I really don't understand the outrage I've seen on this one.
Fee-for-fire-service has been around for years, nay, was the original way it was implemented. It is incredibly common in rural areas.
That $75 per year probably covered the department's insurance costs for the house, so if a FF were injured or killed, the insurance would pay out. Otherwise if a FF had been injured during that fire, they'd be SOL.
Nope, sorry. It completely negates the meaning of social institutions to stand around watching someone's house burn because they didn't pay an administrative fee.
If those are the social institutions they have voted for and set up, they get what they get. They should have set up better social institutions. This is what being all bootstrappy gets you, is your house burned to the ground. They get to live with the consequences of their stupidity.
Indeed - I see it says "“...It wasn’t until that fire spread to a neighbor’s property, that anyone would respond” — only because the neighbor had paid the fee." - I wonder how much damage was caused to the neighbour's property before they put it out, which might have been avoided if the fire was put out straight away...
The original fire insurance departments in the US - in the 1700s - used to put out the fires on properties adjacent to the ones who were actually insured, because prevention was better business.
Oh, and for the record, I think it's insanely stupid they didn't have a tax arrangement to provide fire coverage or had their own fire company for such.
I was being sarcastic. As far as I'm concerned, if you choose to live within the bounds of a society, you get to pay taxes for public goods. And public goods should be public goods - trying to privatize and divvy up things like fire service, ambulance, etc. makes no damn sense at all (as this article shows with extreme prejudice).
I don't think being around for years makes it okay - it's sad it takes stories like to get people to see the problems.
Regarding your later comment - not everyone living there votes for it. Most of the time, people don't vote on issues as specific as that at all. We have no idea what the political views are of those whose house burned down.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2010-10-04 09:31 pm (UTC)From:Fee-for-fire-service has been around for years, nay, was the original way it was implemented. It is incredibly common in rural areas.
That $75 per year probably covered the department's insurance costs for the house, so if a FF were injured or killed, the insurance would pay out. Otherwise if a FF had been injured during that fire, they'd be SOL.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-04 09:33 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-04 09:37 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-04 09:38 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-04 10:15 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-05 04:34 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-04 09:33 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-04 09:35 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-04 09:42 pm (UTC)From:I'd love a real tax cut that didn't involve the rich, or bloated corporate entities.
But police, fire, sanitation and roads? Those I will gladly pay for every time.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-04 09:44 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-10-04 10:07 pm (UTC)From:Regarding your later comment - not everyone living there votes for it. Most of the time, people don't vote on issues as specific as that at all. We have no idea what the political views are of those whose house burned down.