Firefighters Watch As House Burns Down

[California Girl]

I wonder if kids or anyone else had been trapped in the house if the firefighters would have left them to burn.

They should have stayed in the house and found out.

 

[Paulie]

just like a demonRat. won't pay for a service, wants the service, expects it for free, and expects conservatives to pay for their service. Thanks for posting basementdweller. It's typical of demonRat behavior.

You're exactly what is wrong with America. If you woulda read the fucking article, you would see he offered to pay if they would put the fire out.. But they basically said tough luck, and it wasn't until it spread to the neighbours (who has the "coverage") that they put it out.
What happened to helping people, and not worrying about cost or profit? Imagine if this had been the mayor of this town.. Gu-ran-tee they woulda put that fire out, regardless if he'd have payed the fee.

He tried paying AFTER the fact. He didn't want to participate in the service until he actually NEEDED the service, and THEN he wants to pay.

He got what he deserved.

 

[Spoonman]

just like a demonRat. won't pay for a service, wants the service, expects it for free, and expects conservatives to pay for their service. Thanks for posting basementdweller. It's typical of demonRat behavior.

You know I took my car in for repair and they refused to fix it unless I paid for it. WTF? The stood there and just watched it not run.

 

[Madeline]

there's nothing political about this, despite the frantic efforts to make it seem so. no responsible adult looks at the people for whom he is responsible and decides that not spending $75 to assure emergency services are available to those people is too much to spend, regardless of what one thinks of the policy itself. i think it's a stupid policy, but if i lived there, i'd spend the $75, and then work to change the policy.

pretty simple concept, really. this guy's irresponsible behavior came home to roost.

It is moronic to make fire protection an option. I pay, you don't...what happens to my costs? If I am the only one in the whole county who wants fire protection do I have to underwrite those costs all by myself? What happens to my house if yours is next door and burns? What happens to my property values if you walk away from a burned out shell?

This is stupidity in government, del. There's nothing "libertarian" about it. Fire and ambulance protection are the bedrock of local government services. I bet many residents of the county's outlying area didn't even realize they had no protection. Not everyone understands what they read via mail from the government. And where the hell were the insurance companies? Why wasn't a policy of insurance conditioned on payment of this "fee"?

Just asinine.

the only thing more stupid than charging for fire protection service is not paying the charge. one doesn't have to be a nobel laureate to figure that out.

if you can't understand a simple concept like *if you don't pay, we won't come*, you probably shouldn't be at large.

Nope. WTF, del. I drive into this misbegotten county from Timbuktu and my RV catches on fire whilst I am at the local IHOP, I get no services? There's a reasonable expectation that if I pay my taxes I get a baseline level of government services -- services that cannot be privitized and are essential. The county and city governments in this story had no business frustrating that expectation.

How the hell does this county handle its police function? Same way? You have a home invader, sorry, you did not pay your fee?

 

[Spoonman]

When I was in a car accident two years ago the Volunteer Ambulance Corp showed up. Later they sent me a bill for $600. Just what were they volunteering?

 

[Two Thumbs]

I don't agree with allowing someone's house to burn but the guy did roll the dice. I can imagine when it came time to pay he was probably thinking "Fuck them". They got to his house and said "fuck you".

For all you know, this guy just moved in, and had no idea you had to pay for fire coverage. But, I guess we should do this with the Police too, huh? "I'm being kidnapped!" "Have you payed your anual fee for police protection?" "No" "Tough luck!"
Yeah, that'd work nicely.

that's not what the article says moron.

When logic fails, make shit up.

 

[Madeline]

I don't agree with allowing someone's house to burn but the guy did roll the dice. I can imagine when it came time to pay he was probably thinking "Fuck them". They got to his house and said "fuck you".

For all you know, this guy just moved in, and had no idea you had to pay for fire coverage. But, I guess we should do this with the Police too, huh? "I'm being kidnapped!" "Have you payed your anual fee for police protection?" "No" "Tough luck!"
Yeah, that'd work nicely.

That's the sort of information that is required, by law, to be divulged prior to the sale of the property.

Real estate law is pretty idiosyncratic, hjmick, and WTF would think to ask "do I need to volunteer to pay for fire protection?" I would guess the property insurance company and mortgage lender were clueless, else this fee would have been escrowed and paid.

Lots of blame to go around here, lots of waste, lots of pain....and no upside at all.

 

[del]

It is moronic to make fire protection an option. I pay, you don't...what happens to my costs? If I am the only one in the whole county who wants fire protection do I have to underwrite those costs all by myself? What happens to my house if yours is next door and burns? What happens to my property values if you walk away from a burned out shell?

This is stupidity in government, del. There's nothing "libertarian" about it. Fire and ambulance protection are the bedrock of local government services. I bet many residents of the county's outlying area didn't even realize they had no protection. Not everyone understands what they read via mail from the government. And where the hell were the insurance companies? Why wasn't a policy of insurance conditioned on payment of this "fee"?

Just asinine.

the only thing more stupid than charging for fire protection service is not paying the charge. one doesn't have to be a nobel laureate to figure that out.

if you can't understand a simple concept like *if you don't pay, we won't come*, you probably shouldn't be at large.

Nope. WTF, del. I drive into this misbegotten county from Timbuktu and my RV catches on fire whilst I am at the local IHOP, I get no services? There's a reasonable expectation that if I pay my taxes I get a baseline level of government services -- services that cannot be privitized and are essential. The county and city governments in this story had no business frustrating that expectation.

How the hell does this county handle its police function? Same way? You have a home invader, sorry, you did not pay your fee?

i would imagine that the county has a sherriff, and if not, then the state police provide coverage. before your head explodes, you might want to reflect on the fact that i haven't defended the policy. however benighted the policy is, it's incumbent on the homeowner to pay the 75 fucking dollars so that if his house catches on fire, the fire dept comes. again, pretty simple concept in play here.

the city is under no obligation to people that don't reside within the city limits. if this hillbilly is too cheap to pay $75, that's on him, period.

 

[Paulie]

This thread is what happens when a young kid tries opining on issues he's not yet knowledgeable enough in to discuss.

On a related note, I declined to carry auto insurance on my car, and after getting into an accident I attempted to give an insurance company some money to get them to insure my damages...

What do you know...they told me no

 

[WillowTree]

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.









I know it's popular for DemonRats to try to skate out of taking PERSONAL RESponsibility.. but this guy clearly knew. His bad. Not the town's. His.

 

[Wry Catcher]

pretty stupid not to pay the $75

his insurance co will probably tell him to go shit in his hat, too.

it's been the policy for 20 years; he rolled the dice and lost.


stupid

Yes, stupid; yet, isn't that what the argument on forcing people to pay for healthcare comes down to? See my post above, and consider, fires spreads and allowing a house to burn might have other consequences. Did the homeowner store ammunition in his home? What happens when ammunition and fire mix? How about propane tanks, fuel in vehicles or other chemicals such fertilizers?

there's nothing political about this, despite the frantic efforts to make it seem so. no responsible adult looks at the people for whom he is responsible and decides that not spending $75 to assure emergency services are available to those people is too much to spend, regardless of what one thinks of the policy itself. i think it's a stupid policy, but if i lived there, i'd spend the $75, and then work to change the policy.

pretty simple concept, really. this guy's irresponsible behavior came home to roost.

Everything today is politcal, at the very least this message board is an example. A house burning can spread to a conflagration. Making fire protection a fee for service is a political decision, most likely forced by the cry "no new taxes".
Seems this guys irresponsible behavior is fringe, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Spoonman]

This thread is what happens when a young kid tries opining on issues he's not yet knowledgeable enough in to discuss.

On a related note, I declined to carry auto insurance on my car, and after getting into an accident I attempted to give an insurance company some money to get them to insure my damages...

What do you know...they told me no

I hope you contacted the ACLU and reported this violation of your rights.

 

[del]

Yes, stupid; yet, isn't that what the argument on forcing people to pay for healthcare comes down to? See my post above, and consider, fires spreads and allowing a house to burn might have other consequences. Did the homeowner store ammunition in his home? What happens when ammunition and fire mix? How about propane tanks, fuel in vehicles or other chemicals such fertilizers?

there's nothing political about this, despite the frantic efforts to make it seem so. no responsible adult looks at the people for whom he is responsible and decides that not spending $75 to assure emergency services are available to those people is too much to spend, regardless of what one thinks of the policy itself. i think it's a stupid policy, but if i lived there, i'd spend the $75, and then work to change the policy.

pretty simple concept, really. this guy's irresponsible behavior came home to roost.

Everything today is politcal, at the very least this message board is an example. A house burning can spread to a conflagration. Making fire protection a fee for service is a political decision, most likely forced by the cry "no new taxes".
Seems this guys irresponsible behavior is fringe, wouldn't you agree?

fringe what?

fringe left side of the bell curve?

 

[Wry Catcher]

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.









I know it's popular for DemonRats to try to skate out of taking PERSONAL RESponsibility.. but this guy clearly knew. His bad. Not the town's. His.

Everyday you prove you're a concrete thinker. Are you really as stupid as you seem? Kinda hard to believe.

 

[Two Thumbs]

For all you know, this guy just moved in, and had no idea you had to pay for fire coverage. But, I guess we should do this with the Police too, huh? "I'm being kidnapped!" "Have you payed your anual fee for police protection?" "No" "Tough luck!"
Yeah, that'd work nicely.

That's the sort of information that is required, by law, to be divulged prior to the sale of the property.

Real estate law is pretty idiosyncratic, hjmick, and WTF would think to ask "do I need to volunteer to pay for fire protection?" I would guess the property insurance company and mortgage lender were clueless, else this fee would have been escrowed and paid.

Lots of blame to go around here, lots of waste, lots of pain....and no upside at all.

I think the rareness of this would have been one of the things the seller would have covered.

Either way, it's the responsibility of the home owner to know or at least learn these things.

fyi, there would have been a "bill" sent to him, letting him know he needed to buy this.

 

[Paulie]

This thread is what happens when a young kid tries opining on issues he's not yet knowledgeable enough in to discuss.

On a related note, I declined to carry auto insurance on my car, and after getting into an accident I attempted to give an insurance company some money to get them to insure my damages...

What do you know...they told me no

I hope you contacted the ACLU and reported this violation of your rights.

My team of lawyers and I are prepared to take it as far as the supreme court.

 

[Madeline]

Well OF COURSE it was asinine to withhold the $75, del. It was MORE asinine to allow this as an option. BTW, there's a tort recovery theory in common law called "duty to rescue". You have a boat, it leaks, you are about to drown. I motor over, others are discouraged from saving you (or you are discouraged from saving yourself) and then I change my mind and leave you to drown. I am guilty of wrongful death on those facts. I would have had no liability for your death if I had done nothing, but when I undertake a rescue and don't complete it, I am liable.

Look for the county and city governments to urp up 100% of the cost of the house and furnishings because they withheld a fire rescue that prolly would have cost almost nothing, seeing as the fire truck and firefighters were on the scene and remained, and eventually did put out the fire.

This is Three Stooges Government.

 

[Madeline]

That's the sort of information that is required, by law, to be divulged prior to the sale of the property.

Real estate law is pretty idiosyncratic, hjmick, and WTF would think to ask "do I need to volunteer to pay for fire protection?" I would guess the property insurance company and mortgage lender were clueless, else this fee would have been escrowed and paid.

Lots of blame to go around here, lots of waste, lots of pain....and no upside at all.

I think the rareness of this would have been one of the things the seller would have covered.

Either way, it's the responsibility of the home owner to know or at least learn these things.

fyi, there would have been a "bill" sent to him, letting him know he needed to buy this.

Yeah well, unless it was handed to the homeowner by a process server, look for the homeowner to claim he didn't know or didn't understand. Dumb, dumb, dumb elected officials.

 

[hjmick]

For all you know, this guy just moved in, and had no idea you had to pay for fire coverage. But, I guess we should do this with the Police too, huh? "I'm being kidnapped!" "Have you payed your anual fee for police protection?" "No" "Tough luck!"
Yeah, that'd work nicely.

That's the sort of information that is required, by law, to be divulged prior to the sale of the property.

Real estate law is pretty idiosyncratic, hjmick, and WTF would think to ask "do I need to volunteer to pay for fire protection?" I would guess the property insurance company and mortgage lender were clueless, else this fee would have been escrowed and paid.

Lots of blame to go around here, lots of waste, lots of pain....and no upside at all.

As idiosyncratic as it may be, there is no way the issue of protective services and any potential fees to retain such will not be divulged during the course of the sale of any property that could be effected by not paying said fees. Failing to do so would open many people to some very serious litigation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

there's nothing political about this, despite the frantic efforts to make it seem so. no responsible adult looks at the people for whom he is responsible and decides that not spending $75 to assure emergency services are available to those people is too much to spend, regardless of what one thinks of the policy itself. i think it's a stupid policy, but if i lived there, i'd spend the $75, and then work to change the policy.

pretty simple concept, really. this guy's irresponsible behavior came home to roost.

Everything today is politcal, at the very least this message board is an example. A house burning can spread to a conflagration. Making fire protection a fee for service is a political decision, most likely forced by the cry "no new taxes".
Seems this guys irresponsible behavior is fringe, wouldn't you agree?

fringe what?

fringe left side of the bell curve?

Fringe today is best described by the rug being rolled into a tube. The far left and the far right meet at the fringe, and the loudest voices today are from the finge which before the move was on the far right edge.
So Del, respond to the analogy of healthcare. If he had chosen not to pay for a required public option and went to the local hospital for treatment of a serious infectious disease, should he be treated or sent away. Not a perfect example, but one which deserves consideration, imo.