Mat-Su cabin burns down and fire dept would not respond! (Fairbanks: loans, homes)

[roadfamily6now]

Originally Posted by Lakester

Marty has good advice for all not living next door to a fire / rescue unit.

You are the first line of defence to save your property.

I have 2 extinguishers in kitchen area, 2 in basement, 1 in bedroom and one upstairs and of course alarms on each level. OH and 1 in the truck also.

Hear hear!

[stiffnecked]

I lived in a couple of villages that had firetrucks. Totally useless in the winter as they had no place to park them inside. They drained the water tanks and there they sat until spring time. Another village had firetrucks, a fire station, equipment galore. The only thing they lacked was sober firefighters. You've got to watch out for yourself. In Ketchikan we kept a gas pump and hoses on hand in case our water storage tanks needed to be used for firefighting purposes. I'm glad I don't have to worry about that anymore.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Big G

This is nothing unusual. I have seen many, many similar stories over the years throughout the United States.

What they did was standard practice for voluntary fire protection districts. They will save lives for free. If you want your property saved, you need to pony up ahead of time.

If they *did* put out the fire, they would have removed any incentive for ANYONE to pay their contribution to the fire brigade. It's a reflection of human nature, not the cold-heartedness of the firemen.

Human nature=greed.

I've never had much respect for anyone who makes their money off of others' suffering/loss. Funeral directors, lawyers, most doctors, my most hated: dentists, etc., I have little respect for any of them.

I can't say what's standard practice elsewhere but here (Vermont), when there's a need, any surrounding fire departments will assist with putting out a fire, including volunteer departments (being a rural state much of our firefighting is done by volunteer departments). It's not uncommon, for instance, for a small department to be overwhelmed with a large fire so firefighters from neighboring towns will show up...

Seems to work fairly well. Volunteer firefighters are called as such because they are volunteers, not paid anything. Various fundraising efforts, grants, etc., seems to work to get and maintain the equipment here.

The firefighting thing in Alaska has always left me scratching my head. Certainly not everyplace can be covered given the size and the remoteness of so much of it, but for firefighters to literally show up and watch a house burn leaves me with a fairly poor opinion of them.

Just my 2 cents.

[stiffnecked]

It has absolutely nothing to do with greed. Liability insurance policies prevent many of these fire departments from operating outside of their service areas. You have a lot to learn about Alaska. These volunteer firefighters are brave, dedicated men and women. They can only operate within the dictates of their departments policies and procedures. This isn't Vermont.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by stiffnecked

It has absolutely nothing to do with greed. Liability insurance policies prevent many of these fire departments from operating outside of their service areas. You have a lot to learn about Alaska. These volunteer firefighters are brave, dedicated men and women. They can only operate within the dictates of their departments policies and procedures. This isn't Vermont.

Forgot to add to my list above, insurance companies...one almost killed my mother when I was a child in fact....

I can only speak for myself but if I were a volunteer firefighter, I wouldn't stand and watch a place burn, I'd "unofficially" help fight the fire.

[RayinAK]

Marty Van Diest has already explained it once or twice. He is telling the truth, so please listen. Home insurance is a lot more expensive if one does not live within a fire district. It does not matter if the fire district is made of volunteers or not. The firefighters from one district can assist another district, but only when approved to do so or at the request of the other district. If you are a volunteer firefighter and want to jump in and fight a fire, first make sure that you can afford possible lawsuits that could go into millions of $.
Now, if I see a house on fire, I immediately call 911 and then go and see if of the occupants is still inside, but this is a completely different thing than fighting a fire.
-----

The whole thing is much like when one gives a friend or anybody else a ride in one's car. I remember years ago in NY, when the son of a coworker of mine, a college student, gave his best friend a ride. My coworker was paying for his son's car insurance. Well, his son had an accident, and his best friend ended on a wheel chair after the accident. The insurance company covered the limit of the insurance policy, but the family of the guy in the wheel chair took my coworker to court. The lawsuit was over a million $, so my coworker ended losing his home to pay for the whole thing.

[roadfamily6now]

and that brings us to another well debated topic. Lawsuits.

I think I rather like ArcticHomesteard, you're my kinda guy.

[Big G]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

I can only speak for myself but if I were a volunteer firefighter, I wouldn't stand and watch a place burn, I'd "unofficially" help fight the fire.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess arctichomesteader has never actually been a volunteer firefighter. So it's easy to make promises about what you'd do in a situation you haven't been in.

Now, I have never been a volunteer firefighter either. However, one of my college acquaintances was, and his father was the grand poobah of his area's volunteer fire protection district. I got to hear a lot of eye-opening stories. This was in the Midwest, so the details will be different than in Alaska (among other things, joining the FPD was a property-by-property decision), but the general principle is the same.

It comes down to this - a volunteer FPD is a group of citizens banding together to watch out for each other. A small group of them donate a large amount of time and money. They ask the larger part of the community to do nothing more than donate a reasonable amount of money. When someone chooses 1) to sit on the butt and not volunteer, and 2) to not even toss in the requested money to pay for training, equipment, etc. - well, in my book, they've made the decision to not be part of that community, at least as far as fire protection goes.

Getting back to the "war stories" from my college buddy:

One area resident would openly mock the in-town fund-raising efforts of the firefighters, and attempts to collect the yearly dues were met with comments along the lines of "You wouldn't DARE let my house or barn burn down - why should I pay you for doing your job?"

This is where I tell you his house burned down. No, that didn't happen, but they had standing orders, specific for this guy, given his hostility towards the FPD, to respond to any event at that location by arriving in full gear and hosing down the neighbors on both sides.

It's greed, all right - the greed of those who want a free ride.


And for those who say the firefighters should put out the fire and then send a bill - this particular FPD had that policy. About 10% of those bills were paid, almost always by insurance companies, not by the owners. The rest went partially or fully unpaid. A good chunk of those property owners, even after having their fire put out, continued to not join the FPD. Again - greed on the part of the owners, not the FPD.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Big G

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess arctichomesteader has never actually been a volunteer firefighter. So it's easy to make promises about what you'd do in a situation you haven't been in.

Now, I have never been a volunteer firefighter either. However, one of my college acquaintances was, and his father was the grand poobah of his area's volunteer fire protection district. I got to hear a lot of eye-opening stories. This was in the Midwest, so the details will be different than in Alaska (among other things, joining the FPD was a property-by-property decision), but the general principle is the same.

It comes down to this - a volunteer FPD is a group of citizens banding together to watch out for each other. A small group of them donate a large amount of time and money. They ask the larger part of the community to do nothing more than donate a reasonable amount of money. When someone chooses 1) to sit on the butt and not volunteer, and 2) to not even toss in the requested money to pay for training, equipment, etc. - well, in my book, they've made the decision to not be part of that community, at least as far as fire protection goes.

Getting back to the "war stories" from my college buddy:

One area resident would openly mock the in-town fund-raising efforts of the firefighters, and attempts to collect the yearly dues were met with comments along the lines of "You wouldn't DARE let my house or barn burn down - why should I pay you for doing your job?"

This is where I tell you his house burned down. No, that didn't happen, but they had standing orders, specific for this guy, given his hostility towards the FPD, to respond to any event at that location by arriving in full gear and hosing down the neighbors on both sides.

It's greed, all right - the greed of those who want a free ride.


And for those who say the firefighters should put out the fire and then send a bill - this particular FPD had that policy. About 10% of those bills were paid, almost always by insurance companies, not by the owners. The rest went partially or fully unpaid. A good chunk of those property owners, even after having their fire put out, continued to not join the FPD. Again - greed on the part of the owners, not the FPD.

Doubtful. There's so many government dollars floating around for fire departments to get equipped...I know that much having seen the financial reports of some in VT...

No I haven't been a firefighter, I have little tolerance for extreme heat, so it's not a job I'll sign up for unless necessary, though I'd help in any way I can if someone's house was on fire. You don't know me well at all, so I don't think you can comment on what I would or wouldn't do for a neighbor. People have lost homes here, there've been floods, etc. Most of us never had money in Northern VT where I grew up but we'd help each other out when needed, whether it's re-building someone's house or cleaning up after storms or looking after livestock when someone's ill.

I do know several volunteer firefighters here. Perhaps it's a cultural difference but no one is going to let anyone's house burn down here because they didn't donate to something...but then, most people here don't have spare money most of the time either.

Several posters here disagree with me but between the rep points and some DM's I know there's a few more who don't...

[Big G]

You don't know me well at all, so I don't think you can comment on what I would or wouldn't do for a neighbor.

Point taken.

For me, I view fire protection as a service. Either you've purchased it (through taxes in most incorporated areas, through membership in a FPD in the sticks) or you haven't.

I think the restaurant analogy posted earlier describes my take on it perfectly. Now, you may find the occasional restaurant owner willing to give free food to those in need. That's great for them. But I'm not going to hold a "fairly poor opinion" of any restauranteur who does not choose to help out. After all, if a restaurant gave away free food all the time, who would pay?

Once all the people are out of the burning building, there is ZERO distinction between the two situations in my mind. Heck, you could argue the restaurant owner chasing away the bums is more "evil" - he's withholding something essential to life, while the firefighters are just letting a building burn down.

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this point.