Looks like Charming was saved last night from the greedy developers, but what does that have to do with the fire?

Anyway, whether you agree with letting it burn or not, I can tell you that if I lived there, I would pay the money each year to avoid this type of stuff, unless I was very confident in my insurance plan to replace everything.

Prevention = $75

Cure = $2,200.00

Priceless = Bell and her boyfriend said they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them.

No one wants to take responsibly for the what ifs in life. Prevention is cheaper than the cure and that goes for auto insurance, health care and apparently fire care in this community.

sounds about right....if you can enforce it

Exactly how much did the city pay for the fire crew to attend a marshmallow roast? Not providing fire protection to those that do not 'subscribe' is one thing. Running a crew out to watch the house burn is quite another. The idea behind the 'subscription' is to save money. Sending a crew to watch an 'un-subscribed' house burn costs money, too.

Sounds like this is just a 'protection' racket. If the crew is not going to provide service - because of money - then keep them in the station.

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous policies I've ever seen.
I would be willing to bet Bell pays County taxes for the property they live on. If the fire service costs more than what the County is getting from taxes to maintain adequate fire protection, they need to raise property taxes.
There is NO reason ANYONE has to pay ON THE SPOT for that!

I would even go so far as to guarantee the County Manager makes a 6 figure salary.

Spot on, Nerm! Why were they sent there in the first place!

They send them in case anyone is in danger.

Running a crew out to watch the house burn is quite another

I would bet they were there to contain the fire if it spread to other houses or wild areas.

Sounds like this is just a 'protection' racket

This is what gutting government services and making everything a fee based or for profit service gets you. SAD that we don't get all worked up when a private for profit insurance company does this to people...and they die

Next to come, police protection. Police will stand by a block away in plain view of your house while its being burglarized unless you pay the annual police assistance fee.

To Nerm_L.

The city probably runs the crew out there to prevent the fire from spreading to another structure that has paid the annual fee!

So the folks 'in the city' are covered at no additional cost but those outside the city limits have to pay an additional fee for fire protection.

How about just ever so slightly increasing the property taxes in the outlying areas to cover the cost of fire protection for everyone?

Consider that with the few number of fires in the 'unprotected area' and considering that the firefighters are being paid regardless of whether they are out fighting a fire or not does any of this really make a whole lot of sense??

I was a volunteer fireman for 18 years, none of use would have ever considered standing idly by and watching the home of someone in our community burn not even that of the least liked person in the community.

Torpedo, sounds logical, but you would have politicians screaming about people being taxed for something they do not want/need. I like having my fire and police department paid for out of my taxes. I have been paying taxes for decades and decades and decades...you get the drift and I have not needed fire and police services yet, but I know that I stand a better chance of seeing them, if the situation warrants it.

As a 19yr veteran of the fire dept. I have to agree with Torpedo here, put out the fire and bill the expenses to the home owner later. When I took my oath of service, it did not mention anything about collecting a fee for doing my job.

Sending a crew to watch an 'un-subscribed' house burn costs money, too.

Norm: They have to respond. If the fire gets "out of control" or spreads, they will need to respond to save adjacent properties that have paid the fee.... Firemen get paid while they sleep anyway, so they might as well be out there monitoring the situation and ready to protect the surrounding responsible citizens.

What happens when a computer entry error tells them someone did not pay when in fact they did? This city won't have a dime. Every resident will be on the hook for hundreds of thousands to pay their share of the settlement.

If it were a private company providing subscription fire service to homeowners in a rural area, who would say they were just sitting at a marshmallow roast while getting paid. It should make no difference that the "company" providing the service is a nearby community instead of a private company. If someone didn't subscribe, the are not entitled to the service. They chose not to subscribe to the service, they chose to let the house burn while their neighbors paid to have their houses protected and the crews were there to make sure the fire didn't spread to any of the subscribers houses. It's simple business. I'm sorry their house burned, but I'm also sorry they weren't smart enough to pay a small annual fee to protect it.

If the people in this area wanted to have universal fire protection, they should vote to create tax paid fire districts which can either contract with the local community or put together their own fire service with buildings and engines and people (paid and/or volunteer). It works all around the country. People who choose this don't have to remember or decide to pay their subscription fee, they pay with their property taxes and if someone fails to pay their property taxes, they still get protected but the county files a tax lien on the property for unpaid taxes.

What we have here is the typical entitlement attitude - people want something the othe people pay for. Of course the liberals will side with the freeloaders who take no responsiblity.

That is a ridiculous policy. I would be embarassed to be a firefighter in a county where such a policy were in place. The county could easily collect the fee with the property taxes. Any firefighter who would watch a house burn without helping is no man I want to know. As a 100% civilian non firefighter, most of the men I know would have helped put out this fire to the best of their ability. Being a firefighter in South Fulton, Tennessee is a badge of shame.

public servents arent they ? Taxes ect. paid ? certaintly theres a better way of getting fire protection.

You assume they're making a wage. Ever been to South Fulton, TN? The obvious solution was exactly what happened: If you don't pay for a service, you don't get it and you're house burns down. Now they really don't need to pay for the fire service.

thats right RonInColorado.. our volunteer firefighters would have just put out the fire... and they don't make money like the firefighters in this article. It is an affront to the profession when they are ordered to stand by and watch as a fire consumes a home. What has our country come to when the all mighty dollar is more important than your fellow citizen.

Oh, for the love of money.......!

Sorry, I just don't feel sorry for them.. It is just like an insurance policy, if you don't pony up the pre you don't have the coverage.

They should not be surprised at all since it has happened in that area before.. I would guess they have money for beer and smokes??? Don't be stupid and expect others to pick up the slack..Oh wait that's exactly what the left wingnuts think....Right??

Mark it's retarded. They are a government entity. The governement is supposed to be for the people. We are all taxed to death now, not to mention all the extra fees and surcharges we pay on everything we have or aquire. You are paid to make money, spend money, and hold onto money (and items that you own on a yearly basis). Most states charge sales tax on automobles over and over each time they are sold. It's absurd!

They send them out there in case the fire spreads to a house that has paid the $75.00. At least that's the reason they gave last year when the same thing happened. I think they should be able to just pay a higher fee with penalties or something if they hadn't paid in advance, but I guess the arguement for that was that no one would pay the up-front fee and only pay if they actually had a fire and the department would go bankrupt without the annual fees. Sad what this country has come to.

Most volunteer fire companies are NOT government agencies...thus the boot at red lights, spaghetti dinners, bingo, etc...

Some of you don't understand. This is a city run fire department. These people did not live in the city. They did not contribute 1 red cent in taxes to the city fire department. The city has no authority to tax people outside the city. The only other thing the city could do is have a new policy where if you are not in the city limits, you are not eligible for fire protection at all, with no option to pay a fee.

love thy neighbor as thyself.

I just looked on that city's website. I was not able to find any e-mail contact for any department. I did find the firer department non-emergency number. 731.479.0213.

wghky

They send them in case anyone is in danger.

And apparently the 4 lost lives don't count because they are animals. Makes me sick. How can any fire fighter justify that? Put out the fire, charge them the bill (just like you'd have for ambulance and ER services) and take them to court if they don't pay it. Standing on the sidelines like that, they basically signed a death sentence for those poor animals.

Since when is public protection from fire a fee for service? That's deplorable. Everyone pays real estate or property taxes, so put a special levy for fire service in there and be done with it. The fire company was already there, whether to protect other buildings or whatever and they should have put the fire out, charged them a bill and levied it against the property if they did not pay. What if there had been a child in there or pets? This town needs to get it's head screwed on right and realize it is there for the citizens, all citizens, rural or urban, and rethink what they are being paid to do.

It was just a mobile home. You don't need a fire crew to put out that fire.

A few good fire extinguishers would have solved the problem. According to the article, they had time to get things out.

All they needed to do was to run a water hose over there, get on the floor and put the fire out.

By the time you wait for a fire crew in a rural area, your house is going to be totaled.

Like security, it's up to you to protect your house when you live in rural areas.

We think police make us safe, but the safest places have the least police. They places with tons of crime have the most police.

Same with fire fighters. When you don't count on them, you begin to make a better plan for dealing with fires. Having a couple of good extinguishers is a start. Ultimately, we could do away with firefighters if every building had sprinkler systems.

Of course, some people are so dependant on Gov't, they literally can't do simple things for themselves anymore.

This is what we can expect with a privatization of public service. We should not have to pay fees outside of our taxes for emergency things like fire department, police protection, and ambulatory services. The purpose of government, as stated in the preamble to our constitution, is to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. These things are and should be paid for with our taxes. The privatization of public service is a gross failure to fulfill this purpose.

Shows how far our humanity has come. Money first, then we will help you. So much for our humanity. And if the area goes bankrupt, then what, let everything burn to the ground? No money, no help.

Wow some of you people amaze me.

We dont even have a "fee" to pay where im from. Ive never heard of such a thing, it sounds rediculous. I was under the impression thats what our taxes are used for, you know the BASIC public services.

Well KiloByte,
I could use your same attitude in regard to safeguarding the country. They are talking about reducing the military budget and force by almost 50%, so I guess we can charge you, oh, say $100 a month per household to keep the borders of the US protected. If someone, like say, a terrorist or a drug cartel, decided your house would be targeted, if you didn't pay me the $100 last month I would just stand out on the street with my M4 and watch your house and your family deal with the consequences.
I don't know, that sounds exacly like what we should do...huh? (sarcasm) I hope everyone got that.

Idiots like you would be the first ones to get in my face and demand I "Do Something!"

$75.00 a year is cheap insurance if you ask me. Mobile homes are fire traps and they cost a lot to insure or the insurance company won't pay very much to replace a 20 yrs old mobile home. After 20 yrs, they are worth nothing. Things like this happen to people all the time. They let their auto insurance lapse or expire and when they get involved in an accident, they only excuse is they didn't know the insurance wasn't paid. There's not much left to a mobile home once a fire starts. They go up real fast. Not sure if the FD could have do much to save it. It's only $6.25 a month for the fire fee. If I lived in a crappy old mobile home, I wouldn't pay for the fee and I'd set the damn thing on fire just to get another one in better condition. Not much for the dwelling but a hell of a lot for the personal property. They didn't have time to get the pets out. Hummm, kinda makes me think the FD wouldn't have made it in time anyway. It was probably started by someone smoking a cigarette. A pack of smokes is $5 or more, almost the cost of the fire fee. I have to pay for my fire protection because it's included into my property tax. Sorry for their loss. I'm not a complete a-hole. I hope they have friends and family that will take care of them during the holidays and the cold winter months.

What is truly bizarre is that the firefighters were already there... so the money was spent whether those people paid the fee or not. The FD gained nothing. Logic would dictate that, sine you were already there and the money had been spent, you may as well put out the fire and then assess the cost to the property.

Hey....I think I would like to see something like this in our area, only it involves the local police. I choose not to pay them protection money, therefore, they should not be able to expend the manhours needed to set a speed trap and to catch me going 2mph over the posted speed limit. Yeah...I like that idea!! It'll cut my transit time back in forth to work in half! I can blow past that cop with his radar gun square on my vehicle, and he can't do anything about it, because my license plate number is on the "DO NOT RESPOND" list. BONUS!!

/s =^)

"You could look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance," Vicky Bell, the homeowner, said.

"There's no way to go to every fire and be able to keep up the manpower, the equipment, and just the funding for the fire department," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker.

Their whole argument is 100% invalidated by the fact that the fire department is ALREADY THERE!!! The fire department is under obligation to put out fires. There should be no fee for that, unless there is a fee in the city as well. What the hell do we pay taxes for? It's 100% BULL@!$%#!

If you know the rules you should play by the rules or suffer the penalty. Pretty simple, hugh???

Torpedo obviously has never been to court. If you put out the fire and bill them they can sit on the bill for ever and not pay it. You'll hire a lawyer to enforce payment because the $2200 is above the small claims amount where I live. If the fire dept puts the fire out there will still be damage. Litigation will ensue on how much at fault the fire dept was for not being on time, etc, etc. and you will spend way more to get the $2200. Follow your rules. Pay or let it burn.

People, you are not understanding.

These people don't live in a city or incorporated area. They do not pay any taxes to support a fire department.

Up until a couple of years ago, they have literally no fire department.

The fire department in South Fulton is being nice and offering this service to these people for a pretty low fee. They are under no obligation to respond to calls in this area.

The fee is to "lease" the services of a fire department that other people, the ones who live and pay taxes in South Fulton, pay to support.

These people chose to live in an unincorporated area. They chose to not pay the $75 fee for protection. They then chose to not pay for the services at the time of the fire.

The fire department was there to protect the property of the surrounding people who did pay for protection.

How would you feel if you paid city taxes for a fire department and the department couldn't respond to your house fire because they were responding to someone outside of the city who doesn't even pay anything to support the department?

How about just ever so slightly increasing the property taxes in the outlying areas to cover the cost of fire protection for everyone?

Because republicans want their taxes lowered. They don't care about "everyone". They only care about the rich.

Their whole argument is 100% invalidated by the fact that the fire department is ALREADY THERE!!! The fire department is under obligation to put out fires. There should be no fee for that, unless there is a fee in the city as well. What the hell do we pay taxes for? It's 100% BULL@!$%#!

As stated earlier in the comments, the fire department is obligated to show up to make sure the fire does not spread. If these people want fire service, they have options: 1) Pay the fee and get it or 2) Incorporate South Fulton and provide their own fire service.

I think commenters are also ignoring the risk to the firefighters who fight fires. If this weren't a mobile home, but instead a 2 story house, that the firefighters had to enter and possible risk injury or death, would you so easily volunteer them to do so for a house that pays no taxes, outside their city's jurisdiction?

@wghky -- @Sono -- @topfueltommy -- @Mark-1712328 -- @Old & Tired Shot Up Vet-732760 -- @pathfinder69 -- @dano-3878024 -- @cmstubbles -- @CatWhispererPhD

I get the point very well - you are the ones missing the point. This is just another symptom of what is wrong with our country. Government by subscription - government to the highest bidder. If I pay two subscriptions, does that mean I get twice the service? That is the way lobbyists work - that is exactly what is wrong with our government, at all levels, too.

Most county governments would contract with the city fire department for service - and pay for the contract with taxes. Taxes are how governments pay for services they provide - not subscriptions. Government is supposed to work for ALL people - not just the highest bidder.

This sounds like a policy created by an MBA administrator - not by someone with any common sense. The fire crews are not allowed to do their jobs because some MBA is making policy based on a spreadsheet. Anyone notice that this policy has just created more problems instead of fixing any problems?

Because republicans want their taxes lowered. They don't care about "everyone". They only care about the rich.

Yes, because limited government means no government, right? Limited is the same as no in the liberal vernacular? And of course we also know conclusively that South Fulton is 100% republican, right? Most moronic, worthless, partisan comment yet.

@ManFromNantucket

This is what we can expect with a privatization of public service. We should not have to pay fees outside of our taxes for emergency things like fire department, police protection, and ambulatory services.

WTF are you bitching about? This wasn't a private fire company it was a CITY fire department. Did you miss the part of the article that stated these people did not live in the city? NONE of their taxes support the CITY fire department in any way. The city is offering a service to those people who are willing and able to pay for it. If you don't want to pay for a service you don't get it, private company or not I fail to see how that is in any way wrong.

Just my two coppers, the FIRE FIGHTERS are CITY paid fire fighters. The fact that there is a fee paid county service says the county is too poor or TOO UNWILLING to increase their taxes to cover a fire dept., EVEN a volunteer one. (Even a volunteer fire dept has to have trucks, hoses, uniforms, pay gas, have a buiding to store all of the above.

This is yet another case of people not doing what they should, and expecting the rest of us to bail them out. MY county ALREADY has trouble collecting its taxes from county residents. And as for 'assessing a fee' and taking them to court, THAT TOO costs money, and is, as I said, liable to be less than successful.

All you goody two shoes on this--IF a car plowed into you, and neither of you bothered to pay your CAR insurance, do you HONESTLY expect the insurance companies to STILL pay up?

And BTW--as for the firefighters being there but not putting out the fire--PART of the $75 fee no doubt goes to pay for liability insurance for the firefighters, and I'd SURE bet that if anything went wrong (such as a cat being missed when the fire fighters went in to a burning home, some lovely person would SUE. Why on EARTH should the fire fighters put themselves at risk for THAT, much less potentially risk their LIVES, and equipment, on a property that thought fire protection was unimportant?

And also--the family that lost PETS in an "uncovered" fire? Bet the cost of PET food was more than $75 a year, too.

Have an idea, let's just charge a fire fee, police fee, ambulance fee, hospital fee, accident response fee, power outage fee, water fee, gas fee, emergency fee, flood fee, public school fee, marine rescue fee just to name a few. Of course these will all be in addition to Federal, state, and local fees and taxes and along with Insurance costs. Forget how many people for example that have no kids but pay thousands of dollars to local ISD's even though they have no children attending public school. So basically if say you forget to pay your electric bill this month and then make your payment late. If you have not paid your yearly membership fee of $75 for the year your power will not be restored. No $75 police fee then no police response. someone breaks in and rapes your wife, sorry you should have paid your membership cost. Get the wife tested prior to having intimate contact with her again. This is assuming you have paid your local $75 hospital fee. Of course you will need to bring her to the hospital because you forgot to pay your $75 ambulance fee. See where our society is going.

If the local FD's and PD's ever go nationwide with this kind of "pay for service" nonsense, which also sounds to me like these departments can set the price at any level they choose to, would they be forced to abide by anti-monopoly laws? If not, what is to keep these "for profit" entities from gouging the living $hit out of their "customers"? I mean, they are the only game in town, right? You want fire protection? You have to pay whatever they dictate you pay. Want police protection? Pay up!! They are thinking "Why not? Where else are these people going to go." True right-wing fascism at its best!!

ManfromNantuckett -

What many people don't know is that 2/3 of Federal Spending is Entitlements, and 2/3 of State Spending is Education and SOcial Services.

So all the things everyone agrees Gov't should do is only 1/3 of their spending. Roads, Justice, Police, Fire, Military - they represent a tiny fraction of the money spent by Gov't.

It's time to end the redistribution of wealth by the Gov't. No man is entitled to the labors of another man's back. I thought we settled that with the end of slavery.

And let's be honest. If they had taxed them for fire services, they would have paid less than $75 a year for a mobile home. Meanwhile, someone else would have paid several hundred - essentially subsidizing the service.

My solution is for a local business to start an fire insurance fund that pays when the fire dept shows up. You could charge $10 -$20 a year to participate. Your odds of needing it are low. So if they paid $4400 to put out 2 fires a year, ($20 x 220 houses is break even). Compare to ($75 x 220 houses), is $16,500 or over 7 fires a year at the city rate.

By my figures, you have a .3% chance of a structure fire. So 333 buildings would expect 1 fire a year.

At the city's rate 333 x $75 = $24,975 TO PUT OUT JUST ONE FIRE!!!!

So the $2200 per fire rate is way better. It would be easy to set up a fund that cover those same 333 people for $6.61 a year. Anything above that would be profit, hence why you could charge $20 a year and offer fire service payment protection plans.

I'd love to hear how the city would reject the payment offer and still let the building burn.

Unless they are scared of the private sector charging $20 to do what they charge $75 for. Instead of public sevants, it makes them look greedy and the $75 looks more like a ripoff.

Where I lived outside of the city, the township put a bill for people to vote on to have their own fire department. The bill passed by a wide margin because everyone felt like they had something worth protecting and the money it cost in taxes was offset by lower insurance rates. Later the fire departments of both the city and the township were merged to allow the closest fire station to respond to a fire and give assistance to each other in case the fire was larger than either could handle. Worked great, wasn't overly expensive, and the levy is renewed every time it comes up for a vote.

What you have here is obviously an area that does not believe in taxes for service or else an area wide fire department would have been financed. Nothing is free so everyone has to pay one way or the other. Either for fire protection or the lost afterwards. If the person has insurance, the insurance company should make sure the fee is paid even if they have to tack it on to their insurance bill. If they don't carry insurance on their possessions then they don't have protection. With that being said, why would the fire department send their trucks out to a location when they know that they will not fight the fire unless it's just to PO the victim? Sick.

@Ryan in Texas

No man is entitled to the labors of another man's back. I thought we settled that with the end of slavery.

I agree 100%. That is why I believe that any man that wants the services of another man should pay him a living wage. Even the slaves were given food, shelter, and medical care which businesses don't want to supply those working for him.

Politics as usual. What is the Government's role and why do we pay taxes? When should the private sector rely on For Profit companies and when does the Government hold the responsibility for protecting it's citizens in which situations? Mayor Dave says, "There's no way to go to every fire and be able to keep up the manpower, the equipment, and just the funding for the fire department." OK, this is clear, he wants more money! His job as an elected official is to his constituents, but his main concern is for the pay he and his City's public service employees get paid. I say we Privatize EVERYTHING! If the people who pay for service, failed to get that service, someone loses his Job. I'd start first with Mayor Dave!

@nerm,

I get your point, but that's not the way it works in that county I guess. I agree pretty dumb the way it's handled.

You know, change the law or pay the 75 bucks, or if you don't you might lose your home...Ryan in Texas, has a great point. Buy some fricking Fire Ext...I have one in my garage and one in our kitchen...Pretty simple really. Why your fire protection is not handled thru taxes for everyone in that county is a mystery to me....

Snake, That happened yesterday in NY as OWS protester thought they had some right to take over a bank owned property while the police stood back and watched.

Is this agreat country or what?

Uh, not many business owners here on Newsvine.

Apartments, stores, malls - they all pay plenty of taxes, but still have to PAY for security.

Even when the security is an off duty cop. They still have to PAY.

Or they don't get police protection.

But people have no problem with that. They don't claim it's a "Republican conspiracy to pay no taxes".

Nerm_L I get the point, my problem is that I don't think that should excuse fire fighters allowing 4 innocent lives to die. Frankly, I think everyone should be forced to pay for the service through taxes. But since their system isn't set up that way, saving the lives and charging a bill to me is the next best option. I could care less about their property - their fault. And perhaps the fault of their government for not protecting them from their own stupidity in a manner consistent with other US town/city governments. (Although I suppose the right to be stupid is a fundamental American tenet. < Insert requisite polarizing comments about conservatives and/or liberals. ;) >) My problem is that this policy has caused *innocent* lives to be lost - the fact that they were animals lives is not a redeeming factor.

Last year, Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in a house fire, along with three dogs and a cat

Ryan--30 years ago, my hometown newspaper decided to go 'self insured'. They did all the research, got an actuary in to help figure up the 'reserves' they needed to have, and how much each individual's fees would be. Given the size of the work force, (under 50) one of the things they recommended was that the company budget for 1 major surgery per year. Well, the OWNER of the paper funded the reserve, and 4 months later my mom-in-law had to have bi-pass surgery, and 5 months later, needed another. Meanwhile, two other employees ALSO needed major surgeries, and the fund was bankrupt in less than a year. They went back to paying for health insurance from a BIG company. Small groups can NEVER absorb the unusual.

And BTW--I have HAD a house fire. The city estimated it took the fire dept 3 hours to put it out, and another 4 to double check that it was out. And they estimated the COST to the city was about $20K.

Guess I got my money's worth out of my taxes for 15 years, huh? And I ALSO got my money's worth from my homeowner's insurance. BOTH involved a LOT of money that I can think of MANY things I'd have rather spent elsewhere. So why should someone like me, who is responsible, have to pay for those who are NOT?

Just one other note. There was a time when firemen were volunteers that had other jobs when there was no need for their service. Now we have full time firemen that set around polishing their tools all day while waiting for a fire once in a blue moon. I can see where there is a need for a full time fireman in large cities but not in a place like South Fulton, Tn. that has less than 3000 people.

I included in my comment a personal pet peeve that I wanted to correct... I meant couldn't care less, not could care less. And as long as I'm correcting myself, it should have been animals' lives not animals lives. (Sorry, but I feel like when I make mistakes like they end up taking away from the point I'm actually trying to make. You never know when someone will pick on what you said because of grammar errors that you made when typing too quickly.)

I say, charge a fee for every city policeman, elected official, mayor, fireman, etc. for coming out of their city and using the streets and services that the local communities pay for! No wait, better, send them a contract, whereby they can pay $250 per month to use the highways, county police, cell towers, bathrooms, etc. outside the city or else they can't can't cross their city limits! Stupid is as Stupid does Mayor Dave!

Everyday WE read about how much our, public servants CARE..Yes, we really Know about their; CARING..Green backs OVER-RULE !!!....

Ryan in Texas

It was just a mobile home. You don't need a fire crew to put out that fire.

A few good fire extinguishers would have solved the problem. According to the article, they had time to get things out.

Y'all must have different trailers in Texas than we do in your neighboring state. Nine times out of 10, a trailer is toast once it catches fire. In fact only this week did a volunteer fireman not to far from me lose his life trying to rescue someone who was still believed to be inside a trailer. If the floor's on fire, chances are high something else has already caught too: usually insulation underneath which then spreads rapidly inside the walls, or wiring or gaslines, etc hell even the grass under the trailer could be burning. As a volunteer fireman, I absolutely HATE being called out to trailer fires.

Man, that's terrible! Shame on that fire department!!! Is that seriously all we care about anymore??? These poor people lost everything over $75?? Yes, they knew the policy, and they screwed up, but put out the damn fire then bill them after!!! I bet $1000 right now these people would have paid it seconds after they saved their possessions! What a sick and twisted rule!!!

If I was their neighbor, watching this, I would have ran out there, checkbook in hand and paid this for them. What's next, no police protection until you pay a fee? Even a hospital has to treat you if you go in after an accident, or in serious need of medical attention! They don't see if you've paid all your insurance premiums first! It's about caring for another human being. Isn't that why firefighters do what they do???? So pathetic!

i hereby demand a $75 fee from banks and insurance companies in case my tax dollars have to bail your butt out!!! please send gold coins, as your paper money no longer has value.

First, to everyone using sarcastic comments about how we should institute a "pay or else" strategy for police, hospitals, military, etc., you need to remember that we (taxpayers) do pay for these services. Without these payments, the funding for these imporant programs are gone. They are so important that each taxpayer is required to pay for them and, as a result, reaps the benefits of the tax. In this case, these people were NOT paying into the tax that takes care of outfiting the firefighters. Therefore, if they want the protection afforded by that service, they are required to pay $75 a year. They chose not to and, as a result, did not obtain the benefit of the service.

There are also some who aruge, "Just let them pay at the time of the fire." This seems to be the heart-felt thing to do, but what would be the result. If this family didn't pay the $75 a year until their fire occurred, then what would cause me to want to pay the fee now? Let's pretend that there are 1,000 homes in the $75-fee area. That's $75,000 in a given year that is no longer available for funding for the firefighters. So, instead, you want them to be fully outfitted, trucks gased up, training done, protective gear on, and ready to go so when you happen to have a fire in November, you can write them a $75 check and have them put out your fire? Of course, without that $75,000, I wonder how much equipment would be lost. Maybe it's just the protective gear for the firefighter (that doesn't matter to you?) or the training for the firefighters?

How about we just charge insurance for when you need it. Don't feel like paying for insurance, no big deal. Oh, you got into an accident, causing serious bodily injury to someone else and totaling both cars, sure, pays us $1,000 for your premium and we the insurance company will pay the $100,000 in property damage and medical bills. Didn't feel like spending an extra $30 when you bought that new TV for the extended warranty? That's fine, just come back in three years when a covered event happens and we'll be happy to charge you nothing extra, just pay the $30. We'll eat the wages paid to the technitian that fixes the TV and for the parts. Just roll the dice on our dime. Sounds just fine.

That is a great IDEA, but just doesn't work. Insurance companies count on most people not making a claim. That is why they can charge you $1,000 for a year on auto insurance, employ thousands of workers, pay for buildings, employer claims analysts, and all the other overhead, and still be able to pay for the repairs to your car when you do get in an accident. Same is true with the fire department. They are counting on not having a fire at every house in a given year. That way they can use your $75 to fund fighting that fire at your neightbor's house.

If we do it the "entitlement" way, pretty soon all these institutions are bankrupt. Then you're on your own. Of course, we can all just sit around and say, "But there are rich people out there, make them pay for it." Let's say that works for a little while ... what is going to make someone want to work hard to become rich if I just have to give that away? Would you be willing to work 16+ hours a day, seven days a week to invent something that everyone uses, or to cure that disease, or make something better? Or are you going to work the bare minimum to make sure you get what you are "entitled" to?

I work long hours to provide for my family, to make sure they have what they need and try to give them some of the things they want. My family and I also donate to charities and help other families we know who have a need. But I know I'm not entitled to anything!

I am sorry they people lost their homes, but they took a knowing gamble and lost. Is that my fault? Your fault? The fire department's fault? No, it's their fault. I would love it if we could all live in a socialist world where everyone did what they could and gave to each other to make sure none went without. Unfortunately, people are not willing to work hard in that situation.

I'll ignore the concept of "volunteer" fire fighters and go with this...

Republicans and their conservative followers want to "privitize" government ran programs. This is a prime example why they shouldn't.

Like insurance, some neccessary services can not be placed in the hands of profiteers.

As a bleeding heart liberal, I dont see anything wrong with this.

These folks made an educated decision to NOT pay $75 to ensure if a fire broke out, they'd be protected.

Please, explain to me what the TRUE DIFFERENCE is whether this was paid for in taxation, or a fee?

There is no difference, considering these same people would refuse to pay higher taxes just as quickly as they'd refuse to pay a fee.

You sometimes cant fix stupid, so quit trying...and quit trying to make everyone else pay for their stupidity. IM SICK AND TIRED OF IT.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO BEMOAN THE FIRE DEPT FOR BEING HEARTLESS, AT LEAST TAKE A MINUTE TO BEMOAN THE HOME OWNERS FOR BEING COMPLETE MORONS.

it's the least you can do from a perspective of fairness...

and frankly, I dont want to save my neighbors if they have no interest in saving themselves...

If we actually lived in a "privatized" society, then what happened here is perfectly fine, but we don't currently, we pay taxes, which means it is the governments responsibility to take care of these things, including this fire.

If we actually privatized things, such as our fire departments, then we DO NOT have ANY responsibility to pay ANY taxes, as the government don't do anything for us.

It's one way or the other, but we can't have both!

Republicans and their conservative followers want to "privitize" government ran programs. This is a prime example why they shouldn't.

Like insurance, some neccessary services can not be placed in the hands of profiteers.

In response, just wondering how you'd like to fund all of these not-for-profit necessary services, because they do cost money. There are people that work for these services and their families need to eat. There is equipment needed for many of these services and the seelers of the equipment have families that need to eat. So funding must come from someplace. Does that me higher taxes? Or just tax those that have more money?

If you want higher taxes, that seems to be something this family is opposed to. If they were not willing to pay $75 to protect their own property, what makes you think they would be willing to pay $75 to protect someone else's property?

If you want higher taxes only for the rich, how long before the rich are no longer rich or, even worse, no one puts in the hard work to become rich? Then where do you get your funding from?

So many people hate the "Company" because they have the nerve to charge me money for something that they produce and then they make a profit. Yet most people I know expect their bosses to pay them for the work they do on a daily basis. But the Companies don't NEED that extra money, they should just give me stuff. True, they don't need it. Of course, you don't NEED to go out to dinner, or see a movie, or have cable, or play a video game, or ... Why not go tell your boss, "Hey, boss, you know what, you are paying me way to much. You see, I don't NEED all the stuff the money buys me, so why don't you do this. Pay me for what it costs for me to live, and then I'll work the rest of the time for free."

The fire department in this town sounds like a bunch of Sh!t Thugs running a racket. They don't have the cash to help everyone unless they're paid $75 but they can afford to drive to the scene to watch the house burn. A$$holes....and if they are there to contain the fire or stop it from spreading would they let itt spread to all the houses except the ones who paid..... If I were a medic maybe I'd wacth one of them bleed out until they paid me a fee to help them. It's not part of either of the oaths you take but that doesn't seem to matter to these creeps.

TorpedoYou wrote "The obvious solution would have been to extinguish the fire then bill the homeowner for the cost and take them to court if they could not pay."

How is money collected from house dwellers that are unable to pay? In the absence of fees, the cost of the fire would be even more, perhaps $50k/hour assuming there are enough fires a year to cover the cost of the firefighting staff.

I'd go further and ask the obvious: Wouldn't it stand to reason they they would have paid the $75 on the SPOT if they had $75 lying around untouched and just BEGGING to be spent to save all of their belongings and memories? Did you ever stop to consider that, Self-Obsessed Non-Humans? That ANY human being could stand by and watch that happen, especially those who were suited up for the job, is beyond conceivable to me. WHO ARE THESE DISGUSTING HUMANS? Think people could have banded together and $1 at a time PAID the firemen right then and there and helped this family out? WHO ARE THESE DISGUSTING HUMANS? Oh, and to all those on here spewing your brand of "MINE! MINE! MINE!", only time will tell if you find yourself in similar circumstances after having faithfully paid all of your requisite taxes and fees. Heck, there are parts of larger cities where cops won't even go, and those homeowners had paid and continued to pay their taxes & fees. Even still, its the inhumane aspect of this whole debacle that I just can't fathom. Utterly disgusting!

Our fire protection is optional (decided on a local level), but our health coverage is now a federal mandate. Sigh...

Don't know where your from, but that was a hell of away to prove a point. They will lock us up for slapping a dog around here and I can't imagine if we burnt them alive. Another idiot about a dollar! Your government throws away so much money on things not needed and their personal gains. Wake up! Hello......

I thought that was what taxes were for. To provide for the common good. To do things collectively that are impractical to do individually. Letting people's homes burn down indicates a society that doesn't care about people. Who wants to live in a society like that?

snake09
Next to come, police protection. Police will stand by a block away in plain view of your house while its being burglarized unless you pay the annual police assistance fee.

Actually, it has already been ruled that the police have no obligation to protect anyone, yes you heard that right, they have no obligation to actually do their jobs, as ruled in a court of law.
There is a saying, "When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away!" haha
Well, you are better off making sure you protect yourself rather than waiting for police to show up. The police are more like the cleanup/tie up loose ends people. They are their to investigate crime, etc, they cant be everywhere to protect everyone.

The major problem here is that if they were to put out the fire when the owners didn't pay the protection fee, everyone else sees that they don't have to pay either because the firefighters will help them out. Then noone pays and the firefighting services go away period because of no pay. Catch-22, firefighters might want to help, but if they do it will ensure they don't have a job the following year to help other people.

Sounds like these idiots are (non-dues paying) members of the tea party - DON'T TAX US - but when we need the service, why didn't you provide it? Taxes are what pay for fire & police protection, road upkeep, public schools, etc. If they were TOO STUPID to pay the fee - then they got what they deserved.

Paying taxes for these types of public services does not make this a socialist country - it makes it a CIVILIZED country!

I pay the same thing in Franklin Co. FL. $50 or $75 I can't remember. I don't think they would let it burn though. We have to buy special fire insurance because our place is between two forest. Tate's Hell state forest & Apalachiacola National forest.

Since they had no intention of saving the home, why is it that they responded to the fire in the first place unless they just enjoy watching things burn.

This is extortion. Business owners used to have to pay mob goons for "protection." This is basically the same thing. Pass a fire levy and take care of your expenses that way, or do your job and then bill the homeowner as previously mentioned. There are ways of funding a fire department without letting people's homes, possessions, and pets burn. What if someone had been trapped in the fire? Seriously. My family is full of firefighters and they would NEVER do such a thing. Yes, the $50 or $75 fee is probably pretty small over the grand scheme of things, but you are going to let a fire burn out of control if it isn't paid? Really? This is this town's best idea? Heartless.

I have a couple of comments here to make. One is, while I think that town law is foolish in the extreme, what would the firefighters have done if there was a child inside, or an invalid? Let them burn?

On that note, how many of us pay property taxes on our homes but don't have children in the local schools? If we tried to DEDUCT that amount from our tax bill there would be hell to pay. So, why is fire assistance additional?

so the fire fighters didn't even try to save the animals? what if there was a child in there? is that considered animal cruelty or negligent homicide if the home owners didnt pay $75? This should just be included into their taxes and have all people covered. I swear, how stupid the world is with how long we've had to make things right just astounds me.

btw i tried to find mayoral info for south fulton and all their town web pages are down. however the mayor's name is Mayor David Neil Crocker and you can sign a petition for this cause

http://www.care2.com/news/member/525884267/2514564

sam adams, it amazes me that you can write a comment like that and not have it "collapsed by the community". Just goes to show what a bunch of lefties are running these sites.

I'm a republican and I care about people that pull their own weight in life. Not freeloaders that suck off the teet of the American taxpayer.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the fee. The people live out in a rural area, withouth a volunteer fire dept apparently that usually does that sort of thing. They don't pay city taxes. The city offers them a service for a relatively low fee.

On the other hand, there is something downright sick about a bunch of firefighters sitting around watching a home burn to the ground simply because someone didn't pay the fee.

There must be an alternative and reasonable solution to this problem. Letting the dollar be an obstacle to helping your fellow man is disgusting. Those firefighters must really not be fans of this policy either, I can't imagine any self-respecting man would be.

The city firefighters cover fires in the city as part of the taxes. The houses that burned were not in the city limits. People outside the city limits are offered protection but have to pay for it. $75 dollars a year. Sounds simple enough for me. The unincoroprated area does not have any fire service from the county. You can pay $75 dollars ahead of time. Or you are on your own. In the next county you pay $110 ahead a time or you better have the $2200+ when they get there. YOUR CHOICE. Sounds like the world the GOP wants to impose on all of America. NO NEW TAXES. TAX ENOUGH ALREADY. SMALLER GOVERNMENT. NO GOVERNMENT MANDATES. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. GET RID OF THOSE LAZY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND THEIR BENEFITS. PRIVATIZATION OF SERVICES. How do you like the way it works? Bet their home owners insurance did not know the skipped the coverage. If they had any. They rolled the dice and lost. They knew of the policy. The people in the unincorporated area always have the option for forming their own fire protection company and buy the equipment they need to do the job.

sTLh20 -

The TEA party simply wants Gov't to follow the Constitution and live within it's means.

I've never heard anyone of them say they want to abolish Fire Depts.

Of course, it's only fair that the people paying the most taxes should get the most in return. Sadly, that's not the case. The people paying little or no taxes get nearly all the services and Gov't spending.

When I look at the picture of this fire, the first thing I think is not why the fire dept didn't put out the fire, but why the neighbor didn't run a hose over there. The next mobile home looks to be just 50-75 feet away. Surely they have a water hose for their lawn.

The thing about fires is they grow exponentially. The fire that you can put out with a cup of water the first minute becomes a fire that you need a bucket for the second minute. The you need 10 buckets the third minute.

Catching the fire early is the most important thing. That's why calling the fire dept can be a waste of time. If you get an ordinary water hose on a fire in the first few minutes, you will save more of your home than 3 firetrucks can when they start spraying 10-15 minutes later.

If they are truely in a rural area, the firetrucks might be able to get water on the fire 15 minutes after they are called. That's too late.

So when dealing with fire, remember:

1. It's only stuff, it's not worth dying over.

2. Have a meeting place for your family, such as out by the mailbox so you will know everyone is accounted for.

3. Once life is secured, get to the fire with water hoses. Stay low, smoke is your enemy. Sweep the base of the fire. While you are doing that, someone else can call 911.

By the time the fire dept shows up, you will probably have the fire out. Now you will have to stop them from destroying the rest of your house with water damage. Yes, it would be nice to have the option of telling the fire dept to go away - ironically, had someone at this home told the Fire Dept that they COULDN'T put out the fire, they would have probably asserted their right to put it out, and would have even threatened the homeowner if he tried to stop them.

Reverse Psychology? No. Nearly every single Gov't official, down to Firemen, are control freaks at heart. They want to be able to be in control. They "Know better than you".

So if you tell them they can't put out a fire - you have questioned their authority - and they will PROVE to you that they are not public servants - but are your master.

So -- If I pay the fee, and the firefighters arrive too late to save my house from the fire, can I then sue the firefighters for the damages, and failure to deliver service? Perhaps Breach of Contract?

This reminds me of Mafia leg breakers..! Pay your protection money or else!`

This is not mob-type extortion. The mob would extract money to protect you from the mob. The fire department is not asking for fees to not come set fires at your house.

As for why they were there, I know others have said it but some peope want to just comment without reading ... they were there to prevent the fire from spreading to the property of those that actually paid the fee as required. Also, I believe I am correct in remembering that the rule would allow the fire fighter to go in and save a person.

Finally, for those of you that say, "the fire fighters should have just gone in no matter what the law said," consider the fact that the fire fighters could then be personally held liable for the cost for said fight. I don't know what everyone commenting on here does, but I have to believe some of you have jobs to serve the public and work for someone other than yourself. I wonder, how often to you offer the services of the company you work for for free to the public. Probably not to many out of fear of losing your jobs. Guess all restaurant workers should start taking all the food in the restaurant and giving it to the homeless. Who cares if the boss who actually pays for all that food and pays your wages doesn't like that idea. If you cared at all, you'd do it! And to those of you that a realtors, start just handing the keys to houses over to the homeless. Who cares that the current owner might have an issue with that, you should do it because that is your job as a person who cares.

A couple of things sprang to my mind while reading this article. First: Maybe they need to initiate a County Tax to offset the cost of fire protection for such unincorporated areas. (After all, how would they feel if someone was killed in such a fire?); Second: While the mayor of South Fulton stated they could not afford the manpower to fight fires in areas outside the city limits, a witness was quoted as saying they saw the fire trucks there, at a distance, watching the fire burn. This proves the lie in the mayor's argument. To me that is indefensible.

The appearance of the fire department at the fire just to watch it burn is merely a show. A rubbing one's nose in their mistake sort of tactic. There is no excuse for it. Either show up and fight the fire or stay at your station.

Tax the people at a county level and the cost of fighting fires is mitigated.

I've got to wonder how many of you READ the article. These people paid NO taxes to support this fire department and have no access to fire services unless they pay to lease those of the nearby town, where the residents DO pay taxes to support the fire department.

I myself am exceedingly liberal and feel that the fire department did absolutely nothing wrong. It would've been lovely if they had helped these people anyway, but they were under no obligation to legally or even ethically, since doing so could in theory prevent them from responding to an emergency among the population that actually supports the fire department.

The best solution would be to tax those in unincorporated areas with a mandatory fire assessment fee, but such measures are currently unpopular.

A very interesting situation there in old South Fulton. You have a group that lives outside the city in what appears to have no real governing structure to deal with services like fire. Communities like these used to, and still do set up volunteer fire services, or contract with other towns for services. Financial support generally is satisfied through tax revenue sharing.

The lunacy of the situation in S. Fulton is that the fire department is responding., even if just to keep the fire from spreading. The resources are being used just to respond. I do see the dilemma, but the calousness of just watching a person's house burn over $75 really sends home a point to everyone why this country is failing.

Of course, it's only fair that the people paying the most taxes should get the most in return.

Lol what?

You apparently don't understand the very basic concept of government, and the taxes used to support it - now - do you?

Taxes go to the government to fund its operations - operations approved by our elected officials. Taxes are for operations which are meant to be there for ALL citizens of the nation, when they need it.

Anyone can use a public sidewalk. People who pay more in taxes don't get more 'sidewalk time' or have more of a right to usage of a public sidewalk.

You'd fit right into an absolute monarchy though, that's for sure.

Gone are the days when you paid county taxes ... for something. These people pay county taxes. They should be covered for fire protection by that virtue. County taxes should cover this expense. It covers the sheriff and all his boys driving around. In my county, the main county levy is for "School". This is public school. They dont care if you have any kids in the school system or not. You will pay the taxes. But, in Tennessee, they will pay the firemen to watch your house burn. If this was being managed by a private businessman, he would be in the same boat as Al Capone. It's called extortion. The homeowner's insurance should cover all the fire expenses. It would more than pay the insurance companies to pay this small extortion fee, if the fee were legal in the first place. Its not.

I'll tell you what: You pay me for protection, I'll protect your a-double.

Proof your writing

Wow, you've read more between my lines than what I wrote.

It is a known, proven a thousand times fact that a profiting entity will find any means neccessary not to cover a consumer. You see it in every business.

What these people needed was a local fire department. Even a fire truck with volunteer firemen would have served them better.

While I agree these people chose not to pay for protection, I also agree that emergency service should be available to any citizen. Otherwise, we are no different from any other third world country.

You fight for lower taxes and complain about the lack of aide. You justify giving citizens that have the last name Corporation free property tax, free subsidies, and free operation costs and complain when they are asked to pay their fair share... because the Reagan trickle down economics worked so well. Oh yes, corporations are now citizens, receiving welfare... from you and I... with a trillion in profits in their coffers... while you complain about a free fire extinguishing service to one individual citizen.

Some of you just don't get it. The fire department is from the city. This house is not in the city. The city residents pay taxes to fund the fire department. The people outside the city do not pay city taxes to pay for fire protection. Maybe there are not enough of them. So they have the option to pay the $75 fee and then the fire department from the city, where they pay no taxes, will come out and help them. That is the way it is structured. If they do not like it, then they can pay additional county taxes to pay for fire service.

I do not live in a town or city. I live in an area that is about 1x5 miles that is between two cities. You can bet that if my house is on fire, a fire engine from one of those cities is not going to come to my rescue. I will have the county fire department come from the station up the road. The county fire department that I pay for from my county taxes. If we did not pay for fire department services in our taxes for the county, I would not expect that the fire department in the city that I do not pay for would come to my house.

Not sure in that back water of a town, but in most cases cities or town receive funds from there county and state for fire protection equipment and other funds. maybe they should send back the money to the county and state since they are not required to put fires out if the fee is not payed. Plus what happens if a car accident happened out side the town on a county road would they not put out the fire since the county provided funds to the town and charge the car owner and what happens if that person lives out side of the state. In other word i'm not vacationing in Tenn. I could die there and nobody would care. Oh THE HUMANITY ON THIS PAGE!

Make the USA a 3rd world nation! Vote for unbridled, crony Capitalism! Socialism is obviously bad, just look at how terrible China's economy is...

We can be the most 3rd world nation in the world if we work hard enough to get all of wealth and resources into the hands of the privileged!!!!

Wouldnt the most effective way to prevent the fire from spreading to homes that did pay the $75 fee be to PUT THE FIRE OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE?? Completely ridiculous. We can give other countries hundreds of billions of dollars but we cannot afford to protect our own civilians in case of a fire? Would this fire department let a forest fire burn until it threatened a home that paid 75 bucks? This is an outrage!!

Since they had no intention of saving the home, why is it that they responded to the fire in the first place unless they just enjoy watching things burn.

I think it is safe to assume that if someone was trapped in the trailer they would have attempted to save that persons life. Also fires have a tendancy to spread if they aren't contained so they would have been on scene to insure no other homes were damaged.

Honestly, this question has been asked and answered at least a dozen times in this thread, maybe take a second to read the comments before adding your own.

A volunteer crew should have "volunteered" to help, but didn't because of government interference stopping them.

Just as I expected, the entitlement generation siding with the deadbeats. It's so simple: if you want fire protection, pay the fee. If you don't, you face the consequences. Why in the hell should those who declined to pay get the same treatment as those who did?

What ever happened to self accountability and responsibility? Everybody wants to blame the FD for not putting out the fire and then billing the home owners after the services were rendered. Just think about if for a second, these people choose not to pay a $75 fee for fire service. If they couldn't afford $75 to cover there home how do you think the FD is going to collect $2,000+ from them? And if it has to go to court now the FD is out attorney fees as well. If their neighbors see that the home received fire service after not paying the fee why would they continue to pay the fee? Just pay your damn bills, live with the consequences if you don't and stop expecting a handout.

Why do people think it costs $75 to put out a fire? You aren't paying $75 to put out "your" fire, you're paying into a fund to provide fire service, which is expensive. You waving some bills in the fireman's face while your house burns, doesn't impress anyone. And anyone who can't or won't pay $75, probably don't have the funds to pay actual costs after the fact, especially if you need funds to replace your housing or repair the damage. Given a choice between paying a $2200 bill for fire service or deposit for a new place to live, I'll bet the fire department will still be on the losing end. They deserve nothing other then being an example to any other family who decides to roll the dice on basic fire service. They should have used $14 of that money to buy a fire extinguisher.

Sounds like many of you have never been really poor. Living in a trailer would be a hint that maybe $75 was a freakin' fortune to these folks.

As to the fire chief saying they can't afford covering these fires? What complete BS. They responded to the fire! They were already there! How many damn fires do they have in this county that pouring some water on a fire you are already at is going to break the bank?

Public safety should never be a fee-for-service. You go to the emergency room and you get care, regardless of your ability to pay. But I guess the scummy fire fools in South Fulton are more concerned about their fee than they are citizens in their county.

In a nearby county, rural homeowners can purchase a $110 subscription to cover fires, but they can also pay on the spot for fire protection: $2,200 for the first two hours firefighters are on the scene and $1,100 for each additional hour,

It isn't about money. It's a message, do as your told.

If it's $110 to get a years worth of protection. Then it should be $110 when they get there.

I think it is safe to assume that if someone was trapped in the trailer they would have attempted to save that persons life

You know how that word assume breaks down don't you?

This is extortion!!! Part of my taxes goes towards education. How-ever, I have no kids in school. Do I get this money back?

What a lot of people seem to be missing here is, what price our humanity? It is great sending money to Haiti, etc, but what about our own back-yard? Now, some of the Federal taxes actaully wind up in the city coffers, as cities, counties, states, are not entirely self-funding. So, that means that some of my tax money (probably pennies) is in that city's coffers. I want this money back!

Are you kidding me? There are people on this message board who actually think it's okay for firemen to stand back and watch someone's house burn down over an unpaid $75.00 fee?

That's seventy-five-dollars, right?

WTF kind of "racket" is this? You have to pay a $75.00 fee in order for the Fire Department to service your home? What if there had been people in the house who couldn't get out?

Hell, let's take this a step further; what if you're being mugged, beaten, or worse, murdered and the police stand back and do nothing because you didn't pay their $75.00 "police services fee?"

Seriously, this is absolutely sickening.

The firemen who stood back and did nothing deserve to lose their homes, and hopefully all of their possessions the same way. It would serve them all right

Shame on every damned one of them!

What a wonderful country this is shaping up to be lately, eh?

This seriously f'ed up. They were already there, wtf did they just sit around and do nothing while these people's home and their possessions burnt tot he ground?

Is it really all about money these days? We used to have a set of ethics in this country that you help people regardless of their circumstances. Guess American compassion is all but dead. I seriously hope these people either sue the city or make a lawsuit to get the law changed so that you are billed the 75 when and only when a fire occurs so that this never happens again.

They might be able to get a RICO charge to stick actually, because you guys are right, this is nothing but extortion by the Government.

LOVE IT! I admire the fire department's consistency. If everybody waited until their house caught fire and offered to pay then nobody would pay unless and until the house caught fire.

As far as the town that allows the fee to be paid ($2200+), the problem can be does the owner have the means to pay or was the owner "playing the odds"? If they have the means to pay, why didn't they pay up front (cheaper)? If they don't but still agree to the terms, how does the FD recover $2200 from people who didn't have $110?

I would love it if my fee was only $75. I pay about $350/yr and there is a hydrant in my front yard.

Jim in Auburn:

That is true and your arguement is a good one, except that the fire dept. did show up. They showed up and just stood there. And to the people talking about the dept. being tyed up and not being able to respond to a person who had paid the fee or lived in the city, they were. And the people who mentioned insurance, the firefighters are covered anytime they are responding, even in personal vehicles; they don't even need to be on the trucks. So they were covered. This is why we have fire departments, to fight fires. If your area doesn't have their own dept. then they contract with another one. My township doesn't have a dept. either. Everyone in this township pays a tax that goes to pay the fire dept. fees. Here, the fire dept. that my township contracts with charges a fee for each service provided. At the end of the year my township pays it out of the tax revenues. This is why we have government to represent and protect the individuals, sometimes even from themselves and their own stupidity.

Pat - I agree!

...what price our humanity?

This is another case of our humanity with full knowledge of the fee and policies and "opting out" of paying assuming that our humainty will cover for them. Like you, I find it dispicable that people always are willing to play the odds and rely on the humainty of fellow man to rescue them when they make their poor choices.

Ultimately, it was the homeowners' responsibility to pay the fee, and they knowingly did not pay. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's an absolutely idiotic policy that can and should be changed.

"SOUTH FULTON, Tenn. -- Firefighters stood by and watched a Tennessee house burn to the ground earlier this week because the homeowners didn't pay the annual subscription fee for fire service."

Good place to buy a home??? Not so much.... sigh

Leaving all of the partisan comments aside...and the insults about people from the south being stupid and such. Just think about it from your own perspective. Where do you live?

With a few exceptions in the U.S. we all live either in an incorporated city or township (village, improvement district, etc.) OR we live outside of city/township limits in unincorporated county jurisdiction. Those that live inside incorporated communities have an elected city/town council with a mayor, councilmen, aldermen, etc. They have the authority within the city limits only to levy taxes on their citizens in order to maintain things like parks, public spaces, police services, and fire services. For those who live in more rural places in unincorporated county areas...you all look to an elected body of county commissioners and the county government to provide needed services like parks, fire, police, public buildings, etc.

You all can have a huge impact on your local government in ways you will NEVER be able to impact your state and federal governments. You just have to show up to council/commission meetings and state your opinion in a forceful, intelligent manner and people will notice you.

I'm almost positive in this rural county, most citizens do not want higher taxes. They don't want expensive services. Each fire truck can cost easily a million dollars to outfit. They probably choose as an electorate in the county to keep services at a minimum. It costs lots of money to build large jails, outfit and train fire fighters, have fancy police buildings with all the technology, and even to build large parks and rec centers is expensive. We all might have a different feeling about it if we lived in that county in Tennessee. We might say "hey, this is ridiculous that I live in the county jurisdiction and the county doesn't even have a basic fire department." We might go to the next county commission meeting and say "the time has come for the county to raise everyone's property taxes across the board to fund a fire department." We could start petitions, raise awareness, have estimates of costs drawn up, start a voluntary department, etc. to get the proper changes made in the county government so this doesn't happen again. Or you could tell the county to make it mandatory that all property owners in the county have a tax levy added to their property tax bill of $75 dollars and then contract with the incorporated city to provide the service. But those are decisions for the county government and the citizens living in the unincorporated county to make.

Probably what happened in this situation is the people in the city of South Fulton got tired of not having basic services. So they incorporated as a city. They are a small city probably with a very tight budget. But obviously after incorporating, they decided that they were going to have a fully equiped fire department. They elected city councilmen and a mayor who voted to raise tax levies within the city limit to support the fire department. My guess is they also made decisions to have a park system, rec programs, and a police department of some kind as well. That is why people choose to live in cities...to have services. While others prefer to live in more remote, rural areas, away from a city life. Inside the city limits of this city the fire departments responds to all fire emergencies and citizens don't pay any seperate fee.

Also in this case the city has chosen to allow it's fire department to fight fires outside of the jurisdiction of the city. My guess is that they have contacted the county government, and asked it to help pay for coverage out in the unicorporated areas. The county government has obviously said "no, we won't pay you", but we'll allow you to collect a small fee from property owners if they choose to pay and you can fight fires inside the jurisdiction of the entire county. It is all voluntary. So they set the fee at $75 per year.

Lots of people pay the fee outside of the city limits. Everyone knows about the small annual fee, but still many choose to not pay it.

It isn't the fault of the city that the county citizens don't pay the fee. Nor is it their fault that the county government chooses to do nothing (not even organizing a volunteer department) about fire coverage for the unincorporated portion of the county.

It is the fault of the county government as well as the fault of those living in the unincorporated portions of the county. The citizens themselves. If they wanted a small, volunteer fire department with some minimal equipment, they could certainly organize themselves like every other local government in the United States has done. Like their very neighbors living in South Fulton have for instance. Or they could simply pass a county ordinance raising the tax levy by $75 per property owner for the coverage.

But instead they choose to do nothing, and then when a fire breaks out, they blame the city when a citizen's home burns for lack of paying the $75 fee.

I'm sorry, but it isn't the City of South Fulton's fault the county government ingnores citizen's needs. In these times, the city is probably struggling like every other government to even keep the fire department they have in place...let alone take over fighting fires for the whole county for free.

Nothing in life is free. Ever. The way I see it, there are 3 options: pay your $75 bucks (it comes out to like $6.25 per month or like the equivalence of a Whopper value meal) a year for the coverage from the city, tell your county to provide you with fire protection, or watch your house burn down one of these days.

It never fails to amaze me how this "death panel" part of the country, which is always so outraged, lives by that very standard. Maybe it's why they fear death panels so much - because it's what they would do.

Put out the fire; bill them for the entire cost of fighting the blaze if they didn't pay the fee. The same way as you would treat someone at a hospital and bill them if they didn't have insurance.

But you don't let them die on the floor. THAT is a death panel, and it's the same thing as letting a house burn with firefighters watching as for an old woman gasping for her last breath while doctors look on.

Inexcusable.

Sorry, guys - but this is a no brainer.

If you dont pay the fee, and your house burns, and THEN the Fire Dept. puts the fire out, NO ONE WILL PAY THE FEE - PERIOD....THEN, NO ONE gets the protection.

29 years of paying 75 bucks equals what you'd pay on the spot if you opted out.

If the $75 was a tax for fire service and you didn't pay it, the Gov't would take your home, auction it off and use the proceeds to pay for your delinquent taxes.

Considering your odds of having a fire are .3%, I'd much rather have a fee that if I missed it there would be odds of 1 in 333 that I lose my home to fire vs. 100% that I lose it to the Gov't.

(Assuming I could not pay $75.)

Another possible solution:

If they haven't paid the fee, put out the fire if you're going to show up (it's the best way to protect the people that have paid.) Once the fire is out, take posession of everything on the property (it would have been destroyed anyways, this can be spelled out in county law.) Then sell it at auction or the family can pay the fire department for full time and materials (20k or whatever) to get their stuff back (no partials.)

Either way, the fire department letting an ember float off into the nearby forest/city is completely immoral.

Bell and her boyfriend said they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them.

No. The Fire Department acted appropriately in letting the place burn down. People need to be responsible for their own messes and Bell and her boyfriend made this mess. For a paltry .21 cent a day these people could have paid this $75 fee. They chose not too. People need to pay their own way and stop looking for a damn handout for everything. That's why the country is in a mess now because everyone wants some damn entitlement.

This is an alright idea. Now to add to that if you can't pay your medical bills, you don't receive treatment. Don't pay taxes, banned from all public programs. Don't put into SS, forget about drawing. A national pay to play policy should be put in place. Nothing is free.

apparently this is a tax free county???? if you pay property tax etc usually it offers fire and police protection. These were not fireman they are a shame to the name. This has nothing to do with republican democrat whatever. Possibly mayor no matter what party. Yes everyone should pay their way but as I said if they pay taxes on that property or trailor then protection should be covered. That would be like a Dr. watching someone bleed to death and say well I dont feel like helping them they are not one of my patients. Give me a break!

29 years of paying 75 bucks equals what you'd pay on the spot if you opted out.

That's why it's a message and not a fee. The price of paying on the spot is outrageous. You didn't pay us our 75 bucks when we asked for it, hint hint. Now your house can burn to the ground, let that be lesson to the rest of you.

Well, this BS argument looks like it's going to go on for a while.......

So, I'll just say, it's really sad that a fellow American had to watch their only home go up in flames because of some "policy". When a mere sum of money overrides the importance of humanity, we are lost.

Merry F--king Christmas.

So to be clear - pay your dues or fry. Bad luck if you're broke, huh? People who hang around house fires may be pyromaniacs. People who hang around house fires loaded with firefighting equipment and do nothing have a special place in hell waiting. At least they'll enjoy the flames. While it can be assumed that these homeowners are not the brightest and they admit they never thought they'd be victim to a fire, it can also be assumed that the fire trucks wouldn't come to their house and do nothing if needed. There is a distinct difference between people "sucking on the gov't teet" and a house catching fire. This mentality is not what made America great, but it will make damn sure we're never great again.

And this is America??? Shameful at best!

Wickedmoe, they could have dowsed the fire easily, then billed them for the services instead of letting everything burn down to the ground. If there were pests or a kid in there, would they have saved them?

People's tax dollars are already paying for fire, police and other services. What these firefighters did in this situation was wrong, and all of them need to be removed from the fire department asap.

They should have put out the fire, saved the home, billed the owners for the services and then fine them for not paying their $75 yearly due.

We don't need people like these fire men on any department that has no common sense. They are putting the public's safety at risk. What happened here was a lack of a city fire department that is putting money over safety. what next? You pay the $75 fee and then when they arrive they hit you up for some more money on the side or they will take their easy time in not putting out a fire.

Sue these men and the department for failure in doing their public service to the city they are suppose to be protecting, and they all should be fired.

Hey sTLh2O, the Teaparty is not saying they don't want to pay any tax at all. They are saying, they don't want what tax they are paying now to be raised to pay for someone else's unreasonable lifestyle! Why can't you get it right???

No. The Fire Department acted appropriately in letting the place burn down.

What a joke. I have read some of your other post, I'm surprised you took that stance. You lost all my respect.

People need to be responsible for their own messes and Bell and her boyfriend made this mess. For a paltry .21 cent a day these people could have paid this $75 fee.

Then by god it should be $75 when they show up, Not this outrageous fee.

$2,200 for the first two hours firefighters are on the scene and $1,100 for each additional hour, according to dailytimes.com.

They chose not too. People need to pay their own way and stop looking for a damn handout for everything.

The first S.O.B's on the no hand out list, start with, subsidies, banks, forien aid.

That's why the country is in a mess now because everyone wants some damn entitlement.

Your right on that much, but the wrong people.

Then by god it should be $75 when they show up, Not this outrageous fee.

If you don't have to pay the $75 fee until your house is already on fire why would anyone pay it before then? Even a simplton can understand that it would cost the city more then 75 bucks to put out a fire. The reason the fee is only $75 is because enough people pay the fee who never need the service to cover the cost for those who do. Can you honestly not comprehend this?

I have to laugh at the predictable comments from the hand-out seeking Libs. Lesson #1. If everyone paid $75 per visit, the fire department would not have enough money to buy Fire trucks. Lesson #2. Hard working right wingers would buy their own trucks and still not put the house fire out for the freeloading Libs. Thats Ok, just go OWS. Merry Christmas.

I used to live about 10 miles from South Fulton. First of all, this area was always heavily Democratic and if it has changed it has been very recently. Nonetheless, the residents expect low taxes and accept a low level of community services which results from this. Obion County, Tennessee has no fire service and no apparent intention of forming one; it would cost money (taxes) that the residents don't wish to spend. Those living outside the city limits of municipalities but close enough to them to receive effective fire coverage (realistically, nothing is apt to be very effective fighting a fire of any size in a forty-something year old single wide, which is what this appears to have been) can do so on a subscription basis. If not, no coverage. (The fee is $150 for similar coverage where I live now; I gladly pay this every year and have since it was first offered.) Guess what? If you live in the city limits and don't pay their (miniscule) taxes, they'll put a lien on your property (even if you owe less than $75.)

Honestly, if they stopped paying their car insurance, would they complain if then it didn't pay off when they were in a car wreck? Or would they have gotten what they expected? And would all of you say that they should go on and get paid and then reinstate their car insurance later when they got around to it or felt like that they had the money? They knew the deal, but "didn't think that it would happen to them". I don't think that I'll be in a wreck tomorrow, either, but pay my car insurance anyway.

Finally, to answer something way up this thread, no one in either South Fulton city govt. or Obion Co. receives a six-figure salary. The answer to this sort of event, BTW, would be to have a policy where all fires on the property of nonsubscribers are put out and then a lien is placed on the property for the actual cost of fighting the fire; that wouldn't work in this case, though, as the city couldn't put a lien in its favor on a piece of property outside its jurisdiction in the county, so for that to happen all stations would have to be chartered as part of a county fire service in addition or instead of what they are now. Not going to happen.

Here's a thought...

Those that did not pay the $75.00 fee could be subjected to arson. The rest will fall in line and pay the fee.

I'm not saying that happened but it looks awefully suspicious when you got the fire department watching it burn.

Wouldn't it make your jaw drop if you found out the fire was caused by a well placed match?

In the 2008 election John McCain received 66% of the votes in this area and in the 2010 election the only republican versus democrat races on the ballot went about 60% republican for both of them. They're not a democratic region.

I just like how Proof Your Writing misspelled "seller" in post 1.76 lolololololol whatever!

The year before, they allowed three dogs and a cat to die because someone had not paid the fee. Were one of the homeowners stuck inside the building, would they have let a person die for the same reason?

It is inhuman to deny basic safety assistance in an emergency. If necessary, sue the homeowners after putting out the fire, but don't just sit back and watch the fire burn.

I agree AlMightydollar, just because they could afford it does not mean that they should pay it.

The first time a baby gets burned alive because somebody "didn't pay their $75 fee", everyone involved is going to look pretty f***ing stupid.

And when that case comes to court, highlighting the inaction of a fire department that cost a baby's life, and parents who don't pay their fee, things will change. But the lion's share of the blame will be on the first non-responders. Until that happens, this kind of abomination will continue.

The stupid seem to get nothing - except more skilled at their trade.

Hate to be the one to break it to you and your not-so-grand legal mind but no court is going to find in favor of someone that specifically told a fire department they didn't want their coverage if an issue does arise. These family members in Obion County that don't accept fire coverage have specifically decided their own fate and that's what any court would follow. They are reminded repeatedly if they haven't paid their fire coverage, if they choose to ignore this than they're taking fate into their own hands and that's what any court would look at. The only stupidity here is on the part of the anti-tax/anti-governemnt zealots that have continue to defund the government services by cutting taxes to an unsustainable level and then complain when those same services don't meet their expectations.

Laws contradict themselves.

If a person stands idly by while another person is killed, it's called manslaughter. Justifiable or not.

Of course, some could probably sleep at night knowing a life was lost over $75.00...

others have ethics.

Did you bother to read the story? As was clearly stated, they show up on scene to ensure that no one is in danger and to protect the property of those that did pay for fire insurance. But hey, go ahead and keep using a false argument based on misinformation if that's what keeps you going. They knew that the fire department wouldn't put out the fire if they didn't pay the insurance, they gambled and lost.

Sad thing is that the family accepts that it was their fault and takes responsibility for it, it's just people completely unrelated to the situation that can't have that same level of maturity. If you're so outraged, I'm sure you've gone to the local newsite and made a donation to the family, right?

The year before, they allowed three dogs and a cat to die because someone had not paid the fee. Were one of the homeowners stuck inside the building, would they have let a person die for the same reason?

No matter how many "Hallmark" moments you see on TV read about "Kitty" being saved by a fireman....the fact is - firefighters will not endanger their lives, go against training to save a pet. Yes, if your cat or dog goes back into burning building (it happens more often than you think - home, to a pet symbolizes safety, if they get nervous they will go back into a burning building...they don't know any better).

If Joe stupid goes back into a burning building - against the orders of the fire Captain it is very likely that they will not go back into get him either.... and they would be right.

In he military, in any life or death situation you have to look at the bigger picture and not get overly emotional about every incident.the idea is to win the battle, not every battle.

Forest fires are contained and sometimes allowed to burn themselef out - going in, they already know they will not be able to save every tree.

Looks like Tennessee has their own modern day mafioso style racket going on. No protection money, no protection. Meanwhile the county taxes it's citizens to high hell for everything under the sun and constantly lets the schools raise homeowners property taxes, whenever they choose to, so, if you don't pay out another $75 to the volunteer fire company, then they'll be instructed to let your property burn to the ground. TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT! TIME TO REVOLT!

You couldn't be more inaccurate if you tried. The rural, unincorporated area of Obion County pays extremely low tax rates because they have very little in the way of government services. This is the way the voters have chosen to run their area for the past 20 years. How about you stick to the facts rather than your distorted and false rhetoric?

Sounds like this is just a 'protection' racket. If the crew is not going to provide service - because of money - then keep them in the station.

NO - this is a PRIVATELY FUNDED enterprise. The Crew made it clear that they arrived on the scene to help protect the neighbors who HAD paid the insurance, just in case.

The best time to purchase insurance is BEFORE you need it... I mean, how difficult is that to understand??

This is exactly what republicans have in mind for you.

If you don’t or cant pay for services like this, screw you.

Even the meek ones like Ron Paul want it to be “your on your own” because things like clean water, clean air, police, power, and roads is a “socialistic program”, and paying taxes for these services is Anti American?

Isn't Tennessee the "Volunteer State"? How ironic and pathetic. "Profiteer State" sounds less impressive, I guess.

kilobyte1.. that is what taxes are for... at least that is what taxes were meant to be for.. public service. So just what and where are your taxes being spent?

Those people don't pay taxes to the city. None of you people are getting that point.

The neighboring county has a good plan. Pay $75 now or pay a fortune later. Of course, one has to wonder how likely someone living in a trailer could pay those thousands of dollars.

You have to wonder how stupid these people are though, given that this situation has already come up recently and they still pretended it couldn't happen to them.

The volunteer state! What a joke, more like volunteer to drive out and watch your stuff burn!

Those people don't pay taxes to the city. None of you people are getting that point.

It IS A TAX, you don't get it. They have levied an opt-out tax because the hillbillies are too right-wing to believe in having an actual tax to fund the fire department like most civilized places. This says a lot about the morality of the South and their punitive conservative beliefs.

this would only happen in 3rd world USA!....what the hell is going on? This is a no- brainer...fire happens, fire fighters put it out. So what they didn't pay the 75.00....what part of this scenario don't the right wing nutso's don't get? However, this is Tennessee, what do you expect?

If they pay property tax to the county that should cover it. If this couple had children trapped in the house would they do nothing. Fire and Police protection is a right of every citizen period. And if I am not correct isn't the county currently being sued for the first house they watched burn? And I am pretty sure they will lose. Also we do not know this financial situation of this family and 75 dollars could be alot of money if they are unemployed. I love people who put there two cents in and make fun of otherpeople when you do not even know them or there circumstances.

Kilobyte, those firetrucks, manpower, and equipment already cost the other taxpayers money because they were parked there at the scene. All this stupid policy did is make some cheapskate lose their home and put other homeowners who paid the firefighter fee at risk.

This is one case where you tax everyone the $75 and put liens on those who refuse to pay. If they don't like it, they can move.

You know, if this had been a large, single family house on some acreage I might not feel too bad for them. But it's a mobile home. I'm really thinking that the people who were living in the mobile home might not have a lot of money... I can tell you from personal experience that to many people 75.00 isn't "cheap". And now the fire department won't have to pay, but the money will come out of taxpayer's pockets anyway... some agency will house, clothe, and feed these folks, probably provide them with a nicer place than they had before, give them stuff they need to fill it.... etc... the money will come from somewhere... I think the whole thing is just a bad set up. I am thankful for our community's volunteer firemen and women!

But yeah, the statement about them not thinking it would happen to them...that's different than just plain not having an extra 75.00 to shell out.... but perhaps they were just too proud to say that.

"Profiteer State" sounds less impressive, I guess

Exactly, because we all know by now that only greedy, evil SOB's want to make a profit on anything. <end sarcasm>

asdf

Congress Reform is right. I pay more than twice that amount in Property Taxes and live in a rural county, but the nearby city still takes taxes from my pay check, they confiscated an abandon rail road, that's an easment I pay taxes on, for a "bike Trail" in my back yard and send cop cars after people outside their area for riding 4 wheelers to issue tickers. This is about the Money! They've already taxed their local companies so much they left town and now have only people on "relief" living there. The cry is always, we can't cut our rate of growth from 17% down to only 12% increase! We'll have to let people out of jail into your neighborhoods, or stop sending police to your home when you call us, or we need to charge you a fee each year to put out a fire that rarely ever happens. It's BLACKMAIL!

Well, this seems to be working well enough for the Fire Department. Why not charge a yearly fee for the Police Department as well? "911 - what is your account number?"

"$#@%! They are trying to kill meeeeeeeeeee! Help me please!"

"Maam, please calm down. I need to collect your billing information. What is your account number?"

"They are almost through the door - they have a gun!!!"

"Maam, I need your account number or we will not be able to proceed with service..."

"They got through!!! NOOOOOoooooo....(click)" Dial tone...

"Maam....maam? Are you there? Maam...oh well...."

Not one of the founding fathers would approve of this. Government may be evil, as some argue, but it is a necessary evil. It is the responsibility of the county to provide some level of fire protection. If that means county tax is increased, that is the cost of living in a republic. Maybe the city is not responsible for county fires, but to watch one costs manpower anyway. If the city is not responsble for county fires, they should respond only in city limits. Instead, they take money from county residents, hoping they will make a profit at the end of the year. Ryan in texas compares this situation to buying private security, but it is not the same. Any mall, regardless of their security staff, can still call upon federal, state, county. or local police and they will come if an applicable crime is committed. Every citizen in this nation has right to: be relatively safe (life), make decisions not hurting others(liberty), and a decent chance to succeed based upon talent and effort(the pursuit of happiness). Ensuring these is the point of tolerating government in our lives, and whatever it costs to ensure these is the minimum cost to live in a free and secure society. It is one of those "Self-evident truths" that form the basis for our society.

Accurately and succinctly stated. Thank you!

To all the people that want the firefighters to help them essentially for free, you do know that this town voted to close their own fire department, remove the cost from their taxes, and then to subsidize through another county right? Every one of these people gets mailings and a phone call to remind them to pay the fee each year, even last year's guy. This is what happens in small towns. As I recall, this 25 mile area only has ~4000 people.

The reason people just can't pay the 2k amount after the fire is because they already tried that. 75% of the people chose not to pay. When the fire department went to court to collect, they were advised they were out of their jurisdiction on collecting. Imagine if you only got paid 25% of the time you do work. Why would you ever work there?

And if I am not correct isn't the county currently being sued for the first house they watched burn? And I am pretty sure they will lose.

There is nothing to sue over! There is nothing for the county to "lose". The people who didn't buy the insurance are at fault. This county DOES NOT have a fire department. They use a nearby cities fire department. As such, this county has zero tax dollars going to a fire service! Therefore they are required to pay a $75 yearly fee for protection or insurance.

As someone up above said, you don't pay insurance on your car only when you have an accident! You don't pay for a service agreement on your new flat screen tv after something goes wrong!

Come on people...there is a requirement in this county to pay or not get the service. Simple enough. They didn't pay the fee now it's too late!

Well this comment should get a few people going...

Must be a very Christian area down there in Tenn. Love thy neighbor an all.

I Like ZipZag! Said Straight And To The Point!!!

Are y'all friggin kidding me...these are human beings...do you all know that maybe $75 would mean food for the children or the family for a week??? What is the matter with you people that think this is OK. They are human beings who's house was burning down...shame on you ALL, and especially the fireman that took an oath...YOU should be ashamed, and GOD help you, if it was your home burning...WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO??????????????????? COME ON PEOPLE...GET WITH THE %$#@*&^ PROGRAM...TOTALLY DISGUSTED....

Kilo needs a hug - that guy is always angry. What kind of goal is it when you wake up saying I have to confront liberals and think that until you go to bed? Kilo would make great Reality TV, if they can show Americas Meanest Parents - then he is a sure hit.

This to me is no more than legal extorsion,how does this differ from he Mob protection racket..This is UFB,republican county,city no dought..The head of whoever is in charge of putting this into law has no right to call themselves an American.This is not what this country is suppose to be about.The worse part is they had a fire crew there to watch it burn.They wonder why people go postal.

I am disheartened by all the misguided ranting here. Some people's reading comprehension is so poor that they get upset, so outraged, so off topic that I don't understand how they function in our complex society. Please. Read carefully and think before you comment. It isn't reassuring to have dozens of people point out your mistakes and question your competency based on your comments is it? You don't have to agree or disagree with other commentors, just base your statements on the facts as presented in the original story..... okay?

Completely agreed! An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...

No, they probably think it would never happen to them AGAIN!

Where's the persoal accountability? Part of being a homeowner is being responsible and having insurance. The homeowner never said they COULDN'T pay the $75, only that they didn't because they didn't think anything would happen. Well, I'm sure most homeowners who watched their house burn to the ground never thought it would happen to them either.

We have high sales tax, but we don't have a state income tax.

In East Tennessee, typically people pay county taxes for that county they live in, and frequently it does not cover fire protection. Those who live in municipalities pay an additional tax to that municipality, and it covers services such as garbage pick-up and fire protection. Those who live outside the municiplaities ("in the county" as they say here) must either rely on a volunteer fire department, subscribe to a private fire department, or subscribe to an adjacent fire department. For those of you who say they already pay taxes so fire protection should be included, you don't know what your talking about. The people here in Tennessee expect a lot from their governments, but they don't want to pay for it.

Let's get rid of FEMA too. Most natural disasters happen in the red south. Buy insurance or too bad.

Seems to me the Northeast was quick enough to go run and stand in line after a tropical storm hit them. And the west always runs out after their annual wildfires. The midwest ran out and wanted their slice of the pie when the Mississippi and Ohio flooded earlier this year. Snow emergency declarations only about a month ago got the Northeast federal dollars again. Let's face it: EVERYONE runs out to FEMA these days.

Must be nice to be so judgmental, unless you live there quit assuming that everyone that lives in a home they can afford, but is "lower" on the totem pole is a piece of trash, probably like more people working people that to them 75 dollars is a weeks worth of groceries.

Personal issue, hate these conservative passing judgement types of people.

It's a terrible thing when one thinks just because one lives in a single wide trailer they would have to be cigarette smoking beer drinking trash. One shouldn't be so quick to judge!

May each of you who are here judging the owners without knowing anything about them have to walk a year in their shoes.

In some areas of America a single wide would be considered upper middle salary class

And I drink Dos Equis

$75 a year isn't much. It's $6.25 a month. I promise you that you cannot find any insurance or service cheaper than that. Tennessee obviously implemented this policy to lower taxes and give people some personal accountability. So it shouldn't be news when people who are given that responsibility to protect their property do not choose to do so.

I feel for their loss, I really do. But $75 a year is a nothing cost for an essential service. It's a service that could be paid for by working a single extra hour at a minimum wage job once per month. It is only a big expense if you're unemployed or working part time.

Pragmatic, ok let's flip this around with a little twist. I am a volunteer fireman and would NEVER stand by idly watching someone's house burn down. There have been numerous times in recent years that we've been called out to a fire on a property where the owner is delinquent on their property taxes. So would you condone in every place where property taxes are delinquent that the firemen just watch everything go up in flames? The cost of fighting the fire is kind of a moot point in this instant as the firemen DID go out to prevent it spreading. The salary of those firefighters (I'm assuming they're not volunteers) is paid regardless of whether they fight it or not. The humane thing to do is to put the fire out and then proceed with trying to collect the $2,200 fee for those not paying the $75 subscription fee in advance. And if they can't collect, exactly how are they any deeper in the hole than they already are?

BTW in reality a trailer is pretty much done for as soon as it catches fire so even had they paid the $75, chances are pretty high they would have still lost everything.

Pragmatic is an idiot. The "Fee" doesn't say the firemen WILL get there and put out the fire. It only says, if they can get there, they'll do what they can! Nothing at all like an insurance policy that says, if this happens, then this is what you'll get! Firemen do not stop fires from happening. They can only do what they can and sometimes it's Watch The Fire Burn! Also, people living in Trailers are typically living pay check to pay check or off public assistance and can not afford another $75 a year for something that MAY NEVER HAPPEN! It hasn't happened to me for over 50 years! How many fires have you had? Do you even know how many Fires this Department has had to handle over the past year, 5 years, ten years to justify their pay and the additional $75 from each and every home owner, appartment dweller and house trailer liver in the nearby area?

Voter in LA, it's not as simple as that. This town voted to close their own fire department, remove the cost from their taxes, and then to subsidize through another county right. Every one of these people gets mailings and a phone call to remind them to pay the fee each year, even last year's guy. This is what happens in small towns. As I recall, this 25 mile area only has ~4000 people.

The reason people just can't pay the 2k amount after the fire is because they already tried that. 75% of the people chose not to pay. When the fire department went to court to collect, they were advised they were out of their jurisdiction on collecting. Imagine if you only got paid 25% of the time you do work. Why would you ever work there? I would assume that if you are fighting a fire out of your jurisdiction, you have specific rules to follow, right?

Gabb01, but the point is the fire department already IS incurring the cost as the firemen and the truck is there in case it spreads. Obviously there's something completely messed up there if the courts are disallowing the reimbursement. Apart from anything else I don't see why something like a mechanics lien couldn't be put on the property (land is worth something too). Plus if they get the OK from the homeowner for the $2200 that is a verbal contract and can be enforced in ANY court of law in ANY jurisdiction that I know of.

In all honestly don't see how it is any different than how it used to be here with ambulance services by helicopter. In the area I live it used to be you could pay a "subscription fee" to an ambulance service of I think it was around $85 to provide for the potential use of a helicopter if that's what was needed (health insurance wouldn't automatically cover it). But if you were one of the people who didn't subscribe, the helicopter would still pick you up and air-vac you to a hospital, they would simply come after you for the actual cost. They wouldn't just up and leave and tell you tough cookies even if they knew that in many cases the chance of reimbursement was zero to none.

But even so, I can't wrap my mind around it as a volunteer fireman how they just stand there and watch someone's possessions go up in flames. Natural instinct is to help a fellow man. Not stand there and gloat.

And in closing what it really seems like is needed in that area is for the citizens who cannot pay or don't want to pay the $75 to organize a volunteer group. 4,000 residents in a 25 mile area is pretty decent. Heck it's quite a bit larger in population and density than where I am.

How is engnenk being judgemental? The homeowner said herself that she and her boyfriend chose not to pay the annual fee for the protection. If I cancel my homeowner's policy, are you going to come replace my roof next time a hailstorm damages it?

Voter in LA,

Logic often time eludes many. I mean I think we all see the point that if you don't pay for something, you don't get it, and if the fire department didn't respond, I'd say they should have paid the fee, but to respond and stand there watching it burn is somewhat sadistic. I remember a story, I think out of California where some swimmers were caught out on one of the rivers. When the FD responded, none of the fire fighters were allowed to respond because the part of the river was in another jurisdiction.

$6.25 a month.

If they skipped a single value meal at McDonalds a month, that would cover it.

I find it funny 90% of the people posting here didn't get past reading the headline to this story. Go read the rest of the article.

Voter in LA, The fire dept does pay minimal cost of running the gang out there, but not expending additional resources, time, and money to fight this one. But what's not considered is what if there's another fire or someone gets injured. There'd be lawsuits up the wazoo. Who ends up paying that one? I don't think you can apply verbal contracts in this case because it's considered as under duress.

The fire department decided they couldn't/didn't want to pay a collections group and or a legal group to handle those that didn't want to pay. That's how it all started, the firemen put out the fire, then people wouldn't even pay $75 (much less the $2200 now) even after their fire was put out.

Heroes*.

And even firefighters need to make a living. It isn't a charity.

Except for volunteer firefighters.

How much did it cost them to drive the trucks out there and watch the show?

cntrya8

How much did it cost them to drive the trucks out there and watch the show?

They were on hand to make sure that the fire didn't spread to any of the peoples homes who did pay the $75 for fire protection.

aren't firefighters supposed to be heros?

And they are, however there a legalities involved and I am sure that paying the fee removes any liability from the department.

How much did it cost them to drive the trucks out there and watch the show?

A lot less than it would have cost to drive the trucks out there if the fire was out of control and began a forest fire or another house on fire...

Heroes don't stand by and watch the house burn. There's no two ways about that.

That's why I never liked the label of "HERO" for these guys. It's a job, PERIOD ! and this proves it.

The guy that saved the guy on the tracks in NY a couple of years ago didn't ask for a fee, or set up a contract before he jumped on the tracks and pulled the guy to safety. That's a hero. Or jumping into water to save a child, or someone else from drowning without thinking of your own safety, that's a hero. The word just seems to be thrown around so easily as of late. If it's only $75, just add it into the town taxes due, there, problem solved. Oh, and you can pay $2,200 on the spot to save your home for a flat 2 hours on the job. Comical... Sounds a lot like extortion, doesn't it? What's to stop them from going around setting the places on fire of the people that didn't pay, just to teach them a lesson? Why would you not just charge by the fire then? I mean, if you're gonna show up anyway...makes no sense. Just send them a bill. Put a lean on their property. There are many ways to take care of this issue, other than just letting the place burn while you watch, because of a small fee that wasn't payed. Obviously the fee thing isn't working, if this is the second one in less than 2 years. Come on people, figure something out like human beings for crypes sake. Have we really gotten so callous towards one another?? Really??

The story doesn't give enough information to say if they are truly heroic in this area or not. We'd need to know a.) If they checked to make sure everyone at the location was out and safe, then b.) If they would enter the property to save lives even if the $75 payment wasn't recieved.

The day they let someone die over $75 is the day they are no longer allowed to be considered heroes as well as face disdain from their own nation for allowing citizens to die in the name of money. The firefighters I know in our area (my brother included) get sick over hearing this and think it's a deplorable policy as most of them work volunteer in their off time w/o giving a damn about any form of compensation.

Thank you, to your brother. Nice to hear.

What kind of firefighters are these? Common sense and morality would suggest that you put out the fire immediately. Any firefighter who has a decent amount of respect for the profession would put out the fire, $75 payment be damned. And then if the city decides to fire him or her--sue their ass off.

I under stand no pay no play and i agree. But comming from a family of volunteer firefighters it would make me sick to just stand there and watch my fellow countrymens home burn to the ground. I would have to guit being a volunteer fireman

I believe you. This must be especially painful for Firemen. They are a proud and decent group.

If it was so painful, maybe someone could have passed around a helmet to collect a few bucks to help this family out in their time of crisis. Clearly, it wasn't THAT painful and, clearly, they're no heroes. The whole situation is utterly disgusting and wholly tragic. I don't even want to know how much lower human beings can go!

Wouldnt the most effective way to prevent the fire from spreading to homes that did pay the $75 fee be to PUT THE FIRE OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE?? Completely ridiculous. We can give other countries hundreds of billions of dollars but we cannot afford to protect our own civilians in case of a fire? This is an outrage!!

Why would they have insurance? I'm sure they never thought they would need that, either.

I'll just bet dollars to donuts, that if they didn't pay that puny $75 a year, you can bet that they didn't pony up for house insurance, either.

As sad as it was, they knew the consequences, and chose to ignore the possibility. If the firemen had put out the fire, than that would have sent a message to the entire community that the service is now free. Although these fireman are probably volunteers, the equipment that they use, still cost cash to maintain, and upgrade, and most likely rent to park the vehicles. Other than "air", there's very little in life that's free.

Personally, IMHO, they were stupid, and nothing cures that......although this event may change their views on paying. Time will tell.....

For some people $75 is not puny. It's the difference between having electric or not having electric. It's difference between being able to put gas in your car to go to work or not. If they are paying property taxes, then fire protection should be included.

Those are not true firefighters. If they were they would not let a persons home burn to the ground over $75.00. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I understand having to pay the fee, but you can still put the fire out and then make them pay the fee. I think I smell a law suit brewing.

Simple solution - raise everyone's taxes $100 and include fire protection. (The extra $25 is an administrative fee to collect and disburse the money)

but you can still put the fire out and then make them pay the fee.

If you get in a car accident without insurance can you then get insurance and have your car covered?

No lawsuit, fire protection isn't required by law so not providing it does not break a law...

Perhaps they should've spent $75 for a water hose...

bob5ford - These folks don't live in the county and hence don't pay county taxes. That's why they have to pay a $75 fee.

SKUP .. reread the article... it said. " People in the city of South Fulton have fire protection, but those in the surrounding county do not unless they pay a $75 annual fee." So they do live within the county.... they are excluded from the service because they do not live within the city limits.

And what will insurance do for the 4 lost lives? (3 dogs and a cat)

And what comes of this policy when someone dies in a fire that they allowed to "just burn"?

There's no implication in the story that they even check to ensure everyone is out of the structure and safe so it's a valid question.

" People in the city of South Fulton have fire protection, but those in the surrounding county do not unless they pay a $75 annual fee."

Not that I approve of this, but my guess is that the City includes the cost in the City property taxes, which may be different than County property taxes, hence the demand for a yearly subscription to cover the service. My question is, would the fire dept. sit there and watch a person trapped in the house burn to death, or is there an exception for people? Obviously not for pets, but then again I don't think firemen normally try to save pets, just people.

Incorperated cities have a series of taxes to assist in paying for police/fire/medical first responders thats part of the incorperation certification by the state. The county is covered by the Sheriff per state statute wether or not there are police departments. Fire and medical responders in developed counties like Los Angeles are paid for by the tax base. In rural counties fire and medical have to be contracted. You subscribe to the service and pay an annual fee instead of annual tax. many people move to these unincorperated area's so they dont have to pay all of the city taxes. Its like satalite TV..dont pay and you dont receive.

The people could vote to include the tax in their property taxes for the county and have the county provide this service but it would be a whole lot more than $75 annually. Pay for the service or live with the results, especially in a trailer park where it might not be your trialer that causes the fire but could quickly spread to yours.

People need to be responsible for themselves again.

I'm betting the insurance will squirm out of this because they didn't carry the fire protection. I'll bet it's there in the fine print somewhere.

@wryview

$75 A YEAR

A YEAR NOT PER MONTH.

Sounds like extortion to me.

Is this a new form of "If you don't want to get robbed, you pay for protection"

Those are not true firefighters. If they were they would not let a persons home burn to the ground over $75.00. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I understand having to pay the fee, but you can still put the fire out and then make them pay the fee

Fee or not, Firefighters have to make value decisions all the time. If the structure is too involved to "safely" enter it... no fire chief is going to send his crew in, to certian death, just to save a structure. They will stay and control the fire, attempt to prevent it from spreading.

Firefighters, like any team - have a leader and that leader has rules, regulations and managment that he has to answer to. If he ignores those rules, to many times or causes injury or death to his crew or damages the equipment he has been issue - he will not be long in that job.

Lets make this simple... we all know that pets (cats, puppies, hampsters) are pulled out of drain pipes, culverts, trees, etc all the time. These stores make great additions to the 5:00 news, human interest stories are always welcome. However, in a recent series of stories, one that I recall that was particularly tragic. Several members of an extended family drowned trying to save a family pet which had broken through thin ice on a pond. 2 brothers, an uncle and a passerby died trying to save the pet, then the 1st kid, the 2nd... on and on. The ER crew was was waiting for their equipment to make a safe rescue. They were able to retreive the bodies. By the way, the Dog, was able to finally find thick ice and was rescued safely.

Rules are in place to first to prevent unnecessary loss of life in fool hardy heroic attempts, second to make sure that the rescuer does not become a casualty. Value judgements are a big part of performing dangerous jobs, and that is why rules and Directives are in place. The fire Fighter have to follow guidelines, just as we have to follow traffic signals... so everyone is playing by the same rules.

Refusing to pay your fire subscription fee; out of spite, cheapness or politics is dangerous. Not being able to handle the consequences - then whining about it, is stupid.

The firefighters are ensuring the public's safety by making sure the fire did not spread to properties where people had paid the fee.

If people are too irresponsible to pay a measly $75, they are probably not going to pay an after-the-fact bill.

Plus, the article stated that the people had the choice to pay $2,200 and have the firefighters fight the fire.

They not only chose not to pay the $75, but they also chose not to pay the $2,200. So, the residents chose to let their home burn.

The firefighters were sent to protect other property near by that had paid their fee. Nothing is free and they knew about the fee.

If they act then everyone who lives in those rural areas knows they don't have to pay the fee. The homeowners knew the risk they were taking for a $75 fee. The only word that can describe it is stupid. Quit trying to blame the firefighters for someones stupidity.

Cassivella, Maybe they did not have 2200 dollars in there bank or pocket? I sure dont. County taxes are supposed to pay for this.

People in the city of South Fulton have fire protection, but those in the surrounding county do not unless they pay a $75 annual fee. This is not fair. If they pay taxes like those in town then they should not have to pay extra.

jj,

The city taxes pay for the city fire department...if you don't live in the city, you don't pay the taxes. I think it is quite nice of the city to offer the county a deal for service, why didn't the county resident pay it?

I dont understand either why they did not pay...I dont think it was fair either. I live in a rural area and pay taxes on our property for the fire department. I know it is different there than here. Ours is nothing but volunteer also. (including myself). I could not stand by and watch this. Sad is what this is. In our county we all pay a tax for fire and police.

Read the article again.....that $2,200 figure was from the OTHER time the fire department sat around watching a house burn and several animals dead from the fire.

In a nearby county, rural homeowners can purchase a $110 subscription to cover fires, but they can also pay on the spot for fire protection: $2,200 for the first two hours firefighters are on the scene and $1,100 for each additional hour, according to dailytimes.com.

Plus, the article stated that the people had the choice to pay $2,200 and have the firefighters fight the fire.

Um, no it didn't. Here's what it actually said. Pay attention to the text in bold:

In a nearby county, rural homeowners can purchase a $110 subscription to cover fires, but they can also pay on the spot for fire protection: $2,200 for the first two hours firefighters are on the scene and $1,100 for each additional hour

The author was just pointing out similar policies in other counties near this one.

That is the point. The people outside the city DO NOT pay taxes for fire protection. County wide service has been offerred - and rejected - by the rural residents. They wanted to keep it fee based. You have no choice on paying property taxes, but you do have a choice on paying for subscription service. This is not at all unique to Tennessee, by the way. The situation is not as unusual as you may think. But two in the same district in a short time makes headlines. Idaho has many such areas and sometimes the only one to show up is the sheriff's deputy.

James it sure makes me glad I live where I do and make sure taxes from the county is what pays for the fire equipment.

Pay, pay, pay.... that is most of what I see here, I am ashamed of all of you. Where is the decency and humanity gone in America? Where is the neighbor helps neighbor that our country was founded on? We are all Americans and we all should be standing hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder, helping our fellow Americans. Has Greed gone so far as to not just turn a blind eye but to blatantly stand there and watch a neighbors distress and do nothing because of money?

If the fire would have started a wild fire or another house fire the original house fire would have been charged the fee to fight the fire. Just ask anyone that has started a wild land fire so why not pay as per fire. The $75 fee is not insurance it is a retainer. Sometimes when a lawyer is needed you pay when he gets there (Even some lawyers do the right thing)

These firemen are not "public servants", they are private contracted fire protection. Just like private security guards are not policemen. Public servant firemen are hired by local government trained, equiped and paid by tax revenue and they serve the general public.

These fire services are private..just like private ambulance service...you dont pay or contract with them...you dont get to ride.

The firefighters are ensuring the public's safety by making sure the fire did not spread to properties where people had paid the fee.

They not only chose not to pay the $75, but they also chose not to pay the $2,200. So, the residents chose to let their home burn.

A couple things.. if there was any risk of the fire spreading to the property of another taxpaying resident, then the town would most likely have the density in order to support their own services and this wouldn't even be a question.

The article states that the $2,200 figure would have been due up front, payable prior to services being performed, and only for the first two hours of service. I don't know too many people who roll around with $2,200 in cash on them, and I don't think they were going to go to the bank. This COD policy is asinine.

Let the local municipality pay for it and assess the home owner as additional real estate taxes. This way, the municipality the firefighters belong to is reimbursed immediately, and the municipality the home owner lives in has legal recourse if the home owner does not pay in the given time frame (the current or subsequent tax year). The home owner should have insurance to provide assistance with this.

These firemen are not "public servants", they are private contracted fire protection. Just like private security guards are not policemen. Public servant firemen are hired by local government trained, equiped and paid by tax revenue and they serve the general public.

That certainly does change things. If that is the case, what of Samaritan laws and Duty to Rescue? The firefighters went so far as to drive to the house and watch it burn down...

What if someone were to have died in this fire? The firefighters could very well be held liable due to their failure to act. I think they're walking a very fine line with this policy...

If they know it was not paid, why did they show up in the first place. The wanted to watch a fire? Or where they there to save the surrounding area is the fire spread? How ever you look at it, its a shame. Don't they have some sort of oath to extinguish fires?

To all the people that want the firefighters to help them essentially for free, you do know that this town voted to close their own fire department, remove the cost from their taxes, and then to subsidize through another county right? Every one of these people gets mailings and a phone call to remind them to pay the fee each year, even last year's guy. This is what happens in small towns. As I recall, this 25 mile area only has ~4000 people.

The reason people just can't pay the 2k amount after the fire is because they already tried that. 75% of the people chose not to pay. When the fire department went to court to collect, they were advised they were out of their jurisdiction on collecting. They're really just a paid contractors that fight fires. Imagine if you only got paid 25% of the time you do work. Why would you ever work there? Let me also ask this. Why would you keep risking your life if you were only paid 25% of the time?

Gabbo1 - How many times are you going to say the same thing??? I think we all got it the first time!

Ryan in Texas....you're an idiot. Shame on you for saying it was just a mobile home and it could have been put out. My best friend lost her husband and two small children due to a house fire (in a mobile home). The firefighters couldn't save it or her family. You're an insult to Texas!

If people were in danger, the firefighters would act. However, in this case, it was only their "stuff". Shoulda paid up.

With the cost of medical procedures these days, I'm surprised they don't.

they demand money upfront here where I live, no joke. My husband who cannot qualify for insurance and been on waiting list for years to get medicare was turned down when he was passing large blood clots in his stools because we could not afford the 350 dollar up front cost to see the doctor for an examination.

It was their stuff....but also 3 dogs and a cat. It seems more responsible of the county to collect these fees from something like a sales or property tax. I think it's a given that every resident would benefit from the fire department, in addition to people visiting as usually the fire department assist in different types of emergencies. How do other areas handle these expenses?!?

At the end of the day, how did the department make out? They still had to drive the trucks there. They still had to deploy the manpower. If I was there and I had the ability to help, wouldn't it seem like the right thing to do?

When people decide to become soldiers, doctors, police officers, firemen/firewomen.....they take oaths. The responsibilities are not tied to a paycheck. Daily you hear about off-duty officers or doctors that come to the aid of people. They have the skill-sets or abilities to help people in a time of need. So what is the morally responsible thing to do? How about you help people in a time of need and bill them the $75 and "a penalty" later....

Yes to both.

Yes, a doctor would, For 2 years I couldn't afford insurance as in buy insurance and live in a shelter or pay my bills and live at home. During that 2 years I was in the hospital numerous times with rectal bleeding, vomiting, severe diarhea, blood loss, dehydration, and severe abdominal pains. The doctors knew I had a blockage in my colon but wouldn't investigate, I was told to see a surgeon. The surgeons I contacted would tell me, "without insurance and money up front we can not make an appointment". Finally I was put on medicaid due to the persistance of 1 woman at the food stamp office, that woman saved my life. I was very ill, I almost bled out and this time because of medicaid the hospital did something. I had a cancerous tumor in my upper colon that almost killed me. So, in america now if you don't have money, if your not one of the rich, you don't deserve to live. This is no longer the land of the free, this is a rich mans country and if your not rich you are expendable.

engnenk

If people were in danger, the firefighters would act. However, in this case, it was only their "stuff". Shoulda paid up.

And so pets are "stuff" now too? Never mind that they are living beings.

It looks that that way, C.W.PhD. And that line from engnenk about them acting if people were in danger is purely speculative. There is no implication that they did so much as check if everyone was out of the property; for us to say otherwise is just assuming the best in people, which obviously isn't the case here.

What about the family that lost 3 dogs and a cat? Seriously, I would see that as letting someone die as they stood around - as my dogs are part of my family. Shame on them. Shame, shame, shame. Both the owners who don't protect their stuff over $75, and the firefighters who let animals burn up over $75. And most of all that man that told them to let those animals burn up. Shame him. May he burn.

CatWhisperer: Those animals that got killed were from another fire, not the one this article is talking about. No animals died in this fire. Please re-read the article.

To those commenting on the loss of the animals, that was in a different fire. Also, as someone who comes from a family of volunteer firemen/women, I would hope they would not risk their lives over an animals. Yes, I have a dog and my family would be heart broken if anything happened to her, but if my house were to catch fire, and she was the only living thing in the house, I wouldn't want a firemen going in and risking their lives to save my dog. My dog can be replaced, someone's father, mother, brother, sister or child cannot.

Also, pets are considered property, like a lawn chair. They are NOT family members. If you want to protect your possessions, family members and pets, be responsible to them and pay the $75 yearly fee.

This is part of the price you pay for living in a low tax environment. Property taxes are low but so are the services. You get what you pay for.

The point is that the people living in these rural areas are NOT paying taxes to support a fire department of their own.

They have to "lease" the service from another area where the residents are paying taxes to support their own fire companies.

You wouldn't want to pay taxes to support a fire company that goes out an fights fires for people who are not paying taxes to support it, would you?

It is simple to understand city fire deptment county resident city taxes pay for the fire deptment if you live in the county and want them to put out your fire you pay the $75 tax that is payed by those who live in the city and pay city taxes

I believe the story states they were out of the city limits and not paying the city taxes for city services. The city has services it offers to the outside community (county) for a nominal fee (the taxes they are not paying in the city). If they paid their taxes they could still have a house. BTW all the other tax money is coming from somewhere. You are not just entitled because you are present.

In not quite the same words, I agree with attus. I would not let these peoples house burn down. What an awful thing to let happen

I feel for their loss. But the fee is simply not that much. It costs about as much as a magazine subscription.

I have no clue why they did not pay the fee. The article says they did not know about it, which may or not be true. I just know that I could not let it happen. Just me. I could not watch someones house burn down and know I could do something to stop it.

Hallen, actually the article says that they did know about it but that they didn't think that they would have a fire. They chose not to pay.

What pompous politicians are you talking about? Whom do you wish to vote out of office? Services of any kind must be paid for some way, police and fire protection aren't free. What, precisely, are you proposing people do if you don't like taxes and you don't like paying fees for services?

paying taxes isnt enough they f u coming and they f u and its not a fee its additional taxes they disguise by callingit a fee to screw

If you had paid attention to the story, fire protection is provided to residents of South Fulton and is paid for by residents of South Fulton. This incident occurred OUTSIDE of South Fulton in a rural area (no county fire protection) not covered under the South Fulton taxing authority.

The people being charged $75 do not pay a South Fulton tax bill, so the $75 is basically their tax bill for these services.

Why should these idiots get fire service for free when the residents of South Fulton pay?

In answer to your question, typically in cases like this they send the fire trucks to keep the fire from spreading to other houses that HAVE paid their fees.

There are all these "government is evil" types out there who nevertheless seem to expect free fire coverage, police protection, and top-notch schools. I actually had a college student once who asked me, "If I build my house myself on my own property, why should I have to pay taxes?" It was a revelation to him that taxes might go to firefighters, police, and schools. People need to educate themselves on what they're actually paying for.

Bruce you are entirely correct about the taxation thing. But I wanted to point out, the fire fighters would have risked their lives whether the fire fee was paid or not... if there were any lives in danger. There were not. So they sat on the tail gates roasting weenies. It is not that they are not required to respond to a particular fire. As a doctor would have to treat a dying man, but not an uncomfortable one. Their obligations were fulfilled when no human being on location was in immediate danger.

The fire fighters sitting there seams to be "In your Face". Are we going back to the 1800's

for one... the firemen show up to make sure that the fire does not spread. Two.. it looks like a mobile home and they go up rapidly and in the best case scenerio you may stop it from spreading to someone else. Three.. they live outside of the coverage range for the fire department. As a courtesy to help the people who CHOOSE to live out of the township limits they offered for a fee to extend coverage to them. Like the last guy, they didnt think it would happen to them so they CHOSE to ignore it. It is a shame they lost their home but again.. you make choices you live with the results.

In what way is asking people to pay for a service akin to extortion? Either you want fire protection, in which case you pay for the equipment and staff to provide the service, or you don't. It isn't as if we somehow get firetrucks, safety equipment, and firemen out of the ether; someone has to pay for them in order that they exist.

When the gangsters ask for protection money, it is so they will not harm you or your business. The firefighters aren't going to start a fire if you don't pay.

You already pay for the equipment, staff and service through taxes. The city and county collect taxes through property tax, sales tax and other taxes that pay for stuff like firefighters, police, etc... These people already payed those taxes and didn't get the help they payed for all because the firefighters want more money.

If the taxes aren't enough to fund the firefighters then increase them but turning public services into a pay-for service is not the way to do it.

Bdokc, WRONG. The people outside of the city do not contribute to the city run fire department with taxes. The city has no legal authority to tax people outside the city limits. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand. The city is providing a benefit to people that live OUTSIDE THE CITY AND DO NOT PAY TAXES TO THE CITY for a $75 fee.

Tommy Young you are also wrong. The people outside the city also don't contribute to the cost of the roads, but they do drive on them, or for other public works, but they come into the city and drink from the water fountains. This is a stupid system. This is why it needs to be fixed. Defending something stupid doesn't make it good. The county or township or whomever governs these areas needs to solve this problem before someone gets hurt or killed in one of these fires that the fire dept. stands by and watches burn.

@Elizabeth Darcy

No you are wrong. Roads are paid for by the State and Federal government which everyone in the country and state pays, so they can drive on it. Fire departments are not run by the state, they are all local government. THE PEOPLE VOTED TO GET RID OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT in their county. They chose to get rid of their fire department. I just want people to get that. That's fine, they pay less taxes and get less service. Now if your want fire service, you have to buy it from the city next door. Do you get it? It's really that simple.

If you don't have car insurance, the insurance company is not going to cover you after you get in to an accident.

Its just a tax assessment of $75 just like is paid by the citizens of the town that needs to be paid by citizens of the county. Not necessarily a fire protection fee. I was a volunteer for several years and our township didn't go outside of town (not one house) without reimbursements from our county, Which by the way collected county taxes for emergency services (in the form of property tax)

$75/year is $6.25 a month. Of all the monthly expenses I have, I don't have anything that is anywhere near that cheap!

I agree. When you buy a car, you must make the payments, pay insurance, and maintenance fees like oil changes, repairs, tires, and parking and gas. These are all associated costs in having a vehicle. If you can't put all of those costs in your budget, then you can't afford to own a car. The same applies to your housing. You need to pay for it and all costs to protect it. Otherwise, move into a rental property where your rent will cover all incidentals.

karma is a wonderful thing

It's the insurance company's job to pay for loses. It isn't the job of other workers to pay for others' stupidity. Although I bet the insurance company will try to get out of this one because the owners didn't pay for fire coverage.

My guess is that your estimate of the cost of that trailer is of by a factor of about 10. If you have $100k to spend on a trailer, you should have $75 to pay to keep it safe.

They don't have the legal authority to tax people that don't live in the city.

The county these people live in should make this fee part of their property tax. Pay the other county with that and if someone isn't paying their property taxes...well then they get penalized.

The local taxing authority does have legal rights to contract with the neighboring municipality for services, and pass through the costs for service as additional property taxes IF the town residents vote on it. Then you can have your opt-out situation.

Yeah, the fleabaggers definitely need to pay heed, expecting the "1%" to pay for everything.

Let's not do this halfway now...why not fees for police protection? I wonder why this same personal responsibility crowd also doesn't insist that rural customers pay for their government services and why should someone close in the county help subsidize someone elses fire protection further out in the county...sounds to me like they need a graduated fee based upon distance from firehouse...

personal responsibility

Joel_v, You're perfectly right. Personal responsibility IS the issue here. They were free people , living in a free country , who chose to exercise that freedom by NOT paying for a service that they ( for what ever reason ) didn't want. They could have chosen to live where fire protection was mandatory, but elected not to. I applaud their freedom of choice , and accord them the diginity of personally dealing with it's aftermath .

Running pumps costs more fuel and there is also wear and tear on all the equipment used. Think before posting.

DT, they are most likely there to make sure the fire does not spread to county property. What the fire department should do is charge the county when a home fire occurs and the county can tack it onto their property taxes. I'm guessing these people don't have homeowner's insurance that would require them to pay this fee.

This home was in the COUNTY which has no fire protection system. The City had agreed to respond to fire's outside their boundaries if people chose to purchase fire protection. In effect an insurance policy.

The taxes paid to support this fire department were paid by City residents not county residents. I think the willingness to take on county rural fire protection for a nominal charge of $75.00 per year per structure was actually a fairly magnaminous gesture by the City.

Having worked in government in the past I have seen many cases of county residents refusing to authorize taxes for police or fire service but expecting nearby Citys to come to their rescue. Of course they also don't want to come into the City boundaries as then they will have to pay for the services they expect to receive.

The City crew responded and made sure no one was in danger and then pulled back. In most City's a fire or police crew will not respond outside their boundaries except when it is known live's are in danger.

I am glad no one was injured, including the responding fire crew, but the fire crew response was perfectly acceptable. As to filing a claim for services after the fact good luck on that! The city would never recover and then is just providing free service, at the expense of City taxpayers, so people too short sighted to pay for either local government fire protection through taxation or this form of insurance . I can just see how the City residents would feel about that. All the local tea party conservatives would be going nuts!

Exactly. They knew that they were not within the city limits and therefore did not pay the taxes that supported the Fire Company.

They made the choice not to pay the (minimal) fee because they didn't think that it [fire] would happen to them.

It is very unfortunate that they did have a fire, and I am glad to hear that no one was injured.

The fact is that the Fire Company was there, insuring that no one was injured and that the fire didn't spread. They were not just watching for enjoyment.

The title of this article is completely off, it is sensationalism at its best. Rather than "Firefighters let home burn over $75 fee -- again." it would, as harsh as it sounds, be more appropriate to headline this way, "Couple loses home and possessions as a result of choosing not to pay $75 fee to subscribe to fire protection service."

Thinking Person, if the non-tea party (NTP) people want to provide a free service to the non-city tax payers so the rural folks can have the benefit of fire and police protection then let the NTP pay the additional taxes then let them.

ya know this is just about as stupid of a policy as you could possibly have. what about the medic service that runs the calls in that area. guess they should be able to charge $75 a year also. that way if you call 911 and expect service they can say "oh your having a heart attack were sorry you have not paid your fees this year but we will send a medic to watch you die"

what if the white house did'nt pay this ridiculous fee, would we just watch that burn down or be decent human beings and just put it out. i would gladly pay the fee for these people if it meant saving a home. this is unbelievable, i am ashamed that this happened in the U.S.

Bah,didnt mean to reply to this someone.

Justin: Nah, I'd watch the White House burn. Maybe you should pick a better example.

People here talking about cost and responsibility, but the fire department has to take responsibility to do the job they are trained to do. I don;t care what the policy is, they should have put the fire out. I guess will just have to wait till someone dies before we do the right thing here.

Extortion is no way to run a Government. Only in the USA would you see such absurdity. Are we so inhumane now that for a few bucks we let a house burn down? Sounds like what the Mafia does to small businesses. Pay up for our protection?

JDawg: So if everyone in the county outside the city decided they didn't need to pay for the service, you think the city should just send the fire crews out there to put out their fires also?

What the city should do is not offer this service outside the city and they would not have to worry about sending a truck out at all because it is outside their city. Would you like that better?? The city is actually offering a service that they don't need to. Get it.

Taxes? taxes? and then you have to 2x pay an annual fee or your house burns. sad world to live in.

This is no different than what people are trying to do with healthcare. You've got this greedy group who try to take advantage of the system by saying they're not going to get sick so therefore they should not have to buy health insurance. Here you have a greedy group of people who try to take advantage of the system by saying they're not going to pay for fire service. When the actually need it they whine that they should get it for free.

So what do you do encourage people to take advantage of you, or have them take responsibility for their actions? The bottom line is that this should be a county tax, and to the people who don't like it, tough, You can't rob a bank either. Live with it.

Yeah, I thought that's what taxes were for too. Just evidence that our taxes our lining the politicians' and public union goons' pockets instead of basic benefits for the people - like FIRE PROTECTION!

No JC people are trying to get their taxes lowered by removing these services and paying them a la carte. In reality these services aren't optional and it's simply a way to get the dishonest to steal from you. If you want to deal with corruption, then deal with the corruption. Don't say you're not going to pay for a required service.

Here you have a greedy group of people who try to take advantage of the system by saying they're not going to pay for fire service. When the actually need it they whine that they should get it for free.

This is an ignorant statement times a million. People who don't carry insurance are not "greedy", they're usually the working poor who cannot afford it. Let's talk to the mechanics at the car dealership where I used to work for whom family health insurance would have cost two weeks of pay.

This is not true at all.

To USA1967 and anyone else who will listen:

That is the same thing our Creator told Moses at Mt. Sinai. I think the earth had better start paying attention before we devour and destroy one another as we are already far up the wrong road in that direction.

This is an ignorant statement times a million. People who don't carry insurance are not "greedy", they're usually the working poor who cannot afford it. Let's talk to the mechanics at the car dealership where I used to work for whom family health insurance would have cost two weeks of pay.

And those people should have government support, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying is that there are a whole bunch of people who can afford it and are not paying. They are gambling with your money and some have more means to pay than you. That's why you wrap it up in taxes and don't charge those that can't pay.

Think about it. If you really are poor and barely making ends meet then you are paying the same fee for Fire as the person in the million dollar neighborhood. This is another way to screw the poor.

This is big Govt at its best. When Big Govt started taxing people and property they said it was for such things as public services (police, trash, fire ect) so the Big Govt then overspends and cant manage thier budgets for the very services the taxes were supposed to be for in the first place. Who ends up paying? Its pathetic. The fire Co is there and just sits back and watches? Its criminal!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No what's criminal is these people going to their county commission meetings and whining that they shouldn't have to pay their firefighters and police and that it should be "voluntary", then complaining when they didn't receive a service they were unwilling to pay for.

Sorry if the people in a county are too greedy to pay their firefighters and police then I am not going to feel too sorry for them paying for the natural consequences of their actions.

If the firefighters were real men, they'd at least have gone in for the plasma screen, right? I mean, that's what they risk their lives for, eh?

Agreed. What's next. Pay us for our protection...oh wait, thats extortion. No, that's Tennessee.

Watching someones house burn down over a $75 fee is beyond comprehension to me and an act so disdainful and cruel I am ashamed I fought for this country.

What next, pay the cops more so they will protect you? Wait, that's Mafia...I mean Tennessee.

You people who say they deserve it make me sick. What the hell are they doing with the people taxes? That is what needs to be investigated.

I don't normaly reply to such post, but this one I can't let go. As a past firefighter and I hope a good guy, this just makes me want to throw up. My computer would smoke if I said what I think of this policy or the **** who enforce it.

However, Greenville, Texas has had this policy for maybe 20 years. I will not address my opinion on the city or the area, as I doubt the local goverment could read English.

Very, very, very, sad. I could almost cuss, but then I would lower myself to their level.

God help us!!!!

I WILL address my opinion of this city and area......a bunch of lowlife neanderthal knuckle dragging hillbillies!..... to let a neighbor lose everything they own, as far as I'm concerned they can let this city and IT'S BS officials shut down and revert to farmland!

No wonder the USA is sliding into oblivion!

P.S. A good place NOT to live!

our volunteer firefighters would have just put out the fire... and they don't make money like the firefighters in this article. It is an affront to the profession when they are ordered to stand by and watch as a fire consumes a home. What has our country come to when the all mighty dollar is more important than your fellow citizen.

That logic works both ways... what is $110 dollars when it comes to all your worldly possesions and the lives of your family?

52 weeks in a year, that only 2.12/week for fire coverage...less than the cost of a pack of duty free cigarettes.

If you got a big 4x4, $75 - $110, that's a couple of tanks of gas.

Let's talk to the mechanics at the car dealership where I used to work for whom family health insurance would have cost two weeks of pay.

So his "Choice" was to forgo health insurance, because it cost too much? If you chose to be a parent, you have to make a lot of choices... some good, some - not so much so.