Rural Tennessee Fire Sparks Conservative Ideological Debate

[keith99]

Bingo.

Except this was a government entity! It was NOT private concern. Oh the same thing MIGHT have happened with a private company, but I doubt it in this case. Since it happened with the same guy 3 years ago I'd bet a private concern would have come up with a punitive contract for those who wait. (And I'll bet the same people screaming now would scream over that).

What would be a good example of the failures of privatization would be where they let an uncovered house burn and then when it spread they lost or had damage to a covered house. A very good reason for cities to have a fire department who covers everyone.

 

[Ringo84]

It's just a house.

It's their livelihood - their home. It was allowed to burn down for a measly $75.

Despicable.
Ringo

 

[CyberPaladin]

It's their livelihood - their home. It was allowed to burn down for a measly $75.

Ringo don't be so naive we are talking about alot more then $75 if the fire department had let them get away with not paying the fee until after the fact twice then no one would pay the yearly fee.

 

[interpreter]

Poor people can't get fire protection? That's messed up. What would Jesus say?

 

[Ringo84]

if the fire department had let them get away with not paying the fee until after the fact twice then no one would pay the yearly fee.

Too bad. It was those firefighters' job to fight fire - regardless of $75 fees.
Ringo

 

[Supreme]

Except it wasn't there job to put out that fire. If anything the fire department was generous to have gone out and put a fire out for them 3 years ago when they didn't have coverage either they could have easily just let it burn then to but they try to be reasonable and this what happens these bums still refuse the yearly until the house is actauly burning.

Their job is to put out fires. Here in the UK at least, we don't have a selective Fire Service- they don't get to pick and choose which fires they want to tackle. Sure, the guy didn't pay his $75, but you must have seriously questionable morals to watch a man's house be destroyed whilst you do nothing, despite have the resources to put it out. This isn't about money- this is about morals, and it is morals that the firemen seemed to lack.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Poor people can't get fire protection? That's messed up. What would Jesus say?

Whatever he'd say, he'd be shouted down as a Socialist by the Christian Right in this country.

 

[Ringo84]

"The Christian Right isn't".
Ringo

 

[interpreter]

Whatever he'd say, he'd be shouted down as a Socialist by the Christian Right in this country.

You are so right. They don't realize that Jesus was the first communist.

 

[keith99]

Too bad. It was those firefighters' job to fight fire - regardless of $75 fees.
Ringo

So is it their job to fight fires in the next county? The next state? No their job is to fight fires in their city. The city has given those living outside the city the option of signing up to be covered by the city fire department.

And before anyone says cities do fight fires outside their boundries I'll point out these are under mutual aid agreements. Those are good for everyone, especially smaller cities as the number of stations available does not need to be as high if help will come.

 

[keith99]

You are so right. They don't realize that Jesus was the first communist.

I believe in just his own area the Essenes predated Jesus and seem a lot more communist.

 

[Ringo84]

No their job is to fight fires in their city. The city has given those living outside the city the option of signing up to be covered by the city fire department.

And they didn't do their job. Because of a $75 fee.
Ringo

 

[pgp_protector]

And they didn't do their job. Because of a $75 fee.
Ringo

That wasn't their job as with no fee paid, that person wasn't under the extended service coverage.

 

[Ringo84]

A firefighter's job is to fight fire - not to quibble over service fees.

And why is fire service subject to such fees in the first place?
Ringo

 

[keith99]

A firefighter's job is to fight fire - not to quibble over service fees.

And why is fire service subject to such fees in the first place?
Ringo

Ringo, I know you are not stupid. Why do you continue to ignore the fact this was outside of the city that pays the fire fighters? The city was good enough to give people living outside but near the city to have the option of buying the service from the cite.

If the local conversation is anything like the conversation on this board expect the city to discontinue that option.

 

[Ringo84]

Ringo, I know you are not stupid. Why do you continue to ignore the fact this was outside of the city that pays the fire fighters? The city was good enough to give people living outside but near the city to have the option of buying the service from the cite.

Nobody should have to "buy" fire service. It should be provided as a service by local government.

I also don't buy the "the fire department was outside the city limits" argument. Who is going to fight fires in that area - Starfleet? Someone has to do it.
Ringo

 

[AirPo]

Nobody should have to "buy" fire service. It should be provided as a service by local government.

I also don't buy the "the fire department was outside the city limits" argument. Who is going to fight fires in that area - Starfleet? Someone has to do it.
Ringo

The fire department wasn't outside the city limits, the fire was.

 

[CyberPaladin]

Nobody should have to "buy" fire service. It should be provided as a service by local government.

I also don't buy the "the fire department was outside the city limits" argument. Who is going to fight fires in that area - Starfleet? Someone has to do it.
Ringo

Ringo it doesn't really matter if you buy it or not a town has no legal responsibilty to provide government services outside of its city limits. As far as who's responsibilty it would be it would fall either to the county or the township to provide these services. And for some odd reason the county went with this optional fee route rather then a traditional tax probably to avoid complaints of high taxes, of course the problem is it doesn't guarantee coverage if your some bum who is to cheap to pay for the services.

 

[Spartan 421]

So the poor get to burn?

 

[Ringo84]

As far as who's responsibilty it would be it would fall either to the county or the township to provide these services.

And since the county or township has no fire services, Obion bears the onus of fighting fires in that community.

And for some odd reason the county went with this optional fee route rather then a traditional tax probably to avoid complaints of high taxes

Higher taxes would have been much better than refusing to protect someone's burning home because of a paltry $75.

it doesn't guarantee coverage if your some bum who is to cheap to pay for the services.

This is not "some bum" who is "cheap" but someone who simply forgot to pay the fee. Should his house have burned down simply because the payment of an arbitrary and unnecessary fee slipped his mind?

I doubt you would be singing such a tune if it was your house that had burned down. It's easy to play the heavy when it's someone else's property.
Ringo