[Fr_Chuck]

It is a issue of jurisdiction and authority, Fire protection in many areas have been taken over by the city or by the county, ( and I have seen fire departments stop because they discover it is in a different district and will not proceed but go back to their department and just call the other. ** their insurance does not cover them outside of their area unless ordered by higher up in the department

But there are other areas that have no service because either their city or county has not approved, or can not fund such a service, The voters have to agree to pay for it.

[tomder55]

nothing logical in a system of fire protection that says you have to pay before you are protected.

What is taxes but pay in advance for a service ? What is your medical insurance or auto insurance but a pay before services are delivered ?

[paraclete]

What is taxes but pay in advance for a service ? What is your medical insurance or auto insurance but a pay before services are delivered ?

Tom there are some things that have a common good and some that have an individual good. We would not think of paying for a road before we used it or the sewerage system even though these things are funded by contribution, call it taxes if you will. Why should a fire service be any different? Would you like to extend this principle to the police service? Or other emergency services? Of course not. This was plainly wrong, the result of wrong thinking. In some places certain types of indemnity insurance is manadated, you cannot drive a car without it, this is done for the common good, because there are irresponsible individuals who game the system. Even medical insurance is mandated in some places for the same reason.

What I see implicit in your answer is acceptance that taxes pay for services even though some people contribute at a different level or don't contribute at all. To take certain people outside the system and say no contribtion, no service is discrimatory

[tomder55]

We would not think of paying for a road before we used it or the sewerage system

I've been paying for a sewer system for years that will not be hooked up in my neighborhood for another 2-3 years.

Fire equipment must be purchased and fire personal trained long before they are called upon to save your house.

To take certain people outside the system and say no contribtion, no service is discrimatory

The house in question was not in the taxing authority of the town That is why the fee system was set up . But just like in health care ,you think people are entitled to services for free. The world doesn't work that way.

As I have said ;the fire dept should've fought the fire. But buillt into the system should be a severe fine for allowing the fee to laps if the fire dept is called upon to protect the property. I see that comparable to the fines the dept imposes on business owners who's alarm system triggers a false alarm.

[paraclete]

I've been paying for a sewer system for years that will not be hooked up in my neighborhood for another 2-3 years.

Fire equipment must be purchased and fire personal trained long before they are called upon to save your house.


The house in question was not in the taxing authority of the town That is why the fee system was set up . But just like in health care ,you think people are entitled to services for free. The world doesn't work that way.

As I have said ;the fire dept should've fought the fire. But buillt into the system should be a severe fine for allowing the fee to laps if the fire dept is called upon to protect the property. I see that comparable to the fines the dept imposes on business owners who's alarm system triggers a false alarm.

There is apparently a very different ethos between you and me Tom, I don't subscribe to a system that allows a town to be selective about who is in or out of a service area. I used to live in a situation that might have paralled this but we were not left without any responder. There is a concept here which appears to be missing there, and that is the last resort, and it basically obligates a service to respond if no other service can. It is called a community service obligation. Maybe this is because our services are organised at state level and so local politics is kept out of the picture and the question of funding is a separate issue to be argued out by bureaucrats.
Now this may not be very efficient and a service might respond that is further from the scene than is desirable, but for the common good and to ensure protection of life in the broad sense response is made. I think our attitudes come from living closer to a pioneering environment, we have to depend on our neighbours

I can't see why they didn't have a non-subscriber fee they could impose which could be levied on the insurer or the owner either.

[excon]

The house in question was not in the taxing authority of the town That is why the fee system was set up .

Hello again, tom:

You keep saying this as though he didn't live in ANY taxing authority. He DID, and it was THAT taxing authority who did wrong. Services COULD have been purchased for EVERYBODY. They SHOULD have done so. Period, end of story. They put the fire department and homeowners, those who paid and those who didn't pay, into a no win situation.

Everybody here wants to blame the poor homeowner or the fire department... Why don't you blame GOVERNMENT? I thought you HATED government. Here's you chance...

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, tom:

You keep saying this as though he didn't live in ANY taxing authority. He DID, and it was THAT taxing authority who did wrong. Services COULD have been . They put the fire department and homeowners, those who paid and those who didn't pay, into a no win situation.

excon

Come on Ex it's more than that, they turned their fire department into a collection agency, this was nothing more than a legalised protection racket

[tomder55]

Because in this case the government is not at fault. The question of taxing at the county level was proposed and rejected. That is what the people in the unincorporated parts of the county wanted . This system is a good deal for them. An annual fee of $75 is not a burden... period . I bet these folks paid more monthly on cell phone text and internet access,or satellite television .

[speechlesstx]

Services COULD have been purchased for EVERYBODY. They SHOULD have done so. Period, end of story.

Our government is allegedly "of the people, by the people, for the people." That's what the left ignores, that WE are the government and the government serves the people. Instead, like you they believe the government is some higher entity whose duty it is to babysit the people.

Wrong! If this county -the people - rejected a tax to provide fire service and opted for another way to protect those rural areas then they have to deal with it. Pay for the service or be at risk, because fire protection isn't free. I bet they paid their homeowners insurance policy, don't you?

[excon]

Our government is allegedly "of the people, by the people, for the people." That's what the left ignores, that WE are the government and the government serves the people. Instead, like you they believe the government is some higher entity whose duty it is to babysit the people.

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, then. Let me ask you this, Mr. WE the people. Let's say YOUR town, which is populated mostly with RICH people who can AFFORD to pay for private services, decides to vote down fire protection. The POOR people in your community, not surprisingly, voted against it. The people have SPOKEN, say you!

So, Mr. WE the people, are you going to let the POOR peoples houses burn?? I think you WOULD! And, you have the gall to call FIRE PROTECTION, babysitting! DUDE!

Is THIS the American you envision?? DUDE!! Let me out of here.

excon

[tomder55]

There are plenty of services that the poor 'can't afford'. The toll for a bridge doesn't change depending on the income level of the driver. The sewer fees and garbage fees that are charged for residents do not change based on income levels.
If a person can afford to be a home owner then that person should be able to afford a fee for fire protection . (generally the poor people you are talking about are renters and not home owners... but you knew that ) . My town mandates smoke alarms installed throughout a home. They are required regardless of the income level of the owner .

Again let's keep this in perspective . It was not that the owner couldn't afford it . It's that the owner for whatever reason didn't pay it .

[speechlesstx]

Is THIS the American you envision??????? DUDE!!! Lemme outta here.

Ex, I said right from the start "I find it appalling that the fire department watched it burn down" and "I can find no redeeming value in trained professionals watching a family lose their home and pets over 75 bucks." I also said I don't know how a professional firefighter can watch and do nothing as someone loses their home and pets, so enough of the drama over what country I "envision."

The country will undoubtedly have some changes coming up, but none of this excuses the Cranicks for not playing by the rules they knew they were living under and have to accept responsibility as well.

Oh, and "the people" put Obama and Democrats in charge and I certainly don't like what they envision for our country, but I believe you told us to get over it.

[excon]

but I believe you told us to get over it.

Hello again, Steve:

As I'm sure you'll tell me when I'm bi**ing about president Palin.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

As I'm sure you'll tell me when I'm bi**ing about president Palin.

I'm thinking president Christie.

[tomder55]

I'm thinking president Christie.

I'm getting mixed signals . While he has gone on the national tour building up IOUs ;he also had made some definitive Shermanesque declarations of not running.