God bless the South Fulton Fire Department

[Sava]

btw, anyone who lives in a place where a direction is part of the name deserves to have their house burnt to death

[C0ckney]

Where we live, if you call 911 and EMS services are provided, they bill you for it. It's a simple and a direct way to pay for the services you use, and they don't refuse to help people.
While I can understand the departments need to fund the services they provide, to sit back and watch a house burn when they could have done something about it... that's just wrong.

They should have set up a system where those that pay the fee up front have no additional costs, and those that don't, get charged the full cost of putting out the fire plus a "service" fee that is large enough to make people want to pay up front.

But to be at the scene of a fire and not attempt to put it out... they were indeed sending a message... but not the one they probably wanted to.

this is it in a nutshell. if people don't want to pay for the protection, bill them for the cost if they need to use the service.

to have firefighters being at the scene of a fire and doing nothing is shocking.

[MikeH]

But then no-one would pay, as most would judge the risk to be very low and decide to pay when they needed the service.

So if there were no fires, there'd be no funding and the department couldn't function.

[Pax]

this is it in a nutshell. if people don't want to pay for the protection, bill them for the cost if they need to use the service.

to have firefighters being at the scene of a fire and doing nothing is shocking.

If people make an adult decision that they are not going to get the service then there is no need to bill them because they have already decided that they would rather there house burned down than to pay $75.00 for fire services. If the service was a bill as you go then the rate for everyone using it would become variable and people would end up having bills that they can't pay and the fire budget would be wrecked.

[C0ckney]

But then no-one would pay, as most would judge the risk to be very low and decide to pay when they needed the service.

So if there were no fires, there'd be no funding and the department couldn't function.

well if there were no fires they wouldn't need a fire service.

i'm not convinced that most people would choose not to pay. the things that people routinely buy insurance for have a very low risk of actually occuring, but people buy the insurance to avoid the large portenial hassles/costs should that event occur. i don't believe that giving people the option to pay a huge fee to save their house and possessions in the event of a fire instead of a small annual fee to cover the risk will change people's behaviour very much.

[DinoDoc]

i'm not convinced that most people would choose not to pay.

You have an example of people choosing not to pay in the OP.

[C0ckney]

i don't think the point i made was difficult to understand, but i suppose i could try to use shorter words if that would help you.

[DinoDoc]

i don't think the point i made was difficult to understand, but i suppose i could try to use shorter words if that would help you.

They've already rejected that. Repeatedly.Directly on this point:

The Obion County Mayor Benny McGuire said the current system isn't ideal but he feels it's the best of the three options they have.

The first one is to create a countywide fire department from the ground up. But the mayor said that would be very expensive and would require a significant property tax increase.

Secondly, the county could institute a smaller tax increase and use that money to supplement existing fire departments that would agree to guarantee coverage countywide.

The third option is the current system, known as pay for spray. County residents who want fire protection pay the nearest fire department $75 a year. But no pay equals no spray.

Lots of folks have accepted that last option, but there are still plenty of people who don't like it.

I'm also not convinced that letting people pay after the fact will generate enough money to have the equipment and man power to cover areas outside of the city.

[MikeH]

You need to maintain capabilities above what fires you might have in an average year to deal with exceptional situations.

So if you only pay to spray, then people who have fires will be subsidising the extinguishing of fires in communal areas, and exceptional events like forest fires (or whatever might be similar locally)

[rah]

Actually I have to applaud the fire department. Despite knowing that they wouldn't be much help they still went. Why? Because they wanted to make sure no one got hurt. If someone had been in danger, you could bet they would have rushed in to help.

These people were aware of the fee and gambled on their property. (not their lives) Same thing as insurance in my book. If these people lost their home and didn't have insurance, we would have never seen it reported here. If they had insurance, it doesn't really matter if the place burned since it would be replaced. I'm guessing the didn't.

While I doubt I could stand there and not do anything while the place burned, I'm sure they're been ordered to act that way they did.

[MikeH]

Not that "just following orders" is any excuse for doing something wrong.

But I agree with the first 2 paragraphs.

[rah]

No, but if you're told you'll be fired if you do, that's a slightly different animal. (but I agree that it's not a great excuse)

[C0ckney]

They've already rejected that.

that does not address what ming and i were talking about.

I'm also not convinced that letting people pay after the fact will generate enough money to have the equipment and man power to cover areas outside of the city.

do you have any evidence which supports this view?

if they are attending the fires and therefore paying for the manpower, fuel etc. then that suggests that they have the money to cover those areas. the only additional cost would the water they use to put the fire out.

[DinoDoc]

I'll bet real money that any insurance contract in the area either reduces or denies coverage in the event they don't pay the 75$.

[DinoDoc]

if they are attending the fires and therefore paying for the manpower, fuel etc. then that suggests that they have the money to cover those areas. the only additional cost would the water they use to put the fire out.

They likely attended the fire to make sure no lives were at risk and to keep it away from the property of people that paid.