Missouri Firefighters Refuse to Help Non-Member

[Guest]

Anyone hear of this story out of Missouri?

http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2006/0.../0216060015.txt

Southwest Missouri firefighters watch as fire hits nonmember

MONETT, Mo. (AP) -- Rural firefighters in southwest Missouri 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.

According to Barry County Sheriff's Detective Robert Evenson, the fire broke out Monday on four acres owned by Rueda south of Monett, about 50 miles southwest of Springfield.

Four mobile homes and a number of vehicles were on the property. Rueda managed to get one mobile home out of the way, using a garden hose and buckets, but was burned in the process, Evenson said.

Monett Rural Fire Department responded to the scene but did not fight the fire. Firefighters stood by from the road as the fire burned itself out, watching in case the flames spread to neighboring properties owned by members.

"People need to realize you've got to become a member. If you live outside the city limits, you need to join one of the rural fire departments," Myers said.

Rueda offered to pay, Evenson said, but the Monett department does not have a policy for on-the-spot billing.

Nearby Cassville and Mt. Vernon have gone to tax-supported rural fire districts, following a public vote, wherein all fires are fought.

Rural Monett members have not been asked to choose between memberships and tax support, though they came out strongly against a proposed Aurora Rural Bi-County Fire Protection District, which was voted down in 2001.

Edited February 20, 2006 by nutty1

[Guest]

NUTS !!!

[Guest tfd193]

It should be understood however, that it would look bad for them to fight this fire "for free", which may lead other property owners to stop paying feeling that "hey they're going to put the fire out whether I pay or not". In rural areas such as these where they do not have taxing districts, they are supported by the membership dues. If people stop paying, the fire dept. ceases to exist. The real issue is either, Why did this man not know he had to pay or why do they not have a taxing district. Neither issue can really be blamed on the firefighters themselves. It is very unlikely they enjoyed sitting there watching the fire burn. However it is a matter of there existance or business if you will.

[COMMANDCHIEF 4]

This isn't the first time this has happened. A while back I think there was somthing posted aboiut this. I definitly remember hearing another story about this happening where they stopped operations once they found out the address was not a paid member either. But in that case the people had just moved into the area and didn't know about the "subscription" requirement.

[Plectron 1]

ARE U KIDDING ME.....THAT IS A WHOLE LOT OF B.S!!!!

I THINK THEY NEED A REALITY CHECK

[exmrvfc 0]

Most firefighters in our area don't realize how bad firefighters in rural areas have it. I have met volunteers in Pennsylvania that have to hold BBQ chicken sales once a week in the summertime just to pay expenses on the firehouse. Most of these departments do not recieve any kind of taxpayer funding and life for them is brutal. Most towns did away with subscription service for this very reason and went to a tax basis. The towns can only do that if the residents approve the tax district first.

[calhobs 110]

wow who runs things there John Gotti??

[JohnnyOV 2]

It should be understood however, that it would look bad for them to fight this fire "for free", which may lead other property owners to stop paying feeling that "hey they're going to put the fire out whether I pay or not". In rural areas such as these where they do not have taxing districts, they are supported by the membership dues. If people stop paying, the fire dept. ceases to exist. The real issue is either, Why did this man not know he had to pay or why do they not have a taxing district. Neither issue can really be blamed on the firefighters themselves. It is very unlikely they enjoyed sitting there watching the fire burn. However it is a matter of there existance or business if you will.

←

I couldnt have said it any better my self. I think that If there was an immenent life threat, they would not have hesitated to go in and try to save that person. I understand that the homeowner recived burns, but i would assume he was most likely on the outside throwing water in.

[CAM502 6]

ARE U KIDDING ME.....THAT IS A WHOLE LOT OF B.S!!!!

I THINK THEY NEED A REALITY CHECK

←

Yeah...what he said!!!

The Town and the FD need a reality check. And to top it off the guy said he offered to pay? WTF put out the fire and get his money later.

[Guest tfd193]

That is of course questionable as to why they did not accept his money on scene. I was jus relaying their operations as they have been told to me. They simply have no other way of functioning without the money paid to them by members

[mfc2257 464]

Don't get me wrong, I think the fire should have been put out. Take the guy to court for the money later.... BUT it's very easy for the majority (not all) of the people who post on this board to be critical of this department. I spent 4 years in college working with some pretty rural fire departments in PA and MD and life there is very different than it is in the NY Metro area.

I realize that some local departments do some hard fundraising and own their firehouses or equipment but for most in the NY Metro Area that isn't the case... The fire district or municipality owns most if not all the property and equipment.

In many states unless a municipality is considered a "city" they may not have the authority to levee a fire tax (That is to say, Villages, Boroughs, Boros, Townships, Hamlets, etc who have fire departments may not have the authority to levee a fire tax... Only a City that is chartered as such). SO what you wind up with (as was mentioned before) is a department full of members that have to break their backs not only to provide fire protection, but to raise the money to pay for their property and equipment. In the NY Metro area, most departments have the luxury of having their apparatus paid for via taxes. The district puts it out to bid and the equipment is purchased....

When we're traveling through the rest of America, and see a steel building fire house with a sign out front that says "Bingo First & Third Fridays 8:00pm" and "Shrimp Feed $10.00 Per Person" it's not because they are a bunch of hokey red necks that don't have anyting to do with their Friday nights, its because they've got a mortage on the fire house, and a vehicle payment to make every month on that 20 year old used Mack CF-600 that they just bought from some department up near New York City for $30,000.

By the way, there is nothing more heartbreaking than watching a piece of fire apparatus get repossessed by the bank as the department members and their families watch helplessly.

In areas where donations and fund raising is really poor, and the population is spread out over hundreds of square miles, due to the inability of local government to subsidize fire protection, Subscription Service is a last resort. Trust me, these guys don't want to be collecting money for fire protection.

[Guest]

I thought the three major functions of the fire service was 1) Life Saftey, 2) Incident stabilazation, 3) Property Conservation

anyway, kinda hard to believe that someone in the fire service would watch someone lose thier home. I realize that these areas dont have fire taxing districts and departments need money somehow, but as mfc2257 said take the guy to court later, there is a job to be done.

Edited February 21, 2006 by nutty1

[TR54 239]

Sounds like to early 1900's , when if a resident did not pay his insurance the FD let the struture burn to the ground. When a resident paid he was able to display a brass plate on the building to show responding firemen the house should be saved !

[Guest]

Nutty1 I agree with you. This should have been one of those "act now, argue later" situations. Perhaps for those who do not pay membership dues these departments could charge a non-member service fee (higher cost than membership otherwise no one would pay dues). No fire department should stand by and watch when they have the tools, and the skills to help. What a way to welcome someone to town!

[210 91]

Nutty1 I agree with you. This should have been one of those "act now, argue later" situations. Perhaps for those who do not pay membership dues these departments could charge a non-member service fee (higher cost than membership otherwise no one would pay dues). No fire department should stand by and watch when they have the tools, and the skills to help. What a way to welcome someone to town!

←

I know where your coming from and I agree to a point. However, there is always an excuse. If you live in these areas you need to pay for the service, thats reality. There will always be someone who wont pay and then start the whole its unfair BS thing when they lose property.

Saving lives, people trapped is a different story. Go in get people out and worry about costs later.

[Guest]

I understand that there will always be someone who makes an excuse not to pay. In those instances the department could forward the bill direct to the insurance company. Odds are insurance companies would rather pay a little for a service fee, rather than a lot to replace homes, cars, etc.

[firemn23 8]

If they charged him later everyone else would do it and then no one would pay unless they had a fire. But the whole idea does seem a little unusual to me. The state could mandate that every town be required to offer its residents fire protection and split up a portion of state tax to each district, just like schools. If it was me i would think it is included in my property taxes. I wonder if the town sends out a biannual or annual reminder to all of its residents. The I didn't know about it is the oldest line in the book and doesn't get you anywhere.

[Guest tfd193]

... a little side note, apparently after the man told them he did not know about it and would pay them later, it was later discovered he did not have fire insurance either...

[Guest]

I wonder if the town sends out a  biannual or annual reminder to all of its residents.  The I didn't know about it is the oldest line in the book and doesn't get you anywhere.

←

The question is in these towns whose responsibility is it to educate the public. Some people will use the excuse "I didn't know", but some may legitimately have no idea how the system works. This is the first time I have heard of this type of system, and it's conceivable that a new resident would assume that they are protected. As this community is the exception to that thought process, it is the duty of the fire department or the city government to inform the new resident of the program and the required fees. Have the new resident sign a release that they have been informed of the policies. If they refuse to pay they can't use the excuse "I didn't know".

However, I must say that there has got to be a better alternative to this system. What if the homeowner couldn't afford the fees? are we not discriminating based in financial standing? Are you going to let what little possessions a poor family has burn, because they couldn't afford to pay the fire department.

This seems like it should be a state funding issue. How a government could allow this situation to exist is beyond me. That Fire Departments have to charge for membership is contrary to our purpose and our tradition. Fire Departments cost money, we all know that. The state should really step in with funding.