Libertarianism In Action — Obion County, TN

[Kanastrous]

I think it's been clear for several pages now that the system in place there was an undesirable approach which was the best they could come up with, under the circumstances. Do we *really* have to keep going around in they need a better system circles? Yes, it's very clear that the system in place was a poor one. It's also the reality with which the people there are obliged to deal. Can *we* deal with the reality, too, instead of well, *this* is stupid/well *that* sucks*/well *I* would have done it differently. Yes, sure, fine, so stipulated. Also...not very relevant to what actually happened.

[RogueIce]

You know what happens if the firefighters take payment on the spot? The next year, a whole bunch of people don't pay their fees figuring "hey I don't need to, they'll cut me the same deal as that old guy and if not I'll sue them". Then the fire department's revenue drops significantly and everyone's fire protection is endangered. Evidently this is exactly what's happening in the other deparments in the county where they are going bankrupt on the $500 per call model. If those departments also average 23 calls a year, that's only $11,500 in fees, a pittance to the costs of a fire department, assuming that everyone pays, and apparently you can't compel them to.

So, the issue is not merely the fee vs. the harm of the fire, but how this will affect future ability to fund the department's obligations in view of the fact that they are serving an area with people who won't even elect a county government that will tax them for something as basic as a fire department.

Then they should use it as an incentive to rethink their funding model.

Ironically enough, the best thing the municipal departments could do would be to refuse any calls to the county, period. This would then serve to force the county government to either provide its own fire service, or to get the county to cough up the money to pay for the contract, rather than putting it on the citizens themselves. Essentially, they'd come out and say, "We're not going to take money from individual residents anymore. The county itself has to contract out for it from now on." So either the county finds the money to do it, or county residents get pissed at them and vote in new members until it's settled.

As it stands, the fire departments offering the service as they are (which they are not under any obligation to do in the first place; whether you feel that is right or wrong, it is nonetheless the way things are) are caught in an unwinnable scenario:

With the subscriber thing, if you don't pay, they don't respond. This then leads to incidents like this, where you get a lot of outrage and people blame the fire department for the problem, even though they can't really afford to go and provide a free service for an area they technically don't have to cover in the first place (rather than blaming the county government for doing absolutely nothing to provide fire protection for its residents).

If you go with 'we'll respond and bill you later' the law is such that if people don't actually pay their bills there's jack and shit the FD can do to try and collect. And, obviously, people who know this will simply refuse to pay at all, because it's not like there's any reason for them to do so; they won't get in trouble and the fire department shows up anyway and they don't need to spend a dime. This is, as stated earlier in the thread, causing financial difficulties for the departments which operate this way.

In an ideal world, the county (or state, or maybe even the Feds) would step in and take care of the funding. But, stuck with things as they are on the ground right now (ie: the scenario they faced at the time of this article) what exactly can they do?

Refuse to respond to calls from people who don't pay beforehand, and suffer the resulting outrage when somebody loses a home? Or go out there and provide a free service to people who aren't paying that they can't really afford to provide, thus sinking them into financial debt and risking service to everybody (including residents of the city which is actually paying for them to do their job)?

As I said before, ideally they would not be caught in this situation. But they are, and unless you have a magic wand and can either change federal law or magic up some funding from somewhere, they're stuck with it. So being forced to deal with the reality as it is (and not as we would prefer it to be) what would you have them do?

[Broomstick]

According to the link I posted a few pages ago they were burning trash and it got out of control. Whether or not they were being careless about it is a matter of speculation.

I'd call it a given that building, placing, and burning a trash fire so that it can do the damage reported is the result of carelessness. But since we weren't there I have to allow as that it may not be the case.

We don't know what the specific conditions were like, so any suggestion of carelessness is conjecture at best, projection at worse. For all we know the wind could have picked up and caused a few embers to drift.

I found a video link that, apparently, shows actually footage of the fire burning. I was watching the trees and local vegetation around the burning house and did not see indications of much wind. That doesn't mean there couldn't have been a freak gust, but it's unlikely.

Burning trash is not inherently a careless activity. However, you do have be careful. And if you do burn trash on your property you're fucking stupid to not pay a $75 fee for fire coverage. When I burn stuff on the property I live on I keep the fire small, away from buildings, don't burn on windy days, and have water on hand to immediately douse the fire if there is any sign of things getting out of hand. On the other hand, I've seen people build massive bonfires of leaves and garbage near trees or unmown/wild fields (around here, untended grass grows 2-3 meters high, that's what being a prairie is about) and yeah, that can get out of control real quick.

In the video the homeowner says there had been a fire on the property three years ago where the fire department put out the fire then allowed him to pay the fee the next day. Which makes me think he had skipped paying the fee thinking/hoping he could do that again if the need arose. Maybe that was a factor? There also may have been some inconsistency in how this rule was applied, with some folks who didn't pay fees getting fires put out and some not.

[General Zod]

I think it's been clear for several pages now that the system in place there was an undesirable approach which was the best they could come up with, under the circumstances. Do we *really* have to keep going around in they need a better system circles? Yes, it's very clear that the system in place was a poor one. It's also the reality with which the people there are obliged to deal. Can *we* deal with the reality, too, instead of well, *this* is stupid/well *that* sucks*/well *I* would have done it differently. Yes, sure, fine, so stipulated. Also...not very relevant to what actually happened.

The reality is you're defending the actions of a system that's morally indefensible by saying they were "just following orders". It would have been one thing if they had simply not shown up, but showing up and doing nothing in order to set an example is pretty reprehensible.

[RogueIce]

The reality is you're defending the actions of a system that's morally indefensible by saying they were "just following orders". It would have been one thing if they had simply not shown up, but showing up and doing nothing in order to set an example is pretty reprehensible.

In fairness, that's not what the article indicated they did. At first, they did simply refuse to show up. They only went out there after the fire spread to somebody who had paid (and so they went to put it out). According to the video, they actually left before the nonpaid house had stopped burning, so it seems less that they just "watched it burn" to set an example, and more likely they were just wrapping up/briefly monitoring from the fire they did put out before leaving.

[Lagmonster]

The reality is you're defending the actions of a system that's morally indefensible by saying they were "just following orders". It would have been one thing if they had simply not shown up, but showing up and doing nothing in order to set an example is pretty reprehensible.

In fairness, that's not what the article indicated they did. At first, they did simply refuse to show up. They only went out there after the fire spread to somebody who had paid (and so they went to put it out). According to the video, they actually left before the nonpaid house had stopped burning, so it seems less that they just "watched it burn" to set an example, and more likely they were just wrapping up/briefly monitoring from the fire they did put out before leaving.

Besides, and I'm saying this twice, it would be worth it to find out if the firefighters would have been taking an unacceptably large risk by helping the guy. Moral grounds are nice, but I would probably understand a man who refused to risk his job, health, and life on an act of nobility. But again, I don't know the legal or ethical issues binding firefighters.

[General Zod]

Besides, and I'm saying this twice, it would be worth it to find out if the firefighters would have been taking an unacceptably large risk by helping the guy. Moral grounds are nice, but I would probably understand a man who refused to risk his job, health, and life on an act of nobility. But again, I don't know the legal or ethical issues binding firefighters.

Well, they already risk their health and their life simply by being in that line of work. For a fun read, the Fulton fire department safety manual. PDF linky

1.1.2. A basic level of risk is recognized and accepted, in a measured and
controlled manner, in efforts that are routinely employed to save
lives and property; however
1.1.2.1. No level of risk to responders is acceptable in situations
where there is no potential to save lives or property.

It seems to me there was no real risk for them to spray down the property with water.

[Kanastrous]

It seems to me there was no real risk for them to spray down the property with water.

This is one of a lot of assumptions being made in this thread that has zero support from the reportage. I don't know what the risk would have been in doing that, either, but that's not always all that's required to kill a fire.

[General Zod]

It seems to me there was no real risk for them to spray down the property with water.

This is one of a lot of assumptions being made in this thread that has zero support from the reportage. I don't know what the risk would have been in doing that, either, but that's not always all that's required to kill a fire.

It may not have put it out completely but it hardly seems that spraying from a distance is a huge risk. Especially when it was enough to keep it from spreading to a neighboring poperty.

[RogueIce]

Besides, and I'm saying this twice, it would be worth it to find out if the firefighters would have been taking an unacceptably large risk by helping the guy. Moral grounds are nice, but I would probably understand a man who refused to risk his job, health, and life on an act of nobility. But again, I don't know the legal or ethical issues binding firefighters.

From what was posted earlier, it seems the South Fulton Fire Department is entirely volunteer firefighters to begin with, so it's not like they're getting paid in the first place to do this job.

Well, they already risk their health and their life simply by being in that line of work. For a fun read, the Fulton fire department safety manual. PDF linky

Just so everybody is aware: this is for a "Fulton County Fire Department" (whatever state, as there's more than one Fulton County in the US) which is not the same as the South Fulton, TN Fire Department (of Obion County).

[General Zod]

Besides, and I'm saying this twice, it would be worth it to find out if the firefighters would have been taking an unacceptably large risk by helping the guy. Moral grounds are nice, but I would probably understand a man who refused to risk his job, health, and life on an act of nobility. But again, I don't know the legal or ethical issues binding firefighters.

From what was posted earlier, it seems the South Fulton Fire Department is entirely volunteer firefighters to begin with, so it's not like they're getting paid in the first place to do this job.

Well, they already risk their health and their life simply by being in that line of work. For a fun read, the Fulton fire department safety manual. PDF linky

Just so everybody is aware: this is for a "Fulton County Fire Department" (whatever state, as there's more than one Fulton County in the US) which is not the same as the South Fulton, TN Fire Department (of Obion County).

Feh. Thought I got the right one but I guess not.

[Soontir C'boath]

Leaving aside this case, if there are homeowners who actually cannot afford $75 or any 'reasonable' fee imposed on them, then they (the poor) are treated unfairly and being disenfranchised of what should be a necessary service. This should be the primary concern. Not money.

If the county cannot provide the service because it consists of poor or lack of people then that's certainly one heck of a catch-22. At the county level at least. An option could have been to go to the state or federal level for funding. FEMA has offered a couple grants to build and sustain fire departments.

I'm sure there are other ideas out there. Maybe even legislating to combine counties to pool resources.

[General Zod]

Leaving aside this case, if there are homeowners who actually cannot afford $75 or any fee imposed on them, then they (the poor) are treated unfairly and being disenfranchised of what should be a necessary service. This should be the primary concern. Not money.

If the county cannot provide the service because it consists of poor or lack of people then that's certainly one heck of a catch-22. At the county level at least. An could have been to go to the state or federal level for funding. FEMA has offered a couple grants to build and sustain fire departments.

If they can't afford $75 a year then they probably shouldn't be homeowners. The specific amount is largely irrelevant to the fact of how it's being charged.

[Serafina]

It seems to me there was no real risk for them to spray down the property with water.

This is one of a lot of assumptions being made in this thread that has zero support from the reportage. I don't know what the risk would have been in doing that, either, but that's not always all that's required to kill a fire.

At the very least it would have preventeed the fire from spreading to other peoples property. Yet another point to show their neglicience.

[Soontir C'boath]

If they can't afford $75 a year then they probably shouldn't be homeowners.

As I understand it, most rural homes have been in the family for generations so this statement is very peculiar and irrelevant.

The specific amount is largely irrelevant to the fact of how it's being charged.

I guess you're agreeing with me? We know they don't bring in enough from taxes and had resorted to charging fees in which yes the specific amount is irrelevant if services are not being rendered to those who need it.

[TimothyC]

If they can't afford $75 a year then they probably shouldn't be homeowners.

As I understand it, most rural homes have been in the family for generations so this statement is very peculiar and irrelevant.

Somehow I doubt that his double-wide was in the family for Generations. I could be wrong.

[General Zod]

As I understand it, most rural homes have been in the family for generations so this statement is very peculiar and irrelevant.

They still have to pay for other services and taxes, so again, largely irrelevant. (I mean electricity and phone bills alone will be far more than $75 a year.)

I guess you're agreeing with me? We know they don't bring in enough from taxes and had resorted to charging fees in which yes the specific amount is irrelevant if services are not being rendered to those who need it.

These points have already been covered in this thread as it is.

[Kanastrous]

At the very least it would have preventeed the fire from spreading to other peoples property. Yet another point to show their neglicience.

The article linked above clearly states that the firefighters doused perimeter of the neighbor's property in order to prevent flames from spreading to it.

So much for 'negligence;' they clearly acted in a non-negligent fashion to protect the covered property.

[Simon_Jester]

If they can't afford $75 a year then they probably shouldn't be homeowners. The specific amount is largely irrelevant to the fact of how it's being charged.

That might apply to the specific family in question, but it's not true in the general case.

In rural areas, it's entirely possible that the house and real estate are pretty much the only thing of value they possess, and that their prospects if the sold their (multi-generational family) home and moved to the city, their job prospects would stink. It's only the fact that they own the property free and clear that lets them keep a roof over their heads.

[Soontir C'boath]

If they can't afford $75 a year then they probably shouldn't be homeowners.

As I understand it, most rural homes have been in the family for generations so this statement is very peculiar and irrelevant.

Somehow I doubt that his double-wide was in the family for Generations. I could be wrong.

Yes and it's been established that he had paid the fee before and forgot to pay this year.

Edit: Even then it should have been doused regardless because this goes hand in hand with the fact that if he was actually poor, he would have been shit out of luck and fucked even more.

They still have to pay for other services and taxes, so again, largely irrelevant. (I mean electricity and phone bills alone will be far more than $75 a year.)

Yes, because there are no such people who struggle with paying bills...

[General Zod]

Yes, because there are no such people who struggle with paying bills...

So what's your point? If they can't afford a $75 a year bill then how the fuck could they afford to pay it in any other form? Frankly this entire line of complaint sounds half-baked and retarded. $75 a year works out to $6.25 a month. Think about that for a minute.

[Soontir C'boath]

Yes, because there are no such people who struggle with paying bills...

So what's your point? If they can't afford a $75 a year bill then how the fuck could they afford to pay it in any other form?

Exactly, there must be other options to consider.

I've already written in my post that there are grants offered by FEMA. One of the grants, "Assistance to Firefighters", providing equipment and training awarded Tennessee last year a total of about $13 million of 162 grants. Five areas in Tennessee were awarded money to construct or renovate their fire departments as well.

You clearly didn't read my post or at least the second paragraph in which I had talked about FEMA in it.

[General Zod]

Yes, because there are no such people who struggle with paying bills...

So what's your point? If they can't afford a $75 a year bill then how the fuck could they afford to pay it in any other form?

Exactly, there must be other options to consider.

I've already written in my post that there are grants offered by FEMA. One of the grants, "Assistance to Firefighters", providing equipment and training awarded Tennessee last year a total of about $13 million of 162 grants. Five areas in Tennessee were awarded money to construct or renovate their fire departments as well.

You clearly didn't read my post or at least the second paragraph in which I had talked about FEMA in it.

You clearly didn't bother reading the rest of this thread or you'd know those points have already been covered.

[RogueIce]

Exactly, there must be other options to consider.

I've already written in my post that there are grants offered by FEMA. One of the grants, "Assistance to Firefighters", providing equipment and training awarded Tennessee last year a total of about $13 million of 162 grants. Five areas in Tennessee were awarded money to construct or renovate their fire departments as well.

You clearly didn't read my post or at least the second paragraph in which I had talked about FEMA in it.

You clearly didn't bother reading the rest of this thread or you'd know those points have already been covered.

Indeed. Obion County can't get a FEMA grant because Obion County has no Fire Department with which to receive it:

Link

Because there is no operational county fire department, Obion County has missed the opportunity to actively pursue receipt of FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding.

EDIT: It's actually a good read for the rest of it. Where they point out that the fire departments are hurting for funding as it is, and for those that do a "we'll bill you later" method they A) have less than a 50% collection rate and B) have no legal means of collecting on those who simply refuse to pay. Which certainly doesn't help their funding situation at all.

[Soontir C'boath]

Indeed. Obion County can't get a FEMA grant because Obion County has no Fire Department with which to receive it:

On the other hand, So. Fulton which came out there does.