South Fulton Fire Department strikes - again?

[Stringer_Bell]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html


A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department.

Vicky Bell told the NBC affiliate WPSD-TV that she called 911 when her mobile home in Obion County caught fire. Firefighters arrived on the scene but as the fire raged, they simply stood by and did nothing. "In an emergency, the first thing you think of, 'Call 9-1-1," homeowner Bell said. However, Bell and her husband were forced to walk into the burning home in an attempt to retrieve their own belongings. "You could look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance," Bell said. "We just wished we could've gotten more out."If you recall, some residents in South Fulton were responsible for a similar incident last year - they refused to pay fees and basically allowed their own house to go up in flames because they figured the nearest fire department (which isn't required or properly resourced to operate county wide, cuz that would be stupid) would respond. Once again, a bunch of leeches try to outsmart the system and took a gamble when they should have just paid the $75. What will it take for people to realize they need to pay for things up front?

Hopefully the county authorities don't cave in to pressure to institute a Fire Department tax when most of the intelligent, god-fearing people do the right thing and pay their optional fees or create a massive fine for responding to fires of future leeches...cuz raising taxes to help pay for EVERYONE'S ability to have access to Fire Department resources is un-American!

[coyotes_geek]

While I agree it's a fucked up arrangement, IIRC the county put a fire department tax on the ballot and the voters shot it down. It's fucked up situation, but it's exactly what they voted for.

[Blake]

I guess firemen aren't able to accept checks/cash/credit cards on location or operators aren't able to accept payments immediately over the phone.

Seems rather silly that they get sent out for the 9/11 call, unless they are concerned that the fire will spread to paying citizens.

What happens if a property is sandwiched between two non-paying property owners?

[Stringer_Bell]

While I agree it's a fucked up arrangement, IIRC the county put a fire department tax on the ballot and the voters shot it down. It's fucked up situation, but it's exactly what they voted for.

Exactly! The citizens were concerned it would raise their property taxes.

[boutons_deux]

America The Beautiful

You'd figure the others would pay up after the first example, but no, $75 for socialist fire fighthers? HELL NO!

[Drachen]

I guess firemen aren't able to accept checks/cash/credit cards on location or operators aren't able to accept payments immediately over the phone.

Seems rather silly that they get sent out for the 9/11 call, unless they are concerned that the fire will spread to paying citizens.

What happens if a property is sandwiched between two non-paying property owners?

This is exactly why they were sent out. The last time this happened (in the same town) they were sent out because the fire from the house that didn't pay spread to a house that did pay and they put it out.

[CosmicCowboy]

Of course, they could put the fire out and then send them an itemized bill for a few thousand dollars for the service.

[boutons_deux]

have the victim sign a short,simple contract first, with minimum prices listed, so there will be legal recourse.

The first guy did ask and offer to pay, but the ff's refused.

[Drachen]

Of course, they could put the fire out and then send them an itemized bill for a few thousand dollars for the service.

.... and grant them the power to put a lien on the property for this bill.

[Drachen]

have the victim sign a short,simple contract first, with minimum prices listed, so there will be legal recourse.

The first guy did ask and offer to pay, but the ff's refused.

You can see why such a system wouldn't work, right?

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually it can and does work, even without a contract. SAFD already charges idiots that drive around barriers and get washed away for the cost of the high water rescue. It's not that different.

[coyotes_geek]

Of course, they could put the fire out and then send them an itemized bill for a few thousand dollars for the service.


.... and grant them the power to put a lien on the property for this bill.

Seems reasonable.

[Drachen]

Actually it can and does work, even without a contract. SAFD already charges idiots that drive around barriers and get washed away for the cost of the high water rescue. It's not that different.

Apples to Oranges. No one is paying a fee for potential water rescue.

In South Fulton's case, everyone could just save their money and quit paying the fee.

[Drachen]

Seems reasonable.

I do think that the costs should be punitive too. As in, not JUST the Cost of Service.

They need to do this so that residents don't just play the numbers and quit paying altogether.

[coyotes_geek]

I do think that the costs should be punitive too. As in, not JUST the Cost of Service.

They need to do this so that residents don't just play the numbers and quit paying altogether.

Tack on a hefty surcharge, but agree to waive half of that surcharge if they sign up for the annual fee.

[Blake]

I wonder what the operating costs are for the fire station.

[LnGrrrR]

Is 75 dollars a year not an exceedingly cheap cost to possibly save your house from a fire? The people who aren't paying aren't very mathematically inclined.

[Drachen]

Is 75 dollars a year not an exceedingly cheap cost to possibly save your house from a fire? The people who aren't paying aren't very mathematically inclined.

Or maybe they are. Any idea of the probability of a house catching fire in S. Fulton? The average replacement cost of a trailer and its contents?


(I kid of course, I am pretty sure that none of them calculated the expected cashflows of each option).

[boutons_deux]

replacement cost house/contents insurance could be around $1000/year.

$75 is probably what they pay for cable TV/internet or cellphone monthly.

[LnGrrrR]

Or maybe they are. Any idea of the probability of a house catching fire in S. Fulton? The average replacement cost of a trailer and its contents?


(I kid of course, I am pretty sure that none of them calculated the expected cashflows of each option).

Humanity is notoriously bad at determining the correct answer when it comes to high risk/low probability scenarios. People are willing to spend milliions to prevent terrorism, while highways break down across the country. People are worried about shark attacks, but not about drowning. Etc etc.

Our ability to control the situation plays in alot to these things too. People worry more about things they have less control over (terrorism attacks) than something with perceived control (driving a car) even if the odds are much more likely they'll die in a wreck.

[Blake]

Is 75 dollars a year not an exceedingly cheap cost to possibly save your house from a fire? The people who aren't paying aren't very mathematically inclined.

That's cheaper than my hoa dues which I get no tangible benefit from.

[Pyromaniac]

I wouldn't pay the $75.

[coyotes_geek]

Is 75 dollars a year not an exceedingly cheap cost to possibly save your house from a fire?

Precisely why I have a hard time mustering up a whole lot of sympathy for someone who has to watch their house burn down because they don't feel like paying the fee.


The people who aren't paying aren't very mathematically inclined.

Maybe the fee needs to be put in terms they can understand? Protect your house from fire for just two cans of Skoal a month!

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe the fee needs to be put in terms they can understand? Protect your house from fire for just two cans of Skoal a month!

:lmao

[ElNono]

Why even put it on a ballot? There's safety issues on this that go beyond the homeowner, and the cost is, by all means, negligible.

[baseline bum]

Is 75 dollars a year not an exceedingly cheap cost to possibly save your house from a fire? The people who aren't paying aren't very mathematically inclined.

No shit. These guys should risk their lives for nothing? It sounds heartless, but if they accept the $75 at the scene of the fire it would be wholly equivalent to someone who doesn't buy health insurance until he finds out he has cancer. I think it's ridiculous to privatize fire coverage, but the voters are morons.

[JoeChalupa]

Pay or you'll get burned.

[coyotes_geek]

Why even put it on a ballot? There's safety issues on this that go beyond the homeowner, and the cost is, by all means, negligible.

While I think the manner in which the residents are using their power is completely ridiculous, conceptually I don't see why anyone should have a problem with voters being given a say in how services within their community are provided and funded.

What risks are there that go beyond the non-paying homeowner so long as the fire department shows up and make sure the fire doesn't spread?

[TheSullyMonster]

No shit. These guys should risk their lives for nothing? It sounds heartless, but if they accept the $75 at the scene of the fire it would be wholly equivalent to someone who doesn't buy health insurance until he finds out he has cancer. I think it's ridiculous to privatize fire coverage, but the voters are morons.

Truth. If they get hurt helping somebody who didn't pay, it's entirely likely that their insurance would not pay for it.

[ElNono]

What risks are there that go beyond the non-paying homeowner so long as the fire department shows up and make sure the fire doesn't spread?

Loss of life is one. Does a kid trapped into a fire needs to die because daddy is an idiot that won't fork off $75/year?

Then there's structural damages to city property like sidewalks, not to mention depreciation of properties surrounding what's now literally a dump.

[Agloco]

Are they obligated to go in if the owner yells "My daughter is trapped in there!"? Akin to the people who know what to say upon presenting to the ER.... "I have chest pain." "I'm snort of breath"....etc. '

[Blake]

Loss of life is one. Does a kid trapped into a fire needs to die because daddy is an idiot that won't fork off $75/year?



good question

[coyotes_geek]

Loss of life is one. Does a kid trapped into a fire needs to die because daddy is an idiot that won't fork off $75/year?

Then there's structural damages to city property like sidewalks, not to mention depreciation of properties surrounding what's now literally a dump.

None of this is realistic.

[Yonivore]

good question
I'm pretty sure a victim trapped in the burning structure would change the equation considerably.

But, on the other hand, if I were a South Fulton loser that wished to save myself a whopping $6.25 a month and my house caught fire; I'd hide Timmy in the trunk of my '62 Chevrolet Corvair and, when I called 911, I be frantic about my missing Timmy not getting out of the house.

[Blake]

None of this is realistic.

If a kid is in the structure, is the fire department required to go in and save him/her?

[coyotes_geek]

If they weren't, we'd have heard about it by now.

[Yonivore]

If a kid is in the structure, is the fire department required to go in and save him/her?
No fire department is required to risk life or assets to save someone from a burning building - contract or no contract, paid fee or not.

Having said that, they do have an obligation to act -- in some way -- to preserve life. That doesn't necessarily mean entering a burning building if, in the judgement of the fire officials, it would be futile or would place fire fighters in unreasonable danger.

Finally, I don't know a fire fighter that wouldn't move heaven and earth to save a child from a burning building.

[Blake]

If they weren't, we'd have heard about it by now.

they let the pets burn according to this:

http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-obion-county-sheriff-danny-jowers-its-not-ok-to-let-animals-burn-to-death

[Blake]

No fire department is required to risk life or assets to save someone from a burning building - contract or no contract, paid fee or not.


Paid fee, they're required to put out the fire.

That's really what we're talking about.

[coyotes_geek]

they let the pets burn according to this:

http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-obion-county-sheriff-danny-jowers-its-not-ok-to-let-animals-burn-to-death

Pets aren't kids.

[Yonivore]

Paid fee, they're required to put out the fire.

That's really what we're talking about.
I was responding to your post...


If a kid is in the structure, is the fire department required to go in and save him/her?

[Blake]

Pets aren't kids.

Pets are somewhere between property and human life, though this confirms their staunch stance on not putting out a fire for someone that hasn't paid.

If there is a human life at risk, and they put out the fire for someone that hasn't paid, how would they handle reimbursement?

[Blake]

I was responding to your post...

k.

As an aside, I think that if a paid firefighter is trained in civilian rescue that he/she then has a responsibility to perform the rescue.

[Yonivore]

k.

As an aside, I think that if a paid firefighter is trained in civilian rescue that he/she then has a responsibility to perform the rescue.
Only if it can be done safely.

No one has the responsibility to commit suicide in order to attempt a rescue.

[ElNono]

None of this is realistic.

What part isn't realistic?

[coyotes_geek]

Pets are somewhere between property and human life, though this confirms their staunch stance on not putting out a fire for someone that hasn't paid.

If there is a human life at risk, and they put out the fire for someone that hasn't paid, how would they handle reimbursement?

Obviously they'd re-ignite the fire and then leave.

[Yonivore]

Pets are somewhere between property and human life, though this confirms their staunch stance on not putting out a fire for someone that hasn't paid.

If there is a human life at risk, and they put out the fire for someone that hasn't paid, how would they handle reimbursement?
Who says they put out the fire? Rescuing an occupant of a burning building doesn't require you to extinguish the fire.

[coyotes_geek]

What part isn't realistic?

All of it.

[ElNono]

All of it.

Why?

[ElNono]

Who says they put out the fire? Rescuing an occupant of a burning building doesn't require you to extinguish the fire.

Not necessarily true. While they might not need to put out the fire, actually controlling the fire can be a necessity before a rescue attempt.

[ElNono]

What even more stupid is that the actual cost is probably even lower if everyone paid.

[Blake]

Only if it can be done safely.

No one has the responsibility to commit suicide in order to attempt a rescue.

rofl safely going into a collapsing/burning building

[Blake]

Obviously they'd re-ignite the fire and then leave.

unrealistic.

[coyotes_geek]

Why?

Do you think it's realistic that a firefighter wouldn't try to save a kid's life over a $75 fee?

[coyotes_geek]

unrealistic.

No more unrealistic than believing a firefighter wouldn't try to save a kid from a burning house over a $75 fee.

[Blake]

Who says they put out the fire? Rescuing an occupant of a burning building doesn't require you to extinguish the fire.

I would assume there would be water used in some way, even if the fire does not get completely extinguished.

Either way, fire department resources would still be used to perform the rescuse.

[Blake]

No more unrealistic than believing a firefighter wouldn't try to save a kid from a burning house over a $75 fee.

If the firefighter goes in and gets seriously injured, who will pay for the medical bills?

[coyotes_geek]

No idea.

[ElNono]

Do you think it's realistic that a firefighter wouldn't try to save a kid's life over a $75 fee?

Do you want to find out?

That's why it's stupid it was put to a vote.

[coyotes_geek]

Do you want to find out?

That's why it's stupid it was put to a vote.

I already know. They wouldn't.

[Blake]

No idea.

I know who won't pay it.

[ElNono]

I already know. They wouldn't.

I don't think anybody knows. We'll figure out when it happens, I guess.

As Blake pointed out, if the firefighter gets injured and the insurance co don't want to pay, I'm pretty sure we'll hear about it. I'm not hoping for a situation like that, but I don't think it's unrealistic at all.

[ElNono]

And frankly, this is over potentially $5/month. That's what makes it retarded.

[Yonivore]

rofl safely going into a collapsing/burning building
Now you've added collapsing.

And, yes, you can safely enter a burning building.

You are aware that fire fighting and rescue are professions for which people train, aren't you? Not only do they train to put out fires and remove people from burning building -- in various stages of involvement. They also train to know when it is reasonably safe to do so and when it would be futile, likely resulting in the death or serious injury of the fire fighter/rescuer.

[Yonivore]

I would assume there would be water used in some way, even if the fire does not get completely extinguished.

Either way, fire department resources would still be used to perform the rescuse.
Yes. And, once the rescue was performed, they could pack up their shit and watch the place continue to burn. They're under no obligation to extinguish the fire once the rescue is complete.

[coyotes_geek]

I don't think anybody knows. We'll figure out when it happens, I guess.

As Blake pointed out, if the firefighter gets injured and the insurance co don't want to pay, I'm pretty sure we'll hear about it. I'm not hoping for a situation like that, but I don't think it's unrealistic at all.


If firefighters let a kid burn to death over not paying the fee I will bump this thread and give you your "I told you so" moment. Until that happens, I'm sticking with this being an unrealistic scenario.

[coyotes_geek]

And frankly, this is over potentially $5/month. That's what makes it retarded.

It's completely retarded. But, it's exactly what they want.

[ElNono]

If firefighters let a kid burn to death over not paying the fee I will bump this thread and give you your "I told you so" moment. Until that happens, I'm sticking with this being an unrealistic scenario.

Fair enough.

I'll add that I'll claim dibs too if a homeowner sues the city too for allowing a home next to him to burn down...

[coyotes_geek]

South Fulton provides fire service to its residents but charges a fee for homeowners living in adjacent unincorporated areas of Obion County. Obion County does not have its own fire department and there is no fire tax. Local fire chiefs in the past have lobbied the county to get them out of the middle, so they aren't put in a position to watch someone's property burn.

[coyotes_geek]

My name is Kelly Edmison. Chief of Union City Fire Dept. Union City TN. OBION County. We are 1 of the 8 city fire dept’s in Obion County. My department is the only fully paid dept.

Even though my department (Union City, TN) was not the department involved, it has been extremely hard viewing the news media storm this past week; especially, when no one has reported the truth about the situation yet.

Watching news cast after news cast with miss information makes me wonder just how much “other” news we see nightly about our country and world events is turned and twisted.

Obion County Tennessee does not have a county fire department. It does have 8 municipal fire departments. Union City, TN is the only full time staffed department in the county. The other 7 departments are volunteer departments; but like Union City, are city departments. Again, Obion County does not have a county fire department. Sadly, Obion County is one of two counties in the state who do not provide fire protection. County residents do pay county taxes. However, no tax money goes towards fire coverage. The 8 municipal departments are funded by each of their city tax payers.

Three of the cities, Union City, Kenton and South Fulton operate a subscription fire service in an attempt to help the rural people in their respective areas. Union City has operated this way for over 47 years. They all three charge a $75 per year fee. It’s not a tax. It’s not mandatory. But the service is there if they wish. The reason these three charge a fee, is because the cities do not feel it fair to take the city tax payers money and service and give it to county residents for free.

Their policies are the same. With the exception of a life endanger; if you don’t pay; they don’t come.

However, once South Fulton had to respond to take care of the neighbor whose property caught fire and was a subscriber, that’s the point where in my opinion the outcome probably would have been different. But I’m not South Fulton.

But here is what the public doesn’t understand. Right, wrong or indifferent, it was not the decision of the South Fulton Fire Chief or of his firefighters to not put water on the structure. Their orders came from their city manager and mayor and council. Was it wrong? Everyone has an opinion (We would have put it out if for no other reason than that we had to come anyway and that was the damn fire that was endangering the neighbor who had the coverage.) If they had tried to put it out the chief would have been fired, the fire fighters terminated and there wouldn’t have been any body left to help fight fire for the majority of the rural residents in their area who do pay the annual fee.

The remaining 5 departments (city departments) in the county have been going out into the county without a subscription service with the hope that after responding they will bill the home owner and collect. It hasn’t been working. One of these departments even though it is a city department, has to get change out of their outside coke machine that sits on the front of their station just to have money to put fuel in their tank. They get very little help from their own city, let alone NO revenue from the county. Financially these departments will be forced to either go to a subscription based service or draw back into their respective city limits. If that happens, there won’t be any fire protection in three quarters of the county.

No firefighter wants to see a home go up in flames; but especially for the volunteer departments, the cake sales and fish fries just don’t cut it anymore. One set of gear to out fit a firefighter can exceed $3,000. A fire truck easily costs more than a quarter of a million dollars. How many cakes do you think it will take? And who again is paying for this? The “city” taxpayer.

The state of TN guarantees that as a tax payer; city or county, you are promised two things. One, garbage pickup will be provided. And two, law enforcement will be provided. Fire service apparently isn’t considered that important.

What people need to know is the fire problem in Obion County is NOT South Fulton’s problem or any of the other 7 departments. It’s a county problem.

The other 7 city chiefs and myself have been working with the county for over four years now in trying to convince then to go with a fire tax like most counties in this country operate and we would all gladly get rid of this subscription crap. The county currently wants all cities to go subscription and the county will collect and distribute.

I as an individual have been catching holy hell this week from all over the country, and wasn’t even the department involved. All I have been trying to do is defend some brother firefighters who weren’t given a choice as to what they could do; defending a program, though not perfect has been a successful program in Union City at least for over 47 years. South Fulton has run theirs for 20. It’s kept the doors open and help provided protection to a majority of rural customers in our Union City area who if it were not for the blessing of our city government would not have any fire protection what so ever because the County still does not want to pass a fire tax for county residents.

It has been one week. Not one letter to the editor has appeared in any of the papers. I’m not hearing complaints from the county residents. I’m only getting my ass chewed out from one end of the country to the other. I apologize for interrupting your forum. It’s late; I’m mad, and I wanted to vent. Honestly, this has been the most civil forum I have come across. And the only one I have taken part it.

Hope you all stay safe and please never judge until you have the facts.

link (http://statter911.com/2010/10/08/another-chief-providing-subscription-service-in-obion-county-tn-writes-to-statter911-com-read-the-detailed-remarks-from-chief-kelly-edmison-union-city-fd/)

[Blake]

Yes. And, once the rescue was performed, they could pack up their shit and watch the place continue to burn. They're under no obligation to extinguish the fire once the rescue is complete.

but then they still get a free rescue on the payer's dollar.

[Blake]

Their policies are the same. With the exception of a life endanger; if you don’t pay; they don’t come.

good to hear him say that.

of course, if I'm a firefighter there, I'm still calling my HR rep to verify that I will be covered for responding to a call in the county.


One of these departments even though it is a city department, has to get change out of their outside coke machine that sits on the front of their station just to have money to put fuel in their tank.

wut