• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

It happened again in the same Tennessee County, Fire Department watchs house burn.

“The mission of the South Fulton Fire Department is to protect the lives and property of its citizens, and provide good public relations through fire safety education to all businesses and schools.”

This needs to be changed. They need to add "For A fee". "But only if you live in the county"

I really don't get this. If there is a funding issue there are soooooooo many ways to generate revenue without all the controversy. As I understand the issue Fulton is city and the county currently dose not have any fire protection? How hard could it be for a MOU between the two with a certain level of funding through the county? Perhaps the two do not communicate? Anybody out there close to the issue(s) that could shed some light on the dicussion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's just like paying insurance, you can't whine about you car not getting repaired if you didn't pay the premium. Sorry they lost their home, but it seems to me that after last year, it should have been crystal clear to the county residents that the FD wasn't BS'ing about not paying the fee.
 
So they spent the money and fuel to transport the equipment to watch the fire?

If we had residential sprinklers in all existing structures we would not need fire departments (goin to hell for that one)

so can they afford a video camera to document the disaster? maybe so ?

we had a whole list of charactes in RI end up ih jail for seeking financial compensation to provide a safe environment.

you no da boyz comon ya nevvah know sompim might happim!! lest ya pay up.

They just busted the cousins for gambling n racketerring yesterday Big Vinnie; Chippy; out on bail Bobo awaiting in prision due to parole violations

http://www2.turnto10.com/news/2011/dec/07/pleas-not-guilty-ri-gambling-case-ar-855609/

TO COLLECT N PROTECT what a country.

now all they need is cool tough guy middle names
 
Couldn't the Fire Dept just charge $75.00 to put out the fire? I may be wrong but I would think that the $75.00 FD fee is not voluntary. As a special tax used to fund the FD, each property owner has an obligation to contribute. The government felt strong enough about that to create the tax. Apparently the local government lost sight of the reason for the tax, which is that the government provides FD service to all, so all shall pay. To sit by and watch it burn is a heavy punishment for not paying a $75.00 fee. Who do they think they are, the DMV?
 
fatboy said:
It's just like paying insurance, you can't whine about you car not getting repaired if you didn't pay the premium. Sorry they lost their home, but it seems to me that after last year, it should have been crystal clear to the county residents that the FD wasn't BS'ing about not paying the fee.
Click to expand...
Have to disagree on this one. Deploying to watch it burn is like deploying the Army to watch Marines get slaughrter because they did not pay a fee (or extortion) (who ever they are) is unaccetable. I know this may be a hit below the belt but... I have to say again that politically between the city and county raising funds to suppot the fire service there is something very wrong here.
 
Possible Scenario

Scenario: Ring, ring... 911 what is your emergency? Lady responds: Somebody is trying to break into my house! Banging sounds heard in the back round. Lady again: I need help! Dispatcher: Please calm down and confirm your address and... Lady again, I need help! He is in the house now! Phone goes silent. Emergency services not dispatched. The property owner lives in the county and forgot to pay her city fee.

Second call to 911 by an adjacent neighbor: 911 what is your emergency? Neighbor: There is something very wrong next door at my neighbors! I hear a lot banging and screaming. I think someone is in real trouble! Dispatcher: Sir want is your address? Caller: 225 North Elm Street! Hurry! Dispatcher: Oh, very good. I see that you paid your $75 protection fee this year. An officer will be there in 3 to 5 minutes. Caller: Thank you! Please hurry! Call ends.

Officers arrive at 225 North Elm Street to protect the second caller and their property but are forbidden to intervene at the neighbors even though they know they should and really want to.

Aftermath: The first caller was brutally raped and beaten but is alive and recovering in the hospital. The politicians from both jurisdictions city and county blame the property owner because she did not pay the required fee for protection.

Think that this is stretching things a little bit and could never happen? I wonder???
 
I may be wrong but I would think that the $75.00 FD fee is not voluntary. As a special tax used to fund the FD, each property owner has an obligation to contribute.
Click to expand...
It is voluntary fee (not a tax) for residents of the county who want fire protection. Residents of the city fund the department through their involuntary city taxes.

They respond to fires if the owner hasn't paid because they will attempt rescue if it is necessary. They just won't protect your property. They also want to protect the exposures of neighboring properties who have paid the fee.

There are obviously much better ways to handle the situation they are faced with. There is no way to justify their actions as ethical. Period. The decision-makers - from council to mayor to fire chief - should all be ashamed. Sadly, they aren't.
 
You missed my point, it's insurance, pay the premium. It's not like it was a last minute surprise. I pay my homeowners, car, life, health.....If I don't, I know I don't have coverage.

Not saying I agree with the tactic, but it is, what it is.
 
permitguy said:
It is voluntary fee (not a tax) for residents of the county who want fire protection.
Click to expand...
As far as dumb ideas go, this one is a winner. It must be tough to get fire insurance in that area.
 
I'm with JP this is little more than extortion and wrong in so many ways that it makes me sick. On the flip side people should take personal responsibility, and the home owners should be held responsible for their lack of insight. The fire should have been put out and a lien should have been placed on the property for the full cost of the response.
 
They have a choice.... no different than the proposal that residnetial sprinklers should be a person's choice.

They (the politicians) have refused to raise taxes and the locals support this by allowing the same representatives for the community are still in office.

This is a case of the people getting and having what they want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My hope is that this isn't intended to be a profit generator; that the city has actually analyzed the statistics and said "we can collect just enough of these $75 fees in a year to cover the actual costs of extinguishing fires in the county for the same year". Based on the way they answer questions, I don't think this is the case.

The purpose of running an insurance company is to generate profit. The purpose of running a fire service is to protect lives and property. I'll let pundits argue whether it is ethical to generate profit from selling insurance, but it is certainly not ethical to purposely run a taxpayer funded public service agency for the generation of profit (revenues exceeding expenses). I would have less of a problem if the FD simply said "we don't respond outside of our jurisdiction".

Many ambulance services have a similar fee to this FD, but with one major difference. If you didn't pay their subscription fee, they will still respond, treat, and transport, but they'll bill you for the full cost. If this FD wants to shift to an ethically supportable policy, this is what they would do. They won't, though, because that would decrease the number of $75 fees they can profit from.
 
The city should just drop the service to all county property owners then maybe the elected officials will fund a county department or the county residence can start their own VFD. It is not the the city's taxpayers responsibility to subsidize the county's taxpayers by responding to fire calls in the county
 
Architect1281 said:
you no da boyz comon ya nevvah know sompim might happim!! lest ya pay up.

TO COLLECT N PROTECT what a country.

now all they need is cool tough guy middle names
Click to expand...
Welcome to rural California!

As of January 1, 2012, all residents in SRAs (state response areas) served by CalEMA (formerly CalFire) are required to pay a $150.00 "fee" in the month of January to them so that they can come out and tell you to cut down your tree or mow your grass! The "fee" of $150.00 is per habitable structure on the property. We large have ranches here that provide worker housing. So, if you have 4 habitable structures, your fee is $600.00, and, if the fee isn't paid in January, a penalty is added every month. It isn't even for fire protection which is what really chaps my hide.

Collect and 'protect' is right! Thank you Governor Moonbeam and State Legislature. :censored
 
gbhammer said:
There is no way that the $75 is anything but political extortion.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. When I lived in a rural county in Fl they had an MSBU ( Mutiple Service Benefit Use) fee/tax for ambulance service. All residential households paid the $50.00 fee on their property taxes. Response time from the neighboring county and cities was about 13 minutes versus 30 for the county I lived in.

It was part of an interlocal mutual aid agreement between 2 counties to quarantee better services for their residents and provide payment for services to the responding jurisdictions.
 
mtlogcabin said:
No it isn't. When I lived in a rural county in Fl they had an MSBU ( Mutiple Service Benefit Use) fee/tax for ambulance service. All residential households paid the $50.00 fee on their property taxes. Response time from the neighboring county and cities was about 13 minutes versus 30 for the county I lived in. It was part of an interlocal mutual aid agreement between 2 counties to quarantee better services for their residents and provide payment for services to the responding jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
"MSBU" Make S*** Benefit Us? Sorry, just couldn't resist playing with the acronym. MT, That is exactly a better way to avoid all the controversy. I just wonder why that has not happened between the two jurisdictions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top