Interesting Story

[HoustonEagle]

Fire Department allows house to burn

Why not put the fire out and hand the home owner the bill? Is this a glimpse of what a privatized Fire Dept would look like?

[EagleGreen]

Fire Department allows house to burn

Why not put the fire out and hand the home owner the bill? Is this a glimpse of what a privatized Fire Dept would look like?

Wow. I imagine that is a glimpse into privatized fire service. Maybe a tea bagger can help us analyze this one.

[Censored by Laurie]

Everybody can sack up and buy their own coverage like big boys and girls

[KRAM1]

No, it's an indication of a stupid decision by more than one person. First, the homeowner should have paid the fee like everyone else...second, they should have worked to put the fire out and then bill them for the full costs as they had not paid the fee. DUMB has nothing to do with privatization or public. DUMB has to do with people making stupid decisions. The homeowners said they could pay the fee but just had not. Stupid. The fire dept. should never have stood around and watched the home burn. Stupid.

Trying to make this into a political discussion when it is simply people making stupid decisions is not much smarter. One can point to plenty of mistakes by both public and private entities. Neither has a perfect track record. But, one can understand why entities are having to add on such fees in today's economic climate. The fee was really quite small and reasonable as I recall. less than $100 and maybe $75...pretty inexpensive insurance to get a fire dept. to come try to put out a fire at your home.

[UNTFan23]

It'll be interesting to see how the felony aggravated assault charge works out too.

[Green Mean]

That's an interesting story...certainly.

[Army of Dad]

Wow. I imagine that is a glimpse into privatized fire service. Maybe a tea bagger can help us analyze this one.

Eagle Green's reading comprehension: FAIL

The linked article even identified them as "South Fulton city firefighters" before going on to say that "Firefighters in South Fulton city are under orders to respond only to fire calls within their city limits, as well as to surrounding Obion County, but only to homes there where people have signed up for a fire subscription service."

So how is it that a city is a privatized fire service?

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Eagle Green's reading comprehension: FAIL

The linked article even identified them as "South Fulton city firefighters" before going on to say that "Firefighters in South Fulton city are under orders to respond only to fire calls within their city limits, as well as to surrounding Obion County, but only to homes there where people have signed up for a fire subscription service."

So how is it that a city is a privatized fire service?

Army of Dad's attempt to place this into a nice little black & white box: FAIL

To those that have the option to pay for the fire subscription service (i.e. those outside the city limits), it is a privatized fire service.

[FirefightnRick]

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn't be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, said in statement excerpted by MSNBC. "They get in their trucks and go."

Although any FF officer worth his salt would have had his crew work the fire, ask for forgiveness and let the lawyers fight it out later, this system was set up to fail from the beginning. See, I CAN agree with a Lib once in a while. And it's Schaitberger not Schatisberger.

Rick

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

See, I CAN agree with a Lib once in a while.

Who are you and what have you done with the real FFR

[UNT90]

Who are you and what have you done with the real FFR

But, the problem is that this system was set up and administered by a governmental entity. A governmental entity that was local and not removed from the people it served.

Now, apply this lesson to health care.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

But, the problem is that this system was set up and administered by a governmental entity. A governmental entity that was local and not removed from the people it served.

Now, apply this lesson to health care.

No...I think the problem is that this system was set up PERIOD. I think local government services of fire, police, and schools are the best (and most successful) examples of social services working for the people. Are they perfect? No and they can greatly vary in their success from location to location. Healthcare is a "national" thing as it stands right now...so you're stretching to make your anti-healthcare point. Maybe socialized medicine would work better on a local level given the better connection with the constituents. With that, I would probably agree.

Concerning the fire service: Not knowing the background of how and why this system was put into place, it sounds like either the city's fire service should have been extended to all those in the county outside of the city limits (blanket coverage voted on by those citizens and supported by their extra tax revenue) or those outside of the city limits should have a volunteer service established that could offer them some measure of protection. That's my own uneducated thoughts, though. I'd like to hear FFR's educated opinion on this "pay for spray" program.

Edited October 13, 2010 by BeanCounterGrad'03

[FirefightnRick]

Concerning the fire service: Not knowing the background of how and why this system was put into place, it sounds like either the city's fire service should have been extended to all those in the county outside of the city limits (blanket coverage voted on by those citizens and supported by their extra tax revenue) or those outside of the city limits should have a volunteer service established that could offer them some measure of protection. That's my own uneducated thoughts, though. I'd like to hear FFR's educated opinion on this "pay for spray" program.

This is exactly right. Either the larger city should have what we have here in Fort Worth called "Mutual Aid" with the sourrounding areas, and the surrounding areas should have a volunteer organization. Why the two have no "Mutual Aid" agreement I have no idea? It would have been nice if that was included in the story.

How does a larger municipality benefit through "Mutual Aid" agreements with tiny volunteer organizations in the outer regions? The largest benefit I can think of can be fighting wildland and grassfires which can put a lot of stress on a city system that is mostly designed around structural fire fighting. The volunteer organizations are usually better equipped to handle grass fires. We have severely damaged several large, half million dollar trucks over the years trying to fight grass fires when attempting to assist the limited number of brush trucks we do have in the city. Three months after I got out of the academy I worked a grass fire that lasted several days and at one point I counted over 60 separate volunteer departments who were called in from countless areas in the North Texas region to help us prevent it from burning down countless high dollar homes that bordered Eagle Mountain Lake and it's surrounding areas. We simply cannot protect all of the public in the remote regions around Fort Worth without these volunteer folks. So why the city mentioned above didn't have the same understanding for the need of this type of coordination to protect people and their property is perplexing? My guess would be that someone in the larger city thought of this as a way to make money with their fire department, which is a large tax expense to the city but is necessary non the less. The police Department can make money for the city, but the Fire deparmtent doesn't. So maybe this was an idea they had to do that, I don't know.

Either way, my opinion is that it caused confusion, put FF's and the public and property at risk and brought embarrassment to the city management.

Rick

[Coffee and TV]

Now, apply this lesson to health care.

Private banks did an awesome job putting us into a recession.

See what I did there?

[yyz28]

Private banks did an awesome job putting us into a recession.

See what I did there?

Yes, you ignored the fact that Goverment regulation compelled banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford it. ...sayin'.

...and no, I don't think the Banks are innocent.

[UNTFan23]

Yes, you ignored the fact that Goverment regulation compelled banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford it. ...sayin'.

...and no, I don't think the Banks are innocent.

And now the chickens have come home to roost with record foreclosure rates. No doubt some cases are from people losing their jobs, but I'm pretty certain a fair share are those that bought more house than they could afford.

Yes, some (not all) the foreclosure documentation may be bogus, but it doesn't change the fact that there are record numbers of people that cannot afford to pay for the largest purchase they'll ever make in their lives.

[Coffee and TV]

Yes, you ignored the fact that Goverment regulation compelled banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford it. ...sayin'.

...and no, I don't think the Banks are innocent.

Government didn't "regulate" any bank to lend money to anyone. And lack of regulation is what lead to the shadow banking system of default swaps. Wall Street was making money whether the loan failed or not. Poor people are easy scapegoats though, I guess.

[UNTFan23]

Government didn't "regulate" any bank to lend money to anyone. And lack of regulation is what lead to the shadow banking system of default swaps. Wall Street was making money whether the loan failed or not. Poor people are easy scapegoats though, I guess.

Some feel poor people should be allowed to buy houses. In fact, laws were passed to literally force banks to loan to those poor people because the American dream of owning a home shouldn't only be something the well off should have.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

Some feel poor people should be allowed to buy houses. In fact, laws were passed to literally force banks to loan to those poor people because the American dream of owning a home shouldn't only be something the well off should have.

False.

Laws were passed that were supposed to prevent raping poor people who don't have much credit history or have damaged credit. No one was forced to give loans.

[Green Mean]

Government didn't "regulate" any bank to lend money to anyone. And lack of regulation is what lead to the shadow banking system of default swaps. Wall Street was making money whether the loan failed or not. Poor people are easy scapegoats though, I guess.

Some feel poor people should be allowed to buy houses. In fact, laws were passed to literally force banks to loan to those poor people because the American dream of owning a home shouldn't only be something the well off should have.

False.

Laws were passed that were supposed to prevent raping poor people who don't have much credit history or have damaged credit. No one was forced to give loans.

I think both sides are at fault. People that earn any level of income need to be smart with their finances and be modest or should I say live within their means. However when companies offer products that are destined for failure and hurt society or the economy then regulation is warranted(eg the sub prime loans etc). I really feel it is a two way street here. But I suppose we can start with the big companies/corps and analyzing their offerings.

[cwb]

Did you hear about the guy whose house caught fire and he...