Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you under the impression that this fire dept was a private company? This was a government run fire department that did this.
Glen Beck actually sides with this government run entity and the libs come flying out of the gate blaming Republicans for being cold hearted.
wow!
libs are not "pro-government run entities". we are not going to love beck for agreeing with himself and patting himself in the back. this is what regres...i mean, conservatism leads to!
... imagine yourself as a regresive in Georgia, having to pay individualy for fire protection as your neighbor's house burns down before your cold starring eyes and mocking smile at the thought of his mistake.
Was this homeowner an elderly grandfather who was slipping mentally or was he a soldier stationed in Iraq for a year?
NO, you people can "what if" until the cows come home but the house is gone and there's only a couple people to blame. The idiot burning trash too close to the house and the homeowner for not paying the $75 fee.
the ignorant regresive conservative government is to blame...for establishing and maintaining an idiodic law. you are guilty of all the good you didn't do. at least try to remember the golden rule...hypocrites. i already explained your type of people on my previous post.
the ignorant regresive conservative government is to blame...for establishing and maintaining an idiodic law. you are guilty of all the good you didn't do. at least try to remember the golden rule...hypocrites. i already explained your type of people on my previous post.
And yet, your big government, compassionate liberal types are the first to blame freedom. The man chose to take the risk, and the dice came up snake eyes. That's all it is. The bleeding heart liberals will point the finger at Libertarians, but they won't blame the government run entity, no sir. That would make then blasphemers. It's the socialist agenda that simply tells the homeowner "No" when he asks if he can pay while his house is burning. Assume for a minute if you will, that the fire department had been privately owned. Would that company sit a watch the house burn? While entirely possible, it is highly unlikely. Sorry it doesn't agree with your sensitivities, but that's freedom.
And yet, your big government, compassionate liberal types are the first to blame freedom. The man chose to take the risk, and the dice came up snake eyes. That's all it is. The bleeding heart liberals will point the finger at Libertarians, but they won't blame the government run entity, no sir. That would make then blasphemers. It's the socialist agenda that simply tells the homeowner "No" when he asks if he can pay while his house is burning. Assume for a minute if you will, that the fire department had been privately owned. Would that company sit a watch the house burn? While entirely possible, it is highly unlikely. Sorry it doesn't agree with your sensitivities, but that's freedom.
Enough with the blathering smears.
Your freedom ends where mine begins and if you're my neighbor you have no right to jeopardize the safety of an entire neighborhood. This passive aggressive plan to eliminate freeloaders is going to backfire and raise everyones premiums.
The link clearly stated that the fair association gets grants from the state and in past years they have in turn given grants to different groups like your fire department. Did you even read the link?
Most FD's get some sort of grants. Does that make it wrong? My point was that they do not receive property tax dollars, fire tax dollars or subscription fee money.
My educated guess is that nearly every fire department in this nation receives grant money, of some sort. It could be UASI/Homeland security, AFG, SAFER or some kind of state level shared revenue. The fact is that a fire service is very expensive to operate, and most municipalities would not be able to function at a high level of service without support from sources other than property/local taxes.
As is evidenced in this area, there is no fire service outside of South Fulton; it is not economically possible outside of the city. Even a 100% volunteer department is expensive to operate, effectively and safely. Gear is expensive, training takes time and rigs must be maintained; that's just the way it is.
The residents chose this way because it apparently saves them some money in the form of taxes.
My whole problem is with a couple of different points. First, the homeowner chooses to live where he lives. He also knows full well what the services are for his community (at least he should). He really has no complaint for what happened, and should just shut up. He is trying to play the victim here, and he is not. Seventy-five dollars was more important to him than apparently his home or pets were. He is also a jag-off for putting those firefighters into the position he did. I guarantee that they did not wish to watch his home and possessions burn, or stand by while his pets lost their lives in the home. I don't know of anyone in this field who enjoys watching anyone or anything lose their life or possessions.
Secondly, someone came to the city and requested some sort of response into the non-protected county. The city decided to make responses out there, and to charge a minor fee to perhaps off set some expense.
I believe that the city is wrong from a professional perspective, because they do have a policy to respond out in the county. It is a short-sited policy, in my opinion. They should have found another way recoup some expense. For me and my opinion, they should provide their service to all in the areas for which they respond, or they should provide no service to areas outside the city.
It also makes my skin grate when people start talking about the fire service as a business. It isn't, and it can never be one. There will never be a profit in it.
It is a service that some in a community may never use, or they may use it several times, or more. You never do know. That doesn't mean that efficiency and cost-effectiveness shouldn't be thought about or implemented. For instance; efficiency is not having the fire companies responding to more calls, efficiency is having a response time that is as fast as possible with a professional crew at your door, for any type of emergency. It is also a service that all who live in a service area should be entitled to. I know I am going to sound like a liberal talking like that, but this is one obligation the government has to provide in our society.
I like the link you provided. A $100,000 grant going to the FAIRGROUNDS for the building of a multi-purpose facility at the fairgrounds. That grant has NOTHING to do with the CCFR. Below is this statement:
Last year MCCF donated to Needline Food Pantry, local churches, The Angel (Health Care) Clinic, Calloway County Santa Project, Calloway County DES Rescue Squad, Calloway County Fire and Rescue, Coats for the Community, Food Baskets for the Elderly, Hooked on Fishing, non-profit sports leagues, individuals that experienced hardship (such as fire, accident, etc.), 4-H, FFA, Calloway County High School Track Team, Farmers’ Market of Murray-Calloway County, and the Kentucky Association of Fairs and Horse Shows Young Adult Scholarship Fund.
Now where you are getting that they received large grants out of that...I dunno. More spin I see. I told you that the Calloway County Fire Rescue is funded by grants and donations. You basically called me a liar. Donations and grants...not property taxes or subscription fee's.
I suspect that since the county has commissioners charged with fire department and emergency services supervision, that they do receive funding from the county which would be tax dollars from the citizens. Since Calloway County does not post its budget on-line, there is no internet access. But if you went to the county offices and requested it, the budget should be public information, and you could find out exactly how much the county contributes to the Fire and Rescue service. I'm not calling you a liar, but I don't think you really know how your fire department is funded.
It harms esprit de corp grievously. It harmed esprit de corp every moment the coast guard is told to sit down when they clearly see danger to life health and safety of citizens, but lawyers argue over who's gonna pay.
Darkatt Barring outrageous circumstances prevailing (tornadoes or regional floods etc), no one should have to doubt the 9-11 system in place is there for all as needed. TommyGavin I support you and don't want you to back down from principles either, although I understand your orders must be obeyed for now. Your Oath is sacred and I honor it by challenging the flawed policy. I'm sorry we let you down.
How many thousands of acres of rural west and southwest should be permitted to burn because one a-hole didn't want to pay $75? Can we garnish his wages for 3 trillion in damages? From an actuarial perspective, I think the insurance industry would want that universal system (that many of us have false security about) in place to minimize losses not only for themselves, but for their customers. If I live in a neighborhood surrounded by deadbeat no pay insurance, what premium am I compelled to pay? How many states in the union have rider clauses in car insurance near doubling our premiums to force us to pay for uninsured motorists?
Correct, and the rest of us in universal systems with insurance policies are subsidizing their arrangement. They're at greater risk, their policies are created to be affordable at the expense of those who not at greater risk- risk has been cost shifted off them. Thumbing their noses at universal systems could come back to bite them in the butt when universal systems fed up being generous with ingrates petition the actuaries to wall themselves off from the assigned risk communities.
A substantial lien ($1,000) could be placed upon the insurance check directly through the insurance company. I think even the insurance co would agree that mitigating a fire is good for biz.
It's not moot. Living creatures perished in that fire. Shame on humanity's neglect of animals and the cavalier attitudes of all too many in America.
You're right the insurance is paying but in future this incident can be grounds for drastically raising premiums even more in the entire neighborhood and any other neighborhood adopting this policy. I can't blame them if they did because this dysfunctional policy is unbelievably myopic. Fire recognizes no boundary and abides no law of civilization. Picture this; if the neighbors house caught fire and he had highly combustible material (fertilizer, 40 paint cans, gas cans, LP tanks etc) the entire neighborhood could have caught fire rapidly going beyond the ability of one or two meager pumper trucks to fight. No policy regarding fire services should run antithetical to the oath of firefighters. It's just wrong on so many levels.
What "neighborhood"? The house a quarter-mile down the road?
And I understand that you place a premium on the animals' lives that were lost. I do, too, because I have pets and if they perished in a fire I'd be bereft. But the homeowner had time to get the pets out of the house, and didn't. And once the house was burning, even if it were my house and the pets I adore, I would not risk the life of a human being to save those pets. I love my animals, I would risk my life to save them. But I wouldn't ask someone else to risk their lives. They're my responsibility. No one else's. Just like the animals that perished were the homeowner's responsibility.
My educated guess is that nearly every fire department in this nation receives grant money, of some sort. It could be UASI/Homeland security, AFG, SAFER or some kind of state level shared revenue. The fact is that a fire service is very expensive to operate, and most municipalities would not be able to function at a high level of service without support from sources other than property/local taxes.
Since ALL government money is TAXPAYER money, and since fire departments can only serve a very limited area, and since every locale needs some sort of fire department, why would any money OTHER than local money be used to support anyt fire department? If you expect state money, or national money, to pay for a fire department, you are expecting people from somewhere else to pay for your fire department without ever having any benefit for the money they pay. Why would anyone expect this?
I happen to believe that it should have been (and I believe it was) put to the residents; pay for the fire department through a tax. But if the residents vote no, they have to live by that choice. And those that want protection from fire, and are willing to pay for it, get it. We all make choices. As Americans, we have the right to make stupid choices, and to live with the repurcussions of them. In this case, the homeowmer who chose to not pay for fire protection will now deal with the repurcussions of his choice.
Since ALL government money is TAXPAYER money, and since fire departments can only serve a very limited area, and since every locale needs some sort of fire department, why would any money OTHER than local money be used to support anyt fire department? If you expect state money, or national money, to pay for a fire department, you are expecting people from somewhere else to pay for your fire department without ever having any benefit for the money they pay. Why would anyone expect this?
I don't disagree with you, in general terms. A fire department is a local issue, best handled locally, as each and every city/county/township is mostly unique with distinct hazards to each. The cause for much of these grants is open to scrutiny and, I think you'll find me in agreement with you in many aspects.
The exception being with UASI and Homeland security, which are point specific to counter-terrorism, and must be used as such. Directly, this pertains to structural collapse/USAR and hazardous materials. As an example, all 26 of the FEMA USAR teams are funded thru federal money, but entirely staffed with professional firefighters from local departments. This program has been expanded in the past few years to include more personnel in more places, mostly due to lessons learned following 9/11.
However, these resources are available to everyone, everywhere in this Nation. This also includes victims of hurricanes, tornadoes or other natural or man made disasters.
I only brought it up in this thread because it is entirely possible that South Fulton was already funding its department, to some extent, with tax dollars from other sources. I don't know factually whether they have shared revenue in Tennessee, and if they do, whether South Fulton has used such funding. I simply bring it up in the context of the discussion. Perhaps the home owner had already contributed to some of the funding of this department thru state income tax, sales tax or even federal income tax.
I don't want to detract the debate much more, but jurisdictional boundaries are starting to disappear across the nation, between cities and counties as far as emergency response is concerned. Part of that is due to shared revenues and federal grants, but it also is in trying to function better with more efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan
I happen to believe that it should have been (and I believe it was) put to the residents; pay for the fire department through a tax. But if the residents vote no, they have to live by that choice. And those that want protection from fire, and are willing to pay for it, get it. We all make choices. As Americans, we have the right to make stupid choices, and to live with the repurcussions of them. In this case, the homeowmer who chose to not pay for fire protection will now deal with the repurcussions of his choice.
I understand and appreciate your perspective. I just happen to try to view it as I may have, had I been the department responding to this. People blame the firefighters, no matter how it is justified. In fact, one firefighter was physically assaulted by a family member of the affected homeowner.
Who was the "winner" here?
These guys were damned if they did, and damned if they didn't.
I guess the crux of my criticism with the actual department is that they should either agree to provide service for everywhere they choose to respond to, or not respond outside of their city limits. The seventy-five dollar fee, in all likelihood, does not do much to ease their budget. It could also be argued that the tax-payers in the city are still left at risk by their responding to the homes who paid the fee. I highly doubt that they recall off duty members to staff rigs while they're handling a fire out of the city. I still stand by my assertion that it is a bad policy by the city fire department.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) is receiving death threats on a daily basis. And apparently they had a good plan back in 1987 on the table, but guess what got in the way. 
