God bless the South Fulton Fire Department

[The Mad Monk]

well if there were no fires they wouldn't need a fire service.

i'm not convinced that most people would choose not to pay. the things that people routinely buy insurance for have a very low risk of actually occuring, but people buy the insurance to avoid the large portenial hassles/costs should that event occur. i don't believe that giving people the option to pay a huge fee to save their house and possessions in the event of a fire instead of a small annual fee to cover the risk will change people's behaviour very much.

Most people here here either pay because the company holding the loan requires them to pay, or because the law does. They also tend to carry the minimum required by either. A case in point is automotive liability (collision) and comprehensive; the law requires the former, lenders require the latter, and the latter is often dropped as soon as the loan is paid off.

[The Mad Monk]

also, let's think about the costs and results here.

as it stands the fire service attends the fire. once they've made sure that no one is at risk they do nothing and people lose their house and possessions. clearly there are costs for attending the fire. the manpower, fuel, vehicle maintenance and so on. the people who bear these costs are those who pay the fees for the fire service. there is a 0% chance of recovering those costs from the people whose house has just burnt down.

if the fire service attended the fire and put it out. there would be these same costs, plus the cost of the water used to put the fire out. there would be a good chance that the person's house and possessions would be saved. they could then bill the people for the expenses involved. there would be a greater than 0% chance of recovering those expenses.

if you spend two minutes thinking about it, it's clear which is the better outcome.

Now let's add one or more firefighters getting hurt or killed. Insurannce refuses to pay because they did not act according to contract, and further, cancels the policy, which effectively dissolves the fire department. What is the better outcome now?

[The Mad Monk]

I don't understand why there is a separate fire fighter fee instead of working that into municipal taxes, either sales or property.

The properties in question are outside the municipality in question, and do not pay any taxes to it, other than the fire protection fee. The municipality cannot demand taxes or fees in this case.

[The Mad Monk]

because I hate people that live in unincorporated areas.

If they were just levying this against people who don't pay municipal taxes, I could see that, but I'd hate for a clerical error affect a tax payer and have their house burn down, which is entirely possible with this system in place.

One of the benefits of living in a municipal area with a tax base is the implicit guarantee that you are protected and attended to in emergencies by the pool of taxes collected.

I believe the fee only effects those outside the municipality in question.

[C0ckney]

Now let's add one or more firefighters getting hurt or killed. Insurannce refuses to pay because they did not act according to contract, and further, cancels the policy, which effectively dissolves the fire department. What is the better outcome now?

i would imagine that most injuries/death happen when firefighters are trying to save people trapped inside burning buildings, which they would do with either option.

[The Mad Monk]

Now you're just evading.

[rah]

Actually I don't think that's true. Fires don't always do what they expect them to do. Injuries are accidents that can occur in any activity. At least based on all the stories I had to listen to from my father-in-law who was a lifetime firefighter in Chicago.

[notyoueither]

In this case it was a trailer park where the owner knew about the fee but figured the 75 bucks wasn't worth it. If the FD put a lien on the property, it would probably be no different than letting the place burn to the ground. Either way the owner ends up with squat.

The FD would put out all fires. They would bill those who did not pay the yearly fee. The bill is not paid. The FD places a lien on the property. The property can not be sold or transfered until the lien is satisfied.

In this case the owner of the trailer court would have to deal with the lien. They would likely add the $75 to the lot fees and ensure that they do not get any large bills.

It would be the same as contractors doing work on the property. Don't pay for the work and they put a lien on it.

[Kuciwalker]

If the city could force that, then I imagine they could compel just paying the $75, and that seems like the best option.

[notyoueither]

The State would need to make allowances for the FD to be treated as any other contractor doing work on a property. The locals could then manage themselves as they see fit.

[notyoueither]

I am imagining that the City FD providing service to the County is done by mutual agreement.

[C0ckney]

Now you're just evading.

no.

the things you wrote about insurance make no sense, so i ignored them.

[C0ckney]

i don't want to come across as rude, but i don't understand the argument you're trying to make.

[kentonio]

America is really ****ed up. Jesus, do you people live in a Charles Dickens novel or something?