home

Let It Burn

By TChris, Section Social Justice
Posted on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 11:07:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

When Bibaldo Rueda discovered his house was ablaze, he thought the firefighters who responded would put out the fire. Only then did he learn that the Monett, MO fire department only serves individuals who paid membership dues. Rueda offered to pay, but he was told that the department has no policy for "on-the-spot billing." State law permits rural membership fire departments to put out fires and then bill the occupant after the fact, but nobody mentioned that to Rueda. Instead, the firefighters stood around and watched as Rueda was burned while he tried to fight the fire himself with a garden hose.

Responding to Rueda's complaint that he should have been notified that his taxes don't pay for fire protection, Monett Rural Fire Department Chief Ronnie Myers "said he would make an effort to explain the membership policy to the area's new Hispanic residents." You're doing a heck of a job there, Ronnie.

< Chicago Jail Guards Investigated | Friday Funnies >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Let It Burn | 33 comments (33 topical)
    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    Nice folks.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#2)
    by Darryl Pearce on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    Hmm, how do I go about researching this in my local, non-city county areas? Whoo-boy.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#3)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 11:25:24 AM EST
    If these people have a problem with privatization they should move to Venezuela.(sic)

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 11:58:54 AM EST
    Makes me appreciate my all-volunteer fire department even more. I don't think they'd ever pull a stunt like this.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#5)
    by swingvote on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    This kind of thing has a long tradition, going all the way back to Roman times. Amazing it's still going on here.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    Lemme guess. Republican county government?

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 01:07:26 PM EST
    I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that some bigotry was at play here.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 01:17:15 PM EST
    This kind of thing has a long tradition, going all the way back to Roman times.
    So does slavery, gladiators and burning witches. What was your point? I'm amazed firefighters could stand around and watch a man's home burn. I would think 'duty of care' would come into effect, or at least a conscience. It'd be interesting to see how many homes of non-member white folks were allowed to burn.
    However, state law says those departments may perform services for a nonmember if they choose, and then charge the nonmember based on a set amount outlined in statute, Cole said.
    So they 'chose' to let his home burn to the ground. 'You ain't from around here, are ya boy?'

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#9)
    by swingvote on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 01:32:54 PM EST
    So does slavery, gladiators and burning witches. What was your point? You really do need to switch to decaf, Sailor. Immediately. My point was that idiotic BS like this has been going on for thousands of years, and that, as I stated, it's amazing it's still going on here. And by the way, I've never come across any references to Roman's burning witches. It would have been rather odd for them to do so given they openly practiced and followed divination, among other things.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#10)
    by roy on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 02:26:21 PM EST
    When you move into an area, does somebody hand you a catalog of government services? No, you're expected to figure it out youself. It's usually a big tangled mess, and probably a lot of people guess wrong, but that's how it works. Even for white people. Sailor,
    So they 'chose' to let his home burn to the ground.
    State law allows them a choice, if local (county?) statute sets such a policy. Reading between some lines, it looks like the local government previously decided not to do so. So the firefighters aren't supposed to endanger themselves and expend government resources to help non-payers unless a life is threatened. Maybe that's a bad policy, or maybe its necessary as a way to ensure that the fire department is adequately funded. Makes sense to me. Unless the after-the-fact cost was very high, like 5% of the value of the flammable property, people would realize it makes more financial sense not to pay ahead of time. Then the fire department wouldn't have a predictable source of funding and likely wouldn't have been available to even show up for Rueda's fire. If the after-the-fact cost was high enough to encourage people to pay ahead of time, few people would have access to enough money to take advantage anyway. Jondee, This isn't privatization, though it has some of the same sticky issues. It's a government program with unusual funding rules.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#11)
    by roxtar on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    How could you get a mortgage without the lender making sure you had paid to have the property protected? Sounds mighty screwy to me.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 03:15:58 PM EST

    The Monett Rural Firefighter Association is not a governmental agency. It is a registered nonprofit, and you can look it up in IRS publication 78. Contributions to it are deductable at the 50% rate, as I recall. I can easily believe that Rueda was not contacted when he moved into the neighborhood. It is a tough job keeping track of the comings and goings of residents, especially when real estate is hot.

    I've heard of this sort of thing before. The firefighters in the volunteer department that I work for say "Back East, they'll just let your house burn down if you don't pay your dues".

    I believe this move will hurt the Monett fire department in the future. Rueda will NEVER contribute to them, and the spite shown in refusing to fight the fire even when Rueda offered to pay will hurt the Fire Department's standing the community.

    I'll be doing some research on their nonprofit filings, to see how they are affected by this bonehead move.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#13)
    by roy on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 03:21:49 PM EST
    How could you get a mortgage without the lender making sure you had paid to have the property protected?
    Hopefully, Rueda had insurance, which would be adequate to keep the lender happy. Or he may have owned the property and mobile homes outright.
    The Monett Rural Firefighter Association is not a governmental agency. It is a registered nonprofit...
    OK, my bad. No wonder it's similar to privatization :)

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 03:29:03 PM EST
    roxtar makes a good point. He either paid cash or had a mortage. I know of no mortage company that will lend without a certificate of insurance at the time of closing. So, he paid cash. Now if he paid cash there would still need to be closing, with the various costs, title search, title insurance, various tax stamps, etc. Given the close connection between insurance agents and the various attorneys that do closing, I find it unbelievable that no one tried to sell him insurance.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 04:00:25 PM EST
    Hmm. You know, I think I read this very same story in a Terry Pratchett novel.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 04:12:32 PM EST
    PZ: Hmm. You know, I think I read this very same story in a Terry Pratchett novel. Yeah. One of the City Watch novels. Wow, things are bad when you really wish the Patrician was running things....

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#17)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 04:22:27 PM EST
    Ah, the "invisible hand" hard at work.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimcee on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    It really is a $hitty situation and the volunteer firefighters should be ashamed of themselves. If they mustered and showed up they could have at least tried to help. It possibly is a racial situation or it could be that when they showed up at the scene they realised that they had had bad run-ins with this particular fellow. Either way it still was an immoral thing to do. As a note, in the rural areas around where I live most volunteer fire companies are known as either 'cellar savers' or 'chimney savers' because it takes so long for them to show up. As a matter of fact one company actually call themselves 'The Cellar Savers'.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 04:51:18 PM EST
    Ahh, of course, blame the victim. Rethug 101.
    My point was that idiotic BS like this has been going on for thousands of years
    So was my point in answer to your post. All of the items I stated had been a part of history since roman times.
    You really do need to switch to decaf, Sailor. Immediately.
    And you need to 'Immediately ' stop insulting fellow commenters.
    State law allows them a choice
    Yes, and I just asked for how stats of the 'white folks' v. 'persons of color' houses were allowed to burn down. You know, as in the fire department showed up and then decided to let a person's home burn to the ground. BTW, do private ambulance companies have a 'right' to watch someone die when they have the training and equipment to prevent it? Do private hospitals have a 'right' to condemn someone to death because he offers payment but they don't accept credit cards? WTF!? Are you guy really so cold that you could stand on a firetruck and watch a neighbors' house burn down and not help? If you lived next to a man whose house was burning down, would you help, or just ask for cash?

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#20)
    by Patrick on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 05:44:29 PM EST
    Now I certainly don't agree with their decision to allow the house to burn down, but this:
    BTW, do private ambulance companies have a 'right' to watch someone die when they have the training and equipment to prevent it?
    Is not an accurate analogy. It has already been said that these types of Co's have a duty to assist if lives are threatened.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimcee on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 06:26:13 PM EST
    Sailor has it about right, that volunteer fire dep't should be ashamed of themselves and if they aren't then bad on them.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 07:29:33 PM EST
    Quaker In Basement writes:
    Ah, the "invisible hand" hard at work.
    Well, the Quaker's believed in plain speak. So, plainer: I don't believe the story. My BS filter went to 100% and stayed there.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 07:49:20 PM EST
    Patrick has it right, I was unfair in my comparison, and I thank jimcee for writing that I almost had it right.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 07:30:04 AM EST
    And you need to 'Immediately ' stop insulting fellow commenters. Sailor, if you are insulted by my suggestion that you need to switch to Decaf, you are even thinner skinned than I thought you were. Face it; you once again blew a gasket over nothing, something which you are famous for doing on a regular basis, and now all you can do is whine about being insulted. Classic. Maybe you should just skip the coffee altogether and swtich to some nice camomile tea with a large sedative in it.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 08:35:09 AM EST
    It's called a sense of outrage and I think it is appropriate when a fire department lets a man's home burn to the ground. Continually insulting other commenters is not conducive to the discourse.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 11:05:11 AM EST
    et al - If we go back and read the actual story, we find that the man lost a garage and a vehicle, whether or not the garage was attached to the house is not stated. Since the article states there were four mobile homes and a number of vehicles, of which he saved one mobile home I would assume the mobile home loss was three, plus a detached garage and one vehicle. He had lived there about 1 1/2 years. During that time he had made no effort, evidently, to determine what fire protection he had, something that would have been told to him had he tried to purchase insurance. Insurance companies are very interested in things like distance to fire hydrants, type of fire department, type of dwellings, surrounding hazards, etc. But... who shall we balme? Why, everyone but the guy. What nonsense.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#27)
    by roy on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 03:02:39 PM EST
    Jim, I'm kinda-sorta on your side here, but helping somebody put out a fire is common decency. Doubly so if you have training and a big hose, if not necessarily a civil service paycheck. Pointing that out isn't nonsense. Sometimes the invisible hand b*tch-slaps people.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    roy - The information in the story is so incomplete it is difficult to know what happened. It appears that the purpose of the reporter was to beat up on the "authorities" because they didn't help a "hispanic new arrival." And no, I don't blame the firemen. Fighting fires is dangerous. I see no reason why they should have endangered themselves to protect someone who didn't try and protect himself. "Life's a beach and then you die."

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sailor on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 04:15:50 PM EST
    And no, I don't blame the firemen. Fighting fires is dangerous. I see no reason why they should have endangered themselves to protect someone who didn't try and protect himself.
    Perhaps this commenter means the homeowner injured in the fire!? The guy who offered money if the firefighters would help? The homeowner who was injured fighting the blaze with a garden hose when the firefighters with professional gear stood around and watched? Anyone else live in a community where the firefighters demand payment before they fight your fire, but refuse payment during the fire?

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 06:35:59 PM EST
    It's always amazing to me that people simply take what they read and immediately assume it's the gospel truth. I happen to live in the town where this incident took place and I can tell you that it was not the mans home that burned but only his garage. I understand that it is still a tradgedy to lose property to a fire but we need to keep this in perspective. The policy of the RURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT has been in effect since 1970 when the department was formed. It is not a new policy nor is it a policy that is only told to select "races" of people. I am extremely offended that people on the left as well as the right will view this as a racially motivated act, when in reality it was nothing even close. People need to open their eyes and do their own research before they just accept what the liberal media reports.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 07:28:53 PM EST
    essayns, I notice you don't offer any proof or links to support your claim. Without compromising your identity, how about offering some links to other sources? The article in your hometown says:
    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
    I would never doubt the abilty of the press to get things wrong, but which mobile home was his garage? There are platt maps for your area, and I'm sure you researched this, so tell us, how many structures were on his property? What did they consist of. Exactly how was the article wrong? I'm sure you don't think you are a racist, and I'm sure that this also happens to white folks in your community. But, just for our edification, please give us links to the history of letting buildings burn down in your community by this organization. BTW, how much is the protection you pay? Are you billed monthly or yearly? Do you know of anyone else that the fire dept showed up at and still let the structure burn down?

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:31:20 PM EST
    Sailor, In all honesty, I would love to give you details on my experiences with the rurual fire department here in Monett. Unfortunately, due to pending actions, I cannot go into details of the specific incident, nor any other. I can only comment on what has already been reported. I can, however, tell you that the dues are on an annual basis, the cost of which is $95 the first year and $60 dollars each year after that. A small price to pay to have the protection that would have helped this gentleman. If you google search the "Monett Times", which is our local newspaper, search the archives for the February 14th issue and it will have the story. The quote was that there was a concentration of 4 mobile homes and several vehicles, but if you read the caption under the picture, it states that the fire consumed THE building, an adjacent shed, and at least one vehicle. It goes on to say that no lives were threatened by the fire, other then Mr. Rueda who was rightfully trying to put out the fire. I understand the outrage that people feel about this situation. I only wish they would research the facts before making snap judgments. I have family on the department and I am greatly offended at the onslaught of hatred and animousity that has resulted from this.

    Re: Let It Burn (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:34:47 PM EST
    P.S. Sailor There are no links to the history of the department letting things burn. It has happened before, but in the past, people have accepted the responsibility of admitting if they had just paid the annual dues they might not have lost everything.

    Let It Burn | 33 comments (33 topical)