Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest banner

House allowed to burn to the ground

2K views 15 replies 13 participants last post by  Jiveturkey3 
#1 ·
I hope this hasn't been posted here before.


Why would you not pay $75 when you KNOW if there is a fire your house will burn down. The people in the story do not live in an area that offers fire protection, they have the option to pay for it or not. It is that simple. Don't blame anyone but yourself if you decide to not protect yourself. The tax payers of the city aren't responsible to pay for them to have coverage they pay for themselves why wouldn't this homeowner do the same?
 
#7 ·
Two years ago it was a mobile home. People are shortsighted and cheap, that is a fact and no laws are going to change that. By allowing buildings to burn to the ground (especially when, like the mobile home, the structure fire could have been prevented by early intervention) one could argue it costs society more than if it was put out. Now there is a homeless family which will likely need/take some sort of public/private assistance. A case of cutting off your nose off to spite your face.

The problem last time was that the local fire department had no way to force the homeowner to pay the $500 fee for responding to a fire. So they made the subscription scheme mandatory and passed a law that fire fighters cannot respond if the subscription was not paid, even if the homeowner had a fist full of cash to pay the fire department right then and there. Seems to make more sense to pass a law that gives the fire department the tools to force homeowners to pay the fee for responding rather than to allow homes to burn to the ground. Shrug.
 
#13 ·
the scenario from a couple of years ago was an individual that lived in an outlying area that did not have their own municipal services, and a somewhat nearby community offered services to those that signed up.

to be clear, the owner of the toasty house did not live within the legal/municipal jurisdiction where the fire fighting services - it was a contractual service offered.

in areas where mutual aid is extended to adjacent municipalities there are service level agreements, revenue/expense sharing etc.
 
#8 ·
I do believe if responding to the fire and putting out the fire was worth 5-10 grand and the homeowner was willing to pay the full price of said service they should put it out. I will also say that the next day I would bet there were dozens of people lining up to pay their $75.
 
#10 ·
If you don't pay for protection and have it excluded from your taxes, then you shouldn't get the protection. It's simple.
 
#14 ·
This TYT guy is an Idiot. As a matter of fact i think he is the problem with today's society. The fire dpt. would not exist if the tax payers didn't pay their taxes. The only person at fault was the home owner not protecting his shit. He keeps hitting that a community should work as a unit in a humane fashion. I don't even know where im going with this but.. The world is not perfect and this lil community is not Utopia.

Hell, I don't think i want to pay my electricity bill any more so im just going to run an extension cord to my neighbors houses and let them foot the bill.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top