Firefighters let house burn to the ground...

[stumpyb]

an incredibly costly mistake, but the guy even admitted that he knew he didn't pay the fee and thought they would help him anyway. the guy is an idiot. why would the firefighters risk their jobs disobeying orders over somebody elses $75 mistake?

 

[DreamMachine]

Thats the point.

AND he did offer to foot the entire bill himself

AND its going to cost a hell of a lot more than 75k for a brand new house.

Do you think someone who has difficulty in paying $75 is going to easily shell out $10k or more for costs after the fact? After reading a few news reports, he sounds like the sort of guy that after the put the fire out would claim that he never made such a deal and refuse to pay, saying "Take me to court if you want your money".

I also read that there is a federal limit of $500 on collecting firefighting expenses after the fact. I don't know how true this is though.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Locke's talking about theft, not random fires that occur. Your interpretation is just bizarre.

What exactly are you basing that on? What part of preservation are you not understanding?

 

[Netphase]

And when things start to turn into arguing just for the sake of arguing.....

thats when I bail.

have fun.

I was just posting a fact.

Jeff Vowell, city manager of South Fulton, told the Union City Daily Messenger that the city fire department let Gene Cranick's doublewide trailer home burn last week because he didn't pay the subscription common in many rural areas.

The Associated Press: Firefighters let home burn; owner didn't pay fee

 

[conv3rsion]

i'm too lazy to read the article, but when i bought my house, the bank made me buy flood insurance. There is basically no chance of my house being flooded, but I still have to pay $300 a year for flood insurance.

If this guy had a mortgage and the bank didn't make him buy this ridiculous fire coverage, that's some shit for real. What fucking legislator made this coverage optional.

 

[gerMAN]

That guy in "The Young Turks" a couple posts up seems like a liberal version Glenn Beck.

eurolib here and haha you're right.

 

[hellblazer]

What exactly are you basing that on? What part of preservation are you not understanding?

That was the whole point of what the Founders were thinking about, a government that could take anything. Having your house burn down doesn't mean you lost your property; you still own the land. The Founders were thinking about a government that could STEAL your land and that's what was meant by "preservation".

 

[Sonny Forelli]

Health insurance doesn't exist in pure free market form. It could probably be closer to a couple hundred dollars, but then again you save your house! Market forces beat government subsidies any day. And who said the tax system was good? Nobody.

Please explain how fighting a fire would only be a "a couple hundred dollars" given that I'm guessing even a rural fire department has operating costs of what, shall we say $500k annually (2 trucks, 4 firefighters, firehouse, gear, etc).


Where does this money come from, you know, given that they aren't fighting several fires a day.


Do you also pay said fee when you get t-boned by a drunk driver and are unconscious and the firefighters are the first responders?

What if you don't then agree to said fee b/c you don't know what it is and you're unconscious?

See how retarded your argument is?

 

[TigerUK]

From a long-term business stand-point, letting the house burn down is probably the best fear-based advertising for the $75 fee that the gov't could have got. I'm willing to bet that a LOT more people in Tennessee are now paying that fire insurance.

well, they are now