Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 14
Posted: 2/18/2006 10:40:25 AM EDT
Monett, Mo. (AP)
Rural firefighters in southwest Mo. stood by and watched a fire destroy a garage and a vehicle because the propertyowner, who was injured in battling the flames, had not paid membership dues.

Monet Rural Fire Department Chief Ronnie Myers defended the policy, saying the membership-based organixation could not survive if people thought the d3epartment would respond for free. The department said tit will fight a fire without question if a life in believed to be in danger.

Myers said he would make an effort to explain the membership policy to the area's new Hispanic residents after the property's owner, Bibaldo Rueda, said he had never been told of the dues policy since moving there 1 1/2 years ago..

According to Barry County Sheriff's Detective Robert Evenson the fire broke out Monday on four acres owned by Rueda soutn of Monett, about 50 miles southwest of Springfield.

Four Moblie homes and a number of vehicles were on the property. Rueda managed to get one mobile home out of the way, using a carden hose and buckets but was burned in the process, Evenson said. Accoridign to hte sheriff's office, Rueda suffered first and second degree burns.

Monet Rural Fire Department responded to the scene but did not fight the fire. Firefighters stood by from the road as the fire burned itself out, watching in case the flames spread to neighboring properties owned by members.

"People need to realice you've got to become a member. If you live outside the city limits, you need to join one of the rural fire departments," Myers said.

Rueda offered to pay, Evenson said, but the Monett department does not have a policy for on-the-spot-billing.

Nearby Cassbville and Mt. Vernon have gone to tax-supported rural fire districts. following a public vote.


So what is the deal? Is this normal? How can someone sit by and watch someones stuff get burned up when that is your job?
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:41:30 AM EDT

Sounds reasonable to me.

Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:41:49 AM EDT
Thier job is to protect the homes and lives of members, not freeloaders.

Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:42:46 AM EDT
They don't sound like real FFs to me

FFs put out fires when they can, not watch them?
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:42:47 AM EDT
Can you imagine a doctor letting someone choke to death in a restaraunt because they had not paid for a visit?
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:43:19 AM EDT
Private fire department. They don't have to do shit other than fulfill their obligations to their members.

Big deal about nothing. No one was killed or injured.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:44:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2006 10:45:00 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By triburst1:
Can you imagine a doctor letting someone choke to death in a restaraunt because they had not paid for a visit?



Actually, the correct analogy is an insurance company refusing to pay for your elective knee surgery if you are NOT one of their policy-holders.


The story clearly said that the fire department WOULD put out fires of non-paying members if a life is in danger.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:44:56 AM EDT

How can someone sit by and watch someones stuff get burned up when that is your job?

Happens all of the time. How else are the firemen going to make sure they get their money.z
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:45:17 AM EDT
No pay, no firefighting. Simple.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:46:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:47:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2006 10:48:50 AM EDT by DrFrige]

Originally Posted By JoeWang:
Private fire department. They don't have to do shit other than fulfill their obligations to their members.

Big deal about nothing. No one was killed or injured.



Reading comprehension is your friend:

OH! Edited to add a



Monett, Mo. (AP)
Rural firefighters in southwest Mo. stood by and watched a fire destroy a garage and a vehicle because the propertyowner, who was injured in battling the flames, had not paid membership dues.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted By triburst1:
Can you imagine a doctor letting someone choke to death in a restaraunt because they had not paid for a visit?



Difference: Doctors take an oath... firefighters dont.



Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:47:56 AM EDT
You could start a pretty good protection racket with your own fire department.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:50:28 AM EDT
Wow, I had no clue something like this would happen.

You would think they would have a billing process or something for people who did not pay dues that would be somewhat outrageous. I would be fine with that.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:50:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
yep pretty normal.

one of my first jobs in EMS was with a paid/volunteer service. we rolled to every fire call with the volunteer FD. If the house/property was not on the paid list they simply let it burn and kept the adjoining properties from catching. Fire dues were 150.00 per year and they actually had a good FD with decent response times. <comparable to most full time depts.>

their feeling was they were not going to risk lives and damage to equipment for a property owner not willing to pay for it. Tying up resources and risking injury to crews that might be needed elsewhere if a paid member had a problem. I used to think it was pretty cold and heartless until i saw the system in action. They ALWAYS responded and if their were live in danger there was no question about a response. having been on the FD side of that i don't blame the one bit. one roll of damaged hose or turnout gear would likely have cost them more than the property owners dues.



This is why I pay The Beer Slayer 150.00 in dues every year so my posts and threads dont catch on fire... so far so good!!!
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:53:38 AM EDT
I never new there was any such thing as a "private" fire department.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:53:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DrFrige:

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
yep pretty normal.

one of my first jobs in EMS was with a paid/volunteer service. we rolled to every fire call with the volunteer FD. If the house/property was not on the paid list they simply let it burn and kept the adjoining properties from catching. Fire dues were 150.00 per year and they actually had a good FD with decent response times. <comparable to most full time depts.>

their feeling was they were not going to risk lives and damage to equipment for a property owner not willing to pay for it. Tying up resources and risking injury to crews that might be needed elsewhere if a paid member had a problem. I used to think it was pretty cold and heartless until i saw the system in action. They ALWAYS responded and if their were live in danger there was no question about a response. having been on the FD side of that i don't blame the one bit. one roll of damaged hose or turnout gear would likely have cost them more than the property owners dues.



This is why I pay The Beer Slayer 150.00 in dues every year so my posts and threads dont catch on fire... so far so good!!!



You really should pony up another $50 for spider protection....all threads you read guaranteed to be spider free!
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:54:22 AM EDT
Who the hell wrote that, a 2nd grader?
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:56:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MonkTx:
Who the hell wrote that, a 2nd grader?



I copied it out of the local newspaper. Why?
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:59:07 AM EDT
Wow.

I don't agree with that policy at all.

Basic services like firefighting and police protection should not be reserved for the elite or the people who can afford it.

I know that our cities fire insurance rates are set by policies that our city takes and ordinances that are passed.

I could not imagine trying to do business in a community where the firefighters decide whether to fight a fire on the status of an account of the property owner. How do they decide for renters and property owners when one pays and the other doesn't.

What if this fire was right beside your home and the heat from the fire killed your trees and damaged your house.

What if it is arson, a crime?

It is BULLSHIT that firefighters let anything burn.

JMO.

Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:00:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By amk5222:

Originally Posted By MonkTx:
Who the hell wrote that, a 2nd grader?



I copied it out of the local newspaper. Why?



I assumed you re-typed it.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:02:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DrFrige:


Difference: Doctors take an oath... firefighters dont.






They don't?


No wonder.....
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:04:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By krpind:
Wow.

I don't agree with that policy at all.

Basic services like firefighting and police protection should not be reserved for the elite or the people who can afford it.

I know that our cities fire insurance rates are set by policies that our city takes and ordinances that are passed.

I could not imagine trying to do business in a community where the firefighters decide whether to fight a fire on the status of an account of the property owner. How do they decide for renters and property owners when one pays and the other doesn't.

What if this fire was right beside your home and the heat from the fire killed your trees and damaged your house.

What if it is arson, a crime?

It is BULLSHIT that firefighters let anything burn.

JMO.




It's not a community fire department, it's a department funded by dues.

You pay dues, you get the services of the fire department. If you don't pay, you don't get them.

Maybe this guy was operating under the assumption that nothing would happen, but if it did, they'd put out the fire anyway.

Have half the people in the organization think like that and see what happens to the fire department. Likely there won't be any.

The guy made his bed, now he has to lie in it.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:06:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By krpind:
Wow.

I don't agree with that policy at all.

Basic services like firefighting and police protection should not be reserved for the elite or the people who can afford it.

I know that our cities fire insurance rates are set by policies that our city takes and ordinances that are passed.

I could not imagine trying to do business in a community where the firefighters decide whether to fight a fire on the status of an account of the property owner. How do they decide for renters and property owners when one pays and the other doesn't.

What if this fire was right beside your home and the heat from the fire killed your trees and damaged your house.

What if it is arson, a crime?

It is BULLSHIT that firefighters let anything burn.

JMO.




Bah....

Too many liberals lurk here.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:08:32 AM EDT
I live in a rural area that is served by a volunteer fire department. Our dues are $20 a year, but I can guarantee our guys would respond whether or not the dues have been paid. We're a close-knit community, and they sure as hell wouldn't let someone's property be destroyed over a measly 20 bucks.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:13:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M4Madness:
I live in a rural area that is served by a volunteer fire department. Our dues are $20 a year, but I can guarantee our guys would respond whether or not the dues have been paid. We're a close-knit community, and they sure as hell wouldn't let someone's property be destroyed over a measly 20 bucks.



So basically that's presenting the message that paying your dues is an option and not totally necessary.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:14:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By krpind:
Wow.

I don't agree with that policy at all.

Basic services like firefighting and police protection should not be reserved for the elite or the people who can afford it.

I know that our cities fire insurance rates are set by policies that our city takes and ordinances that are passed.

I could not imagine trying to do business in a community where the firefighters decide whether to fight a fire on the status of an account of the property owner. How do they decide for renters and property owners when one pays and the other doesn't.

What if this fire was right beside your home and the heat from the fire killed your trees and damaged your house.

What if it is arson, a crime?

It is BULLSHIT that firefighters let anything burn.

JMO.




Don't move there. They probably don't want nanny-staters moving in anyway.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:15:04 AM EDT
There had better not be one red cent of tax dollars going to these firefighters!!
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:17:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By krpind:
Wow.

I don't agree with that policy at all.

Basic services like firefighting and police protection should not be reserved for the elite or the people who can afford it.

I know that our cities fire insurance rates are set by policies that our city takes and ordinances that are passed.

I could not imagine trying to do business in a community where the firefighters decide whether to fight a fire on the status of an account of the property owner. How do they decide for renters and property owners when one pays and the other doesn't.

What if this fire was right beside your home and the heat from the fire killed your trees and damaged your house.

What if it is arson, a crime?

It is BULLSHIT that firefighters let anything burn.

JMO.




What you are not realizing is that money for equipment has to come from somewhere, and if the local government don't provide for these services through taxation, then in very rural parts of this country, folks get together, and start thier own fire companies with thier own money and collect dues from members each year.

These are not public fire departments, but private fire companies that choose to only put out fires of dues paying members.I do not have problem with it as that is how the fire services was started in this country.

If this guy wants to be upset at someone, then he should be mad at his local goverment for not providing fire protection service.

556mm
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:17:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FooDog:

Originally Posted By krpind:
Wow.

I don't agree with that policy at all.

Basic services like firefighting and police protection should not be reserved for the elite or the people who can afford it.

I know that our cities fire insurance rates are set by policies that our city takes and ordinances that are passed.

I could not imagine trying to do business in a community where the firefighters decide whether to fight a fire on the status of an account of the property owner. How do they decide for renters and property owners when one pays and the other doesn't.

What if this fire was right beside your home and the heat from the fire killed your trees and damaged your house.

What if it is arson, a crime?

It is BULLSHIT that firefighters let anything burn.

JMO.




Bah....

Too many liberals lurk here.



I'm way more conservative than most.

A private fire deptment is the same as a private police dept. It is unacceptable in the best most affuent country in the world.

Answer a few questions for me.

If two buildings are burning side by side. Both have been firebombed by an arsonist, one is "protected" and one is owned by someone who has a serious health issue and can't afford this "insurance".

Is this equal protection under the law?

Another question.

A renter pays to protect his contents. A property owner falls behind on his payments . What do you think the "fire dept" should do?

This is a piss poor way to conduct a rural firefighting dept.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:19:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:19:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2006 11:31:41 AM EDT by txgp17]

Originally Posted By amk5222:
So what is the deal? Is this normal?

No it is not normal.

How can someone sit by and watch someones stuff get burned up when that is your job?
Being that you have to pay to be a "member" of the protected district, it means that the Fire Department is not tax supported. My volunteer Dept used to have two districts, a City, and a Rural district. We only recieved tax funding from the City. The rural people were given protection for free. This is because the rural people would not approve, through a referendum, a tax rate for them to pay for protection. In turn, we continued to provide services, but when there was a fire we charged $250 for every copy of the Fire Report. You must provide a copy of the Fire Report to make an insurance claim. People started to change their minds after that.

I've been a Volunteer FF for 15 years, and payed one for 7, and I don't see any problem here. Firefighters cannot provide services to people who do not pay for them. Either pay the taxes, or the membership dues, or build your home out of non-flammable material.

Originally Posted By triburst1:
Can you imagine a doctor letting someone choke to death in a restaraunt because they had not paid for a visit?

Can you imagine insurance companies insuring people who have not bought policies yet?

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
I never new there was any such thing as a "private" fire department.

That is how all the Fire Departments in America originally began. Why is the New York City Fire Dept known as FDNY instead of NYFD? Because the Fire Dept existed before the city was formally incorporated into a Government.

Originally Posted By krpind:
It is BULLSHIT that firefighters let anything burn.

No it is absolutely normal. The Dept is funded by private money, not publicly collected taxes. Why should they provide services free of charge? Suppose the Fire Truck broke down at a fire at a home of a non-paying person. Later that day your house catches on fire, and you're a paying member, but there isn't a truck to put it out with because it was used at a non-paying member's home? Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit, and while you might not sue, but I'll bet $$$ your insurance company would.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:20:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 556mm:


What you are not realizing is that money for equipment has to come from somewhere, and if the local government don't provide for these services through taxation, then in very rural parts of this country, folks get together, and start thier own fire companies with thier own money and collect dues from members each year.

These are not public fire departments, but private fire companies that choose to only put out fires of dues paying members.I do not have problem with it as that is how the fire services was started in this country.

If this guy wants to be upset at someone, then he should be mad at his local goverment for not providing fire protection service.

556mm



I realize every thing you said.

In Texas local entities have the ability to form a taxing authority to prevent this kind of "selective" protection.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:20:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2006 11:21:03 AM EDT by vanilla_gorilla]
More socialists than I would have thought on this board.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:21:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:24:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2006 11:25:16 AM EDT by five2one]

I think the firefights actions are defendable.

Sometimes it takes events like this to get a community to work together and properly fund a FD.

I bet there is a surge in dues to the FD now from people who didn't know as well as people who were hoping to freeload.

Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:24:22 AM EDT
sounds the same as our law enforcement who responds to calls in our illegal immagrant neighborhoods.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:26:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By five2one:
I think the firefights actions are defendable.

Sometimes it takes events like this to get a community to work together and properly fund a FD.

I bet there is a surge in dues to the FD now from people who didn't know as well as people who were hoping to freeload.




No question about it.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:29:34 AM EDT
I don't see a a problem. If you don't pay the money to help maintain a private department, then you don't get the service. Simple economics.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:31:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:
More socialists than I would have thought on this board.



Preventing someone's property from burning, with assets on site, does not equate to socialism in The United States. It is more aptly described as humanity and compassion.

I expect I'm better covered with insurance that I pay for than most anyone on this board.

I still disagree with any kind of firefighting program based on a "privatized" model.

This is CLEARLY a government function. This is one of the few government programs you will ever hear me advocate.

If you can't understand why this is so.....I won't be able to explain it to you.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:31:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By krpind:

Originally Posted By 556mm:


What you are not realizing is that money for equipment has to come from somewhere, and if the local government don't provide for these services through taxation, then in very rural parts of this country, folks get together, and start thier own fire companies with thier own money and collect dues from members each year.

These are not public fire departments, but private fire companies that choose to only put out fires of dues paying members.I do not have problem with it as that is how the fire services was started in this country.

If this guy wants to be upset at someone, then he should be mad at his local goverment for not providing fire protection service.

556mm



I realize every thing you said.

In Texas local entities have the ability to form a taxing authority to prevent this kind of "selective" protection.



As do they in this guy's state too i'm sure. Here's my thinking of how this started:
I'm sure the local government doesn't provide fire protection because the majority of the locals don't want thier taxes raised to pay for it, so a brave pioneering few got together and said, look, lets start our own fire company to take care of ourselves and anyone else that wants to become a member.

Most likely this is a case of people not wanting to foot the bill, then bitch when they need the service and don't have it.

556mm
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:32:29 AM EDT
EXACTLY what I was thinking.

"Bill...460 Weatherby lane is late on their dues as of right.....NOW! Hit the button...light her up!!!!"


Originally Posted By triburst1:
You could start a pretty good protection racket with your own fire department.

Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:33:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By five2one:

I bet there is a surge in dues to the FD now from people who didn't know as well as people who were hoping to freeload.




They'll get a new truck this year!
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:34:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:36:21 AM EDT
reminds me of the fire in the movie "Gangs of NY"
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:36:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FooDog:

Originally Posted By five2one:
I think the firefights actions are defendable.

Sometimes it takes events like this to get a community to work together and properly fund a FD.

I bet there is a surge in dues to the FD now from people who didn't know as well as people who were hoping to freeload.




No question about it.



I would hope so.

It will continue to be sad for the families that cant afford coverage, due to no fault of their own.

[we have a board member that probably would not be able to afford this coverage with their current medical condition....something you should think about.]
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:37:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2006 11:38:02 AM EDT by POW-MIAneverforget]
This is normal, and its the way the fire departments in rural areas have been for a long time.

Back in the days of putting out fires with a bucket, everyone was expected to turn out for a fire to help with the bucket brigade, if you missed more than two fires (i.e. just stayed in bed) than the bucket brigade would not put out a fire at your house. They would turn out and watch it, just to keep it from burning neighboring houses down, but they'd let your shit burn.

If its a private service, they cand do as they please, I think the policy makes perfect sense.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:39:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AZ-K9:

Originally Posted By DrFrige:


Difference: Doctors take an oath... firefighters dont.






They don't?


No wonder.....



I did, I took an oath as a Firefighter. I had to be sworn by a circuit court judge in the county that my department was in.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:43:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:44:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2006 11:47:48 AM EDT by txgp17]

Originally Posted By krpind:
This is CLEARLY a government function. This is one of the few government programs you will ever hear me advocate.

If you can't understand why this is so.....I won't be able to explain it to you.

Respectfully krpind, if you can't explain it, then you can't support you point in the argument.

Traditionally, Fire Protection is a function of a Local Government (city or town), or an organized Rural Protection District formed as a "subsidiary" of the County. The whole New Orleans debacle should have made this clear to you. Emergency Preparedness is a responsibility of the Local .gov. If neither of these two exists, who is to provide it? The State? The Feds? No. The only Federal Fire Dept's that I'm aware of are on Military Bases or places like that.

Some people like Hillary Klinton think people have a "RIGHT" to Health Care too. This is not the case. People do not have a right to Fire Protection. If you don't have it, then you act to provide it, and that's what this group of privately funded Firefighters did. And they should not be expected to provide these service to non-paying people.

Originally Posted By ffsparky26:
I did, I took an oath as a Firefighter. I had to be sworn by a circuit court judge in the county that my department was in.

That doesn't mean that you have to go out and personally purchase a Fire Truck and related gear and fight fire's for people who don't support you in any way.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:48:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:


from a recovery standpoint this homeowner was better off getting a total loss on his structure and having insurance replace it. There is NO RIGHT to fire coverage.



I've been in more than a few meeting with city officials, dicussing fire codes and how restrictive they can be for small businesses and new construction.

Judging from these meetings, I would hate to pay the insurance rates for ANY area that didn't have a government provided fire department.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 11:49:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2006 11:52:50 AM EDT by sta1treeman]
There are 3 types of fire depts that I know of, 1) City, funded by tax dollars, and eveyone in the city is protected. 2) Fire Districts that collect fire dues, and respond to all in their district, and have collection measures for collecting unpaid fire dues, in AL, they can have your house auctioned off for non payment of fire dues. 3) A Subscription Fire District, if you pay , they will respond, if you don't, they won't, unless there is a life at risk. I live in a Fire Dist, our yearly dues are $130, not to much in my opinion. Every year they auction houses, where the dues have gone unpaid, it sucks, but it takes a lot of money to fund a FD. It would be hard to watch someones house burn, knowing you could do somthing about it. I ( Birmingham FD) have responded to several fires, where we found out, in route, or as we got on scene, that the house was out of the city, we still put them out, IMO its just the right thing to do. The home owner should have paid when it was due, but the FD should have taken the money on scene, and fought the fire, IMO
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 14
Top Top