Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
I like you a lot, you seem like a bright and well-meaning person . . . 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, the risk is minuscule but the risk of ruin 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.
|
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.