Fire kills vampires, mummies, and werewolves. But it revives zombies.
likely to be fewer holdouts on the fee now.
Doesn’t the fire dept still get some cash from the county or locality? If it’s in any way supported by taxes, I say it’s the fire dept’s fault. It must be subsidized somehow.
Anyway, my brother is a volunteer firefighter and my mom is a paramedic. My mom said she would’ve been horrified (and her firefighter friends would’ve been as well, so she says).
edit: And we’re all union-friendly and hate freeloders. Still, $75 is a lot for some people.
<sigh>
I know the thread is a bear, but in a nuthsell, no they are not tasked to cover the areas in question and the county will not pay. Even volunteer departments often have some kind of municipal support, these guys do not. Here in CA for example, if you have a little town in the boonies that has no fire department it falls under California dept of Forestry or US forest service. Nearest station might be 30 min away, but its something.
a township as a government unit decides not to collect a tax in order to provide protection for everyone in that township then people have to buy individual subscriptions if available.
rural townships if they don’t provide their own then can buy fire, ambulance and garbage services from nearby cities, villages and adjacent townships. fire and ambulance can be provided by different organizations both public and private.
even volunteer fire departments are hugely expensive for a township. taxes alone might not support it. fund raising events needed to be had to meet expenses beyond what taxes provide. with such tight budgets it is no surprise that services can’t be offered free and must be paid for subscriptions.
I think if you go back about 17 pages you’ll discover that the fire dept doesn’t actually get any money from rural folks unless they pay the $75. The only $$ they get is from municipal taxes which are not collected from rural homes as they are not part of the municipality.
Of note is the fact that the douche who’s home burned to the ground back in 2010 had actually had a fire previous to the one the burned his house down and STILL elected not to pay the fee.
I’m sorry - these people really have no one to blame but themselves.
All that aside, I certainly don’t blame you for not wading through all 20 pages of this.
Wow. Talk about people getting the government they deserve.
Ah. I thought it was a ‘pay for service but subsidized by local government’ stuff.
Still. That second family lived in a trailer home - maybe the $75 was a lot. I went without plates for 8 months because I never had an extra $150. edit: And apparently in Texas, the firefighters pay you!
to add: I think this is why stuff like this needs to be mandated. Otherwise it just causes a safety issue.
Article indicates that they will always help if there is a person in danger.
Oh, well there’s the answer then. If your house is burning down, stay inside!
Or at least leave your kid in there.
Wow. Same county, even. Here’s the HuffPost article on it: HuffPost - Breaking News, Politics, Entertainment & Opinion
You know, it’s one thing to have a harsh policy like this, to say “we’re not going to come put out a fire if you don’t pay this nominal fee,” in bad economic times like this, I’m not sure what a municipality is supposed to do. But to actually come anyway (which costs money), bring all your trucks and just sit there and watch as the house burns down? That’s a dick move. Did you bring some fucking marshmallows and weiners too? Did you point and laugh at the homeowners on the front lawn and rub it in?
Oh, boy, you’ve got a lot to catch up on.
The RFD came out to watch out for the neighbors’ property, as the neighbors HAD paid the fee.
I agree that the whole thing sounds astonishingly callous at first blush, but when you think it through, they really had no choice. Since the fee is voluntary, the only way the RFD can keep afloat is by letting the consequences of not paying the fee come to pass. It sucks, but there you are. One more vote for the nanny state.
Question: Why doesn’t the fire department in question have a standard fire response fee for non-subscribers? Say, a few thousand dollars a visit?
People who refuse to pay an annual subscription fee are the type who would ignore a response fee.
It did. People didn’t pay the fee.
Ah. Why am I not surprised…
According to MSNBC, there is a nearby county that operates exactly the way you describe: a resident can pay $110 per year for as many fires as might happen on their property, or they can pay $1100 per hour for an ad hoc fire response.
I’m not sure why the South Fulton FD lacks the “here’s-thousands-of-dollars-please-put-this-fire-out-immediately” policy. One possible explanation is that having that policy discourages people from paying the annual fee, and then some of them end up in a bind when their house catches fire and they suddenly realize they can’t come up with thousands of dollars on five minutes’ notice. I’d be curious to learn how that policy has been working out for the neighboring county.
Most people bet (by buying homeowner’s insurance and/or paying a firefighting fee) that they’re going to have a fire, expecting to lose that bet. No big deal, because that’s a bet most folks can afford to lose. OTOH, the two fire victims being discussed in this thread decided to bet that they would NOT have a fire, and unfortunately for them, they lost that far more expensive bet.
To the credit of the latest victim, she has said “I’m not mad at the city, I understand.”