Because they lived out in a rural area where they relied on a municipal fire service. Since they don't live in the town, they don't pay municipal taxes. Lots of counties have arrangements like this -- rather than trying to maintain rural fire departments that they can't afford, they arrange with municipal fire departments to serve residents outside the town or city limits, provided those residents pay a fee (in lieu of paying taxes that would support the fire department).

I was thinking that too.

This is done between some cities around here HOWEVER, the money is included in city/county taxes and then is transferred by that entity to the municipality who performs the fire service. Making it optional is insane to me.

The saddest part is that their next door neighbor's house caught on fire because this house was on fire. The neighbor had paid the $75 fee so his house fire was put out. In making it optional, it endangers others even those who do choose to pay. Can that neighbor now sue this clown for not paying for his fire service and having his house catch on fire as a result? Even if he did sue him, he probably wouldn't get anything since this guy now has nothing.

There are definitely better ways to implement this.

Well, there's that whole thing about small government, reducing the consumer burden by eliminating non-essential or overly-cost-ineffective services, potential issues with what are essentially government-run insurance programs, etc.

You can certainly see why some people would want to opt out - similar to other forms of insurance, the majority will never have a fire event and thus are "wasting" the $75 to subsidize others. You might even argue that making it optional is the most sane thing - it's the only option that allows the individual to make their own rational decision. Surely you like making your own decisions, right?

This is more "bad luck" than "sad" - after all, that's why the neighbor paid the $75: you never know what will cause a fire in your home. It might even be the neighbors.

Presumably, the majority of folks who live in rural areas don't live all that close to their neighbors, making this a very low-level risk to "endanger others." That's why it is perfectly reasonable to levy taxes in cities to pay for municipal services (assuming risk), and also perfectly reasonable to not do the same in rural areas (markedly lower risk).

He can attempt to sue him, sure - whether or not that suit has merit and/or will be successful is, of course, a completely different matter and depends on approximately seven hundred and twenty factors we really don't know.

It seems this method worked perfectly to me.

For the want of 75 dollars someone is now homeless. Which ultimately costs society more? It's not small government it's pigheadedness and stupidity.

Having fees be voluntary instead of mandatory is ridiculous.

How?

My husband is a volunteer firefighter; the way he explained it to me (a nearby fire department has a system like this one, only it isn't rural) is that should someone's life be in danger the firefighters will save said person, then let the building finish burning to the ground.

Note that it wasn't the neighbor's house, but their field.

No, it's not just rural - the southside of Savannah's fire department is run by a private company and operates this way.

*sigh*.....why does every tragedy have to become a reason for conservatives and liberals to fight over whose side is better? These people lost their homes, now's not the time for a political debate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot...logical-debate

I am a Volunteer Firefighter. Interestingly enough, on a firefighter discussion board I frequent, the guys there are pretty horrified that the department did not put out the fire. The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF, the firefighter union) has spoken out against this city's policy and believes that firefighters should not have to check who has paid and who hasn't before responding to a call.

And yes, rest assured, if there were people inside the home, I know in my heart that firefighters would go in for the rescue. I just couldn't fathom a firefighter letting a person die for lack of a subscription fee.

.....Kelly :)

Because the result is a homeless person. (or people) The destruction of property and the risk to neighboring land/property/people is also dumb.

It doesn't make sense not to just assess the "out of area" people the same fee via taxes or some other mandatory fashion. Particularly since the firefighters were completely capable of showing up quickly and doing something about it.

We all pay for policemen even if our house is never broken into. All property owners (in most areas of the country) pay for schools even if they don't have children. All drivers (and others) pay for roads even if they swear they're never taking the interstate anywhere. Having firefighting services be the exception to that rule is dangerous and stupid.

None of your examples are on point though. None of the folks in those situations have the ability to opt out. In this case, the "victims" opted out of paying a pretty cheap annual fee to have protection. They consciously made that decision.

When I lived in the middle of nowhere, TN, we had a tractor catch fire. The nearby town's firefighters came out - and then sent a bill. Our homeowner's insurance paid for it.

You missed the point or made it for me? No, you can't opt out of those other services because society has deemed them important. It wouldn't make sense for us to pay an optional "police fee" and have the police refuse to show up/investigate crime/arrest an intruder/do their job if you haven't paid your fee.

The guy's a victim no matter what. No scare quotes needed. He's homeless because his house burned down. And if you read an article where they interviewed him he actually says that he thought they'd put it out anyway and tried to pay them on the scene. Can you imagine watching your home and everything you own being destroyed in front of your eyes? The guy was a stubborn idiot when he wouldn't pay the fee, no doubt. But it's an illogical and counterproductive for society to let him opt out in the first place.

There's no logical reason for it NOT to be required. We pay for a lot of things "just in case" no matter how unlikely the outcome is. It's like people who complain about how their taxes shouldn't go to schools because they don't have kids, or to hospitals because they never get sick, and so on. Allowing it in the case of the fire dept. is dumb.