In the news today

[Ryllharu]

So in the end it wouldnt make a big difference if they had just allowed the guy to pay the $11,000 fee since there really doesnt need to be a message sent, SINCE they get most of their money through taxes.

Taxes from their home municipality. The house that burnt down does not reside in the town where the fire department is funded by taxes. That's the whole idea behind the annual fee.

Financially disadvantaged family hasn't been paying the annual $75. House catches on fire, fire department comes, bills them for $11,000. They don't pay it, or simply can't afford it. Suddenly the fire dept is doing work unfunded. Others follow suit, do the same thing. If the fire dept can't collect, they're working unfunded. I fail to see why this is hard to understand.

Fire dept runs out of funds working in a different town that refuses to fund them through taxes of their own. Which the fee essential is, it is an opt-in tax.

Option A: Increase taxes on their home municipality, now one town is funding the rural one, who gets services for free.
Option B: Stop ever coming to rural area, houses burn to the ground, people die.
Option C: Close fire dept, both towns' houses burn to the ground, people die.

The answer is going to be Option B.

Conclusion: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Either pay the fee, or vote for a new fire house (volunteer likely) funded by taxes.

[Splash!]

Taxes from their home municipality. The house that burnt down does not reside in the town where the fire department is funded by taxes. That's the whole idea behind the annual fee.

Financially disadvantaged family hasn't been paying the annual $75. House catches on fire, fire department comes, bills them for $11,000. They don't pay it, or simply can't afford it. Suddenly the fire dept is doing work unfunded. Others follow suit, do the same thing. If the fire dept can't collect, they're working unfunded. I fail to see why this is hard to understand.

Fire dept runs out of funds working in a different town that refuses to fund them through taxes of their own. Which the fee essential is, it is an opt-in tax.

Option A: Increase taxes on their home municipality, now one town is funding the rural one, who gets services for free.
Option B: Stop ever coming to rural area, houses burn to the ground, people die.
Option C: Close fire dept, both towns' houses burn to the ground, people die.

The answer is going to be Option B.

Conclusion: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Either pay the fee, or vote for a new fire house (volunteer likely) funded by taxes.

No, option B pretty asinine. We are talking about someone's house burning down here, which is an emergency service. You should put out the fire first and ask questions later, even if the person whose property you are saving is a dick. If you are worried about the "message it would send to other people", then also consider the message being sent out when the fire authorities just sit by and do nothing as someone's house burns down (even if it is within their means). It creates a lack of trust.

If people not paying is resulting in serious underfunding as you say, then there are better ways to resolve the problem. Maybe some sort of contractual mechanism whereby, if you have not been making your payments, and request a fire to be put out, any property saved can be used as collateral if the the service is not paid for after the fact. Of course, there might be other loose ends to tie in this scenario, but still, a complicated situation like this demands a slightly more refined solution, not just "no money, burn in hell". Option B is screwing over people that actually might have a change of heart after having their house saved and decide to pay (especially if their house is worth more than $11,000).

Yes, there should be serious repercussions for those who refuse to pay after having their house saved. Maybe more effort should be spent on accountability, rather than resorting to oversimplified and selfish solutions because lack of accountability is assumed to be a general and immutable fact.

[Ryllharu]

No, option B pretty asinine. We are talking about someone's house burning down here, which is an emergency service. You should put out the fire first and ask questions later, even if the person whose property you are saving is a dick. If you are worried about the "message it would send to other people", then also consider the message being sent out when the fire authorities just sit by and do nothing as someone's house burns down (even if it is within their means). It creates a lack of trust.

If people not paying is resulting in serious underfunding as you say, then there are better ways to resolve the problem. Maybe some sort of contractual mechanism whereby, if you have not been making your payments, and request a fire to be put out, any property saved can be used as collateral if the the service is not paid for after the fact. Of course, there might be other loose ends to tie in this scenario, but still, a complicated situation like this demands a slightly more refined solution, not just "no money, burn in hell". Option B is screwing over people that actually might have a change of heart after having their house saved and decide to pay (especially if their house is worth more than $11,000).

Yes, there should be serious repercussions for those who refuse to pay after having their house saved. Maybe more effort should be spent on accountability, rather than resorting to oversimplified and selfish solutions because lack of accountability is assumed to be a general and immutable fact.

You're not understanding the situation. First and foremost, regardless of the fee, they are obligated to save human lives...and that is where their job ends if they haven't been paying the fee. People saved? House can burn down. The property is never a priority. Only lives. Property protection costs money and comes with an increased risk, one that the city cannot afford if they aren't being funded, which the rural area is paying for only on a case-by-case basis.

This is like Toronto's fire department putting out fires in all of Ontario or New York City putting out fires in all of upstate NY. They are in no way obligated to provide service to this rural municipality, they do it as a favor, for a small annual fee that covers the costs in a premiums/incident style, similar to auto-insurance or life-insurance (or Health Care in the US).

The fire department must never get involved in debt collection. That isn't their job, they have better things to do (using all their funds to save lives), so an after-the-fact "business model" can not exist. Not to mention the historical repercussions of a suddenly "private" fire house now functionally saving houses and lives as part of a services-rendered model. The last time the US had that, we had a whole lot more fireman-arsonists.

People were not paying in the rural area because they are fucking cheap. They voted AGAINST a fire dept in their own municipality for the last decade or more. This man helped to create this problem, he chose to not pay the fee, their lives were saved, and his house burned. There's no room for a change of heart just because the fate you gambled against occurred. That man CHOSE to keep his money, and only relented when he suddenly needed the service he believed he never needed.

It's called owning up to the decisions you willingly made. "You made the bed, now sleep in it."


It's this kind of behavior that got us into the current economic crisis and subsequent bailouts. When there is no downside to taking a risk because someone will always cover everything in case the gamble goes poorly, everyone will take the risk to excess because there is literally nothing to lose. Seriously...fuck that. It's called taking responsibility, and part of being an adult member of society.

[Carnage]

You're not understanding the situation. First and foremost, regardless of the fee, they are obligated to save human lives...and that is where their job ends if they haven't been paying the fee. People saved? House can burn down. The property is never a priority. Only lives.

There were pets in the house.

[Splash!]

The fire department must never get involved in debt collection. That isn't their job, they have better things to do (using all their funds to save lives), so an after-the-fact "business model" can not exist.

They shouldn't be ones worrying about debt collection, but someone ought to put laws in place so that firemen can put out a fire whenever they want to without having to check up on whose been paying the bills. By that I mean, if they put out a fire in such a situation, then the person is seriously liable for covering their costs.

It's called owning up to the decisions you willingly made. "You made the bed, now sleep in it."

It's this kind of behavior that got us into the current economic crisis and subsequent bailouts. When there is no downside to taking a risk because someone will always cover everything in case the gamble goes poorly, everyone will take the risk to excess because there is literally nothing to lose. Seriously...fuck that. It's called taking responsibility, and part of being an adult member of society.

I KNOW, thats why I am saying... If there was a concept of economic accountability and "DEBT=bad", this really wouldn't be much of an issue.

A person who doesn't pay a monthly premium should be able to ask for one time help to put out a fire and it is perfectly acceptable so long as that person covers the cost later. The real problem is that they should not be allowed default on something they are liable for. You are just venting on the wrong issue.

Dont compare the bailout to this. A fire is still a freak accident. I would fully support bailing out critical companies if they failed by some 'freak accident'. That really wasn't the case. The whole bailout situation is actually tantamount to someone playing with fireworks everyday and setting their house on fire, having the firemen put it out, and then not covering their costs later.

[XanBcoo]

They shouldn't be ones worrying about debt collection, but someone ought to put laws in place so that firemen can put out a fire whenever they want to without having to check up on whose been paying the bills. By that I mean, if they put out a fire in such a situation, then the person is seriously liable for covering their costs.

He's already addressed this point. I don't think you're fully understanding the issue.

People were not paying in the rural area because they are fucking cheap. They voted AGAINST a fire dept in their own municipality for the last decade or more. This man helped to create this problem, he chose to not pay the fee, their lives were saved, and his house burned. There's no room for a change of heart just because the fate you gambled against occurred. That man CHOSE to keep his money, and only relented when he suddenly needed the service he believed he never needed.

[Splash!]

People were not paying in the rural area because they are fucking cheap. They voted AGAINST a fire dept in their own municipality for the last decade or more. This man helped to create this problem, he chose to not pay the fee, their lives were saved, and his house burned. There's no room for a change of heart just because the fate you gambled against occurred. That man CHOSE to keep his money, and only relented when he suddenly needed the service he believed he never needed

Yes, and the consequence of that should be that they are forced to pay through the nose for the one time fire, and then accountable for actually coming through on the payment. It should not be to let the fire keep on going when something CAN be done about it.

[Carnage]

And Im sure he and everyone else would have learned their lesson even if the fire was put out.