Fire burns while firefighters watch
From the News-Leader out of Missouri, reporting on news from the Ozarks:
Firefighters near Monett stood by and watched a fire destroy a garage and a vehicle because the property owner, who was injured battling the flames, had not paid membership dues.
Monett Rural Fire Department Chief Ronnie Myers defended the policy, saying the membership-based organization could not survive if people thought the department would respond for free. The department said it will fight a fire without question if a life is believed to be in danger.
I guess Rueda should have jumped into the flames. Instead, he tried hard to save his property:
Four mobile homes and a number of vehicles were on the property. Rueda managed to get one mobile home out of danger, using a garden hose and buckets, but was burned in the process, Evenson said.
Someone seems to have forgotten the notion of the common good. I rage against high taxes because they seem to be used to provide services far in excess of the common good. Indeed, a great deal of our taxes are used for the good of narrowly defined segments of our society as a way of earning favour. Much of the rest is used for policies that support the common good, without consideration of how much better a private operator might provide the same service, especially in competition.
But firefighting is not a free-market activity. We don't have multiple firefighting brigades each offering better firefighting than the competition. But we had that in the past.
The first fire brigades were the Roman vigiles, funded by a 4% tax on the sale of slaves. A vigiles cohort included firefighters and medical professionals, and they patrolled the streets of Rome looking for unsupervised fires. However, this idea of a professional public system did not survive the fall of Rome.
In 17th century London, fire brigades were funded by insurance companies, and only fought fires in those buildings sporting the moniker of the insurance company in question. In 19th century New York, fire brigades would compete, even to the point of sabotage, since brigades were paid out of by the insurance company for each building saved.
So despite this history of firefighting wackiness, how is it that today a man has lost his property because of money he says he did not know he was supposed to pay?
Rueda offered to pay, Evenson said, but the Monett department does not have a policy for on-the-spot billing.
Randy Cole, assistant state fire marshal, said there was no state law requiring membership-supported fire districts to help nonmembers in any situation.
However, state law says those departments may perform services for a nonmember if they choose, and then charge the nonmember based on a set amount outlined in statute, Cole said.
Common good goes far beyond mere property though. When I see a firetruck on its way to an emergency call, I know that I have helped pay for that service. So have my neighbours. We have all chipped in to ensure our safe community in creating a service that helps all. How is the community bond strengthened when neighbours watch as another neighbour engages in a pitiful attempt to save his home? How is the community bond strengthened when their only concern is that the fire not spread?
Firefighting is more than just about fighting fires. It is about meeting the common enemy. In Monett county, I'm guessing that more than a few people are looking at each other as the enemy instead. I wonder if race played a role in all this:
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.
I think Chief Myers should be asked some pointed questions about how evenly the policy is enforced. Call me a cynic, but why do I get a feeling some fires are put out right away, and others are left to burn, when there is a question of membership dues being paid?
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
For some reason, the phrase "protection racket" pops into mind.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at February 21, 2006 02:25 PM
Is Missouri a red state? Sounds like a Republican far right wing policy, user pay for what many consider an essential service.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 21, 2006 02:54 PM
I think that's terrible. That firefighters would not fight a fire because of the owner's financial state. I wonder if the insurance company, who is about to get a large fire claim, is going to sue the fire department for professional misconduct and dare we say negligence?
Why couldnt the fire fighter say "this is how much you owe, pay on monday?" and fight the fire.
My sister gets mad, in her community, the community assocation keeps sending her bills for a park, snow removal and a 'misc' services. Which would be ok, but in the years she lived there no snow has ever been removed before it melted in march.
Would this be "downloading" when city governments no longer wish to pay for services in new communities, instead force the costs onto the developers?
Posted by: Curtis at February 21, 2006 03:11 PM
so he doesn't pay when times are good, but then expects to get service when an emergency happens.
ZERO sympathy for that bozo. Ya get what ya pay for.
anyone who thinks he should get no fee firefighting services is a candidate for the Karl Marx "I wanna be a Socialist" award.
Posted by: Fred at February 21, 2006 03:15 PM
Liberal Ron,
Missouri is a split state - Republican at the National level, split at state, and Democrat at the local level. Something like this is most likely legislated at the state level, and administered at the county(riding) level.
I agree with the PhantomObserver: regardless of the party, it's a shakedown.
Posted by: DaveO at February 21, 2006 03:18 PM
Mixed feelings on this one. How many times do we see apartment fires where the tenant has no 'personal property' fire insurance? Occasionally this may be due to lack of money to ppurchase insurance but I suspect it's often someone playing the risk game:
Annual insurance cost, $500
Risk of fire: pretty low
Outcome: I'll use the $500 for (name your expenditure here) and take my chances.
When a fire strikes, are they a 'victim' or an unlucky gambler? Should we accept 'common' responsibility and bail them out because they've made a bad choice?
I live in a 'volunteer fire department' area and on Saturday a home just six doors down, burned to the ground, so this is pretty fresh in my mind. In our regional district, we support the fire department through a tax levy, which is probably the best means to do so.
But if we had 'subscription funding' as in this case, it's more like being either insured or un-insured. Thus we accept personal responsibility. If this guy couldn't afford the 'insurance' perhaps he should have chosen another place to live. If he could afford it, he should have paid it rather than playing the odds. He played, he lost.
Too many people would rely on their neighbours paying the shot if they believed the fire department would save their ass if they were permitted to pay 'after the fact'.
After writing this, I'm with the fire department.
Posted by: Randy O'Donnell at February 21, 2006 03:34 PM
I would also be a sucker for this. I would "assume" that firefighters are on the city payroll, and thus paid with propterty taxes.
I smell a lawsuit. Since fire insurance is nessessary for anyone to get a morgage, I think the firemen are going to get sued.
Posted by: Curtis at February 21, 2006 03:38 PM
This is not the first case of a property owner being denied fire services for not having paid their bills. (either not paying for past fire calls, or not paying the monthly dues.)
This type of fire department is voluntary, funded not by the municipality but by fees paid by clients (as they do for insurance, newspapers, cable, etc), and therefore likely has every right to refuse service to those who have chosen not to pay into the pot. Those who do not, for instance, insure the contents of their residence, may not file an insurance claim simply because they have been robbed. Similarly I suspect that these fire organizations are not under any legal requirement to provide their services, no matter how bad the optics are. Additionally, especially in the US, there are massive liability issues involved. For instance, if a firefighter is injured fighting a fire at the property of a non-member, who covers the medical bills? The property owner who has no contract with the firefighter, or the fire company, who would have no legal requirement (and possibly no right) to be on the property in the first place? without a contract,can the property owner sue the fire company for breaking down the doors to enter a burning non-member's property, or is this trespassing without a specific invitation to enter?
The questions and problems on both sides of this issue are huge.
Liberal Ron should put on his thinking cap rather than whining about Republicans. This is not a Bushitler-Cheney-the-SHOOTER-Halliburton-oilbaby-eating-Republican-etc issue, but a matter for local (read MUNICIPAL/COUNTY) administration to deal with.
Presumably, the fire dept had notified all property owners of the situation; after all, they wouldn't have operating capital and a customer list otherwise.
Posted by: Dagny Taggart at February 21, 2006 03:40 PM
Except that firefighting is a communal function, not a private one.
It has to be that way because fires spread, threatening properties and people both insured and uninsured.
The point of fire insurance is not to pay for firefighters, it's for replacing items damaged in the event of a fire.
I suspect that the vast majority of North Americans consider firefighting to be something to be paid for out of municipal property taxes, which is why the firefighter's callousness is so shocking.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at February 21, 2006 03:44 PM
The fire department in question was a rural, volunteer fire department. There is no fire protection outside municipal boundaries in the state, except for these rural departments. Typically, their annual dues are about $35.00 per year. They usually send out a mailer to every address in their area of responsibility. Could the property owner read, or did he throw away the notice? If you live outside a city, don't expect city funded services. . .
If the owner of the property did not know about the rural fire department, after having lived in the community for over one and a half years, one can only assume he didn't bother to ask anyone any questions.
Having lived within 30 miles of the area in question for 6 years, paying dues to a rural volunteer fire department, I suspect Mr. Ruado may have not been a good neighbor. Four mobile homes on a property sounds to me like a nest of illegal aliens, since that's about three more than the usual number. This is an increasing problem in the Midwest, and the newspapers always make a big story out of everything bad which happens to these people.
Posted by: Pine Knot at February 21, 2006 04:23 PM
I don't know why some of you are gettng so twisted up about this isn't any different from PRIVATIZED health care!
Posted by: the bear at February 21, 2006 04:42 PM
No, its very different.
When you need emergency service you're in a very poor negotiating position to bargain for the contract, or get competitive bids. The service provider is in a very powerfull position and acted accordingly.
Posted by: Curtis at February 21, 2006 05:03 PM
Here in metropolitan Montreal, Canada, the surburban house 2 doors down burn't down 2 months ago.
Once the fire guys had determined that there was no one in the house,they got really relaxed. They concentrated on making sure the first house and trees downwind didn't catch. That the electricity and water got shut off.
Then, once organized, hoses hooked up they hammered it out with the hoses. They know as well as anyone that once the house has been burning 10 min it's a total insurance loss, and a structural crap-shoot so there's no point in killing (literally or figuratively) themselves putting it out.
These guys in missouri did the EXACTLY the same thing. Keep the fire from spreading, make sure no one is inside getting BBQ'ed. They fulfilled the defense ofthe commons by not allowing the fire to spread.
In most rural areas that I know of, the fire dept will often come around to new people in the area and say: "We're here to make sure the fire doesn't spread, your house/barn/workshop is going to be toast by the time we get to you. Have a plan. Try to put it out yourself. Don't be stupid. Have a nice day."
Posted by: Fred at February 21, 2006 05:14 PM
A lot of good points raised by other readers here, and as I rural volunteer fireman, I've gotta chime in :)
First of all, big points to Fred for recognizing an unfortunate truth of rural (and urban)firefighting. We do our best, but a lot of the time we just can't get there in time to pull off a save. My own fire department (in Canada) responds to the western half of our county, 2 major highways, and an Indian reserve. At some points, our area is almost 200 miles across. You're looking at a radius of 40km from our station where we might save an involved structure, depending on call delay, construction, and a bunch of other factors.
It is entirely possible that the IC made a decision that agressively fighting the fire, when there was no risk to life, would put his men at too much risk - mobile homes are notorious for rapid failure.
Now aside from the chief defending the membershup policy, there's no direct quote from an IC stating that was the whole reason for the stand-by decision. It could be that for whatever reason, someone decided this would be the better answer for the press than 'it was too late, and too dangerous to attack aggressively'.
It's just a possiblity. I don't think that we can assume too much based on one article. Without actually seeing pictures of the fire and knowing many more details, we're armchair quarterbacking. Jumping to allegations of racism does the members of the fire department a great disservice.
Posted by: RL at February 21, 2006 07:17 PM
I also am a rural 'volunteer' (actually we're classed as "paid-on-call") firefighter. Our department is funded by the a portion of the property taxes of the most of the local residents.
There is a clear line on the road where our department will not cross, even in the case of a potential life threatening situation.
It's as simple as - if I'm fighting a fire out of the district the firefighters and equipment aren't available to the people that are paying for it.
There are areas 20 minutes down the highway with no fire protection, none, zip. People who move to those areas are often pretty surprised when they call 9-1-1 only to have the nice operator tell them there is no fire department.
I have had several experiences of standing on our border watching a fire happen on properties that were able to join the fire protection district; but chose not to. Yup, every year the properties bordering our area are offered the choice to have the "fire protection assesment" added to their taxes. Most choose not to.
Posted by: Albert at February 21, 2006 08:04 PM
Fucking burocrats! You are responsible to your fellow man regardless of costs or boundaries! This shit needs to stop! If an American town just across the border was on fire and Canadian Firefighters were closer and ready to repond, I would expect them to do their duty! This is a case of lawyers and insurance company's gone wrong. Police are funded with taxes, why not firefightes and paramedics? The policy should be, reduce the losses and recover the costs with the appropriate people after the fact. Fucking liberals whith this attempt to paint capitalists as uncaring!
Posted by: Affliction at February 21, 2006 10:23 PM
A rural volunteer fire department will soon go broke if it fight fires for freeloaders. Equipment costs are going off-scale. Training costs too, and government regulations are increasing complex and expensive.
Posted by: RJM at February 22, 2006 12:51 AM
It's basic contract law, people. Nothing to do with the "common good" or tax-funded municipally-supplied service. It's a straight fee-for-service model!!!.
Bonehead gambled by not paying his fire-fighting service contract fee. He lost. End of story.
Posted by: Reg at February 22, 2006 08:44 AM
Afflication, calm down. There is no way a Canadian fire dept would cross the line since the US border patrol would stop these potential terrorists by arresting them and throwing them in jail? Mind you, how do they deal with cross border forest fires in the international peace park. Hope they run from south to north so there isn't a border violation?
Posted by: the bear at February 22, 2006 08:50 AM
I'll chime in with the "You get what you pay for" crowd. The region doesn't include taxes for fire service (possibly at at the residents' request), but does provide an opt-in to a volunteer service. This gentleman neither paid taxes for said protection, nor opted-in to the voluntary program and instead chose to keep the cash himself. It was a very bad decision....
Posted by: Matthew Baldwin at February 22, 2006 09:33 AM
I don't have a problem with someone not providing a service if the service has never been paid for.
Personally it bugs more when I hear stories about civil servants, whose salaries are paid for by taxpayers, who have the audacity to refuse to do something on the job because 'it's not in their job description' or in their collective agreement. Non-professional behaviour that in many cases would warrant firing, except in those workplaces where unions will defend the person, not for any other reason other than they've paid their membership dues.
Posted by: JM at February 22, 2006 11:36 AM
Captialism, contracts, and morals.
...right and NHL hockey players get paid how much?
Posted by: tomax at February 24, 2006 12:45 PM
 
|
|
