No Pay -- No Spray

Kind of brings the concequences of "tax cuts at any cost" into reality, doesn't it.

Here we go again.

While I don't think I could've personally sat there and watched the guys E36 M3 burn down, a contract is a contract. He could've paid the $75 and had no problems. My understanding is that this guys home was a trailer. Using my awesome deductive reasoning skills, I'm guessing he drinks at least several hundred dollars a year in beer, and has cable TV. I.e., he could afford the $75.

Had the fire dept. put out the fire, how many looter, bottom-feeder, democrat mother berkeleyers would've NOT paid the $75 next year, knowing that someone else would catch the tab for them.

Conversely, how many people do you think got on the phone this morning and said "Uuuh. Yeah. I think I "forgot" to pay my $75 last year. I'd like to re-up." ???

Yes, I'm one of those "I don't see the need for the eighty gazillion gov't agencies and regulations and millions of lazy, worthless gov't employees who have no motivation to provide excellent service" people. However, I think when it comes to fire and police, everyone...EVERYONE needs to kick in their share, and I think it should be mandatory. It's just like car insurance. You want to go wad your E36 M3 up with no insurance? Fine. You wad your E36 M3 into my E36 M3 and you have no insurance? That's a problem.

wcelliot wrote: In this case it appears that the rural community does not have an RFD and the only coverage is by subscription to the town (which it appears they are _not_ residents of and could otherwise not expect municiple services.)

This particular county DOES NOT offer fire protection via taxes. The county also conducted a study to determine the cost of raising taxes to fund fire protection; the proposal was tabled. The closest municipality offers town residents protection - paid for via local taxes. Those NOT living within city limits have the choice to pay a $75 service fee for coverage or NOT.

Everyone knows what choice this homeowner made and his was a deliberate choice. He gambled and lost.

One can argue the moral issues of the case all day, but do so at the risk of straying into territory that dictates government should/must determine morality.

poopshovel wrote: Had the fire dept. put out the fire, how many looter, bottom-feeder, democrat mother berkeleyers would've NOT paid the $75 next year, knowing that someone else would catch the tab for them.

Maybe if Republicans would stop strip-mining what's left of the education budget in this country there wouldn't be so many illiterate, looter, bottom-feeder, democrat mother berkeleyers. What did they propose recently? Another 20% funding cut?

Sorry couldn't help it. You said the "D" word.

I'm still trying to figure out if politics has a place in this fire issue. I guess there wasn't enough tax money/incentive to go around in their own county/whatever for a proper fire department, so maybe there's an argument there. To be honest though, I don't really feel that bad for the shmuck who didn't want to pay his part. On the other hand, a pay $75 now or $10K later seems like a much better band-aid to this semi-workable solution. There's always garnishing wages. The possible loss of life in these situations bothers me the most.

They get a bargain. Our fire subscription is $175. Guess what? We pay it.

On the other hand I HOPE the Fire dept at least checked to make sure animals and ppl weren't burning in that house. If not, well that I have a real problem with.

poopshovel wrote:

Kind of brings the concequences of "tax cuts at any cost" into reality, doesn't it.

Had the fire dept. put out the fire, how many looter, bottom-feeder, democrat mother berkeleyers would've NOT paid the $75 next year, knowing that someone else would catch the tab for them.

Probably less than mouth breathing, anti goverment, fear mongering republicans. Any idea when the war is going to be paid for?

In the end- it's money out of your pocket to provide a service. Some things seem to be better managed as a society, while others seem to be better managed as a corporation. We just need to decide which are which.

alfadriver wrote: Probably less than mouth breathing, anti goverment, fear mongering republicans. Any idea when the war is going to be paid for?

Yet you revert to fear mongering yourself........

You infer that Republicans will automatically resort to reducing essential services without first freezing spending and then reduce/cut spending on non-essentials.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop throwing stuff just hoping it sticks.

1-WTF

2-There should be a chance for him to pay after the fact, just a much larger bill. Like when I was in Volunteer EMS, there was a $200/household/year ambulance subscription fee. If you paid, no charge for use, if not, IIRC $2k per "ride".

I'm still trying to figure out if politics has a place in this fire issue.

Probably not. Sorry I bit. I think it's a policy issue. I don't think there should be an option to pay. Maybe that's very un-libertarian of me, but whatevs.

oldsaw wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Probably less than mouth breathing, anti goverment, fear mongering republicans. Any idea when the war is going to be paid for?

Yet you revert to fear mongering yourself........ You infer that Republicans will automatically resort to reducing essential services without first freezing spending and then reduce/cut spending on non-essentials. If you want to be taken seriously, stop throwing stuff just hoping it sticks.

Exactly. I don't know where this "Well, conservatives don't want roads or police or firemen" bull E36 M3 started, but it's just a downright silly argument. Again, sorry I bit. I understand not all dems. are bottom-feeding looters...but most bottom feeding looters are certainly dems. No question about that.

Check the numbers. Nobody's "cutting taxes". It's all semantics. Just eliminate the waste and the fraud, please.

I can understand the rules here - letting him just pay $75 after he has a fire is not a good precedent at all. But since he offered to pay whatever it cost to get the fire out, I could see them putting it out and sending him a much larger bill for the actual costs. Or, since they did have a paying next-door neighbor call in, they could put the fire out and claim it was pre-emptive protection for a paying customer.

While I have somewhat libertarian leanings, the system they have is a very bad idea. First, even the existing system could be improved if they had some rule for how to handle someone who has a house on fire that had not pre-paid but was willing to pay a much higher amount after the fact. Something like, "You can pay $75 annually, or if you want us to put out a house that's already on fire and haven't paid, we'll send you a bill for $7,500" would be a lot more reasonable than no option at all if you haven't pre-paid.

Second, the most effective way to put out fires is to put them out as soon as possible before they become huge. If a bunch of non-payers' houses caught fire before it spread to a payer's house and the fire was too big to stop by then, the fire department wouldn't be doing a proper job at protecting paying customers. And putting out a paying customer's fire would prevent non-payers from having the same fire burn down their houses. And who pays to put out a fire that starts in a vacant tract of land? Nobody in their right mind would pay for fire protection for a hundred acres of forest that he's thinking of building on someday, but if it goes up in flames, everybody nearby is screwed.

Fire is one of those sorts of protections, like police or an army, where it's a collective benefit to the public, and it's hard to come up with a workable method of making individuals opt in or out of it. While I generally favor limited government, there are some times I believe it's necessary to require everyone to pay a tax for something that promotes the public good, and this is one of them.

poopshovel wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out if politics has a place in this fire issue.

Probably not. Sorry I bit. I think it's a policy issue. I don't think there should be an option to pay. Maybe that's very un-libertarian of me, but whatevs.

I'm certainly in agreement with you there sir.

I just think this optional system is too problematic. I would go out on a limb to say the legal-fees stemming from situations like this far outweigh the tax-efficiency. It's all money someone has to pay, right? Guess who's getting stuck with the bill? The government and insurance companies are going to pass the buck you-know-who.

I should have become a lawyer. They're the only ones who benefit, whatever the issue might be.

btw - I knew I was poking a bear with my flamboyant liberal hearsay. Thanks for taking it as it was intended, a friendly political jab.

Just a little observation here, but it sounds as if the fire was started by the owner's grandson. Wonder if he had a permit for that?

"The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911"

Woody wrote: Just a little observation here, but it sounds as if the fire was started by the owner's grandson. Wonder if he had a permit for that? "The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911"

So, the grandfather refuses to pay the fire-service fee, the grandson starts a fire too close to the house and the son gets arrested for assaulting a town official.

Seems like bad choices are a family legacy.

Cotton wrote: They get a bargain. Our fire subscription is $175. Guess what? We pay it.

This.

It's easy for those of us who don't have to think about paying for fire dept service to criticize both sides...

Our local volunteer abulance service sends out similar notices. $X per year for service if needed. $XXX if needed and you didn't pay up front. IMHO, that sounds like a more reasonable risk. Of course, it makes it more difficult for the company to meet their annual operating expenses. Now that I think about it, I'll probably pay the next notice I get.

For another example, I have trash collection paid for out of my local taxes. My g/f does not and has a choice of two different companies looking for business.

If I lived out in the sticks with sketchy fire service (as previously posted), I'd strongly consider a sprinkler system and either a water tower and/or a fire pump.

If he knowingly did not pay the $75, then let it burn!!!

It's about freedom baby! Free to live, free to burn!

(his insurance company may not agree with the above statement)

Home owner should have known better. $75 for fire protection seems cheap to me.

The Fire Department should have higher pricing for non-members for this type of situation.

That doesn't change that it blows... I'm more upset by 16vCorey's friends situation. That pisses me off.

There is absolutely nothing unusual about this story. It happens all the time in all parts of the country.

As for insurance, if there is not an express, policy provision requiring the homeowner to join and pay dues to any available fire-protection association, there is no ground whatever for refusal to pay up and the insurance company would be insane to fight it.

oldsaw wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Probably less than mouth breathing, anti goverment, fear mongering republicans. Any idea when the war is going to be paid for?

Yet you revert to fear mongering yourself........ You infer that Republicans will automatically resort to reducing essential services without first freezing spending and then reduce/cut spending on non-essentials. If you want to be taken seriously, stop throwing stuff just hoping it sticks.

No, I counter the orignal inferrance that D's are more likely to spend wihtout taxing vs. R's, when over the past 30 years, R's are FAR more likely to increase spending AND lower taxes, thus increasing deficits and debts.

As I ask- when are we going to actually raise taxes or war bonds for the war that we are not paying for? How that's fear mongering, I'm not sure.

But, this is a good case to see what can happen when you privatize things- when money becomes more important than policy in an emergency situation.

Insurance? Probably doesn't have any. Very typical for most areas around here.

This is my rub with the whole thing is that Fire/EMS/Police are "protective services". "Fire dues" paid or not shouldn't have an affect on fighting a huge potential loss vs a much smaller loss due to a fire. So my question is what happens when a nonpayer is involved in an accident requiring fire dept assistance that isn't directly a fire? Case in point, cop cars don't have jaws of life for auto crashes, fire trucks do. So if that leads to a life or death situation and the person dies due to someone ordering a stand down due to nonpayment, what is the outcome going to be? Another thing here is I carry BLS, basic life support, certification due to being in a medical field. If I do not treat someone with those skills, I can be openly sued for neglect or something else equally silly, for that denial of life saving effort I can provide. I do believe the same parallel can be drawn here, people/pets inside or not.

Brian

Ranger50 wrote: Insurance? Probably doesn't have any. Very typical for most areas around here.

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

alfadriver wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Probably less than mouth breathing, anti goverment, fear mongering republicans. Any idea when the war is going to be paid for?

Yet you revert to fear mongering yourself........ You infer that Republicans will automatically resort to reducing essential services without first freezing spending and then reduce/cut spending on non-essentials. If you want to be taken seriously, stop throwing stuff just hoping it sticks.

No, I counter the orignal inferrance that D's are more likely to spend wihtout taxing vs. R's, when over the past 30 years, R's are FAR more likely to increase spending AND lower taxes, thus increasing deficits and debts. As I ask- when are we going to actually raise taxes or war bonds for the war that we are not paying for? How that's fear mongering, I'm not sure. But, this is a good case to see what can happen when you privatize things- when money becomes more important than policy in an emergency situation.

Not going to get in a political debate here, but in most cases history teaches us that lowering taxes usually results in additional income to the taxing body. You have to raise taxes disproportionally to the revenue you are trying to raise to counteract the decreased spending. Sales tax, which most cities rely on heavily to fund fire, police, etc. are the most severely hurt with a tax increase.

alfadriver wrote: No, I counter the orignal inferrance that D's are more likely to spend wihtout taxing vs. R's, when over the past 30 years, R's are FAR more likely to increase spending AND lower taxes, thus increasing deficits and debts. As I ask- when are we going to actually raise taxes or war bonds for the war that we are not paying for? How that's fear mongering, I'm not sure. But, this is a good case to see what can happen when you privatize things- when money becomes more important than policy in an emergency situation.

History has demonstrated that D's and R's are both abject failures when enacting tax and social service policy - which is why voters (who weren't actively involved before) finally recognize their personal responsibility in fixing the problems.

War funding is an issue that's been avoided by both controlling parties, even the one that's been in place (in Congress) for the last four years. Your fearmongering is not the non-funding of the war efforts, but your contention that essential services would be at immediate risk with a "certain" party in power.

This "pay to spray" incident is a local issue, not one of national proportions - yet. The county investigated options and concluded what was best for its' citizenry, which was not to raise taxes on everyone to benefit a few. The city weighed its' options and concluded that those who pay local taxes receive a service they paid for. Those outside city limits knew that if they wanted the same service (or not), they had a choice.

There was no "privatization" in this case. The policy was invoked by elected officials and enacted by city employees and volunteers. Could there have been other options to letting a home burn to the ground - absolutely YES. Maybe this incident will force the county/city to invoke some caveats involving emergency services.

You have mistakenly assessed blame to a non-existent entity when, in fact, it was government (and a stupid citizen) who are at fault.

WAR ON TERROR!

there I said it

No, I counter the orignal inferrance that D's are more likely to spend wihtout taxing vs. R's, when over the past 30 years, R's are FAR more likely to increase spending AND lower taxes, thus increasing deficits and debts. As I ask- when are we going to actually raise taxes or war bonds for the war that we are not paying for? How that's fear mongering, I'm not sure. But, this is a good case to see what can happen when you privatize things- when money becomes more important than policy in an emergency situation.

Actually Ds put the spending programs in place and then when everyone is disgusted with the spending the R's come into power & the bills come due so it only looks like the R's are spending.