This area doesn't seem like the Alaskan outback, it's not that rural. And the lack of rural fire protection seems more like a matter of inefficient county government and some fucktards sabotaging the system than any kind of consensus that livin' the country life is worth not having access to fire trucks.
There really is nothing preventing the people of this county from passing a law to fund a fire service out of taxes. They might do so after this case, or maybe not. Maybe it's not the ideal situation, but that's the nature of democracy. Maybe their local government sucks, but that's their choice.
Yeah, I'm all about having higher levels of government step in when more local government is being fucktarded. If nothing else, the state should have stepped in long ago and mandate than all counties provide some form of rural fire protection (or revenue-sharing with municipalities to provide it).
Like, I reject the assertion that 51% of people should be able to deny my county basic fire protection, if said protection is feasible, because they want to save $50 a year in taxes or some such. That's fucking retarded.
That's democracy. You're really only entitled to the government services that you and the members of the relevant polity are willing to pay for, through taxes. If 50%+1 of your neighbors decide that paying for a fire department, paved roads and a public sewer system costs too much money, that decision may or may not be idiotic, but it is their right. Your options, if you don't like that decisions, are to move or try and get them to change their minds.
I get a sense that people on this thread think that rural people shouldn't be allowed to make different decisions than urban folks when it comes to what government services they want.
Of course they should. But not essential services, not when feasible. I'm sure some Texas backwaters would love to do away with their school systems, and just let the parents teach the kids about Jesus at home like God intended. But fuck that. And not just because we've determined that kids have the right to a free and appropriate education, but rather because there are some essential services that 50%+1 shouldn't get to pass on for the other 50%-1.
Fire protection? One of them.
Basically, even if all of what Just_Bri_Thanks says it true (and it seems to be), the entire idea of a county just saying "fuck it" on fire coverage for no good reason is absurd.
And ask around here, I'm not one of those "I think country rubes should have to live like urban folks" guys. I'm all about pointing out the difference between rural areas and urban, and telling silly northeasterners that they are silly. A decade or so spent in Montana will do that for you.
mcdermott on
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited October 2010
It's Bri.
Just Bri.
Thanks.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Most fire trucks have a 1000 to 1500 gallon water tank on them. at full tilt they can discharge this water in about 60 seconds.
Two small points here. One, most rural departments in practice either use older engines (like 1970's and on) that they've maintained for a long time or apparatus that they've obtained from busier (or wealthier) departments that may or may not be refurbished. This is important because it means its not likely that they even had a 1000 gal tank, but more likely something in the range of 500-800 gallons.
Also they're only gonna dump 1000 gallons in anything close to a minute by using their deck gun and if they're doing that, well then the property was a lost cause anyway and they'd be better off using handlines to protect exposures while they set up a water supply.
The point is that this building was most likely gonna burn down regardless of what fire department showed up based on response time and water supply issues.
A community that is not paying for fire service is likely also not paying for the infrastructure that a fire service requires, like a community water supply feeding to hydrants.
Rural departments usually include water tenders in their response since as you pointed out, the water carried on an engine lasts a few minutes with only a single hand line in use.
When the water you have to work with is limited, you will be much more likely to not toss any of it at an un-savable structure and saving it for surrounding structures.
This is what your taught as a firefighter are your priorities upon arrival (the first three anyway):
Life Safety - yours and then any potential victims
Exposures - if fires blowing out the windows and looks like the building next door may become involved, your first line is stretched to keep the fire from spreading
Property - this is where your house burning down ranks in the pecking order compared to your life and your neighbors uninvolved property.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Most fire trucks have a 1000 to 1500 gallon water tank on them. at full tilt they can discharge this water in about 60 seconds.
Two small points here. One, most rural departments in practice either use older engines (like 1970's and on) that they've maintained for a long time or apparatus that they've obtained from busier (or wealthier) departments that may or may not be refurbished. This is important because it means its not likely that they even had a 1000 gal tank, but more likely something in the range of 500-800 gallons.
Also they're only gonna dump 1000 gallons in anything close to a minute by using their deck gun and if they're doing that, well then the property was a lost cause anyway and they'd be better off using handlines to protect exposures while they set up a water supply.
The point is that this building was most likely gonna burn down regardless of what fire department showed up based on response time and water supply issues.
A community that is not paying for fire service is likely also not paying for the infrastructure that a fire service requires, like a community water supply feeding to hydrants.
Rural departments usually include water tenders in their response since as you pointed out, the water carried on an engine lasts a few minutes with only a single hand line in use.
When the water you have to work with is limited, you will be much more likely to not toss any of it at an un-savable structure and saving it for surrounding structures.
This is what your taught as a firefighter are your priorities upon arrival (the first three anyway):
Life Safety - yours and then any potential victims
Exposures - if fires blowing out the windows and looks like the building next door may become involved, your first line is stretched to keep the fire from spreading
Property - this is where your house burning down ranks in the pecking order compared to your life and your neighbors uninvolved property.
This case had a city department responding rather than a rural, so I gave the benefit of the doubt and assumed a modern engine. As for how fast they would go through water, my example was emptying the tank at maximum speed. Realistically, you would have a several minutes supply on the truck, but you are still pretty limited.
At any rate, we can agree; I think. Superman could have put it out.
Wait, if they have limited water wouldn't it make more sense to put it out while it's as small as possible?
I mean if a fire engulfs the guys' entire property before leaving it, (not in this case, but in general), don't you now have fire spreading in every friggin direction ?
Wait, if they have limited water wouldn't it make more sense to put it out while it's as small as possible?
I mean if a fire engulfs the guys' entire property before leaving it, (not in this case, but in general), don't you now have fire spreading in every friggin direction ?
The problem with that is by the time they showed up (for the neighbor's call), the double-wide was no longer small enough for that principle to apply.
Wait, if they have limited water wouldn't it make more sense to put it out while it's as small as possible?
I mean if a fire engulfs the guys' entire property before leaving it, (not in this case, but in general), don't you now have fire spreading in every friggin direction ?
It's why the "rural" aspect of this confuses me. In Australia doing something like this in unfathomable - if someone's house burns down, and then the grass-fire whips across until it hits bushland in summer, all of a sudden you have a bushfire. Hell you could have a bushfire if the embers got to some suitably dry leaf litter.
This case had a city department responding rather than a rural, so I gave the benefit of the doubt and assumed a modern engine. As for how fast they would go through water, my example was emptying the tank at maximum speed. Realistically, you would have a several minutes supply on the truck, but you are still pretty limited.
I was halfway through that when I noticed it was fire engineering and stopped reading, I get enough of that mag at work.
Part of my point w/ the rural vs city and old vs new was this: A modern engine speced for a rural department would likely either be a combination tanker/engine or at least have a larger on board water supply (closer to 1500 gallons then 500).
An older apparatus or one speced for use in a city might have a smaller one since it has regular access to water. But then again I couldn't say since I haven't read anything that covered that.
Wait, if they have limited water wouldn't it make more sense to put it out while it's as small as possible?
I mean if a fire engulfs the guys' entire property before leaving it, (not in this case, but in general), don't you now have fire spreading in every friggin direction ?
The problem with that is by the time they showed up (for the neighbor's call), the double-wide was no longer small enough for that principle to apply.
This is correct. If this fire was ripping when they arrived they basically had two options:
1.) Attempt to put out the fire immediately. If the water supply is lacking, odds are the water on hand will be insufficient to actually put the fire out fully and in the meantime if a water supply is not established things may get worse, quickly.
2.) Stretch lines, contain the fire using only as much as you need to, wet down whatever is necessary to keep radiant heat from catching things on fire, get your water supply, put out the fire.
Edit: For reference, this was a fire in Newark the past summer that got out of hand because the 3 nearest hydrants or so either gave inadequate or no pressure: Link Can't put a fire out with no water.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Basically, this. People who choose to live in rural areas of the country tend to be okay with this calculus. They know that if you live in the Alaskan outback, there isn't going to be a fire truck coming out to save your house from going up in smoke.
People in these areas have simply chosen a different lifestyle than those of us in urban parts of the country. They're generally okay with the risks involved, or they wouldn't live there. The risks are outweighed by certain freedoms that urban people can't enjoy (such as very few zoning laws, the ability to shoot and hunt on one's land, no nosy neighbors getting in your business etc.).
If people living in urban county X are okay with a low level of government services, that's their right.
All of this is assuming that the person actually chose to live there. Not everyone who is born and raised in a rural community remains there by choice.
Let me amend that: nobody should have a moral right to preserving their regional lifestyles via subsidies, even though they do have such subsidies, of course.
Complaining that "but living where I live is so expensive" deserves exactly one response: so what? Nobody owes you a living. It sucks having to sell grandma's house, but nobody owes you the funds needed to make staying there viable. And this is true regardless whether you chose to be there.
It sucks having to sell grandma's house, but nobody owes you the funds needed to make staying there viable. And this is true regardless whether you chose to be there.
Having to sell grandma's house isn't even an option if nobody's buying houses in the community in question, or if the house can't be sold without extensive renovations that you also can't afford.
Sell it cheaper. Sell it for $1. Or give it away. Or abandon it. If you need funds just to live there, it's a loss generator anyway, and a net loss to society.
I have seen a doublewide go up in flames, and I can tell you confidently that if their response time from "OH SHIT FIRE!" *dials 911* to getting on scene was greater than 10mins(and that's high end), that house was already gone.
Thin walls, all wood construction, great ventilation from below and above, if it's an older model it probably didn't even have drywall but pressboard paneling instead.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
I have seen a doublewide go up in flames, and I can tell you confidently that if their response time from "OH SHIT FIRE!" *dials 911* to getting on scene was greater than 10mins(and that's high end), that house was already gone.
Thin walls, all wood construction, great ventilation from below and above, if it's an older model it probably didn't even have drywall but pressboard paneling instead.
Game over.
A 3 minute response time is something you get with a paid department in an urban area. If these guys were volunteers I'd say that 10 minutes from call to arrival is a safe assumption.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I have seen a doublewide go up in flames, and I can tell you confidently that if their response time from "OH SHIT FIRE!" *dials 911* to getting on scene was greater than 10mins(and that's high end), that house was already gone.
Thin walls, all wood construction, great ventilation from below and above, if it's an older model it probably didn't even have drywall but pressboard paneling instead.
Game over.
A 3 minute response time is something you get with a paid department in an urban area. If these guys were volunteers I'd say that 10 minutes from call to arrival is a safe assumption.
Not even considering that they didn't respond until the neighbor called 911, after the fire hit his property.
Also, the folks over at Red Eye, Fox's late night show, just pretty much the exact same debate we've been having in this thread. It was....it was interesting.
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited October 2010
i call foul on New Mexico being considered "Red"
they voted for Kerry and Obama and have two democratic senators
Irond Will on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
It's worth noting that in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, arch-libertarian Robert Nozick argues that services like fire departments should be paid for by coercive tax because of efficiency and free-rider problems. Even the brightest intellectual light of libertarianism thought that fire departments should be a public good!
Really, if this person wasn't paying the 'insurance' then they shouldn't have been eligible for having their house fire put out--that's the premise that makes insurance an intelligible concept, that you have to decide beforehand. But what this situation just shows is that fire departments shouldn't handled under the insurance model.
MrMister on
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
Where I live a lot of rich people like to move and destroy the forests by building their mini mansions way back in the woods (as well as in a lot of cases block public access to streams and rivers, and even sometimes designated FS hiking areas) so nobody can ever see them, and they can feel all super special about themselves. When they do this county FD inspectors go in and tell them what they need to do to make their little plots of "haha i'm better than you fuckers who live somewhere reasonable" fire preventative measures and the yearly maintenance they must upkeep to prevent fires on their property and slow wildfires once they reach their property, if they do not meet all these requirements they are not eligible for help in a fire situation of any kind. Most of these rich cunts don't like being told they have to do stuff, and so they don't. And then their houses burn down and you see them on the news with their sad sack sappy ass stories of "the firemen told me to do things, and I didn't, and then they let my house burn down :(:(" and I usually feel sorry for them not at all.
However I thought it was common practice among every bill and fee agency in the US that if you miss a payment they send you a letter telling you to give them their fucking money, not to sit idly by and just go "oh well I guess we don't get our money this time, so we won't put that guys fire out this time."
EWom on
Whether they find a life there or not, I think Jupiter should be called an enemy planet.
Where I live a lot of rich people like to move and destroy the forests by building their mini mansions way back in the woods (as well as in a lot of cases block public access to streams and rivers, and even sometimes designated FS hiking areas) so nobody can ever see them, and they can feel all super special about themselves. When they do this county FD inspectors go in and tell them what they need to do to make their little plots of "haha i'm better than you fuckers who live somewhere reasonable" fire preventative measures and the yearly maintenance they must upkeep to prevent fires on their property and slow wildfires once they reach their property, if they do not meet all these requirements they are not eligible for help in a fire situation of any kind. Most of these rich cunts don't like being told they have to do stuff, and so they don't. And then their houses burn down and you see them on the news with their sad sack sappy ass stories of "the firemen told me to do things, and I didn't, and then they let my house burn down :(:(" and I usually feel sorry for them not at all.
You live in Montana? Just curious, because I used to and that's a huge problem up there.
However I thought it was common practice among every bill and fee agency in the US that if you miss a payment they send you a letter telling you to give them their fucking money, not to sit idly by and just go "oh well I guess we don't get our money this time, so we won't put that guys fire out this time."
The problem is that this was strictly voluntary. It's the residents of the county choosing whether they want to pay the city to cover their out-of-town fires. There was no assumption that any given county resident would pay.
Where I live a lot of rich people like to move and destroy the forests by building their mini mansions way back in the woods (as well as in a lot of cases block public access to streams and rivers, and even sometimes designated FS hiking areas) so nobody can ever see them, and they can feel all super special about themselves. When they do this county FD inspectors go in and tell them what they need to do to make their little plots of "haha i'm better than you fuckers who live somewhere reasonable" fire preventative measures and the yearly maintenance they must upkeep to prevent fires on their property and slow wildfires once they reach their property, if they do not meet all these requirements they are not eligible for help in a fire situation of any kind. Most of these rich cunts don't like being told they have to do stuff, and so they don't. And then their houses burn down and you see them on the news with their sad sack sappy ass stories of "the firemen told me to do things, and I didn't, and then they let my house burn down :(:(" and I usually feel sorry for them not at all.
You live in Montana? Just curious, because I used to and that's a huge problem up there.
However I thought it was common practice among every bill and fee agency in the US that if you miss a payment they send you a letter telling you to give them their fucking money, not to sit idly by and just go "oh well I guess we don't get our money this time, so we won't put that guys fire out this time."
The problem is that this was strictly voluntary. It's the residents of the county choosing whether they want to pay the city to cover their out-of-town fires. There was no assumption that any given county resident would pay.
Yeah I live in Montana, born and raised. And feel not a tiny bit sorry for people who move to montana and ruin it and then have their property burn down because they feel they are too important to follow simple instructions.
And I didn't realize that it was a voluntary thing to pay the $75. I think sending out notices would be the easiest and cheapest way to counter this.
EWom on
Whether they find a life there or not, I think Jupiter should be called an enemy planet.
Posts
Yeah, I'm all about having higher levels of government step in when more local government is being fucktarded. If nothing else, the state should have stepped in long ago and mandate than all counties provide some form of rural fire protection (or revenue-sharing with municipalities to provide it).
Of course they should. But not essential services, not when feasible. I'm sure some Texas backwaters would love to do away with their school systems, and just let the parents teach the kids about Jesus at home like God intended. But fuck that. And not just because we've determined that kids have the right to a free and appropriate education, but rather because there are some essential services that 50%+1 shouldn't get to pass on for the other 50%-1.
Fire protection? One of them.
Basically, even if all of what Just_Bri_Thanks says it true (and it seems to be), the entire idea of a county just saying "fuck it" on fire coverage for no good reason is absurd.
And ask around here, I'm not one of those "I think country rubes should have to live like urban folks" guys. I'm all about pointing out the difference between rural areas and urban, and telling silly northeasterners that they are silly. A decade or so spent in Montana will do that for you.
Just Bri.
Thanks.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Is that like Dan Dan Fielding?
Two small points here. One, most rural departments in practice either use older engines (like 1970's and on) that they've maintained for a long time or apparatus that they've obtained from busier (or wealthier) departments that may or may not be refurbished. This is important because it means its not likely that they even had a 1000 gal tank, but more likely something in the range of 500-800 gallons.
Also they're only gonna dump 1000 gallons in anything close to a minute by using their deck gun and if they're doing that, well then the property was a lost cause anyway and they'd be better off using handlines to protect exposures while they set up a water supply.
The point is that this building was most likely gonna burn down regardless of what fire department showed up based on response time and water supply issues.
Rural departments usually include water tenders in their response since as you pointed out, the water carried on an engine lasts a few minutes with only a single hand line in use.
This is what your taught as a firefighter are your priorities upon arrival (the first three anyway):
Life Safety - yours and then any potential victims
Exposures - if fires blowing out the windows and looks like the building next door may become involved, your first line is stretched to keep the fire from spreading
Property - this is where your house burning down ranks in the pecking order compared to your life and your neighbors uninvolved property.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
This case had a city department responding rather than a rural, so I gave the benefit of the doubt and assumed a modern engine. As for how fast they would go through water, my example was emptying the tank at maximum speed. Realistically, you would have a several minutes supply on the truck, but you are still pretty limited.
At any rate, we can agree; I think. Superman could have put it out.
Here is a link to a relevant article:
http://www.fireengineering.com/index/articles/display/9088189335/articles/fire-engineering/firedynamics/2010/07/Mobile_Homes_Small_Houses_Big_Challenges.html
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I mean if a fire engulfs the guys' entire property before leaving it, (not in this case, but in general), don't you now have fire spreading in every friggin direction ?
The problem with that is by the time they showed up (for the neighbor's call), the double-wide was no longer small enough for that principle to apply.
It's why the "rural" aspect of this confuses me. In Australia doing something like this in unfathomable - if someone's house burns down, and then the grass-fire whips across until it hits bushland in summer, all of a sudden you have a bushfire. Hell you could have a bushfire if the embers got to some suitably dry leaf litter.
I was halfway through that when I noticed it was fire engineering and stopped reading, I get enough of that mag at work.
Part of my point w/ the rural vs city and old vs new was this: A modern engine speced for a rural department would likely either be a combination tanker/engine or at least have a larger on board water supply (closer to 1500 gallons then 500).
An older apparatus or one speced for use in a city might have a smaller one since it has regular access to water. But then again I couldn't say since I haven't read anything that covered that.
This is correct. If this fire was ripping when they arrived they basically had two options:
1.) Attempt to put out the fire immediately. If the water supply is lacking, odds are the water on hand will be insufficient to actually put the fire out fully and in the meantime if a water supply is not established things may get worse, quickly.
2.) Stretch lines, contain the fire using only as much as you need to, wet down whatever is necessary to keep radiant heat from catching things on fire, get your water supply, put out the fire.
Edit: For reference, this was a fire in Newark the past summer that got out of hand because the 3 nearest hydrants or so either gave inadequate or no pressure: Link Can't put a fire out with no water.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
All of this is assuming that the person actually chose to live there. Not everyone who is born and raised in a rural community remains there by choice.
I'm not sure exactly how you mean this, but taxes being redistributed is all about maintaining things (expensive or otherwise).
Por ejemplo: federal money going to conservative states:
Complaining that "but living where I live is so expensive" deserves exactly one response: so what? Nobody owes you a living. It sucks having to sell grandma's house, but nobody owes you the funds needed to make staying there viable. And this is true regardless whether you chose to be there.
Having to sell grandma's house isn't even an option if nobody's buying houses in the community in question, or if the house can't be sold without extensive renovations that you also can't afford.
Thin walls, all wood construction, great ventilation from below and above, if it's an older model it probably didn't even have drywall but pressboard paneling instead.
Game over.
A 3 minute response time is something you get with a paid department in an urban area. If these guys were volunteers I'd say that 10 minutes from call to arrival is a safe assumption.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Not even considering that they didn't respond until the neighbor called 911, after the fire hit his property.
they voted for Kerry and Obama and have two democratic senators
Really, if this person wasn't paying the 'insurance' then they shouldn't have been eligible for having their house fire put out--that's the premise that makes insurance an intelligible concept, that you have to decide beforehand. But what this situation just shows is that fire departments shouldn't handled under the insurance model.
But what does their state legislature look like?
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Well, it's New Mexico, so....
...brown people?
And brown people ALWAYS vote Democrat. It's like.... the law..... or something.
Well, they know which side their green card is buttered on.
However I thought it was common practice among every bill and fee agency in the US that if you miss a payment they send you a letter telling you to give them their fucking money, not to sit idly by and just go "oh well I guess we don't get our money this time, so we won't put that guys fire out this time."
You live in Montana? Just curious, because I used to and that's a huge problem up there.
The problem is that this was strictly voluntary. It's the residents of the county choosing whether they want to pay the city to cover their out-of-town fires. There was no assumption that any given county resident would pay.
Yeah I live in Montana, born and raised. And feel not a tiny bit sorry for people who move to montana and ruin it and then have their property burn down because they feel they are too important to follow simple instructions.
And I didn't realize that it was a voluntary thing to pay the $75. I think sending out notices would be the easiest and cheapest way to counter this.