[evolved_rage]

Thats the point, they can vote on whether to do it or not. I'm only suggesting that for those who won't pay $25 but want their house protected when a fire occurs, like the jerk in the article, be required to pay for the protection at the point of service. Afterwards, if they can't pay for the service, then attach the land, sell it, and if anything is left over, refund it to the owner. Perhaps they could offer a waiver, "I won't pay $25, please don't come." and be done with it.

[camle]

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?