My own personal opinion is that the fire department should have put the fire out. They had gone out there anyway, in case a neighboring house whose owners had paid the fee caught fire (which happened - and I have to wonder how those neighbors feel now that they have to deal with fire damage). So they should have rescued any people or pets that needed rescuing, and extinguished the fire. And then they should have slapped the homeowners with a huge fee. Of course, then you have to think about whether the homeowners would have paid the huge fee, given that the fire is now out...
I live in an area where some services are municipal and some must be contracted for privately. Police, fire, recycling, snow plowing for my street, are all covered in my property taxes. Water and sewer are not - I'm on well and septic. Garbage collection other than recycling is also not paid for by my property taxes. I bought the house knowing I'd be paying monthly for trash removal, and paying a septic company every couple of years to pump my septic tank, and paying a plumber as needed if something went wrong with the well - and if I didn't pay, there would be consequences - uncollected garbage, backed-up septic, no water.
These people bought their house knowing that they would have to pay an annual fee if they wanted the fire department to take care of them, and that if they didn't pay, there would be consequences. I just think the consequences in their case should have been a hefty fine rather than homelessness.
__________________
AEΦ ... Multa Corda, Una Causa ... Celebrating Over 100 Years of Sisterhood
Have no place I can be since I found Serenity, but you can't take the sky from me...
Only those who risk going too far, find out how far they can go.
|