Evil Fire Department
- Thread starter CycoCyclone
- Start date
The guy was probably dumb not to pay it, however, as i said above, id like to see more why this wasnt covered by the county like it is in many\most other areas through those local taxes. Has this always been this way or did the county just decide to stop paying for it instead of cutting the budget elsewhere?
I guess the worst part to me is the fire department just standing by, even when the homeowners said they'd pay full price. It shouldve been done at that point.
Last edited:
The whole point that its not a basic governmental service is what is screwed up in this whole thing to begin with. But I'm confident if you just let people pay for the service once they needed it, the departments overall revenue would drop greatly.
Its not just the cost to put out the fire. Its the cost to keep the fire department staffed and up-to-date.
As long as they made it obvious the consequences of not paying the $75 fee, I don't see any problem with this. I'm sure that if there was someone's life in danger, the fire department would have been obligated to do something.
How many people who think the country wide tax should be mandatory are also the same people opposed to the fine for not having health insurance?
That's true. They would have to charge a LOT of money to encourage people to pay the fee.
Think about it, if the penalty is only 10x the fee, you could recoup the fee by going 10 years without a fire. I don't think most people have one fire every 10 years. I'd bet the average is well less than one fire per family per lifetime. They'd probably have to charge thousands to make it an incentive for paying the fee.
That being said, I assume the fee is included in property taxes for residents of the city, so it shouldn't be the case that the fire department depends on the revenue from the fee for those outside of the city limits. It would probably be best to just charge a large amount for fire department service on an as needed basis.
Why is fire protection optional at all? You'd get arrested if you intentionally set a fire that large....
Plus the FD made the trip out, what expense did they save not pouring water on it?
Fire protection is different than insurance. Its not just a case of paying the price if you have a fire. Even if you don't have a fire in 50 years, you would still have the cost of keeping the department staffed and on call, trained and updated with the correct equipment.
Which it may not be, since the homeowner had the option to purchase fire protection and neglected to purchase it.
I can't speak for homeowner's policies, but I know that for my renter's policy, it says something along the lines of 'the apartment must be furnished with a fire extinguisher, or else you don't get any money in the event that the place burns down.' I would imagine that many homeowner's insurance policies have a similar stipulation involving fire protection, if it is available in the area in which the home is located.
Of course what is and isn't a covered service could be decided upon by the residents... that is the beauty (in theory) of a government by the people. And really you pay for it if it's a covered service, by not having it "covered" it's just a matter of whether you'd have the choice to pay for it or not.
Of course the same could be said of car insurance, and we are all required to have it now for liability reasons. There was some liability in this case too... which is a compelling argument for incorporating the cost of fire service into property taxes
Perhaps life safety was the reason that they showed up in the first place i.e. we will rescue someone from a fire but we will not utilize City resources to save the house if they have not paid the fee. I can't imagine there is any way they would have not acted if there were people trapped in the house and they had a chance to save them.
Probably depends on if it's a professional or volunteer fire department (the article doesn't say, but any bets on which this was?) for labor costs and for determining the costs for wear and tear on the equipment.
You could probably figure $5000 at the low end to get the trucks rolling for a house fire and cap it at the cost of rebuilding the house?
And if a fireman gets hurt saving a structure...
1) Fire station
2) Fire trucks
3) equipment for the firemen
4) labor for the firemen if they are not volunteer
5) minimal.... water
6) insurance for the fire station and trucks
7) what ever I am forgetting
Good point. Fire departments respond to more than fires as well. In many places the fire department can get to a medical emergency quicker than an ambulance so they respond first and stabilize the patient until the ambulance gets on site.
Because when they need the service and don't get it then they wonder why and everyone on CF gets all high and mighty. It's the homeowner's own damn fault. End of story.
Not really a comparable situation. It's more like calling a security company about a burglar, they tell you that you aren't a customer, then your neighbor sees the guy heading toward his house, he calls the security company, and they come only to protect your neighbors house because he is the paying customer.
Then why are people upset? They were busy when they showed up fighting the fire at the house of the people who paid the fee. It's not like they showed up to gloat and roast marshmallows. It also sounds like when the job they were paid for was done they left and didn't stand around and watch the house burn down as the title suggests.
I confess, I didn't read the article but simply responded to what people posted here. I have now.
