need--there will be no fire department worth a damn there to protect them.

 

My County has burned significantly in 2003 and in 2007. Yet we still allow people who live in the most vulnerable areas of the backcountry where these fires start decide they don't want to pay for proper fire protection. The result?

 

1970 Laguna Fire: 382 homes destroyed and eight people killed.

2003 Cedar Fire: 2,232 homes destroyed and 15 people killed.

2007 San Diego County fires: 1,596 homes destroyed and seven people killed.

 

This does not include many more outbuildings destroyed, structures partially or mostly damaged and numerous more injuries to citizens and firefighters. As a result, the 18 cities, seven Fire Districts, nine Tribal FD's, the State Agency and resources from as far away as Canada all respond to our little corner of the Country to help us wipe these folks' noses. It is fair? Should they be forced to pay against their will? When the City of San Diego FD sent almost every rig they had to the east, they watched in horror as hundreds of City residents' houses in the city burned to the ground behind them. Did we properly serve THOSE City taxpayers who DID pay for fire protection? The previous Fire Chief told me the next time the big one starts "out in the boonies" she'd rather line up her resources on the City limits and wait for it to come to her--but that in making that decision she'd likely lose her job on the spot.

 

The total cost to the County for BOTH the Cedar Fire in 2003 and the October 2007 Wildfires is estimated to be over 1 BILLION dollars EACH! Think about that for a minute--that would buy a hell of a LOT of fire protection that likely could have prevented those fires from turning into record-breakers. Even if the same acreage burned, we were in full triage mode and lost many structures that caught after the flame front moved through because we simply did not have the resources to go back and put out the fire on the fence, or the deck, or the roof or in the soffit . . . that eventually burned the entire house to the ground. It makes me sick to think of the felonious short sightedness of our elected representatives and the battle to right this abomination continues to consume me. It's almost three years later and precious little has changed--except the economy--and I guarantee you that if our beaten and bloodied Mutual Aid system collapses the death toll and property loss will continue to rise.

 

The International Fire Fighters Association has even condemned the Fire Department of South Fulton for putting people in this untenable situation:

Washington, DC – International Association of Fire Fighters General President Harold Schaitberger

today issued the following statement on the September 29 fire in Obion County, Tennessee:

 

“The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family’s home to burn to the ground was

incredibly irresponsible. This tragic loss of property was completely avoidable. Because of South

Fulton’s pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home.

 

“Everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest

priorities.

 

“Instead, South Fulton wants to charge citizens outside the city for fire protection. We condemn South

Fulton’s ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list

before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go.”

 

But I also condemn the firefighters involved for allowing this policy to persist--unless they have been fighting hard to educate the public and their elected officials of the potential dire consequences of it. Funny, when you look at many of the big cities with great, professional departments--it usually came AFTER some major historic fire that consumed large portions of the city.

 

If nothing else, the only good thing to come out of this tragedy is that more people will see themselves in these poor people's shoes and act so that this does not get repeated.

[Whip]

I watched an interview last night with the owners of the house. They had paid the $75 the last couple years and forgot about it this year. It was not a "decision" or "protest". They claim it was an oversight. They had every intention of paying the $75. I don't know if they had insurance, but if they did I bet the insurer sues.

 

I have no problem with folks having the choice to pay a small fee upfront for the service kinda like an insurance policy. But if ya end up needing the smoke eaters you should have to pay every cent of their cost plus a few extra. That way the firemen can do their job and the paper pushers can do the collecting.

 

 

Black and White

 

 

[Ken H.]

I was wondering why you hadn't weighed in on this Jamie!

[chrisolson]

In this article , the city manager says its policy to call and remind folks that payment had not been received and the Cranick's had in fact received just such a follow up phone call ...

[Rocer]

Jamie thanks for the eloquent reply, data and professional perspective regarding this tragedy.

 

I still can't believe the news pictures of the firefighters standing at the property's edge watching the fire consume this family's home, their pets and belongings going back three generations. This is a clear (to me) case of whatever regulation / law / small mindedness as to whether or not one paid their $75 fee that invoked the firemen's paralysis, should have been ignored - and let the chips fall where they may. I'm trying to remember when I've read about a fire department being charged for putting out a fire.

 

In light of the long history of fighting fires the possibility of this situation should have been thought out long ago by the local firefighters, their supervisors, administrators and elected officials. The argument "then everyone would opt out of paying their $75 surcharge" could have easily been preempted by including this fee in their property tax.

 

Further, the stance that this family / community got what they voted for and "too bad so sad" fits nicely when it's on someone else's shoulders, doesn't meet the smell test. The proponents of these views were quick to admit that (thankfully) selective fire coverage doesn't exist in their own communities.

 

Apart from this blackening of the reputation of the great state of Tennessee as this tragedy plays out in the international press I think Obion County is just beginning to learn an expensive lesson on opt out fees when the welfare of the county overall is at stake.

[Ken H.]

Apart from this blackening of the reputation of the great state of Tennessee as this tragedy plays out in the international press I think Obion County is just beginning to learn an expensive lesson on opt out fees when the welfare of the county overall is at stake.

Yeah that’s an important part of it too. This is getting press everywhere. We attempt to hold up our societal model as a beacon of the right way for the world to be, yet others I’m sure are just shaking their head in disbelief when they read that in America someone’s home is allowed to burn to the ground out of lack of a $75 fee paid. “Why would we ever want our country to be like that?” has to be running through more than a few minds.

[philbytx]

And I still stay screw 'em coz they screwed up.

 

Where does the accountability lie? In this case, it started and finished with the individuals concerned and not society as a whole!

 

So I don't pay my car insurance, have an accident then say to the insurance company "Please pay up" Y'know, I paid it for the last 5 years and I actually forgot to pay it this year. Even though you reminded me about it!

 

And I feel sorry for the FF but, if no-one was in danger of losing their lives, it was just stuff. And stuff that these folks obviously didn't care enough about to get basic fire protection.

 

And I posit you this......What if the "unpaid" FF equipment was damaged or, God forbid, an "unpaid" FF was killed saving their "stuff"?

Would that not seriously change this conversation......?

 

Screw 'em again....

 

 

 

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Apart from this blackening of the reputation of the great state of Tennessee as this tragedy plays out in the international press

I'd be willing to bet most TN residents will get a giggle out of that. Would you provide the name of at least one person, not a US citizen, about whose opinion TN citizens should be so concerned.

 

Frankly, this obsessive preoccupation with others' perception of oneself is a mystery to me.

[Mike]

Apart from this blackening of the reputation of the great state of Tennessee as this tragedy plays out in the international press

I'd be willing to bet most TN residents will get a giggle out of that. Would you provide the name of at least one person, not a US citizen, about whose opinion TN citizens should be so concerned.

 

Frankly, this obsessive preoccupation with others' perception of oneself is a mystery to me.

 

I have to agree. A couple of days ago, there was an article in the NY Times about a recently-enacted Tennessee law that generated hundreds of indignant comments from New Yorkers who proclaimed "That's that . . . now I'm never going to go to Tennessee." Ludicrous on a lot of levels, and probably an indication to the citizens of Tennessee that their legislature had made the right decision.

[russell_bynum]

Apart from this blackening of the reputation of the great state of Tennessee as this tragedy plays out in the international press

I'd be willing to bet most TN residents will get a giggle out of that. Would you provide the name of at least one person, not a US citizen, about whose opinion TN citizens should be so concerned.

 

Frankly, this obsessive preoccupation with others' perception of oneself is a mystery to me.

 

I have to agree. A couple of days ago, there was an article in the NY Times about a recently-enacted Tennessee law that generated hundreds of indignant comments from New Yorkers who proclaimed "That's that . . . now I'm never going to go to Tennessee." Ludicrous on a lot of levels, and probably an indication to the citizens of Tennessee that their legislature had made the right decision.

 

Yup.

 

[tallman]

In this article , the city manager says its policy to call and remind folks that payment had not been received and the Cranick's had in fact received just such a follow up phone call ...

 

 

Chris,

Thanks for the link.

20 year history

July 1 to July 1 coverages

notices mailed out

follow-up phone calls

previous incident(s) where a rural fire was not responded to

the homeowner's family started the fire

AND

one of their family member's goes to the fire station and assaults the Fire Chief!

At least the attacker injured his hand.

Fire Chief taken to hospital.

 

This isn't a new policy, it has been in effect.

Every effort was made to "protect" the unprotected.

 

Tragic but foreseeable consequences.

 

Wonder if they were getting an insurance discount by paying the fee?

Wonder if the had been and stopped paying it what that does to the fire portion of the policy coverage.

[DavidEBSmith]

Jamie, there you go again, bringing actual facts to support an informed, reasoned, rational opinion.

[russell_bynum]

Jamie,

You make a very good argument (which I agree with, btw) for why it makes sense to have a mandatory fire service coverage.

 

But this is one of the most terrifying and completely wrong things I've read in a long time:

 

This very problem is what has sucked me away from here to work full time at solving for my County. It is a failure of government not to protect its citizens--against their will if need be--for the greater good as Joel pointed out above. And GOOD ON YA, JOEL for stepping up, you stud!

 

As James mentioned parents make decisions for their children to protect them from their own ignorance (the "nanny state" folks are gonna LOVE this line of argument! ). True, death is not a learning experience (unless your a Hindu), so we try to use what vicarious experiences we've gathered in these big brains of ours to protect those who don't know any better (for whatever reason). It's one thing to say "yeah, I know my diet and smoking will kill me, but it's my choice and I'm an adult" and another to let your child live on Sugar Pops, Soda and Cookies until he dies in his early teens from diabetes. I'll leave the social cost of poor life choices for another diatribe . . . .

 

The people of the County should not have been allowed by their leaders/parents to be given the choice of whether to opt in or not--they should have seen to it that coverage to all was provided and figured out a funding model to support it.

 

We aren't talking about a child/parent relationship. The Govt is not my Mommy or my Daddy. The leaders of the County are not the "parents". The voters of the County are in charge. If they vote to do something stupid, that's their business and their leaders have a duty to act on that decision unless it violates the law.

[Rocer]

 

 

Every effort was made to "protect" the unprotected.

 

Tragic but foreseeable consequences.

 

Wonder if they were getting an insurance discount by paying the fee?

Wonder if the had been and stopped paying it what that does to the fire portion of the policy coverage.

 

Define "Every effort". Wouldn't universal fire coverage within property tax be a possibility in the local county's deliberation? I assume it is in yours. Sometimes the "unprotected" have to be protected a)for their own good, b)for the good of the community. This is what sound and enlightened leadership affords (one hopes) their constituents.

 

Tragic - oh yes. Foreseeable - definitely. So why didn't the local council circumvent this tragedy by including universal fire coverage?

 

Insurance discount - I live rural and we pay higher insurance premiums based on the distance from the nearest fire dept. and I presume the home owner in Obion would pay higher premiums as well. But what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? We're talking about a fire dept., under direction from local govt., that stood on the fence line and watched a home burn down because a $75 surcharge was overdue. That's a heavy handed way to enforce / penalize tax collection not to mention the despicable way that the fire dept. was used as their foil.

 

[John Ranalletta]

Yet we still allow people who live in the most vulnerable areas of the backcountry where these fires start decide they don't want to pay for proper fire protection.

Jamie, you obviously don't sense the imperiousness implicit in the phrase, "we still allow". It isn't up to you or anyone else to "allow" me to do anything. We should be allowing each other to make the best decisions for us and live with the result.

 

How many other areas of my life will you and Ebbie deign to "allow" or "disallow" me choice?

[Matts_12GS]

How many other areas of my life will you and Ebbie deign to "allow" or "disallow" me choice?

 

Thank you John, I owe you a drink for that!

 

Sometimes the "unprotected" have to be protected a)for their own good, b)for the good of the community. This is what sound and enlightened leadership affords (one hopes) their constituents.

 

Thus cometh the Nanny State. If a person is of the age of majority, they are responsible for their actions. Why is that concept so difficult?

[SeanC]

How many other areas of my life will you and Ebbie deign to "allow" or "disallow" me choice?

Now that you mention it..... The number of motorcyclists who die or are injured every year (and I'm just referring to the ones who ride in compliance with the law) dwarfs the number of people who died or were injured because they did not opt-in for fire-protection services (also within compliance to existing statutes).

 

Thus, riding motorcycles will no longer be allowed. So it is written, so it shall be done.

[John Ranalletta]

Thank you John, I owe you a drink for that!

Is that allowed?

[Matts_12GS]

Thank you John, I owe you a drink for that!

Is that allowed?

 

I won't tell if you don't

[SeanC]

Thank you John, I owe you a drink for that!

Is that allowed?

 

I won't tell if you don't

Be careful you two... That's conspiracy.

[Joel]

Jamie,

You make a very good argument (which I agree with, btw) for why it makes sense to have a mandatory fire service coverage.

 

But this is one of the most terrifying and completely wrong things I've read in a long time:

 

This very problem is what has sucked me away from here to work full time at solving for my County. It is a failure of government not to protect its citizens--against their will if need be--for the greater good as Joel pointed out above. And GOOD ON YA, JOEL for stepping up, you stud!

...

 

I started reading this wondering if you were going to object to Jamie calling me a stud.

[russell_bynum]

Jamie,

You make a very good argument (which I agree with, btw) for why it makes sense to have a mandatory fire service coverage.

 

But this is one of the most terrifying and completely wrong things I've read in a long time:

 

This very problem is what has sucked me away from here to work full time at solving for my County. It is a failure of government not to protect its citizens--against their will if need be--for the greater good as Joel pointed out above. And GOOD ON YA, JOEL for stepping up, you stud!

...

 

I started reading this wondering if you were going to object to Jamie calling me a stud.

 

[Les is more]

Thus cometh the Nanny State. If a person is of the age of majority, they are responsible for their actions. Why is that concept so difficult?

 

I'm left wondering how we make our our decisions without having having an effect on the people around us. Last time I looked, none of us live in a vacuum.

 

I think the above quote is fine if you happen to live on a deserted island.

 

From one definition of "society":

 

Like other groupings, a society allows its members to achieve needs or wishes they could not fulfill alone; the social fact can be identified, understood or specified within a circumstance that certain resources, objectives, requirements or results, are needed and utilized in an individual manner and for individual ends, although they can't be achieved, gotten or fulfilled in an individual manner as well, but, on the contrary, they can be gotten only in a collective, collaborative manner; namely, team work becomes the valid functional means, to individual ends which an individual would need to have but isn't able to get.

 

It seems that it's somehow important to some to be completely autonomous until or unless the need for the benefits of being members of society arises.

 

In the case of the Cranick's, okay, they opted out. Their house burned down. Just their house? No--then their neighbor's house caught fire. The danger to their neighbor's lives and property, the losses suffered by the neighbors, the cost of time, manpower and equipment used, the potential cost of firefighter's lives--whose responsibility was that?

 

How nice that the Cranick's were able to make their individual decision.

[SeanC]

How nice that the Cranick's were able to make their individual decision.

The Cranick's asked for help and were denied by those uniquely qualified to help them because they didn't pay for the help before they needed it. Their house burned down and their pets died. Lesson learned. Their neighbors, who also asked for help but paid for it ahead of time, also got burned. Lesson...?

[Les is more]

Looked at one way, the lesson is that the $75 bucks should have been mandatory whether the Cranicks liked it or not.

[Dave McReynolds]

Looked at one way, the lesson is that the $75 bucks should have been mandatory whether the Cranicks liked it or not.

 

I feel that way, and you feel that way, and we would have voted that way if we were there....but the voters who did vote there voted otherwise. Does that count for anything?

[Rocer]

 

Thus cometh the Nanny State. If a person is of the age of majority, they are responsible for their actions. Why is that concept so difficult?

 

Well, again I'm in need some definition. Seeing as there is no precise definition of the (pejorative) term "Nanny" State I'd be interested to hear yours. What is the demarcation between a Nanny State and a Non-Nanny or Screw'm again" State according to Tewks ?

 

"Responsible for their actions" - in an apartment condo would one be able to opt out of fire coverage as well? Where's the demarcation point between individual vs. collective responsibility? Is it when you get'm out into the country and you can safely, with firemen at the ready standing on your side of the fence, say screw'm?

 

"Why is that concept so difficult?" - That's a two way street! I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Ken H.]

Frankly, this obsessive preoccupation with others' perception of oneself is a mystery to me.

Simply put, because as Leslie said, no one lives in a vacuum. How we individually, as a community, a state/province, or a nation are perceived by others directly effects each and every last one of us. Be it whether or not a neighbor decides to lend a cup of sugar, or whether or not a terrorist decides to launch an attack on a nation. Decisions are made millions of times a day based only on perception. Perception, one’s image in the eyes of others, individually or collectively; not only is important - it’s everything!