I don’t really see why we would.
My guess is that there were only a certain number of county residents living within range of the city. Everyone in the county would have paid into the fire department tax, but only the people living within range of the city are going to benefit from the city’s fire department. Smaller pool of people, more money per needed.
No, sorry I don’t have a specific cite, I was speaking a bit more figuratively than I should have (and this is the pit). My key point was that it doesn’t actually matter if they pay the $75 on their property tax, or straight to a source, except in the latter case they can choose not to pay.
Isn’t that what they do? I’d think they’d at least have good actuaries.
I can think of a number of reasons why fire protection services should not be treated exactly like an extended phone warranty:
A fire may not affect only property. It has the strong potential to affect life and limb, for humans and animals - some of whom had not made the fatal decision not to purchase the protection, but who will be paying the price nonetheless. This is different from a phone warranty. While no doubt one could come up with a scenario where having a broken phone leads to fatal consequences, it is much more unlikely.
As a society, we in general treat homes as a significant and special kind of property, and view ‘homelessness’ as a particularly onerous kind of deprivation - much more so than “phonelessness”. Hence, for example, special rules concerning eviction, the ownership of the the matrimonial home in divorce, etc.
As demonstrated in the above story, a fire has the potential to spread and destroy yet more property, endanger more lives, etc. For this reason alone, it should not be merely an individual decision as to whether to let it burn or put it out - it is in everyone’s interests to put it out ASAP. Merely confining the fire to the non-payor’s property appears to me to be an inefficient solution. A broken phone lacks the potential to affect other people.
For all these reasons, in this case, a socialist solution to thre situation (which is in any event by far the more common, at least in NA) appears preferable, quite aside from the emotive sight of firemen standing around and watching a house burn.
I can’t think of about a dozen more. But what you missed was that it’s Cranick’s house, on Cranick’s property–therefor Cranick’s responsibility. If he wants to protect it he can. Remember, he was given that option, and he made his choice.
As to your other points, they are completely valid. What you need to do is read through them and then consider the nature of responsibility:
He **chose **to burn his garbage near his house, and as a result his house burned down. With or without a fire department near by there aren’t a lot of other ways for this to play out.
If a child died as a result, why would we assume it’s anyone else’s fault by his? If other property was destroyed again it’s his fault.
So as we go back and try to impose order on a shitty system, most if not all people here say remove the choice for fire protection. But that’s only one of the many factors.
Why was he allowed to burn garbage.
Why was he allowed to play with matches?
Why was he allowed to have pets in the house?
Why wasn’t he required to have a fire suppression system? There’s one most people didn’t think about. Would have reduced the need for the fire department, and IS required in commercial buildings.
In THIS scenario, Cranick was allowed to choose if he wanted fire services, that’s about as far as it goes.
It’s really not that uncommon for fire fighters to stand around and watch a house burn down. There is a go-no-go decision at every fire as to whether or not it’s worth trying to fight. Again I need to bring up the risk to the fire fighters involved, for the love of God won’t someone think about the fire fighters!
There are lots of areas where IMHO personal responsibility is, or ought to be, curtailed by regulation. I’m no libertarian; although I concede the value of personal choice and responsibility, and I think that ‘leave people to do what they want’ ought to be the default, I also think that this default should be over-ridden in some cases. It is, in other words, the rebuttable presumption.
The issue of whether to leave it up to one’s choice, or to have society impose a common solution, is obviously going to be a case-by-case analysis. However, it seems to me that a good case can be made for certain minimum protections to be imposed, whether one wants to pay for them or take one’s chances - such as police and fire services.
I’ve read this thread but not the GD one, but something that occurs to me:
Several posts said that this guy had a previous fire that the fire department put out EVEN THOUGH he hadn’t paid for fire service.
How likely is it that he’ll sue the fire department saying something like, their previous actions made it reasonable for him to assume he’d get his fires put out even without paying, and that they somehow ‘tricked’ him by this time changing the rules?
I think if there is one lesson FOR the liberals of the world is that try as you might, you just can’t save people from themselves.
Imposing fire services on Cranick might have saved his house this time. But the fire was still started deliberately (by the terrorist fire department).
So to really save this guy’s house, we have to go a lot further than imposing a socialized fire department on him. Clearly the first step is to impose socialized garbage collection, and subsequently ban the act of burning garbage. Next we need rules, fire codes if you will, governing everything from building materials to door widths. Rules about smoke detectors. Rules about electrical wiring. Rules about what products can and can not be left unattended next to a pile of oily rags.
When you read through this thread (but don’t let that stop you from posting), it’s clear people REALLY care about this guy’s house. But fire services just aren’t enough to save it.
In the end, we just can’t possibly save people from themselves.
Up here in Canada, we have a legal principle that ‘estoppel can be a shield, but not a sword’.
In other words, a party may, by their conduct or representations, waive their strict legal rights under a contract - thus precluding them from suing to enforce their rights later - but they cannot thereby create rights that the other person can sue to enforce.
In short, if the fire department had saved his house in the past and said “oh, never mind the cost” unequivocally, they may be precluded from collecting the cost from him when they save his house again on the theory that they have waived their right to demand it; but he can’t sue them for failing to save it, on the expectation that he now had a right to their services.
Though different jurisdictions sometimes have different laws, milage may vary.
Property taxes are invariably expressed as cost per $100 of assessed valuation.
You are correct, the decision was made by elected officials. The proposed property tax was part of a larger proposal which would have overhauled fire service for the entire county.
Here is the relevant document.
And it’s been around for 20 years.
Ha, I’ve been trying to remember that word for the past two days.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m most disgusted by the fact that there were pets trapped inside that died because this. Blatant animal cruelty.
More to the point, if a human was trapped inside does the same pay for spray rule apply?
As far as I can tell it doesn’t. The FD will provide life saving operations (for humans). If he had gotten in a car accident, something would respond.
The issue here is the additional cost to save his house. The system in place says “if you don’t care about your house (and pets) neither do we.”
I should amend my post above by pointing out that so-called “promissory estoppel” (or in public law, “the doctrine of reasonable expectations”) can on occasion operate as a sword and not a shield - but to do so requires an unequivocal promise to do something in the future, along the lines of a statement like “we will protect your house in the future, even though you didn’t pay”. It can’t happen by mere acquiesence.
Or children? If the guy had kids, would the response here be the same?
I’ve find the line of reasoning fascinating, that he could sue them for essentially a “kind deed.” Because they did something kind, it is now expected that they will continue to be kind.
I’d love to try that with a door: walk behind someone that holds the door for you. Then, when they fail to hold the door, smash into it really hard. Now you can sue them for giving you the expectation that they’d always hold the door.
A jury will hear that the FD went out and helped him without the subscription, and conclude he was right to assume they’d always do that. He’s going to be loaded, and the near-by municipality will suffer as a result. Not one person in that jury box I(of mostly municipal residents) will say, “wait a second, why didn’t this guy pay the $75?”
I should amend that, he won’t get a cent, a clever team of lawyers are going to have an extra happy Christmas after this.
As I understand it, they’d save the kids then let the house burn.
nvm.
no no, this is a safe space, please share what ever is on your mind
ETA no wait, this is the pit
No, a “kind deed” is covered off in my original post. That would be the more typical kind of estoppel - the kind that could be a shield, but not a sword.
Promissory estoppel (or “reasonable expectation” doctrine, if a public body) requires an express promise to do something in the future. Merely having done it before in the past isn’t enough to trigger it.