quote:
The money is not the issue. Conforming to requirements is the issue. $75.00 is a token amount, and doesn't cover the drive from the firehouse to the scene in a firetruck. It does create a relationship between the homeowner and the City that allows the City's insurance carrier to cover the firefighter's response outside the City coverage area. Try paying a worker's comp claim out of pocket...it's guaranteed to make you refuse to respond outside your coverage area ever again.
It seems the money is the issue here or that everyone has made it the issue.
As far as what it takes to cover the the costs of the drive out there no one knows that. I believe that most of the fire fighters in this city are on a volunteer basis and the chief is the only one on the city's pay roll. But as I stated NO ONE knows this because this city is not talking.
And if this city has to look to see if they can afford to come to a fire each time then they need to elect some officials that can balance a budget.
This is pretty obvious that they did not put the fire out for spite. Once they responded to the neighbors house and then left while the other mans house was still burning is pretty evident.
I am like most people on here that I cannot stand free loaders. But once they responded they should have done something. They should lose all State and Federal funding if they are going to make their own rules of what fire they will put out. Because if they are getting Federal dollars we all have some say so.
And they might as well have held up the middle finger as they drove off and yelled the big FU to this man and his family.
Just my opinion on it.
Other than that....I do not think I would go to manta.com to try to determine a mans wealth and if he can pay the 75.00. If you are going to rely on that for FACTS then you are insane.