whoah
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot...logical-debate
That SUCKS!!!, It would really piss me off if firefighters came and watched my house burn down. I understand the reasoning but still you gotta have some heart.
Wait til they have another wild fire in California. If the state cuts the firemen's retirement and wages they might just stand around and watch homes burn as well. It would be there way of identifing their worth to the state of California and its people. Sports people get paid ungodly wages for playing a game. So I could very well understand this if it happened.
Firefighter here.
I wish I knew more about the size and compositions of these departments. I am on a rural fire department and a suburban and the differences are night and day. For one, the small budget FD has an annual operating budget less than the wage of a single fulltime firefighter. When fuel costs were high we had to ask ourselves if we wanted to be invited to help at fires outside of our city when an all day operation meant $1,000 worth of Diesel fuel alone. Now compared to my other department with an annual operating budget of $1.3million they can be called to assist and not even notice. However if they were to be given sole responsibility for coverage in a city that is not their own the price would be extreme.
It sounds like in this case they setup this $75 a year to cover when your house does burn sounds more like an insurance policy. This gained them coverage from another city at a price.
The first fire departments in the US of A were insurance company run. If your house burnt down you had a mark on your front door stating you were covered and that corresponding fire dept came running. If the neighbor wasn't covered or was covered by someone else they wouldn't touch it. Not far removed from that in this story.
Then perhaps firemen should charger admission while they perform in order to qualify as 'entertainment'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer
It's not the same thing, and to make the comparison signals a very basic mis-understanding of how things work.
Should you get LeBron money to do your job?
Punishment doesnt fit the crime. The should have put the fire out and charge him full cost to do so. The person in charge should be fired immediatly.
Isn't this illegal in a lot of states? I'm too lazy/busy to check myself.
quick notes:
-FD doesn't cover his county, they cover the next one over. they provide optional service to the unprotected town for a fee.
-the two counties together are 1200 sq. miles
-the FD consists of two trucks total
-responding to an unpaid house is considered off duty. if someone gets hurt insurance won't cover the lawsuit.
In responce to your first three notes, the FD went to the residence and watched.
Yeah, when I read the story I was thinking how similar they are running their area like OLD Fire system. Like Rah said, you had to have a plaque on your home of which Fire company you paid to be covered and only they would put the fire out, even if another showed up first.
I grew up in a small town(population 2000 or so) and the FD was mostly volunteer. Not only did the only bar in town that was right NEXT to the FD burn down, but my next door neighbor's home did as well (2 blocks away from the FD) before they were able to arrive and do much. There was quite a few others as well.
Sometimes having a little higher taxes may not be a bad thing people!!
I really feel bad for the guy, but he knew that he could have been paying 75 a year, and choose not to. 75 a year is a lot cheaper than insurance(which I hope he had)