Actually, this is more the result of "small government" action, or in this case, in-action. In order to keep taxes lower, small governments will often (or at least this seems to be the growing trend) have some sort of fee for things like the fire department, or paramedics. The thing is that usually they just send you a large bill. The usually dont sit there and let your house burn down and animals die in the fire. Anyway, I hope this guy sues the shit out of the fire department there. They deserve it. The fire department is generally seen as a public good. We did away with private fire brigades for a very good reason. He should not have to pay protection money in the first place. Furthermore, how did the fire department know there were not people in the house at the time of the call? Would you be alright with letting innocent people burn to death simply because the homeowner might be freeriding for $75? Thats sick. Even if nobody pays the fee, the firefighters should extinguish fires in nearby areas, simply to prevent the fire from spreading.
It's too late now, house is gone. rage and stuff. Atleast no one was killed or hurt. It could've been worse , one of the firefighters may have ended up like Ponyboy's friend Johnny.
I like the way some people think here. Force people to pay something or heck, lets just not worry about paying for things now. Free stuff on other peoples dime is awesome. Chuck
So I assume you've paid a toll on every single paved road you've ever traveled on? Even roads that are not in your state? If not, you're using stuff for free on other people's dime.
Just to shed a bit more light to the situation, If you don't pay for protection, should fire companies let your house burn down? It happened. | ZDNet The story gets more complex as it was revealed that even though he hadn’t paid his fire protection fee, Mr. Cranick offered essentially anything to the South Fulton Fire Department, if they would only save his home. As the story is told, Mr. Cranick was refused. Again, we don’t know the full story. We don’t know if the refusal was because the on-the-scene firefighters were previously instructed not to help, whether they didn’t have the right paperwork and contracts to make sure Mr. Cranick would eventually pay, or even whether Mr. Cranick was actually clear in his offer and plea or whether it was interspersed with other, less pleasant words. We just don’t know."
They were their because the neighbor called the fire department as it had spread to his yard. They showed up then to keep it from spreading to other plots. That wont work. Let's say they did this. How often do you think you'll need the fire department? Maybe once, or twice in you lifetime, if you're REALLY unlucky. How much money do you think the fire department needs to run in a year? It's economically more viable, as a user, to just pay when it happens. The end result? No one pays the yearly fee, and the Fire Department ends up with not enough money to do its job. It's called the Free Rider Problem. It's not a viable solution. What they NEED to do it make this mandatory and/or establish their own fire department. The fire department's completely blameless here. Their hands are tied on this as much as anyone elses. If you want to blame anyone, blame the local government who thought it would be a smart idea to NOT HAVE A FIRE DEPARTMENT.
This is a perfect example of a no-win scenario. I can't really side with either of them, both were in the wrong. So just imagine the usual response about my faith in humanity destroyed forever in the stead of me offering a baseless opinion. This was the first thing that jumped to mind after reading this.
That's a pretty good article. I thought this was an interesting point of view: Here's an interesting dilemma for folks worried high taxes and big government coercion: by making the optional fee mandatory, they could probably spread the cost and lower the fee. If it were posed as a choice between an optional $75 protection fee, or a mandatory $50 protection tax, would that not be preferable?
This would be like offering to pay for an item after you've already been caught stealing it. Sorry. Too late.
Yeah, I agree. There is a fair amount of blame to go along here. The local government should be sued as well. For all roads? How about for all the sidewalks you've walked on? Been to any state or local parks? Point is, everybody freerides on something at one time or another.
I don't care what fire safety policy you think the people of South Fulton should have, I'm only interested in what they do have. And what they do have is for those outside city limits who aren't part of the tax base to pay a yearly fee of $75 for fire coverage. No fee means no protection. And don't try to dramatize your argument with, "Oh no, but what if lives were lost?" Lives were not lost. Read the article, don't make shit up.
We were talking about this at lunch at work In this case it's your duty to pay that fee. You can't just forget. It certainly does suck maybe they should have some kind of "bill you exorbitantly in the case of a fire emrgency" deal if you only missed that year.
Just what do you think firefighters do? They're not the mob. They're not an insurance company. They are a public entity. They are firefighting professionals who are there for the safety of the public. The firefighters only came when the fire had already spread to another person's property (who had paid). If you cannot see how this is extremely dangerous public policy, I cannot help you. I also take exception to your accusation of me "making shit up." I am simply trying to show you why, even if there is an opt-in firefighting system, they should have put the fire out. You are completely missing the moral, public safety, and professional negligence issues here.
I can see the argument for both sides. What happens if someone was in the house on fire? If the guy didn't pay the whatever it was, then just send him a bill for the cost for the service right there and then.
If you have a problem with the fire protection policy, take it up with the city council. But trying to blame the fire department for not servicing a man who had not paid for fire coverage or saying, "The local government should be sued as well" is a definite no-no. I can understand the neighbour calling for help to stop the fire from engulfing his home, but putting it out entirely is a bad advertisement for the policy. Try criticizing the man who hadn't paid his fee instead of the government for a change.
