My question is what else does the city pay for that is MORE important than the safety of it's citizens? http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...e-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate
You missed the point. Were it in the "city", they would have put the fire out. Why didn't the Union City FD respond? Why not Peducah? There has to be a limit somewhere. All of this being said, there is also a much better solution to this problem. They should have charged the man like $10,000 and then put the fire out. Had this happened in the city of the FD, I think the city should be tried and convicted.
Am I missing something? How do they know the guy didn't pay the $75. Do they get the 9/11 call and pull up the file to see if the bill has been paid before they respond? What if someone was trapped and dying in the house?
I understand that this was outside the city limits and that the city offered it's services to the rural community at a fee rather than provide no service at all. Rural people have had to deal with less city services for like ever but they generally get by and pay lower taxes to boot. Fine, the city wasn't contracted or obligated to put this guys house out because he hadn't paid his annual fee but why did they even show up in the first place and once there simply put the fire out and charge the guy the fee that would have simply went into the pool with the rest of the fees the city had collected? Why was there no grace period to pay the fee or was the first puff of smoke the end of the grace period? What's next, ambulance services, police services, mail services? Do fire departments receive NO federal funding, no state funding, only city funding? These are all good questions. P.S. You can't blame unions for everything. I know you try but it just sounds ridicules after a while.
My opinion of Pay to Spray is that you'd have to be an idiot not to pay $75 a year for fire protection. And there should be a penalty for not paying it and still getting services. But that penalty shouldn't be having firemen watch your house burn to the ground. Yes, I think they should have put it out when asked to (especially since they responded) and also billed him for the total like he asked. I think you would have to be a pretty hard core, extremist, ideologue to say "The firefighters were there but he didn't pay his bill so you are darn right they should just stand around and watch everything burn. Including the cheap bass turd's dogs and cats. He chose not to pay." I have some pretty decent libertarian leanings but an extremist libertarian is no less insane than an extremist right winger or extremist left winger. Realistically, the best thing for them to do is probably to have in place something saying that if you don't pay the $75 fee, you will be charged $xxxx dollars for fire response if called.
They showed up because the neighbors HAD paid their $75 and they were protecting those contracted with them. FWIW, they did not even show up until the neighbor's house was threatened. As for charging the man for services rendered, that is exactly what I stated in my post. I doubt seriously the fees went into the city pool, but rather the fire dept pool. No grace period? It was established in 1990 - 20 years ago. It was due 10 months ago. Just how much grace does one need? What is next? Ambulance and police already are here and I will bet police are in your area also. Local police have no authority outside of there districts. Mail is federal. If you can tell me how not to pay federal, let me in on it. And, yes, there still are a couple services not bogged down by the federal government.
Once they arrived, members of the South Fulton department stood by and watched Cranick's home burn; they sprang into action only when the fire reached the neighbor's property. I read that as they showed up when the neighbor called and thought his house was threatened. But his house was not actually in danger yet so they hung out and watched the show until the neighbor's house needed saving.
I am not too sure that "neighbor's field caught fire" means the same thing as "the neighbor's house was threatened." In a rural area, that may not even be close to being the case. But, it does sound like there is a discrepancy in those 2 reports. And yet another report says: Firefighters went to the scene to keep flames from spreading to nearby property whose owners had paid. which implies the fire hadn't even made it to the other neighbor's property yet when they responded. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...0tdxWoStirdC9tycATygD9IML9VO0?docId=D9IML9VO0
I think I trust my link more - it is a local (Paducah) station. However, maybe that is why I distrust most news.
I live in a rural area and I am not all that trusting of the local news accuracy. They try hard but their resources are not real...robust...shall we say. But they do have the luxury of being closer so who knows. I can tell you this...if my neighbors house was on fire, I wouldn't wait until my house was in danger before I called the fire department ... or before I would expect them to respond. And if they told me they'd respond only when I thought my house was in danger because the neighbor didn;t pay for fire protections...I'd tell them I think my house is in danger. The place in question is about 2 hours from where I live and, if it has been as dry there as here, only a fool would wait to call once they saw uncontrolled flames at their neighbor's place.
Local police do have authority to go out of their districts. Things have changed. If they are in pursuit or see a crime being commited they have the authority to apprehend. But I wont call you a liar for your general statement. But no matter what right the fire department had or what fee the guy didnt pay, it was a $hitty thing to do. If the guys kid fell into a well? Tough luck pal. I guess your kid'll die. There's a fees and penalties, which I guess youre all for. And then there's humanity, which I guess you arent.
The point I am trying to make is that Google did not send their own reporter to dig the story. They got it from a local source (maybe my link) or even someone else who got it from the local source and then wrote it for their purposes. Have you ever played the game telling a story around the room to see what it comes out as?
Maybe it was good corporate practice?? It's "just business" you know. Cash over morality....winning strategy every time. We should all be so damn proud.
That is a possibility. But I just realized that local source you posted is in Paducah, KY and is the 'local' NBC station for my town in Southern Illinois too. They cover KY, TN, IL and MO. I don't even watch their news because I don't consider it local enough for me and they are actually closer to me in Southern Illinois than they are to the dude in TN. Rural 'Local Sources' can cover a pretty large area. And, like I said, with limited resources.
I am not at all promoting that SPECIFIC source. Merely saying that they have first hand access to the story that usually is not available to the nationals
