Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Newton

One of the articles had the guy quoted as saying essentially “I knew about the $75 fee, and I chose not to pay it, but I figured they’d put out the fire anyway”.

I think this is because we have come to understand government as being outside the normal reality. Nobody would expect a gas station to allow you to fill up your tank even if you didn’t pay for the gas, or to deliver an order even if you bounce the check for the order, or to allow you to board the airplane even though you didn’t bring a ticket.

But when it comes to government, people just assume that they will service you even if you did not follow the rules.

In this case, the county the guy lives in doesn’t have a fire department. The CITY does, but didn’t handle fires outside the city. Someone decided it would be nice if they could get the city to cover the surrounding area, so the city kindly set up a program for any non-city-residents. All they have to do is sign up, pay their $75, and the city will use the city taxpayer resources to put out fires at their homes.

This particular homeowner did not do so. The only reason the fire department was there is their neighbor had paid, and was worried the idiot son’s out-of-control fire was going to catch HIS house too.

Sure, you’d like to think that if it just meant throwing a little water at the thing, they’d do it while they were set up to protect the neighbor’s house — since that would protect the neighbor’s house.

On the other hand, their department insurance policy might strictly deny coverage for any damages caused by fighting fires that are not in the city, except for those homes explicitly waiving their damage rights as part of joining the program.

Or maybe the tanker only has so much water and they can’t afford to use it for people who didn’t pay.

It’s too bad the homeowner didn’t join up for the program; and having not done so, did not properly protect his property from a fire his own son set, by having the hose ready to put out the fire if necessary.

And yes, government ala carte does mean that if you don’t choose it, you don’t get it. Just like if you tell the lady at the Golden Coral counter that you just want water, you can’t change your mind later and take your cup for a soda refill. You didn’t pay for it, and you will suffer.


8 posted on 10/05/2010 2:44:14 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT
Sure, you’d like to think that if it just meant throwing a little water at the thing, they’d do it while they were set up to protect the neighbor’s house — since that would protect the neighbor’s house.

Their failure to do so caused the neighbor to suffer damage to his house, which is the exact thing that he was paying these guys to prevent. Sorry, but that clearly puts them in the wrong.

18 posted on 10/05/2010 2:54:05 PM PDT by Sakity Yaks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesWayneCT
One of the articles had the guy quoted as saying essentially “I knew about the $75 fee, and I chose not to pay it, but I figured they’d put out the fire anyway”.

He's a liberal - maybe this experience will help him grow up...

52 posted on 10/05/2010 4:19:27 PM PDT by GOPJ (Liberal violence against Tea Party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFeUhSlHiUQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson