Quote Originally Posted by Splash! View Post
No, option B pretty asinine. We are talking about someone's house burning down here, which is an emergency service. You should put out the fire first and ask questions later, even if the person whose property you are saving is a dick. If you are worried about the "message it would send to other people", then also consider the message being sent out when the fire authorities just sit by and do nothing as someone's house burns down (even if it is within their means). It creates a lack of trust.

If people not paying is resulting in serious underfunding as you say, then there are better ways to resolve the problem. Maybe some sort of contractual mechanism whereby, if you have not been making your payments, and request a fire to be put out, any property saved can be used as collateral if the the service is not paid for after the fact. Of course, there might be other loose ends to tie in this scenario, but still, a complicated situation like this demands a slightly more refined solution, not just "no money, burn in hell". Option B is screwing over people that actually might have a change of heart after having their house saved and decide to pay (especially if their house is worth more than $11,000).

Yes, there should be serious repercussions for those who refuse to pay after having their house saved. Maybe more effort should be spent on accountability, rather than resorting to oversimplified and selfish solutions because lack of accountability is assumed to be a general and immutable fact.
You're not understanding the situation. First and foremost, regardless of the fee, they are obligated to save human lives...and that is where their job ends if they haven't been paying the fee. People saved? House can burn down. The property is never a priority. Only lives. Property protection costs money and comes with an increased risk, one that the city cannot afford if they aren't being funded, which the rural area is paying for only on a case-by-case basis.

This is like Toronto's fire department putting out fires in all of Ontario or New York City putting out fires in all of upstate NY. They are in no way obligated to provide service to this rural municipality, they do it as a favor, for a small annual fee that covers the costs in a premiums/incident style, similar to auto-insurance or life-insurance (or Health Care in the US).

The fire department must never get involved in debt collection. That isn't their job, they have better things to do (using all their funds to save lives), so an after-the-fact "business model" can not exist. Not to mention the historical repercussions of a suddenly "private" fire house now functionally saving houses and lives as part of a services-rendered model. The last time the US had that, we had a whole lot more fireman-arsonists.

People were not paying in the rural area because they are fucking cheap. They voted AGAINST a fire dept in their own municipality for the last decade or more. This man helped to create this problem, he chose to not pay the fee, their lives were saved, and his house burned. There's no room for a change of heart just because the fate you gambled against occurred. That man CHOSE to keep his money, and only relented when he suddenly needed the service he believed he never needed.

It's called owning up to the decisions you willingly made. "You made the bed, now sleep in it."


It's this kind of behavior that got us into the current economic crisis and subsequent bailouts. When there is no downside to taking a risk because someone will always cover everything in case the gamble goes poorly, everyone will take the risk to excess because there is literally nothing to lose. Seriously...fuck that. It's called taking responsibility, and part of being an adult member of society.