Put out the fire and charge the owner the FULL COST of the service.

[Jokerman]

The fee was insurance and the insurance wasn't paid. This doesn't release the fire department from performing their duty but it does entitle the department to full compensation for all expenses incurred in fighting the fire.

Maybe the owner will just declare bankruptcy and the department will never get paid but at least the pets would be alive and the neighbors would still see that failure to pay the fee could have serious financial consequences.

[Orrex]

1. Is this another thread about American Idol?

For pity's sake! Aren't 10,000 DU threads enough?

[Jokerman]

3. Thanks for kicking it back to the top.

More than I would have done for a thread on american idol.

[Orrex]

21. Anything I can do to help the cause of redundancy

Let me know if I can do anything to help the cause of redundancy don't hesitate to tell me.

[Jokerman]

28. Maybe you could start your own thread...

on some subject that you think already has too many threads.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9258161

Or you could try to contribute something useful to the discussion.

[Orrex]

31. Yawn.

[wtmusic]

2. +1. nt

[seabeyond]

4. they did that and people didnt pay. cost goes up to take to court and still

dont get money. is a right off. the city in another state is still funding that area for service, ergo tax goes up for the locals that are paying for this service.

my thought would be.... county does not want to require people to pay thru their local taxes? then dont provide anyone in that county service and let the people be outraged and demand a fix, so they are all covered and safety is insured.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. No the fee was extortion...don't pay it your house burns down...

Now, can we get back to the 2010 election.

[Romulox]

6. LOL. Gimme something for nothing, else you're EXTORTING me!

Logic fault?

[Ozymanithrax]

13. He pays taxes...The city is just being good Capitalists...

Yes, the word is extortion.

If they needed more money to fund the fire department in the county region they should have passed a tax. But, fucking cheap Southern Republicans don't do that. It might look bad to other fucking cheap Southern Republicans.

Standing and watching a man's house burn down is unethical. Now, charging him afterwords for the cost of the fire crew and the engine, that would be OK.

But Fucking Cheap Southern Republicans, like Fucking Cheap Northern Republicans would rather pass a fee and let a house burn down than pass a tax. Extort a fee from people rather than levy a tax from people.

[Romulox]

16. Are you joking? The guy who refuses to kick in for fire protection is the "collectivist hero" in

all of this, and the FIREFIGHTERS represent the "Fucking Cheap Southern Republicans"? Are you sure about that?

We city folk are supposed to provide free stuff to our "rural" neighbors, else WE are the stingy ones? Why doesn't that logic apply to the free riding "rural" folk who refuse to contribute financially for services? :shrug:

"But Fucking Cheap Southern Republicans, like Fucking Cheap Northern Republicans would rather pass a fee and let a house burn down than pass a tax."

Now you're putting the responsibility for the local tax structure on...the firefighters? Like I said: pretzel logic.

[Ozymanithrax]

23. Set by and let a man's house burn down and you are no hero...

You might be a fire fighter, if you consider Julius Caeser a fire fighter. He earned his money in the Great fire in Rome by taking bids form people on whose house to save and whose house to burn down. Clearly, the fire fighters there were just good capitalists. They would fit right in with wall street bankers, who are not fire fighters either.

[seabeyond]

8. do you pay local taxes? that covers FD services. they do not have local taxes

so they have to make a yearly payment.

that is extortion? do you believe we should not be taxed for services we receive? you and this guy should get along, putting rest of community at risk

[Ozymanithrax]

17. Fucking Cheap Southern Republicans would rather charge a fee...

and let a house burn down than levy a tax that would benefit the region. In this, they are not different from Fucking Cheap Northern Republicans, or Fucking Cheap Western Republicans.

In my county, fire departements in unincorpoarted areas are paid for by taxes. We have a bunch of Fucking Cheap California Republicans running this region. Maybe they are just slightly less stupid than Fucking Cheap Southern Republicans. They also know that if you give a fire a few minutes it runs all the way to the ocean.

Levy taxes, save houses; it is for the public good.

[seabeyond]

20. there is not a FD in this county and they do not pay local tax for FD

no money goes to FD.

the suggestion is, this county roll a FD tax into their local tax. then all the community is secure.

if that is what you are bitching about, i am in agreement. to insist that the county people already pay for FD services thru taxes is flat out wrong.

[Ozymanithrax]

24. Then they should charge a tax for the public good.

This is waht is done in other states, many of them with Stuipid Cheap Republicans in charge. Otherwise, they are just being Cheap assed Republicans.

What happened was wrong. No one should sit by and let a man's house burn down. Those who did so are unethical, immoral,and ... well the closest term is wall street banker.

[seabeyond]

26. who, the city in another state should charge their people public good tax to cover county in another

state to provide them FD service?

[uncommon]

10. Extortion? Please. These people chose for their government to do this.

Then they chose not to pay. This is what libertarian paradise looks like.

[Ozymanithrax]

19. The government chose to extort a fee rather than levy a tax.

Sounds like Fucking Cheap (applies to any region) Republican economics to me. But that does not make what they did right or acceptable.

You may choose to laugh at the hicks for putting such a system in place, but it is still wrong.

[seabeyond]

22. the county made this choice and the people of the county. the outsourse for service

yes, they have to pay to outsource service. outsource service isnt for free.

[Ozymanithrax]

25. Other states charge taxes for rural service.

Just because a group of cheap assed Southern Republicans set up a system of extortion to get more money from people so they wouldn't have to call it a tax doesn't mean what they did is right or acceptable. The firemen who sit by and watched that house burn are just wall street bankers in a red truck.

When something is wrong, we should not just say that is they way those idiots do it.

[seabeyond]

27. you eally dont get it do you. the county asking for service refuses to tax.

the county wanting the service does not believe people have to pay if they dont want it. they dont have a fire dept. they went to another state, to a city close by and asked for their service. that city is funded by local tax. the people paying for the local tax understand there money goes to provide them service. the county that does not have service does not want to pay for the service.

[Kringle]

7. local gov'ts are tired of unfunded mandates .nt

[uncommon]

9. and then what? Put a lien on the house for nonpayment? Get paid never?

Because this is what will happen most of the time.

[Jokerman]

11. That's what happens with many other services.

Taxes, utilities and homeowner organizations do it all the time. It's not a perfect solution but it beats letting a house burn or having no recourse at all for payment.

[Swede]

12. Who pays for the equipment and men in the mean time?

I view this as a case of tax evasion.

[seabeyond]

15. if your job is to take care of the city, who pays the local tax that provides the service

and another county wants to use your service, but unwilling to pay further burdening those you are responsible for...

wouldnt you say screw them... outta here. they dont want to work with us, they can get their own FD

they are under no obligation to source out the service.

[Romulox]

18. A lien on a heap = a whole lotta nothing.

Or are you suggesting they only get paid if they save the structure? Also, what are you going to do about insurance proceeds? The firefighters will need a first-position lien on those, too, else the whole thing breaks down.

"That's what happens with many other services."

Fire protection isn't like most other services.

[TexasObserver]

14. Agreed. That is the smart way to handle non subscribers.

[suston96]

29. Is the contract fire department the only fire department in the fire district?

If so, then it should be in that contract that they have to put out all fires in the district. If this is not so then the town or county is legally and financially responsible for damages.

I have so ruled. Spread the word.

Judge Suston.

[newportdadde]

30. Maybe you should read some of the other threads.. this was already tried.

They tried this method and it failed, they had 50% non payment and no leverage to collect payment.

The solution is simple, the county government should have contracted with the city and then leveraged taxes on the rural county residents. The county leadership chose to not do so and leave it up the individuals, at this point it is the individuals responsibility to pay for coverage or elect county representatives who make smarter choices.

[seabeyond]

33. 50%. that high. i knew it had to be high. 50 fuckin % wanting service not paying, putting burden

on others and taking down the FD responsible to their own local taxpayers. but wtf.... lets bitch at the fd.

pisses me off

50%

[JVS]

32. How do you calculate the cost?

[SidDithers]

34. Agreed...

the Fire Department should have had a moral obligation to put out the fire, and work out the financials after the home had been saved.

Sid