Posted on 10/07/2005 4:21:06 AM PDT by Gordon Pym
INTERNATIONAL FALLS, Minn. There's outrage in northern Minnesota after firefighters allowed a man's mobile home to burn.
Carl Berg had failed to pay the 25-dollar annual fee required for fire protection for homes outside International Falls city limits.
Berg says he couldn't afford the fee or fire insurance. He says he lost everything in last month's fire.
The Fire Department poured enough water to put the fire out temporarily and make sure everyone was safe. But when the blaze rekindled later, firefighters let the flames destroy what was left.
Fire Chief Jerry Jensen says he doesn't want to see that happen again. He says a firefighter's job is to "put out fires, not to watch them burn."
Local officials have been haggling for two years over how to pay for fire protection.
Gee; I bet he wished he spent that $25 on insurance instead of beer now.
No sympathy here. If you let a few off without paying then pretty soon the VFD is without money to operate. Cutting service to those who do pay.
Life's hard; it's harder when you're stupid.
This guy couldn't afford to pay First Responders 50 cents a week.
I don't often say this but I'm glad they let this guy's MH burn.
Around here the volunteer ambulance/paramedic operation asks for $25/year. If you pay and you need an ambulance, no charge, otherwise you get a big bill
This is the second post of this event that I have seen. In http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1497623/posts I wrote
No fire insurance so the house burns. No 'hurricane' insurance so N. O. LA goes away. Both 'victims' want to be made well at public expense. A perfect metaphorical (small to large) analogy.
I have to disagree with you here. We have a rural volunteer EMS/VFD and have had an ongoing problem of funding. Unfortunately, a good percent of the problem has to do with poor management and kickbacks which results in folks not wanting to contribute. However, their largest expense is for tourists or weekenders who do not contribute a dime.
On the other hand, $25 isn't that much. We're asked for $200 which can be a lot for some.
I see nothing wrong with that.
God Bless our First Responders!
When I was growing up, our VFD's fee was $2.00 per year outside of the city limits. Our VFD would let homes burn if they were too cheap to pay the fee.
I wonder what the insurance company would think if they knew they intentionally did not pay the $25?
They don't say what started the fire. Interesting. I've heard and lived next to many people over the years who (whine) "can't afford _______" and yet can but cigs, videos, beer, candy, order out for pizza and subs (delivered), etc. I highly doubt that he really couldn't afford it. At the risk incurring the ire of people who live in trailer homes, we have a friend who lived in an old trailer that caught on fire and there was not much left of it even though the FD got there in reasonable time. It burned like a torch. This article doesn't say what was left after the first time it was put out. Could be that by the time they got there again, there wasn't anything worth saving. Also, I've heard that even with a house fire, if there's one wall still standing, the ins. co. doesn't consider it a total loss and won't give you the full value of the house, so sometimes if it's bad enough they let it finish so the owner can get the full insurance payment. Anyone know any more about this?
The department is a "combination dept" meaning that there are full time "paid" fire fighters and the rest are volunteers. In my opinion, the tax payers of International Falls are paying for the salaries of the paid members. This and the other expenses of running the fire co are the reasons why the outlying areas are asked to pay a yearly fee.
The owner of this trailer is very lucky that they put the fire out the first time. Having seen a few trailer fires, I doubt there was much left of it before the re-kindle. I have never heard of a home owner re building a trailer that had a fire althought I'm sure it has been done, they just to flimsy to fix.
The home owner is a first class jerk and ingrate. His house was a total loss after the first fire, why should the fire co put out any effort when this guy is too cheap to throw the fire co $25.00 and the house was already gone? Some structure fires are loosers plain and simple. This house was a looser.
Tom
the guy knew the rules. no pay no save. if you don't pay for insurance, how can you expect to be covered?
if you put it the way you propose, one can play the odds and never pay - knowing the chances of his needing the service is relatively small - therefore why pay when you can get the service anyway? Revenue would drop as word got out.
but if service is needed, do you really think that a guy who wouldn't pony up 25 bucks will pay thousands? Especially when he has repair/replacement bills to contend with and little assets? so there would be little or no reimbursement.
You could be right, but at some point a saleable asset will appear, even if its a charred piece of land that the trailer sat upon.... Unless its a houseboat that sinks after the fire.
He should have been more careful with his matches.
Guy sounds like a real deadbeat
Too mnay people are freeloaders
When the volunteer suburban have a fund raising drive( my nephew was involved ) they get about 35% participation despite the fact they are saving homeowners $$$$ in salary taxes etc
The local building inspector determines total loss. The State will come down on boneheaded crooks attempting to operate as a legitimate business.
so you're in favor of taking someomne's land after they get burned out of their homes.
that'll sell politically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.