Firefighters watch home burn to ground...

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Xanthos

No, it wouldn't. Most of its revenue comes from city taxes, which county residents don't pay (which is why a lot of people like living in county, at least out here). The extra fee would be going to pay for another truck to be on duty at any given time, so that they don't lose the ability to service the city while they're out in county.
- X

Exactly. THEY CHOSE to live in the county.

Homeowner: "Ohhhhhhh, it's GREAT out here. Birds chirping, no one around to bother you, quiet, sunrise is spectacular. And NO CITY TAXES........ Awesome"

City guy: "But you have no fire department, what if there's a fire?"

Homeowner: "The city will come put it out."

City guy: "How much does that cost"

Homeowner: "75.00"

City guy: "That sux"

Homeowner: "Nah, I haven't paid it yet. You don't have to pay it, what aare they gonna do, let my house burn down?"

City guy: "Uh,,,, ya but you have no garbage pick up."

Homeowner: "Fine, it's only 20.00 per month. And I can burn most of it."

Ok, bad joke.

But I bet he didn't forget to pay his garbage fee. IN ADVANCE.

Originally Posted by Dr Jkel

This reminds me alot of trying to teach kids to do the right thing. Learn in school, do your homework, brush your teeth etc..... because if you don't this could happen. Unfortunately for these people they learned the hard way.

I personally believe I could not just stand there and do nothing

Me either. Not easy to find a job right now though.

Originally Posted by billw501

Then I don't see the problem with a per service option.

Of course you don't. It doesn't effect you.

[billw501]

Originally Posted by Xanthos

There's a problem with that though.

Revenue from city taxes is pretty easy to predict. So the fire department knows they'll be getting X dollars. Since fire departments are non-profit, they use all of that money for personnel, equipment, training, etc.

Now lets say it costs Y dollars to buy, maintain, and staff a truck to run calls for county. In year one, they run enough calls to make Y dollars back. But in year two they don't. They just lost money, and its not just cutting into profit margins. Say the same thing happens in year two or year three, it becomes very possible that the fire department WOULD cease to exist.

The only way to make it work on a long-term basis would be to charge in advance.
- X

I thought we already agreed that in this case, the fire department would still exist because of the city. In that case, I would hate to be the person who decided the "per service" option, but it would still be an option and still possible. I'm not arguing the fact that this person didn't pay, which was his only option, and then did not get service. I understand that. I'm only saying that I believe with a little effort, the option could be made available.

[billw501]

Originally Posted by PQ

Of course you don't. It doesn't effect you.

We're giving after the fact opinions here, don't see how it effects you either, but you're giving your opinions too.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by billw501

I'm only saying that I believe with a little effort, the option could be made available.

Maybe so. They will probably be looking into a different method.

The city used the current model to make their decision.

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by billw501

I thought we already agreed that in this case, the fire department would still exist because of the city. In that case, I would hate to be the person who decided the "per service" option, but it would still be an option and still possible. I'm not arguing the fact that this person didn't pay, which was his only option, and then did not get service. I understand that. I'm only saying that I believe with a little effort, the option could be made available.

The fire department would still exist FOR the city, but how long do you think it would take for the city to stop providing the service to county residents?

A per-service option would only be sustainable if you could guarantee there would be fires. Like I said, the only way to make it sustainable for the county residents would be to pay in advance, just like the city residents do. Otherwise, the cost to maintain the county option would come out of the city taxes on years when there were little or no fires, because the funds for in-city protection would be lessened. And in my view that's NOT an option.
- X

[billw501]

Originally Posted by PQ

Maybe so. They will probably be looking into a different method.

The city used the current model to make their decision.

And I didn't disagree with that decision. Hopefully after this event they will look into more methods.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by billw501

We're giving after the fact opinions here, don't see how it effects you either, but you're giving your opinions too.

Fair enough, but my opinions are based on the situation at hand.

I see you may be giving opinions on what should be done going forward.

I'm giving opinions on the factual situation.

I would leave it the way it is.

I'll bet they make more revenue this way now.

[billw501]

Originally Posted by PQ

Fair enough, but my opinions are based on the situation at hand.

I see you may be giving opinions on what should be done going forward.

I'm giving opinions on the factual situation.

I would leave it the way it is.

And I wouldn't, based on the situation at hand and what resulted.

[Brokinarrow]

While I understand the need of the community to have everyone pay the fee.... why send firefighters to the scene to watch the house burn? Talk about rubbing salt in the wound...
In my opinion what should have been done... if someone doesn't pay the annual $75 and ends up needing a fire put out, the fine = whatever annual fees they owe the county + extra fine on top of that (not sure what a good amount would be there). This way, people are still encouraged to pay the $75 fee every year, but you don't have crappy situations like this pop up.
Anyway, what the heck do our taxes pay for if not these public services when we need them?

[2ndgenz28]

civil court

just like OJ not guilty by law, no pay no law broke,

but in civil court, you only need a hint of guilt, and watching a fellow americans house burn while you watch with the ability to put it out is a big fat strike against you there.

hands down, bitchin over $75 just cost that city $75,000+

[Dr Jkel]

Alot of times things change because bad things happen, kinda the reactive instead of Pro-active nature. Government does it all the time, even Toyota did it when they were basically made recall vehicles, kind of a risk vs reward thing.

I guess I am just weak cause I would have put it out, consequences be damned. Sometimes you just have to stand up for what you believe in because at the end of the day you have to live with yourself. JMHO

[2ndgenz28]

Its just like that LA shootout, member those two guys armed to the T robbed a bank, that shot up 50 cops and several civilians, and not till the cops raided a gun store did they get anywhere.

Well when those cops waived off medical help for those robbers, to go help their fellow officers first, they broke no criminal law.

But in civil court they lost everything, pensions, college funds, houses, boats, jobs, several of them killed them self after too.

Why, in civil court you can be held accountable for said bad judgment.

The families of those robbers got 10x more money then they would of gotten away with the robbery by just a few sec of bad judgment by those cops, that broke no law, but in civil court, you don't have to break a law, just use bad judgment.

[Tallboy]

Originally Posted by 2ndgenz28

civil court

just like OJ not guilty by law, no pay no law broke,

but in civil court, you only need a hint of guilt, and watching a fellow americans house burn while you watch with the ability to put it out is a big fat strike against you there.

hands down, bitchin over $75 just cost that city $75,000+

Not a chance. This fire was in an un-incorporated county area. The city's liability here is *zero*. Watch the video at the link. This exact same thing happened two years ago and they let it burn.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by 2ndgenz28

Its just like that LA shootout, member those two guys armed to the T robbed a bank, that shot up 50 cops and several civilians, and not till the cops raided a gun store did they get anywhere.

Well when those cops waived off medical help for those robbers, to go help their fellow officers first, they broke no criminal law.

But in civil court they lost everything, pensions, college funds, houses, boats, jobs, several of them killed them self after too.

Why, in civil court you can be held accountable for said bad judgment.

The families of those robbers got 10x more money then they would of gotten away with the robbery by just a few sec of bad judgment by those cops, that broke no law, but in civil court, you don't have to break a law, just use bad judgment.

That's why if anyone points a gun in my direction I shoot to kill Training kicks in.