If a trailer catches fire and the fire department does try to put it out, would it even be salvageable to live in? I know they might save some of the stuff inside, but between the smoke, fire, and water damage, would anything really be different if the firemen attempted to stop the blaze?
Again, they aren’t allowed to pay. And the firefighters didn’t put it out because if they put it out anyway no one would pay the fee. That’s one of the major reasons why it makes much more sense as a tax funded service and not a fee service.
That’s interesting that the latest homeowner whose house burned down wasn’t eligible to pay a fee for the fire protection service. It makes it sound like a different situation than what happened with Cranick. The article posted a few replies back also shows that the homeowner doesn’t think the fire department could’ve saved her house because the fire spread so quickly. I’m still hoping that gonzomax does not bring this up again the next time that I see him. We pretty much went in circles when we discussed it in person back when the thread was new.
nm
She’s not allowed to pay because she doesn’t have insurance, presumably home owners although the article isn’t clear. It’s not that she was in a zone that doesn’t allow her to pay, she failed to do what was required in order to qualify for the fire protection. I assume that all homeowners within the city get fire protection regardless of if they have insurance so the burden on those outside the city limits is more than just the $75 fee.
It’s more complicated than the original case, for sure, but IMO this isn’t fundamentally different. She could have qualified for and paid for fire coverage. But it would have cost her more than the $75 figure that we keep throwing around.
Reading the article offered by **Der Trihs **it appears (although it isn’t clear) that the trailer homes in that particular place do not qualify for insurance, thus also are ruled ineligible for the fire protection subscription. There are lots of reasons something may be unqualified for fire insurance, including construction standards of the unit and nearness to potential fire sources, just off the top of my head. These could also be RV type vehicles, not “park” type mobile homes. The carriers may believe these to be unsuitable for permanent or long term residence, since that is not what their manufacturers intend for them.
If the insurance carriers believe the unit to be a fire trap or the location to be especially problematic, they are not obligated to offer coverage. And it appears that the City involved takes that evaluation into its own consideration, declining to offer fire suppression service subscriptions to such units.
According to the “homeowner”:
So perhaps the insurers were correct in their initial assessment.
Drunky Smurf is pulling your leg, Der Trihs.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Maybe the fire department should bring marshmallows and weenies to roast - really drive the point home.
He won’t be bringing it up on the SDMB.
He might still bring it up in person, however.
I thought that a definite possibility, considering the wording of the post. That’s why I very clearly stated SDMB.
He said he hasn’t been back to lurk since he was banned, but I’m anticipating him seeing the latest news story. Could very well bring up the topic again. I was hoping he wouldn’t bring it up the first time since we’re on opposite sides. Bringing it up a second time won’t end any better.
The only “sufficiently punitive solution” that was found was “watching their house burn down”, etc. Stupidity of that magnitude generally requires stupidity of equal magnitude to get the idiot’s attention. I didn’t see an issue when this thread was on its first run. I’m not seeing an issue, now, except for people insisting that idiots should be protected from their own stupidity. At my expense. And I’m poor. I don’t pay income taxes. I’m a 47 percenter.
It’s not a punitive situation. The fire department didn’t set their house on fire.
They should have.