Posted by Kromey at 6:09pm Oct 6 '10This kind of thing is very routine around here. And yet it barely rates on the back page of the Local section (for whomever still reads newspapers -- rarely ever mentioned anywhere else).
We have what are called "fire protection service areas". If your home is outside of one of these areas, fire trucks may respond to monitor the fire and ensure it doesn't spread to endanger forest (which is then actually fought from state and/or federal land management budgets) or property within the service area, but otherwise they'll just watch it burn.
The reason is entirely practical -- even with vastly increased funding, it's just simply not possible to offer fire protection to everyone. We have huge expanses of land, with literally most of it not accessible by road, and even where there are roads many simply would be impassable for fire trucks. Hell, I barely managed to navigate my small Toyota Camry through the hellacious roads leading to a friend's house a couple of months ago, and that was during the summer without rain turning the road to mud!
There is a positive trade-off here though: Property outside of fire protection service areas is taxed at a lower rate, since there is no fire protection to fund from those taxes. So for an increase in your risk you get to pay lower taxes.
It seems to me that this situation is the same: From the description, it was city fire trucks responding to homes outside of the city. Optionally responding, that is, if the home owners pay what is inarguably a very modest fee. I mean, seriously, are we all getting bent out of shape over $75/year? I pay more per month for auto insurance; almost 3 times that for my renter's insurance.
Now, were I to be in charge of a system like this, I would allow for people to accept the charges on the spot and put out the fire for them, although you can be damn sure it would cost more than $75 in that case. But if you choose to abscond your personal responsibility, then you have to live with the consequences.
Legality of this practice? Nowhere at the federal level (I can't speak to state, county, or city level for this instance, having never lived there and thus never studied the legal landscape there) is anyone mandated to provide fire service to anyone. So if you're not paying taxes for fire protection, and you're not paying for the semi-privatized fire protection, well, you're SOL, and you've got no room to come crying to me about it.
Personal responsibility, folks -- the homeowners had every opportunity to pay a very modest fee, and they chose not to pay it. If someone had chosen not to buy homeowner's insurance, would anyone shed a tear for their lost property should it burn down? If someone chose never to put a proper fire extinguisher in their home, would anyone shed a tear for the massive damage caused by a small grease fire that couldn't be fought and thus consumed much of their kitchen if not their house?
Well, sure, you'd feel sorry that such unfortunate circumstances befell them. But then you'd point out that they chose not to buy insurance, or not to buy that fire extinguisher, and that they could have been in much better shape now had they.
They made their choice, now they have to live with the consequences.
It's certainly unfortunate that these folks lost their home, but fire departments ain't free, they need money from somewhere, and it would be exceedingly unfair to those living in the city if they were taxed for fire service but those outside the city weren't yet still received it nonetheless.
We have what are called "fire protection service areas". If your home is outside of one of these areas, fire trucks may respond to monitor the fire and ensure it doesn't spread to endanger forest (which is then actually fought from state and/or federal land management budgets) or property within the service area, but otherwise they'll just watch it burn.
The reason is entirely practical -- even with vastly increased funding, it's just simply not possible to offer fire protection to everyone. We have huge expanses of land, with literally most of it not accessible by road, and even where there are roads many simply would be impassable for fire trucks. Hell, I barely managed to navigate my small Toyota Camry through the hellacious roads leading to a friend's house a couple of months ago, and that was during the summer without rain turning the road to mud!
There is a positive trade-off here though: Property outside of fire protection service areas is taxed at a lower rate, since there is no fire protection to fund from those taxes. So for an increase in your risk you get to pay lower taxes.
It seems to me that this situation is the same: From the description, it was city fire trucks responding to homes outside of the city. Optionally responding, that is, if the home owners pay what is inarguably a very modest fee. I mean, seriously, are we all getting bent out of shape over $75/year? I pay more per month for auto insurance; almost 3 times that for my renter's insurance.
Now, were I to be in charge of a system like this, I would allow for people to accept the charges on the spot and put out the fire for them, although you can be damn sure it would cost more than $75 in that case. But if you choose to abscond your personal responsibility, then you have to live with the consequences.
Legality of this practice? Nowhere at the federal level (I can't speak to state, county, or city level for this instance, having never lived there and thus never studied the legal landscape there) is anyone mandated to provide fire service to anyone. So if you're not paying taxes for fire protection, and you're not paying for the semi-privatized fire protection, well, you're SOL, and you've got no room to come crying to me about it.
Personal responsibility, folks -- the homeowners had every opportunity to pay a very modest fee, and they chose not to pay it. If someone had chosen not to buy homeowner's insurance, would anyone shed a tear for their lost property should it burn down? If someone chose never to put a proper fire extinguisher in their home, would anyone shed a tear for the massive damage caused by a small grease fire that couldn't be fought and thus consumed much of their kitchen if not their house?
Well, sure, you'd feel sorry that such unfortunate circumstances befell them. But then you'd point out that they chose not to buy insurance, or not to buy that fire extinguisher, and that they could have been in much better shape now had they.
They made their choice, now they have to live with the consequences.
It's certainly unfortunate that these folks lost their home, but fire departments ain't free, they need money from somewhere, and it would be exceedingly unfair to those living in the city if they were taxed for fire service but those outside the city weren't yet still received it nonetheless.
Funny - Kromey