www.ucmessenger.com/news.php?viewStory=46801 Interesting story. Because the homeowner didn't pay a fire protection fee, the local fire department lets house burn to ground.
I wish I could get to the South Fulton website and post the mission statement for the fire department to add to the confusion. Unfortunately, their website has crashed.
Ouch! The situation sux, but you can't buy retroactive insurance anywhere these days. I'm absolutely certain the firefighters would have responded differently if lives were at stake, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
I understand the need for revenue to keep emergency services funded, however I have a problem with a "protection fee" which sounds like what gangs are said to do to ensure residents and business owners of their safety. Wouldn't a modest tax increase be more appropriate if fire/EMS/law enforcement services are in jeopardy of falling outside an annual budget? Really no citizen should be placed in a position where they have to watch their home burn and those that are supposed to be public servants stand by without putting the first drop of water on it. Emergency services are always going to be expected when such a circumstance arises, even if a homeowner either absent-mindedly forgot to pay it or decisively refused to. This would have created a public relations nightmare had someone been in that home and died as a result of a $75 fee having not been paid. The fee shouldn't even be an option. It should be mandatory for all homeowners. Another thing I'd be curious in learning is if the responsibility falls on the homeowner exclusively, even with rental property?
In this case I think honestly the blame should be put on the city ordinance, and I bet said ordinance would have been over looked had there been lives at risk. In this case had they responded the fire crew that responded would have likely faced reprimand or unemployment. And bet in looking back the owner who lost the house views the $75 annual fee as a small price to pay for fire coverage in a county that doesn't have rural fire departments like we do here in JC.
This is what the volunteer fire departments did in Wisconsin 30 years ago, if li es were at risk they would act, otherwise they would stand there with you and watch it burn. Interesting how everyone has avoided the dreaded word.
If I understood the article correctly, the incident occurred outside the area that the FD was charged to protect so the homeowner wasn't obligated to pay for their services in his taxes, fees or otherwise. It's a tough call. Should the FD have not responded to the call since it was outside their jurisdiction? Having responded, they (...as are we all) were morally obligated to protect life, but not property. Should they have just stayed home and said 'it's not my job'? Hmmm...
I think the whole situation is just terrble. Hopefully the guy can get his Homeowners insurance to cover the items that were lost in the fire. >rant on *hey if you RENT* get some RENTERS insurance* > rant off
I think their response was for two reasons: one to make sure no lives were in danger and two to protect the neighboring houses which did pay the $75 fee. It's a tough call. Has anyone read where he was made aware that non-payment meant no coverage? or was he under the assumption that his taxes were paying for it?
They may have a program in place like the Clayton EMS does. They walk around neighbor hoods selling picture sittings, if you chose to purchase one (wheither you attend or not or actually buy pictures or not) should they have to show up at your house and provide you with an amulance ride there is no fee, otherwise if you choose not to purchase the picture thing and they give you a ride, there is a fee.
What's that saying about assumptions...? when you assume you make an a$$ out of u and Me. :lol: -Oscar Wilde
I thought the picture thing was just a fundraiser. We receive a little mailed brochure thing that explains the ambulance coverage fee and you have the option of paying or not, to cover your family (and you have to list people who live in your household) should you need an ambulance.
That's the logical answer. Do it and bill for it. If they don't pay, County liens the property. The logic I don't see is how I pay for fire insurance and I'm taxed for fire department services. If I have fire insurance shouldn't the insurance company be paying the fire departments the total cost?
As bad as the situation sounds, they did what they were told to do by the neighboring city's manager. The FD was responding to an area that it doesn't cover using its tax base. This area was responsible for paying a $75.00 fee to the other towns FD for fire protection services. What kind of example would it have made if they would have put out the fire even though the guy didn't pay? Why would anyone pay the fee if they know the FD is coming to put it out anyways? Let's compare it to a homeowner's insurance policy. If we weren't required to hold homeowner's insurance, but the moment a tree fell through our home we called and offered to pay for the last year, do you think they would pay for it to be fixed? I don't think so. I hate that the gentleman's house burnt down, but the firefighters were instructed by the city who OWNS the equipment they are using not to put the fire out. Blame the city if you would like. I'm sure every firefighter there wanted to put the fire out, but they just played by the rules. PS: Most of the time when the local FD comes around collecting money for pictures etc... it is NOT for the actual FD, it is for an association of members on the FD that have formed a group to supplement activities and equipment at the FD. The donations are not required, just appreciated.
