The incentive to pay the fee is not to lose your house or your life to a fire. A rural house is not inherently more flame retardant than an urban one. There are no fire plains like there are flood plains and a coin flip is not in any way comparable unless coming up tails means losing everything you own.

Your coin flip scenario is really more like "spend 75 a year and no matter whether its heads or tails someone will at least make the effort to help you" vs. "lose everything that you own including possibly your life if you flip tails 6 times in a row, but that's really unlikely so you're probably safe, right?" There is no reasonable cost/benefit analysis present.

Economists may try but life does not work like a spreadsheet.

I don't mean to patronize, but . . . you really can't see how differing odds can and should influence public policy? I'm kind of confused here - you're not willing at all to look at the other side here?

Do you own earthquake insurance? If you're anywhere near the Midwest (EDIT: I thought you lived in the region), the risk is minuscule but the risk of ruin is huge. You're apparently arguing that any massive ROR is something people should be forced to mitigate - so should we have mandatory earthquake insurance?

Also, fire is BETTER than flood plains, and not worse, as far as comparison - we all have the SAME fire exposure, minus (essentially) "smoking" or "making fireworks."

I guess I'm just confused why you're so intractable here. (REMOVED PERSONAL COMMENTARY THAT MAY/MAY NOT BE PATRONIZING)

I don't own a house, but I believe that a surprising number of people are covered for earthquakes in the midwest because, you know, we had a 5.0 a few years ago and the New Madrid fault is right here.

When it comes to policy, yes, these things should be, for better or worse, considered. However from a policy standpoint, making a mandatory fee (and yes less than 75 makes sense since more people would be bought into it, unless this was the one lone holdout) does not cost more as long as you're already collecting some form of taxes from the residents. So I see no benefit to "society" by having the fee be optional. I see no benefit to the individual to be able to opt out either. If it were 2k a year, talk to me again.


It's not just that I dislike the weighing of lives as if they were coins on a scale, it's that no matter how you weigh them I see no way that not paying for a fire department is a benefit. None. I don't see a single argument here in this thread that is convincing. That's why I'm not moving on it, because I see absolutely no reason to move.

And if rural communities are equally at risk for fire- flammable materials, tanks of fertilizer, brush/prairie/forest fires, tractor or other vehicle fires, lightning, random electrical shorts, arson, whatever the case may be - it makes no sense to me to have differing policies towards fire protection purely on the grounds of location. (Obviously I don't know the statistics, but fire is more like a tornado than an earthquake as far as its frequency and effects. It's far more random and not as widely devastating as floods or earthquakes. However cross comparing disasters really isn't effective or relevant here) The city is willing to and capable of provide service to the county residents. From there it's purely about money. Which means it's doable and both stupid and irresponsible not to manage.

If you're going to write something off as "purely about money" then we'll clearly never find a common ground - remember that it was originally life, liberty and pursuit of property. Money matters - it isn't a minor speed bump, it's an actual protected right for Americans.

Actually it's life liberty and property, not pursuit of. And it was an English concept that actually never made it into the Declaration.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness*. And they're in the declaration, not the constitution.

If it is acceptable to infringe on people's "rights" to have their houses burn down, or something, in the city, then it is the same in the country. Hence the comparisons of the two. If it is unacceptable, well, bring the pitchforks, but leave the torches at home, and storm city hall.

If it is acceptable in the country and doable in the country and not being done then odds are the issue is about money.

No where did I write the whole thing off as "just about money." I was referring to the municipal provider. As noted in that paragraph.

I'm admittedly in a pissy mood tonight, but seriously I'd prefer it if people read my entire posts before mischaracterizing my point. Disagree all you like, but do so honestly.


*Can't undo the edits of Jefferson and Franklin, even if they lifted the phrasing from Virginia.

... because large swaths of Americans couldn't own property, but those property guarantees still made themselves into law for property owners, right?

I have no idea what you're saying.
Seriously, none.

The quote from the VA Declaration of Rights:
ETA: I think I get what you're saying, but your original point, and your misquote, was wrong. We infringe on people's "rights" to their property all the time. Either you can't tell anyone what to do with their property or you can, within reasonable limits for the welfare of all. America has gone with "you can, within reason." You can disagree, but we've been long down that road.

I may be misstating my point in a rush to get back to online poker, but I'm stating that when the Declaration was signed, women, blacks, etc. couldn't own property.

Did the original VA DoR apply to those folks? Because it would seem contrary to many founders' homesteads, but I could be wrong.

I don't know, why did you mis-cite the line about property in the first place? You brought it out here, so you gotta do something with it. I showed the VA DoR because it was the only apparent source for your comment and I'm frankly baffled at why its relevant myself.

Right, this is exactly what I'm saying - you have to provide a compelling reason to step on someone's proverbial toes.

This story does not seem like a compelling reason, unless you're willing to open the doors to all of the arguments I've offered. You're arguing a "greater-good" issue when something literally only affects one family. There's no "greater-good" benefit, and you haven't proven the "whole" isn't better off - I suspect they are, that the extra $75 over time would be better than a single fire.

Also, if you want, I can try to find the #s of people with legitimate (not snake-oil) earthquake insurance from clients - I guarantee it'll be MUCH lower than you expect. Lower than flood insurance in non-Zone A/B areas. Much lower.

I mis-cited out of stupidity and poor memory - my point, though, was that money isn't a fungible issue. It's not self-evident that "it's only $75" is even a valid point, because that dude gets the benefit of the doubt w/re: his property/money, within reason and within the law (and this isn't recent - it's kind of the basis of what we do here).

I missed all of this in the cross-posting, which might be part of the problem.

This is demonstrably false - first, because your language is unnecessarily inflammatory (if this is a "rights" issue, it's not so in the way you've described here), and second, because situational or temporal issues often dictate differences in how rights are applied.

I address this above - but "money" isn't some fungible topic. It isn't an unlimited well. And it isn't anything that is guaranteed.

Note this is kind of at odds with the above.

And there is no municipal provider - at least none directly responsible. This is completely beyond what would be expected. This changes the calculus.

That's fair, and I didn't mean to mischaracterize - I promise it wasn't intentionally taking points out of context or anything else.

Ditto this.

Also, if the firefighters had gone ahead and put out the house fire how many people would pay the $75 for the next year? The ability to assist anyone at anytime would be compromised.

The radio report I heard said it was the neighbor's house. Field or house, either way, the neighbor suffered property damage.

I could agree with this IF and ONLY IF it could be guaranteed that by letting this person's property burn, it would not affect any of his/her neighbors. Since this is impossible to guarantee, I cannot accept this as an argument. If a fire like this sparked a wild fire that burned hundreds of thousands of acres, took lives, etc., would you feel the same way?

These are the same people who complain about paying taxes because we don't need public schools, and all the cops do is give me speeding tickets, and we don't need any new roads; the ones we have right now are just fine.

They lived in a rural area outside of the coverage area, were offered the service at a ridiculously cheap amount and didn't pay. They even said they thought in case of an emergency they'd be able to get away with it. They deserve everything they got. It's too bad the neighbor had difficulty, and they should have to pay the neighbor's damages as well. But the firemen did nothing wrong and hopefully this will serve as a lesson that the cost of 3 cases of beer per year might be better used for the health and safety of your family and your property.

This is very intriguing to me, as my sil & I had an argument about this very thing about a month ago. She said that the firemen have to put out a fire, whether or not you pay them. In my mother's and my borough, you make a "donation" of $50 a year to the fire department, and she doesn't think we should pay the $50 on my mother's house. :rolleyes: I have many friends & family members who are or have been firemen. The amount of training that they do is incredible! Frankly, I don't know how they do it, especially when there's a death.

If nothing ever happens, it's worth $50 to know that the firemen would be there, should something happen. I do feel very sorry about the pets that died, though.

I think plenty would if the firefighters saved the house, then billed them the entire cost of the rescue effort. That's what happens with insurance, right? You either pay this low fee or, if you refuse, you can gamble and end up paying it all. The couple wouldn't have lost everything, the fire department would recoup the money from them, and even more neighbors would probably pay the $75 instead of the bajillion they see these two paying back.

In theory this sounds like a good idea and one that could have been implemented by the fire department. In practice there is absolute no guarantee that the family would pay the bill. We don't know why they didn't pay the original $75. It could have been because they didn't have the money, they didn't prioritze the money, or they felt that they should be taken care of without having to pay the fee. Those same reasons could be used against paying a much, much steeper bill sent after the fact.

Admittedly I am looking through my own prism of being in healthcare for 15 years and dealing with people who use all of the above to keep from paying their bills. Yes, that makes me a bit jaded and yes, that saddens me. However, it has also exposed me to a reasonably-sized segment of the population that just doesn't pay bills and has absolutely no qualms about it.

I am guessing it was well known in those parts that no subscription fee = no services. At least it is crystal clear in my area. Crystal clear. I find it very hard to believe that the family didn't know that they were taking a chance by not subscribing to the fire service, which was optional.

Under what obligation would the homeowner have to repay the fire department?

Now you're requiring the firefighters to get a binding legal consent that the dude will pay whatever it costs to put out the fire, in addition to whatever else is going on? Seriously.

Also, why not just allow them to gamble, oh, in the way it currently allows? You pay the $75 or gamble the fire?

I think you're not even close to how this would (or should) really work.

Echoing KSig RC: the "pay it all" in this scenario is the loss of property and belongings.

And what if one of the firefighters had died while putting out the fire? Would the family be liable to be sued for his family's loss?

Well then, I guess it's lucky that this is just a message board, all of these are hypothetical situations, and I really couldn't care less what you think. :rolleyes:

I was suggesting that could be part of the overall contract (the same one that dictates $75 gets you services). The couple in question begged the firefighters to save their house and they would pay whatever fee it took. That's what made me think of it. No, that's not the best case scenario, there are lots of reasons it wouldn't work, and I'm sure there are loads of better options, possibly including what happened in reality. But, given the fact that a homeless couple who has lost all their possessions is not the best case scenario either, that's the idea I would contribute.

As for the whole "if a fireman died" situation, I don't think the family would be liable for that. For one, just the way people keep saying "you know what could happen if you don't pay your fee," I'm sure people would say "you risk your life with every call, that's part of the job." I think that's pretty callous, but people would go there. Moreover, if it was the department who overrode the "don't save the house" order, then I would think the liability would swing toward them. But I don't know a lot about legal matters and liability, so I'm really not sure.

The world I want to live in does not respond to someone experiencing such tragedy with "he got what he deserved.'

Would you feel different if someone's car was totaled, but s/he refused to get insurance?

I was talking to someone about this the other day. He felt bad, but put it this way...
In the suburbs and city where it is of public interest and safety to have fire services included, it is part of taxes. In a rural area, you pay for this seperately, just like a tax. If you don't pay your taxes, you can lose your house (without a fire). How is this any different? I thought it was a good point.

I had this incredibly intelligent and well thought out <grin> post written last night and put it in the wrong thread. I deleted it without copying it first so I will try to re-create it.

In my own perception of local government, I think that their primary purposes are providing: 1) law enforcement, 2) fire protection/paramedics, 3) waste disposal, 4) maintenance of roads and 5) run elections. I see these items as the essential services needed to maintain a municipality for the good of the community as a whole in a democratic society whether performed by actual government workers or a privatized company hired by the municipality. Other things that they do such as maintain libraries, parks and recs programs, zoning/building codes all seem to be less important functions. When paying my taxes, those first five are the things I expect to get for my money. If they aren't doing these things, what in the world are they doing?

I simply cannot comprehend why this would not be a fee built into the taxes and then paid to the other city/township/municipality as a whole for the good of the entire community. When we see acres and acres destroyed by wild fires every year, it is in everybody's best interest to have fire protection built into basic taxes. Do we really want to rely on each individual paying a subscription fee to prevent massive damage from a wild fire? I just cannot understand that mentality. If it only affected that one person, fine. A fire does not just affect one person/household if allowed to spread.

I do think they did the right thing given the system in place. I think the system in place is severely flawed.

The firefighters were basically contracting with the rural city. In essence, it was "We're not supposed to be covering your area, but we've decided to add to our workload and help you out. If you want us to help, pay this fee."

IIRC, this was implemented in 1990, so it isn't like this was something new. They know the risk that comes along with not paying for this insurance (just like we know the risk that comes along with not paying for car, life, home, vision, dental, etc insurance) and they chose to ignore it.

It sucks that they lost everything, but them's the breaks. I can guarantee that if anyone "lost it all" from any of those other types of insurance, no one would bat an eye.

Yes, I understand that and support their actions, given the circumstances. My point is that the circumstances are poor. We have had communities that made the decision to eliminate some services and other municipalities have taken over the actual service, but the original municipality collected the taxes and then paid the other city for the service. This seems like a better way to handle it to me.

FWIW - In an interview the owner said everything was insured.

I generally feel that compassion is an important part of life - it isn't an important part of running a business, though. For better or worse, the fire department is run as such by contractual obligation.

It's not that he got what he "deserved" - he did, though, get what he bargained for (literally). If he was misinformed or not at all informed as to what would happen, then that's really unfortunate and the county should take a hard look at the way it handles its business. However, it really seems he disregarded all of the information he had - just as we can say "A person's home and possessions shouldn't be compromised over a mere $75" that can be flipped on the homeowner, too, who thought that $75 apparently wasn't important to pay.

That's fine - I think that came off more harsh than I anticipated, but it's not like you're required to listen to what I have to say.

However, this is more what I meant:

I see what you're saying - my point was just that the way that it could work and the way that it did work on-site can't really be compared. I'm sure there's a better solution, in a holistic sense, and I'm sure I'm not qualified to judge or determine the "best" scenario. It's the difference between (as you said) a hypothetical and what actually happened.

I think we can say, however, that once the $75 decision had been made in the past, changing the contract situation "on the fly" (while a fire is raging) would be very difficult at best, and might even be untenable/impossible.

If the community/county as a whole decides it would be better to make this decision for each person (and require paying for outside fire protection), that's certainly their right to do so. However, there is certainly something to be said for allowing people to make their own purchase/protection/safety decisions in low-risk scenarios (that generally don't affect the community as a whole) - and there isn't a 100%-sure method to determine where to draw the line. It's going to definitely be an "agree-to-disagree" scenario at that point.

No, I wouldn't feel different. Might I feel slightly differently if they were driving drunk and totaled their car? Maybe, but not entirely.

No one 'deserves' tragedy. People are responsible for their actions, but I do not believe that people 'get what's coming to them' or that it's something to hope for.

I think you are reading into peoples comments wrong. No one is reveling in the fact that he lost his house and property. Like others have said, he made a gamble and lost.

No where did I say 'revel.'

I don't think anybody was "hoping" for a negative outcome for the family either, though - a fire, even an insured one, is a harrowing experience and nothing to wish upon anybody.

Acknowledging that the guy made a decision whether or not to pay a fee and thus gain fire protection isn't the same as hoping for the worst-case scenario. Similarly, feeling that it is a good thing to allow people to choose for themselves whether to purchase fire coverage isn't some sort of cynical or inhumane notion. Quite the opposite, in fact - I'd argue it's a sign of having faith that the average dude or dudette can make a rational decision in his/her own best interest and acknowledging that person's ideal risk tolerance. That's pretty positive, I think.

Does it always work out? Of course not, but that's life.

Sorry, you won't convince me that there's any 'best interest' or 'risk tolerance' in not purchasing fire department coverage. This wasn't insurance. That's neither cynical nor an optimistic view on life. It's just a bad idea.

It's pretty much the worst place to push a 'small government' argument in my opinion. And no, no one's been successful at influencing it.

This is really just a cost/benefit issue at heart - obviously we have different ideas of how to balance it, but "bad idea" is kind of silly. Amenities of city life can be outrageously expensive and difficult to provide in the country - it would be a bad idea to say, across the board, that no amount of cost is too high for something like a rural fire department.

Ha, fair enough. I'm not pushing a general "small government" agenda here - I think most "small government" proponents are really just running a NIMBY argument under the guise of something vaguely constitutional - but rather, in this specific instance, this seems like a fine time to allow an individual a (very simple) choice.

Which is why I said if it were $2k we could talk but that if $75 provides coverage then it's a lose-lose situation for all involved with no benefit to not providing the services via a mutual agreement between the county/municipality and paying for it via taxes.

If it were $2k either the person would be living on a mountain cliff accessible only by goat or the municipality would be charging unreasonable prices and the county should find a different solution. Not providing fire department coverage is still not the right answer.

Additional 'what ifs' could be thrown in here, but the fact of the matter is, the guy lives in an area accessible by the fire dept and well within their ability to provide such services otherwise they wouldn't be offered. Said services are provided at a 'cost' of $75. In that situation the guy should have bought the services. However, I still find no reason on the county, city or individual's part that they should be optional in the first place.

I haven't seen anyone push a "small government" opinion.

I could, if you want because your arguments have been silly so far.