1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Man chooses not to pay fire protection fee, house allowed to burn down

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by RickStain, Oct 5, 2010.

  1. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member


    Man lives in rural area with no fire service. Nearest city offers fire protection for $75 a year to those in that rural area. Man refuses to pay fee. Man's house catches fire. He calls fire department and offers to pay full cost of putting the fire out, but they say it's too late and let it burn to the ground.

  2. I honestly don't know how I feel about this one. It absolutely sucks that this is the situation they find themselves in, but they knew going in what the deal was as far as coverage goes, and they chose not to pay, In fact, the homeowner comes off as idiotic in a sense when he makes the statement that he thought they would come out and stop it even though he didn't pay. What made him think that? Either way, the city is going to come off looking bad here, and I'm not sure they shouldn't.
  3. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    He rolled the dice. He lost. People who choose not to pay taxes and fees need to make alternate plans for when they inevitably need those services. I bet a bigger percentage of people in the area pony up the $75 fee going forward.
  4. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    You guys need more socialism. Up here everyone gets fire service. But of course, the lineups are long.
  5. Steak Snabler

    Steak Snabler Well-Known Member

    Wouldn't refusing to put out the fire potentially endanger the lives of other people, not to mention wildlife? They should have put the fire out, then sent him a bill ...
  6. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    In most rural areas, if you don't pay the annual fee, the fire will be put out but then you'll be sent a bill.

    Also, in most cases, you don't even know about the annual fee, It is built into your home insurance or mortgage or rent.

    And why the guy is angry, the house was likely to burn down anyway. In small towns and rural areas, with volunteer fire departments or even small paid staffs. By the time they get the call, the firefighters leave their regular jobs, go to the station, get on a truck and drive to the burning house. By the time they get there, the job goes from house fire fighting to protecting the area around the house to keep the fire from spreading.
  7. Steak Snabler

    Steak Snabler Well-Known Member

    That's what I was thinking. Seems like refusing to put out the fire would violate whatever is the firefighters' equivalent of the Hippocratic oath.
  8. crusoes

    crusoes Active Member

    The free market should be allowed to decide which houses burn down, just like it should determine which people get health care and which people get to hold spaghetti dinners to pay for health care.

    Sounds like this guy should get a pail of water boiling in the ashes of his house.
  9. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    First, do no comps.
  10. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    If the house really didn't want to burn down, it could have just worked harder at being fire-resistant.

    There is no reason that any house should burn down if it's willing to work hard and use the right materials. Anything less is a lazy house.
  11. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    He chose to live in a house.

    He knew what he was getting into.

    I say, let it burn.
  12. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Well played Mauer.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page