Posted on 10/07/2005 4:21:06 AM PDT by Gordon Pym
INTERNATIONAL FALLS, Minn. There's outrage in northern Minnesota after firefighters allowed a man's mobile home to burn.
Carl Berg had failed to pay the 25-dollar annual fee required for fire protection for homes outside International Falls city limits.
Berg says he couldn't afford the fee or fire insurance. He says he lost everything in last month's fire.
The Fire Department poured enough water to put the fire out temporarily and make sure everyone was safe. But when the blaze rekindled later, firefighters let the flames destroy what was left.
Fire Chief Jerry Jensen says he doesn't want to see that happen again. He says a firefighter's job is to "put out fires, not to watch them burn."
Local officials have been haggling for two years over how to pay for fire protection.
Thanks for playing.
i see this as a subscription service: you pay for what you get. If you don't subscribe to the service, why should you expect to get the service?
if you can't or won't pay for the service, what is your justification for wanting it after the fact?
don't overcomplicate things by saying that you can get the service now and pay later under some scheme or other. all that does is offer an "out" for a lot of people currently paying into the sysdtem but would rather mooch - like this guy.
If I want a car, I buy one and pay for it. IF I elect not to buy the car, what mirhg do I have to whine when I may need one but dont' have one?
there is no basic right in America to be saved from one's own folly, is there?
Our fire assessment is included in the property tax. Even my cleared 3/4 acre lot is assessed a $100/year fire tax.
I used to DONATE more to fire and rescue squads before I was FORCED to support them via the tax.
Right now, when there's a fender-bender, the WHOLE firehouse clears with FOUR APPARATUS "responding" and sixteen "volunteers" helping watch the cleanup while not one watches the costs to taxpayers.
If THEY had to count costs themselves, there'd be a first response apparatus with additional units on standby to be called when necessary - not on the road.
But don't cross firefighters, your house may burn.
Agree. Actually, I'm kind of liking my waiver idea better. My only concern is lawsuits. Does the fire department just not go to a housefire because they didn't pay, or do they park a safe distance away to make sure it doesn't spread to a payers property? And what if there is someone unconscious on the second floor of that seldom used burning vacation home? I don't believe in a nanny-state, but the damn lawyers do. So I can see the fire fighters fighting all fires, as they did the first time, and still not collecting all the $25 fees. Damed if you do, damed if you don't.
No, the vehicles just won't run quite as fast and the personnel will be somewhat tired when they do arrive...;-)
so... why pay the 25 annual fee when you can get the service whenever you need it?
granted that you'll pay a lot more than the 25, but you're playing the odds that you'll never need the service anyway. kinda like not getting a flu shot and chancing that you'll not catch the flu. fi you do catch the flu can you really demand the shot after the fact and pay extra?
we have a guy in CT who runs a gravel company. he cut corners a while back by registering his trucks, then cancelling the insurance. Then one of his trucks caused a multi-car collision, and killed a bunch of people. As soon as he found out about the crash he called the insurance company and tried to get the service. wanna guess what they told him?
Of course their is plenty room for abuse in option 2, of eff it, burn baby burn....
you are only looking at part of the equation. the organization needs a certain amount of funding to stay alive and able to help anybody. your proposal provides more of an incentive NOT to subscribe than to subscribe. when revenue falls below that criticam mass, then it no longer matters.
picture all those people paying 25/year and never needing the service - those are the folks who keep things going. I don't care HOW much you charge during an emergency - anybody will pay almost anything - you're gonna have a tough time collecting, AND it won't make up for all those who decide they no longer need to pay the 25 because they can get the service anyway.
you send me one notice - if you want fire protection, pay 25 bucks. if not, then don't whine when we dont' put out your fire. period. simple. easily understandable. provides more reason to opt in that opt out.
any form of "we'll save you anyway" will tend to discourage people who pay for the service to remain in the program. kinda like not buying a car, but paying for a taxi when you need - why buy the car ever? odds are that you'll never need the taxi anyway so why bother?
would you pay fire insurance if you could get coverage after the fact anyway?
your whole concept is flawed - that one can get the milk without buying the cow - just pay a little more. subscribers get gyped.
I see where you are going. You think that people will skip the $25/year and risk a slight chance at $5,000 or more. You're probably right, paying for cable TV supercedes everything else for most people.
But the fact is, firefighters will save them anyways regardless, and fires need to be contained. But its an open-ended risk as opposed to we'll do it, but it'll cost ya. Sounds like it need to be a tax....OMG, now I'm raising taxes.....Look what you made me do ;-)
if nobody subscribves, there won't be any firefighters. that is my point. part of maintaining the service is maintaining the subscriberd base. if you let that erode - by giving up too many "freebies", then it will fall and you will lose your ability to save anybody.
and you're raising taxes because of those who are too stupid to buy into the system but whine when the system doesn't work for them.;-)
think of a carpool. if enough people pay enough to keep the car running, everybody wins. but if you spend too much time picking up free riders, then why pay into the system at all? The only system that keeps people paying and the system running is the direct subscriber system with no free rides.
Sir, I'm offended by your comments.
In the fire district where I live, we pay taxes to help support a VFDP, and we contribute to any fund raiser they have, as well as a yearly fee. It does not matter if the fee is paid or not, they should respond because we pay taxes that goes to the fire dept. If the guy is paying taxes and some of that tax money goes to this fire dept., then he should raise hell because they did not respond, and for as the 25 dollar fee, then the fire dept should give him a bill, 20 times the amount of 25 dollar. Just my personal opinion. I am trying to squeeze out liberal appeasement to ave that dollar.
Bullfrog
That's your right - but not my responsibility.
Believe it or not that is exactly how fire protection worked almost everywhere in the United States for the first 150 years. Fire departments were private businesses (run for profit obviously) and quite competitive with each other. Then local governments gradually took over that role.
That agreement (and the town fathers that made the agreement) is where you should vent you anger, not the fire company.
The town that the man lives in and pays property taxes to DOES NOT HAVE A FIRE DEPT. Instead, they have an agreement with a nearby city that has a fire dept. Simply put, that agreement has requirements that the homeowners contribute $25.00 yearly to receive fire dept. services. If the citizens of this man's township don't like the agreement, then they have several choices, including electing represenatives who will negoate a different deal (it is hard to imagine a better deal), they could form their own fire co., they could find a different fire co to protect them or simply save everyone $25.00 yearly and do without fire protection.
$25.00 yearly for fire protection is probably the best bargan in America. The guy is a jerk for not taking advantage of it. The fire dept put out the fire the first time even though they had no obligation to do so. That makes the guy a double jerk for not getting all of his salvagable posessions out before the re-kindle. The house was a total loss before the re-kindle, nothing left to save, less debris to cart off to the landfill. My guess is that he didn't have homeowners insurance also. If he did, it makes this story sole purpose to crap on the fire dept.
Likewise, however your lack of common sense is everyones problem in the long run.
You're offended? tough. You want to levy offenses? it'll only serve in demonstrating your own ignorance. You don't like the facts I brought up? again, tough. Refute them or keep your comments to yourself.
Apparently he didn't think his mobile castle was worth $25.
Maybe it needed burning?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.