Liberty, choices, fairness and .... ooops.

[DavidEBSmith]

http://volokh.com/2010/10/04/county-resident-declines-to-pay-for-fire-protection-and-then-his-house-catches-on-fire

 

Guy lives in an area that does not automatically provide fire protection paid for by taxation. Instead, he has the freedom to opt-in to fire protection for his house for $75/year, or to opt-out.

 

He chooses to opt-out.

 

He decides to burn some stuff in his back yard.

 

The fire gets out of control and spreads to his house.

 

He calls 911 and they say "sorry, you opted out".

 

His wife tells the 911 operator "whatever the cost!"

 

911 operator says no.

 

As the fire spreads to the neighbor's land, who opted-in and paid the $75, the fire department shows up and puts out the fire on the neighbor's land. The guy who didn't pay, the firemen watch his house burn down.

 

Is this the proper result?

 

Some argue that the fire department had a responsibility to take him up on the offer of "whatever it takes".

 

Some say a free market is always right and so this must be the optimal outcome.

 

Some argue that services that protect the common good, such as fire protection, are properly provided by the state, involuntarily, supported by taxation.

 

The comments to the Volokh link are actually some of the more intelligent comments to a blog post that I've seen and raise some interesting questions.

 

[Dave McReynolds]

If I lived in Obion county, I would vote to require everyone to pay $75 and be covered. However, that's not the way they voted, which means that the majority are willing to accept the risk of an un-covered fire spreading and burning other things, until it finally sets fire to a covered property. In particular, Cranick knowingly opted out, so the fire department acted correctly, in my opinion.

 

As to whether they should put out the fire when his wife offers to pay "whatever it takes," you're an attorney, and might be able to answer how enforceable that promise might be, but I couldn't answer that question, and probably the dispatcher and the fire crew couldn't either. And even if it was an enforceable promise, did the Cranicks have enough assets to pay up?

 

I think the Cranicks didn't pay their money, so they didn't get to take their choice.

[russell_bynum]

Is this the proper result?

 

Yes.

 

Some argue that the fire department had a responsibility to take him up on the offer of "whatever it takes".

 

I don't know if they had a responsibility to do that or not. Presumably they have a policy published which details how they respond when people who have opted-out have a problem and ask for help.

 

Some say a free market is always right and so this must be the optimal outcome.

 

Well it certainly wasn't optimal for the guy who decided to opt out of fire protection, but it certainly sounds like it was the outcome that he signed up for.

[Bob Palin]

This is absolutely not the proper result, not just because his house burned down but because the failure to control the fire on his property caused his neighbour's property to catch fire. If you look at the history of firefighting (and I'll leave the details to the experts) a large part of the reason for socialized departments was to remove this danger to adjoining properties.

[ghaverkamp]

This is absolutely not the proper result, not just because his house burned down but because the failure to control the fire on his property caused his neighbour's property to catch fire. If you look at the history of firefighting (and I'll leave the details to the experts) a large part of the reason for socialized departments was to remove this danger to adjoining properties.

 

There are other ways of dealing with the situation of a fire reaching the neighbors.

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

I think a better approach might be to respond regardless of coverage, and he is liable for the costs. This may cost him his house, but without putting the neighbors in harms way.

[SeanC]

What would be the case if the fire started on a property whose owner had paid the protection fee, but then spread to Mr. Cranick's property? Would the department only put out the original fire?

 

The policy seems rather sadistic in that regard. I would suggest the department respond to all fires, but send a bill to those who opted not to pay the annual fee should their property require the department's service.

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

It's way too late now but, they should have billed everyone in the unicorporated areas for fire protection. Then, after filling out a form that details to each property owner what will happen if they have a fire, refund the $75 to those that opt out. It provides for a bit more informed consent and, the ship has sailed, but he got what he paid for. It avoids the lein and attachment of property issues that arise when people don't pay their bills.

[ghaverkamp]

What would be the case if the fire started on a property whose owner had paid the protection fee, but then spread to Mr. Cranick's property? Would the department only put out the original fire?

 

The policy seems rather sadistic in that regard. I would suggest the department respond to all fires, but send a bill to those who opted not to pay the annual fee should their property require the department's service.

 

So, even those who opt out of a voluntary government-provided service should have to pay for it, even if they don't want it?

 

The obvious solution is to leave fire services to the free market, so that they can be provided more efficiently, effectively, and at a higher level of service than the government can provide. People can then contract with their preferred fire service. Surely, in such a scenario of choice, it would be improper to then charge a person for services they did not necessarily ask for. Why is it suddenly okay if the a socialist program offers the same services?

[markgoodrich]

What would be the case if the fire started on a property whose owner had paid the protection fee, but then spread to Mr. Cranick's property? Would the department only put out the original fire?

 

The policy seems rather sadistic in that regard. I would suggest the department respond to all fires, but send a bill to those who opted not to pay the annual fee should their property require the department's service.

 

So, even those who opt out of a voluntary government-provided service should have to pay for it, even if they don't want it?

 

The obvious solution is to leave fire services to the free market, so that they can be provided more efficiently, effectively, and at a higher level of service than the government can provide. People can then contract with their preferred fire service. Surely, in such a scenario of choice, it would be improper to then charge a person for services they did not necessarily ask for. Why is it suddenly okay if the a socialist program offers the same services?

 

What is your evidence that the "free market" will provide "more efficiently, effective, and at a higher level of service than the government can provide?" Easy statement to make, but let's see some data, please. Taking your comment further, roads, then, should be handled the same, no?

 

Private fire brigades in the U. S. were the norm until around the middle of the 19th Century. The companies competed with each other, even to the point of fights, over which company would get to pour water on a fire. Doesn't sound more efficient to me...nor do the stories I vaguely remember of arson started by the private companies...after all, they only got paid if there was a fire, and the fire got put out, to one extent or another.

[SeanC]

What would be the case if the fire started on a property whose owner had paid the protection fee, but then spread to Mr. Cranick's property? Would the department only put out the original fire?

 

The policy seems rather sadistic in that regard. I would suggest the department respond to all fires, but send a bill to those who opted not to pay the annual fee should their property require the department's service.

 

So, even those who opt out of a voluntary government-provided service should have to pay for it, even if they don't want it?

But the Cranick's did want it. They even called and begged for it. They just didn't want to pay for protection before they needed it. I suppose if they didn't ask for assistance, or turned it away when it arrived, then yeah, the department should abide and let it burn. But that wasn't the case.

 

If you haven't bought medical insurance and suffer a heart attack, for example, will the emergency room turn you away? Or will they treat you and send you a bill for their services? I didn't go to law school, so I'm not as agile with these mental exercises as you are, but I'll venture a guess and pick the latter.

 

The obvious solution is to leave fire services to the free market, so that they can be provided more efficiently, effectively, and at a higher level of service than the government can provide. People can then contract with their preferred fire service. Surely, in such a scenario of choice, it would be improper to then charge a person for services they did not necessarily ask for. Why is it suddenly okay if the a socialist program offers the same services?

Maybe there's a legal term for this, but when Mrs. Cranick dialed 911 and requested emergency fire assistance, couldn't that be construed as "asking" for the department's services? Maybe you can explain what "ask" means to us lay users of English....

[Dave McReynolds]

I think the implication here is that the law would not support the fire dept charging the Cranicks for putting out the fire, like it would support an emergency room charging someone for medical services. It doesn't make any sense, otherwise. If the fire dept could have charged the Cranicks, and liened their house if they didn't pay, they would have probably gone ahead and put out the fire.

[ghaverkamp]

What is your evidence that the "free market" will provide "more efficiently, effective, and at a higher level of service than the government can provide?" Easy statement to make, but let's see some data, please. Taking your comment further, roads, then, should be handled the same, no?

 

Ever heard of Adam Smith? Ayn Rand? Common sense?

 

It would be lovely to have data. However, with our own socialistic tendencies having prevented us from ever collecting it by means of a truly free market, having destroyed our own Founders' ideals from the very Founding, we can't prove. But surely the freedom and liberty are important enough to move forward on faith alone.

 

Private fire brigades in the U. S. were the norm until around the middle of the 19th Century. The companies competed with each other, even to the point of fights, over which company would get to pour water on a fire. Doesn't sound more efficient to me...nor do the stories I vaguely remember of arson started by the private companies...after all, they only got paid if there was a fire, and the fire got put out, to one extent or another.

 

Bad actors will be dealt with by the market itself. Government intervention will only cause more bad acts.

[ghaverkamp]

If you haven't bought medical insurance and suffer a heart attack, for example, will the emergency room turn you away? Or will they treat you and send you a bill for their services?

 

They'll treat people because the law requires them to do so, at great cost to the taxpayers who subsidize indigent care and the businessmen struggling to keep their medical establishments afloat.

 

Maybe there's a legal term for this, but when Mrs. Cranick dialed 911 and requested emergency fire assistance, couldn't that be construed as "asking" for the department's services? Maybe you can explain what "ask" means to us lay users of English....

 

I wasn't referring to the Cranicks. I was referring to the mandatory payment to a government entity, simply because they rolled, regardless of whether such services were requested.

[markgoodrich]

Can someone please explain to me why this has not deteriorated into a verboten political thread? Personally, my hair is on fire.

[Matts_12GS]

Some say a free market is always right and so this must be the optimal outcome.

 

I bet a brush that broad must be heavy...

 

But, he took his chances and literally "bet the farm" sucks to him I guess

[John Ranalletta]

Found in a blog about this case, I couldn't have stated it better:

This is statist ideology come to life. This fire brigade is run by the government. The government is the inflexible one. Market organizations are flexible. You don't see airlines denying you the ability to fly same day if they have tickets available. They just charge you more. You don't see supermarkets offering just one kind of bread. They sell dozens of kinds at different price points. A market organization could have charged a high price for last minute service and saved the house. But the state isn't that smart. The marketplace of voluntary relationships is.

[elkroeger]

Seems to me the fire department is analogous to an insurance company. So if I neglect to buy homeowner's insurance, and my house goes to pieces in a tornado, then I'd be nuts to expect State Farm (or anyone else) to help me out.

 

Opting out, or neglecting to purchase insurance, would indicate (to me) that he is able put out his own fires, or absorb the financial loss. Or perhaps his house is made of concrete....

 

If you ask me, the guy's irresponsible.

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Except...the insurance company has no responsibility to the neighbors; and, if it did cover the neighbor's fire-damaged property, it would likely try to recover its losses via subrogation.

 

Should the fire company refuse to put out a grass fire in a public right of way that endangers covered property because the state doesn't pay for coverage?

[mbelectric]

Found in a blog about this case, I couldn't have stated it better:

This is statist ideology come to life. This fire brigade is run by the government. The government is the inflexible one. Market organizations are flexible. You don't see airlines denying you the ability to fly same day if they have tickets available. They just charge you more. You don't see supermarkets offering just one kind of bread. They sell dozens of kinds at different price points. A market organization could have charged a high price for last minute service and saved the house. But the state isn't that smart. The marketplace of voluntary relationships is.

 

Or couldn't have stated it worse.

 

Free market fire protection. Yeah, let's deregulate that industry. Open it up to corp's...

 

Just what I need...my neighbor decides he wants to shop around,

so he goes with a lowball company. His sh*t starts on fire, but he doesn't have the same coverage I have, or they aren't trained, so mine goes up as well...now we're in a pissing match as to who's responsible for what...then the insurance company jumps in..

 

Funny world we live in. Let's not make it any funnier.

 

MB>

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

Just what I need...my neighbor decides he wants to shop around,

so he goes with a lowball company. His sh*t starts on fire, but he doesn't have the same coverage I have, or they aren't trained, so mine goes up as well...now we're in a pissing match as to who's responsible for what...then the insurance company jumps in..

 

The free market will save you. The private arbitration company your insurers select to hear your dispute will resolve your matters in a faster, fairer, cheaper, and more beneficial way than any government-run court could hope to.

[mbelectric]

Thanks Greg, I feel better already..

 

And I KNOW I'll feel better with more choices available to me..

 

MB>

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

So, you're saying you'd rather have no response in this case than a potentially substandard one?

[russell_bynum]

Presumably the Opt-in fire protection thing was something that was either setup by a vote, or setup by representatives who were voted in.

 

Either way, The People wanted it that way. Which means they accepted the risk that their neighbor might not pay the $75 and that might result in an otherwise no-problem fire on their neighbor's land that could have been dealt with quickly spreading onto their property and causing real problems.

 

Seems to me that the fire service could have answered the call and just charged whatever their cost was (just like if I don't have collision insurance on my car and get into a "my fault" accident. The body shop will still fix my car, but I'll pay their rates rather than just paying my insurance company the deductible.) but realistically it would probably cost them too much in legal fees to ever extract that money so I can understand the "too bad so sad" response they gave.

 

[mbelectric]

Or here's yet another scenario:

 

Yea, I'll pay whatever, just come put my fire out..

 

later:

 

Sorry, don't have any money, I'll just walk away from it all, try and collect from me.

 

 

MB>

[Pilgrim]

Can someone please explain to me why this has not deteriorated into a verboten political thread? Personally, my hair is on fire.

 

I'm just guessing here, but I think it's because the thread is not about politics.

 

Pilgrim

[russell_bynum]

Or here's yet another scenario:

 

Yea, I'll pay whatever, just come put my fire out..

 

later:

 

Sorry, don't have any money, I'll just walk away from it all, try and collect from me.

 

 

MB>

 

...which is why I said "but realistically it would probably cost them too much in legal fees to ever extract that money so I can understand the "too bad so sad" response they gave."

[DavidEBSmith]

Found in a blog about this case, I couldn't have stated it better:

This is statist ideology come to life. This fire brigade is run by the government. The government is the inflexible one. Market organizations are flexible. You don't see airlines denying you the ability to fly same day if they have tickets available. They just charge you more. You don't see supermarkets offering just one kind of bread. They sell dozens of kinds at different price points. A market organization could have charged a high price for last minute service and saved the house. But the state isn't that smart. The marketplace of voluntary relationships is.

 

Not to let reality interfere with theory, but market-organization firefighting has been tried many times over the years, has failed every time it's been tried, and has inevitably been replaced with government-run firefighting organizations, for the better.

 

The fundamental problem with the theory you espouse is that when the market organization charges the high price at the last minute, the owner may not be able to afford the price. Or, no market organization may be willing or available to do the job at the price the owner offers. Then the house burns down, catches the adjoining houses on fire, and a general conflagration starts. The French government figured this out in the 1700s - that some market transactions don't occur in isolation, can have adverse effects on innocent unwilling non-participants, and that the adverse effects can't be protected against except by eliminating the transactions from the marketplace.

 

We also found, historically, that when private fire companies in America competed to get to a fire and put it out, they would, in our finest tradition, often get so caught up in battling each other for the lucrative job that they wouldn't get around to actually putting out the fire. We found that it was better to have one professional organization whose primary job was to get to the fire and put it out, not to try to capture market share.

 

Perhaps the ultimate market-organization firefighter was Marcus Licinius Crassus:

 

Most notorious was his acquisition of burning houses: when Crassus received word that a house was on fire, he would arrive and purchase the doomed property along with surrounding buildings for a modest sum, and then employ his army of 500 [plebians] to put the fire out before much damage had been done.

Crassus would fit right in at Goldman Sachs.

[Survived-til-now]

By contrast, I live in a country where every emergency/rescue service is either paid for by the State or voluntarily provided and you the individual don't get billed...... as a result the services get roundly abused by idiots taking stupid risks (but all in the name of their freedom to take those risks) or calling them out for no good reason; and we the taxpayers pay!

 

I like the approach on the continent where you are expected to insure against risks and if you don't, and call out the rescue service, you get billed. For example:In April 2004 two British snowboarders were avalanched and killed while on the Grande Motte mountain within the Tignes ski domain. The rescue services invoiced the estates of the victims £9,000 helicopter costs and £1,200 for dog handlers after their insurer declined to cover these costs because the snowboarders apparently stepped outside the conditions of their policies.

 

However, I don't think this insurance idea applies to Fire Services anywhere over this side of the Atlantic. The desire is to contain a fire as quickly as possible before it spreads. They should have just billed the guy and pursued him through the courts for the money. If ultimately he had no money to pay or house to sell off - well that's life and the City stands the bill. Standing by and watching it burn seems indefensible in a modern society.

[Rocer]

... They should have just billed the guy and pursued him through the courts for the money.

 

Couldn't agree with you more. Put this incident in perspective with an urban or at least built up area fire and think of the implications. The civil servants who didn't think this one through should be turfed. I'm betting the insurance co. of the insured house will be addressing their costs with the both the non-covered home owner and the municipality.

[eddd]

As a firefighter, and leaving the payment/nonpayment issue aside, I can not imagine how you could not respond.

 

But bringing a different twist to the discussion...I'm sure I've responded to many fires over the years for people who have not paid their taxes.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Sorry, don't have any money, I'll just walk away from it all, try and collect from me.

 

...which is why I said "but realistically it would probably cost them too much in legal fees to ever extract that money so I can understand the "too bad so sad" response they gave."

 

It's standard practice for shortchanged housing contractors to put a lien on a homeowner's property for unpaid bills; it should be at least as easy for the city itself to do so.

[CarrotNC]

Sorry, don't have any money, I'll just walk away from it all, try and collect from me.

 

...which is why I said "but realistically it would probably cost them too much in legal fees to ever extract that money so I can understand the "too bad so sad" response they gave."

 

It's standard practice for shortchanged housing contractors to put a lien on a homeowner's property for unpaid bills; it should be at least as easy for the city itself to do so.

 

Major distinction is the housing contractor typically has a signed contract willingly entered into by competent person. The article says the homeowner refused the fire coverage, and then his wife (can anyone prove it was the wife?) offered the 911 operator "whatever it takes", with no distinction as to whether the wife was also the homeowner and thus allowed to offer a legally binding contract/lein upon the home; or whether she was even legally competent -- and it's doubtful that a verbal contract entered under duress with an unverified person could ever be enforceable.

 

It's ironic that the homeowner refused fire coverage, and then started the fire which consumed his own home; and while I'm sad for what affect this will have on his family, it's his own choices that landed them there. If in my area, I'd donate what clothing I could and even offer shelter for them up to a week, then like visiting family they'd be expected to fend for themselves (or find another family to live with for a week). Yes, their lives will suck for quite some time, and in the process will provide a meaningful example for a LOT of other people to examine and learn how to avoid in their own lives.

[John Ranalletta]

Edging right up to the political limits here, let's be consistent with that argument. Lots of ideas tried and failed in the past are heartily espoused here, especially various forms of government or social organization. That they have failed in the past whenever attempted, in most cases repeatedly doesn't seem to matter to their champions.

 

Crassus lives, but today he is aided and abetted by the state. Failure to pay taxes results in liens which can be sold to a third party who is allowed to charge usurious interest rates upon redemption or take the property. So, what's changed since Crassus' day?

[markgoodrich]

Can someone please explain to me why this has not deteriorated into a verboten political thread? Personally, my hair is on fire.

 

I'm just guessing here, but I think it's because the thread is not about politics.

 

Pilgrim

 

Wry condescension noted and appreciated (sounds like something I'd say), Pilgrim, but I have to disagree, this is entirely about politics. When "socialism" is used as a pejorative in regard to govermnental duties, when libertarian views are crammed into post after post after post, it's about politicts...rather, it's deteriorated into politics.

I'd best quit reading this thread, I don't want to find myself having posted an outburst which would offend.

[Mike]

Crassus lives, but today he is aided and abetted by the state. Failure to pay taxes results in liens which can be sold to a third party who is allowed to charge usurious interest rates upon redemption or take the property. So, what's changed since Crassus' day?

 

Presumably, living in a democratic republic, the decision now lies in the hands of the "customer." We are ultimately responsible for the action or inaction, efficiency or inefficiency, of government. It seems like the folks whose house burned down were nothing more than the victims of their own choices.

 

First, the community decided that it was not worthwhile to have its own fire protection district. No trucks, no ladders, no guys in funny suits. Presumably acting at the behest of the community, the elected officials entered into a contractual relationship with an adjoining municipality, negotiating what seems like a pretty good "insurance" policy--75 bucks for fire response. Acting individually--so this is one they can't blame on a bad decision by the electorate or out-of-control government officials--the homeowners decided that they didn't want to spend the 75 bucks. "Hey, we're smart people; we're not gonna start our house on fire."

 

This is an excellent, financially sound plan . . . until you start your house on fire. The panicked call to a low-level government employee: "We need government to protect us. Yes, we opted out, but things have changed since Gene tossed a little too much diesel in the barrel, and we now demand your help, even though we don't even live within your municipality."

 

I feel sorry for these people, but I have a little difficulty summoning up sympathy. They got exactly what they bargained for. They were operating in a free market environment--having decided collectively that they didn't want government to provide this service through taxation, they were faced with the choice to pay a nominal sum for the service. I assume that they had other choices available--they could have bought some firefighting equipment individually (I can get some pretty capable fire extinguishers for $75 at Costco) or in conjunction with their neighbors. They didn't do any of those things . . . but, like a lot of us, once things went south, they expected the government (or more accurately, the government of an adjoining town) to bail them out.

 

I just can't see this as a failure of government. It was not a scenario that was imposed on them. In fact, it was very much a case of the government respecting the will of the electorate, stepping back from providing a service, and saying, "Make your own decision." This is simply a clear, and relatively foreseeable, consequence of conscious decisions by the community and these individuals.

[Mike]

Can someone please explain to me why this has not deteriorated into a verboten political thread? Personally, my hair is on fire.

 

I'm just guessing here, but I think it's because the thread is not about politics.

 

Pilgrim

 

Wry condescension noted and appreciated (sounds like something I'd say), Pilgrim, but I have to disagree, this is entirely about politics. When "socialism" is used as a pejorative in regard to govermnental duties, when libertarian views are crammed into post after post after post, it's about politicts...rather, it's deteriorated into politics.

I'd best quit reading this thread, I don't want to find myself having posted an outburst which would offend.

 

Mark, just to clarify BMWST policy, our definition of politics refers not to public policy debates, but to partisan politics. Most things touched by politicians are the subject of fair debate here, but when we get into discussions of Democratic vs. Republican vs. Tea Party, Bush vs. Obama, or the like, that's beyond what is permitted here.

 

Pilgrim's well-acquainted with the rules and frequently jumps into the fray, within the bounds I've described. I don't think he was being condescending, but, rather, stating what he believed was obvious.

 

Anyway . . . nothing here (thus far) has overstepped the rules.

[Whip]

As a firefighter, and leaving the payment/nonpayment issue aside, I can not imagine how you could not respond.

 

But bringing a different twist to the discussion...I'm sure I've responded to many fires over the years for people who have not paid their taxes.

 

 

 

You don't count, your fire department is a private company.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ken H.]

To me the deciding factor (on why this was wrong) was that they offered (to the 911 operator) to pay the full cost of coming out.

 

Look at it this way – it cost 1000s of dollars no doubt to put out a fire. The opt-in people, should they have a fire, get a bargain for their $75 a year. The opt-out people get hit up for the full cost, but property, and potentially lives, are saved.

 

Whether or not it would be collectable later (i.e. the opt-out person has the financial where withal) is a valid, but separate subject. The social moral responsibility to put out the fire trumps the financial issues. IMHO.

 

[Ken H.]

But bringing a different twist to the discussion...I'm sure I've responded to many fires over the years for people who have not paid their taxes.

I think that’s an excellent point. Can you just see when 911 operators have to pull up your tax records before deciding whether or not to dispatch. (On anything.)

 

To me this whole subject/incident ties back to our maddening propensity to judge the value of everything indexed only to the almighty dollar. “Can’t pay? Let ‘em burn/die!”

 

[philbytx]

My first reaction was "Screw 'em!" as they were, for whatever reason, being cheap and shortsighted.

 

The two things we require in life are a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. IMHO, anything over and above that is a wonderful plus!

 

And I live 1/4 mile from our FD and have 5 (correct rating!) fire extinguishers available in our home at strategic points! We value the roof over our heads very much.

 

Perhaps the local authority should have included some language stating that if there was danger from or to an adjoining insured property and the "opted out" home owner requested assistance, there would be a minimum charge of $10000 for the callout plus actual man hours and supplies/equipment charges. IMHO, even someone with the IQ of a small earthquake seeing a $75 fee versus a $10k plus charge (for each callout), would hesitate to turn it down!

 

 

[beemerman2k]

There's a reason for that line of thought, Ken, it's called "limited resources". That's nice if the fire department takes it upon itself to put out fires at its own cost, but what happens when they run out of money? What happens when the firemen can no longer get paid and therefore, seek employment elsewhere. Who pays to maintain the trucks and to restore the broken equipment after putting out a fire? What happens now to the people who DID pay their taxes or the $75 fee and yet have no access to a fire department anymore? See? We're back to the "fair" question: in being "fair" to the delinquents, are they being "fair" to those who actually paid for the service and yet can no longer have access to them because they are broke?

 

This is why I argue the case for freedom and individual responsibility. You want in? Pay for it. You don't? It's on you. You are an adult and therefore you are expected to manage your life and your risks accordingly. Children cannot do this, adults must do this.

[Jerry Duke]

I live in a district with a volunteer, fee based fire department. They have a policy that if a non subscriber calls, they respond and collect the annual fee on the spot, all the while the crew is responding to the fire. After all, the land the burnt house is standing on is worth more than the annual fee.

But in the past year, most of the fires they responded to were set by entry level volunteers who wanted to build up their hours so they can apply to the city, tax supported and payroll based fire department....

[tallman]

Was the 911 operator from the county (who contracted with the city for fire service) or the city?

The option was from the county.

I don't think an offer to pay whatever it takes could be accepted by the 911 operator regardless of where they were.

 

Around here there is a city PD and a county sheriff dept.

Consolidation of services is a hot topic.

911 has been with address standardization and it has helped reduce response time.

It is too bad that he opted out, but to allow phone contracting at time of event won't work, IMO.

 

OnStar

"We detected an impact"

Driver

"Call an insurance agent"

OnStar

"Pardon me"

Driver

"I need insurance coverage"

OnStar

"why/"

Driver

"I opted out"

OnStar

"We can offer you a policy, but it will cost you..."

 

Perhaps they are mmissing an opportunity, or not.

[Joel]

I just can't see this as a failure of government. It was not a scenario that was imposed on them. In fact, it was very much a case of the government respecting the will of the electorate, stepping back from providing a service, and saying, "Make your own decision." This is simply a clear, and relatively foreseeable, consequence of conscious decisions by the community and these individuals.

 

I agree, although it is arguably a failure of government, in a different sense, when the governed have public policy choices and make bad ones. I happen to think this opt-in policy is bad. As a volunteer firefighter, I think the job of being a responder is hard enough without having to assess whether the clientele "deserves" service, or negotiate the scope and cost of service under the pressure of threats to life and property. This event demonstrates that an opt-in policy can force difficult choices, with bad -- albeit foreseeable -- outcomes being possible if not likely.

 

I don't think the deficiency in this policy would be cured by giving the FD the right to collect the costs of the response and then lien the recipient's property. Even if it were a strict liability situation, the practicalities of collecting would consume even more resources, inefficiently. And who wants a lien against a smoldering lump of charcoal when that lien is subordinate to the (possibly un- or underinsured) owner's mortgages?

 

I'm having trouble relieving Cranick of responsibility for his choices. Some presumptions I make: (a) nobody compelled him to live in an area without a fire department; (b) a reasonable person would understand the risks associated with living in an area without a fire department; © when presented with a choice to opt-in to a fire response program, a reasonable person would make the choice he deems best for himself, with an understanding of the consequences of that choice; (d) negotiating for emergency response at the time of an actual emergency was not an option in the program; and (e) a reasonable person who chose not to opt in to fire coverage would exercise extreme caution when intentionally burning something on his property. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Cranick set this fire. I'm sure he didn't intend for it to get out of control, but he made the choice to strike the match.

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Cranick is now claiming he "forgot" to pay the fee.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

 

He says he has homeowner's insurance that will cover some of his losses.

 

suppose instead that he forgot to pay the premium on his homeowner's insurance, and they subsequently declined to cover his losses. Would we be having this discussion?

 

What about people who decline to buy flood insurance? Or life insurance?

[moshe_levy]

Sounds like the old proverb that "in good times, everyone's a free market capitalist, but in bad times, everyone's a socialist..." Sums up behavior in this country quite nicely.

 

-MKL

[Mike]

I just can't see this as a failure of government. It was not a scenario that was imposed on them. In fact, it was very much a case of the government respecting the will of the electorate, stepping back from providing a service, and saying, "Make your own decision." This is simply a clear, and relatively foreseeable, consequence of conscious decisions by the community and these individuals.

 

I agree, although it is arguably a failure of government, in a different sense, when the governed have public policy choices and make bad ones. I happen to think this opt-in policy is bad. As a volunteer firefighter, I think the job of being a responder is hard enough without having to assess whether the clientele "deserves" service, or negotiate the scope and cost of service under the pressure of threats to life and property. This event demonstrates that an opt-in policy can force difficult choices, with bad -- albeit foreseeable -- outcomes being possible if not likely.

 

I actually agree with you. Our lines of reasoning might not be the same, but I truthfully don't buy the notion that core government services could be offered more efficiently by the public sector, nor do I think it's a smart idea to make those basic services--things like fire and police protection--optional.

 

While this case is illustrative of what can go wrong if you inject too much individual choice into the process of providing basic government services, it seems that the greater problem is something else--we've become reluctant to say "no" to adding a wide range of government benefits and services to what we've come to expect.

[DavidEBSmith]

It's standard practice for shortchanged housing contractors to put a lien on a homeowner's property for unpaid bills; it should be at least as easy for the city itself to do so.

 

I don't know about Tennessee law, but under Illinois law, yes, it is easy for a city to place a lien on property for costs of services incurred, or to exercise other collection options. My department has a whole unit of people who try to collect on those liens.

 

The problem comes when the house on the property has burned down, or the city has had to demolish it. The city can foreclose on the lien, but, putting aside that it's a long and potentially expensive process, after a disaster the remaining value of the property is often far less than the value of the costs incurred. There may be a potential for a personal judgment against the owner, but the odds of finding assets from which you can collect a judgment from someone who won't pay $75 for fire protection are slim. The city has spent the taxpayers' money to eliminate the hazard, but as a practical matter has no way of getting that money back.

 

For example, the City of Chicago wrecks many abandoned, dangerous and dilapidated houses. The cost of a simple wreck is typically $10K. The vacant lot that remains does not have a market value anywhere near $10K. The City has a priority lien, even over any outstanding mortgages, but foreclosing and selling the lot, if a lot in a bad neighborhood will even sell, doesn't get the money back. It is not uncommon for the fund from which wrecks are paid to run dry at the end of the fiscal year. It's not uncommon for our liens to sit for years and years on properties in the hope that the properties will someday be worth something to somebody.

[russell_bynum]

Sorry, don't have any money, I'll just walk away from it all, try and collect from me.

 

...which is why I said "but realistically it would probably cost them too much in legal fees to ever extract that money so I can understand the "too bad so sad" response they gave."

 

It's standard practice for shortchanged housing contractors to put a lien on a homeowner's property for unpaid bills; it should be at least as easy for the city itself to do so.

 

A lien is useless until they try to sell.