House next door burned to the ground...

[SMLCHNG]

Glad everyone is alive and well, Linda. So glad your home was spared, and hope all works out with the neighbors.

[citcat]

There are pictures in our local paper web site:

http://www.fultonkynews.com/frontpage.html

The house on the left (NOT on fire) is ours. If you want to, vote in the online poll just to the right of the pictures !!!

As soon as I know what they are doing for the family, I'll post it.
Thank you all.

Edit: they changed the front page and the poll is something else. But somewhere on the website the pictures are still there. And I sent in an editorial letter. Boy are they in trouble at City Hall.

[flipflopgirl]

(((((((((((Linda))))))))))))) i'm glad no one was hurt! Prayers and good thoughts for everyone...especially your neighbors!

[dnw]

voted

[flipflopgirl]

i voted and told my coworkers about this...they were like WTF?!?!?!! and i showed them the article! they said that is SOOOOOOOOOO WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!

[nutmeg]

Much phin power to your neighbors.

I can't believe that the fire department didn't respond on purpose. I've never heard of such a thing.

[Skibo]

I hope the fire department knows a good lawyer. I'd be willing to bet your "subscription fee" goes up a little next year to cover the legal defense fund.

[flipflopgirl]

Much phin power to your neighbors.

I can't believe that the fire department didn't respond on purpose. I've never heard of such a thing.

yeah i hope the J*CKASSES on the City Council think about this long and hard!!!

[Elrod]

It happened again in the same area:

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Fi ... 52668.html

[ph4ever]

I just wonder (but not enough to research myself) just how many communities in the US are like this. I know if I ever have to pay a fee like that I will. I also wonder if failure to pay should preclude you from having homeowners insurance. I don't think mine should cost the same as someone who wouldn't pay their fee.

[Bicycle Bill]

THIS IS JUST EFFIN' RIDICULOUS!!!!

What's next? You're being robbed or assaulted, so you call the cops but they don't do anything until they determine that you are in fact a resident of the community and your property taxes are paid up??? Or you've been in a traffic accident and are bleeding out, but the paramedics won't treat you or transport you to the hospital until they've made sure you've got medical insurance to cover their services???

Heads need to start rolling over this. In the meantime: I would give this particular part of Tennessee a wide berth just in case something would go haywire with my car, causing it to catch fire as I was passing through. They'd probably just stand around and watch it burn, too.

-"BB"-

[Skibo]

This is government at its worst. I remember the community where I grew up we had an ambulance fund that you could "volunteer" to donate to. If you paid their fee ~$25 then, you got free services. If you didn't pay the fee, you were charged the costs for service if needed. That seems fair, to consciously watch a home in the community burn to the ground is just reprehensible. The mafia like tactics of this community sicken me.

[carolinapiratechik]

The story is getting national attention. It's on the front page of msn.com.

[citcat]

Yes, it happened again. Not too far from my home....AGAIN ! This is embarassing our community, and certainly not doing any good for bringing new businesses into the area. The son of the guy who owns the property that burned went down to the fire department and cold-cocked a fireman. But he knows now that it wasn't the fireman's fault (the son was arrested for assault, this was NOT a cool thing to do, even in the heat of the moment). The firemen WANT to put the fire out. The city manager is (allegedly) a dingbat. They tried to get the county to have a county fire department, but they all dropped the ball on that one. What's wrong with just charging an ungodly amount to put out the fires of people's homes who don't pay the 'subscription fee' ?? And why don't the insurance companies require homeowners to pay the 'fee' (or pay it themselves)??? So many questions, no answers. I just may print out this thread and send it to the city manager's office.

[pair8head]

just may print out this thread and send it to the city manager's office.

If you do please let me know one min before you print it. So I can make a post that would probably be deleted within 5 min.

[Thewino]

I'm a petty mellow person but this is pretty upsetting that elected officials are willing to put multiple familie's homes, possessions, and health in danger over a measly fee. Is this really a city policy? I'm sure the affected owners are paying property taxes so to have a fire department not respond is obscene. It is hard to grasp that someone lost everything because some bonehead was teaching a lesson over a $75 fee.

[tikitatas]

Put out the darn fires.

It's the right thing to do.

[flyboy55]

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think there is another side to this story.

Folks who live in cities and towns that provide fire protection services pay for them through their taxes. They have no choice and this makes perfect sense to me. I wouldn't want my home or place of business put at risk because some joker next door didn't think he needed fire protection services. I'm sure that's why in cities and towns the residents aren't given this choice.

The folks who live outside the tax jurisdiction of nearby cities and towns enjoy a lower property tax rate through not having to pay taxes to cover municipal services. Many property owners seek out these kinds of arrangements in order to lower their property tax bill. They get out from under the whole load of municipal taxes that they don't want to pay. They don't automatically get fire protection services because they don't pay for them in their taxes, and many of them like it that way. In some of these areas, the residents can choose to buy fire protection services by paying the fee. Those who don't pay the fee don't get the service. I think it's a crazy way to do things myself, but it does make sense from a libertarian point of view. Automatically giving citizens services that they themselves aren't paying for while their neighbors foot the bill seems to go against the ideas of small government and self-reliance that libertarians promote.

Personally, I think fire protection services shouldn't be a choice and everyone should share in the cost of having them through paying for them in their tax bill, just like we pay for schools, roads, police services, etc. I'd add single-payer universal health care to that list, but that might start an argument . . .

[SchoolGirlHeart]

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think there is another side to this story.

Folks who live in cities and towns that provide fire protection services pay for them through their taxes. They have no choice and this makes perfect sense to me. I wouldn't want my home or place of business put at risk because some joker next door didn't think he needed fire protection services. I'm sure that's why in cities and towns the residents aren't given this choice.

The folks who live outside the tax jurisdiction of nearby cities and towns enjoy a lower property tax rate through not having to pay taxes to cover municipal services. Many property owners seek out these kinds of arrangements in order to lower their property tax bill. They get out from under the whole load of municipal taxes that they don't want to pay. They don't automatically get fire protection services because they don't pay for them in their taxes, and many of them like it that way. In some of these areas, the residents can choose to buy fire protection services by paying the fee. Those who don't pay the fee don't get the service. I think it's a crazy way to do things myself, but it does make sense from a libertarian point of view. Automatically giving citizens services that they themselves aren't paying for while their neighbors foot the bill seems to go against the ideas of small government and self-reliance that libertarians promote.

Personally, I think fire protection services shouldn't be a choice and everyone should share in the cost of having them through paying for them in their tax bill, just like we pay for schools, roads, police services, etc. I'd add single-payer universal health care to that list, but that might start an argument . . .

I've been thinking along the same lines today. I don't think it's a good way to do business either but if you haven't paid for the service....

I think a better way to run things is that the fire gets put out and you get charged a huge fee if you haven't paid ahead for the service. Trouble there is, a whole lotta people would gamble on not having a fire and not pay the $75 fee, and there wouldn't be enough money to operate...

Also, please do take cover.... The world may end tonight..... Flyboy and I are in agreement.... (well, except for the health care thing...)

[ph4ever]

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think there is another side to this story.

Folks who live in cities and towns that provide fire protection services pay for them through their taxes. They have no choice and this makes perfect sense to me. I wouldn't want my home or place of business put at risk because some joker next door didn't think he needed fire protection services. I'm sure that's why in cities and towns the residents aren't given this choice.

The folks who live outside the tax jurisdiction of nearby cities and towns enjoy a lower property tax rate through not having to pay taxes to cover municipal services. Many property owners seek out these kinds of arrangements in order to lower their property tax bill. They get out from under the whole load of municipal taxes that they don't want to pay. They don't automatically get fire protection services because they don't pay for them in their taxes, and many of them like it that way. In some of these areas, the residents can choose to buy fire protection services by paying the fee. Those who don't pay the fee don't get the service. I think it's a crazy way to do things myself, but it does make sense from a libertarian point of view. Automatically giving citizens services that they themselves aren't paying for while their neighbors foot the bill seems to go against the ideas of small government and self-reliance that libertarians promote.

Personally, I think fire protection services shouldn't be a choice and everyone should share in the cost of having them through paying for them in their tax bill, just like we pay for schools, roads, police services, etc. I'd add single-payer universal health care to that list, but that might start an argument . . .

I've been thinking along the same lines today. I don't think it's a good way to do business either but if you haven't paid for the service....

I think a better way to run things is that the fire gets put out and you get charged a huge fee if you haven't paid ahead for the service. Trouble there is, a whole lotta people would gamble on not having a fire and not pay the $75 fee, and there wouldn't be enough money to operate...

Also, please do take cover.... The world may end tonight..... Flyboy and I are in agreement.... (well, except for the health care thing...)

OKAY WHO SCREWED UP THE WORLD?



next think you'll know hell will.......................
well sh*t