• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground

Are you sure. I have inlaws that live in yorktown, the county, they pay a fire "Fee" but thier taxes also go to the fire dept.... I can see that if they are in unicorporated land that this fee is more than fair, but, if I were the firemen, I'd roll up thier with a clip board that stated they would be billed by the hour if the fee hadn't been paid. Why? because by not addressing this fire they risked the other home, which had paid.

From what I understand about the story, the county properties lie outside the city's tax zone. But they also provide the emergency services to the county as a large, so since they can't tax they do this 75 dollar thing. There seems like there is room for reason in this. 75 bucks, if you don't pay it and have a fire it becomes 150 or 200 or something like that; but they'll put the fire out.
 
Are you sure. I have inlaws that live in yorktown, the county, they pay a fire "Fee" but thier taxes also go to the fire dept.... I can see that if they are in unicorporated land that this fee is more than fair, but, if I were the firemen, I'd roll up thier with a clip board that stated they would be billed by the hour if the fee hadn't been paid. Why? because by not addressing this fire they risked the other home, which had paid.

Yea, it's outside the city limits.
The fire service was offered as a fee for service, since the city has no tax authority over the county residents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
From what I understand about the story, the county properties lie outside the city's tax zone. But they also provide the emergency services to the county as a large, so since they can't tax they do this 75 dollar thing. There seems like there is room for reason in this. 75 bucks, if you don't pay it and have a fire it becomes 150 or 200 or something like that; but they'll put the fire out.

I'd jack it up to $300 cash, on the spot.
So they don't have to worry about collections later on.
 
I'd jack it up to $300 cash, on the spot.
So they don't have to worry about collections later on.



I'd bill em at $150 an hour per man, plus equipment fees, put a lean on the property until paid, at 8% interest.


"sign the form or we let it burn"..... Seems simple enough motivation to have those folks pay the $75 a year.
 
From what I understand about the story, the county properties lie outside the city's tax zone. But they also provide the emergency services to the county as a large, so since they can't tax they do this 75 dollar thing. There seems like there is room for reason in this. 75 bucks, if you don't pay it and have a fire it becomes 150 or 200 or something like that; but they'll put the fire out.

So, I can either pay $75.00 a year, or just pay $150.00 - $200.00 if I have a fire? Wouldn't you be crazy not to choose to pay $200.00 IF you have a fire? Most people would come out way ahead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
I'd jack it up to $300 cash, on the spot.

Yeah, I understand the collections thing, but then it feels like even more of a shakedown. I know it's not, but it still feels like government goons with a big sack and less you throw money into that sack, bad things will happen to you. Plus, who carries that much cash on them?
 
Yeah, I understand the collections thing, but then it feels like even more of a shakedown. I know it's not, but it still feels like government goons with a big sack and less you throw money into that sack, bad things will happen to you. Plus, who carries that much cash on them?

I don't carry that much but I would if I didn't pay the fee. :mrgreen:
 
Are you sure. I have inlaws that live in yorktown, the county, they pay a fire "Fee" but thier taxes also go to the fire dept.... I can see that if they are in unicorporated land that this fee is more than fair, but, if I were the firemen, I'd roll up thier with a clip board that stated they would be billed by the hour if the fee hadn't been paid. Why? because by not addressing this fire they risked the other home, which had paid.

don't know. where I live, the city FD is supported by city and local taxes. since I live outside the city limits, I do not pay the city taxes, I therefore do not receive city services (police, fire, sanitation, etc) I get law enforcement from the county sheriff, I pay a monthly fee to the county for sanitation service and we have a volunteer FD. typically the houses are far enough apart that were my house to catch fire, it would pose no threat to the neighbors. maybe that's why the FD stayed there and watched this guy's house burn...to make sure it didn't spread to his neighbor who had paid the $75.
 
Re: Idiot firefighters let house burn down because owner didn't have $75!!

What doesn't it?
 
Re: Idiot firefighters let house burn down because owner didn't have $75!!

There are certain services that most of us can agree shouldnt cost money. Firefighting is one of them, there's a reason we got rid of the idea of privatizing firefighting services.
 
Re: Idiot firefighters let house burn down because owner didn't have $75!!

Or, the morons could have simply paid their bill for services. :roll:
 
If they let people pay the fee after a fire no one would pay until they had a fire. They can't provide the additional manpower needed if they do not have the money upfront.

I have no sympathy for the guy EVEN IF it was his FIRST fire. $75.00 to protect your home is nothing.

One angle I haven't seen mentioned is;
I believe it could be a scam by this guy. Don't pay the fee. House "catches" on fire and burns to the ground he gets a new house. (assuming he is insured) What better evidence that he didn't want it to burn than a 911 tape where he BEGS them to come?

Food for thought.
 
Re: Idiot firefighters let house burn down because owner didn't have $75!!

Or, the morons could have simply paid their bill for services. :roll:
The point is that there shouldn't BE a bill for services like this.
 
Re: Idiot firefighters let house burn down because owner didn't have $75!!

The point is that there shouldn't BE a bill for services like this.

so the fire fighters should work for free? who is going to pay for all the needed equipment?
 
Re: Idiot firefighters let house burn down because owner didn't have $75!!

Firefighting isn't free. Even volunteers need money for equipment, gas for trucks, training, and compensation if someone is injured on the job. It has to be paid for somehow. The city had no authority to tax the people in the county. They needed to get revenue.
 
If they let people pay the fee after a fire no one would pay until they had a fire. They can't provide the additional manpower needed if they do not have the money upfront.

I have no sympathy for the guy EVEN IF it was his FIRST fire. $75.00 to protect your home is nothing.

One angle I haven't seen mentioned is;
I believe it could be a scam by this guy. Don't pay the fee. House "catches" on fire and burns to the ground he gets a new house. (assuming he is insured) What better evidence that he didn't want it to burn than a 911 tape where he BEGS them to come?

Food for thought.


dude in the town where I grew up lost 3 houses due to "accidental" fires. they finally busted him after the third one when it was discovered that he had put all the contents of the house in storage a couple of days before the fire.
 
Re: Idiot firefighters let house burn down because owner didn't have $75!!

Firefighting isn't free. Even volunteers need money for equipment, gas for trucks, training, and compensation if someone is injured on the job. It has to be paid for somehow. The city had no authority to tax the people in the county. They needed to get revenue.

apparently there are people that still think govt service are "free".
 
If they let people pay the fee after a fire no one would pay until they had a fire. They can't provide the additional manpower needed if they do not have the money upfront.

I have no sympathy for the guy EVEN IF it was his FIRST fire. $75.00 to protect your home is nothing.

One angle I haven't seen mentioned is;
I believe it could be a scam by this guy. Don't pay the fee. House "catches" on fire and burns to the ground he gets a new house. (assuming he is insured) What better evidence that he didn't want it to burn than a 911 tape where he BEGS them to come?

Food for thought.

I'm thinking the insurance co. may try to get out of paying since the guy gambled by not paying the $75.
 
Re: Idiot firefighters let house burn down because owner didn't have $75!!

so the fire fighters should work for free? who is going to pay for all the needed equipment?
I've lived in two places, both areas were able to find the funding without directly charging people.


apparently there are people that still think govt service are "free".
I know they aren't free. But I dont see the benefit in charging people directly for fire protection then NOT helping them if they dont pay. Paying with it through taxes is a perfectly acceptable method AND it means no one gets denied protection.
 
Last edited:
Re: Idiot firefighters let house burn down because owner didn't have $75!!

I've lived in two places, both areas were able to find the funding without directly charging people.

I'm sure that they also taxed you for it, something that the government here was unable to do. Even with grants and fundraisers, some of the money has to come from somewhere else.
 
Re: Idiot firefighters let house burn down because owner didn't have $75!!

Even with grants and fundraisers, some of the money has to come from somewhere else.
And that's fine. My issue is that people are denied fire protection for not paying a fee. It's as bad as privatization, there's a reason we got rid of that system.
 
Re: Idiot firefighters let house burn down because owner didn't have $75!!

And that's fine. My issue is that people are denied fire protection for not paying a fee. It's as bad as privatization, there's a reason we got rid of that system.

I know, and my point is that if you don't make people pay the fee, they won't do so. I am a volunteer firefighter, and I understand our responsibility to the community. I joined, because I want to help others. However, we also have expenses that need to be paid for.
 
Last edited:
Re: Idiot firefighters let house burn down because owner didn't have $75!!

I've lived in two places, both areas were able to find the funding without directly charging people.



I know they aren't free. But I dont see the benefit in charging people directly for fire protection then NOT helping them if they dont pay. Paying with it through taxes is a perfectly acceptable method AND it means no one gets denied protection.


except for the fact that this guy was outside the city and they couldn't tax him to pay for it.
 
I'm thinking the insurance co. may try to get out of paying since the guy gambled by not paying the $75.

Since this guy was too cheap to pay $75 a year for fire service, what would you bet he was too cheap/stupid to carry homeowner's insurance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
I'm thinking the insurance co. may try to get out of paying since the guy gambled by not paying the $75.

I very good point. I am surprised the insurance co. doesn't require them to pay for the coverage before insuring the house or just paying it themselves and passing the cost along to the customer. I live in a rural area with a volunteer fire dept. They have to be certified at a certain level or our home owners insurance goes up.
 
Back
Top Bottom