Firefighting Fee

Wrong:

And I call bullshit. You didn't prove a thing. You kept quoting the Life-Flight crap, which has nothing to do with this. Then you posted the CAL FIRE flier as if the neat pictures and the large text was the law. Not even close.

No, the important part is doing the job they're supposed to do. If they were told "So, there's a fire, but don't go put it out" by their Chief, and they disobeyed, what would you think should happen? They have the guy there for a reason. He makes the calls. The firefighters follow him because he's their superior. Wanna blame the fire chief? Go for it. But don't blame his people. And even the Chief isn't to blame.

Children can have heros. But in Grownup Land, there are a strict set of rules for us to follow. We don't cater to children. Buy them a damn Superman comic.

Then they sue the city for violating the contract. Already said that.

Also, rediscovered this little Gem I thought I'd respond to:

Hm. My stepdad fights wildfires up in Mt. Lassen here in CA. He has for like 15 years. They get paid to fight fires. They get paid lots of money. Pretty much everything they get paid to fight fires (when they're there for several weeks/months/whatever) is overtime. This year was a shitty year for him because there were only 2 fires he went on, I believe. The guy has been to Hawaii to fight fires. And he got paid to be there to do this, too. I'm not sure you fully understand how the system works there. Just thought I'd let you in on the secret.

 

I saw you try to justify your lie and basically stopped reading. If you are too childish to admit you lied and I never said what you tried to say I said then you will be ignored.


I did see you try to pass off the County propaganda as fact though, I looked at the link and was surprised you would even bother to post that garbage, you do know that was crated to cover their ass for not responding to fires right? Maybe not, you seem very much brainwashed to believe whatever a Government entitity tells you.......a small clue, they are humans too, capable of lies, what you have to look at is the logic behind the actions. If they perform work on real property at the very least a mechanics lien is legal and based on that lien, nobody can ever rebuild and occupy a new home until that lien is settled.


******************************

Back to the intent of the discussion, this home is gone, are there ways to let fire fighters fight fires and not making them seem the 'bad guy' to the community? I believe there is, even using the fake numbers Joker offered, they say half the people pay right away, at 50% on a charge of $500, that is still better than the $75 per household they need to pay for services so if everyone followed that trend, the fire department is making a lot more money than they needed. This will give the city an average of $250 a home, not the required $75 a home to cover their costs so it is a big win by the city.

The other 50% can still be gotten through the lien/co process if the County wants to do the paperwork but if not, they are still collecting more than enough money to cover their services and offer the County a nice profit.




Again, I agree that the firefighters were just following their orders to not fight fires, no matter how many times Joker tells that lie, I have never said the fire fighters are "evil" for following their rules. I have only said I want firefighters to be seen as heros by the community, I want fire fighters to do what they trained to do, protect people and fight fires, not stand around watching things burn down just because a Government buracrat did not put a name on a list of who the firefighters are allowed to help.

 

To reiterate:

So, according to the numbers in the PDF from the 2000 Census, about 35% of the county is "out of town". 4612 households. Now, if each of those paid 75, we're looking at $345900 between all of the cities' FDs that cover the county.

In 2006, the county had a total of 148 rural fire calls (excluding the 3 cities that charge subscriptions). Cut the number in half (to represent how many people don't pay), you get 74. Now, charge every one of those people $500, and when they all pay it back, you get: $37000.

Now, even if the number of households doesn't increase between '00 and '06, and we assume that the 3 subscription-charging cities service even HALF of the county, the other half is still getting $172950 a year, assuming everyone pays the subscription.

That's quite a difference there. Does the math work for you, Times? Or am I wrong?

 

Kid 1, Geezer 0

 

Your first mistake is the source of your information, the pdf is not an independent report, it is an internal document so it is worthless. Offer some information independent of the city and maybe I will spend some time looking at it.



Let's go back to the basics.


As I already pointed out and you seem unable to understand, all the costs of operating that fire department are already completely covered by the city. They use average fire calls from prior years with a percentage extra (usually 10%) just to be sure they can fully operate all year long. Any "extra" money the city gets from the County residents is all profit, they already have all their costs covered so it does not matter if they get 1 person or 1,000 people to pay, it is all over and above their costs and pure profit.


What you are talking about is using scare tactics to extort a massive windfall in profit for the city Joker, nice if they can get it that way I suppose, but that again goes against my point that firefighters should not be run like the strong arm element of a mafia.

 

How did I know you were going to say something like that? Just keep grasping at straws, TJ.

And how "independent" do you expect it to get? The census numbers are independent. I could base my argument on those ALONE. $172,950 dollars if everybody pays the $75 fee.

Here's some more math for you: In order to get to that number if you charge per call, and only 50% pay, you need 692 calls or so rurally. Even if all of them pay, you still need 346 calls, and that's just to the county. So 7.5% of the unincorporated county households catch on fire during the year, in order to pull down the same amount of money, assuming everyone pays.

Remember, as well, that the $172k is assuming that the other stations service half of the county. This isn't so, but the number is still much higher than letting people pay after the fact.

Also, you know what that "profit" does, TJ? Helps them buy new equipment, trucks, etc. Personally, I'd rather have a well-equipped firehouse ready at my beck and call, not one that isn't as awesome as it can be.

Proof? Why would they go through the trouble of charging if they have all the money they need already? That's a load of crap if I've ever heard one.

Sure, if we assume that somehow all of the operating costs of the FD are magically covered by the city. Show me PROOF they already have all of the money they need. Until then, it's another one of your fairytales.

 

So are we talking about covering the extra cost of fighting fires outside of the city or how the city can extort the most money possible from County residents without doing anything to get it?

Yes, if the point is to make as much money as possible then you are correct, it is better to get $75 from every resident in the County no matter if they ever get fire services or not.



But I was not talking about how the City can make the most money, I was talking about how the city can cover the "COST" of fighting fires.

Are you just acting stupid or do you really not understand this very basic point?

I already covered how budgets are made yearly kid, not my fault you can't retain lessons already given, you need to pay attention and read everything each time before you reply if you can't keep up with the conversation.


They already have trucks, firefighters, fire chiefs, dispatch, fire stations....all the things that make up a firefighting service are already there for the city, what they "NEED" is the ability to cover expenses to fight fires outside the City, and I agree this is completely reasonable for them to get. So how much extra does it cost to respond to the fire of a County resident? There is certainly extra gas, the small increase of pay from sitting idol to responding to a actual call must be paid to the firefighters, so you will be looking at around $40 to $50 of actual extra cost to the city for a basic fire call. I am sure the city wants to make a profit from the calls and getting money from many people they will never have to respond to helps considerably to give the City a lot of free money comming in but I also don't see anything wrong with charging around $500.00 to those who did not pay up front.

You just don't ever pay attention.

The FD already existed, their yearly expenses to operate the FD is already covered by the city budget every year. It is not "MAGIC" it is called a city budget.

They have all the money they need for city fire department from the city taxes, what we are talking about is how much more they need to offer services to other people in the County.

 

Are you winning the debate against yourself? I can't tell.

 

Being as you seem not able to understand how a city budget works you can't understand any of this anyway. Maybe after you start payign things like property taxes and get curious how that money is spent you can understand these things.

Then again you already admitted you are very lazy and still living at home right? You have a long way to go if so.

 

See, you're just flat out making sh*t up now. You're being a condescending wee-wee, as usual, and pretending that you've automatically won because I can't possibly understand how something works since I haven't done X action. Also, I like how you ignored the fact that I called you out on your bullshit. Just keep grasping at straws, old man.

And no, I moved back into my parents house after having lived elsewhere for about a year and a half because it was not only cheaper, they were getting a bigger house. Seemed economical.

 

Thinking on it, I decided to go through your recent posts here and tell you how wrong you are, hopefully shutting you up and proving you wrong. I doubt you'll shut up, as you're kind of a blowhard, but I can try, right?

Wrong. Already proved how you were wrong mathematically. Also, you're using info from the "propaganda" to support your cause.

Yes. The costs of operating WITHIN THE CITY are covered. Not for going outside of the city.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. You just don't seem to agree with yourself.

But see, according to you, they already have all of the money they need. You said it yourself.

BAHAHA. Yup. The census is a fake load of crap.

What if the sky exploded? What if the home was made of gingerbread? What if you stopped pretending people are bad because you can make stuff up? Implying they would leave someone to die in a burning building is asinine.

Actually, you're an uninformed dolt. Also, wrong. CAL FIRE is a state FD. They're required to put fires out on state/federal land, and assist other FDs who require it. Because they're state.

On the other hand, your example has nothing to do with this because you proved that you have no clue what you're talking about. City has no obligation to put out a county fire unless said county FD asks for assistance. Which also comes from the PDF. But besides that, no.

If Cranick lived nowhere near anybody else, then they wouldn't have had to respond to a neighbor, thusly making your point moot.

But I thought they already had all the money they needed to fight county fires? Why would they need the extra money then? Seems like too much paperwork to go through if it's unnecessary.

No, you showed me a flier for a state FD funded by state tax money, not a law. They can charge you because the fire is in the State, and you live in the state and they have the power to make your life a living hell if you don't pay. City can't charge county.

And yet you posted a flier for a State FD that has jurisdiction over federal/state property, and only assists elsewhere when asked. Turns out it has everything to do with it. They don't really stop by in the city unless half of LA is ablaze.

No, what I said was:

Never said they didn't need more. It's that reading comprehension thing we're talking about on the "Go Vote" thread. To quote Samuel L. Jackson, "ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?"

-------------------

That should about do it.

 

lol, looks like you put a lot of time into that post kid, too bad I didn't waste my time reading any of it once you first admitted you could not take care of yourself and had to go leech off your parents to survive life. Maybe if you were no so lazy you could have worked harder and earned enough money to be an independent person instead of a lazy leech. How long you going to lean on your parents to survive kid? 25? 30? 35? How old is too old to be living at home with mommy and daddy?

Understanding something as complex as a City budget requires a little more thought than you are directing at this issue.


So let me say this simpler this time, maybe you can understand it this time:


The city already has plenty of money allocated to cover regular expenses for the operation and payroll of the firefighters. What they deserve to get paid for is the "EXTRA" expenses they incur responding to a fire in the County. So what is that cost Joker? Do you know? Can you stop with the personal attacks and tell me in a logical way what extra expenses the fire department will have over and above the basic cost?


**********************************

As I said before, my point was trying to come up with ideas and ways fire fighters could fight fires and not be forced to stand and watch as family homes burn down. You have completely avoided the spirit of the conversation I offered in your need to try and take shots at me like a child. Grow up, if you want to debate things stop trying to make everything about your anger at me and start talking about the actual topic.

 

I'm not leeching off of my parents, Times. I pay rent. The money I pay more than covers my expenses, as I'm almost never at home. And I never said I couldn't take care of myself. The place I was living raised rent and it was too high because the job I was working at, at the time, wasn't paying enough. So I pay my parents what my rent was before the increase, and I have a better job now, so I can afford gas, car payments, etc. You do realize I'm only 21, right?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...DdEZJUMHA&sig2=-GrIm_aEN9HtLPnrnttZYw&cad=rja

Well, check that out. It's a PDF detailing response cost in Iowa. If the cost is anything near that, well, they're getting a bargain.

No, I say you're wrong, you say I'm childish. That seems to be a running thing here, if you haven't noticed.

Also, as far as your point there, Obion County has an FD. It's just non-op, unfunded, and unmanned. If the residents actually got off their asses and did something about this, it wouldn't be an issue. But they keep depending on the cities, which is fine, but when a city specifically tells you that you need to subscribe to have your fire put out, and you don't, you get things like this happening.

 

In my life I was making my own money with a worm farm at 12, worked farms doing tobacco, watermelons, hay, etc... and saved up enough money that when I turned 16 I paid cash for my first Truck. I joined the Army at 18 and have taken care of myself, sometimes working three jobs, ever sense. So when you say life is too hard for you at 21 and you can't make it without your parents helping you I just don't have much sympathy for you to be honest.

You may pay rent but it is less than you would pay on your own so you are still leeching off your parents, then there is laundry and food I am sure mommy helps you with that you would have to pay for if you lived on your own.

I asked you what age is too old to be living with your parents in your opinion Joker....so tell me, what age do you think a adult should be out on their own taking care of themselves? 25? 30? Give me a number Joker.

I have noticed you are still unwilling to consider the concept of how things could be different for the future. You have spent all of your time trying to justify why it is a good thing for firefighters to stand and watch homes burn. For you the only option is to defend what is currently happening instead of trying to discuss how a compromise can be made to both allow fire fighters to fight fires, and also for the city to get enough money to cover expenses.

You seem blissfully content with whatever policy a Government sets and if that means a person is trapped in a burning home and allowed to die because they did not pay $75, then so be it, you just don't care because you trust in Government completely and if the bureaucracy says it is okay, then you say it is okay.

 

At this point at my current income, I'd have to find a roommate to move out with. I admit that I'm poor.

And I'm not saying "life is hard" or "woe is me". I'm simply explaining my situation. We grew up differently, in different areas, different experiences, different lives. I don't want your sympathy, Times.

I still don't leech off my parents, Times.

That's dependent on your situation. In my current situation, I don't want to live here too much longer. But at the moment, I don't have much of a choice. The only guy I trust enough to be a roommate is helping support his family until his G-pa's house is getting built, then he's getting the hell out.

I already said that there is an FD, so if the residents got off of their asses and (A) did a little work, or (B) yelled at the county, they would have an operational FD and this would be a nonissue.

If I saw a way for them to get back the after-the-fire charges they attempt to collect, then they could just do that. There are plenty of things that could be done for the future. Hell, I'm sure if the collection rate was higher they wouldn't be as anal about the subscription.

Also, you're still demonizing the FD for something that didn't happen, and assuming they don't value human life.

 

You are giving up, you just toss up your hands, use whatever excuse you can come up with and let your parents bail you out. Get another job, go out and actively find a decent roommate, the only thing stopping you from being an independent adult is you.

But that is exactly what you are saying, you cry about how hard life is so you run to the boobie so your parents can help you live. Without your parents to fall back on, where would you be?

Sure you are, you already admitted you would have to pay more on your own and you can't do it so you are a leech. How about that laundry and the food I know your parents are feeding you? You are basically living your life like any 16 year old with an after school job.

But that is an excuse, you do have a choice, you just don't want to work that hard to make that choice. Either you are an independent adult or you are not. You said yourself you are lazy and sit around a lot, very overweight too if I remember correctly. Stop shoving your money down your neck as one example, get off the couch and go out to find a better job as another one, a second job if you can't find one better one. There are always options joker.

To be honest I blame your parents too, they are enabling your sloth.

Then go find someone else, actively look, don't just sit at mommies house eating cheesy poofs and playing video games and expect you will find solutions to your problems.


Basically your life is on hold, treading water and living life like a teenager.

They value life right below the value of a $75 payment. No payment, no consideration of human life.

 

All I saw there were assumptions, generalizations, and more assumptions. I do so enjoy how this thread turned into a personal examination of my life choices and you saying I'm a lazy, good-for-nothing fatass who leeches off of my parents. When you're done trying to examine my life from your high horse, you can get back down here and argue the point of the thread with the rest of us, TJ.

About the "value of life thing", you're still ignoring reality. There was nobody in the building, so you have no point. You're making things up to help your argument. As it turns out, "made-up sh*t" isn't valid evidence to support your cause.

 

I believe it was you who described yourself as lazy kid, not me, all I am doing is agreeing with you and offering you some advice based on that admission. You are way, way too old to be living at home but you can't figure out how to be an adult and survive without your parents taking care of you like a 16 year old. If you can't figure out how to manage your own finances to live on your own, you can never understand a much more complex financial issue like city budgets and taxes kid. You have to learn to walk before you can learn to run, and you are still living with mommy and daddy so at this point you only have the crawling down in life.

Reality? The policy of not responding to a fire unless the address is registered as paying their $75 is cut and dry. You are the idiot trying to make up sh!t that is not there, not me.

 

I'm not "way, way too old" to be living at home, dipshit. I moved out when I turned 18 and lived out of my parents' house for about a year and a half or so.

Mind you, it's really not your place to judge my life, and it had nothing to do with the debate.

You assume I mismanaged my finances. I was working a different job and didn't have the finances. Again, not your place to judge, Times.

I'm trying to make sh*t up? Neither of us know their policy on rescuing people from fires. You're insinuating they would let people die.

 

So you made one attempt, failed, and now what are you doing? Licking your wounds and feeling "safe" sucking on the teat?

Do you plan to try again or just keep playing it safe with mommy and daddy?

So yu tried and failed and gave up......you never figured out how to live on your own, this is my point, all you did was get out there, run out of money, and run home to the boobie.


Now if you had got a second job, moved to a less expensive place, got a roomy, or figured out how to reduce some bills, then you would have learned something, but all you learned was how to give up and run back to the tittie.

I'm not making anything up, it is their policy that dispatch will not pass a call through to the fire department if the address is not on their list of who has paid for fire services. I am talking about the policy, you are the guy trying to make sh!t up to try and paint the Government in a better light because you believe in and worship government as always right, I don't.

Let's go back to the quote I used to again make the best point:

I want fire fighters to be firefighters and buracrats to be buracrats.

Public safety is one place we should not be picking and choosing who to help in times of emergencies....IMHO.