TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 5, 2010 11:45:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 5, 2010 12:40:19 GMT -5
Perhaps the even sicker part of this is that they'll claim a piggish deduction of the home loss and make Uncle Sam pay for their stupidity.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Oct 5, 2010 12:57:09 GMT -5
Well I wouldn't want Obion County to compel its residents to pay for necessary services if those residents don't want to. Wouldn't that set us on the road to socialism? Apparently, the free market dictated that this house should burn to the ground. How can we argue with the market?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 5, 2010 13:50:44 GMT -5
Well I wouldn't want Obion County to compel its residents to pay for necessary services if those residents don't want to. Wouldn't that set us on the road to socialism? Apparently, the free market dictated that this house should burn to the ground. How can we argue with the market? Exactly right. Except for the fact that these morons opted to not pay for the service and then did not get that service. The Cranicks did not view such services as essential and are now suffering the consequences. Seems just right from where I sit. One has to wonder where the local property taxes, etc are allocated and how well a government functions when it can't even provide firefighting services without a surcharge, but that speaks to alarger issue of how ill-equipped government is to do anything other than levy taxes and wage war. In your fantasy world, people opt out of paying for things or working for them and have them hand-delivered by almighty Washington. No job; no work; no problem, have some health care. No job; no work; no problem here's some free housing. No job; no work; no problem, how about some cable TV? |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 5, 2010 14:15:22 GMT -5
One has to wonder where the local property taxes, etc are allocated and how well a government functions when it can't even provide firefighting services without a surcharge, but that speaks to alarger issue of how ill-equipped government is to do anything other than levy taxes and wage war. In your fantasy world, people opt out of paying for things or working for them and have them hand-delivered by almighty Washington. No job; no work; no problem, have some health care. No job; no work; no problem here's some free housing. No job; no work; no problem, how about some cable TV? As to the tax thing, the Cranicks lived in a rural area. The municipalities have normal taxpayer supported fire departments, the rural areas are unincorporated and do not. 5 of the 8 municipalities in the county provide fire protection as needed - so if someone in a rural area has a fire, then they go out and stop it and try to bill them, although they have no power to enforce the billing. Their rate of payment has been under 50%, so in other words, the rural people are deadbeats so the onus falls on the taxpayers of the municipality. 3 of the 8 do a subscription service, and 2 of the 3 that do the subscription service will just let your house burn down. There was a plan to form a county fire system, which needed to raise half a million dollars - less than $120 per rural household. The county decided against it because they didn't want to raise any sort of tax (guess what, they were all Republicans). I don't feel too much sympathy for the Cranicks, I just marvel at the absolute stupidity of this sort of system that treats public safety as an optional service like cable TV. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Oct 5, 2010 15:05:40 GMT -5
Couple of thoughts:
When the guy makes this quote I lose all sympathy for him. He knew it and didn't pay - not didn't know and didn't pay.
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
I guess I am more from the country than most on the board here as I remember a lot of things like this growing up including fire service for payment. I now live in a reasonably high density suburb area now just outside a city limit sign and we have volunteer fire services - not paid county firefighters (though the county does fund the equipment and there is no fee/insurance payment).
If the county found that service could come from folks paying the nearby city $75 or them charging $120 I really do not see a problem with that. Sounds like efficiency to me unless you want to make the case that people are just too stupid to know what is good for them and need government to do it for them. It wasn't like the county government was leaving them without fire service - that would have been problematic but that is now what happened. They just decided to treat adults like adults and with consequences. Maybe they should have just required folks to buy from the city.
The article didn't say anything about this but I wonder if he had a mortgage and homeowners and secondarily why there wasn't a requirement to buy the coverage similar to car insurance when you have a bank lien. I wonder if the homeowners doesn't litigate this before they pay up for rebuilding.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 5, 2010 17:10:51 GMT -5
This sort of reminds me of the "unbundling" of airline fares we've seen in the past decade. Airlines want to advertise that they have the lowest fares, so they take all sorts of things like baggage handling, check-in fees, food, and drink out of the fare and charge them as separate fees. So they get fliers thinking they're paying $50 for a flight, only to make them pay $150 when they show up with bags, check in at the airport, and want something to eat on the flight.
It's the same with the politicians in this place. They want to campaign on the platform that they didn't raise taxes, but they also want to campaign on the platform that they provided their constituents with all sorts of services like firefighting and whatever else they're spending money on. So instead of making the firefighting fee a normal tax like it should be, they make it an "optional extra" and then tell the people how fiscally responsible they are.
In this case the politicians involved all happened to be Republicans, but in this "TAX INCREASES ARE EVIL" environment, all the parties play the same game. Most Americans are too stupid to realize that in order to get all the things they want to get from government, they have to pay higher taxes. They kick and scream if you talk about raising taxes on them, but "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Oct 5, 2010 19:50:12 GMT -5
Textbook example for why everyone should learn risk assessment and analysis.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Oct 5, 2010 19:52:20 GMT -5
Textbook example for why everyone should learn risk assessment and analysis. This would involve everyone learning math. We haven't crossed that bridge yet. |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398 
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 6, 2010 9:03:07 GMT -5
A clear example of the lack of regulation leading to adverse consequences for the public. Imagine if your urban neighbor decided to opt out and your house was damaged because of a fire on his property. Good thing it was just a field in a rural area that caught fire in this instance. As many have said, this policy does not work.
Earlier this decade, a house in my neighborhood caught fire. Three other houses on the block were damaged when they too caught fire(briefly). Imagine if the fire department had to wait until a payer's house caught fire to act. The damage would have been substantially worse.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 6, 2010 9:17:14 GMT -5
A clear example of the lack of regulation leading to adverse consequences for the public. Imagine if your urban neighbor decided to opt out and your house was damaged because of a fire on his property. Good thing it was just a field in a rural area that caught fire in this instance. As many have said, this policy does not work. Earlier this decade, a house in my neighborhood caught fire. Three other house on the block were damaged when they too caught fire(briefly). Imagine if the fire department had to wait until a payer's house caught fire to act. The damage would have been substantially worse. How is this a lack of regulation? Who is going to pass such a "regulation?" Way to totally misstate the issue. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 6, 2010 9:26:44 GMT -5
Way to totally misstate the issue. Way to COMPLETELY miss the point. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 6, 2010 10:00:26 GMT -5
A clear example of the lack of regulation leading to adverse consequences for the public. Imagine if your urban neighbor decided to opt out and your house was damaged because of a fire on his property. Good thing it was just a field in a rural area that caught fire in this instance. As many have said, this policy does not work. Earlier this decade, a house in my neighborhood caught fire. Three other house on the block were damaged when they too caught fire(briefly). Imagine if the fire department had to wait until a payer's house caught fire to act. The damage would have been substantially worse. How is this a lack of regulation? Who is going to pass such a "regulation?" Way to totally misstate the issue. Who's going to pass the regulation that everybody has to pay for the fire department? The GOVERNMENT. Big, evil government. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 6, 2010 11:44:19 GMT -5
A clear example of the lack of regulation leading to adverse consequences for the public. Imagine if your urban neighbor decided to opt out and your house was damaged because of a fire on his property. Good thing it was just a field in a rural area that caught fire in this instance. As many have said, this policy does not work. I'm not sure the urban/rural distinction really matters - brush and forest do catch fire - I can't imagine California ever putting something like this into place. The neighbor's property (his field and his tractor) were in jeopardy here and from the accounts of it, it doesn't sound like they were doing a controlled burn - it sounds like they didn't respond till the neighbor called about his field. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 6, 2010 12:11:10 GMT -5
Why is this stupid? The city and the county are separate government entities. County taxpayers SHOULD pay a fee for fire services from the city. I suppose it hasn't occurred to those posting from major population centers, but many people choose to establish their residence in unincorporated areas to avoid paying city taxes/fees for, among other things, fire and police services. I'm sorry this family's house burned down, but they must live with their own choices. I don't feel too much sympathy for the Cranicks, I just marvel at the absolute stupidity of this sort of system that treats public safety as an optional service like cable TV. So should King County, Texas (population 286, size 913 square miles) provide fire services to all its citizens? Any idea how much that would cost individual taxpayers? Any idea what the average income is in King County? If King County can't feasibly pay for this service, who should? Austin? Washington? I don't want to pay for firefighters in King County. Do you? |
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Oct 6, 2010 12:15:42 GMT -5
So, buy homeowners fire insurance...don't pay your $75 fee...make $$$ when your house burns down
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 6, 2010 12:58:53 GMT -5
I guess the question is whether King County should be the rule or the exception. If it becomes the rule, the hoyainspirit scenario becomes very real for people in urban centers, particularly in the poor neighborhoods. Nevermind the jokers who don't pay a fee, but their actions have consequences for neighbors.
Where the option is offered, there really is no incentive to pay. When your house burns down, you'll try for a piggish casualty loss and/or try to collect on insurance. Whether insurance should have to pay for that is a good question presuming that a good part of the damage is attributable to one's failure to allow fire services to serve the home. I suspect that many folks will scrape by just fine but will cry all the same about losing grandma's recipe collection.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 6, 2010 13:29:10 GMT -5
So should King County, Texas (population 286, size 913 square mile) provide fire services to all its citizens? Any idea how much that would cost individual taxpayers? Any idea what the average income is in King County? If King County can't feasibly pay for this service, who should? Austin? Washington? I don't want to pay for firefighters in King County. Do you? I know nothing about King County, TX, but I did read Obion County's (pop 32,450, size 555 sq miles : 1/2 the size and >100 times as populous) report about creating a countywide department before making my post ( troy.troytn.com/Obion%20County%20Fire%20Department%20Presentation%20Presented%20to%20the%20County%20Commission.pdf). It makes sense in their case to tax the rural households, rather than to have the inconsistent mishmash of municipalities bearing the cost and houses burning down because of inaction, but tax is such a dirty word that they won't do the grown up thing and institute one. * If you read the report, the county is also missing out on federal funding because it doesn't have county-wide coverage. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 6, 2010 13:50:50 GMT -5
If they allowed that in San Diego county, a fire would destroy half the county. These things aren't exactly containable.
|
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Oct 6, 2010 13:56:34 GMT -5
If they allowed that in San Diego county, a fire would destroy half the county. These things aren't exactly containable. Yeah but I wouldn't be surprise to find out that these people have a couple acres of land at least. Also fires are notoriously bad in SoCal because of the winds and the open bush lands neighboring high density population areas. |
|
