No membership dues, let your property burn

[Electrical Storm]

So this isn't mundane or pointless, but I wanted to share it to get the thoughts of the Dope:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...02-16-18-00-35

Guy's got a fire on his property. The rural fire dept won't put it out because he didn't pay his membership dues. Guy offers to pay on the spot so they'll help him, says he didn't know about membership dues, but apparently the dept. doesn't have a policy for on-the-spot billing and payment. So, they let it burn but stayed put on the road nearby to make sure the fire didn't start to consume the property of paying members.

Wouldn't it have been easier to put the fire out and really lessen the possibility that the fire would start burning up other people's property? Go after the guy for the dues when the fire's put out and warn him about the consequences of not doing so next time? Next time, he wouldn't be able to say he didn't know about the dues.

[Lissa]

I didn't know practices like this still existed. It was common in the 1800s-- you would be given a little cast-iron plaque to nail to your house when you subscribed, so the company would know that you were a member.

I don't know that I have all that much sympathy for the homeowner. When I bought my house, I actually checked to see how near the fire hydrants were to my property, and asked the neighbors about police/ambulance/fire service response times. It strikes me that with a smidgen of research, he would have known he needed to subscribe. (Didn't he ever hear his co-workers talk about their subscription bills coming due or wonder why his property taxes were different?)

Secondly, if I let my car insurance lapse and got into a wreck, I couldn't get coverage by offering to retroactively pay the premiums. It doesn't work that way-- nor should it. The fire chief in the story is right-- if people knew they would put out a fire anyway, despite not paying, what's the incentive for paying your dues on time?

[TheLoadedDog]

Wow. I'm suffering a bit of culture shock here.

Emergency services standing around and doing nothing because you haven't paid up front?? I've heard of things like this happening in Vietnam, where corrupt firemen can be seen hosing down the building next door, instead of the burning one, but that's Vietnam.

I take it from the story that this is some sort of rural fire service which is not taxpayer-funded, but still... man... The volunteer rural fire brigades I'm familiar with are just that - volunteers. They are always having fundraising events and seeking donations. But they're donations. If there is a fire, THEY PUT IT OUT.

But these guys in the OP... They have spent the money for fuel and the men's time in getting out there and hanging around. All they are saving is the water, surely? Sure, they're trying to preserve their donation base by using this as an example, but I still cannot get my head around the idea of firemen in a first world nation standing by and watching a fire, regardless of their financial arrangements.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Secondly, if I let my car insurance lapse and got into a wreck, I couldn't get coverage by offering to retroactively pay the premiums. It doesn't work that way-- nor should it. The fire chief in the story is right-- if people knew they would put out a fire anyway, despite not paying, what's the incentive for paying your dues on time?

The point of insurance is that it's a way of lessening catastrophes. This is, in fact, a form of fire insurance. I don't like this model of paying for fire companies, but I do agree that the homeowner probably should have asked about where the fire station was, etc., before buying a house. That's one of the things that I check for before renting or buying. (Our fire station is less than a 12th of a mile away from our house.)

I'm glad to see that the firefighters would have rescued someone, whether the homeowner was a subscriber or not. However, I really think that this sort of payment plan is very outdated.

[Hal Briston]

Wow...just, wow.

I must admit, I've never heard of this model before. If this homeowner moved in from someplace where this is non-existent, why would he think to ask about it? I move into a new place, I call and get the water, electric, phone and cable turned on. Fire service? That'd never even register as something I'd need to get "turned on".

The whole thing kinda reeks to me.

[Alan Smithee]

Culture shock? I live in the US and I'm speechless about this.

I live in a rural state (Arkansas), but contrary to Lissa idea, no matter how far I moved into the country, it would never even occur to me to look into this, because I've never fucking heard of anything like it! I might look into how far away the nearest fire department is and how long it would take them to get to my house, but not how much I have to pay to get them do anything once they get there!

I mean, Jesus! As if I needed more incentive never to leave the fucking city! You rural folk are mean!

[Guinastasia]

Good god, that sounds extremely fucked up to me. I always figured that fire fighters were like police, or doctors-they would be required to put out a fire by law.

Hell, what if the fire spreads?

[kunilou]

I've heard of this before. The "subscription" form of funding is still done in some rural areas.

First off, the fire department is not tax-supported, so the dues are the only way they can fund themselves.

Second, in these areas, it isn't exactly a deep, dark secret. If the homeowner really, really didn't know about this, it's because he really, really wasn't paying attention.

And, like Lissa says, it's not pay-as-you-go. The dues don't pay the cost of the fire call. Once people decide to quit paying until they actually need the fire department, the whole system goes bankrupt.

I agree the whole thing is archaic, but that's how it works.

[David Simmons]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

The point of insurance is that it's a way of lessening catastrophes. This is, in fact, a form of fire insurance.

And in the area of this event the fire insurance premium rates are doubtless based on the availability of a firefighting service. I'm astonished that when he bought fire insurance the agent didn't make it clear that the rate was based on being a member of the firefighting service. I am also astonished that the mortgage holder, if there is one, didn't also make sure of this.

My home town volunteer fire dept. wouldn't go one foot out of the city limits to fight a fire. Had they done so and a fire broke out in town the insurers would have been all over them. Such systems are rare now. That former volunteer fire department has turned into a country fire department that is equipped to handle more than one fire at a time.

[drachillix]

Originally Posted by TheLoadedDog

Wow. I'm suffering a bit of culture shock here.

Emergency services standing around and doing nothing because you haven't paid up front?? I've heard of things like this happening in Vietnam, where corrupt firemen can be seen hosing down the building next door, instead of the burning one, but that's Vietnam.

Protecting exposed uninvolved structures in many circumstances is a higher priority than the burning structure especially in 2nd/3rd world countries where buildings are far less solidly constructed and water supply may poor or limited.

Even here in the US if a house is heavily involved priority will go to containment before extinguishing the source. In my fire academy days we were taught RECEO

Rescue
Exposures
Containment
Extinguish
Overhaul

I take it from the story that this is some sort of rural fire service which is not taxpayer-funded, but still... man... The volunteer rural fire brigades I'm familiar with are just that - volunteers. They are always having fundraising events and seeking donations. But they're donations. If there is a fire, THEY PUT IT OUT.

The firemen may work for free but the tools they use, fuel for the trucks, maintenance on trucks and buildings, equipment to recharge breathing apparatus, etc are not free. I'm gonna take a wild guess that since its not tax funded, its basically a private company. If that is the case they have little if any obligation to serve anyone in any way but a subscriber unless the city/county/whomever wants to start chipping in for coverage.

[drachillix]

Originally Posted by Hal Briston

Wow...just, wow.

I must admit, I've never heard of this model before. If this homeowner moved in from someplace where this is non-existent, why would he think to ask about it? I move into a new place, I call and get the water, electric, phone and cable turned on. Fire service? That'd never even register as something I'd need to get "turned on".

The whole thing kinda reeks to me.

Stuff like this is also going to be covered in the title company is checking for things like homeowners insurance which is usually required to get a mortgage. The title company and or insurance providers will know and I'd bet my next paycheck that he knew all about it and chose to ignore it.

[Dag Otto]

This reminds me of a story that made the newspapers here several years ago. Columbus, NM, is a border town just across from Palomas, Mexico. When there was a fire in Palomas, the Columbus Fire Department would respond if called. The State of New Mexico found out about this and told the Columbus Fire Dept. that they were forbidden from going into Mexico to fight fires. Next time there was a call for help from Palomas, what did the Columbus Fire Department do? They went and fought the fire in Mexico.

Everyone should have such a fire department.

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

This is, in fact, a form of fire insurance.

Sounds like a form of extortion to me.
Fire insurace: 'pay us money and if there's a problem will help fix it'
extortion: 'pay us money and we'll make sure you don't have any 'accidents'"

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by drachillix

The firemen may work for free but the tools they use, fuel for the trucks, maintenance on trucks and buildings, equipment to recharge breathing apparatus, etc are not free. I'm gonna take a wild guess that since its not tax funded, its basically a private company. If that is the case they have little if any obligation to serve anyone in any way but a subscriber unless the city/county/whomever wants to start chipping in for coverage.

So, how about they put out the fire, then send the guy a bill for it? Maybe cheaper for him than letting the property burn, more expensive than paying his subscription.

[OtakuLoki]

Again, what the firefighters did here was not illegal, nor immoral.

First - they responded to the call. They make it clear that they only stopped fighting the fire (or declined to fight the fire) once it was clear that no person was at risk.

Second - the homeowner, in this case, had elected (for reasons that seemed good to him at the time) to avoid paying his subscription fees. Like Lissa and others have said it's something I can't believe the homeowner was actually in ignorance of... mortgage, fire insurance, and title insurace companies all would have a vested interest in making sure that the homeowner was aware of the costs, and that the homeowner was keeping such dues paid.

Third - the costs of a fire department are staggering. Maintenance on the equipment is always going on. The capital equipment is hugely expensive (I think small pumper trucks go for around a million dollars apiece, and even a small volonteer or on-call dept. will usually have two of those, at least.) even when it last twenty years, it's not going to last forever. Personnel and fuel costs aren't the only things to be figured in, after all.

Finally, all fire companies are paid for through some form or another. The urban/metropolitan model of the professional fire department, with personnel in the fire house at all times, that most people assume is the norm, is the more recent innovation. There, instead of volontary dues to the fire company, the dues are actually subsumed in the local taxes that are taken willinilli from homeowners, or taxpayers. In NYC, forex, there's a municipal income tax as well as state and federal. Some of that money is used to fund the fire companies, and police and other aspects of the city government. So, the dues can be assumed to have been paid for any person who might require their services. With these relict companies that still collect their dues themselves, they do have a reasonable concern about the possibility of losing routine revenue for every case where the act beyond the mandate to protect life and the property of dues-paying community members. Remember, what keeps such companies working is that most homeowners think that paying a fraction of their house's value each year is worth it for the protection offered by the firecompany. If they go, instead, to a "Pay as you need us" model, the cost per house fire put out (including capital costs, here) would be on the order of $100,000 a fire, I'd imagine. They'd suddenly have to be able to fund each year's budget through such charges, and I'm sure that they would be impossibly high. (I am admittedly making that number up as I go, but I think it's pretty fair, really. Even underestimating the fire company's operational cost per house fire put out. Here in the moderate sized city I live in there's maybe one house fire a week that I see in the newspapers. Now those aren't the only calls that the fire department responds to, but they are among the more wearing calls on personnel and equipment.)

I really do think that this is a case of a homeowner making a penny-wise pound foolish decision, and getting bitten by it. Just as I generally feel about homeowners who do without flood insurance, or car owners who keep putting off preventive maintenance until something breaks.

BTW, Joey P, your extortion analogy doesn't fit. If the firemen had set the fire, it would. As is, no.

[butler1850]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

<snip>The capital equipment is hugely expensive (I think small pumper trucks go for around a million dollars apiece, and even a small volonteer or on-call dept. will usually have two of those, at least.) even when it last twenty years, it's not going to last forever. <Snip>.

While I'm sure that you could get enough equipment and vehicle costs to reach $1million somehow, the small ones are significantly cheaper than that (relative term).

My town Sandown NH wants to purchase a new pumper/rescue truck, and (Article 14) says that the cost to purchase and equip would be $290,000.00. It'd be about 23K more to lease it with a purchase option ($1) at the end of 5 years.

We're replacing a 1967 version so we certainly got a few years out of it, granted with a few major overhauls between then and now.

The town is an all volunteer department, but the town funds the equipment. If the town didn't fund it, you'd be safe betting that I'd be paying my dues. If the homeowner in the OP didn't, that's his problem. Ignorance of the law/details is no excuse, same as driving/gun laws and a whole host of other concerns between the states.

=-Butler

[35340]

Originally Posted by drachillix

Stuff like this is also going to be covered in the title company is checking for things like homeowners insurance which is usually required to get a mortgage. The title company and or insurance providers will know and I'd bet my next paycheck that he knew all about it and chose to ignore it.

I'd say I agree, but I'd be more inclined to think they were stupid and negligent and lazy.

A mortgage lien was put on my home in 2001 - for a mortgage given to the owners of lot #23. So when we re-financed twice between 2001 and 2004, an odd "flag" came up on our deed, lot #123. Everyone involved with the refinancing deals just shuffled more papers, shrugged a bit, and handed us papers to sign in quinmincelipcate and said 'everything was fine', from mortgage to taxes to title information.

When we tried to sell, well ... it was still a problem. A problem that resulted in me sitting in my fsck-you suit in the main boardroom of the lawyer's office (which was hard to miss if you were visiting the office to get anything done) working calmly on my laptop until enough people got enough signatures to get the lien removed. The mortgage it had been issued for was long paid off.

No, no one seems to look very hard, spellcheck, or give a darn. It really drives me friggin nuts. And it's taught me to look up my parcel online every six months to make sure something "new" hasn't appeared.

[OtakuLoki]

Originally Posted by butler1850

While I'm sure that you could get enough equipment and vehicle costs to reach $1million somehow, the small ones are significantly cheaper than that (relative term).

My town Sandown NH wants to purchase a new pumper/rescue truck, and (Article 14) says that the cost to purchase and equip would be $290,000.00. It'd be about 23K more to lease it with a purchase option ($1) at the end of 5 years.

Thanks for the figures there. I've got to eat my words, I guess.

I was basing the cost on a "sea story" I'd heard from someone on my ship. Back in the day, a supply PO onboard the Enterprise got the first stock number he saw for a "Pump, Fire Fighting" without checking on the details of what he was ordering. He thought he was getting a replacement P-250 portable firefighting pump. What he got was a half million dollar pumper fire-fighting truck. Delivered to the ship. With no returns. Eventually, the ship ended up giving the pumper to the Va. Beach FD, since they couldn't return it, and it wasn't exactly the most efficient thing for the shipboard firefighters to have. (Though I hear they did hav fun driving it around the flight and hanger decks.) This was in the mid-80's, and so I figured that prices would continue to go up since then.

I don't think that the exact costs matter as much as admitting how expensive over all the equiping and maintaining of a fire company can be.

<hijack>

Anyone got $125,000 they want to give me? I want this.

</hijack>

[mhendo]

Well, color me gobsmacked. The idea that the firefighters would literally stand there and watch the guy's house burn is one of the more amazing things i've ever heard.

I guess the guy should have walked into the burning building. At least then they might have gotten off their asses.

[StGermain]

I live out in the county, beyond the city limits, here there is a municipal fire department. My area is served by a volunteer fire department. They do regular fund-raising and also do annual door-to-door solicitation. From what I understand, if you have an emergency they respond to, they will respond whether you've donated or not, but if you aren't a contributor they will charge you for the service. From what I've been told, if you're charged the fee, you can claim it on your homeowner's insurance, so you just have to pay a deductible. Still, most people understand that they have to support the service if they want it available. My volunteer crew has a rating just one level below the municipal fire department. My insurance company reduced my rates as my VFD's rating improved.

StG

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by StGermain

I live out in the county, beyond the city limits, here there is a municipal fire department. My area is served by a volunteer fire department. They do regular fund-raising and also do annual door-to-door solicitation. From what I understand, if you have an emergency they respond to, they will respond whether you've donated or not, but if you aren't a contributor they will charge you for the service. From what I've been told, if you're charged the fee, you can claim it on your homeowner's insurance, so you just have to pay a deductible. Still, most people understand that they have to support the service if they want it available. My volunteer crew has a rating just one level below the municipal fire department. My insurance company reduced my rates as my VFD's rating improved.

StG

See, that's how a civilized operation works.

[GusNSpot]

One place in Arkansas I lived, we paid a yearly fee and got the city trucks and men to come out. (4 miles outside the city limits) No pay, we could whistle up a volunteer service from about 30 miles away. (good luck)

Now we have a poorly equipped volunteer service and I would pay more t get better equipment and more personnel but the population density is too thin. We keep hoses and stuff out year round to fight our own stuff as well.

Oh, there a $125,000 pumper trucks and there are $750,000 pumper trucks.

In Tulsa OK, the last SFD structure fire I saw charged to the individual was $115,000.00 (Three trucks, the men and the time, about 1 hour.)

You really do not want to go on a pay as you burn set up.

[mrald]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

Culture shock? I live in the US and I'm speechless about this.

I live in a rural state (Arkansas), but contrary to Lissa idea, no matter how far I moved into the country, it would never even occur to me to look into this, because I've never fucking heard of anything like it! I might look into how far away the nearest fire department is and how long it would take them to get to my house, but not how much I have to pay to get them do anything once they get there!

I mean, Jesus! As if I needed more incentive never to leave the fucking city! You rural folk are mean!

I live in Arkansas as well, and this is how our fire dept is too. There is actually only one paid firefighter in town. The rest are voluteers, and if you don't pay, well you burn I guess, at least that is the policy.

[Obsidian]

The fire trucks used by the FDNY cost about $400,000. My uncle is (well, was, he just retired) a captain, and his house lost their trucks on 9/11 (sadly, most of their guys as well). My parents got involved with fundraising. I believe city-wide the tab was like $40 million dollars just for all the destroyed equipment. Previously, I'd never really considered how staggeringly expensive a fire department could be. I honestly don't know how the volunteer departments do it.

[BiblioCat]

Originally Posted by Obsidian

I honestly don't know how the volunteer departments do it.

By begging for money, basically. My husband and I both belong to a volunteer station (he's FF and I'm an EMT) and yes, the costs are staggering.
Not just the equipment and maintenance, but the mortgage, utility bills, insurance, stuff like that. Turnout gear can cost a couple thousand for one set, helmets are a couple hundred (for good ones).
We hold monthly dinners, auctions where we sell food, we do kid's birthday parties, we have a hall for rent, and even those (somewhat obnoxious) Fill-The-Boot fund drives, where we stand at a busy intersection in our district with fire boots and literally beg for money. I've done two Fill-The Boots, and it's two extremes; people either are more than happy to hand over all the change in their ashtrays and a handfull of bills, or they scream at us to get out of the street.

We also do a yearly solicitation by mail, and after every call, we send out a performance letter, asking how we did on the call. We don't directly ask for money, but do reinforce that we're a volunteer company and depend on donations - sometimes we don't hear anything back, but sometimes we get a nice check and a letter praising our work.

[eleanorigby]

Maybe this is wishy washy of me, but couldn't the firefighters have helped the guy without using their equipment? I bet alot of homeowners dont' know to aim the water at the base of the fire etc.

I just can't see just standing there. I'm a nurse--if you are having a heart attack in front of me--I will help you. I thought that FF had the same ethic.

I am now looking at FF in a different light. It may not be illegal, but I find it unethical.

(I also think that the system sucks--you shouldn't have to pony up in this way to protect your home. What's next? Fees to the cops so that they'll cruise to protect your property?).

[doreen]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

(I also think that the system sucks--you shouldn't have to pony up in this way to protect your home. What's next? Fees to the cops so that they'll cruise to protect your property?).

Why not? Those of us who live in areas with municipal fire departments pay to protect our home through our taxes. If you live in an area which doesn't fund a fire department through taxes and therefore depends on a volunteer department, who exactly should pony up the money to protect your home?

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

<hijack>

Anyone got $125,000 they want to give me? I want this.

</hijack>

I think this or this would be more practical. Or maybe you'd like to pretend that you're part of LA County Station 51? Or Mayberry (Virginia)'s VFD?

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by doreen

Why not? Those of us who live in areas with municipal fire departments pay to protect our home through our taxes. If you live in an area which doesn't fund a fire department through taxes and therefore depends on a volunteer department, who exactly should pony up the money to protect your home?

You missed my point (which was easy, since I didn't type it!)--I think it should be covered by taxes-either state, local or county. At least the equipment should be.

I can't get out of my mind the image of men standing by, watching something burn and not helping. It goes against the grain with me--what happened to bucket brigades and neighbor helping neighbor? The bucket thing is obviously archaic, but the neighbor thing is not.

[ethelbert]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

I am now looking at FF in a different light. It may not be illegal, but I find it unethical.

(I also think that the system sucks--you shouldn't have to pony up in this way to protect your home. What's next? Fees to the cops so that they'll cruise to protect your property?).

You always have to pony up. Sometimes its taxes, sometimes its dues and sometimes its watching your garage burn down. Hell, sometimes you pay your taxes, pay your dues and still watch your garage burn down. That's some serious pony.

Quite frankly, I would bet my lungs that this guy knew of the policy and decided to save himself some money. Volunteer fire departments are pretty aggressive in their fund raising. It would be hard to miss. Furthermore, the fact that he offered to pay the dues shows that he had the money. I might feel differently if this guy had fallen on hard times and was just delinquent in his dues, but I would be surprised if they didn't treat that situation differently.

[BiblioCat]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

I just can't see just standing there. I'm a nurse--if you are having a heart attack in front of me--I will help you. I thought that FF had the same ethic.

The many FFs I know are the same way - they'll stop and help for any reason.

I am now looking at FF in a different light. It may not be illegal, but I find it unethical.

Please don't change your thinking on firefighters - I agree it may not be illegal, but it's unethical up the wazoo. I've never heard of a system like this. It's terrible, IMO.

I live in a county that is serviced by both career and volunteer fire companies. I pay taxes that go to the career stations, and I make a donation to the volunteer company that services the district where I live, and in addition, I belong to a volunteer company that's out of my district. I donate my time (and money) there as well.
As I mentioned in my previous post, there are a lot of people who refuse to give money to the volunteers, believing that the paid companies are 'enough.' They're not - the volunteer companies fill in the gaps that the paid companies don't cover. If all the volunteer companies closed down tomorrow, the county would have to open more paid stations in their places to pick up the slack, and where do you think the money for that would come from?

[bare]

I belong to two subscription VFD's. It's incredibly cheap in my opinion, 50 bucks a year for one and 75/yr for the other.

Neither one would make it here in time to save a structure, but they might get here in time to keep the fire from spreading to U.S. Forest Service ground, for which I am responsible.

I understand the reason they can't fight a fire for a non member has something to do with not being covered by insurance if they do.

My hat's off to all the volunteer firefighters everywhere, for the dedication and service they give to their communities. Training alone takes huge amounts of time, not to mention all the maintenance and fire time they donate.

[adhemar]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

Culture shock? I live in the US and I'm speechless about this.

I live in a rural state (Arkansas), but contrary to Lissa idea, no matter how far I moved into the country, it would never even occur to me to look into this, because I've never fucking heard of anything like it! I might look into how far away the nearest fire department is and how long it would take them to get to my house, but not how much I have to pay to get them do anything once they get there!

I mean, Jesus! As if I needed more incentive never to leave the fucking city! You rural folk are mean!

From what what my Dad has told me, this is not uncommon in rural Arkansas. I am pretty sure that there has been a recent story in NW AR where something similar has happened. My parents are just outside of a goodsize town and have had a terrrible time setting up services I take for granted. They see it as part of the price to pay for living on a mountain instead of a city that had 4 murders on New Years day like I did.

[OtakuLoki]

Originally Posted by Lute Skywatcher

I think this or this would be more practical. Or maybe you'd like to pretend that you're part of LA County Station 51? Or Mayberry (Virginia)'s VFD?

Dang! I remember when that style truck was the new one for LA County Station 51. You've likely just dated both of us.

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

BTW, Joey P, your extortion analogy doesn't fit. If the firemen had set the fire, it would. As is, no.

Who's to say they didn't? It is extortion afterall.

[lurkernomore]

Originally Posted by Obsidian

I honestly don't know how the volunteer departments do it.

Some volunteer companies are tax supported too. I actually pay to 2 companies because my house is in one town, garage in another - even though it is about only 12' away. (My property tax bill is itemized)

[35340]

Originally Posted by lurkernomore

Some volunteer companies are tax supported too. I actually pay to 2 companies because my house is in one town, garage in another - even though it is about only 12' away. (My property tax bill is itemized)

So you could 'move' by building and living in an above-the-garage apartment!

[Bippy the Beardless]

As a British person there is no way I would beleive the OP was a true story without the link. It wouldn't occur to me that such things had happened since the 18th Century. I also wouldn't particularly check out the fire service situation for any house I would buy, I wouldn't consider a first world countr might not have quick and available fire response services for every populated location (unless the house was in a very remote uninhabitted spot). Simply it is unimaginable that a modern country would not have available fire services that were payed for out of some form of taxation.

[Alan Smithee]

More AR Dopers that I realized! FaerieBeth and I exchanged a few emails before Christmas about organizing a Bear State Dopefest, but nothing came of it. Maybe we should give it another try! (Anyone interested, email me!)

Anyway, I'm not terribly surprised that things like that happen around here, but the fact that I grew up and live here and had never heard of such a thing makes be believe that the guy might actually not have known about the dues. And for those who say the FD was perfectly reasonable, I think enough folks have posted with info about VFDs to indicate that there are other ways of running things--relying on donations, for example, or charging insurance companies.

I haven't had Mynn experiences, but I have no difficulty believing that the banks and insurers could let the ball drop on this as easily the homeowner.

[lurkernomore]

Originally Posted by Mynn

So you could 'move' by building and living in an above-the-garage apartment!

I'd still get taxed for 2 - the county says the plot is in 2 towns, and if they CAN tax you twice, they WILL tax you twice. All that would change is my mailing address, if I could get a new address for the garage.

[ralph124c]

Wasn't this how things were done in 19th century america? You had a metal badge attached to your house/building, that indicated that you had paid your fire tax. If you didn't display such a medallion, the local fire company would just wait for your house to be reduced to ashes..after which they would loot the remains. As i recall, fireinsurance companies funded many fire compnies as well.

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by ethelbert

Quite frankly, I would bet my lungs that this guy knew of the policy and decided to save himself some money. Volunteer fire departments are pretty aggressive in their fund raising. It would be hard to miss. Furthermore, the fact that he offered to pay the dues shows that he had the money. I might feel differently if this guy had fallen on hard times and was just delinquent in his dues, but I would be surprised if they didn't treat that situation differently.

...as I pointed out in the Great Debate, there is absolutely no evidence to support your assertion. Rueda claims he doesn't know, Fire Chief Myers doesn't claim that he did. Myers also states that the department would make a greater effort to explain the policy to Hispanics in the region: virtually conceeding there are people in his district that don't know about the policy.