Fire Department as a Subscription Service ?

[Michael Hardner]

Time Magazine

Three weeks ago, an elderly couple in Obion County, Tennessee, lost their trailer and four pets when firefighters refused to extinguish the conflagration. The trailer was located in a rural section of the county that does not have its own fire department, so five surrounding municipalities respond as needed, with three others responding only to subscribers. Gene and Pauline Cranick had forgotten to pay an annual $75 subscription fee for rural fire protection — so the South Fulton Fire Department helped only the Cranicks' neighbors, who were paid subscribers.

...

statistics show that in communities that have subscription fees for firefighting, less than 70% of people pay subscription fees, and that number is as low as 40% in the early years of a subscription campaign.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2026445,00.html#ixzz1302dCJqs

I would argue that running the fire department this way makes no sense for two reasons:

1. There is an extra cost to administer a payment system.

2. The economic damage done by fires, while unquantifiable, likely costs more than you're saving in taxes with this scheme.

[bush_cheney2004]

Time Magazine

I would argue that running the fire department this way makes no sense for two reasons:

Both of your reasons are minor considerations given the realities of providing fire and police services in rural, unincorporated areas. Let me guess...she forgot to pay her insurance premiums too.

[GostHacked]

Both of your reasons are minor considerations given the realities of providing fire and police services in rural, unincorporated areas. Let me guess...she forgot to pay her insurance premiums too.

It cost them more than the 75 bucks just to show up.

[bush_cheney2004]

It cost them more than the 75 bucks just to show up.

I sure hope so...that's why there is a subscription risk pool. We don't forget to pay ours, and the reward is a nice official looking placard that says put the fire out please (if they can). If not, no big deal....call the insurance company.

[Michael Hardner]

Both of your reasons are minor considerations given the realities of providing fire and police services in rural, unincorporated areas. Let me guess...she forgot to pay her insurance premiums too.

They provide services to the people right next door. How can this not be part of the tax base ?

[bush_cheney2004]

They provide services to the people right next door. How can this not be part of the tax base ?

Many of these areas are not incorporated and people like it that way to keep their taxes low. All they have is a county sheriff in most cases. Second residences or recreational property is not a high priority unless you want to pay for it. It's not complicated.

[GostHacked]

I sure hope so...that's why there is a subscription risk pool. We don't forget to pay ours, and the reward is a nice official looking placard that says put the fire out please (if they can). If not, no big deal....call the insurance company.

it should not be a problem or an issue of payment. It should be part of the taxes and a guaranteed service. If the fire spreads to more that just the home, then the firefighters would have no choice put to step in.

In talking to my good friend who is a fire fighter, he sides with his 'boys' giving them the benefit of the doubt, and thinks there is more going on that just the payment issue. But in his mind, if that was the only thing, he would have had no problem with strapping on the gear and doing what he does best, which is putting out fires.

[Michael Hardner]

Many of these areas are not incorporated and people like it that way to keep their taxes low.

They like it that way, but they don't like it when their house catches fire.

[M.Dancer]

Back to the Future.

This is how many fire services in the UK in the 17th or 18th century were founded. They were prvately funded, and insurance companies would give a plack to their subscribers to display prominately so the fire service knew that would be paid.

Those without had to depend on their neighbours generosity.

[bush_cheney2004]

it should not be a problem or an issue of payment. It should be part of the taxes and a guaranteed service. If the fire spreads to more that just the home, then the firefighters would have no choice put to step in.

These are not highly regulated or municipal fire departments. In many cases, these are "volunteer" organizations with little or no taxpayer support. The "situation" is one of many non-homesteaded owners seeking to reduce their tax liability for recreational property, or rural owners not wanting "big city" taxes for water, sewer, fire, animal control, etc.

In talking to my good friend who is a fire fighter, he sides with his 'boys' giving them the benefit of the doubt, and thinks there is more going on that just the payment issue. But in his mind, if that was the only thing, he would have had no problem with strapping on the gear and doing what he does best, which is putting out fires.

Will he do it for free?

[bush_cheney2004]

They like it that way, but they don't like it when their house catches fire.

You pays your money or takes your chances....

[GostHacked]

These are not highly regulated or municipal fire departments. In many cases, these are "volunteer" organizations with little or no taxpayer support. The "situation" is one of many non-homesteaded owners seeking to reduce their tax liability for recreational property, or rural owners not wanting "big city" taxes for water, sewer, fire, animal control, etc.

Well some things you can't effectively do on your own. Firefighting is one of them.

Will he do it for free?

If you are part of a volunteer service, then yes he would be doing it for free. However he is not a city firefighter either, he is stationed at the airport which is more of a specialty role, and it's not a question I asked. I will next time I see him.

[Michael Hardner]

You pays your money or takes your chances....

Right. And the hidden costs of your poor choices will be paid by other people later.

What costs ? How about economic and social costs from deaths and injuries, loss of opportunity and lives hurt by the disaster ? What about legal costs ? Can these be quantified ? Perhaps somewhat - but not completely. Part of the problem is that they can't, and therefore aren't factored into the economics of this system.

[bush_cheney2004]

Right. And the hidden costs of your poor choices will be paid by other people later.

Tell us something we don't know.

What costs ? How about economic and social costs from deaths and injuries, loss of opportunity and lives hurt by the disaster ? What about legal costs ? Can these be quantified ? Perhaps somewhat - but not completely. Part of the problem is that they can't, and therefore aren't factored into the economics of this system.

Of course they can be quantified...actuaries and underwriters make their living doing this. Sorry, but you cannot prevent or mitigate every risk in life. The owner obviously had paid in the past, realizing the risk and obligation.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course they can be quantified...actuaries and underwriters make their living doing this. Sorry, but you cannot prevent or mitigate every risk in life. The owner obviously had paid in the past, realizing the risk and obligation.

Ok, I guess this can be estimated to a point - but as you already pointed out that this is something you know already.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok, I guess this can be estimated to a point - but as you already pointed out that this is something you know already.

To be quite frank, and although we don't wish any ill will toward a neighbor's property, there is a smug satisfaction for those who are prepared and insured vs. those who are not. However, there is additional disdain for those who ignore fire safety, building codes, garbage collection, etc. Let 'em burn!

[Michael Hardner]

To be quite frank, and although we don't wish any ill will toward a neighbor's property, there is a smug satisfaction for those who are prepared and insured vs. those who are not. However, there is additional disdain for those who ignore fire safety, building codes, garbage collection, etc. Let 'em burn!

I suppose I know what you mean, but I'm not sure if you feel bad for those who make stupid decisions like this. I do.

[ToadBrother]

You pays your money or takes your chances....

It isn't unique to the United States. My grandparents' large acreage was in a no man's land between two "improvement districts", both of which had their own volunteer firefighting teams (the equipment was paid for by the improvement districts through water and infrastructure taxes). In the late 1980s, one of the barns (fortunately empty) burned to the ground, and neither fire department would attend, because they weren't getting paid. Of course, the insurance company got a whiff of this and in short order everyone in my grandparents' area were getting letters saying that all fire insurance was going to be revoked. In the end, my grandparents had to pay for fire protection via an infrastructure tax for water they didn't get, but the alternative was, well, to watch your house burn down and not get a nickel of insurance money to rebuild.

The lesson is pretty simple. One way or the other, whether by taxes or subscription, pay for fire protection.

[bush_cheney2004]

I suppose I know what you mean, but I'm not sure if you feel bad for those who make stupid decisions like this. I do.

Correct....I most certainly do not. I even keep a fully charged garden hose at the ready for my fire pit.

[Bonam]

I suppose I know what you mean, but I'm not sure if you feel bad for those who make stupid decisions like this. I do.

Why should we feel bad for people who make stupid decisions? It's their stupid decisions, their mistake, their consequences, and them who should feel bad about it if they suffer as a result of their bad decision.

[Smallc]

Right, what good is human compassion? Some of you would like humanity to be filled with people who have consideration for nothing but their pocket books.

[bush_cheney2004]

Right, what good is human compassion? Some of you would like humanity to be filled with people who have consideration for nothing but their pocket books.

Instead, these compassionate types are more concerned with what's in my "pocketbook".

[M.Dancer]

Instead, these compassionate types are more concerned with what's in my "pocketbook".

Isn't that Capital One?

[ToadBrother]

Right, what good is human compassion? Some of you would like humanity to be filled with people who have consideration for nothing but their pocket books.

The reality is that fire departments, even volunteer ones, cost a helluva lot of money to maintain. On top of that are issues of insurance. In a lot of cases, fire departments are not insured if they go beyond specific boundaries. To increase those boundaries usually means expanding the pressurized water system, so that costs money too.

The fact of the matter is that home owners have certain responsibilities and choices. You can choose, for instance, not to insure your house, and if it burns to the ground or is otherwise destroyed in a normally insurable way, you're out of luck. You threw the dice and lost. Do you think the insurance company should just give you money because of human compassion? If not, then why firefighting? It even goes beyond that, I hate the Provincial emergency disaster relief fund because it basically offers taxpayer cash to people who do stupid things like build houses on the side of cliffs or right next to large rivers, places where the insurance company will refuse to insure for flooding and the like.

Out my area this was a real hot topic about a decade ago. We have a number of outlying areas like my grandparents' place (now mine), and one area had pretty much opted out of coverage, because, shockingly, the city wanted them to pay at least a goodly portion of the mile or so of waterline that would have to be run to put hydrants out there. The neighborhood made its choice, and sure as s--t, one of the houses burned down. The city's fire department had a reciprocal agreement with the Provincial forestry service (in other words, they would be under Provincial firefighting insurance provisions) for bush fires, so the fire trucks came out and basically watered down the bush around the house as it burned to assure the forest didn't catch on fire. This, of course, lead to howls of rage from the neighborhood, and the fire chief explained that the second the firefighters turned a hose on that house, they would be fully liable for anything that happened. What's more, he reminded the neighborhood that, a few years before, they had quite vigorously rejected the city's attempt to move its boundaries because they didn't want to pay city taxes yadda yadda yadda.

In other words, they made their choice. They liked the low taxes that came with being outside of municipal or improvement district boundaries, and they knew that that meant they had no fire protection. But they got the point when one of their house's went up, and no insurance money to rebuild it. Within a year they were within city boundaries and paid their portion to have the city's water system extended.

Edited October 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

The reality is that fire departments, even volunteer ones, cost a helluva lot of money to maintain.

You don't say?

On top of that are issues of insurance. In a lot of cases, fire departments are not insured if they go beyond specific boundaries.

Which was obviously not the case here.

To increase those boundaries usually means expanding the pressurized water system, so that costs money too.

That does not have to be done. Very few rural departments rely on a pressurized water system.

The idea that fire coverage should not be part of normal property tax payments is outrageous. It shouldn't even be a choice. Talk about defending the indefensible.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Smallc