## No pay, No Spray?!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

I can't believe this. That man may be at fault for neglecting to pay the $75 fire service fee, but this is plainly inhuman. His animals died in the blaze. Makes you wonder: if there were people still in the house, would they have put the fire out then? Or would they have still stood by, and continued to wag a finger for being cheap? This isn't just a matter of legality; what about basic human decency? There comes a point when you MUST think for yourself; in lieu of simply following "orders," like a nazi drone.  PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com >> 'Whodunnit' of Irish potato famine solved>> The mammoth's lament: Study shows how cosmic impact sparked devastating climate change>> Curiosity Mars rover drills second rock target  Recognitions: Gold Member What if they were to put out the fire. What does that tell everyone else? Forget paying your bill, just wait until something happens and we'll still do the job and then maybe (but probably not) you'll pay us later. If someone didn't have insurance and their house was broken into, is it an issue of human decency if no insurance company will go and pay for their neglectfulness?  Quote by Pengwuino What if they were to put out the fire. What does that tell everyone else? Forget paying your bill, just wait until something happens and we'll still do the job and then maybe (but probably not) you'll pay us later. If someone didn't have insurance and their house was broken into, is it an issue of human decency if no insurance company will go and pay for their neglectfulness?  Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat. I don't think reimbursing someone for a stolen TV is the same as letting someones pets burn to death. There is no reason why the fire service couldn't include a$500 bill in their service agreement for putting out the fire if someone didn't pay their $75 annual fee. ## No pay, No Spray?! Isn't it one of the duties of the gov't to provide essential services, such as fire protection? Recognitions: Gold Member Homework Help  Quote by NeoDevin Isn't it one of the duties of the gov't to provide essential services, such as fire protection? Seconded. I'm not all about big government, but I would assume fire protection falls under everyone's definition of a minimum sized government! Mentor  Quote by G01 Seconded. I'm not all about big government, but I would assume fire protection falls under everyone's definition of a minimum sized government! From the link:  Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he "forgot" to pay the annual$75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee.
Well, look at it this way. He chose to live in an area that didn't have fire protection, outside the city limits (perhaps because the taxes are lower ?) and didn't pay for coverage. He also says he didn't have sufficient fire insurance to cover the loss, but I don't expect the insurance company to take pity and give him 100% coverage.

I'd say the fire department was within its rights, but still, I can't stand the thought of animals burning in a fire.... I bet the next day, the department was flooded with $75 payments from rural residents in the area.  Where is Marcus Licinius Crassus when you need him?!  Blog Entries: 8 Recognitions: Gold Member You have to pay an annual fee in the US? Just comes straight out of your taxes in the UK, no say in it. No fire service would refuse to put a fire out here. What a rubbish set up. Allowing animals to burn to death. That is cruel and someone should be punished for it. They should just put the fire out and then fine the man for not paying (perhaps$500 as above). Teach him not to do it again.
 Blog Entries: 8 Recognitions: Gold Member Ah, so he is paying for a rural service? In which case, they were still incredibly cruel to let them burn to death. Just put it out and fine the owner. How difficult is that. "Ah yes sir, you didn't pay your $75 so we're going to let all your worldly possessions and pets be destroyed." Does the article say he chose to live there or are we just assuming he had a choice in the matter? Mentor  Quote by jarednjames Ah, so he is paying for a rural service? In which case, they were still incredibly cruel to let them burn to death. Just put it out and fine the owner. How difficult is that. "Ah yes sir, you didn't pay your$75 so we're going to let all your worldly possessions and pets be destroyed." Does the article say he chose to live there or are we just assuming he had a choice in the matter?
No - the point is, he *chose not* to pay for fire coverage. And yes, it's cruel to think the animals died that way, horrible, really. Ultimately the responsibility lies in the hands of the pet owner. He gambled, and his animals suffered a terrible fate because of it.

And what would they fine the owner for? He broke no law.

Why would you assume he doesn't have a choice where to live?

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by jarednjames Just put it out and fine the owner. How difficult is that.
I agree. There is no reason why it couldn't be treated as a billable service in emergencies like this. Pay $75 dollars a year, or risk a$10K bill if you need us.

Blog Entries: 8
Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by lisab He chose to live in an area that didn't have fire protection
I didn't assume he had no choice. You assumed he chose to live outside of the fire coverage area. I simply pointed out that is an assumption it isn't fair for you to make as he may not have had a choice in the matter.
 he *chose not* to pay for fire coverage
The article says he forgot. Again, you are assuming he chose not to and this is unfair, we have no way of knowing whether or not he chose to pay or whether or not he actually forgot to pay.

They are currently looking at making drunks pay for emergency medical treatment in the UK as it is costing the NHS too much. These people haven't broken any laws, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't pay for their own stupidity.

Forgot to pay or chose not to, still shows a mistake on his part. But is it a mistake that should be dealt with by means of a fine, or by inhumanely killing pets?

Mentor

 Quote by Topher925 There is no reason why the fire service couldn't include a $500 bill in their service agreement for putting out the fire if someone didn't pay their$75 annual fee.
They do, even if one does pay the annual fee. And, less than 50% of the time they collected.

The cost of fighting a fire is much, much higher. $10,000 or more. If they can't collect$500, how can they collect $10,000? And without the money coming in, how do they pay the firefighters, buy the fire trucks, etc.  Quote by NeoDevin Isn't it one of the duties of the gov't to provide essential services, such as fire protection? Sure. The city of South Fulton provides essential services for the city of South Fulton.  The law was in place for 20 years, and if he forgot to pay then he was well aware of the policy. The article also made a valid point if you could call up and get the service by paying then nobody would pay till there was a problem. Fire services are expensive to run, if people in the city are the only one to pay for it then how is it fair to give the benefit to people who don't pay? When I lived 100 feet from city limits I was made well aware that If I wanted city emergency services like fire, police, and EMT-ALS services I had to pay. If not I got a volunteer fire service (45 min response time) , the county sheriff (45+ min response time), and EMS-Basic (1 hour response time). Guess what I payed three extra fees to have city emergency services include my address.  Quote by Vanadium 50 Sure. The city of South Fulton provides essential services for the city of South Fulton. Which level of government is responsible for looking out for the residents outside the city? Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor Staff Emeritus  Quote by Vanadium 50 Google is your friend. They do, even if one does pay the annual fee. And, less than 50% of the time they collected. The cost of fighting a fire is much, much higher.$10,000 or more. If they can't collect $500, how can they collect$10,000? And without the money coming in, how do they pay the firefighters, buy the fire trucks, etc.
The same way a construction company or mechanic does: Place a lien on the property.

Recognitions:
Gold Member