# It happened again in the same Tennessee County, Fire Department watchs house burn.



## texas transplant (Dec 7, 2011)

Same place just a year apart.   The homeowner had not paid the fire department fee of $75.00 and the fire department was forced to watch the house burn.

I would think the City would be getting a lot of the unpaid fees in right now.

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


----------



## jpranch (Dec 7, 2011)

*“The mission of the South Fulton Fire Department is to protect the lives and property of its citizens, and provide good public relations through fire safety education to all businesses and schools.”*

This needs to be changed. They need to add "For A fee". "But only if you live in the county"

I really don't get this. If there is a funding issue there are soooooooo many ways to generate revenue without all the controversy. As I understand the issue Fulton is city and the county currently dose not have any fire protection? How hard could it be for a MOU between the two with a certain level of funding through the county? Perhaps the two do not communicate? Anybody out there close to the issue(s) that could shed some light on the dicussion?


----------



## fatboy (Dec 7, 2011)

It's just like paying insurance, you can't whine about you car not getting repaired if you didn't pay the premium. Sorry they lost their home, but it seems to me that after last year, it should have been crystal clear to the county residents that the FD wasn't BS'ing about not paying the fee.


----------



## FM William Burns (Dec 7, 2011)

Hummmmmmm............the fire investigator in me on my left sholder is saying something smells and it's not the soot.


----------



## Architect1281 (Dec 7, 2011)

So they spent the money and fuel to transport the equipment to watch the fire?

If we had residential sprinklers in all existing structures we would not need fire departments (goin to hell for that one)

so can they afford a video camera to document the disaster? maybe so ?

we had a whole list of charactes in RI end up ih jail for seeking financial compensation to provide a safe environment.

you no da boyz comon ya nevvah know sompim might happim!! lest ya pay up.

They just busted the cousins for gambling n racketerring yesterday Big Vinnie; Chippy; out on bail Bobo awaiting in prision due to parole violations

http://www2.turnto10.com/news/2011/dec/07/pleas-not-guilty-ri-gambling-case-ar-855609/

TO COLLECT N PROTECT what a country.

now all they need is cool tough guy middle names


----------



## ICE (Dec 7, 2011)

Couldn't the Fire Dept just charge $75.00 to put out the fire?  I may be wrong but I would think that the $75.00 FD fee is not voluntary.  As a special tax used to fund the FD, each property owner has an obligation to contribute.  The government felt strong enough about that to create the tax.  Apparently the local government lost sight of the reason for the tax, which is that the government provides FD service to all, so all shall pay.  To sit by and watch it burn is a heavy punishment for not paying a $75.00 fee.  Who do they think they are, the DMV?


----------



## jpranch (Dec 7, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> It's just like paying insurance, you can't whine about you car not getting repaired if you didn't pay the premium. Sorry they lost their home, but it seems to me that after last year, it should have been crystal clear to the county residents that the FD wasn't BS'ing about not paying the fee.


Have to disagree on this one. Deploying to watch it burn is like deploying the Army to watch Marines get slaughrter because they did not pay a fee (or extortion) (who ever they are) is unaccetable. I know this may be a hit below the belt but... I have to say again that politically between the city and county raising funds to suppot the fire service there is something very wrong here.


----------



## jpranch (Dec 8, 2011)

Possible Scenario

Scenario: Ring, ring... 911 what is your emergency? Lady responds: Somebody is trying to break into my house! Banging sounds heard in the back round. Lady again: I need help! Dispatcher: Please calm down and confirm your address and... Lady again, I need help! He is in the house now! Phone goes silent. Emergency services not dispatched. The property owner lives in the county and forgot to pay her city fee.

Second call to 911 by an adjacent neighbor:  911 what is your emergency? Neighbor: There is something very wrong next door at my neighbors! I hear a lot banging and screaming. I think someone is in real trouble! Dispatcher: Sir want is your address? Caller: 225 North Elm Street! Hurry! Dispatcher: Oh, very good. I see that you paid your $75 protection fee this year. An officer will be there in 3 to 5 minutes. Caller: Thank you! Please hurry! Call ends.

Officers arrive at 225 North Elm Street to protect the second caller and their property but are forbidden to intervene at the neighbors even though they know they should and really want to.

Aftermath: The first caller was brutally raped and beaten but is alive and recovering in the hospital. The politicians from both jurisdictions city and county blame the property owner because she did not pay the required fee for protection.

Think that this is stretching things a little bit and could never happen? I wonder???


----------



## permitguy (Dec 8, 2011)

> I may be wrong but I would think that the $75.00 FD fee is not voluntary. As a special tax used to fund the FD, each property owner has an obligation to contribute.


It is voluntary fee (not a tax) for residents of the county who want fire protection.  Residents of the city fund the department through their involuntary city taxes.

They respond to fires if the owner hasn't paid because they will attempt rescue if it is necessary.  They just won't protect your property.  They also want to protect the exposures of neighboring properties who have paid the fee.

There are obviously much better ways to handle the situation they are faced with.  There is no way to justify their actions as ethical.  Period.  The decision-makers - from council to mayor to fire chief - should all be ashamed.  Sadly, they aren't.


----------



## fatboy (Dec 8, 2011)

You missed my point, it's insurance, pay the premium. It's not like it was a last minute surprise. I pay my homeowners, car, life, health.....If I don't, I know I don't have coverage.

Not saying I agree with the tactic, but it is, what it is.


----------



## ICE (Dec 8, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> *It is voluntary fee (not a tax) for residents of the county who want fire protection.*


  As far as dumb ideas go, this one is a winner.  It must be tough to get fire insurance in that area.


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 8, 2011)

I'm with JP this is little more than extortion and wrong in so many ways that it makes me sick. On the flip side people should take personal responsibility, and the home owners should be held responsible for their lack of insight. The fire should have been put out and a lien should have been placed on the property for the full cost of the response.


----------



## pwood (Dec 8, 2011)

pure bull$hit! neighbor watching neighbors house burn down over 75 dollars! that is just wrong.


----------



## Builder Bob (Dec 8, 2011)

They have a choice.... no different than the proposal that residnetial sprinklers should be a person's choice.

They (the politicians) have refused to raise taxes and the locals support this by allowing the same representatives for the community are still in office.

This is a case of the people getting and having what they want.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 8, 2011)

Next time, the crew should bring marshmallows.


----------



## permitguy (Dec 8, 2011)

My hope is that this isn't intended to be a profit generator; that the city has actually analyzed the statistics and said "we can collect just enough of these $75 fees in a year to cover the actual costs of extinguishing fires in the county for the same year".  Based on the way they answer questions, I don't think this is the case.

The purpose of running an insurance company is to generate profit.  The purpose of running a fire service is to protect lives and property.  I'll let pundits argue whether it is ethical to generate profit from selling insurance, but it is certainly not ethical to purposely run a taxpayer funded public service agency for the generation of profit (revenues exceeding expenses).  I would have less of a problem if the FD simply said "we don't respond outside of our jurisdiction".

Many ambulance services have a similar fee to this FD, but with one major difference.  If you didn't pay their subscription fee, they will still respond, treat, and transport, but they'll bill you for the full cost.  If this FD wants to shift to an ethically supportable policy, this is what they would do.  They won't, though, because that would decrease the number of $75 fees they can profit from.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 8, 2011)

The city should just drop the service to all county property owners then maybe the elected officials will fund a county department or the county residence can start their own VFD. It is not the the city's taxpayers responsibility to subsidize the county's taxpayers by responding to fire calls in the county


----------



## Alias (Dec 8, 2011)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> you no da boyz comon ya nevvah know sompim might happim!! lest ya pay up.
> 
> TO COLLECT N PROTECT what a country.
> 
> now all they need is cool tough guy middle names


Welcome to rural California!

As of January 1, 2012, all residents in SRAs (state response areas) served by CalEMA (formerly CalFire) are required to pay a $150.00 "fee" in the month of January to them so that they can come out and tell you to cut down your tree or mow your grass!  The "fee" of $150.00 is per habitable structure on the property.  We large have ranches here that provide worker housing.  So, if you have 4 habitable structures, your fee is $600.00, and, if the fee isn't paid in January, a penalty is added every month.  It isn't even for fire protection which is what really chaps my hide.

Collect and 'protect' is right!  Thank you Governor Moonbeam and State Legislature.  :censored


----------



## permitguy (Dec 8, 2011)

Prevention _is_ protection . . .


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 8, 2011)

There is no way that the $75 is anything but political extortion.


----------



## Builder Bob (Dec 8, 2011)

FM William Burns said:
			
		

> Hummmmmmm............the fire investigator in me on my left sholder is saying something smells and it's not the soot.


Odd how thoughts like that appear.....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 8, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> There is no way that the $75 is anything but political extortion.


No it isn't. When I lived in a rural county in Fl they had an MSBU ( Mutiple Service Benefit Use) fee/tax for ambulance service. All residential households paid the $50.00 fee on their property taxes. Response time from the neighboring county and cities was about 13 minutes versus 30 for the county I lived in.

It was part of an interlocal mutual aid agreement between 2 counties to quarantee better services for their residents and provide payment for services to the responding jurisdictions.


----------



## jpranch (Dec 8, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> No it isn't. When I lived in a rural county in Fl they had an MSBU ( Mutiple Service Benefit Use) fee/tax for ambulance service. All residential households paid the $50.00 fee on their property taxes. Response time from the neighboring county and cities was about 13 minutes versus 30 for the county I lived in. It was part of an interlocal mutual aid agreement between 2 counties to quarantee better services for their residents and provide payment for services to the responding jurisdictions.


"MSBU" Make S*** Benefit Us? Sorry, just couldn't resist playing with the acronym. MT, That is exactly a better way to avoid all the controversy. I just wonder why that has not happened between the two jurisdictions?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 8, 2011)

> I just wonder why that has not happened between the two jurisdictions?


My guess "Good ole boy politics and big egos"


----------



## north star (Dec 9, 2011)

*& & & &*





> "I just wonder why that has not happened between the two jurisdictions?"


These kind of "territorial disputes" are quite common across the U.S. andthe rest of the world......Everyone wants to be serviced / protected, but

no one wants to pay for it.......It's like everythig else, if you desire to have

a certain level of service / protection and can afford it, then pony up!......If

you cannot afford it, that's another story!

The insurance industry; and others, have been doing this for decades.....Those

that CAN PAY are actually assisting in the coverage for others THAT

CANNOT PAY.

*& & & &*


----------



## codeworks (Dec 9, 2011)

sprinklers wont save the building, but they will save lives, to drive the trucks out there and not put out that fire is criminal


----------



## iggentleman (Dec 9, 2011)

codeworks said:
			
		

> ....to drive the trucks out there and not put out that fire is criminal


Only if there is a criminal law against it.

But I agree that it stinks. The ambulance analogy should apply.

The FD still fights the fire. No additional cost to subscribed members, full cost for non-subscribers, with legal judgments and liens against the property for failure to pay.


----------



## David Henderson (Dec 9, 2011)

Sue, that requirement has been dropped.  I have this info from a very informed source


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 9, 2011)

> The FD still fights the fire...... with legal judgments and liens against the property for failure to pay.


As jurisdictions look for ways to reduce cost why not charge for services rendered similar to permits fees.

Go to a traffic accident, charge for the equipment and manpower it takes to cover the scene. Bill the auto insurance,

Medical call, bill for the cost to respond even if you do not transport.

Same with fire calls

All taxpayers will fund the day to day operations and have peace of mind the services are there when needed but those who use the services will pay for what they use.

Do you think I could get elected to a city council running on that platform


----------



## permitguy (Dec 9, 2011)

There are cities who charge accident fees to non-residents.  Since you don't pay taxes to fund the response, and if you cause an accident, they charge you a fee to recover costs in addition to any fines for breaking the law.


----------



## Alias (Dec 9, 2011)

David Henderson said:
			
		

> Sue, that requirement has been dropped.  I have this info from a very informed source


Thanks David, I sure hope it is.  I have a local Rural FD that covers my area and their response time is exceptional.  I just couldn't see paying for another layer of protection that is state run.

And for the fire service members out there, I am very conscientious about my fire clearances, unlike some folks to the south of me here in CA.


----------



## jpranch (Dec 9, 2011)

Alias said:
			
		

> Thanks David, I sure hope it is. I have a local Rural FD that covers my area and their response time is exceptional. I just couldn't see paying for another layer of protection that is state run. And for the fire service members out there, I am very conscientious about my fire clearances, unlike some folks to the south of me here in CA.


Me as well here in Wyoming. Wild land fires are a real problem here just like many other states. I keep the grass and sage brush cut back from all my buildings approxmately 200 feet minimum!


----------



## TJacobs (Dec 9, 2011)

They responded to the fire to make sure neighboring properties that paid were protected.

What they should do is charge those that didn't pay the subscription the actual cost of the response, and slap a lien on the property when they don't pay.


----------



## incognito (Dec 10, 2011)

Owner needs to be smarter. As soon as FD roles up start yelling and crying because (pick a name) is still in the house. After the fire is out out " oh my mistake (pick a name) must have left just before the fire started and I was unaware they left".


----------



## fatboy (Dec 10, 2011)

Or pay the $75 at the beginning of the year............that's all I'm saying. I don't agree with this, I wouldn't use the tactic, but that's what it is there.........pay the fee, you're covered. OK, like your water, gas, electric bills...........pay to play. If you don't like it, change it, move?


----------



## Alias (Dec 12, 2011)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> What they should do is charge those that didn't pay the subscription the actual cost of the response, and slap a lien on the property when they don't pay.


Agree with Jake, that idea seems like a reasonable way to handle things.  Maybe a bit time consuming but at least maybe then house won't burn completely to the ground.


----------



## David Henderson (Dec 12, 2011)

Sue, The problem we had was that we were already paying Cal Fire for the coverage in our rural district and the state wanted to charge us again... coverage on coverage


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 12, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> The fire should have been put out and a lien should have been placed on the property for the full cost of the response.


I said it earlier and still feel that if a home owner does not take personal responsibility and pay the $75 then they should flip for the whole bill.


----------



## Codegeek (Dec 12, 2011)

I have to chime in here...last week I was teaching Fire & Life Safety Plans Review at NFA when this story came out.  There was someone in the class from Tennessee, so I picked his brain on this.

Apparently until 20 years ago, there was no fire protection available for the folks living in the county, outside the city proper.  So for the past twenty years the county residents have been well aware of the $75 annual fee.  They have multiple choices in this situation - pay the fee; don't pay the fee; move; or do something about it by putting pressure on the county commissioners to change it.

If the FD showed up and put out the fire, then sent a bill, realistically how many people are going to pay it after the fact?


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 12, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> I have to chime in here...last week I was teaching Fire & Life Safety Plans Review at NFA when this story came out.  There was someone in the class from Tennessee, so I picked his brain on this.  Apparently until 20 years ago, there was no fire protection available for the folks living in the county, outside the city proper.  So for the past twenty years the county residents have been well aware of the $75 annual fee.  They have multiple choices in this situation - pay the fee; don't pay the fee; move; or do something about it by putting pressure on the county commissioners to change it.
> 
> If the FD showed up and put out the fire, then sent a bill, realistically how many people are going to pay it after the fact?


Put a lien on the property.


----------



## Codegeek (Dec 12, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Put a lien on the property.


In this part of the country, odds are the owner will abandoned the property so it will get passed along to the next property owner.  So what has that accomplished?


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 12, 2011)

Here the lien will need to be paid before the property can sell. Many properties have reverted to jurisdiction ownership because of liens.


----------



## Codegeek (Dec 12, 2011)

I understand where you're coming from gb.  I was just sharing the information that was given to me on the situation.


----------



## cbo25 (Dec 31, 2011)

Classless on the side of the fire dept if u ask me. Ut the fire out and send them a bill for 75 bucks plus a stiff fee for a fine for not paying ahead like they should have problem solved.


----------



## fatboy (Dec 31, 2011)

It's insurance, plain and simple, no different than your car, life, health, homeowners. Pay up front, that's the deal.

As I said, do I agree with it in this instance??? NO, but in this county, that how it works. Pay or play. Property owners heard that the FD was serious about it a year ago when another property burned.


----------

