The Olbion County fire dispute: libertarian free-riders on publicly-funded municipalities

[Hannah Bell]

OBION COUNTY TENNESSEE:

- Area: 555 sq miles

- Pop: 32,450

- Median household income: $32,764.

- Fire service: No residential fire service. A "rescue squad" responds to grass fires or car fires
in some "designated areas".

- Fire protection spending 2006-2007: $12,000.

- Average fire protection spending in neighboring counties: $288K



RESIDENTIAL FIRE SERVICE IN THE COUNTY PROVIDED BY EIGHT CITIES INSIDE THE COUNTY, FUNDED BY CITY RESIDENTS ONLY:

- 186 firefighters, 42 paid, the rest volunteer.

- Twenty municipal fire engines cover the entire county. A new engine cost about $250K in 2008.

- 75% of municipal fire calls (about 20 per month, 245 per year) come from unincorporated rural areas.



IN 2008....

"All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas, but COLLECTIONS ARE LESS THAN 50% AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS HAVE NO WAY OF LEGALLY COLLECTING THE CHARGE. THEREFORE THE SERVICE WAS PROVIDED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MUNICIPAL TAXPAYER.


THE CITIES PROVIDING FIRE SERVICE TO UNINCORPORATED COUNTY RESIDENTS:

- have an average population of 2,266 people, the range being 260 to 10,876. Only one of the cities, Union City, has a population over 2,600.

- have an average median household income of $27.7K, with the range being $26 to $30K. None has a median income over $30K.

- combined population of the cities = 18,135.


The cities are being asked to fund fire service for all 32,450 county residents -- nearly double the cities' tax base.

- County median household income is higher than any of its municipalities' median incomes.

- Since the county median includes the municipalities, this means the median household income of unincorporated residents is *significantly* higher than median income in the cities.


THE COUNTY HAVE TWICE FAILED TO SET UP A VOLUNTEER FIRE SERVICE FOR THE COUNTY:

- In 1987 the county commissioners passed a resolution to establish a volunteer fire department, but took no further action.

- In 2008 another proposal to establish a county-wide volunteer county department was put forward. That proposal stated:

"Our common goal is to provide fire protection to all areas of Obion County without
discrimination from lack of insurance, lack of subscription, ability to pay, or the decision that
it’s outside of a fire department’s designated area of operation. A MAJOR PORTION OF OBION COUNTY HAS BEEN FURNISHED RURAL FIRE PROTECTION FREE OF CHARGE FOR DECADES.

Statistics indicate that the majority of all fire calls are rural in nature and are responded to
by municipal fire departments. THESE DEPARTMENTS ARE SOLELY FUNDED BY THE TAX DOLLARS BELONGING TO EACH INDIVIDUAL TOWN OR CITY. IT IS BECOMING MORE DIFFICULT TO CONVINCE MUNICIPAL LEADERS THAT THE MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS RESPONDING TO CALLS OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES AND FOR WHICH NO COMPENSATION IS GUARANTEED IS "JUST THE RIGHT THING TO DO".

Instead of taxing residents of unincorporated areas to fund a fire service, in 2009, the county commissioners voted 19 to 1, with 1 abstention, to have individuals contract with cities on a subscription basis -- pay the subscription, or not, their choice.

At the time county commissioner Seals stated:

The county “does not need” to get into the business of hiring a fire chief and building new stations....

Seals asserted that (the volunteer rural fire protection plan) passed by the commission in the 1980s failed because -- “They never put a penny into it, and they’re not going to this time,” he said.

“As far as a county fire chief goes, what’s he going to be chief of? We don’t have a (county) fire station. No equipment, no fire station, no nothing. And how do you hire somebody for nothing? You got to pay ’em.

“That’s why I was so upset about this whole thing. We don’t need to be in the firefighting business. The cities are already in that. We just need to contract it out to them, and let ’em go.” And finally, Seals said, he feels “beat to death” by the whole issue. “There’s no end to it,” he said.

County Commissioner Barfield said:

...he’s in favor of a subscription plan that allows citizens to make a decision on their own “without being forced to.” “There’s some things that need to be worked out,” he said. “I think it’s best for everyone concerned that cities receive funding they need and allow citizens to make a decision whether they want fire protection or not.”

All facts in this post from wikipedia (population & median income data on the cities & county) & these county documents:

http://troy.troytn.com/Obion%20County%20Fire%20Department%20Presentation%20Presented%20to%20the%20County%20Commission.pdf

http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=25587




It's interesting to me that some posters are painting the cities as libertarians when it is so clear the county is the homes of those folks.

[Swede]

1. I just don't get how people are siding with the county.

And DUers are calling anyone who doesn't Libertarians.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Nobody's siding with the county. Nobody thinks the arrangement is good, or effective, or fair.

But arrangements and fairness, and county vs. city, and fees mean little when some family's house and possessions are burning and the people who have the training and equipment to stop it are standing next door, watching the destruction unfold. That is abhorrent.

[Pithlet]

3. No, they don't mean little. If you force them to continue they will bankrupt.

That doesn't mean little. People who are excoriating this poor city and its fire department. I mean, I can understand the initial shock. But I don't understand how someone can look at those facts, and then still side with the county on this. I just can't understand it. And I really don't understand how I and others are getting called freepers and Libertarians. One DUer even said we should be toombstoned!

[TwilightGardener]

6. The man apparently offered to pay the fee. Refusal to help at that point

is sheer spite and the desire to make an example of this family--that is evil. This could have ended in even bigger disaster, should the firefighters have lost control of the fire and it damaged other properties, or should there have been someone in the house that no one had thought was there.

[Pithlet]

9. It's not sheer spite. It's, as one other DUer aptly put it, financial suicide

to do otherwise. They already did what you suggest. It was bankrupting them. They didn't decide right off the bat to be heartless bastards. They showed up to fires anyway (even for this particular homeowner one time already) even though these people weren't paying the fees. Something like 50% weren't paying them. They'd beg and promise. But they wouldn't pay. What incentive did they have? Their house was saved! They were driven to this from sheer desperation. As Hannah said. This was a situation a long time in the making.

[TwilightGardener]

18. LOL--no, of course it's spite. Dude could have opened up his wallet

and dumped out the contents and promised his next five paychecks, it didn't matter--he was deemed a deadbeat and was refused help. If $75 was what it cost to fight his fire the day before his fire, then that's what it cost the day of his fire. But how would that teach the lesson, right? The lesson of babies' photos going up in smoke, pets possibly dying, work equipment destroyed...that's the important thing, the LESSON, not the silly humans.

[Pithlet]

19. He was refused help because the fire dept can't afford to keep doing things that way.

That's all. It wasn't to teach anyone a lesson. It was simple economics. The county he lives in repeatedly votes down referendums to fund them. They can't keep it up anymore. In the past they would have done what you suggest. It's why they're in the red.

[TwilightGardener]

22. They were right there. "They can't afford" is a nice big-picture policy issue,

means little when they could save the house and possibly the neighborhood with some squirts from the firehose. The more I talk to you folks on this thread, the more I realize that it's all rules and all money, all the time--like Republicans and fourth-graders. Pointless to continue.

[Pithlet]

25. But the things cost money! It's why I'm not a fiscal Republican!

So, I'm guessing you aren't either. Why do you pay your taxes? Why don't you vote down referendums on taxes to pay for services. I mean, I'm assuming you don't. I mean, if it isn't about money, then why bother. Stuff should be free! It's cruel otherwise, right? Side with the teabaggers then. No taxes! Break the chains! :crazy:

Sheer insanity. Look, you can't ignore the big picture. People would die. Because that's what would happen if the fire department goes bankrupt and bye bye.

[Hannah Bell]

32. They weren't there. They didn't respond to his call. They responded later to the call of someone

paid the fee.

The republicans & 4th-graders are the people who insist 2,500 people can fund fire service for 15,000 free-riders without bankrupting themselves.

[JustAmused]

87. LOL

First of all, it would not have cost $75 to fight the fire. It costs substantially than that. It is not "all rules and regulation"s. It is reality. There comes a time when you can't put yourself in bankruptcy to help others. I am sorry you don't want to understand that.

[Control-Z]

27. Hey. Explain something to me.

I've already asked this in another thread but got no answer:

I know little about fire fighting. What are the costs for putting out a fire, other than the obvious? The firefighters were all already there and getting paid for their services. The fire truck was there. The equipment was there (hoses, ladder, etc.) and used for the neighbor's house. Water would be needed, of course. What else would be used to fight a home fire and at what cost?

[Hannah Bell]

33. The truck *wasn't* there. The department didn't respond to the call.

They responded later when a neighbor's field caught fire -- not his house. A neighbor who paid for the service.

By that time the fire had been burning for hours. They had to bring water in in a pumper truck -- there are no fire hydrants in the county, just garden hoses.

[Control-Z]

62. Well, you told me.

My questions have lost all meaning. I no longer care to know the cost of firefighting. Really, thank you.

[Gaedel]

41. Not $75 to fight a fire.

It costs $75 a year per house to make it possible to fight a fire at any house that catches on fire.


What is needed is for the cities to go to the county and say that the only way our trrcks will ever roll past city limits is if:

a. We get an annual stipend of $X from the county

OR

b. Every time we get a fire call or a false alarm from the county, we bill the county $Y and the county can try and collect from the property owner.

[rocktivity]

46. DING DING DING! Gaedel, you're our grand prize winner!

What is needed is for the cities to go to the county and say that the only way our trucks will ever roll past city limits is if...(w)e get an annual stipend...

And the way for the country to get that stipend is to levy a fire or additional property tax. It's in the county's best interests, and emergency services shouldn't be subject to being a commodity.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Hannah Bell]

67. the county decided on the subscription system after several years of negotiation, according to this:

In its two years, the committee has met with fire chiefs of the eight municipalities — referred to as “cities” in commission and budget committee discussions — in an effort to craft a rural fire protection program for the county.

http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=25587


County commissioner Perry Barfield said he’s in favor of a subscription plan that allows citizens to make a decision on their own “without being forced to.” “There’s some things that need to be worked out,” he said. “I think it’s best for everyone concerned that cities receive funding they need and allow citizens to make a decision whether they want fire protection or not.”

Jowers said that Reavis has said he wants to study the subscription program more. “I don’t know what their problem is,” Jowers said. “We’re offering, offering, offering. Well, you can’t have everything in life.” But at last the commission adopted a plan, and it’s one “we’re going with. A decision has at last been made.” There may be some minor changes made, but they won’t affect the cities. “The basic thing they need to know is that we’ll collect the (subscription) fees for them and we’ll return the money to them,” he said. “I think we’re making great progress.”

[rocktivity]

71. Not for an essential emergency service like fire protection

particularly since it clearly doesn't work.

You're not "forced" to pay the subscription fee but your house burns down if you don't? Fees you're "forced" to pay are taxes--it's time for the county to raise property taxes and pay the cities with fire services a retainer.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Hannah Bell]

76. They voted not to do that. That was the "fee" option that "never had a chance".

[Better Today]

30. I heard the guy on Countdown mention his son and neighbors, but

you're saying this particular guy had already had the FD out once without paying previously? Wow, I'm really confused about that, I mean really are these people out in the county just stupid? I could understand one house fire, but two? And then add the idea of his son and a neighbor, sounds like a lot of damned fires. I've lived in this neighborhood for 15 years and nary a home has had a fire, my kids have never had fires either. WTF are these people doing to have so many fires in apparently one smallish neighborhood?

[Hannah Bell]

34. Stupid like a fox. They got the previous call free, so they figured it paid not to pay.

The grandson was burning trash.

The fire, in their own words, started slow & took two hours to reach the house -- but for some reason they were not able to save the pets in the house and blame the fire dept for that.

My guess is the grandson was burning, they were gone, the fire got out of control & he didn't know what to do, and the rest of the family didn't show up until the fire was out of control.

Because otherwise someone could have let the pets out before the fire reached the house.

[Better Today]

39. Or more likely, imo, the fire started and they expected the FD to show so they

sat on their lazy asses until it was too late. I saw the guy interviewed and honestly I felt absolutely no sympathy for him. I actually was getting pretty pissed listening to his bullshit. You could tell he was lying through his teeth about at least part of it because he said some contradictory things, as you note above with one of the issues of not getting the animals out.

As for the stupid like a fox, he thought he was going to be, but fortunately he wasn't able to screw the little people in the poor cities AGAIN.

[Mimosa]

82. ^ Amen, Hannah!!! ^

What get me is that I'm assuming that Crainick has a wife. All important decisions -and insurance, fees and taxes are extremely important- we discuss and agree upon. We may not have extra spending cash or be able to afford fancy dinners out or vacations but we always decide in favour of responsibilities!

[JustAmused]

88. The "smallish neighborhood"

Is roughly 555 sq miles. From what I can find on google, this house was about 40 minutes from South Fulton.

[fasttense]

60. They still showed up.

They had to show up when the fire spread to a paying customer. The whole event ended up costing the Fire Department because they had to show up anyway, and that costs a whole lot more than $75.

Penny wise and pound foolish.

The whole fee system is stupid anyway. By charging a flat fee, the poor are subsidizing the rich.

[Pithlet]

73. They showed up because of the neighbor

Talk about pennywise and pound foolish. If they kept showing up even though these county residents didn't pay their fee, how is that going to work out for them?

[seabeyond]

11. it doesnt do any good to pay one time, when it happens. the point is a collective pot, paid over

time, by all the people.

a fire takes way more than $75 dollars to put out. the cost is way higher than 75$. the only way it works is if people pay, year after year after year

[JVS]

13. I went over the math of that in my thread.

Also promises made under such duress are not legally binding.

[Hannah Bell]

15. He *says* he did. That promise isn't worth much since it can't be enforced.

The fact is, he was contacted twice, once by letter, once by phone, & didn't pay a lousy $6/month to protect his property.

He says he "thought they'd come anyway."

Or else he "forgot".

He's reported as saying both, though they're mutually contradictory.

He says last time the family had a fire, the fire department came even though they hadn't paid. That experience didn't, apparently, lead him to pay the subscription thereafter.

He said lots of things. He went on national tv and said a lot of things.

Fact is, he didn't pay, even after having had a fire in the past -- & let his grandson burn on his property, apparently unsupervised, since the fire burned out of control for two hours before reaching the house. Hello? If his pets died, was anyone even home? Who was supervising the grandson?

The guy gets ag subsidies in two state, indicating this isn't his only property. No impoverished hick. He has a homeowners policy that he says will replace his house.

Maybe he just wanted a new one on someone else's dime. It's the only explanation i can think of for such idiocy.

[DURHAM D]

48. "Maybe he just wanted a new one on someone else's dime. It's the only explanation i can think of ."

That was my first thought when I saw the interview. They were probably removing personal property from the house instead of putting out the fire or getting out the alleged animals. We know the family is careless with fire so why not run a scam on the insurance carrier. I think they let it burn on purpose or deliberately set the fire.

As a volunteer fire fighting friend explained to me - the house and contents were probably lost in the first 5 minutes and no amount of water would have saved it. And what the fire didn't destroy - water would have.

[olegramps]

89. I wonder about the insurance.

It would seem that an insurance company would have a provision that you had to have fire protection if it was available. I wouldn't insure his home if he refused to get fire protection.

[hobbit709]

49. He still HASN'T paid the fees from a previous fire.

[Statistical]

92. Quit your job and give away all your possession ....

I "promise" to give you a million dollars AFTERWARDS.

I am sure you are sending a letter of resignation to your boss today.

Unsecured debt especially large unsecured debt from someone with little or no hard assets is essentially WORTHLESS in debt collection.

You are expecting the town residents to trust the very same guy too cheap/stupid/greedy to pay $75 to gladly pay thousands of dollars after the fact despite the debt being basically uncollectable.

[Hannah Bell]

5. The problem has a long history. The county chose this policy. County residents were contacted by

letter and phone.

If the guy (who gets farm subsidies in two states) cared about his house & possessions & pets he should have spent the $6/mo or lobbied for a county fire department.

It's not the first time his family has had a fire. He knew what he wasn't buying.

The city responds to calls where life is threatened. Responding to all calls when people refuse to pay = financial suicide for a town of 2,500 people.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Would a less dickish homeowner have more sympathy? Who knows?

Who cares? When the shit hit the fan, the FD stood by and watched a family's world go up in smoke. The time to resolve funding issues is not at that moment.

[JVS]

10. The only means they have to compel payment is refusal of service.

So actually that is exactly the time to resolve funding issues.

[TwilightGardener]

14. The man offered to pay.

[JVS]

16. Cash?

Even then there are some mathematical issues that come into play that would make accepting cash a bad strategy for the fire department.

[Pithlet]

17. Yes. So did others in the past.

And the fire department is still losing money. So again, this city should have to have all the problems that go along with having an underfunded fire department stretched way too thin because this county won't fund it properly why? Things should just keep going the way they are why? The city should just keep being stretched thin because it's immoral in your eyes for them to do anything about it? Why isn't the onus on the county to change things?

[Statistical]

93. One thing you quickly learn in debt is that an "offer" to pay isn't a payment.

In this past hundreds of people "offered" to pay and after the fire was out and they realized the town had no way to force them to pay (hell they aren't even residents of the town) they quickly "forgot" that offer.

The town residents year after year picked up the cost of providing service for free.
Town of 2600 subsidizing the free loaders in a county of 32,000.

An "offer" to pay is essentially worth nothing.

[Hannah Bell]

20. No. The fire department did not respond to his call. They had no obligation to do so, as he was

outside their service area and hadn't paid for a subscription.

Thus they didn't come out just to watch his house burn down.

They came out when another homeowner who *had* paid called. They put out that fire, made sure the house wasn't in further danger, & left.

[Hannah Bell]

21. It's been more than ten years of trying to resolve these issues. They've put out plenty of fires

for free.

This is the policy the county opted for after two years of negotiations.

If the guy doesn't like it he'd better talk to his county commissioners.

But he must like it because he had a previous fire that was put out for free, & it *still* didn't make him pay the subscription. He thought he'd get yet another freebie, & when he didn't, he went crying to the national media.

dick is too weak for that kind of crap.

[JVS]

8. The arrangement is bad, but allowing some houses to burn is the only way that the city FD...

is able to keep enough people paying for the services at all.

I bet they get a lot of checks in the next week.

[fasttense]

64. Yeah, extortion always works. n/t

[Statistical]

95. It isn't extortion any more than my insurance company is extorting me

if they remind me my coverage has lapsed due to non-payment.

If I don't pay the insurance payment and then see a massive car wreck on the way home it might make me realize I am being penny wise and a pound foolish.

[dionysus]

75. if the libertarians keep freeloading, the city will go broke and NO ONE will have a fire service.

[SharonAnn]

4. Thank you for explaining this. You saved me the trouble. Services are funded by taxes.

If you don't want to pay the taxes to get the service, then you have to pay for them some other way - like subscription.

I know plenty of people like that here in the county where I live in Eastern Tennessee. They don't want to pay for anything yet they complain when they don't get the service they didn't pay for.

Why do all these Libertarians think that other people should pay for their services? I just don't understand the disconnect.

[some guy]

12. Thank you. n/t

[rrneck]

23. I wonder...

Firefighting is dangerous business. If a firefighter gets hurt or hurts somebody else whatever liability insurance the city of South Fulton may have may refuse to pay because they fought a fire outside their jurisdiction. Also, I wonder if workman's compensation would pay if a firefighter were hurt fighting a fire he wasn't supposed to? If he were killed, would his insurance policy pay off? If he were injured, would his health plan pay?

I am wondering what risk the city and the firefighters are exposed to if they fight a fire they aren't supposed to.

[Hannah Bell]

24. yes. there are lots of issues.

if he's injured, are the free-riders in the county going to fund his medical care? doubtful.

if he's killed, will they support his family?

also doubtful.

[struggle4progress]

26. Useful info. knr!

[Better Today]

28. So am I understanding this correctly?

From what I'm reading, the unincorporated areas have the wealthier folks, the incorporated cities have the poorer people, the unincorporated areas refuse to be incorporated or taxed for services (I'm going to guess that at some point they were offered incorporation and/or the opportunity to be taxed for fire services and like most rich libertarians, refused), and then get po'd when they don't pay and expect the city's poor (financially poor, not emotionally poor) to pay the bills?

I noticed on Countdown tonight the guy said something to the effect that, "well they waived the fee for my son's house and for a neighbor's house down the way a couple years ago, but they didn't waive it for me." This tells me he didn't pay on purpose because past experience told him he'd get service either way. Apparently the FD got tired of rich freeloaders, right?

[Hannah Bell]

36. yes, you have it exactly right.

i wouldn't say the unincorporated area is "rich," but it's got a higher median income than the cities. So if a city of 360 people can fund a fire dept - this is one of the cities they're leeching off -- an unincorporated area of 15,000 people can. That's bigger than any city in the county.

and if you don't mind, could you rec the thread to cancel out the unrecs from the spinners?

[Statistical]

94. You are understanding it correctly.

However many on DU believe the county freeloaders are the "victims" and think the fire dept should just work for free.

To all of them I say if YOU ARE THAT WORRIED. Send $75 to the town and cover one unprotected home. Hell send $75 a week and you can cover 50 homes a year.

It is what they are asking the town residents to do. To date I haven't seen a single person take me up on that offer.

I guess it is easier to complain that town should pay for freeloaders than actually use your own money to pay for freeloaders.

[leftstreet]

29. Thanks for the research

K&R

[Hannah Bell]

31. thanks for reading it.

[Amonester]

35. And after all that, many would still wonder why the U.S. keeps winning...

The Laughing Stock Of The Rest Of The World Award (TM) year in, year out...

Like why on earth can it be possible for stupid individuals to make their own rules, without the concerned States or Federal legistatures even have a say against them doing so.

It just doesn't make any 'civilized' sense. Period.

[Hannah Bell]

37. could you rec the thread, please? The "compassionate" contingent keeps unreccing it

& reccing their own threads painting the city as evil libertarians.

[Amonester]

38. I never tought the I would see the day when "the compassionate"

contingent? would be derided on DU...

My my.

Although I agree that the city is not the evil libertarian entity there, it's not the brightest bulb in the pack...

[Hannah Bell]

40. i use scare quotes around "compassionate" for a reason. & the brightness or dimness

of the city has nothing to do with anything.

i'll take that as a no to my request for a rec.

[fasttense]

65. Those darn compassionate people.

They wouldn't let a house burn down for money. How dare they.
:sarcasm:

[Hannah Bell]

68. They didn't let a house burn down for money. They refused to respond to a fire call

from someone outside their service area which did not endanger human life.

[sinkingfeeling]

42. So the 8 cities (with funded fire companies) who have been using their equipment and manpower 75%

of the time to fight fires in the county, should just stop responding to anything outside their incorporated areas. That would force the county to do something even if Commissioner Seals doesn't see a need.

We have a similar problem here with stray and abandoned animals. The city has a shelter and animal control officers, but the county doesn't. The county was paying a rate of about 25% of the cost for each dog or cat the shelter took in from outside the city. Well this year, the shelter said enough is enough. The county can either pay 100% of the cost or we'll stop taking their animals. The county has proposed their own shelter and trying to find a way to pay for it. The city's population is about 65,000 and the county's is about double that.

Interesting is that I get to pay both city and county taxes.

[Starry Messenger]

43. Good research!

I've been staying out of these threads. It was bugging me that everyone was mourning over this one guy's house and the DTE-related fires in Detroit barely got any attention last month.

[SidDithers]

44. "“I take care of the patient and hope I get paid.”"...

Tennessee ranks among the worst in the nation for fatal house fires. So far this year, at least 67 Tennessee residents and firefighters have died in blazes, according to data compiled by the non-profit Fire Team Tennessee.

After a South Fulton house was left to burn to the ground on July 2, 2008, the city government was compelled to hold a meeting to address public anger over the fire service fee, which was first imposed on rural residents in 1990. The home of Richard Cruse was allowed to burn uncontrollably, in spite of numerous calls to 9-1-1. The fire burned for at least 40 minutes, while residents sprayed the area with garden hoses. Firefighters were not given the go-ahead to intervene until the fire threatened to spread to two neighboring homes.

At the meeting, residents expressed outrage that the fire could have killed people. Then-Mayor Ronald Haskins commented, “hate they lost the house. But if I wrecked my car and I didn’t have insurance on it, they’re not going to pay for it and the city is not going to pay for it.” Articulating the widely felt frustration of residents, a physician who ran a clinic across the street from the Cruse home responded to the mayor that it wasn’t in her code of ethics to ask someone if they have insurance or can pay before she treated them. “I take care of the patient and hope I get paid.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/tenn-o06.shtml


The FD should respond and put out the fire. If the property owner hasn't paid the $75 fee, the city should bill the county for the cost of the response.

Sid

[DURHAM D]

54. Really?

"The FD should respond and put out the fire. If the property owner hasn't paid the $75 fee, the city should bill the county for the cost of the response."

So you think the city can just assert dominion over the county - what a strange and unworkable concept.

[SidDithers]

59. If the city provided a service to the county...

shouldn't the city be within their rights to bill for that service?

Sid

[DURHAM D]

61. No.

The city is not providing services to "the county".

They would be providing it to individuals who happen to live in the county.

[SidDithers]

63. From the OP...

“That’s why I was so upset about this whole thing. We don’t need to be in the firefighting business. The cities are already in that. We just need to contract it out to them, and let ’em go.”

Sounds to me like the county is fully aware the the city is providing a service that they're not willing to do themselves. Perhaps that arrangement needs to be formalized.

Sid

[Hannah Bell]

69. The commissioner who said that is the one person who voted for the "fee" system --

which involved assessing a fee on all county residents then contracting with the city as a body.

The others voted for the "subscription" option, which involved letting individual homeowners decide whether they wanted to "subscribe" to get fire protection from the city.

[DURHAM D]

70. Perhaps it does but it has not been done.

Given the attitude of the county office holders they won't agree to such a plan. They have enjoyed the freebies for 20 years - why fix it now?

The current tax the poor to pay for the rich seems a perfect structure to those county fathers.

[PVnRT]

90. So why do I have to dig out my insurance card and pay my co-pay

before receiving services at the doctor? Maybe I should tell her she's being unethical.

[rocktivity]

45. The Olbion County fire solution:

A fire or additional property tax on everyone which will pay the cities than can provide fire protection services to the cities that can't.

You're welcome.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[hayu_lol]

47. The facts and figures of the fire situation in Abion Co. are at the top.

keep this thread bumped.

[AuntPatsy]

50. After reading numerous threads on this subject I feel this one and one other needs to be up top...

I'll find the other one next...two very different threads but two very important ones IMHO

[Hannah Bell]

72. The cities *have* fire protection, & tax their citizens for it. Residents of the unincorporated

county *don't* have fire protection, & have repeatedly refused to tax themselves to provide it.

They prefer to let each individual decide if he wants to subscribe to get fire protection from the cities. Or towns, rather, since average population in the 8 cities which have fire depts = 2000 people.

[DURHAM D]

51. Anyone who unrecs this post clearly prefers a "fact free" discussion. nt

[MadHound]

52. If the city fire departments feel they have no legal way of collecting that fee,

Then they either aren't trying hard enough, or they haven't structured the contract and paperwork properly.

It isn't hard to structure the paperwork to make it a criminal breech of contract if you fail to pay the fee when the fire department comes and puts out the fire for your non-subscribing ass. Hell, depending upon your insurance company and policy, your insurance could very well pay it.

At the very least, you can take them through civil court and get your fee that way.

This has been the norm for decades and across the country. If those fire departments haven't figured it out my now, then somebody hasn't been doing their job right.

[Statistical]

97. Um the people who aren't paying AREN'T singing a contract either.

Any contract signed while a house is on fire is a contract under durress and would be thrown out of court.

How do you sue for breech of contract when you never had a contract to begin with?

"Hell, depending upon your insurance company and policy, your insurance could very well pay it"
Why would any insurance company pay AFTER the fact? The fire is out. Why would insurance company pay a single penny. There isn't an honor system. Now smart insurance companies would simply pay the $75 in advance and add it to the customer premium.

"This has been the norm for decades and across the country."
And for decades courts have been nullify contracts signed under durress.

[AuntPatsy]

53. Doing my part to keep this kicked...Du benefits from such ops that

require time and effort in tackling issues with facts and data instead of speculation upon speculation ones....Thank you Hannah though you already have a thank you op going...felt this op was more useful for letting you know some of us appreciate such ops....

[booley]

55. I consider this a learning experience

While yes the issue of money cant' be overlooked, clearly the way the city decided to solve it doesn't work.

A bad solution is just as much a problem as the problem it was meant to fix.

I am trying to avoid schadenfruede (his pets died and that's not a trivial thing) but I wonder how long the Libertarian hand of the market philosophy will stand when things like this occur.

[DURHAM D]

56. "...clearly the way the city decided to solve it doesn't work."

I am certain you meant to say -

"clearly the way the COUNTY decided to solve it doesn't work"

[booley]

79. Who ever made that decision

was wrong.

Seems there's no shortage of blame.

[Hannah Bell]

74. The city didn't decide. The county did. They had the option to bill every resident & contract with

the city as a body.

They decided on the "subscription" option, leaving it up to their individual homeowners.

http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=25587

[Statistical]

99. Why won't the way the town handle it work.

I guarantee there are less people who think they can just not pay and get fire protection.
I bet you a couple hundred wives asked their husband if they paid the fire protection service.

I would hazard a guess that next the % of town protected will be higher than this year or last year.

Another 2 or 3 incidents like this and I am sure vast majority will "do the right thing" and pay for public services.

We all pay for public services. We either pay via taxes or we pay via fees (DMV fees for example).

Some (not all but some) of the residents of the county want the service at no cost. THAT is what clearly doesn't work.

This isn't a big govt vs small govt thing. People like the homeowner WANT big govt (although they will never admit it) they WANT BIG GOVT AND they don't want to pay taxes.

Big Govt + Big Taxes = most liberals
Small Govt + Small Taxes = most conservatives
Big Govt + Small/No Taxes = idiots who's home burned down.

[itsrobert]

57. Kick and recommend for the facts

thank you

[frustrated_lefty]

58. Very informative post, thanks!

[mmonk]

66. You are correct.

[apocalypsehow]

77. Wow...for the first time I can remember, Kick & Rec. n/t.

[newportdadde]

78. Kicking this and +1 so people can read some real facts about this issue.

[distantearlywarning]

80. I recc'ed this earlier.

Now I'm kicking it so it doesn't disappear into the morass of all the other emotionally charged threads about this issue. Thank you for injecting some sanity into this discussion.

[Mimosa]

81. K&R. Hannah's nailed it, as usual. n/t

[PVnRT]

83. K&R

I see the count is going down. Facts just get in the way of a good OMG OUTRAGE party, I guess.

[DURHAM D]

84. K n R

[LiberalAndProud]

85. Do you think Todd Cranick expects that when the law changes, taxes will go up?

Or that services to the county will be discontued entirely? Because I think those are his choices.

[Statistical]

98. He said he wouldn't support a tax increase because then it would protect everyone.

I guess the implied message is that poorer people would be "getting over". Cheap asses are always more worried about imaginary people "Stealing" from them while they try to steal from everyone else.

[Petrushka]

86. Thank you for the links and all the research.

:kick:

[Scout]

91. K & R n/t

[Statistical]

96. +1 Hannah. I saw this too late to rec it but I'll give it a kick.

Anyone who sees the county residents as victims is an idiot.

[lapislzi]

100. Thank, you, thank you, thank you!

I get it now. Typical failed libertarian model (the county, not the city). "Optional" taxes = no option.