• 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.

& & & &



"I just wonder why that has not happened between the two jurisdictions?"
Click to expand...
These kind of "territorial disputes" are quite common across the U.S. andthe rest of the world......Everyone wants to be serviced / protected, but

no one wants to pay for it.......It's like everythig else, if you desire to have

a certain level of service / protection and can afford it, then pony up!......If

you cannot afford it, that's another story!

The insurance industry; and others, have been doing this for decades.....Those

that CAN PAY are actually assisting in the coverage for others THAT

CANNOT PAY.

& & & &
 
sprinklers wont save the building, but they will save lives, to drive the trucks out there and not put out that fire is criminal
 
codeworks said:
....to drive the trucks out there and not put out that fire is criminal
Click to expand...
Only if there is a criminal law against it.

But I agree that it stinks. The ambulance analogy should apply.

The FD still fights the fire. No additional cost to subscribed members, full cost for non-subscribers, with legal judgments and liens against the property for failure to pay.
 
The FD still fights the fire...... with legal judgments and liens against the property for failure to pay.
Click to expand...
As jurisdictions look for ways to reduce cost why not charge for services rendered similar to permits fees.

Go to a traffic accident, charge for the equipment and manpower it takes to cover the scene. Bill the auto insurance,

Medical call, bill for the cost to respond even if you do not transport.

Same with fire calls

All taxpayers will fund the day to day operations and have peace of mind the services are there when needed but those who use the services will pay for what they use.

Do you think I could get elected to a city council running on that platform
 
There are cities who charge accident fees to non-residents. Since you don't pay taxes to fund the response, and if you cause an accident, they charge you a fee to recover costs in addition to any fines for breaking the law.
 
David Henderson said:
Sue, that requirement has been dropped. I have this info from a very informed source
Click to expand...
Thanks David, I sure hope it is. I have a local Rural FD that covers my area and their response time is exceptional. I just couldn't see paying for another layer of protection that is state run.

And for the fire service members out there, I am very conscientious about my fire clearances, unlike some folks to the south of me here in CA.
 
Alias said:
Thanks David, I sure hope it is. I have a local Rural FD that covers my area and their response time is exceptional. I just couldn't see paying for another layer of protection that is state run. And for the fire service members out there, I am very conscientious about my fire clearances, unlike some folks to the south of me here in CA.
Click to expand...
Me as well here in Wyoming. Wild land fires are a real problem here just like many other states. I keep the grass and sage brush cut back from all my buildings approxmately 200 feet minimum!
 
They responded to the fire to make sure neighboring properties that paid were protected.

What they should do is charge those that didn't pay the subscription the actual cost of the response, and slap a lien on the property when they don't pay.
 
Owner needs to be smarter. As soon as FD roles up start yelling and crying because (pick a name) is still in the house. After the fire is out out " oh my mistake (pick a name) must have left just before the fire started and I was unaware they left".
 
Or pay the $75 at the beginning of the year............that's all I'm saying. I don't agree with this, I wouldn't use the tactic, but that's what it is there.........pay the fee, you're covered. OK, like your water, gas, electric bills...........pay to play. If you don't like it, change it, move?
 
TJacobs said:
What they should do is charge those that didn't pay the subscription the actual cost of the response, and slap a lien on the property when they don't pay.
Click to expand...
Agree with Jake, that idea seems like a reasonable way to handle things. Maybe a bit time consuming but at least maybe then house won't burn completely to the ground.
 
Sue, The problem we had was that we were already paying Cal Fire for the coverage in our rural district and the state wanted to charge us again... coverage on coverage
 
gbhammer said:
The fire should have been put out and a lien should have been placed on the property for the full cost of the response.
Click to expand...
I said it earlier and still feel that if a home owner does not take personal responsibility and pay the $75 then they should flip for the whole bill.
 
I have to chime in here...last week I was teaching Fire & Life Safety Plans Review at NFA when this story came out. There was someone in the class from Tennessee, so I picked his brain on this.

Apparently until 20 years ago, there was no fire protection available for the folks living in the county, outside the city proper. So for the past twenty years the county residents have been well aware of the $75 annual fee. They have multiple choices in this situation - pay the fee; don't pay the fee; move; or do something about it by putting pressure on the county commissioners to change it.

If the FD showed up and put out the fire, then sent a bill, realistically how many people are going to pay it after the fact?
 
Codegeek said:
I have to chime in here...last week I was teaching Fire & Life Safety Plans Review at NFA when this story came out. There was someone in the class from Tennessee, so I picked his brain on this. Apparently until 20 years ago, there was no fire protection available for the folks living in the county, outside the city proper. So for the past twenty years the county residents have been well aware of the $75 annual fee. They have multiple choices in this situation - pay the fee; don't pay the fee; move; or do something about it by putting pressure on the county commissioners to change it.

If the FD showed up and put out the fire, then sent a bill, realistically how many people are going to pay it after the fact?
Click to expand...
Put a lien on the property.
 
gbhammer said:
Put a lien on the property.
Click to expand...
In this part of the country, odds are the owner will abandoned the property so it will get passed along to the next property owner. So what has that accomplished?
 
Here the lien will need to be paid before the property can sell. Many properties have reverted to jurisdiction ownership because of liens.
 
I understand where you're coming from gb. I was just sharing the information that was given to me on the situation.
 
Classless on the side of the fire dept if u ask me. Ut the fire out and send them a bill for 75 bucks plus a stiff fee for a fine for not paying ahead like they should have problem solved.
 
It's insurance, plain and simple, no different than your car, life, health, homeowners. Pay up front, that's the deal.

As I said, do I agree with it in this instance??? NO, but in this county, that how it works. Pay or play. Property owners heard that the FD was serious about it a year ago when another property burned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top