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

[Mech_Engineer]

All I am saying is if people not paying is such a problem, then just impose a law that says these rural areas must pay the amount required. I'm not saying anyone should create a fire department. The city services are clearly capable of providing the required services.

Are they? I'd bet they're under-funded, under-staffed, and over-worked as it is... The fact is they offered coverage for a very reasonable fee and he didn't pay it (it doesn't matter if he legitimately forgot to or not).

They never mention what the recurrence of the $75 fee is, or how long the guy "forgot" to pay it. Seems to me, if he hadn't paid $75/month for the last two years, he had it coming. Forgot one month out of the last 10 years, different story.

 

[JaredJames]

Most of these arguments against the firefighters are borderline ridiculous. You can't argue a case by going to the emotional "the cats died!" argument. That's like saying we should all be able to not pay health insurance premiums until we find out we have cancer and then get to pay the fee someone without cancer would pay. That's not how insurance works.

I haven't said that, and I don't think anyone here has. I said to fine him, make him pay the full cost.
You get cancer with insurance, the insurance pays for it. You get cancer without insurance, you pay the full price for it.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

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

It's obviously different if there were people in there... but still no guarantee if they would have been saved. In fact if they hadn't already gotten out of the house, chances are they would have been dead by the time the fire department arrived.

They don't mention in the article how far outside the city limits this guy was, but I'm imagining he was a 15-30 minute drive... too far to have instant life-saving response.

Then I'm glad to be in the UK, where there is no discrimination against people for reasons such as this. Everyone gets treated the same when it comes to the emergency services.

They guy lives out in the sticks, the issue isn't that he was discriminated against.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

You get cancer without insurance, you pay the full price for it.

And if you don't (can't) pay for it, you don't get the treatment...

 

[JaredJames]

They guy lives out in the sticks, the issue isn't that he was discriminated against.

Really? From the article:

Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee.

"They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn," Cranick said.

They let his worldly possessions go down the drain all because of $75. (And before you start quoting all this 'is it monthly / yearly payments' stuff, the article says $75, no more, so that's all we can go with.)

So, would you all agree then that a person who doesn't work, doesn't pay any tax, doesn't contribute in any way, shouldn't receive any protection from the police / army?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The article says they "eventually showed up," telling me by then the guy's house was a pile of burning ashes.

They let his worldly possessions go down the drain all because of $75. (And before you start quoting all this 'is it monthly / yearly payments' stuff, the article says $75, no more, so that's all we can go with.)

THEY didn't, HE did.

So, would you all agree then that a person who doesn't work, doesn't pay any tax, doesn't contribute in any way, shouldn't receive any protection from the police / army?

Different services with different requirements and jobs.

 

[Pengwuino]

Then I'm glad to be in the UK, where there is no discrimination against people for reasons such as this. Everyone gets treated the same when it comes to the emergency services.

A country that doesn't discriminates against irresponsible people. What a country the UK has become.

And let's stop fooling ourselves. You can't run a system like fire departments where you just pay when you need it. People don't handle what realistically would be $20,000+ fees all that well. That's why you buy health insurance, people can't just get cancer one day and up and afford a $70,000/year chemo treatment plan or a $10,000 surgery and go on their merry way.

 

[JaredJames]

The article says they "eventually showed up," telling me by then the guy's house was a pile of burning ashes.

Wow, you got this from three words? I'd love to know how you arrived at this conclusion.

 

[JaredJames]

A country that doesn't discriminates against irresponsible people. What a country the UK has become.

Yeah, how dreadful. A government that cares for everyone, not only those who can afford it. (Regardless of whether or not this guy chose to pay, someone in a similar situation but who cannot pay would receive the same treatment.)

And let's stop fooling ourselves. You can't run a system like fire departments where you just pay when you need it. People don't handle what realistically would be $20,000+ fees all that well. That's why you buy health insurance, people can't just get cancer one day and up and afford a $70,000/year chemo treatment plan or a $10,000 surgery and go on their merry way.

Again, I'm not saying pay when you need it. I'm saying, everyone pays the $75 charge. If they don't and then require the services then they are fined the full cost of the services used. This still conforms to your way of thinking as it means it's still their problem if they don't pay the $75.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Again, I'm not saying pay when you need it. I'm saying, everyone pays the $75 charge. If they don't and then require the services then they are fined the full cost of the services used. This still conforms to your way of thinking as it means it's still their problem if they don't pay the $75.

I personally think this sounds like an OK option as long as the people pay for the full bill when they get it. The problem is, this is basically the same option available in medical care, and LOTS of people forego medical insurance (and then skip out on the bills when they need treatment)...

Another problem- say the fire department can bill you $50,000 for responding to a fire and you didn't pay your premiums. The owner can't pay (if they can't pay this they probably couldn't pay for the house to be repaired either), so to get their money the city puts a lien on the house and takes it. Problem is, the thing has fire damage and isn't worth $50k so the city can't recoup it's costs and they want insurance to pay the difference... So to come full circle now the homeowner's insurance company starts requiring policy holders to pay for fire protection as well. The cycle continues...

 

[mugaliens]

The fire department's decision to let the home burn was "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association representing firefighters.

I have another word for it: Unconscionable.

Cranick, who is now living in a trailer on his property, says his insurance policy will help cover some of his lost home.

I hope his insurance company sues the snot out of the fire department, and wins.

Again, I'm not saying pay when you need it. I'm saying, everyone pays the $75 charge. If they don't and then require the services then they are fined the full cost of the services used.

Exactly! The FD's actions were just unconsionable, particularly after Cranick offered to pay for the cost of putting out the fire.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I said to fine him, make him pay the full cost.

How? He didn't break any laws.

 

[rootX]

Couldn't policy makers add that people without coverage pay about 10 times if they get fire? What would have been wrong with this?

Considering this it is them who are to blame if they said people who do not pay will not get this service.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Another problem- say the fire department can bill you $50,000 for responding to a fire and you didn't pay your premiums. The owner can't pay (if they can't pay this they probably couldn't pay for the house to be repaired either), so to get their money the city puts a lien on the house and takes it. Problem is, the thing has fire damage and isn't worth $50k so the city can't recoup it's costs and they want insurance to pay the difference... So to come full circle now the homeowner's insurance company starts requiring policy holders to pay for fire protection as well. The cycle continues...

Right -- just what I was thinking. Only with $200,000 instead of $50,000...

 

[Proton Soup]

it's not the fire department's fault. it's a city fire department. for a fee, they offer private coverage to people outside their area.

if anyone is at fault here, it is the people of Obion County for not doing the right thing and setting up a county-wide fire service, complete with the taxation to cover it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

if anyone is at fault here, it is the people of Obion County for not doing the right thing and setting up a county-wide fire service, complete with the taxation to cover it.

Apparently they don't want it. If they did, they could have either formed their own fire department or paid the city an appropriate amount to cover all of their residents.

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

that's bad logic. this is more like you forgot to pay your auto insurance, and were out of luck on getting your crashed vehicle replaced.

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.

i suppose they could go after the grandson for arson and resulting animal cruelty.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

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

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.

Did you even bother to read the rest of my post? Basically what you are saying is tantamount to me living in Jersey City and expecting NYFD to come put out a blaze at my house. of Living in Cambridge and expecting the LFB to show up. I don't live in the cities in question, don't pay taxes for the upkeep of those departments, didn't pay the necessary fees to have them come to my property. Why on Earth should I except a free ride?

All of this also reeks of Gene Cranick trying to weasel out of the blame of this situation. Hint it all rest squarely on his shoulders; he "forgot" to pay the fee, and for the kicker his grandson started it by burring trash.

 

[JaredJames]

Did you even bother to read the rest of my post? Basically what you are saying is tantamount to me living in Jersey City and expecting NYFD to come put out a blaze at my house. of Living in Cambridge and expecting the LFB to show up. I don't live in the cities in question, don't pay taxes for the upkeep of those departments, didn't pay the necessary fees to have them come to my property. Why on Earth should I except a free ride?

Once again, I'm not saying people should get a free ride.

If they are the only people capable of helping, they should do so. Clearly the current system is flawed and there should be something in place to ensure everyone contributes to, I don't know, a county fund to pay for use of the local cities fire services.

All of this also reeks of Gene Cranick trying to weasel out of the blame of this situation. Hint it all rest squarely on his shoulders; he "forgot" to pay the fee

OK, let's drop this. We have no proof that he deliberately didn't pay the fee and no proof that he forgot to. I have never said he actually forgot, if anything I agree he deliberately didn't pay, however, unless we have evidence to prove he didn't pay it intentionally and not because he forgot, you cannot keep on saying or implying he did it deliberately (PF guidelines require proof for claims, unless someone gives proof then drop it).

and for the kicker his grandson started it by burring trash.

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.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Once again, I'm not saying people should get a free ride.

If they are the only people capable of helping, they should do so. Clearly the current system is flawed and there should be something in place to ensure everyone contributes to, I don't know, a county fund to pay for use of the local cities fire services.

You say that people shouldn't get a free ride, but then you expect the taxpayer to bail Gene out?

 

[JaredJames]

You say that people shouldn't get a free ride, but then you expect the taxpayer to bail Gene out?

I expect them to fine him and recover the costs. But it would seem they didn't build this into the charge system.

All the millions of dollars the 'first world' countries send out in charity aid to the third world and disaster areas and yet people argue over providing emergency services to their own population. The UK sends millions in foreign aid and to the EU every year and yet constantly complains they don't have enough for education and health care. What are the people who make these decisions thinking?

All I have seen so far is that the majority of people in this thread believe that anyone who doesn't contribute (any homeless person, the poor etc) doesn't deserve any help from the emergency services. A homeless person is beaten up in a rural area, a city officer driving through sees this, they do nothing. Why? Because he hasn't paid for the services. Is this right?

 

[CRGreathouse]

I expect them to fine him and recover the costs. But it would seem they didn't build this into the charge system.

Once again, how? Not only do they lack jurisdiction, but he didn't do anything wrong. (And the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, so none of that.)

(This is entirely aside from the question of where Gene would get the $50,000 or $200,000.)

 

[JaredJames]

I've just been reading through and a number of fire departments across the states have sent bills to various people after helping them. It would appear that home insurance has taken them over.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fire...-horrify-residents-insurance/story?id=9736696

According to this one, the state law makes the billing legal. Does the state this guy is in have such a law?
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/83002102.html

In this case, the company valued the response at nearly $15,000. It's a bill that is perfectly legal, according to state law, and a charge the department could even collect by going to court, which Precinct 3 has never done.

It would appear that Tennessee has a law against fire department billing. It would seem to be the reason they can't charge for the service without breaking the law.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Is this right?

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.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It would appear that Tennessee has a law against fire department billing. It would seem to be the reason they can't charge for the service without breaking the law.

Nitpick: There would have to be not just no law against it, but a law specifically granting that ability. There's no law that says I can't remove a ghost from your house, then bill you for it, but I couldn't (unless we agreed on that beforehand, of course).


Being able to charge $15,000 for a fire response (assuming you were able to collect) wouldn't, by my calculations (see above), be nearly enough to run the fire department, though. At that rate they'd be running a charity, at South Fulton's expense, to support the rural Obion County residents. What would South Fulton residents think? I don't know.

 

[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.