In the news today

[Ryllharu]

Shouldn't they put out the fire, then charge the guy the $11,000? Sure the guy tried to cheat the system, but firefighters should still stop the fire because it is a hazard to the neighbourhood, plus the potential for people being trapped inside. A person's life is not worth less than a $75 monthly fee.

The fire department is legally obligated to protect human lives. They are not legally obligated to save property or pets, which is what happened.

Not if, as Deathscythe said, the guy paid $11,000 for them to save him. The people would really take the lesson as to rather just pay the $75 up front.

No, they wouldn't take the lesson to heart. It's simple, most people just wouldn't pay that either. Once their house is safe, what do they care? Default on the payment, declare bankruptcy, whatever. Fire Departments can't afford the time and additional money it would take to get them to actually pay up.

The only way you could incorporate that kind of solution is to have the fire dept put a lien on the house, and that's not much of a solution either. The fire department doesn't want to end up owning a half-dozen half-burnt homes.

Not all national parks charge to helicopter rides either, so that is sort of a poor analogy. That recently became an news issue too, when one group of unprepared yuppies called the park service three times, twice because they got themselves lost, and a third time because they freaked out when their water tasted a little salty. Like the firefighters, they can't take the risk of NOT responding in order to save lives. They take stupid risks, but the rescue services can't afford not to. In this fire fighting instance, they could afford not to take any further risk, no additional human beings were inside the house.