» Politics and other things

Another Tennessee home goes up in flames, as the fire department watches

(17 posts)

  1. Brianl
  2. Vitalogy

    Good. I hope the fire dept continues to hold the line. If you don't pay your fee to be covered, don't expect to be covered!

    Posted on December 6, 2011 - 02:36 PM #
  3. Deane Johnson

    I'm on the cities side on this one. If there is a fee, then it should be paid or you lose. Sad that it happens, but if the fire department went ahead and fought the fire, then no one would pay the fee. Why should they in that case.

    Posted on December 6, 2011 - 02:41 PM #
  4. Chris_taylor

    At $75 a year you would think they could pay it. The city could have worked with the folks and have them pay in increments. $25 over 3 months seems reasonable. That at least shows good intent on the homeowners part. We often pay many of our bills using equal pay that averages out the monthly bills. Makes managing our bills easier.

    Had there been anyone who was trapped in the fire I think you would have seen some action by the fire dept. because that's just part of their DNA. However the other side of the coin is, what would have happened if a firefighter had been hurt dealing with this fire.

    As hard as it is for me to say this, I lean towards the city...but not by much.

    Posted on December 6, 2011 - 03:17 PM #
  5. NoParty

    Let's hope that more fire depts do this. I'd love to see more neighborhoods look like Detroit.

    Posted on December 6, 2011 - 05:38 PM #
  6. Listener_Pete

    I am completely against the city in this, life add property is far more important than money. What if the trees surrounding this place caught fire. There would be hell to pay. But this is what rednecks do...

    Posted on December 6, 2011 - 05:46 PM #
  7. duxrule

    Case in point #1 as to why taxes aren't all bad.

    Posted on December 6, 2011 - 07:39 PM #
  8. Vitalogy

    Listenerpete, c'mon. You must consider the consequenses of what you are supporting. It's already been addressed that if lives were on the line, they would act. But as is the case with most singlewides, it takes about 3 seconds to get out. Once the fire dept puts out a fire for someone who didn't pay, why should anyone bother to pay? If I know I can not pay and still be covered, I wouldn't pay and so what alot of others.

    Besides, a singlewide in a mobile home park has zero value. The loss is the personal property within the mobile home. I probably wouldn't pay $75/yr either to insure a non-asset. Difference being, I'd know my gamble and accept my loss if it occured without bitching about it.

    Posted on December 6, 2011 - 10:48 PM #
  9. Listener_Pete

    Sorry Vit, we live in a civil country. Watching a home burn when you have the equipment and know how to put it out and not doing it simply because the party didn't pay $75 is borderline criminal. People who think this way don't have the worldview like people who made this country a great nation. They are lowlife rednecks, which is sad.

    Posted on December 6, 2011 - 11:12 PM #
  10. missing_kskd

    This is a conflict of interest.

    Doing fire prevention for profit, or even on a services for dollar basis makes no sense.

    There is a fire department, and it should just be funded, because not everybody is able to pay, and the dilemma posed here can be avoided for a very low, distributed cost, and in return the citizens get a very high value.

    All we are seeing here is a prime case for not privatizing things, or breaking them out into pay for service models when said models do not ADD VALUE.

    There is NO value added for this arrangement. It is only a net loss, and a potential net risk increase for all involved.

    Good reason to not live in a backward red state too.

    Posted on December 6, 2011 - 11:26 PM #