Posted on 12/07/2011 7:30:34 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The last time this happened, our thread ran for more than 1,100 comments. To refresh your memory: The city charges a $75 fee up front for firefighter services throughout the year. Pay the fee and the F.D. will show up and douse the flames that are consuming your home. Don’t pay and the F.D. will show up and … watch it burn. I can understand a policy in which paying the fee gives you priority over a non-payer if your house and their house are on fire simultaneously and the department has to choose which to respond to. And I can understand a policy where paying a small flat fee discharges you from further responsibility for the cost of fighting the fire whereas a non-payer is forced to reimburse the department for all of their expenses afterward. In that case, the fee operates as de facto fire insurance. What I don’t understand is a policy where the F.D. will show up to a blaze but give the non-paying owner no option to get them to fight it. If the owner’s middle class, he’ll likely have some savings with which to reimburse the department for the cost; if the owner’s poor, he could agree to have his wages garnished going forward to partially reimburse them. Either way, the resulting hardship should be enough of a deterrent to encourage people to pay the fee ahead of time.
If you disagree, then should the fee simply be mandated as a tax? All this is, really, is an analogue for the health-care debate. We don’t let doctors opt to let poor people suffer in an emergency just because they don’t have insurance. Why let a family go homeless?
I would say that yours is a pretty fair example of a knee jerk reaction.
Well, then, let’s use the correct nomenclature.
A person who is primarily “worried about their departments expenses” is not a “firefighter”. He is an “accountant”.
And in fact if they want to operate with those restrictions, they are an “employee”.
Obviously, you don’t have a clue about the history of urban areas. London used to frequently have fires that devastated large areas. Moscow also suffered yearly fires. So much so that one of the Czars demanded and ordained that any traveler into Moscow was obliged to bring at least one rock for building material.
Thus we see the stunning edifices over there. Stone. Not wood.
So at least five centuries ago we realized that it is better for ALL if we put out fires. Not just for those who can afford it.
I stand by my statement. I could not honestly call myself a “firefighter” if I stood by and watched.
Sounds like you would have no problem.
Would the Fire Department let the House burn if somebody was still inside? I think not.
Yet, how did they know there was nobody inside, because somebody told them there wasn't? What if that information was wrong? Would they be tried for Manslaughter?
Just asking.
Yes, I know, reality is such a bitch.
Sounds like we should have a national sales tax to pay for it so everyone contributes?
It’s not a “financial” question. Or a “Fiscal” question.
It’s a “Are we civilized or not” question.
Your actions are the answer.
Sorry. Not picking on you. But I am disgusted by the greed and wanton neglect of other folks. Men are MEN because they do what’s right. Not because they do what pays the most.
This whole fire issue really is just more than a house burning down.
It is about the issue of personal responsibility, in which this forum promotes.Some of the responses surprise me, it sounds like they should be on Democrat Underground instead of Free Republic.
Our country can survive a socialist, Marxist piece of c**p President. It cannot survive the welfare mentality.
Nothing is free in this world, unless you want to promote slavery.Everyone has to pay.Everyone has to have skin in the game.
Expenses are very important in determining a business viability, and a fire departments viability. So, yes, they have to have accounting.
In regards to urban areas, they pay property taxes which covers fire protection. Therefore your whole spiel on rocks makes no sense.
It is the rural areas that does not have a fire department. Their property taxes are cheaper, because it does not cover fire protection. They then rely on the more urban areas to provide the protection.
In exchange, the rural areas pay a fee for this protection. The urban areas have to take into account the increased area of coverage, and have to hire more firefighters and equipment.
Like I said, someone has to pay for it. The urban people pay for it in property taxes, the rural people have to pay for it in a modest fee.
The firefighters go to these deadbeats house to prevent the fire from spreading to the neighbors house, or causing a forest fire.
Look at the picture. The trailer dwellers home was far away from the next house.
It is really sad to see some of these comments. Think of this in a global perspective, not an emotional one. We already have to many emotional people in government (democrats)giving away welfare benefits to losers. Lets not have this mindset infection spread here.
Are you willing to pay for a drug addicted, alcoholic,prostitutes hospital bills via Medicaid?
After all, this person is in crisis ,too.
Are you willing to pay higher taxes for care of this person?
I was referring to your inferring that anyone who has an opinion differing from yours is a Nanny stater.
The whole point of government (read Locke) is the collective right of self defense.
That’s what makes it a “service”, not an “occupation”.
Certainly nothing is free. There is always a cost. But disregarding that cost, men banded together and said they would put out fires and help their neighbors.
They did it WITHOUT expecting that if their house was on fire their neighbors would “contractually” be there to help.
They went beyond. It’s got ZERO to do with the Constitution or the law of contracts.
In a sense, you are defaming those who would voluntarily put out the fire. Like they were suckers of some sort.
Your example of having every traveler bring a stone gave me the idea.
If avoidance of fire at all costs is a high priority, having a national sales tax to pay for it or forbidding construction of houses and structures from flammable materials is a solution.
Do we get a choice?
Just about everywhere there are fire codes now.
As a taxpayer, who pays for fire protection, I would demand that non payers do not get the same service that I receive.
That means their house burns down. The firemen have a duty to the people who pay for the service. They do not have a duty to the nonpayers who do not reside in their community.
I guess you are okay with providing welfare to all comers?
This is fire protection welfare you are advocating.
Part of living in the city is having a “community”. Some live in the country because breathing space and privacy is more important to them than having close neighbors and community support.
Where you choose to live has an impact on what services are available. Now those that value privacy and breathing space over community, need to realize that they can’t have their cake and eat it too. They must choose. You can’t move 20 miles out of town and expect the same services to exist. The people whose trailer burned seem to expect the same services for free.
The fire fighters likely would not be able to put out the fire due to legal ramifications. Now if you’ll join me in banning the legal profession from the face of the earth, we’ll both live happily ever after. (Maybe)
Have they banned wood framed houses yet? Should they?
Exactly.
I once lived in a rural area. Our property taxes did pay for fire protection, but our EMS system was lousy.
For $50 a year, you could pay a fee for medivac transport to a trauma center if you were seriously ill. Otherwise, you would have to pay the full fare, or possibly not be able to get safely transported at all, and wind up in the inferior hospital.
I would be very angry if somehow a non payer got this service. It would be a slap in the face to people who did pay, including me.
That is no different than fire protection.
To every Freeper who is appalled at this happening, I suggest you caravan down to this community and put up the money for every house that hasn’t paid the $75.00 and give it to the fire company.
I’ll bet each year your check to the fire company is going to keep getting bigger. Yes?
It’s easy to spend other peoples money from behind a keyboard hundreds or thousands of miles away.
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.