No Pay -- No Spray

Firemen sttod byand watched a house burn because the resident didn't pay his $75 protection fee.

Seriously, this isn't a shake down just a little protection money.

OK, if it were a volunteer or private organization, maybe; but these guys are local government employees. A Doctor is legally obligated to help somone in duress, isn't a fire fighter on the scene with truck and hose legally obligated to help?

Chat among yourselves ....

http://www.momlogic.com/2010/10/no_pay_no_spray_firefighters_let_home_burn.php

"South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire."

I.e. the only people who would pay the fee are the people who need the service provided that the fee covers. They can't have that!

I'm not diametrically opposed to the idea of pay-for-use fire services, but then you should actually be able to pay them, and have them put out your fire. Not lose your home because of some stupid bureaucratic cash grab. Unbelievable. Disband this "fire department" and nail them to a wall.

If this story is legit, it ought to be getting a tad more coverage. As reported, it's outrageous.

Heck of an effective way to collect taxes, though.

This does smell lawsuit. I'm usually not one to scream lawsuit, but this does reek of negligence on the part of the fire chief, possibly even retaliation/revenge.

In reply to 1988RedT2:

It IS getting a good deal of coverage. All of my local news agencies teased it for their 11PM news broadcasts, and it's spreading all over the internet.

I thinnk that were someone stuck inside they would hae had to act but as far as saving property they hae no obligation. Same as if you drop collision on your car and then can't afford to fix it after a wreck your SOL. Maybe they should have come up with the $75

Fat Tony said: Nice place ya got here, I'd hate to see anything happen to it.

This bit actually made me laugh...

Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee.

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous and disgusting, of course. What if there'd been a person stuck in the house?

Wally wrote: I thinnk that were someone stuck inside they would hae had to act

Exactly. Doesn't make much sense. So are they supposed to pull up and start asking questions first... "Anyone inside?"
"Have you paid your protection bill?" or better yet...."Can I see your receipt?" (as it's inside the burning house)

What if they make an error in recordkeeping? Someone actually pays this bill, but the desk clerk has a bad day and forgets to enter it in their computer?

At least where we live, there is money built into local taxes to help support the volunteer companies, it's not a separate bill.

Not sure how long the concept in this article will last....

Why is everyone getting so bent about this? This is how the fire department worked for many many year in this country. Walk along any old historic district in any old historic city and you will see plaques mounted on the side of buildings showing that the owner had signed up and paid a local fire fighting business. The only difference is that back then the firefighters were a privately owned company. If you read the article, the "pay for spray" practice has been going on in that area for 2 decades. Its not like the family didn't know about it. They had paid it the year before but didn't pay it this year. It sounds like the owner tried to cut corners and it bit him. Sucks but pay for your services and you won't have that problem.

This is going to be contract law versus good samaratian. Yes, lawyers will get involved in this one, and this time, rightfully so, IMHO.

Private vs. public fire prevention....one interesting aspect: did the non-covered home owner help to pay, via his taxes, ANY part of the water delivery system in the neighborhood? If so, isn't he entitled to it, or some part of it( the water, that is)?

Still it reeks of driving past an accident and seeing a victim bleeding, and no one is doing anything. Help the person. The fire dept could have put out the fire and sued for services rendered. But that's another can of worms

Derick Freese wrote: In reply to 1988RedT2: It IS getting a good deal of coverage. All of my local news agencies teased it for their 11PM news broadcasts, and it's spreading all over the internet.

Yup. I'm noticing that. Forgive me. Just waking up.

You can't defend the actions of the firefighters, IMO. If a fee was owed, govt can find a way to collect it. Watching a man's house burn down? Disgusting.

So, now what about the home owner's insurance?
Do you think his policy will pay, full well knowing that he did not pay the $75?

Since the municipality in which the homeowner lives provides no fire service, residents have to pay a fee to the neighbouring municipality. No fee , no protection. If the local residents are so outraged about this they need to ante up $75 on their property taxes to assure the coverage. This is a great example of a "voluntary" tax not working. We went through a period here where two neighbouring townships couldn't agree on the pricing for helping each other out. If my house had caught fire the nearest station wouldn't have responded. I was just preparing to make a nuisance of myself at council meetings when they reached agreement.

In reply to jrw1621: Hadn't even thought of that aspect. I say no. And then he can sue that his insurer should have notified him of no payment if he didn't pay the $75...

As said, this one is going to get messy....If only common sense had prevaled, put the fire out, and deal with the consequences after. As Luke said, what if someone had been in the house? Or, if the entire family had been overcome with smoke inhalation.

Hard to say, but if someone had been even slightly burned from the non-response, this story would be all over the 24./7 news channels..

But, I don't think the homeowners is going to pay at all, as things stand now.

You'd think they'd have just put the fire out, then sent him a $75 bill.

On a related note, a friend of mine lives way out in the sticks, right on the edge of two counties. His house cause fire years ago. When he called 911 they informed him that his address was not their jurisdiction and told him to contact the next county. He called them and they said the same thing. He continued to call back and forth while watching his house burn. No one ever came, and his house burnt to the ground.

jrw1621 wrote: So, now what about the home owner's insurance? Do you think his policy will pay, full well knowing that he did not pay the $75?

Being in the insurance industry myself, that's one of the first things that came to my mind too. I would guess it would depend on the language in his policy. If there is something in the policy surrounding this, then they may not pay it. If the policy says nothing about keeping up with firefighting fees, etc...then the insurance company is very likely going to have to pay it. But you can be sure they'll subrogate back to the fire department. Endless hours of fun will ensue...

The next story should have read:

Homeowner beats, hog-ties fireman, steals truck to put out fire

16vCorey wrote: You'd think they'd have just put the fire out, then sent him a $75 bill.

And then everybody in that county stops paying the $75 until their house is on fire. And then everybody defaults on that $75 bill. And then the FD goes under because no one pays on time, and now two counties have no fire protection.

This situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth, for sure. But I still say that old boy knew the risk he was taking when he decided not to pay up. Those firefighters are under no obligation to risk their lives for his stuff, when he judged it unworthy of $75 worth of insurance.

Years ago, I lived in a small town and our only ambulance was destroyed in an accident. Their strategy for raising funds to buy an new ambulance was as follows: 'Pay $75 now, and ambulance rides in the future will be at no cost. Don't pay, and you will be billed $400 if you ever need an ambulance.'

Public service or private company, letting the fire burn is unacceptable.

DeadSkunk wrote: Since the municipality in which the homeowner lives provides no fire service, residents have to pay a fee to the neighbouring municipality. No fee , no protection. If the local residents are so outraged about this they need to ante up $75 on their property taxes to assure the coverage. This is a great example of a "voluntary" tax not working. We went through a period here where two neighbouring townships couldn't agree on the pricing for helping each other out. If my house had caught fire the nearest station wouldn't have responded. I was just preparing to make a nuisance of myself at council meetings when they reached agreement.

Kind of brings the concequences of "tax cuts at any cost" into reality, doesn't it.

You make a very good point, skunk.

The sad thing is that the actual cost of that $75 in tax is going to be spread out to the home owners insurance company's customers. Since they, as a group, share the risk and burden of such accidents.

Harsh reality.

But it's similar to expecting the roads to be repaired when you are making your own bio diesel and not paying road tax.

16vCorey wrote: You'd think they'd have just put the fire out, then sent him a $75 bill.

Even if the town put the word out, OK don't pay $75. But if you have a fire it will cost you gas $$$ wear and tear on the equipment, firemen pay plus the cost of water or a flat fee of XXXX dollars.

Say the penalty is $10,000. If you live there for 14 years without a fire, you win.

Dan

jrw1621 wrote: So, now what about the home owner's insurance? Do you think his policy will pay, full well knowing that he did not pay the $75?

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but did he actually pay his insurance bill this year or was he waiting for something catastrophic to happen before calling his insurance company and saying "I'd like to get coverage now and file a claim".

I'm kind of shocked this wasn't just rolled into their property taxes though. I'm also curious how many notices were sent that he hadn't paid for the fire service. Do they just send a bill on January 1 of each year and then not send anything additional, or do they send a notice on the first of January, then a 'second notice' in February, and a 'final notice - you have no fire service if you don't pay this' letter in March? I've forgotten to pay a water or gas bill before, but as soon as I get the 'past due' bill the next month I pay it immediately.

Bob

If ANY part of taxes paid by the homeowner goes to this fire dept., then they are in serious trouble. This one is going to be very, very messy.

Luke wrote: This bit actually made me laugh... Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous and disgusting, of course. What if there'd been a person stuck in the house?

You do realize that organized firefighting companies were actually started by private insurance companies to protect their insured property, right?

This harkens back to the early days of professional fire departments... when you had often competing "companies" providing "subscriptions".

It was because of this confusion that most cities agreed to have fire services as a function of local Government (ours is a mix of pro and volunteer) and/or communities supported RFD's.

In this case it appears that the rural community does not have an RFD and the only coverage is by subscription to the town (which it appears they are not residents of and could otherwise not expect municiple services.)

I agree it's not a good situation, but as long as everyone was aware of the rules going in, nobody should be complaining here...