Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
Because it took 20 years for a tragedy to happen to make them rethink it? I'm not a resident, so I wouldn't know. Status quo is hard to change without outside force.
Regardless as an outside observer, which is the only way any of us can comment, it was a terrible policy.
|
I follow what you are saying through the thread that the policy is the issue here, and that fire should not be a fee for service.
As to your other points above, I can add this since maybe I am not quite as much as an "outside observer." I live in the same general region of the country as this incident. Also, as I have stated prior in this thread, I also live just outside my local city limits and must subscribe to an identical type fire service if I want fire protection. Mine runs $128 year.
Earlier this year the city tried to annex a very large portion of the county, including my 600+ home subdivision (<1 mile from city limits) as well as several other areas that could be actually be considered rural. There was huge outrage against this effort, possibly bordering on 90% of the affected residents against it.
The main reason that the residents were against it is that they are happy with the private services that they contract with (fire, garbage, sewer, etc) and feel that the huge increase in taxes (~150%) would not get them any better way of life.
So, as to your view that fire protection should never be "fee for service-" at the present time the people in my area have not been swayed by this story even though the exact same thing could happen here. Our county residents continue to think that the subsription service is a much better option than paying city taxes.
/2 cents from a not-quite-so-outsider