Ozarks News Update – February 16, 2006:
Rural firefighters 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.
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.
So, how many readers recognize the Talking Heads, presumably singing “Burning Down the House”?
I got it right away. Great picture for the story.
I guess it never occured to anyone that the firefighters could “bill” the person who’s house/garage is burning down after it’s been put out.
From the sound of the story, if the guy had simply gone into the garage and sat in his car, the firefighters would have actually put out the fire.
Makes ya wonder if a resident pissed of a firefigher someday, if they would get “special” treatment too.
that’s friggin dumb
Isn’t this called extortion?
I thought it was more along the lines of “and the band played on”
Ah, a story to warm my cold libertarian heart!
Assuming the guy made an informed decision to not pay the dues, the firefighters had every right to watch the place burn down. I would almost say that it was their responsibility to not do anything, as people seem to have to be reminded that their are consequences to their decisions.
As to the idea of “post billing” the person after it’s been put out, I think it would have been a fair compromise, as long as the bill is many, many multiples of what the original “insurance” was.
Do note that a key tenet of my libertarianism is the “informed” consent. If these firefighters did a half hearted job of alerting people that they needed to pay dues to get their services, then they are wrong, and probably deserve punishment of somekind.
Can you say “lawsuit”?
What about sending the bill afterwards?
@Lou: Why in the world should the “bill” be many times more the insurance? Costs are costs. If it costs $1000 to put out a fire like the one described. Then the bill should be $1000, not a penny more or less.
On the other hand, depending on how far along the fire was when the firefighters arrived, it may be a mute point. Fire’s tend to do so much damage, that attempting to put it out before it burned itself out, may not have been worth it.
I wonder what his home-owners insurance company has to say about a matter like this? Assuming he had home-owners insurance that is.
Somone should burn down the firehouse.
Here’s another great idea. Membership based Police Forces. Pay your dues, and they’ll come to your house if you’re being robbed. Don’t pay your dues, and well…screw you.
Or Membership Based Ambulance services. Let’s hope that guy in a car crash has paid his dues….
Just what we need, public servants developing a country club mentality. Whatever happened to doing your job. God forbid you show a little pity on someone. Just put out the fire, and send him a bill if you have to, standing there and watching is beyond reprehensible. Man, this really angers me……..
Meanwhile, the fact he’s Mexican probably didn’t play into what a bunch of shit kickers thought.
Right…
They should check before they let a building burn down whether the owner was informed that there was a fee in the first place. What if some putz lost the guy’s check? Do you let a building burn down because of a clerical error? This is petty and stupid.
Another thing, what if you are poor? You don’t deserve to have your building saved if you can’t pay? This is wrong on every level!
Fire, emergency and police services should be paid by local property taxes not by individual fees.
Well, the reason they geared up and went out there was so they could fight it if it looked like it was going to spread to other property, which had been paid for, or might turn life-threatening in general.
One thing none of the comments thus far seems to have touched upon is the fact that the property owner was Hispanic–and the fire chief specifically said he would make a greater effort to explain the dues policy “to the area’s new Hispanic residents.” That might be very useful in terms of proving alleged discrimination in a lawsuit, which might be an angle that would meet with success where claims of illegality would fail. (As the article says, the fire department’s actions were technically within the letter of the law.)
I wouldn’t even be surprised if there was discrimination involved; this part of Missouri is very conservative in its outlook.
Oh, and membership-based volunteer fire departments are not at all unusual in rural areas. Whether they are dues-based or tax-based is something that is up to the constituents of the particular area. The last paragraph of the article notes that other area districts went tax-supported, but Monett specifically voted not to.
If you live in rural areas for long, it’s another one of those things that you specifically make a note to check when you move to another one–is my fire department taxed or dues-based. I know this isn’t the first story of a fire department from my area showing up to not fight a fire that I’ve heard of.
It would be interesting to see what Monett-area residents think of the affair, though I don’t know if we’ll ever find out.
I used to live there, and it is a RURAL volunteer firemans association. All funds are gathered from the people who join the association and from state funding grants. By law they can not get funds through property taxes when its a Rural volunteer fireman deal.
Yes, they should send notices to join each year like they do in the area I live in now. Plus they should check who has moved in the area and send out notices for each new one too. Whether they do or not is a matter of question..
They did drive out there and make sure that there wasn’t a life endangerment, which is good, but in MY opinion if in the same situation, I couldn’t just stand by and let it burn.
I almost died from a fire situation, and I feel for the people in any fire situation. Besides the physical scars the emotional scars are still with me today.
I’m always surprised that people who live in cities are surprised to hear about things like this. This is not an uncommon phenomena in rural America. Volunteer fire departments survive off of fees such as this, some municipalities include it on the property taxes and some do not. The department is still obligated to save your life and prevent the fire from spreading to neighbors but they will not save your property. While someone should have mentioned it to this guy when he bought the property (it probably actually was mentioned somewhere and he either didn’t understand or wasn’t paying attention). For those who choose not to pay there will be consequences as painful as that might be. I’d like to reiterate this is nothing new and fees like this have been in places for years, when you move to a rural area this is just one of the things that’s different. Others usually include trash pickup, water and sewer service.
Is the fire incident THAT much different than requiring critically injured people to prove that they can pay before they are admitted to a private hospital?
This is what taxes are for, libertarians. Or more accurately, this is what minimizing taxes (along with privatizing entities when it is clearly in the best interest of the populace that they be Government controlled) does.
its funny how people just sort of take for granted that someone will protect them. firefighters are not obligated to do anything for us. there is nothing unlawful or worthy of revenge here. at the worst, their inaction was unloving, which is disappointing, but not unlawful in secular law systems such as ours
The libertarian back here:
1. Yes, allowing damage to property is VERY different than allowing damage to a person (refusing to allow emergency medical help). Its a very clear line.
2.The fact that the person is Hispanic is of no consequence unless the lack of notice was due to bigotry/racism. If I moved to another country, would not plead ignorance of the laws or local issues (ie: paying dues for firefighting) because I did not speak the language. The fact that the chief might reach out to the Hispanic community is virtuous, but not required.
3. Yes, I’m a libertarian, but I do believe that the government can collect taxes for the common good, but since this locality has decided that firefighting is a paid for service as opposed to a common tax-paid right, who am I (or anyone) to argue with them.
things like this only show that police,fire and EMS should be basic services paid by taxes and that the country as a whole needs to rethink public services and support them . Everybody in public service is willing to put their life on the line each and every day but people only will acknowlage them when they need then or find fault with them. How many times do you hear on the nightly news about the firefighters and police officers doing the job they chose to do ,well and take care of all the everyday things they will come across? Never. But you will hear about a 5 minute delay, without realising they were given the wrong address or they are so understaffed they can not respond to more than 1 incident at a time ( and don’t have enough resourses to handle that 1 )
it is time to wake up and support these services they are there to help you in your emergency whatever it may be.
To make a fire department have to solicite funds to risk their lives is beyond crazy!!! This should be a basic service to everyone in this country,this is not the 1800’s we should be far past that and do what is right.
Lou
You make some good points in post #26.
If, the Fire Department took ONE nickel of taxpayer money though, they would lose their argument that they have the right to ignore non-paying residents.
Emergency personnel can not hold people for ransom and decide who to support and who not to support once they accept public money, including grants. And every local Fire Department that I am aware of has received some Homeland Insecurity money. The article also states that it has received some grant money from the State.
I think, without being a lawyer, that he has a good case, provided that he is not “undocumented” and is deported before any suit reached trial.
Alright, as an old Libertarian Editor for Illinois, I’ll bite here — but I have to note that although the Libertarian ideals point to a free and open economy here… Mr. Fusion points out a quality fact. Remember, this is not a libertarian economy — key areas are missing from the front end before people start endorsing Firefighters ignoring fires for not paying dues. Namely that whole foundation of a laissez faire economy — since that’s obviously not in effect, it’s safe to say these guys took tax money, and are liable.
Question: Does anyone know the answer: Assume a rural town of say 5,000 to 10,000 people; with one all-volunteer Fire Dept. Anyone have any factual insight as to what their annual costs are? (for the maintence of all the trucks, fire gear, fire breathing equipment, annual training of the volunteer fire fighters, etc).
Look folks. I’m not saying that they guy should pay only when needed. I’m saying bill the guy and make sure he knows that he need to be a “member” so that he can particapate like everyone else?
Why is this not a property tax issue anyway?
What if this fire had spread to other buildings on his property? Sounds to me like the firemen at the scene would just sit back and watch all of this poor guys property burn to the ground without lifting a finger. If, on the other hand, the fire looked like it would spread to a “members” property, they would act.
This sound like if someone who wasn’t paying their medical insurance were to get the bird flu, the would be put into isolation probably with other members of their family, and left to die, but make sure that they didn’t spread the illness to anyone else.
I’m sorry, I must really be evil to think that give the guy the benifit of the doubt, and deal with it afterword.