BF2S Forums Let it burn? Firefigters in Tennessee refuse to extinguish fire.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ahh, but the cash flow the department receives is based on a real need as opposed to a theoretical one with a subscription service. Fire a threat? Subscription payers go up. Fire not so much a threat? Subscriptions go down. The size of the department would reflect this reality rather than the fire chief getting whatever he wants regardless of reality because all he has to do is go to the city council and make threats.

What happens when fire unexpectedly becomes a threat and half of the population hasn't paid a subscription?

They organize bucket brigades and/or learn a lesson.

LOL...  nice idealism

" WE'VE GOT A FIRE AT 123 MAIN ST "


" EVERBODY, wait 1 sec " ............... * checks pay-pal * ............. " forget it .... guy hasn't paid ........ everyone back to Halo reach "

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

LOL...  nice idealism

Call it whatever you want. The only thing that would bear watching would be arson on the part of the fire department in order to scare people into subscribing. That's the only flaw that I see.

What about apartments or condos?

What about houses that are close to your own, and while you might have paid, your neighbors didn't?

Don't you think fire is a bit too unpredictable to deal with this way?

Then sue the neighbor for negligence, shrug.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-10-06 12:14:00)

Maybe they should have had different levels of subscription.  Like $25 gets you the first 10 minutes of fire fighting and then you are charge $100 per minute your fire goes over.  $50 gets you the $25 subscribtion with kitten stuck in tree prevention and we won't bang your wife while you are at work.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

What about apartments or condos?

What about houses that are close to your own, and while you might have paid, your neighbors didn't?

Don't you think fire is a bit too unpredictable to deal with this way?

Then sue the neighbor for negligence, shrug.

lol...   oh if only life was that easy.

For apartment buildings, I would imagine that the landlord would pay for the coverage.  It would probably be included in the rent, since the renter doesn't own it and would have no real incentive to pay.  Just like how apartment owners have fire insurance to cover the property, but that does not cover the renter's belongings, and thus I buy renter's insurance.

As for suburban and urban areas where houses can be close together, I would suppose that such a fire company would respond if for no other reason than to keep your house from burning down.  As for condos, they managing agency could roll that into those ridiculous fees they always charge for communal services and and upkeep.

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lol...   oh if only life was that easy.

For apartment buildings, I would imagine that the landlord would pay for the coverage.  It would probably be included in the rent, since the renter doesn't own it and would have no real incentive to pay.  Just like how apartment owners have fire insurance to cover the property, but that does not cover the renter's belongings, and thus I buy renter's insurance.

As for suburban and urban areas where houses can be close together, I would suppose that such a fire company would respond if for no other reason than to keep your house from burning down.  As for condos, they managing agency could roll that into those ridiculous fees they always charge for communal services and and upkeep.

I can see the condo and apartment stuff working, but subdivisions could end up with disasters.

Another thing is a question of people renting houses.  Not all landlords are reputable people -- especially slum lords.  Say a house catches on fire that a poor family is living in, and they didn't realize that the landlord didn't pay the fire fee...

There's just too much room for trouble, IMHO.

Built into the lease or don't sign. Landlord breaks the lease by not paying? Sue.

I'd laugh if the firehouse burnt down while they were all out.

I'm torn on this one honestly... The system is bad, they should have a massive fee they have to pay if they want to get fire protection right then and there, but there should still be some sort of option. I can understand why, with their system, they can't just take the $75 after the fire started, since then arguably everyone would not pay until the last moment and the firehouse would go broke. Still though... This is gross, they should have taken money and put the fire out, if anything to prevent the neighbors house from catching fire... but again, this IS Tennessee.

Turquoise wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Maybe they should have had different levels of subscription.  Like $25 gets you the first 10 minutes of fire fighting and then you are charge $100 per minute your fire goes over.  $50 gets you the $25 subscribtion with kitten stuck in tree prevention and we won't bang your wife while you are at work.

Now, you're thinking like a capitalist....   lol...

Some good old American ingenuity there....

but he's irish

I wonder how this system affects insurance premiums, like home contents and such...

jord wrote:

I wonder how this system affects insurance premiums, like home contents and such...

If I was an insurance company I sure as shit wouldn't cover someone who didn't pay for a fire service. 

Actually, my insurance is a tad bit cheaper because I'm living within 1 mile of a fire station and 100 yards of a fire hydrant.  I set my fire alarm off accidentally and as I was on the phone with the alarm monitoring station confirming that I'm a jackass.  I could hear the sirens approaching.  A moment after I hung up the phone the sirens abruptly stopped.  I felt like such a jerk...

What the hell though... Pressing # then 3 arms the stay at home mode.  But if you press # and 3 at the same time, it's the call the fire department -who the fuck thought that one out?!

Graphic-J wrote:

BTW: I remember a scene from "Gangs Of New York", where a house was on fire and competing fire companies came and argued over who's jurisdiction it was to deal with the fire. Not because of their moral imperative to protect the house and family, but over who would extort money from the owner. When the owner questioned having to pay such fee, both groups sat back and watched it burn. In fact, others ran into the house to loot whatever valuables they could.

Back then they didn't collect fees, the fire departments were simply entitled to whatever was in the home after it burned. Salvage rights.

mtb0minime wrote:

How come there aren't stories like this when someone's power gets shut down after they failed to pay their electricity bill?

Or when they fail to pay for garbage pickup and the trash piles up in their back yard.