Opt-In Fire Protection

[bmags]

oh i thought you meant the $75.

[EvilMonkey]

He only had to 'opt in' because he didn't pay any taxes to that town at all, much less for fire service. I agree they probably should have put it out and then billed him to the max, but he sort of deserved it for taking a gamble that failed. How will people learn if you bail them out of their mistakes all the time? He was aware of the lack of fire coverage, and aware of the opt in fee to BE covered by a neighboring town to which he paid no taxes. He chose. Poorly.

[lostfan]

He only had to 'opt in' because he didn't pay any taxes to that town at all, much less for fire service. I agree they probably should have put it out and then billed him to the max, but he sort of deserved it for taking a gamble that failed. How will people learn if you bail them out of their mistakes all the time? He was aware of the lack of fire coverage, and aware of the opt in fee to BE covered by a neighboring town to which he paid no taxes. He chose. Poorly.

Yeah, the way he went about it was pretty stupid. I still think opt-in fire service is a terrible idea, though.

[Texsox]

I saw an interview with him last night. He made a great comment. He pointed out the lack of industry in their area and asked rhetorically, if you were a business thinking of moving there, would you? He claims he forgot to pay it and also mentioned county taxes that he paid that do go to the city's general fund. If they have his money in the general fund doesn't that allow the city to take general funds and move them to the fire protection district? Seems like a valid point.

 

A giant red flag to me is he also mentioned people he knew who did not pay it *and* the city still responded.

[bmags]

He only had to 'opt in' because he didn't pay any taxes to that town at all, much less for fire service. I agree they probably should have put it out and then billed him to the max, but he sort of deserved it for taking a gamble that failed. How will people learn if you bail them out of their mistakes all the time? He was aware of the lack of fire coverage, and aware of the opt in fee to BE covered by a neighboring town to which he paid no taxes. He chose. Poorly.

 

Who cares though, if you live in that town and a bunch of people forget to pay it (which is likely in opt-in models), you still have to deal with a bunch of empty burned down properties and that affects you. This is like, the classic collective action model, it's stupid to mess with.

[EvilMonkey]

Who cares though, if you live in that town and a bunch of people forget to pay it (which is likely in opt-in models), you still have to deal with a bunch of empty burned down properties and that affects you. This is like, the classic collective action model, it's stupid to mess with.

it doesn't effect the town with the fire department. Their residents are covered by their property taxes. Why would they care what happens in the unincorporated areas? There should be provision for putting it out anyway for those who don't pay, but STEEP provisions, not just a few hundred bucks.

[EvilMonkey]

A giant red flag to me is he also mentioned people he knew who did not pay it *and* the city still responded.

That's a different issue, but a serious one for the department if true.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's a different issue, but a serious one for the department if true.

It puts the FD in an awful position - you are telling firefighters to stand there and watch a building burn down.

 

[Texsox]

It puts the FD in an awful position - you are telling firefighters to stand there and watch a building burn down.

 

 

Or even worse, they watched as fire burned down a house while saving the neighbors grass. They did work to contain the flames. What would have happened if this fire jumped out of control and thousands of acres burned?

[Rex Kickass]

He only had to 'opt in' because he didn't pay any taxes to that town at all, much less for fire service. I agree they probably should have put it out and then billed him to the max, but he sort of deserved it for taking a gamble that failed. How will people learn if you bail them out of their mistakes all the time? He was aware of the lack of fire coverage, and aware of the opt in fee to BE covered by a neighboring town to which he paid no taxes. He chose. Poorly.

 

Apparently he paid every year prior to this year, and the bill just didn't get paid this year and it was unintentional FWIW.

[EvilMonkey]

Apparently he paid every year prior to this year, and the bill just didn't get paid this year and it was unintentional FWIW.

Do you have a link for that info anywhere? Because I heard on the radio today that this wasn't the first fire at this guys place, and the last time he hadn't paid either. But I can't find that online anywhere.

[EvilMonkey]

Do you have a link for that info anywhere? Because I heard on the radio today that this wasn't the first fire at this guys place, and the last time he hadn't paid either. But I can't find that online anywhere.

OK, I found an article that said this wasn't the first time he had missed paying, but he had only missed one time before. Also nothig about him having a previous fire. The one I saw did mention that he also was woefully under insured because he didn't think he needed it.

[Rex Kickass]

Do you have a link for that info anywhere? Because I heard on the radio today that this wasn't the first fire at this guys place, and the last time he hadn't paid either. But I can't find that online anywhere.

 

My source was the radio driving into work yesterday morning, but I do think that the point is irrelevant. So is the point about him having his property insured.

 

Personally, I think that if a public entity chooses to offer fire protection for some of its citizens, it should offer that protection for all of its citizens. That's why we pay taxes in the first place.

[EvilMonkey]

My source was the radio driving into work yesterday morning, but I do think that the point is irrelevant. So is the point about him having his property insured.

 

Personally, I think that if a public entity chooses to offer fire protection for some of its citizens, it should offer that protection for all of its citizens. That's why we pay taxes in the first place.

It DOES offer it for all of its citizens. it also offered it for residents outside their area, for a fee. Which is where he was, outside their area.

 

My point about him not having enough insurance is that the man is an idiot.

[StrangeSox]

Therefore, he deserves to watch his house burn down over $75.

[EvilMonkey]

Therefore, he deserves to watch his house burn down over $75.

Why does the dollar amoount matter? If it was $7500 would that have been better? The fact that it was as low as $75, which probably didn't even cover the gas for them to go there makes it all that much wierder that he didn't pay it. He didn't pay a bill for a service, and the service didn't have in place a system to pay after the fact. Try to but the extended warranty on your TV after it breaks, see what happens. Try to buy car insurance after you plow into a tree, enjoy. He screwed up, didn't pay a bill, and lost. His taxes don't go to that town, so the town owed him nothing. Now, the morally correct thing would have been to put it out and bill his ass heavily afterwards, but again, that is a different issue.

[StrangeSox]

Analogies to TV's or cars don't work because this is a public service. Tax revenues are hurt. Property values are hurt. The community is hurt. Someone lost their house and their pets burned alive.

 

The town had the resources to put out a fire and the mayor chose not to. You can't divorce the moral issue here.

 

 

[Iwritecode]

Good thing the police department doesn't work this way.

 

We'd like to come and help you with the man that just broke into your house with a large knife but you didn't pay the $75 fee for police protection. We're sorry that he killed a few of your family members but maybe next time you'll learn. Call us back if he breaks into your neighbor's house.

 

Edited October 8, 2010 by Iwritecode

[EvilMonkey]

Analogies to TV's or cars don't work because this is a public service. Tax revenues are hurt. Property values are hurt. The community is hurt. Someone lost their house and their pets burned alive.

 

The town had the resources to put out a fire and the mayor chose not to. You can't divorce the moral issue here.

You still keep slightly missing the point. This man's property was NOT IN THAT TOWN, so therefor the town lost zero property tax revenue and property value. That town had no legal obligation to put out his fire since he did not pay taxes that went to the fire department and did not pay the fee that would have given him access to that service. You can seperate out the two. And they did.

[BigSqwert]

You still keep slightly missing the point. This man's property was NOT IN THAT TOWN, so therefor the town lost zero property tax revenue and property value. That town had no legal obligation to put out his fire since he did not pay taxes that went to the fire department and did not pay the fee that would have given him access to that service. You can seperate out the two. And they did.

Then why did they even show up to house? To taunt him?

[StrangeSox]

You still keep slightly missing the point. This man's property was NOT IN THAT TOWN, so therefor the town lost zero property tax revenue and property value. That town had no legal obligation to put out his fire since he did not pay taxes that went to the fire department and did not pay the fee that would have given him access to that service. You can seperate out the two. And they did.

 

They had the resources and elected not to act.

[EvilMonkey]

They had the resources and elected not to act.

And your point is?

[StrangeSox]

That they are terrible people and no good comes from this policy. It is indefensible.

[EvilMonkey]

That they are terrible people and no good comes from this policy. It is indefensible.

If you let one not pay and then pay only at the moment they need it, soon everyone will just not pay until they need it. What point is there in having rules, deadline, etc if you just gonna pat everyone on the head when they f*** up and say 'that's ok, we'll fix it'. Personal responsibilty. he KNEW he had to make a payment, and didn't. He made that payment (almost) every year he had been there, did he just suddenly think it would be ok if he skipped, just this once? He may have initially 'forgot' to pay it, but the bill was there somewhere, unless he threw it away, and if he continued to 'forget' it, then that is nobody's fault but his own. The fire department should have never went out there to begin with, and if, as Tex mentioned earlier, they HAVE put out some fires and billed afterwards, then that leaves the department open to a whole host of other problems. But this guy made a HUGE mistake, and this time it bit him in the ass.

 

(Just to point out, I am not happy for his loss, or the loss of the pets. I DO think they should have had a plan in place to put it out and then bill him up the wazoo so hard he couldn't sit for years, but they didn't, and he didn't pay, so that's that.)

[StrangeSox]

You're still not really defending this policy or the decisions made. They could have put out the fire. They could have billed him later even if no formal mechanism exists. Instead of expanding this policy, they can get these payments covered in other manners so situations like this don't arise.

 

What they should not have done, either as government officials or decent human beings, is let this man's house burn down and then head out there to put out the remains. The mayor could have chosen to handle this differently regardless of what the policy is.

 

I notice the theme in your posts that this man needs to be punished for his actions. "bit him in the ass" "learn his lesson" "bill him up the wazoo so hard". Yes, he chose poorly, but that decision could have been rectified without much difficulty and without harm to anyone else; why is this suffering and punishment necessary? What good does that serve?