and it happened again.

[mandrina]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...191241763.html




"A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department."

this is the same town it happened last year. The fire department says they will do rescue (although I don't know if that includes pets, not relevent to this article), but they won't put out the fire except to protect paid properties.

Note to people covered by this fire department, but not actually in their taxation base, dig up 75 dollars a year and pay the damn fee. Although I think the town should have a waiver for low income, so there might be some relief for really strapped people.

[Tamina]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...191241763.html


"A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department."

this is the same town it happened last year. The fire department says they will do rescue (although I don't know if that includes pets, not relevent to this article), but they won't put out the fire except to protect paid properties.

Note to people covered by this fire department, but not actually in their taxation base, dig up 75 dollars a year and pay the damn fee. Although I think the town should have a waiver for low income, so there might be some relief for really strapped people.

Why do people keep not paying this? It's seventy-five dollars! You pay it once a year. I can't imagine not being able to save up seventy-five bucks over a whole year, but a reduced fee would make sense for poor.

[Miss]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...191241763.html


"A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department."

this is the same town it happened last year. The fire department says they will do rescue (although I don't know if that includes pets, not relevent to this article), but they won't put out the fire except to protect paid properties.

Note to people covered by this fire department, but not actually in their taxation base, dig up 75 dollars a year and pay the damn fee. Although I think the town should have a waiver for low income, so there might be some relief for really strapped people.

She lived in a trailer, so we don't know of her struggles. I can certainly remember a time when 75 dollars would have hurt me, as little amount as it sounds now.

So I agree with help when it comes to low-income households. I also wonder if she was aware of the fee in the first place. In the last bit of the article they allude to that possibility.

What if they put out the fire and billed her later? Would that have been more problematic?

[Shadow]

Why do people keep not paying this? It's seventy-five dollars! You pay it once a year. I can't imagine not being able to save up seventy-five bucks over a whole year, but a reduced fee would make sense for poor.

Here in the UK our payment to the local fire services is including in our council tax, which has to be paid by law, so this is not a problem for us. I really just wanted to say that any amount of money is a lot if you haven't got it.

[Etheric1]

She lived in a trailer, so we don't know of her struggles. I can certainly remember a time when 75 dollars would have hurt me, as little amount as it sounds now.

So I agree with help when it comes to low-income households. I also wonder if she was aware of the fee in the first place. In the last bit of the article they allude to that possibility.

What if they put out the fire and billed her later? Would that have been more problematic?

That's my take on it as well. $75 can be a ton of money for some people. Especially if anyone has any medical bills. I get that some people don't do responsible planning with money, but for many people out there, this can be beyond their ability to pay. This is where I get annoyed with our mentality about things here in the US. Communities should try to take care of fellow people, and not be completely self absorbed. It's one thing if these people easily had the funds and chose not to pay. But most people in trailer parks are not rolling in money, generally they are low income households.

So I understand the fire depts need money, would it have been so hard for them to send a bill? If $75 is the normal, and that is not paid for whatever reason, could they not have sent a bill that's perhaps more and arrange for a payment plan? That way these people don't lose their home automatically and can still pay the fire dept for their services.

The lack of compassion for our fellow human being is a very discouraging trend that is getting worse here and is quite simply shameful.

[sailor]

Note to people covered by this fire department, but not actually in their taxation base, dig up 75 dollars a year and pay the damn fee. Although I think the town should have a waiver for low income, so there might be some relief for really strapped people.

A decent reporter would have asked if

1 - the people knew about the fee

2 - would have had trouble paying it.

Unless the answer to #1 is no and / or to #2 is yes, I have no sympathy for them, pay the damn fee.

I also wonder if they had fire insurance, and what the cost difference is for paying the $75 vs not paying it.

If there is enough outrage I wouldn't be surprised if either they stop all fire protection outside the tax payer area; or annex the currently no covered areas to provide coverage (and of course upping taxes significantly more than $75.)

[mandrina]

\

or annex the currently no covered areas to provide coverage (and of course upping taxes significantly more than $75.)

This is what they should do, annex the no covered areas. Not necessarily upping taxes, but annexing would help there, if they can do it.

[Tamina]

Here in the UK our payment to the local fire services is including in our council tax, which has to be paid by law, so this is not a problem for us. I really just wanted to say that any amount of money is a lot if you haven't got it.

I agree, that's why I said that a reduced fee should be there.

[Shadow]

I agree, that's why I said that a reduced fee should be there.

I was agreeing with you in a round about way

IMHO it is a case of 'it will never happen to me' that stops people paying these things when they could use the money elsewhere.

[Tamina]

I was agreeing with you in a round about way

IMHO it is a case of 'it will never happen to me' that stops people paying these things when they could use the money elsewhere.

Yep. I think it's that type of reasoning with a lit of things; ie: health insurance, life insurance, good car and home insurance. They don't treat these things like a priority or necessity because they have things they'd rather spend money on. Fun things. While I can see the temptation, it feels more like irrisponsibility instead of a reason for me to give them sympathy.

Though I've been told I have some 'tribe mentality' where my empathy comes into play.