10 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76But even if it works like this in some places in USA, it is bad enough...
That's not how it works in most places. I never heard of anyone paying a fire brigade fee until I saw this article.
I say an article for a couple of years ago, it happend in one of the more corrupted countries in the world. It was a neighburhood with wooden houses, wall by wall. A fire broke out. The firebrigate came, but did nothing until the neighbours bribed them enough, while the fire was spreading, to start put out fire. The longer time, the more violent fire, the more bribes they wanted.
But this wasn't USA. Not then.
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThere are many places that have fees or costs associated with fire and ambulance response. I have never heard of the fire brigade not acting in a situation like this. Seems very odd.
Apparently they bill you in Ireland for putting out a fire on your property or in your vehicle. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/huge-differences-revealed-in-fees-for-fire-callouts-2364636.html
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasThis is entirely a local matter. If the people of that town don't like it, then elect new local politicians to change it. This is nothing the federal government can or should possibly get involved in.
But even if it works like this in some places in USA, it is bad enough...
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by rwingettWhat you said.🙂
It is morally reprehensible to watch someone's house burn when you are in a position to prevent it from happening. None of the various circumstances involved alter that fact. Anyone who imagines that the lack of a $75 subscription fee justifies such apathy is morally bankrupt. That is where libertarian "free" market philosophy ultimately leads you. People h ...[text shortened]... olice subscription fee, would the police be justified in idly watching someone be murdered?
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasa recent occurrence in Tennessee.
I don't understand, are we talking about USA now? USA of today?
Or are we talking about some what-if-situation if Obama (or whoever) remain president (or whatever), or lose his presidensy (or something)? I.e. some hypothetical situation?
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76it's a fee paid to a city to get their fire dept. to come out into the country to put out any fires you may have, in the future.
That's not how it works in most places. I never heard of anyone paying a fire brigade fee until I saw this article.
it's like insurance.
should cities budget their fire depts. to put out fires in areas they're not collecting taxes from?
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBecause the United States government isn't built like that. The federal government doesn't run local fire departments. Would the EU pass a rule telling Amersfoort how to run its local police department?
Why not?
The US is built on a concept of federalism. The feds run some things and the states run some things. The feds don't run entirely local issues like fire department procedures.
10 Oct 10
according to another local resident who owns property in and outside of South Fulton, the guy whose house burned down had a chimney fire before, in which he told the fire dept he'd pay the subscription fee (in arrears) so they came out and put it out. but the next year they tried to get him to pay the fee and he refused. and said of the recent fire he thought they'd come out and put it out even though he hadn't paid.
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotwould like to get a quote but the number of comments is up to 5862 and i don't want to wade through them. saw it yesterday.
according to another local resident who owns property in and outside of South Fulton, the guy whose house burned down had a chimney fire before, in which he told the fire dept he'd pay the subscription fee (in arrears) so they came out and put it out. but the next year they tried to get him to pay the fee and he refused. and said of the recent fire he thought they'd come out and put it out even though he hadn't paid.
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotoops, found it, open on another tab, at a different site.
according to another local resident who owns property in and outside of South Fulton, the guy whose house burned down had a chimney fire before, in which he told the fire dept he'd pay the subscription fee (in arrears) so they came out and put it out. but the next year they tried to get him to pay the fee and he refused. and said of the recent fire he thought they'd come out and put it out even though he hadn't paid.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/when-your-house-is-burning-down-how-good-is-a-public-good/?apage=5#comments
104. October 7, 2010 4:51 pm Link
It would be great if this blog or the linked articles told the whole truth about the situation, but then it just wouldn’t be as much fun or generate such a buzz.
Folks, as much as you all want to toss your oar in, this is a local issue. The people of the town and county made this decision over twenty years ago, and county residents do not want to establish a county fire service that would provide overall coverage.
As a resident of both South Fulton and the county, it is crystal clear of how you get fire service if you live out of town. It is also very clear what happens if you don’t pay.
Here is an important fact related to so-called gentleman that lost his home – he had a chimney fire in another property two years ago. He had not paid for fire coverage, but because the fire dispatcher was concerned about human life at the incident, the fire department responded, conducted search and rescue, and put out the fire.
So, in harsh terms, he got a freebie. The town did try to get him to pay the $75 annual fee after that fire BUT HE REFUSED.
So, now with all the national hoo-rah and people thinking we are a bunch of ignorant rednecks, let me give you a view of the future: Come next year, South Fulton will provide fire protection within the city limits only. And you can thank the Cranick’s and all the self-righteous folks on this blog for making it happen.
I guess you can write what you want, but if you don’t live here or pay taxes here, then you don’t get a vote
— BillyBob
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76I would personally prefer an EU-wide government but that's not going to happen any time soon.
Because the United States government isn't built like that. The federal government doesn't run local fire departments. Would the EU pass a rule telling Amersfoort how to run its local police department?
The US is built on a concept of federalism. The feds run some things and the states run some things. The feds don't run entirely local issues like fire department procedures.
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'd love to say this is some hypothetical dystopia called Aynrandistan set in the distant future (where hatred and cash grease the gears of all human interaction), but nope -- it's Tennessee. And fortunately it is not the norm....yet.
I don't understand, are we talking about USA now? USA of today?
Or are we talking about some what-if-situation if Obama (or whoever) remain president (or whatever), or lose his presidensy (or something)? I.e. some hypothetical situation?