Not only that, he (or at least a majority of his neighbors) voted against a 13 cent raise in their annual county property taxes to pay for a county-wide fire service.
Maybe I flunked “new math,” but the math I was brought up on says $0.13/year < $75.00/year.
It was mentioned above that property tax increases are always per $100 of the value of the home.
So someone whose house is worth $100,000 would pay $130. That seems high to me, but I live in a city where $100k is on the cheap side. In the middle of a rural county, a house (and it’s a trailer home, innit?) is probably worth a good bit less than that.
Right. There is an established procedure, set either by department regulation or even by law (ordinance), determining how and to what extent the municipal–note, it’s not the county’s–fired department is deployed. In this case, the municipal fire department’s procedure included an opt-in/opt-out choice for a ridiculously low price of approximately 20 cents per day. It’s sad the man lost his home; however, it would be even more sad if the fire department could not be deployed as required if they were busy violating the established procedure.
One might think that’s bureaucratic but there’s more to fighting a fire than “Oh, there’s a fire! Let’s put it out!” The on-scene leader (as we called the position in the Navy)/incident commander has to determine the effective use of the resources on hand. As another poster mentioned, there’s not always an endless supply of water at the scene. And the OSL/IC must consider the risk to his personnel.
One poster, either in this thread or one of the others on the issue, asked if it would’ve been a good idea for the home-owner to simply lie to the firefighters about someone being in the home. Well, yes, I suppose it would be if one wants to face charges, especially if one of the firefighters is injured or killed on the wild goose chase.
And it would be way more sad if one those firefighters happened to get killed fighting the fire at the house of the [del]freeloader[/del] person who opted out.
By the way, I do think of the firefighters as one of my nephews is a municipal firefighter.
Many rescue operations require minimal if any actual water application. Several of the news articles mention they will attempt a rescue is a person is deemed trapped inside.
oh look its the PIT!
Failing to perform a detailed search for a small animal is in your eyes animal cruelty? Well then fuck you, and your lack of respect for the lives of firefighters. In many remote jurisdictions they are even VOLUNTEERS. Why you think its a chargable criminal act not to risk your life to save a cat it completely beyond me and is honestly far more crass and shitheaded than letting the damn house burn down! You didn’t save my dog! Officer I want to press charges! Lets sue the fire department for their gross negligence and complicity in the death of my cat!
What kind of fucking bizzaro world do you live in? How far up your ass is your head?
Go ahead, I dare you to justify this batshit insane idea you seem to have. Oh wait, can’t say batshit, it might be considered expoitative to bats.
I haven’t seen you get so…“conservative” before;). But then you are an Albertan.
But really, can you see this happen in Canada ?
We would put the fire out and deal with the cost afterwards.
Think about all those people who are in arrears with their municipal taxes. They don’t get fire protection ?
I would argue that this case presents a lot of interesting questions. For me, what is comes down to is whether fighting a house fire can be considered a public good. Given the risk of fires spreading and the potential of harm to people and property, I would argue that in this case it is and therefore should be subject to mandatory taxation and coverage. That said, in this particular case, there was an option to pay, the guy did not pay, and I can’t criticize the fire department for not using limited resources and putting themselves in danger to do a job that they were not legally contracted to do.
However, I would hate to be the person living next door, whose property and family are put at increased risk because the person next door chooses to opt out of fire coverage. Who is to say that the fire can be put out before it destroys the neighbor’s house. What about the decrease in property values from living next to a burned-out shell?
The question then is, what goods and services are essentially to maintaining the overall welfare of a society. Certainly, many will argue that bridges and roads are essential. I would argue that fire protection is also essential. In most places you can’t drive without insurance; certainly it seems reasonable that you shouldn’t be able to own property without appropriate insurance that allows for fires to be extinguished.
So, to sum up my opinion: given the current laws, they should have let the house burn, but those laws should be changed.
FINE I give up, you win, I’ll go change the freakin law now. Anything else your highness? Since I’ll have to get the ladder out, is there anything else that needs changing?
My nephew did retrieve a cat from a burning home. The homeowner was shouting “My baby is in there!” So my nephew went in and returned with a scared kitten. Turned out the lady actually named the critter Baby. My mother, a major cat lover from the get go, was quite proud. My sister, on the other hand, was a tad upset. To quote her: “That’s not great when it’s MY BABY who’s going in after a damn animal!”
Got news for the general population: a pet is not a human being.
Depends. If it was a 13 mil increase it was 13 dollars on the $1000. I’ve always heard of property taxes calculated as millage (which is done per $1000 on the home, not $100).
I’m quite content with calling a homeowner who refused to pay $75 for fire coverage an idiot. You may prefer to call him a wise consumer who made an informed choice.
My mileage obviously differs from yours (thank God)
My mileage very much does differ. I treat other people like human beings and allow them to order their affairs as they see fit. You think you are EP Almighty who knows what’s best for everyone and generally wants to coerce people into doing what you think is best for them. A little humility would be nice, EP, you should try it out.
HA! Here comes the libertopia express, right on schedule.
“if you don’t believe in libertopia, you must think that you (aka the evil gubmint) know what is best for everyone.”
Sorry bub. That one’s as old as the hills. (or as old as Ayn Rand’s withered and dusty cooch at any rate).
Yes, there are times when society should provide for the common good, even if there are lone individuals who do not know any better. Everyone is not equally endowed from birth with identical good fortune, money and opportunity.
Your posturing is merely a smokescreen that allows you to crush others underfoot as you hide behind a fetid cloak of “treating them all fairly”.
Unpaid taxes are usually unable to be discharged in bankruptcy and will attach a lein if not paid. The mechanisms for doing so are probably far more developed than an agency with no authority to levy taxes doing so consistently and effectively.
