The article makes it sound like the firefighters said said "[censored] it" and did nothing. The truth is that the guy didn't pay their dues, and the firefighters didn't do anything.

It's like saying you're in a job, and you work and don't get payed. The guy said he'd pay his dues if they did something, but how could they take it seriously?

Similar to how some people are against carrying guns, however in a life threatening situation if somebody is in a close vicinity to them they immediately change their tune.

Horrible story, but you can't not pay for insurance and still expect to reap the benefits :shrug:.

Indeed. What's worse in my mind is the people who think they are all covered by insurance but then find out later that their coverage didn't include protection from X disaster.

It's not insurance though. It was so firefighters in the town over would help this town because they didn't have firefighters.

Don't we pay for this kind of stuff from property taxes? If we do then I don't see how this can be legal. Then again... if the firefighters only have to do stuff in the town they specifically work for, then I suppose it is. But then the state is looking at a lot of problems. No tax paying citizen should be without firefighter services, no matter where you live.

The thing is, there are no "state" wide firefighters. Individual counties / cities have their own fire departments. And sometimes a county / city lacks enough money to run their own fire department or even a volunteer fire department. Which then leads us to the exact situation that we are discussing - someone outside the city limits whose area does not have a fire department, so they have a agreement with the city / county over that they can use their fire department if they pay a small fee every year.

Property taxes go to the county / municipality in which the property resides. Again, if the county does not get enough money, then no county-sponsored fire department. Etc.

The people lived in an unincorporated part of a county, that is they were not in a town or city, just out in the middle of nowhere and apparently the county doesn't provide fire protection services. More than likely they lived there because the property taxes were much lower than if they lived in a town, they should not be surprised they receive less services than those who pay for them. The fire department is funded by the property taxes of people who do live in that town.

EDIT: Reneer beat me with the same basic points.

So if someone can not afford to live in town, they should get less services than those who can? Yeah... all people are created equal... so long as you have plenty of money.

I think you're confusing services with rights. Services cost money. If you can't afford those services, then you don't get those services. Local fire departments / police departments are paid for by property taxes. If the county doesn't get enough money, they can't afford to run the services and thus no one in the county gets them. Has nothing to do with being "created equal."

Firefighters are services? Then so are Police and public education, and people who can't afford those services shouldn't get those either.

It's not their job to give handouts to out of county residents who can't be bothered to stay on top of their fee. It's their job to fight fires for those who pay for the service. I don't really see the issue here. I grew up in a rural area, in a desert, where the threat of fire was "extreme" every summer...so I know how important paying those fees can be. Dude couldn't be bothered to do it, and it bit him in the ass. Not the firefighters fault or problem. If he wanted protection from this sort of thing, he'd have prioritized paying the fee for it.

The idea that because he blew it off and then suffered because of it that we all should feel some sort compassion for him, or disgust for the firefighters, who did their jobs to the letter, is what really makes me sick to my stomach.

Unless you know how this specific state/county funds police and schools this is meaningless. The taxes these people paid did not include fire department service, the closest fire department offered to cover them. The home owners chose not to accept.

You are quite right, police and public education are indeed services. They have to be paid for in some way. If the taxes can't cover the costs, then the money needs to come from somewhere else.

Do you think providing firefighters is free? All those salaries, all that equipment more expensive than you could ever imagine, the whole infrastructure with fire alarms and whatnot?

All that has to be paid for somehow, and if you don't pay in some way, you can't get the service. That's how the world works!

It's $75. $75. That's it. They wouldn't help because of $75.

Turn it around:

It's $75. $75. That's it. He couldn't be bothered to pay $75 to protect his home.

He's the one who refused to pay, how does he end up being the goodguy here?

It's $75. $75. That's it. They let their own house burn down because of $75.

Anyone who owns a house should be able to come up with $75 a year.

Dammit ninja'ed again.

I have no idea what I pay for fire protection here annually, as it's part of my property tax, but $75 annually doesn't seem like an outrageous number (it's not free anywhere, btw, everyone pays for these services somehow). If this particular fire department has had to respond to fires and not be compensated, I suppose this day was coming. I don't believe they have a means to recoup payment later, which is part of the problem. Allow the guy to pay for the fire response later, or give the fire department the ability to put a lien on the property if he fails to do so. Even if the structures are lost, the property retains value. Simple solution.

I'd also be interested to look at his homeowners insurance policy. They might have an interest in mandating fire coverage. Somebody should, I'd be murderously pissed if my damn neighbors fire destroyed part of my property because he opted out of a fee. That's idiotic.

Exactly. He's the schmuck who decided he couldn't prioritize paying his fee, and he's the only one that is at fault here. Why demonize the firefighters?

Here's another link from the local NBC affiliate:

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

The video says that the exact same thing happened back in 2008, the city council debated chagning the rules but decided not to.

Insurance is a service that you pay for to protect you. That's it. There are more specific kinds, but that's the most basic description that fits any kind of insurance.

And that's exactly what the firefighter service was. You pay them, and they protect you. Viola, insurance.

People keep saying that, but the article says he forgot it and was offering to pay them anything while they were there. It's not like he was yelling at them to save his house for free.

Because it's wrong.

Just because laws say it's okay doesn't make it okay. Just because there may be a grey area doesn't make it a grey situation. There ARE things that are just plain right and wrong. Letting someone's house burn down over $75 is ridiculous. Sure, they might have gotten fired, but they'd walk away knowing that they did something good. (and if all of them helped, what, would the town fire the ENTIRE fire department?)

I'm not sure on the details around how many people lived there, but if kids lived there, then it's even worse than just advlts. Kids shouldn't suffer from the decisions of the advlts they live with.

You're letting your personal morality get in the way. It's not wrong, you think it's wrong. NOTHING is plain right and wrong as you put it.

Not paying your 75 dollar fee is ridiculous. You've made an investment that is worth (in many cases) hundreds of thousands of dollars, how could you be such a blithering idiot that you can't be bothered to protect that? It seems to me that this homeowner felt entitled to free services, as this isn't the first time he's had a problem with this, and the people who actually make the decisions about what he's entitled to disagreed with him. To bad, so sad. I bet he remembered to pay for his electricity bill. Though the way some people are acting, if he didn't pay that, they'd be up in arms that he's not entitled to free electricity until he decides to pay it. Same thing.

As far as kids are concerned, and I'm a parent, no, in a prefect world, they shouldn't be forced to suffer because of their parents mistakes. Our world is far from perfect though, so they do...it's the way the world works, and has worked since the dawn of man. If the dude had kids, that's even more reason to MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE that he's on top of things like fire coverage for his home.

If I forget to pay for my car insurance and get into an accident I won't get my car fixed. Part of being a grown-up is remembering to fulfill your obligations when they are due, if you can't handle that then you get what you get. Life is not fair, in fact it seems to svck most of the time. You don't get things you can't afford and you definitely don't get things you "forget" to pay for. What if I walk out of the grocery store with a basket of food and forget to pay for it?

Yes there is. Just because we don't know or don't agree, doesn't mean otherwise.

So if I [censored], killed, and ate a baby it couldn't be considered evil. That's the impression I get when people use that argument.

Kids suffer from the decisions of the advlts they live with anywhere. It doesn't matter where they live, kids aren't old enough to be independent and therefore rely on their parents.

If I was in the shoes of the firefighters, I probably would have tried convincing them to put the fire out because I knew that I would feel better. What happens when everybody in the town stops paying for the service and then say that they'll pay it when they finally need it? Regular insurance works the same way; you can't go without it and then suddenly get it because something bad happens. It's a gamble which usually isn't necessary, but you have it in case something does happen.