Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB
After reading all of this, there's one thing I still can't believe...
People in the midwest have Earthquake Insurance? I live on the Ring of Fire, and I don't have Earthquake Insurance. I don't know anyone here in Seattle who has it, and we have lots of faults running all over the place. The only people I know with EI live in California. A 5.0 is a pretty small earthquake, one that won't cause any significant - if any - damage. We have them in the west pretty regularly and sometimes you can't even really feel them.
Earthquake insurance in the midwest is as necessary as tornado insurance is in the west. In other words, ridiculous.
|
Feck if I know, I've never owned a house. I don't believe people get 'tornado insurance' here either though it's covered in homeowner's plans. Perhaps because we're not out in Cali, we don't have to buy separate earthquake insurance. I don't recall any issues being reported following the damage from the 5.0 (which might be quite minor to you but freaked people the hell out and caused some minor damage). But we didn't have any damage ourselves so no clue. My point was more that to my knowledge people are 'covered' not necessarily that they buy separate policies. However I could be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk
That's not a small government argument.
That's a medium sized government argument. A small government argument is that the public fire service should have never existed.
|
That's probably the stupidest thing in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie93
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
|
I still don't see it as an either/or situation. I get that they probably didn't want to pay more in taxes, however I don't see why the county couldn't contract with the city and charge the country residents via county taxes. It wouldn't cost any more than it does now and possibly less.
It shouldn't be about incorporation vs. optional fee, IMO. And the fact that incorporation was on the table, not a requirement to pay for emergency services, brings a lot more issues into play.