BobG said:
He is still an advocate for the fire dept. Sometimes the meaning of your life is to serve as a lesson to others.
It didn't have to be a negative lesson for him. They basically publicly punished him.
Because of what happened to him, the other residents will pay the $75 and it won't happen to them. The county will negotiate a contract with the city for fire protection, place a tax initiative on the ballot, and the voters will approve of paying a special tax on something or other (usually property) that provides money for the fire service.
I certainly hope so.
Is there some program where local fire depts can be reimbursed by the state or federal government for responding to fires? If there is, that would be great.
I'm sure that they could finagle it as part of their overall budget if they tried. They may not be willing to do that though. If they get any sort of state funding, I wonder what they ARE using it for otherwise.
South Fulton could afford more than two fire trucks. (This is a small town supporting the rural residents, not New York City.)
They still pay taxes to somebody, I'm sure. And since it's not New York City as you mention, I'm sure that they have fewer residents; and therefore, presumably less of a burden for public service.
This is a small town supporting the even more rural residents. South Fulton (sometimes known as Bumblefrig?) only has two fire trucks.
Honestly, I was hoping you'd all liked that (if not, then I apologize
). But even still: perhaps they could get a third truck? I don't think they'd have much argument from the residents at this point. It (a truck) is not the sort of equipment that you have to replace anyhow; but maybe once every 15-20 years (Postal trucks are like that).
Do you think the government is run by Big Brother or something?
I didn't think I suggested that.
The residents vote on tax initiatives that they can approve or disapprove. They elect government officials that can raise or lower taxes, and then get the chance to vote him out of office if he raised or lowered taxes too much.
I'm not denying that. In some other places--outside of this town, for example--fire protection is never even an issue on the table by itself. It's bundled as part of "general public service." And to assume that people wouldn't want that--to even make it an autonomous question for referendum--seems kind of silly. It's a public necessity.
It's different from say: Optimum Online Triple Play--which includes Internet, Cable, and Phone Service (not plugging them). Those aren't necessities.
To me, rather, it's much more like: a general automobile--which includes engine, transmission, and brakes.
The county residents faced the same problem many rural areas face. There is a small number of people spread out over a large area and the small number of people means any major project they undertake results in a huge tax increase unless they can get a grant from state or federal governments (which aren't unlimited - they don't fall out of trees and usually won't be available).
Do you consider basic public services like fire and police protection a major project though? How did they ever incorporate as a town to begin with? If the township cannot handle the responsibility, then perhaps they ought to consider merging with another. That at least is what the 5 boroughs of NYC did in 1901.
In this case, the county could have raised taxes so they could contract with the city for fire protection or they could not raise taxes and go without fire protection. Obviously, there were some residents that would find that very upsetting and the city offering to let rural residents buy into the city program at the same rate (or maybe even higher) as city residents.
I have to say, while I would admire those residents for their independent spirit; it also seems kind of stubborn and old-fashion to say: "I don't NEED NO STINKIN fire service; I'll take the risk" (in the same way that it's stubborn and old-fashion to go out of your way to drink non-pasteurized milk). What does a person have to prove? "My stomach will beat those bacteria into submission--cause I'm a real man! And I'll blow that fire out ALL BY MYSELF!" It's being macho rather than smart.
And I would hope, that a public official in charge, would have the wisdom at least to separate pride from rational sense. When you pay taxes (at least in the ideal sense), you're pooling your money; and it goes to where ever it is needed, as events unfold.
If we are going to have to become super anal people however, I dare anyone to say: "Okay, you who have paid: you get EXACTLY $75 worth of combined water, hose length, and the cost of fuel it took me to get the truck to your house. You get an exact portion of service from the pool--so that it's completely fair (like in Kindergarten)--and no one that hasn't paid will be cutting in on the amount of flame retardant allotted to you. All materials designated to you will be stored, and there for you to use and no one else!"
That's very rigid. And I would argue that the decision having been made--not to spare this guy's house, or his pets--is a degree of that same block-headed way of thinking. For God's sake: they were there for the next door neighbor.
Rural residents can't just leave the dark ages behind. Lack of government services is the trade off for not being bothered by annoying people. The models that would eliminate people's ability to decide a particular service isn't worth their money would be monarchy, dictatorship, communism, etc. Democracy means the people are responsible for the quality of their government.
But we don't already implement a true democracy anyway. We never have (in the United States). We have representational democracy. We basically "hire" other people to make decision for us, all of the time. And if we truly wanted hard core democracy, then we would have to eliminate all public officials entirely. Which is dangerously decentralizing, and leaves us wide open for an attack (or fire).
Besides that: Christianity--which most of the residents probably engage in acts of, otherwise--is very socialist really. In the most obvious sense, monastic life (that of monks and nuns) requires individuals to be totally self-sacrificing to the community, and to wear a specific uniform even. Ironic how the Chinese would not like Monks and Nuns of any persuasion.
But the reason Christianity has lasted this long, in comparison to say, something like Communism, is really just because choosing Christianity is mostly
voluntary.
So I say that these residents could in fact choose to be good Americans, whilst simultaneously employing their more altruistic Christian upbringing.
By the way, this isn't the first time this has happened.
That doesn't make it less stupid; it makes it more embarrassingly stupid.
The county was actually on the verge of finalizing a deal with other small communities that would provide some fire protection to rural residents (the city actually only supports residents living near the city; not the entire county).
And does what "some fire protection" amount to, mean that they would have driven out to the guy's house fire, and handed him a fire extinguisher to use himself then? I certainly hope not; but their track record doesn't look so go.
The $75 dollar service fee was going to be continued as part of the new plan since it seemed to be working well. People that wanted fire protection paid the fee and didn't compain. People that didn't want fire protection didn't pay the fee and didn't complain.
In fact, the city being unable to support the entire county is probably part of the problem. Why should the residents too far away from the city pay higher taxes so the residents closer to the city can have fire protection?
I agree. Which is why I suggest they ought to merge with other towns. Brooklyn, NY for example, was once it's own city (now part of NYC). But even now, the Borough of Brooklyn encompasses an area of land, that is the breadth of the entire county of Kings (meaning Kings County is synonymous with Brooklyn). If they really wanted to, South Fulton and the other towns within the county could merge into one city; and then maybe together they could sustain themselves.
I'd link to the city's fire department page, but it seems to have disappeared this morning. People particularly irked at them letting that guy's house burn down?
Probably. I wouldn't want to get the mail either, if it was me.
CRGreathouse said:
If 5,000 people pay $75/year for the program, that's $375,000. That pays for the second fire engine and maybe half a dozen firefighters plus upkeep. This is a pretty big deal for a small fire department!
EXACTLY! Which is why if you SUBTRACT even one person's, one time missing payment of $75 from $375,000, it really isn't going to matter significantly that he was negligent!
If people thought that they could get away with not paying their fire coverage...
Why that's absolutely diabolical! *rubs palms together*
...(unless a fire happened, in which case they'd be glad to pay), then the fire department has to lay off 6 firefighters to make up the budget shortfall. If because of this manpower shortage another house burns down, what then?
While it's accurate to say that if everyone did this--skipped payment--that there would be no service; one person is too insignificant. And it seems kind of childish for residents to be going about saying to themselves: "Hehe, guess what I didn't do!"
The fire victim also wanted to pay them then and there, the day of the fire; which means they would have made up for their loss.
At any rate, not putting out the source of AN ACTUAL FIRE (never mind a virtually hypothesized fire) poses the greatest potential threat to other people's property.
But the point is anyway: it should have never been up for debate. It's a fundamental service. Ancient Rome, London, Chicago--how many cities have to burn down before people acknowledge that? Why not just add the $75 per year to their property taxes?
If he wasn't a resident of the town, then the town shouldn't have been soliciting him for money to begin with--the county should have, or the state of Tennessee potentially. I'm not sure what taxes anyone pays to a county; still perhaps they have State Income Taxes in Tennessee? At any rate, if the grandkids the owner has mentioned go to school (and they must), then he most likely is paying property taxes to the town to which it is located.
It's not clear that this is negligent. The opposite argument could be made.
Oh indeed--the home owner was negligent: whether intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know. But it is a worse sort of negligence to choose not to put out a fire, when in fact you have the ability (which the department clearly illustrated it had, by arriving to keep the neighbors yard from catching fire).
If you demonstrate that paying the fee is effectively optional (that is, you'll be covered either way), then you discourage people from paying for coverage. This could lead to more lives and houses being lost than the current policy.
How would anyone know definitively that they could get away with this, until a house fire actually happens to them? Rumor? Is that why people keep showing up for juror duty, in lieu of simply throwing away the mail, and pretending they never got it.
But if, God forbid, a fire does ever befall your residence, I AM CERTAIN that you would just as vehemently spread it around town that the department needs funding. You might even knock on people's doors for them.
This is plainly wrong. My house is less important than most of the other houses on the street: there are no children inside and the house is less expensive. If for some reason only it or my neighbor's house could be saved (a house twice as expensive with two children living there), it would be frankly absurd to treat the two as equally expensive. (My personal desire to have my house saved notwithstanding.)
What if you're inside it? You may not value your life, but other people might theirs (and maybe yours also). This sounds an awful lot like your saying: "a soul has mass" to me.
That would be merciful, yes. It might also lead to more deaths and more property damage. Does your moral calculus allow for this sort of shortsightedness?Well, so far, I'm not too impressed by your apparent inability to add or subtract $75 (as in adding $75 to property taxes; or subtracting it from your own arbitrarily suggested $375,000 budget).But since we're accounting on the fly here, I'll remind you also that the fire truck was already there to protect the neighbors property. And just to make themselves happy, perhaps then they could have called it: "A 2 for 1 deal!"
It might also lead to more deaths and more property damage.
You mean you don't think PUTTING OUT A FIRE is an effective measure to preventing death and property damage? You've just made Smokey the Bear cry.
Ah, so if the people won't pay, and the county won't pay, and the city won't pay, just make someone else do it.
As it said: "two things are for certain in life: death, and taxes." So if it is any comfort to you (and I sense that it is somehow): it'll come back to bite them in the rear eventually.
But truthfully, you can't make anyone do anything. It certainly would be nice though, to know that the good I have done today, I will eventually get back when I need it myself. Maybe people wouldn't resent spotting the guy so much if they actually believed that. It certainly would have been the noble thing to do.
Even still, you should never chose to do what is right, merely for fear of consequences; or for want of reward. Or even to be square. That isn't ethical.
Instead you ought do the kind thing, simply to propagate goodness in the world.
At risk of seeming flowery: maybe if people were good to one another--just because, and even in spite of their circumstances--then there would be peace and happiness in the community at large. People act less atrociously when they are truly happy. And eventually, the happiness becomes a sort of contagion. Somehow, it becomes a lot less difficult to do the right thing, I have observed, when you feel authentic happiness in your life.
