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

[BobG]

I'd also note that Keith Olbermann's piece misrepresented the situation. This really isn't an instance of Libertarian government gone mad - i.e. the county chose this option over better options. It's a situation of a rural county trying to figure out how to provide some sort of fire protection for rural residents and exploring whatever means are available.

This takes more than just one agreement, since the county has to rely on fire services provided by others. That's just a fiscal reality based on the limited funds the county has and the large area that needs fire protection. If the county were able to complete a package of agreements with each town that had some fire fighting capability, and managed to provide fire protection to the entire county, they could probably tax the entire county.

When you look at the whole package and realize South Fulton is on one edge of the county (in fact, they're on the state line and have an agreement for mutual support with Fulton, KY just across the state line to pool their resources, effectively doubling the size of their fire dept for fires in the city - only South Fulton offers the $75 buy-in support to rural residents), it's easy to understand why most of the county residents would be unwilling to pay for one corner of the county to get fire protection when most of the county has none.

The county really does need a package of agreements with multiple cities and towns in order to have any chance of getting residents to fund fire protection via taxes and that's just a tough thing for small governments to do.

I was initially thinking a two fire truck fire dept was pretty amazing for a town of 2500, but then I recalled living in a town of about 5,000. Their fire dept was a single fire truck that was very, very, very old. Finally getting a new fire truck was a very big deal in the town. They didn't get rid of their old truck just because they finally had a new one. So having a two truck fire dept can sometimes be deceiving.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Do you mean to tell me...honestly...that you think that their entire department budget is solely contingent upon his payment of $75?

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!

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 people thought that they could get away with not paying their fire coverage (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?

It's not clear that this is negligent. The opposite argument could be made.

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 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.

One person's house is not more important than another, just like one victim is not more important than another.

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.)

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[FrancisZ]

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.

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.

 

[Perspicacity]

It didn't have to be a negative lesson for him. They basically publicly punished him...

Wow.

I really don't see what the big deal is. He lives in a community where fire protection is not guaranteed and it isn't free. He didn't buy the service, and now he's suffering for his own stupidity.

If you watch his interview with Keith Olbermann, the man states that the fire department had earlier made an exception for his son. So even after this happened to his own son, this deadbeat thought he could freeload off the system and that they'd still come when he needed them.

All this event tells me is that stupid people belong in urban areas, where their betters can take care of them.

 

[lisab]

If you watch his interview with Keith Olbermann, the man states that the fire department had earlier made an exception for his son. So even after this happened to his own son, this deadbeat thought he could freeload off the system and that they'd still come when he needed them.

Good evidence that if you make taxes voluntary, people won't pay them.

 

[BobG]

If you watch his interview with Keith Olbermann, the man states that the fire department had earlier made an exception for his son. So even after this happened to his own son, this deadbeat thought he could freeload off the system and that they'd still come when he needed them.

The county currently receives some fire response support from 8 different municipalities. Three of the cities offer a subscription service (all three charge $75 a year and $500 a call). Five do not charge a subscription service, but charge non-residents the full cost of the fire response call. Evidently, actually getting people to pay after the fact is a problem for those 5 cities and for the few exceptions Union City, South Fulton, and Kenton have made. Many try to pass the cost on to their insurance company and the insurance companies refuse to pay, saying a government funded fire department shouldn't charge for their services.

It was never stated whether Cranick's son lives in the same area of the county and received service from South Fulton or from one of the other municipalities. Not that it matters. If some county residents are getting service without paying a subscription fee, then it affects the attitude of the rest of the county residents, even if they're served by a different municipality.

The problem for the county is to get some kind of package deal with all 8 municipalities in place in order to provide some kind of county wide fire protection plan paid for with county taxes. It's impossible to do it piecemeal, since there aren't very many voters in SW Obion County that would be willing to pay higher taxes so residents on the state line in the NW corner of Obion County could get fire response from South Fulton.

 

[Perspicacity]

What exactly is wrong with what they have now? $75 a year is in no way unreasonable. So some guy's house burns down--why should everyone else change their way of life?

 

[CRGreathouse]

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!"

So you really think that if the fire department put out fires to houses that didn't pay, the fire department would still have enough money? It's clear to me that most people wouldn't pay. Even if they "only" lost $200,000 from their budget, that's a whole shift's worth of firefighters.

I would appreciate, at this point, a statement from you regarding this point: how much money the fire department would lose per year in this situation. Only that one person? Ten people? Ten percent? Eighty percent? Would they need to lay off only one firefighter, or half their staff?

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.

NO! That's exactly my point. If 5,000 people don't pay, but then there's a fire and one of those people pay, that's 4,999 * $75 that the fire department doesn't have.

This is not an issue of $75 but hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If, on the other hand, people see that if they don't pay they could lose their houses, then you don't have the budget shortfall because the 5,000 do pay.

Why not just add the $75 per year to their property taxes?

Because the people didn't vote for it. (I notice you didn't address the democracy question, either.)

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.

I have had my house catch fire before. (Not my current property, though.) I'm on record in this thread as saying that, in this man's situation, I would not have paid the $75 per year.

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!"

<< Last comment deleted by berkeman >>

 

[FrancisZ]

So you really think that if the fire department put out fires to houses that didn't pay, the fire department would still have enough money? It's clear to me that most people wouldn't pay.

Don't they? How do you know that? Especially now that this has happened. I thought this guy was in the minority. No one actually said that most people don't pay. Although, I really have to agree with Lisa: you can't make taxes voluntary.

They dun goofed.

Even if they "only" lost $200,000 from their budget...

Your words, not mine. I never said anything about $200k.

I would appreciate, at this point, a statement from you regarding this point: how much money the fire department would lose per year in this situation. Only that one person? Ten people? Ten percent? Eighty percent? Would they need to lay off only one firefighter, or half their staff?

To be fair: obviously the greater the percentage of the population not paying, the less capable of operating the department would be. But if you want precise statistics, I can't tell you that--and neither can you--because neither of us is their accountant. Nor can we foresee the future.

Now, if somebody down there at the department did some research; and then determined the number of fires on average per year--and the causes of them, so as to prevent them--then they might try educate the population (and persuade them to pay) with some impressive data.

At any rate, I'm not debating that. I'm saying that you make due with whatever you have. And since they happened to be literally next door anyway, there's no sense in being pig headed, and denying somebody your assistance on the grounds of money along.

Sometimes you have to go above and beyond your requirements. I teach--do you think that I get back every dollar that I spend on my students? Well I don't; but that hasn't stopped me from trying to get the materials I need any way I can.

NO! That's exactly my point. If 5,000 people don't pay, but then there's a fire and one of those people pay, that's 4,999 * $75 that the fire department doesn't have.

If the situation were realistically that bad--with that percentage of people not paying--then there wouldn't be a department to begin with; so they probably wouldn't have arrived to collect their sole $75 payment.

But I don't really believe that is the case. I also don't believe that this town somehow catches fire every day, like clockwork through the year. It's just not realistic.

That having been said, I will repeat myself: it isn't fair for one to not pay and then receive services. But that doesn't mean we ought to return wrong for wrong. If the department DOES IN FACT have the means, then they are morally obligated to make the effort.

This is not an issue of $75 but hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It is in this case: they obviously had just enough money already, to show up for the next door neighbor somehow. You're talking about a hypothetical situation--one which I agree with you anyway isn't fair, or even practical--but it's also not reality.

Every 6 months to a year, PBS has a fund raiser telethon in which they beg for money. Sometimes they get federal funding, and sometime they don't. But they survive--by the skin of their teeth; you got to give them credit--they survive. How come? Because people care enough.

People care more than maybe you realize. And if they care enough to fork over $75 annually to PBS--just to keep This Old House, the likes of Elmo on the air--then I'm sure a enough people care about their actual houses also, to be willing to pay to keep them from potentially burning down.

[PLAIN]http://unitedfirefighter.com/wp-content/uploads/aes/United-Firefighters_228.jpg

If, on the other hand, people see that if they don't pay they could lose their houses, then you don't have the budget shortfall because the 5,000 do pay.

So we should teach everybody a lesson in protection money, right? Well, that's very mafioso.

Maybe if the department had actually showed this guy mercy, and at least saved his dogs and cat, then he would have changed for the better, and never missed a payment again.

Bob was right--he'll never miss a payment again; and probably nobody else will either. But they've accomplished that end through intimidation rather than appropriate means.

Because the people didn't vote for it. (I notice you didn't address the democracy question, either.)

Were they made honestly aware of the severity of the issue? With all due respect: house fires aren't maybe as common as say car accidents. And maybe they felt all macho too, and figured they could just as well put out a house fire with their urine, if the situation ever arose. They should have been educated; but now instead they've somehow "been schooled."

(I notice you didn't address the democracy question, either.)

Thought I did. I'll repeat myself. We (in the United States) do not live in a democracy. It's a nice idea that we appreciate, but we don't actually engage in it. We haven't, at least since the inception of the country as a whole. Maybe the Quakers did; and that's why they were smiling.

Now, if you personally believe that democracy is the ideal we ought to be striving for (and I admit that's a pretty cool idea), then you need to start your own country--because we employ a representation democracy here, not an authentic one (sad as that is).

Word to the wise: overthrowing the government would piss a lot of people off, because you didn't get their approval first (which isn't very democratic either).

And it's surely well and good to strive for your ideals; but again, I believe that you are offering a hypothetical situation--one in which every citizens, votes on every thing that comes into question themselves--and that is just not the way the United States of America works at this point in time.

I have had my house catch fire before. (Not my current property, though.) I'm on record in this thread as saying that, in this man's situation, I would not have paid the $75 per year.

Because you don't like taxes? Or because you felt it ought to have been covered under property taxes or some such?

Nobody likes taxes. I don't like them either. Personally, I wish for a universe more like Star Trek, in which people do things (like eat) merely because they need or want to without the worry of expense (and without hurting anyone else in the process either). But we aren't there yet. People don't do the right thing all of the time, just because they should. That's why we use money--as an incentive to do something, we ordinarily wouldn't desire to do.

And if we want to live in an organized living circumstance with our fellow humans, at this point in societal evolution, then we have to agree to pay at least some taxes to operate it.

Even still, if this guy chose to forgo civilization entirely (and stopped paying all taxes), and instead became a vagrant with severe pyromania; we'd all may still have to worry about the fires he starts. He's certainly not going to contribute at all to the fire fund, if he's homeless and vengeful. Imagine the expense of it!

You, sir, are a buffoon with whom I refuse to treat further.

So far, you haven't been treating me very nicely anyway. But I'm making it worse, I know, so I'll stop now. And I apologize.

If one day you learn elementary economics you will understand your mistake.

So why don't you try teaching me instead of insulting me, or my "moral calculus?" At the moment, I simply disagree with you; but you might change my mind, because I'll try to keep it open, sincerely. Sound fair? I don't mind a little bit of humor at my expense either.

 

[rootX]

Because the people didn't vote for it. (I notice you didn't address the democracy question, either.)

Do you seriously believe that people will ever vote for it?

No one wants to pay taxes, but we do pay taxes in democratic countries. There are certain unpopular policies like contracting the economic growth, bringing regulations for the long term benefits. It has nothing to do with democracy.

 

[Proton Soup]

The fee is yearly.

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

In a post on Monday about the fire, Daniel Foster began with the observation, “Oy, this is bad for the libertarians.” He explained:

I have no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle — especially in rural areas where individual need for government services and available infrastructure vary so widely. But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?

perhaps it is the same moral theory that allows the government to seize your home if you don't pay property tax.

 

[G037H3]

All this event tells me is that stupid people belong in urban areas, where their betters can take care of them.

Or where the stupid people can commit crimes against hardworking middle-class Europeans! woo! -_-

 

[xxChrisxx]

Being from the UK, where it's all just paid for by taxes (there is no choice) I really don't understand a non-universal care/service in the US as I've never grown up with it. However unlike some others, I do realize the huge change in scale from the UK to the US (both in population and size). The UK you are never that far from a major city, so emergency services are easy to come by. When you live in the middle of nowhere, I can see why it's uneconomical to run a full fire service.

Lesson here is: if you have to pay a nominal fee for an emergecy serive, just pay it. That's what i'd do.

I will say one thing though, as a human being (if I were a fire fighter) I don't think I could stand by whilst someone elses house was burning down and I had the means to sort it. Spraying the neighbours house to the fence line just seems a bit 'off'. It would have been only marginally more callous if the fire crew stared toating bread over the charry remains of this guys house.

I feel bad for the guy, but I suppose it's his own fault really.

 

[BobG]

Do you seriously believe that people will ever vote for it?

No one wants to pay taxes, but we do pay taxes in democratic countries. There are certain unpopular policies like contracting the economic growth, bringing regulations for the long term benefits. It has nothing to do with democracy.

People vote for tax increases all the time when they see a legitimate need and the tax seems fair. They're even more likely if the tax is for a set number of years and will then expire. People don't like voting for taxes when every increase is for eternity with more increases to come.

In this case, the need is real in areas where residents are having to pay a subscription fee for service, but unnecessary in the areas where they get fire response without a subscription fee (although those days are limited - at least two or three more of the other 5 towns will start charging subscription fees just because it's too hard to get reimbursed by insurance companies). The tax is also unfair if it only benefits residents using the 3 towns that charge subscription fees. And it's also unfair to city residents that pay a city tax to fund their fire dept plus a county tax to fund having the fire dept they already paid for respond to rural calls (this is going to be a sticking point even if the county govt reaches agreements with all 8 municipalities).

And just a trivial note. Using examples of 5,000 is a little high for this particular town. This is rural America. The town with the fire dept only had a population of 2500 and I don't think they're supporting more rural residents than city residents (but I don't know for sure). Of course, one of the towns using this system has a population of about 10,000, so supporting 5,000 rural residents might at least be in the ballpark for them.

The point is, for towns the size of South Fulton, even a house fire demands they mobilize their entire fire department to fight it, as small as their fire department is. They have few resources and expending a few thousand on one house call is a big deal to them.