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

[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.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Call the UK what you like, people constantly have a go for it being a 'nanny state', but this would never happen here.

It's extremely rare in the US. Probably less than 0.1% of US houses are in such situations.

 

[G037H3]

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!)

42.497

that has to be one of the worst games I've ever played, lol

 

[JaredJames]

It's extremely rare in the US. Probably less than 0.1% of US houses are in such situations.

It shouldn't be a possibility. This situation should never be allowed to occur.

As far as I'm concerned, fire, police and ambulance services should be priorities. And something people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves, for all of the above reasons.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It shouldn't be a possibility. This situation should never be allowed to occur.

I hate to ask this, because the language is so loaded. I hope that anyone reading this and your answer, if any, will take that into consideration. But:

Are you, then, opposed to democracy? If a community has voted to not provide fire services, merely allowing them to purchase private fire coverage from a nearby town, would you override the will of the voters?

 

[G037H3]

I hate to ask this, because the language is so loaded. I hope that anyone reading this and your answer, if any, will take that into consideration. But:

Are you, then, opposed to democracy? If a community has voted to not provide fire services, merely allowing them to purchase private fire coverage from a nearby town, would you override the will of the voters?

Then they don't know what is best for themselves, and must submit to the majority opinion of a larger group of voters nearby that has more money/votes. /sarcasm

 

[loseyourname]

I'd say fire protection is a pretty clear instance of a public good in which the taxation authority of the service provider should share a boundary with the region covered; that is, service should be provided at the county level or a city that provides service should have the ability to coerce payment. It isn't like insurance at all. Fire can spread to adjacent properties, and even if it doesn't, it produces a blight that reduces property values in the vicinity of the properties that are physically damaged. Refusing to pay for service imposes costs on third parties. Moreover, if they respond to a fire next door, you're still receiving protection without ever having had to pay for it.

This is the entire reason we give governments the ability to tax in the first place.

 

[CRGreathouse]

even if it doesn't, it produces a blight that reduces property values in the vicinity of the properties that are physically damaged.

This argument could be taken pretty far, don't you think?

I'm much more inclined to agree that government should provide fire services (even though I don't find them worthwhile for myself, on the whole) than to accept that argument for it.

 

[loseyourname]

This argument could be taken pretty far, don't you think?

I'm much more inclined to agree that government should provide fire services (even though I don't find them worthwhile for myself, on the whole) than to accept that argument for it.

That was a pretty minor corollary to the more important point that fire itself spreads. Even in this case, the department had to come and spray water on adjacent properties to prevent that, so the same costs were still incurred without him ever having to pay for it.

 

[G037H3]

Keep in mind that rural homes generally have much more space in between them than urban buildings do. >_>

 

[loseyourname]

Keep in mind that rural homes generally have much more space in between them than urban buildings do. >_>

Again, in this case the fire department still responded and sprayed the fence line to prevent the fire from spreading to adjacent properties. He imposed that cost on his neighbors. Along with national defense and criminal justice, fire protection is literally the classic justification for compulsive tax financing. You end with a free-rider problem regardless of where the fire starts.

 

[Char. Limit]

42.497

that has to be one of the worst games I've ever played, lol

40.909

Boring and annoying, but I had to get the best time.

 

[CRGreathouse]

That was a pretty minor corollary to the more important point that fire itself spreads. Even in this case, the department had to come and spray water on adjacent properties to prevent that, so the same costs were still incurred without him ever having to pay for it.

Here's what I think about costs. A fire department might cost $5 million dollars per year to operate if they're never needed. Each fire they respond to probably costs them $30,000 in one-time costs on average (distributed like $1000, $1000, $1000, $200,000, etc. -- when they need to break out the Class A hazmat suits, costs go through the roof). If the fire department responds to 5 fires a year, that's a budget of $5.15 million per year. If an 'extra' fire happens, for example as a non-protected house spreads its fire to a neighboring property, the marginal costs are an average of $30,000 -- that is, very little. The main cost is paying the firefighters, maintaining the station and engines, training, etc.

 

[FrancisZ]

What law?

Pardon me..."regulation," or "stipulation," or "expectation;" whichever is more precise. At any rate, if a person were an actual victim of fire, they would more likely appreciate the fire department. Unless of course that fire department is run like the Keystone Kops.Not sure how you extrapolated this...

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?

...but, I never said that anyway. What I did say is that I believe this fellow might have chosen instead to become THEIR advocate, rather than their now nationally television critic; that is, had they done the right thing, and put out his house, even in spite of his not having paid them. Imagine how appreciative he would have been then. They could have made lemons out of lemonade. Just a suggestion. But now the can't even get a lemon from this guy--mostly likely cause it went up flames.

Your argument doesn't make financial sense, which seems to be the direction it's supposed to go.

Do you mean to tell me...honestly...that you think that their entire department budget is solely contingent upon his payment of $75? And if he (God forbid) misses that payment, for whatever reason: whether he catches a cold and can't mail his check on time; or maybe he simply moves to another town that actually has a fire department worth a frig; or maybe he just gives up and plainly drops dead one day; do YOU actually mean to suggest that they would have to fold up their entire outfit as a consequence?!

It isn't fair that he didn't pay--fine. But don't pretend that the world should suddenly stop spinning because of this one guy's negligence. It doesn't excuse anyone from doing their job.

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?

Well, considering that, for a moment...

Let's say that they would have put out the fire--even though he didn't pay them beforehand--had they been TOLD that there were people in the house at the time of the fire. To then simply agree to that, would imply that they had the ability to put out the fire; and if, in fact, they had made such an attempt, that obviously would be commendable (to even just RUN into the burning building), whatever the outcome (whether somebody was dead already from smoke inhalation or not).

So if that is the x factor really--human presence in the building--then that suggests that perhaps this fellow should have been smarter, and actually lied to them, in order to save his pets lives. It wouldn't be then, that the department somehow just didn't have the means.

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.

It is plainly stupid (and/or spiteful) to arrive at an active fire, and then rather than put out the blaze itself, to instead make the minimal effort of keeping it from spreading a distance next door. If it's sheer stupidity, then those guys simply ought to be "let go" (I didn't want to say "fired").

But if it is spitefulness--or even if it's simply operating with the drone mentality: "just following orders"--then there's negligence, definitely on their part. They chose not to do the right thing--and stop a fire (since it's their vocation anyway)--out of self-interest; whether for fear of losing their job (which I can sympathize with), or because they stubbornly felt that they needed to make an example of this family.

It isn't justified. And the sort of person that uses that: "Just following orders," baloney; is a clear enough thinking (not stupid) person; but one that merely chooses to avert their eyes from the reality of the situation--like see no evil, hear no evil. That's fault by omission.

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.

I'm sorry...if the friggin fire department showed up at my house fire, and then shook their heads and said: "Ya'know, we've got another fire go to!" I think I would laugh my a$$ off.

It's not like it's a Halloween party, you know, that they're missing out on. It's a fire! And if you don't put it out, it's going to spread--to some other location! (And potentially spoiling important occasions all over town).

In New York City at least: the Police Department is plainly understaffed (my brother is a cop). Up until a couple of years ago, they used to graduate two classes per year. They now graduate a smaller single class annually, while simultaneously the department is also retiring a lot of baby boomers. The point being: the work load hasn't changed; there's just less people to do it. And when a cop gets a collar, he never feels bad somehow that he missed out on catching some other perp. He or she did their job: they addressed one crime in a sea of crime; and nobody can get mad at them for that either. They're only human.

But if instead they plainly IGNORED crime, then apparently they would not be an effective police force.

One person's house is not more important than another, just like one victim is not more important than another. That would be very un-American, and/or un-Christian to say the least; and I'm sure that a lot of these folks living in Frigville, Tennessee fancy themselves both good Christians and good citizens.

And WWJD? He probably wouldn't just let somebody's house burn down; or let their pets burn alive--whoever's fault it was to begin with.

Not to go off on a tangent but: ya'know, separation of Church and State shouldn't equate to separation of logic and heart either. I mean: even if this town were run by a collection of the stupidest people on Earth--and it, somehow, wasn't rational enough that FIRE SPREADS, and that you ought to PUT OUT THE SOURCE OF THE FIRE--then they could have at least shown some MERCY.

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

Does it really cost that much? Well what ever it is, let them write it off to the State or Fed. We cannot afford to cease being decent people for lack of money.

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?

Really, does Bumblefrig, Tennessee have just one bucket of water to put out a blaze? Then maybe they ought to look into that problem.

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...

Why not? The government takes whatever else that it wants; why stop at the fire fighting fund? And for that matter: why stop at $75? I'm still forced to pay property taxes for public education, even though I work in Catholic Schools, and my youngest sister also goes there. And it may piss me off too; but I also have the good sense to know that it serves a public necessity. I don't generally put a price tag on civilization.

I mean really: in this day and age, if we can't live in a town or a city that AT LEAST provides police protection, fire services, or schools; then we might as well go back to living in caves and chasing antelope. And every night, I'll make sure to put the camp fire out myself.

so it seems to me they have three options:
1) The current situation of the voluntary fire protection

Which sucks.

2) Give everyone outside the city free fire protection

Which would be very neighborly; and I'm sure at least Mr. Rogers would have approved...

[PLAIN]http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2008/03/16-22/061228_rogers_vmed_8a.widec.jpg

3) Don't protect anyone outside the city

Which they could have made a point of to begin with, and left out the silly $75 fee. That frankly is misleading.

But realistically: maybe they have more options than just these--like maybe leaving the Dark Ages behind, and restructuring their government somehow (whether at the city, county, or state level) so that they won't simply have to allow people's houses to burn down anymore! I'm sure that there must be a model of governance somewhere--one that could provide this basic function--and that they might consider replicating now.

 

[BobG]

...but, I never said that anyway. What I did say is that I believe this fellow might have chosen instead to become THEIR advocate, rather than their now nationally television critic; that is, had they done the right thing, and put out his house, even in spite of his not having paid them. Imagine how appreciative he would have been then. They could have made lemons out of lemonade. Just a suggestion. But now the can't even get a lemon from this guy--mostly likely cause it went up flames.

He is still an advocate for the fire dept. Sometimes the meaning of your life is to serve as a lesson to others.

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.

Do you mean to tell me...honestly...that you think that their entire department budget is solely contingent upon his payment of $75? And if he (God forbid) misses that payment, for whatever reason: whether he catches a cold and can't mail his check on time; or maybe he simply moves to another town that actually has a fire department worth a frig; or maybe he just gives up and plainly drops dead one day; do YOU actually mean to suggest that they would have to fold up their entire outfit as a consequence?!

The cost of a fire response can run from a few hundred dollars for a small brush fire up to $30,000 for a bad house fire, even more if you're responding to larger fires, such as factories, buildings downtown, etc. In South Fulton's case, they would have a hard time running up a bill over $10,000 since they only have two fire fire trucks. Their trucks and firemen would have to be out there for a long time to get close to $10,000.

Ironically, the most expensive house fire calls are those where they aren't able to save the house. There's the attitude that the fire dept should put everything they have into saving the house before giving up.

If what this guy says about how the fire started, the fire might not have been very expensive to fight. It alledgedly started in a couple barrels far away from the house, but the fire turned into a brush fire that took 2 hours to reach the house. Of course, that doesn't mean the guy called the fire dept two hours before the fire reached the house. He probably realized he was in over his head when the fire had gotten really close to the house or maybe even reached the house. But it could have been a cheap fire to deal with at one time.

Does it really cost that much? Well what ever it is, let them write it off to the State or Fed. We cannot afford to cease being decent people for lack of money.

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. South Fulton could afford more than two fire trucks. (This is a small town supporting the rural residents, not New York City.)

Really, does Bumblefrig, Tennessee have just one bucket of water to put out a blaze? Then maybe they ought to look into that problem.

This is a small town supporting the even more rural residents. South Fulton (sometimes known as Bumblefrig?) only has two fire trucks.

Why not? The government takes whatever else that it wants; why stop at the fire fighting fund? And for that matter: why stop at $75? I'm still forced to pay property taxes for public education, even though I work in Catholic Schools, and my youngest sister also goes there. And it may piss me off too; but I also have the good sense to know that it serves a public necessity. I don't generally put a price tag on civilization.

I mean really: in this day and age, if we can't live in a town or a city that AT LEAST provides police protection, fire services, or schools; then we might as well go back to living in caves and chasing antelope. And every night, I'll make sure to put the camp fire out myself.

Do you think the government is run by Big Brother or something? 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.

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).

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.

But realistically: maybe they have more options than just these--like maybe leaving the Dark Ages behind, and restructuring their government somehow (whether at the city, county, or state level) so that they won't simply have to allow people's houses to burn down anymore! I'm sure that there must be a model of governance somewhere--one that could provide this basic function--and that they might consider replicating now.

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.

By the way, this isn't the first time this has happened. 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). 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'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?

But, to put things in perspective, South Fulton is a town of 2500 that's about 10 miles away from the larger city (10,000) of Union City TN (which is the county seat).

 

[G037H3]

40.909

Boring and annoying, but I had to get the best time.

challenging me to try again? >_>! i have moar gaming experience than j00, i wasted my whole childhood on them lol