Is the $75 fire service fee fair for residents in rural areas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FrancisZ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spray
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the fairness of a $75 fire service fee for residents in rural areas, particularly in light of a case where a resident's home burned down after failing to pay the fee. Participants explore the implications of this policy on human decency, government responsibilities, and the consequences of neglecting to pay for fire protection services.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express outrage over the death of animals in a fire due to the lack of fire service response, questioning the humanity of enforcing the fee strictly.
  • Others argue that allowing the fire to burn without intervention could set a precedent for non-payment of services, suggesting that it would encourage neglect of financial responsibilities.
  • A participant suggests that a higher fee could be charged in emergencies for those who have not paid the annual fee, proposing a model where services are rendered but at a cost.
  • There is a contention about whether it is the government's duty to provide fire protection universally, with some asserting that it is a basic service that should be available to all residents.
  • Some participants highlight the importance of personal responsibility, noting that the resident in question had forgotten to pay the fee and thus should bear some responsibility for the consequences.
  • Concerns are raised about the fairness of charging residents outside city limits for services they may not have access to, with some questioning the assumptions made about their choices in residence.
  • Participants discuss the financial implications of fire services, noting that the costs of fighting fires are significantly higher than the fees collected, raising questions about sustainability and funding for fire departments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the fairness of the fee or the appropriateness of the fire department's actions. Multiple competing views remain regarding personal responsibility, government duties, and the implications of non-payment.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions about the resident's choice of living situation and the adequacy of fire protection services in rural areas. The discussion reflects varying perspectives on the balance between personal accountability and community responsibility.

FrancisZ
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

I can't believe this. That man may be at fault for neglecting to pay the $75 fire service fee, but this is plainly inhuman. His animals died in the blaze. Makes you wonder: if there were people still in the house, would they have put the fire out then? Or would they have still stood by, and continued to wag a finger for being cheap?

This isn't just a matter of legality; what about basic human decency? There comes a point when you MUST think for yourself; in lieu of simply following "orders," like a nazi drone.


:frown:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What if they were to put out the fire. What does that tell everyone else? Forget paying your bill, just wait until something happens and we'll still do the job and then maybe (but probably not) you'll pay us later.

If someone didn't have insurance and their house was broken into, is it an issue of human decency if no insurance company will go and pay for their neglectfulness?
 
Pengwuino said:
What if they were to put out the fire. What does that tell everyone else? Forget paying your bill, just wait until something happens and we'll still do the job and then maybe (but probably not) you'll pay us later.

If someone didn't have insurance and their house was broken into, is it an issue of human decency if no insurance company will go and pay for their neglectfulness?

Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat.

I don't think reimbursing someone for a stolen TV is the same as letting someones pets burn to death.

There is no reason why the fire service couldn't include a $500 bill in their service agreement for putting out the fire if someone didn't pay their $75 annual fee.
 
Isn't it one of the duties of the gov't to provide essential services, such as fire protection?
 
NeoDevin said:
Isn't it one of the duties of the gov't to provide essential services, such as fire protection?

Seconded. I'm not all about big government, but I would assume fire protection falls under everyone's definition of a minimum sized government!
 
G01 said:
Seconded. I'm not all about big government, but I would assume fire protection falls under everyone's definition of a minimum sized government!

From the link:

Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he "forgot" to pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee.

Well, look at it this way. He chose to live in an area that didn't have fire protection, outside the city limits (perhaps because the taxes are lower :rolleyes:?) and didn't pay for coverage. He also says he didn't have sufficient fire insurance to cover the loss, but I don't expect the insurance company to take pity and give him 100% coverage.

I'd say the fire department was within its rights, but still, I can't stand the thought of animals burning in a fire...:cry:. I bet the next day, the department was flooded with $75 payments from rural residents in the area.
 
Where is Marcus Licinius Crassus when you need him?!
 
You have to pay an annual fee in the US?

Just comes straight out of your taxes in the UK, no say in it. No fire service would refuse to put a fire out here.

What a rubbish set up. Allowing animals to burn to death. That is cruel and someone should be punished for it.

They should just put the fire out and then fine the man for not paying (perhaps $500 as above). Teach him not to do it again.
 
Ah, so he is paying for a rural service?

In which case, they were still incredibly cruel to let them burn to death.

Just put it out and fine the owner. How difficult is that.

"Ah yes sir, you didn't pay your $75 so we're going to let all your worldly possessions and pets be destroyed."

Does the article say he chose to live there or are we just assuming he had a choice in the matter?
 
  • #10
jarednjames said:
Ah, so he is paying for a rural service?

In which case, they were still incredibly cruel to let them burn to death.

Just put it out and fine the owner. How difficult is that.

"Ah yes sir, you didn't pay your $75 so we're going to let all your worldly possessions and pets be destroyed."

Does the article say he chose to live there or are we just assuming he had a choice in the matter?

No - the point is, he *chose not* to pay for fire coverage. And yes, it's cruel to think the animals died that way, horrible, really. Ultimately the responsibility lies in the hands of the pet owner. He gambled, and his animals suffered a terrible fate because of it.

And what would they fine the owner for? He broke no law.

Why would you assume he doesn't have a choice where to live?
 
  • #11
jarednjames said:
Just put it out and fine the owner. How difficult is that.

I agree. There is no reason why it couldn't be treated as a billable service in emergencies like this. Pay $75 dollars a year, or risk a $10K bill if you need us.
 
  • #12
lisab said:
He chose to live in an area that didn't have fire protection

I didn't assume he had no choice. You assumed he chose to live outside of the fire coverage area. I simply pointed out that is an assumption it isn't fair for you to make as he may not have had a choice in the matter.
he *chose not* to pay for fire coverage

The article says he forgot. Again, you are assuming he chose not to and this is unfair, we have no way of knowing whether or not he chose to pay or whether or not he actually forgot to pay.

They are currently looking at making drunks pay for emergency medical treatment in the UK as it is costing the NHS too much. These people haven't broken any laws, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't pay for their own stupidity.

Forgot to pay or chose not to, still shows a mistake on his part. But is it a mistake that should be dealt with by means of a fine, or by inhumanely killing pets?
 
  • #13
Google is your friend.

Topher925 said:
There is no reason why the fire service couldn't include a $500 bill in their service agreement for putting out the fire if someone didn't pay their $75 annual fee.

They do, even if one does pay the annual fee. And, less than 50% of the time they collected.

The cost of fighting a fire is much, much higher. $10,000 or more. If they can't collect $500, how can they collect $10,000? And without the money coming in, how do they pay the firefighters, buy the fire trucks, etc.

NeoDevin said:
Isn't it one of the duties of the gov't to provide essential services, such as fire protection?

Sure. The city of South Fulton provides essential services for the city of South Fulton.
 
  • #14
The law was in place for 20 years, and if he forgot to pay then he was well aware of the policy. The article also made a valid point if you could call up and get the service by paying then nobody would pay till there was a problem. Fire services are expensive to run, if people in the city are the only one to pay for it then how is it fair to give the benefit to people who don't pay?

When I lived 100 feet from city limits I was made well aware that If I wanted city emergency services like fire, police, and EMT-ALS services I had to pay. If not I got a volunteer fire service (45 min response time) , the county sheriff (45+ min response time), and EMS-Basic (1 hour response time). Guess what I payed three extra fees to have city emergency services include my address.
 
  • #15
Vanadium 50 said:
Sure. The city of South Fulton provides essential services for the city of South Fulton.

Which level of government is responsible for looking out for the residents outside the city?
 
  • #16
Vanadium 50 said:
Google is your friend.



They do, even if one does pay the annual fee. And, less than 50% of the time they collected.

The cost of fighting a fire is much, much higher. $10,000 or more. If they can't collect $500, how can they collect $10,000? And without the money coming in, how do they pay the firefighters, buy the fire trucks, etc.

The same way a construction company or mechanic does: Place a lien on the property.
 
  • #17
Argentum Vulpes said:
The law was in place for 20 years, and if he forgot to pay then he was well aware of the policy. The article also made a valid point if you could call up and get the service by paying then nobody would pay till there was a problem. Fire services are expensive to run, if people in the city are the only one to pay for it then how is it fair to give the benefit to people who don't pay?

If that really is a legitimate problem, and I seriously doubt it would be as almost everyone buys insurance, which is what this really is, then he should be fined for not paying on time. Not responding to an emergency is simply unacceptable. This is especially absurd given that we are talking about $75.

This gets back to the logic that people should be left dying on the highway after an auto accident, if they refuse to buy health insurance.
 
  • #18
Argentum Vulpes said:
The law was in place for 20 years, and if he forgot to pay then he was well aware of the policy. The article also made a valid point if you could call up and get the service by paying then nobody would pay till there was a problem. Fire services are expensive to run, if people in the city are the only one to pay for it then how is it fair to give the benefit to people who don't pay?

Ah, I see, only the people in the city pay taxes. People out of town don't. It all makes sense now. :rolleyes:

And on that note, what about the people in the city without jobs, who aren't paying taxes or any contribution to the fire service?

I can't believe people are justifying the killing of two pets and the destruction of someones home all because of $75.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
This would be like driving to the hospital with your arm cut badly and them turning you away for no insurance.

If the owner stated that there were animals in the house, the fire department is certainly at fault, and could be sued, fined, and even some jail time possibly.
 
  • #20
jarednjames said:
all because of $75.

Of course, it's not about $75: it's about (number of residents) * $75, a much larger sum.

For those suggesting 'emergency' fire services for $500 or $10,000: to keep revenues equal, these would suggest that fires occur at a rate of one fire per ($500 / $75) houses per year and one fire per ($10,000 / $75) houses per year, respectively. Based on rough statistics I gather, there are many fewer (rural house) fires -- it's more like one fire per 2,000 or 3,000 houses per year.

This suggests that (rural) fire departments couldn't fund themselves even on $100,000 per house.
 
  • #21
I'm curious, out of all the people saying they were right not to put it out. Put yourselves in that guys shoes. Imagine you forgot (regardless of intentionally or otherwise) to pay and your house was burning down. Would you really stand back and watch your house (and pets) go up in flames, saying "ah well, I did forget to pay the charge after all."?
 
  • #22
jarednjames said:
And on that note, what about the people in the city without jobs, who aren't paying taxes or any contribution to the fire service?

The city likely collects most if not all of its taxes from property taxes

Ivan Seeking said:
The same way a construction company or mechanic does: Place a lien on the property.

Based on a verbal agreement? I question whether this is possible either way... my understanding is that mechanic's liens are a specific form of lien that is legislated to exist. Not just anybody can place a lien on a property, and considering the property in question is outside of the city's jurisdiction it's not obvious to me that such an act would necessarily be possible
 
  • #23
CRGreathouse said:
Of course, it's not about $75: it's about (number of residents) * $75, a much larger sum.

For those suggesting 'emergency' fire services for $500 or $10,000: to keep revenues equal, these would suggest that fires occur at a rate of one fire per ($500 / $75) houses per year and one fire per ($10,000 / $75) houses per year, respectively. Based on rough statistics I gather, there are many fewer (rural house) fires -- it's more like one fire per 2,000 or 3,000 houses per year.

This suggests that (rural) fire departments couldn't fund themselves even on $100,000 per house.

They turned up to the neighbours. They ignored this guys house. They let the pets die. I see an animal cruelty case coming up here.

If people not paying is such a problem and presents such a devastating set of consequences, why not just make the law so it says people must pay the $75?
 
  • #24
I can't imagine them not rescuing the pets and taking them to an animal shelter if it was at all possible. I certainly hope charges of animal cruelty are filed.
 
  • #25
jarednjames said:
If people not paying is such a problem and presents such a devastating set of consequences, why not just make the law so it says people must pay the $75?

This guy doesn't live inside the city limits. They have no jurisdiction over him.
 
  • #26
Sorry it was the bit after for you.
 
  • #27
jarednjames said:
Sorry it was the bit after for you.

Ah. Well, Office_Shredder seems to have answered that part.
 
  • #28
Office_Shredder said:
The city likely collects most if not all of its taxes from property taxes

And if they can't afford to pay the tax?
 
  • #29
CRGreathouse said:
Ah. Well, Office_Shredder seems to have answered that part.

Someone has jurisdiction, they can make those people pay if it poses such a problem.

Besides, what if someone can't afford to pay? Do you just ignore them?

I just can't understand this mentality of not helping those who can't afford it. (I'm not saying he couldn't afford it, just seems to be the way people think though)
 
  • #30
jarednjames said:
And if they can't afford to pay the tax?

Then a tax lien is placed on their house and its eventually confiscated to be auctioned off by the city.

Someone has jurisdiction, they can make those people pay if it poses such a problem.

Who? Why would you make this assumption? The county probably could make a fire department, or even the state, but they didn't. Why don't you rip on the state for not having a fire department for this guy?