again?

bowtieman55

bowtieman55

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Location
Edenton, NC
I suppose a pretty extreme example of "You get what you pay for."
 
This (also) happened elsewhere in NC (I believe) earlier this year or last year. It was posted here somewhere.
 
Yup... again the government is trying to recoup for our deficit thus allowing local authorities to enact a fee for services our taxes should already pay for....
 
y2kcrawler said:
Yup... again the government is trying to recoup for our deficit thus allowing local authorities to enact a fee for services our taxes should already pay for....
Click to expand...
If you will notice, the fire was in a location not "technically" serviced by that department. It was a city department, funded by the higher city taxes. The trailer that burned was in a rural location outside of the city, rural homeowners are required to pay the fee in order for the fire department that receives no revenue from their rural county taxes to serve them.

In NC this is taken care of in the form of your fire tax on top of your property taxes. You will notice, rural areas pay significantly less on the fire tax due to the fact that their fire services are provided primarily by volunteer services rather than paid city fire fighters. Even then, many volunteer services do not get nearly what they need to keep equipment up to date and trucks fueled up through the fire tax alone, and instead rely on donations and fundraisers to keep them afloat.

It is a sad story, but is hardly the firefighters fault. They set out the fees in order to provide a service to the area, that person did not feel the need to pay for the service that she needed. Had there been someone in the home, the firefighters are there to protect lives, paid or not, but the property is the woman's responsibility. I have a feeling, that if the woman even paid her homeowners insurance, she will have a tough fight ahead with the insurance company since she had the ability to pay for preventative measures, that she refused, thereby allowing significantly more damage to the home.
 
I just feel its government greed GCncsuHD - thats why property taxes and so on is set forfth to cover expenses for the state to service the needs of the people. I agree with you, but imposing a fee on low income trailers is already tough seeing as Im sure they dont pay homeowners insurance or even that much if any on property tax... I just think the state could find another way to help out cause these trailers burn like popcicle sticks!
 
y2kcrawler said:
I just feel its government greed GCncsuHD - thats why property taxes and so on is set forfth to cover expenses for the state to service the needs of the people. I agree with you, but imposing a fee on low income trailers is already tough seeing as Im sure they dont pay homeowners insurance or even that much if any on property tax... I just think the state could find another way to help out cause these trailers burn like popcicle sticks!
Click to expand...
I do agree on that aspect of government greed. But here in NC, fire protection is not funded through property taxes directly, but rather a separate fire tax on top of the property tax (which is based on property value just the same) Let's just consider if this was here in NC, where a volunteer fire department was funded through the fire tax rate that is added onto the property tax. So assuming a person had a property valued at $100,000 in my county, their fire tax would be $50-100 depending on what part of the county they reside in outside of the city. Not really any different than the $75 yearly fee they owe for the service since they do not have the fire tax system.
 
I don't care what kind of a fee they did or didn't pay ,If you stand there with a fire truck and a crew and watch somebody's House burn while they beg you to put out the fire there is something wrong with you. It is a sad day when people would do that.
There are a dozen different ways that could have been handled and I hope the town management get enough bad press and angry citizens complaining that they change such an obviously flawed policy. They could charge a major fee in a case like this ,Put a fire dept tax on the property taxes , add it to the power bills ,lots of ways to handle this better. This was just plain wrong.
 
Samurota said:
I don't care what kind of a fee they did or didn't pay ,If you stand there with a fire truck and a crew and watch somebody's House burn while they beg you to put out the fire there is something wrong with you. It is a sad day when people would do that.
There are a dozen different ways that could have been handled and I hope the town management get enough bad press and angry citizens complaining that they change such an obviously flawed policy. They could charge a major fee in a case like this ,Put a fire dept tax on the property taxes , add it to the power bills ,lots of ways to handle this better. This was just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Even if that may have been the moraly right thing to do, if they were to still put the fire out afer she didnt pay the fee then anyone else that heard about it would have no reason to want to pay their fee for the year. Yeah i still feel bad for them losing everything they had, but for that $75 they should have paid would have saved a least some if not all of what they lost
 
South Fulton Mayor David Crocker defended the fire department, saying that if firefighters responded to non-subscribers, no one would have an incentive to pay the fee. Residents in the city of South Fulton receive the service automatically, but it is not extended to those living in the greater county-wide area.
Click to expand...
For his part, Mayor Crocker stressed that the city's firefighters will help people in danger, even those who haven't paid the fee. "After the last situation, I would hope that everybody would be well aware of the rural fire fees, this time," Crocker said.
Click to expand...

I agree with both of these statements. If the fire dept said they would let my mess burn if I didnt pay the fee, but showed up to put it out anyway, then why should I pay? But, if they proved less than one year ago that they would in fact let it burn if I didnt pay the fee, I DAMN sure would have payed the fee if I hadnt.

As a firefighter, we have discussed weather or not we would/could let a persons house burn. Personally I would have a hard time doing it, BUT, we are a BUSINESS. Archer Lodge Volunteer Fire Department INC. We have to make money to provide a service. Thankfully in addition to property taxes the county also collects a fire tax, but if our only income was from "pay to spray" fees, then Im sure our Chief would make the right BUSINESS decision.

A similar scenario has been discussed here in JoCo dealing with motor vehicle accidents. There has been talk of a fee imposed on the motorist at fault since most of the accidents in some departments district involve people who do not live in district.

Duane
 
bowtieman55 said:
This (also) happened elsewhere in NC (I believe) earlier this year or last year. It was posted here somewhere.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was the same place.

The South Fulton policy produced precisely the same nightmare scenario last year, when homeowner Gene Cranick--who had likewise failed to pay the $75 annual fee for rural Obion County residents--saw his house engulfed by flames as South Fulton firefighter watched close by.
Click to expand...

Im wondering if besides the whole "other people wont pay" thing, how much of it has to do with liability. If the department went into a house that hadn't purchased fire coverage, and one of the firefighters died, would the department be on the hook for it? Would the firefighters life insurance cover it?
 
Really, I'm sure the firefighters and gear were on site to make sure the fire didn't spread to someone who did pay, not just to sit and taunt them for not paying the fee. I think MacDaddy is on to something there with the insurance.
 
CLRracer said:
I agree with both of these statements. If the fire dept said they would let my mess burn if I didnt pay the fee, but showed up to put it out anyway, then why should I pay? But, if they proved less than one year ago that they would in fact let it burn if I didnt pay the fee, I DAMN sure would have payed the fee if I hadnt.
As a firefighter, we have discussed weather or not we would/could let a persons house burn. Personally I would have a hard time doing it, BUT, we are a BUSINESS. Archer Lodge Volunteer Fire Department INC. We have to make money to provide a service. Thankfully in addition to property taxes the county also collects a fire tax, but if our only income was from "pay to spray" fees, then Im sure our Chief would make the right BUSINESS decision.
A similar scenario has been discussed here in JoCo dealing with motor vehicle accidents. There has been talk of a fee imposed on the motorist at fault since most of the accidents in some departments district involve people who do not live in district.
Duane
Click to expand...

So next thing will be an EMT refusing to drag out the defibrillator because some guy having a heart attack didn't pay the Fee? Let him die he should have paid the fee!
It's matter of common decency.
 
bad deal any way you look at it, hard for the family, equally hard for the firefighters to not be allowed to help....
 
Samurota said:
So next thing will be an EMT refusing to drag out the defibrillator because some guy having a heart attack didn't pay the Fee? Let him die he should have paid the fee!
It's matter of common decency.
Click to expand...

No one has said anything about letting someone die.

EMS/rescue squad/ambulance services charge after rendering service, and it is much more than 75 bucks a year. And if you do not pay, they will send you to collections.

Duane
 
Macdaddy4738 said:
Im wondering if besides the whole "other people wont pay" thing, how much of it has to do with liability. If the department went into a house that hadn't purchased fire coverage, and one of the firefighters died, would the department be on the hook for it? Would the firefighters life insurance cover it?
Click to expand...
This is absolutely true, had the fire fighters fought the fire, thus breaking the rules set forth by the fee system, they likely could be terminated from their jobs, or worse not covered by their insurance if something happened to them as they were not following the rules at the time the accident took place. This is just the same as the woman's home will likely not be covered by her insurance because she did not pay the fee, thereby following the rules, that could have prevented extensive damage.
Samurota said:
So next thing will be an EMT refusing to drag out the defibrillator because some guy having a heart attack didn't pay the Fee? Let him die he should have paid the fee!
It's matter of common decency.
Click to expand...
Apparently you don't get it, EMS services WILL be paid for by the patient/insurance in the end, unlike the fire fighters who rely on either the fire tax or fee based system to cover their equipment costs. And even though the homeowner didn't pay the fee, the firefighters would have gone in to save any life, but not property as that is the homeowners responsibility that they clearly dropped. The homeowner had a choice, that they made, and now they are suffering the consequences.
 
Option A - keep this system. No pay = No Spray.
Option B - Everybody gets service. If you haven't pre-paid, you get a bill. And if you don't pay the bill - they come back and re-start the fire.
 
Back
Top