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?
If I stop to render aid to a car accident, I am protected by Good Samaritan laws ( sort of- medical people are held to a higher standard). Also, I am not spending money helping those people.
Firefighting relys on expensive equipment. Money is being spent by taxpayers of a different community to purchase and maintain the equipment, and salary with benefits to the firefighters.
If your non incorporated community wants to parasite off the more urban community, you should pay for the services you need. The urban community has no contractual relationship with you, they have no duty to you, if you do not pay the fee.
This is just like welfare.
Do you have fire service in your community?
Exactly! Why were they dispatched if it’s so expensive to answer a call? Do they arrive and rollout “Don’t let this happen to you!” banners for the neighbors to see? Why is fire protection not part of the property tax? Foul setup, that.
I do that with steaks!
Just recharged my fire extinguishers a few days ago.
My husband is a pyromaniac, and loves cutting wood for the fireplace. It pays to be careful.
Those that lost their house opted out of their responsibilities to participate in a civilization as they refuse to contribute to the common good. Of course, when the SHTF they were the first in line with their hand out.
Perhaps the citizens refuse to allow the local government to force them to pay taxes for a service they don't want to pay for?
Would you prevent citizens that option?
This was a good post from comments at the article. Not posted just to you, but all who think civilization is coming to an end, because in the old days, they wouldn’t let it burn to the ground. (They did let them burn)
The history of fire brigades according to Fire Engineer magazine.
Let’s get a basic grip in this controversy. For you history buffs, back in the day of Benjamin Franklin, insurance companies in larger cities formed fire brigades to protect their insured structures. Since there were several fire insurance companies, it was common for more than one fire brigade to exist in the city. On arrival at a fire, the first action taken was to check for a fire insurance marker.
If one did not exist, or if it belonged to a competitor’s company, the fire brigade simply went home, leaving the structure to burn. Fire insurance has more than 200 years of history in America. The early fire marks can still be seen on many older buildings in many American cities. Subscribers paid firefighting companies in advance for fire protection and received in exchange a fire mark to attach to their building. Those payments for the fire marks supported the firefighting companies.
Another good comment
Kevin Williamson of the NRO researched the situation and concluded this:
The situation is this: The city of South Fulton’s fire department, until a few years ago, would not respond to any fires outside of the city limits — which is to say, the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers. A reasonable position. Then, a few years ago, a fire broke out in a rural area that was not covered by the city fire department, and the city authorities felt bad about not being able to do anything to help. So they began to offer an opt-in service, for the very reasonable price of $75 a year. Which is to say: They greatly expanded the range of services they offer. The rural homeowners were, collectively, better off, rather than worse off. Before the opt-in program, they had no access to a fire department. Now they do.
Another comment
South Fulton fire department responds to all fires to ensure no life is at stake (in which case they act with or without prior payment) but they only act to protect private property in cases where they are within the town limits or under contract with the resident (through the $75 fee).
And it’s not like they wandered by and noticed a fire and decided to just watch it, they were called to the scene by the the victims. Once they arrived and ascertained that no human life was at risk they acted in accordance with their policy.
Would you prevent citizens that option?
That is a fair question. Ala carte city services? If you are having a heart attack and haven't paid the "ambulance" surtax, would they stand there and watch you die? I was thinking more along the lines of the city extorting additional cash from the residents by withholding an essential service that should be a function of local government and funded by the existing taxes. I would (admittedly) hesitate to allow an opt-out though it does seem to run contrary to the principal of individual liberty, doesn't it. Interesting question, I'll have to think about it.
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.