Firemen ignore burning house over unpaid fee

[Bad Doctor Frost]

RIght now it is only subscription based for those who do not live within the city limits of the city that pays for the fire service. Those people outside the city limits could very well lobby for county-wide fire service or volunteer fire service and pay the additional taxes. Apparently, they have chosen not to.

 

Doesn't sound like it's the people who made that decision, per Queen OC's article:

A plan for a tax that would cover rural fire protection was rejected, he said, as county officials kept pushing municipalities to opt for subscription plans.

 

And that's all I'm saying for obvious reasons

 

Oh you dipshit, do you have no idea how county and city administration works?

 

Not in areas where fire fighters are allowed stand around and watch a fire.

 

So I'm goin to go with: you've never heard of a controlled burn either. I mean. All those firemen standing around watching the fire and not putting it out. Shame really.

 

Now, I know OC is one for grasping straws, but really? I thought you were smarter than that.

[butterflywings]

I blame the ones who gave him the CHOICE. Fire control shouldn't be a choice. Police forces aren't a choice, neither should fire control.

So that would be the county, not the firefighters.

 

 

I still think the county itself is most to blame. There is no reason for them to not have a county wide fire department. It should not be subscription based anymore than law enforcement should be. It is one of those "community things". The need of the many outweigh the need of the few, or the one.

The county property taxes there are $1900 (apparently each home in the county has to pay this)

 

RIght now it is only subscription based for those who do not live within the city limits of the city that pays for the fire service. Those people outside the city limits could very well lobby for county-wide fire service or volunteer fire service and pay the additional taxes. Apparently, they have chosen not to.

 

 

I live in a rural area with about 800 households, but really, we are only 10 minutes from town. We have a volunteer fire department. They show up if they want, don't if they don't want to (Ive heard people say they've called 911 and no one ever came) but I tell you, when we had our carbon monoxide detector go off one Sunday afternoon a few years ago, because our pellet stove went out and we turned on a kerosene heater, and it set off the alarm. Anyway, I had a HOUSE FULL of guys in my living room in like 5 minutes. It was insane, cars all up and down the road. Later on they stood around and talked for a long time. lol We get a mailer every year asking us to donate.

 

I almost wish we had a fee or some tax for fire protection, because I don't like the idea that, as I understand it, they can choose to come or not, I mean we can't do anything about it.

 

So.... if your house burned down and no one bothered to respond to the 911 call, would that be better or worse? What if they guaranteed they'd show up for a $75/year fee? Would you pay it? If you didn't pay it, would you STILL expect them to show up? If you paid your fee, but the fire department was busy at another house who HADN'T paid the fee, would you expect them to leave that house and come to yours because you'd paid the fee? How pissed off would you be if they didn't?

 

Hi Pam. Well, if our house was on fire and no one showed up I would be upset, but seeing as it is a volunteer fire department, I can't have any real expectation that they would show up. I don't enjoy that lack of expectation either. If they had a fee I would pay it yearly and immediately. Dh and I are strong in risk management nowadays. We are stocked up on life insurance for that very reason. If we paid the fee and they didn't show, then we would sue, unless they didn't show because of bad weather hampering their travel or they were at another house fighting a fire etc. If our house goes on fire at the same time another house does, then I guess we are SOL, except that there are other towns around here who normally chip in and show up. I can't imagine no one showing up for a house on fire.

 

I dont disagree at all that this guy brought it on himself from the very beginning of the fire in the barrels to not paying the fee a few years in a row. My only point is when push comes to shove, it's someone's home, and they should've put the fire out and then placed a lien on his house. I respect Zx10's posts and his pov and have a lot of admiration for all he does. I hope he doesn't take my pov as disrespectful to firefighters but I think they need to take a do no harm vow, as doctors do; to help people in an emergency, regardless of their ability to pay.

[Pam]

 

Hi Pam. Well, if our house was on fire and no one showed up I would be upset, but seeing as it is a volunteer fire department, I can't have any real expectation that they would show up. I don't enjoy that lack of expectation either. If they had a fee I would pay it yearly and immediately. Dh and I are strong in risk management nowadays. We are stocked up on life insurance for that very reason. If we paid the fee and they didn't show, then we would sue, unless they didn't show because of bad weather hampering their travel or they were at another house fighting a fire etc. If our house goes on fire at the same time another house does, then I guess we are SOL, except that there are other towns around here who normally chip in and show up. I can't imagine no one showing up for a house on fire.

 

I dont disagree at all that this guy brought it on himself from the very beginning of the fire in the barrels to not paying the fee a few years in a row. My only point is when push comes to shove, it's someone's home, and they should've put the fire out and then placed a lien on his house. I respect Zx10's posts and his pov and have a lot of admiration for all he does. I hope he doesn't take my pov as disrespectful to firefighters but I think they need to take a do no harm vow, as doctors do; to help people in an emergency, regardless of their ability to pay.

 

The loss of THINGS is not an emergency, at least IMO. The loss of LIFE would be.

[Bad Doctor Frost]

 

Hi Pam. Well, if our house was on fire and no one showed up I would be upset, but seeing as it is a volunteer fire department, I can't have any real expectation that they would show up. I don't enjoy that lack of expectation either. If they had a fee I would pay it yearly and immediately. Dh and I are strong in risk management nowadays. We are stocked up on life insurance for that very reason. If we paid the fee and they didn't show, then we would sue, unless they didn't show because of bad weather hampering their travel or they were at another house fighting a fire etc. If our house goes on fire at the same time another house does, then I guess we are SOL, except that there are other towns around here who normally chip in and show up. I can't imagine no one showing up for a house on fire.

 

I dont disagree at all that this guy brought it on himself from the very beginning of the fire in the barrels to not paying the fee a few years in a row. My only point is when push comes to shove, it's someone's home, and they should've put the fire out and then placed a lien on his house. I respect Zx10's posts and his pov and have a lot of admiration for all he does. I hope he doesn't take my pov as disrespectful to firefighters but I think they need to take a do no harm vow, as doctors do; to help people in an emergency, regardless of their ability to pay.

 

The loss of THINGS is not an emergency, at least IMO. The loss of LIFE would be.

 

A person's HOME, IMO, is a pretty big emergency.

[angeleyeskkhr]

RIght now it is only subscription based for those who do not live within the city limits of the city that pays for the fire service. Those people outside the city limits could very well lobby for county-wide fire service or volunteer fire service and pay the additional taxes. Apparently, they have chosen not to.

 

Doesn't sound like it's the people who made that decision, per Queen OC's article:

A plan for a tax that would cover rural fire protection was rejected, he said, as county officials kept pushing municipalities to opt for subscription plans.

 

And that's all I'm saying for obvious reasons

 

Oh you dipshit, do you have no idea how county and city administration works?

 

Not in areas where fire fighters are allowed stand around and watch a fire.

 

So I'm goin to go with: you've never heard of a controlled burn either. I mean. All those firemen standing around watching the fire and not putting it out. Shame really.

 

Now, I know OC is one for grasping straws, but really? I thought you were smarter than that.

Smarter that what? you Sid you didn't know how it works in places where firefighters just stand around and watch fire. Happens quite often. And I can certainly understand why the firefighters didn't. They may be volunteer but they still have bosses. I'd rather NOT get fired and told I have to reimburse the Dept the costs of attempting to put out a fire I was not authorized to fight.

 

If the residents of the county want a county fire department so darn bad, they should lobby their county commissioner, county judges, county clerk, and every single other flipping county official until it either gets placed on a ballot, approved, or otherwise voted on.

[giraffy]

Obtuse and stupid.

[Bad Doctor Frost]

Obtuse and stupid.

 

She called you right. Shows how much she knows...

[giraffy]

Obtuse and stupid.

 

She called you right. Shows how much she knows...

Exactly!

 

Pam's obviously a brilliant judge of character.

[hinklesc]

Sounds like what I've been saying all along. Weird.

 

No, not really. At least not in English, or here on this board. You've been too busy blaming the firefighters for doing what they were told, and for not delivering a service they hadn't been paid for.

 

Oh, as for what you said earlier about 'given the content of this board' you were surprised that people were saying "well if only he had paid" and I do want to clarify that we do NOT, anywhere, advocate not paying bills that you have the means to pay just because you choose not to.

 

I know that. I just thought the judgmental tone when it comes to lack of payment was a little far-fetched. And I didn't realize that fighting fires was all about the money. It's a service job, and if you're in it for the money, you clearly have some issues. Sure, I'm sure the pay sucks for what you do, but you choose to go into it, or to volunteer for it, so then DO IT.

 

Uhm, how's this for judgmental. You're obtuse and stupid. This comment proves it.

 

It's not about pay for the firefighters. It's about how much it COSTS to put out that fire. You're focusing on the WRONG set of people.

 

Obtuse and stupid are definitely two things I am not, but I'll let you believe that one. The firefighters were already there. They were controlling the blaze on some stupid brush, or field, or whatever it was for the neighbor, granted, I don't know if the trailer burned before, or after this, but they were already there with their equipment. How much more would it have cost? If it was that much of a burden, fine them and put a lien on the property. Instead, they've made a family homeless, have received monumental nationwide negative attention, and have been condemned by the IAFF. Was it worth it?

 

Seems that this to you is mostly the fault of the firefighters?

 

It is quite simple actually, the homeowner did not pay the required fee. If I do not pay my water bill, why would I get angry when I can't shower?

 

The blame here is totally misdirected.Perhaps the homeowner should have done more preblaze thinking.

[Bad Doctor Frost]

Sounds like what I've been saying all along. Weird.

 

No, not really. At least not in English, or here on this board. You've been too busy blaming the firefighters for doing what they were told, and for not delivering a service they hadn't been paid for.

 

Oh, as for what you said earlier about 'given the content of this board' you were surprised that people were saying "well if only he had paid" and I do want to clarify that we do NOT, anywhere, advocate not paying bills that you have the means to pay just because you choose not to.

 

I know that. I just thought the judgmental tone when it comes to lack of payment was a little far-fetched. And I didn't realize that fighting fires was all about the money. It's a service job, and if you're in it for the money, you clearly have some issues. Sure, I'm sure the pay sucks for what you do, but you choose to go into it, or to volunteer for it, so then DO IT.

 

Uhm, how's this for judgmental. You're obtuse and stupid. This comment proves it.

 

It's not about pay for the firefighters. It's about how much it COSTS to put out that fire. You're focusing on the WRONG set of people.

 

Obtuse and stupid are definitely two things I am not, but I'll let you believe that one. The firefighters were already there. They were controlling the blaze on some stupid brush, or field, or whatever it was for the neighbor, granted, I don't know if the trailer burned before, or after this, but they were already there with their equipment. How much more would it have cost? If it was that much of a burden, fine them and put a lien on the property. Instead, they've made a family homeless, have received monumental nationwide negative attention, and have been condemned by the IAFF. Was it worth it?

 

Seems that this to you is mostly the fault of the firefighters?

 

It is quite simple actually, the homeowner did not pay the required fee. If I do not pay my water bill, why would I get angry when I can't shower?

 

The blame here is totally misdirected.Perhaps the homeowner should have done more preblaze thinking.

 

Seems to me the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters doesn't think so.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/iaff-condemns-tenn-depts-decision-not-fight-fire

 

"The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family's home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible," General President Harold Schaitberger said in a statement. "Because of South Fulton's pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."

 

"We condemn South Fulton's ill-advised, unsafe policy," Schaitberger's statement continues. "(Firefighters) shouldn't be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up."

 

From what I've read, the county is voting on the 18th to get a county-wide system in place.

[Snork Maiden]

A person's HOME, IMO, is a pretty big emergency.

Not to the homeowner it wasn't..

 

And, all this speak about liens. Assuming he even owns the mobile home. Let's talk about the efficiency of putting a lien on it.

 

It might not have been an option, is all I'm sayin..

[hinklesc]

Sounds like what I've been saying all along. Weird.

 

No, not really. At least not in English, or here on this board. You've been too busy blaming the firefighters for doing what they were told, and for not delivering a service they hadn't been paid for.

 

Oh, as for what you said earlier about 'given the content of this board' you were surprised that people were saying "well if only he had paid" and I do want to clarify that we do NOT, anywhere, advocate not paying bills that you have the means to pay just because you choose not to.

 

I know that. I just thought the judgmental tone when it comes to lack of payment was a little far-fetched. And I didn't realize that fighting fires was all about the money. It's a service job, and if you're in it for the money, you clearly have some issues. Sure, I'm sure the pay sucks for what you do, but you choose to go into it, or to volunteer for it, so then DO IT.

 

Uhm, how's this for judgmental. You're obtuse and stupid. This comment proves it.

 

It's not about pay for the firefighters. It's about how much it COSTS to put out that fire. You're focusing on the WRONG set of people.

 

Obtuse and stupid are definitely two things I am not, but I'll let you believe that one. The firefighters were already there. They were controlling the blaze on some stupid brush, or field, or whatever it was for the neighbor, granted, I don't know if the trailer burned before, or after this, but they were already there with their equipment. How much more would it have cost? If it was that much of a burden, fine them and put a lien on the property. Instead, they've made a family homeless, have received monumental nationwide negative attention, and have been condemned by the IAFF. Was it worth it?

 

Seems that this to you is mostly the fault of the firefighters?

 

It is quite simple actually, the homeowner did not pay the required fee. If I do not pay my water bill, why would I get angry when I can't shower?

 

The blame here is totally misdirected.Perhaps the homeowner should have done more preblaze thinking.

 

Seems to me the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters doesn't think so.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/iaff-condemns-tenn-depts-decision-not-fight-fire

 

"The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family's home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible," General President Harold Schaitberger said in a statement. "Because of South Fulton's pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."

 

"We condemn South Fulton's ill-advised, unsafe policy," Schaitberger's statement continues. "(Firefighters) shouldn't be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up."

 

From what I've read, the county is voting on the 18th to get a county-wide system in place.

 

Oh, the firefighters must be losing sleep at night because the fire chief "condemned" them.

 

According to WPSD-TV, the Cranicks have received several thousand dollars from the insurance company to cover immediate costs and that plans have been made to cover all damage and property losses.

Edited October 7, 2010 by hinklesc

[Bad Doctor Frost]

 

Seems that this to you is mostly the fault of the firefighters?

 

It is quite simple actually, the homeowner did not pay the required fee. If I do not pay my water bill, why would I get angry when I can't shower?

 

The blame here is totally misdirected.Perhaps the homeowner should have done more preblaze thinking.

 

Seems to me the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters doesn't think so.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/iaff-condemns-tenn-depts-decision-not-fight-fire

 

"The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family's home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible," General President Harold Schaitberger said in a statement. "Because of South Fulton's pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."

 

"We condemn South Fulton's ill-advised, unsafe policy," Schaitberger's statement continues. "(Firefighters) shouldn't be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up."

 

From what I've read, the county is voting on the 18th to get a county-wide system in place.

 

Oh, the firefighters must be losing sleep at night because the fire chief "condemned" them.

 

If they were any kind of human being, they would. To most people, being told by the president of their association that they don't do their job is a pretty big insult. But I can see how someone who clearly can't do their job well wouldn't care.

 

According to WPSD-TV, the Cranicks have received several thousand dollars from the insurance company to cover immediate costs and that plans have been made to cover all damage and property losses.

 

Yes, because money can replace 3 dogs and a cat.

[hinklesc]

 

Seems that this to you is mostly the fault of the firefighters?

 

It is quite simple actually, the homeowner did not pay the required fee. If I do not pay my water bill, why would I get angry when I can't shower?

 

The blame here is totally misdirected.Perhaps the homeowner should have done more preblaze thinking.

 

Seems to me the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters doesn't think so.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/iaff-condemns-tenn-depts-decision-not-fight-fire

 

"The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family's home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible," General President Harold Schaitberger said in a statement. "Because of South Fulton's pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."

 

"We condemn South Fulton's ill-advised, unsafe policy," Schaitberger's statement continues. "(Firefighters) shouldn't be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up."

 

From what I've read, the county is voting on the 18th to get a county-wide system in place.

 

Oh, the firefighters must be losing sleep at night because the fire chief "condemned" them.

 

If they were any kind of human being, they would. To most people, being told by the president of their association that they don't do their job is a pretty big insult. But I can see how someone who clearly can't do their job well wouldn't care.

 

According to WPSD-TV, the Cranicks have received several thousand dollars from the insurance company to cover immediate costs and that plans have been made to cover all damage and property losses.

 

Yes, because money can replace 3 dogs and a cat.

 

I don't think the insurer will breed them new animals.

 

I also do not believe it is any firefighter's duty (or place their own lives on the line) to rescue animals.

[Echo_X]

I think its time somebody got the hose.... no...no seriously...

[zx10 guy]

It is simply incredible how those who are so quick to condemn the fire fighters don't address the pointed questions I have directed at them. I would like to at least hear of the wonderful examples of how these judgemental folks have put their neck on the line to aid their fellow neighbor. Or even easier, how much volunteerism these people have done in their life.

 

I am part of the fire/EMS community and can't fault any of these fire fighters for the decisions they've made. I may have personal opinions of this but I won't go so far as to say they should rot in hell like many of you paper humanitarians have. Also, the most vocal ones blaming the fire fighters for this show more and more of your stupidity and ignorance as you continue to post away. There is one thing they teach you in the academy....it is not to put yourself in any unnecessary harm as there's no point in making yourself a victim. I have done this on some calls where the scene I arrived at was not secure. I have told my crew not to get out of the ambulance until police response was there and we were told the scene is secure. So I want to know how many of you prophets who can walk on water would condemn me for my actions if the victim's condition may have worsened due to my orders for my crew to wait?

 

BFW, I respect your views as your opinions are not so outlandish as to burn the firefighters at the stake. BTW, regardless of whether the responding station is volunteer or career staffed, the obligation/requirement to respond to every call is there. I have never been in a jurisdiction where a volunteer station had an option to respond or not. But let me provide a couple of possible explanations for the spotty service. First, if you're in a rural or less urban area, the volunteer members typically are not required to stay at the station or with their unit when on duty. Many times there isn't even set staffing for any possible duty shifts which may or may not exist. This is why in many situations like this there is a station siren which when it goes off, any available members would respond to the station to roll the units out. Those that are not in ear shot of the station siren will carry scanners or radios which they can here the dispatch of the call go out. It is not uncommon for response times to be greater than 15 minutes. The second explanation is that there may not be enough volunteers qualified for the various positions required to man an ambulance, engine, squad truck, what have you. At my station, we've had situations where we almost couldn't roll a unit out because we didn't have a driver.

[BlackWater]

Actually, the federal association.. The people at the top of the fire fighter totem pole, called these people a disgrace to the uniform...They have openly condemned the town, and its fire martials.. Okay, so HE didnt pay the 75... what if someone who had paid, called the fire department, but due to a mistake in billing their name showed up as unpaid.. Could happen, crap like that happens in businesses all the time.

 

I wouldn't put to much stock in the IAFF. Most of them haven't ever been in a set of turnout gear in a burning building. They have degree's in fire protection and that makes them the "know it alls" for fire service. They just want the money the departments give them.

 

If the NFPA comes out and says something then I would take stock in it as they tend to set stuff.

[Tigz]

Why did the IAFF condemn them?

 

 

 

The Firefighter Code of Ethics

 

As a firefighter and member of the International Association of Fire Fighters, my fundamental duty is to serve humanity; to safeguard and preserve life and property against the elements of fire and disaster; and maintain a proficiency in the art and science of fire engineering.

 

I will uphold the standards of my profession, continually search for new and improved methods and share my knowledge and skills with my contemporaries and descendants.

 

I will never allow personal feelings, nor danger to self, deter me from my responsibilities as a firefighter.

 

I will at all times, respect the property and rights of all men and women, the laws of my community and my country, and the chosen way of life of my fellow citizens.

 

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the fire service. I will constantly strive to achieve the objectives and ideals, dedicating myself to my chosen profession--saving of life, fire prevention and fire suppression.

 

As a member of the International Association of Fire Fighters, I accept this self-imposed and self-enforced obligation as my responsibility.

 

 

zx10, my BIL is also a volunteer firefighter and paramedic. He strongly condemns what they have done. He is at the station 1 night a week, on call 2 nights a week, and serves one weekend a month at the station. He always has his gear in any car he happens to be in. (He even took his gear to his daughters wedding, even though he was obviously not on call). He even takes his gear on vacation if they are driving. I guess that is just his level of commitment. I will tell you that he would never EVER just sit around and allow someones house to burn down.

 

I understand the safety element...and lets face it, on 9/11 had they known the buildings were coming down, each and every firefighter would have been yanked from the towers even though there were obviously survivors needing rescuing . (matter of fact, the were trying to recall the fire fighters)

That was also the way it was back when my brother was a fireman back in the 70s. If the building was obviously unstable, then they couldn't go in, or would be pulled out. Of course you hear of the rogue firefighter who will still try to go in. My brother knew one, the guy died....but in doing so saved 2 children. (you know, the classic "hero" story) I don't remember all the details, but I know it really affected my brother because they were pretty good friends.

 

Anyway, endangerment to the firefighter was not an element in the particular case we are discussing.

 

I think everyone agrees they legally did not have to fight the fire.

But the actions are pretty much ethically corrupt as far as being a firefighter and adhering to the "code" .

 

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is morally or ethically right. No one disputes that legally they didn't have fight the fire....but the firefighters and their bosses were ethically wrong in this, even though they were legally within their right to refuse.

Was the owner wrong? sure he was, but that doesn't mean that the fire department weren't just as wrong.

 

 

[BlackWater]

The Firefighter Code of Ethics

 

I will at all times, respect the property and rights of all men and women, the laws of my community and my country, and the chosen way of life of my fellow citizens.

 

 

They were doing just that. City says no fire protection if you haven't paid and the guy didn't pay. I've been a volunter since 1997 and I and many other firefighters in this country agree with the FD. Had there been someone in the mobile home they would have tried to save them as protection of life is first, including your own. Once again, it was a mobile home (not sure if it was a single wide or doublewide) but a single wide, 14 x 70 can be fully invloved in 7-9 miuntes from time of ignition. Even if the FD had been there with in 5 minutes over 90% of the mobile home would have been gone anyways.

 

No firefighter, including myself is going to go into a fully involved residence to save pets or property, especially in a fully invloved mobile home. Human life is different, but everyone was out and there was no danger to human life.

[butterflywings]

It is simply incredible how those who are so quick to condemn the fire fighters don't address the pointed questions I have directed at them. I would like to at least hear of the wonderful examples of how these judgemental folks have put their neck on the line to aid their fellow neighbor. Or even easier, how much volunteerism these people have done in their life.

 

I am part of the fire/EMS community and can't fault any of these fire fighters for the decisions they've made. I may have personal opinions of this but I won't go so far as to say they should rot in hell like many of you paper humanitarians have. Also, the most vocal ones blaming the fire fighters for this show more and more of your stupidity and ignorance as you continue to post away. There is one thing they teach you in the academy....it is not to put yourself in any unnecessary harm as there's no point in making yourself a victim. I have done this on some calls where the scene I arrived at was not secure. I have told my crew not to get out of the ambulance until police response was there and we were told the scene is secure. So I want to know how many of you prophets who can walk on water would condemn me for my actions if the victim's condition may have worsened due to my orders for my crew to wait?

 

BFW, I respect your views as your opinions are not so outlandish as to burn the firefighters at the stake. BTW, regardless of whether the responding station is volunteer or career staffed, the obligation/requirement to respond to every call is there. I have never been in a jurisdiction where a volunteer station had an option to respond or not. But let me provide a couple of possible explanations for the spotty service. First, if you're in a rural or less urban area, the volunteer members typically are not required to stay at the station or with their unit when on duty. Many times there isn't even set staffing for any possible duty shifts which may or may not exist. This is why in many situations like this there is a station siren which when it goes off, any available members would respond to the station to roll the units out. Those that are not in ear shot of the station siren will carry scanners or radios which they can here the dispatch of the call go out. It is not uncommon for response times to be greater than 15 minutes. The second explanation is that there may not be enough volunteers qualified for the various positions required to man an ambulance, engine, squad truck, what have you. At my station, we've had situations where we almost couldn't roll a unit out because we didn't have a driver.

 

That is exactly what we have. The fire station we have is small; I think there is only one big fire truck and a couple of smaller pick up fire trucks and what have you. The station is about 2 miles away but wow, when that siren goes off it might as well be in your back yard; it's loud! It's located directly across from the post office and god help you if you're at the post office at noon because it goes off every day at noon for some reason. We don't have the siren go off for an emergency all that often and if it does, the town is all abuzz about it the next day talking about it at the post office or local store. Everyone knows everybody around here; the good, the bad and the ugly.

 

As for the firefighters, since this was a mobile home (didn't know that at first) there really is no point in saving a mobile home anyway once it's caught fire. I would think it wouldn't take much to be a total loss so in effect the guy is probably going to get an upgrade in homes very soon. Maybe this time he's learned his lesson and will pay the $75 fee from now on.

[hlburi]

We're still hashing this out?

[orangecrush]

 

Oh you dipshit, do you have no idea how county and city administration works?

 

He doesn't know the difference between income taxes and sales taxes. I am guessing that was a rhetorical question.

[breeze]

Townships generally have the authority to levy property taxes. You don't have to live in a city.

Does this guy have a $zero property tax bill? I doubt it.

 

 

You yankees have townships. In the south, we have counties and cities.

[breeze]

What's the address of this guy's home? Is it 12345 X Street, South Fulton, TN XX345? 'Cause, to me, if the home has the town's address...that would be in it's service district. I fully understand the situation, I'm just amazed at how, in the year 2010, it's that backwoods. Also pretty amazed at the "that's not my job" mentality.

 

 

See, people who have a POV will just make up their own facts, and proceed on that basis. Never mind what the actual facts are.

 

I just have to stay out of here. Y'all are crazy. You have fun being crazy. That's just crazy. Next time you see me in here, chase me out, please.

 

Oh, and a fire department that charges a fee is not a for-profit.

 

Help, I can't stop answering. This is crazy.

 

[giraffy]

What's the address of this guy's home? Is it 12345 X Street, South Fulton, TN XX345? 'Cause, to me, if the home has the town's address...that would be in it's service district. I fully understand the situation, I'm just amazed at how, in the year 2010, it's that backwoods. Also pretty amazed at the "that's not my job" mentality.

 

 

See, people who have a POV will just make up their own facts, and proceed on that basis. Never mind what the actual facts are.

 

I just have to stay out of here. Y'all are crazy. You have fun being crazy. That's just crazy. Next time you see me in here, chase me out, please.

 

Oh, and a fire department that charges a fee is not a for-profit.

 

Help, I can't stop answering. This is crazy.

 

:rofl: