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

[JaredJames]

I wouldn't want to speak for the others on the thread, but I imagine the answer is "no". In fact, I'd be surprised if even a single person said that on this thread.

So why is this different to letting someones house burn down? Neither has contributed (even if the homeless person had it would be to the wrong jurisdiction), neither would be under the direct jurisdiction of the attending service.

Again CRG, I think they should either have a system which imposes a tax on everyone covered by said fire department to cover costs, or they should bill those who don't pay the $75 charge the full amount for the service by putting a system in place to accommodate this. The current system is badly designed, allowing people to leave themselves open to this type of situation occurring.

Given the line of thought people are taking here (no payment = no service), I'm still waiting for a convincing argument as to why a homeless person being robbed / mugged deserves to receive police support when they don't contribute to said department costs?

Anyway, this debate is going nowhere (it's 2:30am here). I'm going to leave here having learned three things tonight:

I appear to have a sense of decency which makes me want to help others no matter what the circumstances.

Others on this thread only believe in helping those that can afford it.

And lastly, the main lesson here is always tell the operator you think someone's still in the building...

 

[Office_Shredder]

Again CRG, I think they should either have a system which imposes a tax on everyone covered by said fire department to cover costs,

This is easily satisfied by simply refusing to cover anyone outside of the city limits. Would you think that's a better solution?

Given the line of thought people are taking here (no payment = no service), I'm still waiting for a convincing argument as to why a homeless person being robbed / mugged deserves to receive police support when they don't contribute to said department costs?

The fire department is created to protect the city from fire. Inside the city it's agreed by popular consensus that this is a good thing to do (for example, to prevent fires from spreading). Similarly, the police department is created to protect the city from crime, not the taxpayers of the city. A better analogy would be if you're being robbed, is it the responsibility of the police department from a nearby city to respond?

 

[FrancisZ]

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 nothing else, I would figure having a fire on your block (never mind, at your own house) would motivate you to pay the fee in a much more timely fashion forever afterward. If it were me, and they actually HAD attempted to save my cat, I think I would probably become this otherwise stupid law's greatest advocate.

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?

I would agree that loss of property is not so important as the loss of life. This however was a matter of immediate potential loss of life (not even something like cancer).

This guy doesn't live inside the city limits. They have no jurisdiction over him.

Even still, the fire department in fact arrived at the scene, to make sure that the neighbor's house didn't catch fire. The irony of it is that they somehow wouldn't want to be accused to being negligent that way.

You're assuming of course that the pets would have been saved if the fire department responded... there's no way to know this. By the time they responded the pets might have already died of smoke inhalation.

That's true. But the real issue isn't so much that they didn't arrive in time--it's that they didn't attempt to extinguish the blaze upon arrival. They apparently sprayed the perimeter with water to keep it from spreading to the neighbors yard who had paid the fee.

The fact is the guy should have paid his fee if he wanted fire coverage, not paying the fee was a terrible oversight on his part, and not the fault of the fire department.

It is also true that the owner of the house should have paid the fee beforehand. And for that matter, I'm sure that the department (legally speaking) cannot be held liable, as a result (even if they are morons).

However, the home owner's personal negligence ought not preclude anyone else from their own personal responsibilities. That means the department as well. There's an ethical responsibility--aside from the reason, that it would be tough to call yourself firemen if you don't actually attempt to put out fires (unless this is really a parallel dimension, not unlike Fahrenheit 451).

In some ways he's lucky they didn't respond and slap him with a $50,000 bill, three new pets are a lot cheaper than that.

If they wanted to charge the home owner any amount at the scene, I'll bet he probably would have paid it; or signed a contract to that effect. And then they could have sent it to collections, and destroyed his credit if they really wanted to. Somehow, that would have seemed less crappy on their part.

As it is he was under insured too, we obviously can't expect an insurance company to retroactively bill him premiums and pay for replacing his house.

Part of living in a free country is taking responsibility for your property and it's protection.

The thing with house fires though, is that they have a way of spreading (it isn't as localized as say for example a typical automobile collision). So even if they (the town or the department) felt justified--and were legally protected to do so--in spiting this guy, that could have also potentially put innocent bystanders at risk--which is certainly criminally negligent on their part, aside from being really stupid.

It's tragic he lost everything, but it's no one's fault but his own.

I've got a better idea- let's make it a law that if you don't pay for a service, you should have no expectation of being able to use it (wait, that already exists).

At any rate, I'm fairly certainly there would have been a different outcome, had three people, rather than 3 or more pets, been trapped in the home, when he first called 911.

The dumbest person working the switchboard in the world, wouldn't want to be implicated in that sort of debacle. I'm sure they would have done "the right" thing under those circumstances at least. I certainly hope they would have. Maybe not, if they were looking at it from a purely legal perspective--no shoes, no shirt, no service; no tickee, no shirtee.

Which means really, they could have just as well acted in similar manner here; but chose not to. Maybe they just don't value animals.

Makes me wonder what the ASPCA has to say about it.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I live in an area (rural) where we have volunteer fire department protection from several neighboring towns if needed. These fire depts. get funding from state and quite possibly federal as well as local property taxes. This sort of thing would not happen where I live. The fire would be put out unless the owner said to let it go with no additional billing. The problem I have with pay for fire protection is suppose something starts on fire and I would just prefer it goes. Some fire dept. shows up and puts it out and I get a ridiculous bill for something worth less than 10% of the bill? Turbo-1 and a few others are rural on this site and would likely understand where I'm coming from but I suspect most people on this forum won't.

 

[BobG]

What residents of the county chose to do (not vote to impose a mandatory tax on all residents (of, say $75?) is a libertarian's dream. Voluntary taxation. Thanks to the city having imposed a mandatory tax on its residents in order to buy the fire fighting equipment, the buildings, and train their fire fighters, the residents of the county could voluntarily choose to pay a $75 fee (similar to a tax) to have fire protection or they could voluntarily choose to accept the risk.

There is a slight problem with that policy, as jaredjames pointed out. If all residents paid their taxes in flat fees, people with money would have fire protection while the poor neighborhoods would burn down on a routine basis.

It's not a great choice for county residents to make, but, having made it, they rightfully have to live with the consequences.

I'll bet his insurance company will be looking for a way to deny his claim. Whether they succeed or not is questionable, but I'll bet they'll be looking pretty hard for a reason to deny his claim.

What's he going to do about it, anyway? Get a lawyer? Heck, he'll blow his lawyer budget on the son that was charged for assaulting the fire chief that wouldn't put out the fire.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

[...This isn't a valid argument for not assisting with the fire. On this basis, people who's houses burn because they leave lit cigarettes lying around shouldn't be helped? People who leave Christmas lights on that catch fire should be ignored?
The argument here is because he didn't pay some charge for the services, not who started it. If we decided which fires we dealt with on a basis of who's to blame, there'd be a lot of charred buildings.

I don't know about you or anyone else, but before I start any fire I make damm sure that there is a source of water available that with the fire can be 100% put out. So in almost 25 years of straiting fires and burring stuff I have yet to burn down any building/field/forest. If you are going to send out a minor, or anyone on your property, to burn stuff it is your responsibility to make sure that the fire is 100% contained at all times. So yes it is a valid argument. Also if the fire departments started figuring out cause of the fire before putting it out and would only fight fires where there was life/limb in danger, acts of god, or arson, I'm willing to bet there would be a lot less fires out there.

Also this fire department was a CITY fire department. After city limits they either loose jurisdiction, or in this case become private contractors. As for the argument of a city police officer witnessing a poor/homeless person being beaten, if it takes place outside of city limits then all that officer can do is call for the Sheriff, State troopers, or Feds, then stay on scene till someone with jurisdiction arrives and then give a statement.

This all just boils down to jurisdiction, the city fire department has it in city limits, not out in rural areas. If the residents living outside of city limits don't like it, pay to get the city to add your address as private contractors, get on the county or states *** to get a rural/volunteer fire department, move, or become incorporated into the city.

 

[lisab]

What residents of the county chose to do (not vote to impose a mandatory tax on all residents (of, say $75?) is a libertarian's dream. Voluntary taxation. Thanks to the city having imposed a mandatory tax on its residents in order to buy the fire fighting equipment, the buildings, and train their fire fighters, the residents of the county could voluntarily choose to pay a $75 fee (similar to a tax) to have fire protection or they could voluntarily choose to accept the risk.

There is a slight problem with that policy, as jaredjames pointed out. If all residents paid their taxes in flat fees, people with money would have fire protection while the poor neighborhoods would burn down on a routine basis.

It's not a great choice for county residents to make, but, having made it, they rightfully have to live with the consequences.

I'll bet his insurance company will be looking for a way to deny his claim. Whether they succeed or not is questionable, but I'll bet they'll be looking pretty hard for a reason to deny his claim.

What's he going to do about it, anyway? Get a lawyer? Heck, he'll blow his lawyer budget on the son that was charged for assaulting the fire chief that wouldn't put out the fire.

Well, I suppose it could be argued that the $75 yearly payment could be considered part of his responsibility to his pets (and his family).

But I think you're right, it is basically a 'voluntary tax', and I don't like that idea one bit. I think it's structurally the wrong way to build a society.

 

[Averagesupernova]

But I think you're right, it is basically a 'voluntary tax', and I don't like that idea one bit. I think it's structurally the wrong way to build a society.

I couldn't agree more. I'm glad it is the way it is where I live.

 

[Office_Shredder]

If nothing else, I would figure having a fire on your block (never mind, at your own house) would motivate you to pay the fee in a much more timely fashion forever afterward. If it were me, and they actually HAD attempted to save my cat, I think I would probably become this otherwise stupid law's greatest advocate.

What law? Also, do you think the fire department is motivated to save your house just for 75 bucks a year from you because you love them now? Your argument doesn't make financial sense, which seems to be the direction it's supposed to go.

I would agree that loss of property is not so important as the loss of life. This however was a matter of immediate potential loss of life (not even something like cancer).

If nobody's in the house it's not an immediate potential loss of life. Do you know what their policy is on helping people trapped in a house?

Even still, the fire department in fact arrived at the scene, to make sure that the neighbor's house didn't catch fire. The irony of it is that they somehow wouldn't want to be accused to being negligent that way.

What do you mean by don't want to be accused of being negligent? They were saving the other people's houses because those people paid for the fire service

That's true. But the real issue isn't so much that they didn't arrive in time--it's that they didn't attempt to extinguish the blaze upon arrival. They apparently sprayed the perimeter with water to keep it from spreading to the neighbors yard who had paid the fee.

My guess is that it's easier and cheaper to just spray down the sides of the lawn than it is to put out the house on fire. Keep in mind that the fire department also has a commitment to have manpower available to respond to other fires that may crop up at the same time

If they wanted to charge the home owner any amount at the scene, I'll bet he probably would have paid it; or signed a contract to that effect. And then they could have sent it to collections, and destroyed his credit if they really wanted to. Somehow, that would have seemed less crappy on their part.

And after he signed that he would pay them 200,000 dollars, where would the money come from?

The thing with house fires though, is that they have a way of spreading (it isn't as localized as say for example a typical automobile collision). So even if they (the town or the department) felt justified--and were legally protected to do so--in spiting this guy, that could have also potentially put innocent bystanders at risk--which is certainly criminally negligent on their part, aside from being really stupid.

They came to stop the fire from spreading, so how does this argument even work?

To flip the question around: if you were a resident of the city, how would you feel if your house burned down because the fire department was busy saving this guy's house instead?

This "voluntary tax" is really the best the city can do. They can't forcibly take the seventy five bucks from everybody in the county, so it seems to me they have three options:
1) The current situation of the voluntary fire protection
2) Give everyone outside the city free fire protection
3) Don't protect anyone outside the city

Unless people are advocating for situation 2, which is economically unsound and definitely unfair to people living in the city to pay for fire protection for the whole county, then it seems people want the city to just stop putting out any fires outside the city. How is that a better system? The system might be broken, but it's not because of the city's actions

 

[russ_watters]

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 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.

There is no way such a business model could work. Fires are rare and people would not pay the $75 annual fee if they could just pay $500 if they have a fire. It would need to be tens of thousands of dollars, to be billed to people who are incapable of paying (because they just lost all of their material assets in a fire!) -- which is the whole point of insurance (spreading out and sharing risk).

If there is any fault here, it is with the county for not forcing everyone to pay for fire service via a tax. But even that is thin: people get to vote on such things.

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

That doesn't work either. I, for example, live in a Boro of only a few thousand people. We don't have the money to pay for full-fledged local government services, so we have a fire department but no police department. There's a police department 2 miles from me that won't respond to a 911 call from me because I'm outside their jurisdiction. I have to rely on the State Police and the nearest barracks is about 10 miles away.

I'm surprised people are not aware of these realities.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

A distinction is made that human life is so important it needs to be protected somehow in case of emergency (sorry guys, a pet's life isn't). So we send an ambulance and bill tens of thousands of dollars for the care after-the-fact. Still, I don't understand why you are in favor of nationalized, mandatory health insurance but not mandatory public fire services. Fires are so rare that the cost per person is extremely low for the insurance or tax vs the point of use cost. It is an absolutely perfect example of the point of insurance.

Health care, on the other hand, is something that everyone needs throughout their lives and a self-insurance or pay-as-you go model makes some sense for everything except catastrophic problems (which means a high deductable and no help with routine care is probably the most cost effective way to go) - certainly more sense than it does for firefighting services.

The same goes for the collision part of car insurance - for a safe driver it can make sense to self insure.

 

[russ_watters]

And if there were people in there would you apply the same logic?

No. Pets aren't people, so they shouldn't be treated like people.

 

[Char. Limit]

Firefighters Let House Burn Down; Dues Not Paid

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

Personally, I think this is fair. If you don't pay the dues, why do you expect the services? And if the services were to be given anyway... why would anyone pay the dues?

 

[G037H3]

someone already posted this topic <3

 

[Hepth]

While I think its fair, I'd say there should be something in place that's more like insurance where you can either pay $75 for the service, or if they're forced to come out (by your 911 call) to put out your home its like a $4000 on-the-spot fee. That way the fire dept maintains its budget while people can "insure" their house in the case of a fire. Those that are lax in a payment are still covered for damage but may pay a premium for it.

edit: yeah, not really politics or a "world" affair, maybe GD?

 

[Char. Limit]

someone already posted this topic <3

While I think its fair, I'd say there should be something in place that's more like insurance where you can either pay $75 for the service, or if they're forced to come out (by your 911 call) to put out your home its like a $4000 on-the-spot fee. That way the fire dept maintains its budget while people can "insure" their house in the case of a fire. Those that are lax in a payment are still covered for damage but may pay a premium for it.

edit: yeah, not really politics or a "world" affair, maybe GD?

Yah, my bad.

 

[drankin]

Were the dues monthly or annually?

If only we could selectively refuse and not pay for particular public services. Including police. I police my own home just fine.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think you're right, it is basically a 'voluntary tax', and I don't like that idea one bit. I think it's structurally the wrong way to build a society.

I agree that this is a voluntary tax. Would you expand on why you think this is the wrong way to "build a society"?

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'd say there should be something in place that's more like insurance where you can either pay $75 for the service, or if they're forced to come out (by your 911 call) to put out your home its like a $4000 on-the-spot fee.

But it looks like the fee would have to be in the range of $100,000 to $300,000 to work. $4000 wouldn't cut it.

My city (a city, not a township -- presumably more compact and easier to provide fire coverage to) pays about $7 million per year for its fire department. To cover itself at $200,000 per fire it would need to put out 35 house fires per year. To cover itself at $4000 per fire it would need to put out 1750 house fires per year.

I haven't found numbers on how many it puts out per year. If anyone has specific numbers for their local area, please share!

 

[BobG]

Maybe these numbers would help, even if anectdotal:

Fire Departments Charge for Service, Asking Accident Victims to Pay Up

This is smart, in a way. Communities don't have to raise property taxes. Instead, insurance companies get to play the bad guy by increasing insurance rates.

Of course, the idea is offensive in a lot of ways, as well, and several states have already banned the practice.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I don't see how anybody could defend the choice that company made. First of all, the process they have in place sounds ridiculous. So you call them, they look up your name and find if you're up to date on your bills, THEN they wake up the firemen to go fight the fire?
If you're stuck inside, they won't put out the fire to rescue you?
My biggest question is how could they possibly do that and not expect to catch a lot of flak over it.
I think the whole town should boycott them and just create a volunteer firefighting team.

 

[JaredJames]

The fee is yearly.

Good video there: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/tennessee-firefighters-watch-home-burn/

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't see how anybody could defend the choice that company made. First of all, the process they have in place sounds ridiculous. So you call them, they look up your name and find if you're up to date on your bills, THEN they wake up the firemen to go fight the fire?

Apparently not, judging from this case.

 

[BobG]

I don't see how anybody could defend the choice that company made. First of all, the process they have in place sounds ridiculous. So you call them, they look up your name and find if you're up to date on your bills, THEN they wake up the firemen to go fight the fire?
If you're stuck inside, they won't put out the fire to rescue you?
My biggest question is how could they possibly do that and not expect to catch a lot of flak over it.
I think the whole town should boycott them and just create a volunteer firefighting team.

Well, the county should. The fire dept doesn't charge the city residents, since city residents support their fire dept via taxes.

Oh, wait, the county choosing to boycott the city's fire dept is what caused the problem in the first place. In fact, the home owner was apparently one of the county residents that chose to boycott the city fire dept... at least until his house caught fire and he started begging for a do-over.

 

[JaredJames]

Well, the county should. The fire dept doesn't charge the city residents, since city residents support their fire dept via taxes.

Assuming they can afford to pay the taxes.

 

[lisab]

I agree that this is a voluntary tax. Would you expand on why you think this is the wrong way to "build a society"?

Well, who's going to pay a voluntary tax? Very few, I think. And before long we'd never hear about stories like this guy's, because it would be completely commonplace.

But there are places like this already in the world, places with very low taxes and weak social safety nets (like fire and police protection). Places like Chad or Cambodia. I don't want to live there, but to each his own.

 

[BobG]

Assuming they can afford to pay the taxes.

If it's the sales tax they can't afford, then I guess they won't be buying much. If it's local income tax (which some communities actually do have), then I guess their deductions for local tax will be zero.

If it's their property tax that they can't afford, then their house will be confiscated and auctioned off, with the government taking their back taxes out of whatever the house sold for before giving the rest of the proceeds of the house's sale to the former owner.

In other words, if they can't afford their property taxes, they won't have a home for the fire dept to protect in the first place.

Don't get mislead by the $75 fee in this instance. That's not how fire protection is normally paid for. In this case, the county hasn't made a provision for fire protection and the city offered a $75 buy in option for non-taxpaying, non-residents of the city.

Judging by the bad press this has gotten them, they should just eliminate that option. It looks bad when they respond to one resident, but not to his next door neighborhood. The only two options should be the county contracts with the city for fire protection or there is no service offered to the county because the residents outside city limits are outside the jurisdiction of the city's fire dept.

 

[JaredJames]

Call the UK what you like, people constantly have a go for it being a 'nanny state', but this would never happen here. I really don't like the idea of giving people a choice to pay, people are idiots and will assume that the worst will never happen to them so why pay.

Despite what I've said here, I do believe this guy is an idiot for not paying. Especially given what he says in that video. But I still don't think what happened, should have happened.

 

[BobG]

October is http://www.cityofflint.com/fire/FPmonth.htm .

How fast can you get to the Cranick's house? http://www.sparky.org/firetruck/firetruck_game.html (46.144 sec - Stupid pengwuinos!)

 

[CRGreathouse]

Well, who's going to pay a voluntary tax? Very few, I think.

I don't know. It would be much like buying insurance.

Personally, I wouldn't in this case. I live alone, and my house is worth too little to protect. (My fire department's annual budget, divided by the number of households in my city, divided by the chance that my house catches fire in a given year, is significantly higher than the total value of my property, let alone the value it would have after being extinguished.)

But there are places like this already in the world, places with very low taxes and weak social safety nets (like fire and police protection). Places like Chad or Cambodia. I don't want to live there, but to each his own.

I agree with "each to his own". Some prefer higher taxes/fees and more services, some prefer fewer. Letting some communities do one thing and others do others, and allowing people to freely move between communities, seems ideal.

Fire departments seem like a bad example, though; most of the cost of a fire department is fixed by size and varies only slightly by the number of people in the area. (This is my impression -- please correct if wrong.) That is, I think that doubling the budget of a fire department would allow it to serve many more than twice as many people, assuming they were all in the same area as before.

Of course that doesn't mean that some communities shouldn't experiment with this model.