Surprise home burns; Rural Metro bills owner almost $20k

Fox 10 News ^ | 11/.05/2013 | Jill Monier

[Responsibility2nd]

PHOENIX - A man's house burned to the ground, but that wasn't his only shock -- because two weeks later, he received a bill for almost $20,000 from the private fire department that tried to fight it.

One state lawmaker says fire coverage in rural areas of Arizona is a mess and he says there needs to be oversight.

[T-Bird45]

When I lived in the PHX area 25 years ago, a long-time resident wag told me the local alternate name for Rural-Metro was the “Rural-Metro Parking Lot Development Co.” R-M covered suburban parts of the PHX metro area, the largest/most well-known is Scottsdale.

[fatboy]

Oh but I do know what I’m talking about. And I did read the article. And the article states “The people in Purcell’s neighborhood have no fire coverage”. Notice the Key Words....no.fire.coverage.

There is a cost for being dumb. For some it’s not a lot of money but for this particular homeowner the cost of being dumb is $20K

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I'd be writing City Hall and demanding a rebate on my property taxes to the tune of $20,000. Once received, I would then pay the FD's bill.

And yes, you can fight city hall and win. I have done it.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Two different instances. The one you reference was in Tennessee. This thread is about a story from Arizona.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Oops. Read the article but not the contents of post #1. My bad.

[Responsibility2nd]

You might as well write City Hall and demand a rebate on your flat screen HDTV you just bought as well.

The point is - the homeowner paid NO taxes for complete fire protection. Per the article - he THOUGHT he did, but he didn’t. Oh well, too bad.

[CodeToad]

“I was under the impression that the fire departments were funded by state and local taxes.”

Unfortunately, no. Many backwards liberal areas are pay-for-services. Homeowners are sent mailing for this private firefighting as local government do not provide services. Any normal person would see a fire station down the street and assume firefighting is a community paid service. Some localities even grant exclusive rights to these private fire companies.

[HamiltonJay]

If they home owner requested services, he’s liable for the bill.. if however they provided service without being asked, they can’t bill them for it... at least that’s the general rule of thumb when you get something you didn’t order.

[Rusty0604]

Happens to the best of us.

[cynwoody]

I recall some events in Tenneesee where the fire department shows up and WATCHES your house burn down.

Why?

Because the homeowner made the call to NOT join and purchase the $500 service plan that guarantees they will fight the fire.

Was there an individual mandate to purchase fire-fighting insurance?

[Resolute Conservative]

Shhh... next will be OmbamaLife, ObamaAuto, ObamamFlood...

[SeminoleCounty]

Anyone who pays taxes, especially property taxes, has already paid for fire services...whether or not the services have been privatized or not

Privatization of Government Services is just Business Socialism...you end up paying more for the government than you were before...because now you have to pay for the profits of the private company handling the service

Fact is that Public/Private Partnerships....and Privatization...is just another form of Socialism

The homeowner should sue the company, and the local government....he has already paid for the service thru taxes

[jsanders2001]

It begs the question - if the privatized fire departments are in charge of fire control then why are city officials such as the fire marshal in charge of investigating arsons tha occur at the same location? (I already know the answer; just food for thought). I’m surprised that Zobma would allow s privatized fire department to exist.

[jsanders2001]

> Should they have fought the fire?
Opinion = yes

Were they correct in billing the homeowners?

Opinion = yes

Should they get paid?

Opinion = yes

Will they get paid?

Probably not.

You forgot one important question. Should the amount for the services be $20K? I’d really like to see a breakdown of those charges to see how much each breath from those firefighter masks cost while they were “fighting” the fire.../s

[jsanders2001]

I have absolutely no problem paying for a service as long as I know what the costs are up front but to be hit by a $20K bill is a little much for guys suiting up and spraying some oversized waterhoses (i know it involves more than that; i’ve been through LEO training)

[RightOnTheBorder]

If the homeowner did not agree to pay to have them fight the fire he is not responsible for the bill. Usually these articles go the other way where we are supposed to be up in arms when a fire department refuses to fight a fire for someone who hasn’t paid. If the owner didn’t pay the yearly fee, and didn’t agree to pay them to fight the fire, he obviously did not want their services.

[Responsibility2nd]

Unfortunately, no. Many backwards liberal areas are pay-for-services.

Careful now. You'll upset the libertarians here with remarks like that. If you take the libs seriously, then normal services like roads and fire protection will be gone.

[Wicket]

You got it.

[Wicket]

You are incorrect. As has been stated many times before, the fire department was volunteer, funded by the local homeowners through a special tax and contract. Those types of fire departments only exist in rural areas where there would otherwise be no fire protection (We have several in Oregon). But you are right, we should always sue someone when we screw up. It makes prices so much more reasonable for those who care to make well thought out decisions, and helps companies to sell their products profitably so they can continue to provide them

[AlmaKing]

Explain, fatboy, instead of being a smartass.