Firefighters let a home burn down because $75 fee wasn't paid!

[alkemyst]

Read the article genius - they showed up and watched it burn.

No genius, they showed up to protect the neighbors property that paid.

The homeowner caused their own misery...they started the fire, they didn't pay the fee, and the reason they are living in some shithole trailer to begin with is probably due to other poor choices they have made.

Sorry, America needs to be done with supporting the stupid and those that don't wish to even help themselves.

They should arrest him for being homeless now and kick him out of the county.

In many rural areas these kinds of fees are normal. Many don't need the full monty of services from their government. So they tax you on the basics and you pay fees for the services you want from trash pickup, water, lighting, road paving, etc....

I see nothing wrong with this.

 

[Narmer]

This is an example of libertarianism working perfectly. His neighbor chose to pay the fee and they protected the neighbors house. This newly-homeless douchebag chose not to pay the fees associated with the safety that being part of a community provides and paid the price. It was his choice. He gambled and lost. Sounds like exactly the kind of place the world should be. Your whole argument is backwards.

And if the house had a person in it? What if the home had dangerous chemicals or explosives? What if there was a clerical error? If this is libertarianism then I want no part of it. It's too primative. There are certain basic services that government should provide and fighting fires is one of them. No wonder libertarianism is never taken seriously in the real world. It just isn't compatible with civilization. It's advocates are no different than the frauds on Wall Street that preach individual responsibility but go running to Uncle Sam everytime they get into trouble. The difference they're willing to destroy everything in order to prove a point, unless when it comes to their own well-being (see Rand Paul).

 

[her209]

Why do you think that? Any data to back that up? I have some that points the other way. The city of Chicago will charge Rosemont for services rendered by O'Hare. There is precident. Also, being able to collect isn't much of a hot button. Just like rendering hospital care to unemployed or homeless folks.

See my post
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30562869&postcount=316

 

[BoberFett]

America, where money gets in the way of compassion.

Yep, the douchebags money got in the way of anybody having compassion for him. Why should anybody have compassion for a douchebag who didn't want to cough up the measly $75? Doesn't that make him greedy?

 

[BoberFett]

And if the house had a person in it? What if the home had dangerous chemicals or explosives? What if there was a clerical error? If this is libertarianism then I want no part of it. It's too primative. There are certain basic services that government should provide and fighting fires is one of them. No wonder libertarianism is never taken seriously in the real world. It just isn't compatible with civilization. It's advocates are no different than the frauds on Wall Street that preach individual responsibility but go running to Uncle Sam everytime they get into trouble. The difference they're willing to destroy everything in order to prove a point, unless when it comes to their own well-being (see Rand Paul).

So you hate freedom. Gotcha.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

i see nothing wrong here.
don't pay for the service, don't receive the service.

if they put out the fire, how many people are going to skip the $75 next year and pay only when they have a fire?

 

[Narmer]

So you hate freedom. Gotcha.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. The same thing with libertarians and drugs. They think people should be allowed to consume as many drugs as possible. Little do they know that not everyone is responsible or competent or intelligent to know when to stop. It's like they don't understand the fact that government may need to save people from themselves. Government is also there for the general well-being of society. Society should always come before the individual. The other way around is just primative and retarded. I bet if Boberfett saw an overdosed mother with her crying child on the road the first thing, as a libertarian, he would say would be "Moderate your intake" and walk by.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Yes, complete federal control, no mo jur dic shun to worry about! What could possibly go wrong?

PS Nice username.

Federal? How about county/city/township level? Fire coverage is local, so it should be handled locally.

 

[dabuddha]

i see nothing wrong here.
don't pay for the service, don't receive the service.

if they put out the fire, how many people are going to skip the $75 next year and pay only when they have a fire?

Wrong solution. Best solution is to help him out but charge him for the full price.

Either way, whoever made the decision to not let the firemen put out the fire is one lucky SOB that there wasn't anybody in the house.

 

[Train]

Federal? How about county/city/township level? Fire coverage is local, so it should be handled locally.

It is "handled" ,as has already been pointed out several times, the jurisdiction this person resides in (the county) voted NOT to establish a fire dept.

 

[alkemyst]

And if the house had a person in it? What if the home had dangerous chemicals or explosives? What if there was a clerical error? If this is libertarianism then I want no part of it. It's too primative. There are certain basic services that government should provide and fighting fires is one of them. No wonder libertarianism is never taken seriously in the real world. It just isn't compatible with civilization. It's advocates are no different than the frauds on Wall Street that preach individual responsibility but go running to Uncle Sam everytime they get into trouble. The difference they're willing to destroy everything in order to prove a point, unless when it comes to their own well-being (see Rand Paul).

If the house had a person in then I am sure they'd never neglect to pay $75 again.

Also there was no clerical error, etc. Why do people always try to rationalize the deadbeats?

This guy deserves a 10 milllion dollar lawsuit for his stupidity.

 

[Adrenaline]

Wrong solution. Best solution is to help him out but charge him for the full price.

Either way, whoever made the decision to not let the firemen put out the fire is one lucky SOB that there wasn't anybody in the house.

First fireman on the scene:

Fireman: Who is the homeowner?
Homeowner: I am.
Fireman: Is there anyone inside?
Homeowner: No, everyone made it out ok.
Fireman: Ok. We are here to make sure that your neighbor's house does not catch on fire. He paid his fire coverage fee for the year which you did not pay.
Homeowner: I can pay it now.
Fireman: Sir it does not work that way.
Homeowner: Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

[her209]

This guy deserves a 10 milllion dollar lawsuit for his stupidity.

I wonder if the neighbor can sue Cranick for negligence and starting a fire on his property.

 

[BoberFett]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. The same thing with libertarians and drugs. They think people should be allowed to consume as many drugs as possible. Little do they know that not everyone is responsible or competent or intelligent to know when to stop. It's like they don't understand the fact that government may need to save people from themselves. Government is also there for the general well-being of society. Society should always come before the individual. The other way around is just primative and retarded. I bet if Boberfett saw an overdosed mother with her crying child on the road the first thing, as a libertarian, he would say would be "Moderate your intake" and walk by.

You are a vile, horrible, disgusting human being. You're the kind of person who would support the murder of millions if it furthered your goal of controlling people lives in the way you feel is best.

 

[BoberFett]

Federal? How about county/city/township level? Fire coverage is local, so it should be handled locally.

You're right, it should be. So why does the county expect people in the city who aren't local to provide their fire service for free? If the non-city residents want fire protection, they can pay the city or they can set up their own FD. The county chose not to provide local service, and this guy chose not to pay for the non-local service. This isn't that complicated.

 

[Adrenaline]

I wonder if the neighbor can sue Cranick for negligence and starting a fire on his property.

Now THIS is something to look at.

 

[Narmer]

[BoberFett looks into mirror]You are a vile, horrible, disgusting human being. You're the kind of person who would support the murder of millions if it furthered your goal of controlling people lives in the way you feel is best.[/BoberFett looks into mirror]

ftfy.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Wrong solution. Best solution is to help him out but charge him for the full price.

Either way, whoever made the decision to not let the firemen put out the fire is one lucky SOB that there wasn't anybody in the house.

NOT a solution.
like i said, who's going to pay the $75 next year?
most people are just going to take the risk.

 

[BurnItDwn]

You're right, it should be. So why does the county expect people in the city who aren't local to provide their fire service for free? If the non-city residents want fire protection, they can pay the city or they can set up their own FD. The county chose not to provide local service, and this guy chose not to pay for the non-local service. This isn't that complicated.

Non city residents are residents of the county (and township.) The county should contract with the city for the fire coverage.

The way in which it's paid for, should be taxes. Thus, the county portion of property taxes should go towards the fire coverage, for people who are not residents of the city.

I'm just saying it should be all in the property taxes, there shoudn't be property taxes + fire fee + police fee + luggage fee blablabla ...

It should not be optional for homeowners to decide if they want fire coverage.
With a fee based system, then there's issues of insurance, and do they pay out for morons who don't pay for fire service, landlords who don't pay for the fire service, but then have tennants living there, then the tennants lives could be potentially at risk, without their knowledge... etc....

It's just not a good idea in any way shape or form...

 

[Ns1]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. The same thing with libertarians and drugs. They think people should be allowed to consume as many drugs as possible. Little do they know that not everyone is responsible or competent or intelligent to know when to stop. It's like they don't understand the fact that government may need to save people from themselves. Government is also there for the general well-being of society. Society should always come before the individual. The other way around is just primative and retarded. I bet if Boberfett saw an overdosed mother with her crying child on the road the first thing, as a libertarian, he would say would be "Moderate your intake" and walk by.

holy shit that explains everything

you love big government.

 

[BurnItDwn]

It is "handled" ,as has already been pointed out several times, the jurisdiction this person resides in (the county) voted NOT to establish a fire dept.

It should be handled as a local tax. Not an a la carte "pay for it if you want service."
The county should not have the option to make it a fee, they should be required to pay for it via property tax income, or set up their own fire department.
The way they are"handling" it, should not at all be legal under any circumstances.

 

[BoberFett]

I admire Stalin. Particularly the way he purged non-believers by the millions. But at least nobody's home ever burned down.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[Narmer]

holy shit that explains everything

you love big government.

And you're an idiot.

 

[BoberFett]

Non city residents are residents of the county (and township.) The county should contract with the city for the fire coverage.

The way in which it's paid for, should be taxes. Thus, the county portion of property taxes should go towards the fire coverage, for people who are not residents of the city.

I'm just saying it should be all in the property taxes, there shoudn't be property taxes + fire fee + police fee + luggage fee blablabla ...

It should not be optional for homeowners to decide if they want fire coverage.
With a fee based system, then there's issues of insurance, and do they pay out for morons who don't pay for fire service, landlords who don't pay for the fire service, but then have tennants living there, then the tennants lives could be potentially at risk, without their knowledge... etc....

It's just not a good idea in any way shape or form...

I agree, the county would have been wise to do that. But apparently the voters felt differently. Do you value democracy or support authoritarian style government?

 

[Narmer]

Well, I can't say I'm surprised.

Surprised about what?