Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
$75 or we'll let your house burn down
- Thread starter capnsandwich
- Start date
It may not be crooked yet but I can just see the potential for it to get that way.
Except the guy in question doesn't pay taxes to support the fire department that would come out.
I agree with you. That's a good way to put it. I'm so angry about this that I'm going to have to focus my attention elsewhere, at least for the time being.
The fee is because the area they're located in is outside the purview of the other local governments, and as a result doesn't have a local fire department funded by taxes. I doubt they have a police dept either.
Prior to the fee there was no fire service to the area.
In other words, I can see the council using this occurrence of "playing hardball" with one of the non-paying neighbors as leverage to raise the rate to whatever they want to. Kind of like intimidating the locals by making this an example of what can happen if you don't pay up. Almost like a mob stunt or something to that extent.
Thus putting other people's lives in danger because you want to prove a point.
Yes, the guy in question was a freakin' idiot for his pseudo-libertarian "I'm not gunna pay the damn fee" crap, but it was probably a more stupid move by the decision makers to allow a fire to burn that could have potentially gotten out of contol, causing a wild fire, as another poster pointed out earlier. Apparently it did move onto someone else's property. Let's face it - the people in power tried to make an example out of this dude, and they are lucky that the situation didn't escalate. They can count their blessings for that. What would have cost them more: the money they'd lose by tendering services to a guy who didn't pay $75 or the millions in a class action lawsuit if other people's property was destroyed? That's not even considering other people who could have died because the fire service sat there and did nothing. Some people can't think past their damn noses. I can't believe we have people this dumb making important social decisions in the world.
no,he didn't pay a fee,which is probably in addition to his state and federal taxes.....sure lots of folks leave the city to flee high property taxes,and i understand the county not wanting to spread services too thin....but to stand by while someone's house and animals burn is still despicable,and i hope he sues the pants off them.....they could have billed him for the call after....
there's a first time for everything....They must be ice skating in hell becaue I agree with you 100%.
No one would ever pay the fee again if the fire fighters put out the fire without having been paid. Everyone would have waited until their house was on fire then offer to pay, and I am sure it costs more than $75 to respond to a fire. I bet no one in that part of the county will forget to pay the fire department again.
Also the fire department didn't show up and just watch the house burn. They didn't respond until someone who had paid the coverage fee called, they then responded and saved the property of the people who had paid for the service.
Also the fire department didn't show up and just watch the house burn. They didn't respond until someone who had paid the coverage fee called, they then responded and saved the property of the people who had paid for the service.
Except it's not a county FD. It's run by a town near to where this happened, possibly over the county line.
they would if the home owner got a big ass bill for the service after the fact,for a service he could have had for 75 bux....
I think the fee itself is a bad idea. SInce fire fighting is truly beneficial to the entire community, it makes sense to pay for it in a way where all pay for it like a sales tax. Paying for through a single substantial payment encourages an "I got mine, you get yours," mindset that is not good for a community, IMO.
Of course, the fire wouldn't have spread to the adjoining property had they showed up and put out the initial fire.
In the end, the FD still spent money and risked firemen to respond to this fire but they could have saved the man's house and chose not to over a petty figure. While the homeowner was certainly in the wrong for not paying the fee yet still expecting services, the FD's response was stupid if not negligent.
I still think people would choose not to pay the fee and still pay the higher amount of money if there was a fire. I mean, I would still rather pay $10,000 in fees than lose a $100,000+ home. It's a hard thing to predict. How many of us think we will have a fire in our house this year?
One problem though HE DOESN'T LIVE IN THAT COMMUNITY!!!! Nor does he pay taxes to that community. It is not the Federal or States responsibility to provide local fire departments.
