Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

In summary: Rural homeowner didn't pay $75 to get fire department service, which was extended to people in the countryside outside the department's coverage. House caught fire, fire department didn't stop it from burning down. They did save his neighbor's house, who did pay the coverage fee.

This is fethed up in all sorts of ways, and no one is going to come out of this looking good, but

"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.

is pretty telling. 1: It costs the FD a lot more than $75 to respond to a fire. If there's no reason to pay until you need the FD to show up, they're going to be loosing a lot of money. 2: I think it'd also open the FD up to incredible legal vulnerabilities. Nothing like showing up to put out the fire of of someone who didn't pay for coverage, getting them to sign off on a preprinted agreement to pay the fee, put out the fire, and then have them not only not pay the $75, but hit the FD with a massive lawsuit for extortion under duress or something similar.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late.

Didn't want to pay $75 measly dollars when his house wasn't burning down though did he...

The 75 is a cover all, the actual cost of responding is far far higher. As long as everyone is evacuated safely, thems the breaks, don't pay your bill, don't get the service.

Bookwrack wrote:http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

In summary: Rural homeowner didn't pay $75 to get fire department service, which was extended to people in the countryside outside the department's coverage. House caught fire, fire department didn't stop it from burning down. They did save his neighbor's house, who did pay the coverage fee.

This is fethed up in all sorts of ways, and no one is going to come out of this looking good, but

"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.

is pretty telling. 1: It costs the FD a lot more than $75 to respond to a fire. If there's no reason to pay until you need the FD to show up, they're going to be loosing a lot of money. 2: I think it'd also open the FD up to incredible legal vulnerabilities. Nothing like showing up to put out the fire of of someone who didn't pay for coverage, getting them to sign off on a preprinted agreement to pay the fee, put out the fire, and then have them not only not pay the $75, but hit the FD with a massive lawsuit for extortion under duress or something similar.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late.

him. You don't pay, you don't play.

If somebody had died in that fire the Fire Department would be in the deepest possible kind of gak. They lucked out. the fire department stands to lose alot more than a couple $75 fees in a wrongful death suit.

Except the suit would have no basis. The house was out in the countryside somewhere beyond standard fire department coverage, hence the opt in system. They opted out and:

1: Is everyone safely out of the house? is a standard question for fire response. Obviously, Cranick said yes which is one reason why the FD stood by. There are typically clauses allowing for exceptions, like people in mortal danger.

2: Have you ever dealt with emergency response personnel insurance policies? They're nuts, and by engaging a fire on property they had no responsibility for with no life threatening circumstances, the firefighters could've voided any insurance coverage for injuries sustained.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If somebody had died in that fire the Fire Department would be in the deepest possible kind of gak. They lucked out. the fire department stands to lose alot more than a couple $75 fees in a wrongful death suit.

They have no duty to this mooching pond scum.

I restate Cardinal Rule #1. him.

I've never heard of having to pay an optional charge for the emergency services to turn up to your house. I thought that kind of stuff was, you know, a basic right funded by taxation.

God, what if some innocent was trapped in the building or the fire spread elsewhere, you could have a really dangerous situation.

"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.

Translation: I didn't pay the tax, but I expected the benefits anyways.

No sympathy from me. This wasn't like something that just popped up a couple weeks ago, and no one knew about it. This has been in place for years. They opted not to pay for the service, then they have no right to bitch when they didn't receive the service.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I've never heard of having to pay an optional charge for the emergency services to turn up to your house. I thought that kind of stuff was, you know, a basic right funded by taxation.

God, what if some innocent was trapped in the building or the fire spread elsewhere, you could have a really dangerous situation.

1. Yea, its an unincorporated county region. I've seen that. I've paid that.
2. They have no liability. Just me, as Sir Dood, has no responsibility if I'm grooving by and there's a fire in a house.

If you think thats mean do you stop at every accident you see, every person pulled over by the side fo the road? If so then I'd have to call you a liar.

Frazzled wrote:If you think thats mean do you stop at every accident you see, every person pulled over by the side fo the road? If so then I'd have to call you a liar.

Don't be daft, I'm just pointing out that in the UK you can't opt out of such things, in fact it's pretty daft that anyone can anywhere. I mean these people who don't pay their for the fire serives, what else can they opt out of? We have things like council tax which pays for road maintenance and waste collection, and taxation in general pays for the emergency services everywhere, even for people living on a remote scottish island who need a helicopter. The fire brigade are the only people really trained and equipped to tackle a fire, so them standing by and watching isn't like me doing nothing to help.

Ultimately the fire brigade only came out because someone else's property caught fire which is what happens when you don't tackle a blaze, and that seems irresponsible to me regardless of who is paying for what.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If you think thats mean do you stop at every accident you see, every person pulled over by the side fo the road? If so then I'd have to call you a liar.

Don't be daft, I'm just pointing out that in the UK you can't opt out of such things, in fact it's pretty daft that anyone can anywhere. I mean these people who don't pay their for the fire serives, what else can they opt out of? We have things like council tax which pays for road maintenance and waste collection, and taxation in general pays for the emergency services everywhere, even for people living on a remote scottish island who need a helicopter. The fire brigade are the only people really trained and equipped to tackle a fire, so them standing by and watching isn't like me doing nothing to help.

Ultimately the fire brigade only came out because someone else's property caught fire which is what happens when you don't tackle a blaze, and that seems irresponsible to me regardless of who is paying for what.

It was a City Fire Department. They were not residents of the city. Where is the disconnect? The city offered the fire departments services to the county as a whole for a fee to help cover the costs. If your not paying the city taxes, or the service fee, then you cannot expect to make use of that service.

In America, we haven't quite gone as socialistic as you guys have.

djones520 wrote:In America, we haven't quite gone as socialistic as you guys have.

Wow, having a right to a fire service stopping your house burning down is "socialism" now? I'd have though it was common sense to stop a fire spreading to multiple houses or setting a forest alight. Amazing, I wonder why many other countries believe the US to have a skewed perspective on what socialism and conservatism really mean?

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If you think thats mean do you stop at every accident you see, every person pulled over by the side fo the road? If so then I'd have to call you a liar.

Don't be daft, I'm just pointing out that in the UK you can't opt out of such things, in fact it's pretty daft that anyone can anywhere. I mean these people who don't pay their for the fire serives, what else can they opt out of?

You have to understand, Britain is physically smaller than my backyard. In most states (Louisiana is a foreign country) the state is broken into counties, and within those counties municipalities/towns/hive cities. Unincoirporated areas, is a term that generally describes areas of a county that are not within the jurisidiciton of a municipality (I am simplifying a bit). These can be vast swaths of area and have no services. Often municipalities will offer services to nearby areas, and smaller towns/villages will often opt in as an entity to such as well.

Again this varies because many counties will have county wide service itself. It depends on the county or state.

Bascially if you're in the middle of freaking no where and some local jurisdiction offers fire coverage, take it, or don't whine like a mangina when your house burns down you loser waste of skin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

djones520 wrote:In America, we haven't quite gone as socialistic as you guys have.

Wow, having a right to a fire service stopping your house burning down is "socialism" now? I'd have though it was common sense to stop a fire spreading to multiple houses or setting a forest alight. Amazing, I wonder why many other countries believe the US to have a skewed perspective on what socialism and conservatism really mean?

You would be right if they were a multiple dwelling or near a forest. But if its unincorporated, its going to not be the former, and likely not the latter. Lets put it in a UK perspective to be helpful, imagine a farmhouse in the middle of nowehere. Its probably close to that.

And Daft. I'm not Daft! Have you been talking to my wife?

Howard A Treesong wrote:

djones520 wrote:In America, we haven't quite gone as socialistic as you guys have.

Wow, having a right to a fire service stopping your house burning down is "socialism" now? I'd have though it was common sense to stop a fire spreading to multiple houses or setting a forest alight. Amazing, I wonder why many other countries believe the US to have a skewed perspective on what socialism and conservatism really mean?

He had the right to it. With a $75 fee. He opted not to take it. Personal choice. He made it. He has to live with the consequences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's the same concept as when people bitch about Medical Insurance companies denying people with a pre-exhisting condition.

Why bother paying for the service, when you can just cough up $75 at the last minute and force them to dish out several thousand in return.

Frazzled wrote:You would be right if they were a multiple dwelling or near a forest. But if its unincorporated, its going to not be the former, and likely not the latter. Lets put it in a UK perspective to be helpful, imagine a farmhouse in the middle of nowehere. Its probably close to that.

Even a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere would have coverage. I stayed at a place in Ireland once that was out in the middle of nowhere. We were told that if we set fire to the place the fire brigade were 45 minutes away, but they would come. And if someone broke their leg they'd need a helicopter, but there was no question these would be available.

It's pretty dumb that the guy didn't pay for this, but I suppose the point I'm making is that he shouldn't have been able not to pay to create a situation where there could be a burning house that no one would do anything about. Considering the bill is $75 it should either be compulsory or paid through taxes elsewhere to ensure everyone has access to a fire service. It's pretty dangerous, assuming no one gets trapped inside you have the risk of it spreading and getting out of control with fields of crops or neighbouring properties (as happened here), and there's the problem of poisonous chemicals like asbestos in the building being scattered around the area. Even if you have to issue a large bill at the end like someone who hasn't got medical insurance, it would seem wiser to put the fire out first and concentrate on addressing money issues later.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You would be right if they were a multiple dwelling or near a forest. But if its unincorporated, its going to not be the former, and likely not the latter. Lets put it in a UK perspective to be helpful, imagine a farmhouse in the middle of nowehere. Its probably close to that.

Even a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere would have coverage. I stayed at a place in Ireland once that was out in the middle of nowhere. We were told that if we set fire to the place the fire brigade were 45 minutes away, but they would come. And if someone broke their leg they'd need a helicopter, but there was no question these would be available.

It's pretty dumb that the guy didn't pay for this, but I suppose the point I'm making is that he shouldn't have been able not to pay to create a situation where there could be a burning house that no one would do anything about. Considering the bill is $75 it should either be compulsory or paid through taxes elsewhere to ensure everyone has access to a fire service. It's pretty dangerous, assuming no one gets trapped inside you have the risk of it spreading and getting out of control with fields of crops or neighbouring properties (as happened here), and there's the problem of poisonous chemicals like asbestos in the building being scattered around the area. Even if you have to issue a large bill at the end like someone who hasn't got medical insurance, it would seem wiser to put the fire out first and concentrate on addressing money issues later.

Is it dumb to not pay or is it dumb to allow him to not pay? He was the idiot. Its his problem. Again him. In fact, because he wasted my time thinking about this, they need to bulldoze the house and remove all sharp objects and mechnical devices from his possession as he's too stupid and too sleazy to be allowed to have them.

The fire department is only going to go within its jurisdiction. Thats how it works, and probably how it works there too. Their jurisdiction did not include Captain mouthbreather, just alike a fire station in Pomona California (CRIIIPSS!!!!!) is not responsible for for a fire in Paris, Texas.

We should probably set just fire to the whole of America, just to be safe

SilverMK2 wrote:We should probably set just fire to the whole of America, just to be safe

I don't think you'd want to do that. That will just get Al Gore on your about air pollution and global warming. We cannot distract Al Gore now. He's almost found manbearpig!

What a terrible system especially if you don't trust local government bureaucracy. Can you imagine if you had paid but there was a mess up in the paperwork/database that said you didn't and then have that be the reason for your house and potential loved ones to die? Not to mention all the bad PR this will generate and lawsuits likely to follow, hell according to the article one of the firefighters got assaulted afterwards.

The homeowner made a stupid gamble but having firefighters at the scene letting someone's home burn down seems much worse, likewise with the policy in general. Makes one think that the city officials have a shady business interest in rebuilding homes but I think even the mafia would've taken the money at the scene and put out the fire. Not a fan of local TN politics.

Where's the southern hospitality anyway?! And this is Tennessee, the "Volunteer State!"

Frazzled wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You would be right if they were a multiple dwelling or near a forest. But if its unincorporated, its going to not be the former, and likely not the latter. Lets put it in a UK perspective to be helpful, imagine a farmhouse in the middle of nowehere. Its probably close to that.

Even a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere would have coverage. I stayed at a place in Ireland once that was out in the middle of nowhere. We were told that if we set fire to the place the fire brigade were 45 minutes away, but they would come. And if someone broke their leg they'd need a helicopter, but there was no question these would be available.

It's pretty dumb that the guy didn't pay for this, but I suppose the point I'm making is that he shouldn't have been able not to pay to create a situation where there could be a burning house that no one would do anything about. Considering the bill is $75 it should either be compulsory or paid through taxes elsewhere to ensure everyone has access to a fire service. It's pretty dangerous, assuming no one gets trapped inside you have the risk of it spreading and getting out of control with fields of crops or neighbouring properties (as happened here), and there's the problem of poisonous chemicals like asbestos in the building being scattered around the area. Even if you have to issue a large bill at the end like someone who hasn't got medical insurance, it would seem wiser to put the fire out first and concentrate on addressing money issues later.

Is it dumb to not pay or is it dumb to allow him to not pay? He was the idiot. Its his problem. Again him. In fact, because he wasted my time thinking about this, they need to bulldoze the house and remove all sharp objects and mechnical devices from his possession as he's too stupid and too sleazy to be allowed to have them.

The fire department is only going to go within its jurisdiction. Thats how it works, and probably how it works there too. Their jurisdiction did not include Captain mouthbreather, just alike a fire station in Pomona California (CRIIIPSS!!!!!) is not responsible for for a fire in Paris, Texas.

Interesting. So he lives such a remote place that he has to pay an optional surcharge to have the FB come out, but not remote enough for taxes in general I assume?

What about law & order? Does he have to pay a surcharge for that? Or if not can he have his own justice?

Bookwrack wrote:

"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.

For that attitude I'd have laughed while his house burned down.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I've never heard of having to pay an optional charge for the emergency services to turn up to your house. I thought that kind of stuff was, you know, a basic right funded by taxation.

God, what if some innocent was trapped in the building or the fire spread elsewhere, you could have a really dangerous situation.

Two things, first he wasn't paying the taxes for the department. So while its a basic service for anyone in the city and paying their taxes it's not for everyone else. The department was actually pretty gracious in offering to extend service for a measly $75 a year. The guy chose not to pay it. So he chose not to have the service. Second, no one was in the house. That was confirmed and I guarantee the firefighters would have gone in after anyone who would have been inside.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Even a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere would have coverage. I stayed at a place in Ireland once that was out in the middle of nowhere. We were told that if we set fire to the place the fire brigade were 45 minutes away, but they would come. And if someone broke their leg they'd need a helicopter, but there was no question these would be available.

While this is nice in theory what happens if while they're driving 45 minutes out into the countryside someone else has an emergency? 45 Minutes out, 45 back. You're removing vital emergency services from a large group of people to deal with someone who has decided to live a long way from anyone else.

It's pretty dumb that the guy didn't pay for this, but I suppose the point I'm making is that he shouldn't have been able not to pay to create a situation where there could be a burning house that no one would do anything about. Considering the bill is $75 it should either be compulsory or paid through taxes elsewhere to ensure everyone has access to a fire service.

Welcome to personal responsibility. The guy knew about the fee and chose not to pay it. He decided to gamble that the fire department would save his house anyways even after he didn't pay the fee. He even admitted as much. He made a stupid decision and got to watch his house burn down for it. "Life's tough, it's tougher when you're stupid." - John Wayne

Wolfstan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You would be right if they were a multiple dwelling or near a forest. But if its unincorporated, its going to not be the former, and likely not the latter. Lets put it in a UK perspective to be helpful, imagine a farmhouse in the middle of nowehere. Its probably close to that.

Even a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere would have coverage. I stayed at a place in Ireland once that was out in the middle of nowhere. We were told that if we set fire to the place the fire brigade were 45 minutes away, but they would come. And if someone broke their leg they'd need a helicopter, but there was no question these would be available.

It's pretty dumb that the guy didn't pay for this, but I suppose the point I'm making is that he shouldn't have been able not to pay to create a situation where there could be a burning house that no one would do anything about. Considering the bill is $75 it should either be compulsory or paid through taxes elsewhere to ensure everyone has access to a fire service. It's pretty dangerous, assuming no one gets trapped inside you have the risk of it spreading and getting out of control with fields of crops or neighbouring properties (as happened here), and there's the problem of poisonous chemicals like asbestos in the building being scattered around the area. Even if you have to issue a large bill at the end like someone who hasn't got medical insurance, it would seem wiser to put the fire out first and concentrate on addressing money issues later.

Is it dumb to not pay or is it dumb to allow him to not pay? He was the idiot. Its his problem. Again him. In fact, because he wasted my time thinking about this, they need to bulldoze the house and remove all sharp objects and mechnical devices from his possession as he's too stupid and too sleazy to be allowed to have them.

The fire department is only going to go within its jurisdiction. Thats how it works, and probably how it works there too. Their jurisdiction did not include Captain mouthbreather, just alike a fire station in Pomona California (CRIIIPSS!!!!!) is not responsible for for a fire in Paris, Texas.

Interesting. So he lives such a remote place that he has to pay an optional surcharge to have the FB come out, but not remote enough for taxes in general I assume?

What about law & order? Does he have to pay a surcharge for that? Or if not can he have his own justice?

There is no justice. There is just us.

but yea, he probably has to be extra for cable to watch law and order. IIRC however, reruns of homicide can only be procured via DVD.

No matter how bad the air pollution would be, at least we would get rid of all the airwave pollution

And I think this is so confusing for people in the UK as all fire departments are centrally funded, with funding being given depending on the area they cover, incidents recorded, etc.

There are no "blind spots" in coverage - fire, police and ambulance crews will all come out to visit you if you dial 999 no matter where you are (granted, some places may be more difficult to get to than others). Everyone pays for the service as part of their taxes.

I think the point is that we are someone... gobsmacked? that such coverage is not simply part of your standard taxes, with funds being distributed to emergency services to ensure coverage of all locations within the USA.

SilverMK2 wrote:No matter how bad the air pollution would be, at least we would get rid of all the airwave pollution

And I think this is so confusing for people in the UK as all fire departments are centrally funded, with funding being given depending on the area they cover, incidents recorded, etc.

There are no "blind spots" in coverage - fire, police and ambulance crews will all come out to visit you if you dial 999 no matter where you are (granted, some places may be more difficult to get to than others). Everyone pays for the service as part of their taxes.

I think the point is that we are someone... gobsmacked? that such coverage is not simply part of your standard taxes, with funds being distributed to emergency services to ensure coverage of all locations within the USA.

This is correct. In the UK your council tax covers the emergency services, even if you are in arrears they will not let your house burn down and will respond to an emergency call. Although failure of payment of council tax is one of the only debts for which you can be imprisoned in the UK.

SilverMK2 wrote:No matter how bad the air pollution would be, at least we would get rid of all the airwave pollution

And I think this is so confusing for people in the UK as all fire departments are centrally funded, with funding being given depending on the area they cover, incidents recorded, etc.

There are no "blind spots" in coverage - fire, police and ambulance crews will all come out to visit you if you dial 999 no matter where you are (granted, some places may be more difficult to get to than others). Everyone pays for the service as part of their taxes.

I think the point is that we are someone... gobsmacked? that such coverage is not simply part of your standard taxes, with funds being distributed to emergency services to ensure coverage of all locations within the USA.

Again, UK = smaller than the lair of Loch ness Weinie


In a right proper sized country there is a lot of space and a lot of different ways things are done. It depends on the county/state.

Frazzled wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You would be right if they were a multiple dwelling or near a forest. But if its unincorporated, its going to not be the former, and likely not the latter. Lets put it in a UK perspective to be helpful, imagine a farmhouse in the middle of nowehere. Its probably close to that.

Even a farmhouse in the middle of nowhere would have coverage. I stayed at a place in Ireland once that was out in the middle of nowhere. We were told that if we set fire to the place the fire brigade were 45 minutes away, but they would come. And if someone broke their leg they'd need a helicopter, but there was no question these would be available.

It's pretty dumb that the guy didn't pay for this, but I suppose the point I'm making is that he shouldn't have been able not to pay to create a situation where there could be a burning house that no one would do anything about. Considering the bill is $75 it should either be compulsory or paid through taxes elsewhere to ensure everyone has access to a fire service. It's pretty dangerous, assuming no one gets trapped inside you have the risk of it spreading and getting out of control with fields of crops or neighbouring properties (as happened here), and there's the problem of poisonous chemicals like asbestos in the building being scattered around the area. Even if you have to issue a large bill at the end like someone who hasn't got medical insurance, it would seem wiser to put the fire out first and concentrate on addressing money issues later.

Is it dumb to not pay or is it dumb to allow him to not pay? He was the idiot. Its his problem. Again him. In fact, because he wasted my time thinking about this, they need to bulldoze the house and remove all sharp objects and mechnical devices from his possession as he's too stupid and too sleazy to be allowed to have them.

The fire department is only going to go within its jurisdiction. Thats how it works, and probably how it works there too. Their jurisdiction did not include Captain mouthbreather, just alike a fire station in Pomona California (CRIIIPSS!!!!!) is not responsible for for a fire in Paris, Texas.

Interesting. So he lives such a remote place that he has to pay an optional surcharge to have the FB come out, but not remote enough for taxes in general I assume?

What about law & order? Does he have to pay a surcharge for that? Or if not can he have his own justice?

There is no justice. There is just us.

but yea, he probably has to be extra for cable to watch law and order. IIRC however, reruns of homicide can only be procured via DVD.

When hear these little bits of info, I do have to wonder how the US holds itself together. It's amazing that you've not imploded years ago

Cane wrote:What a terrible system especially if you don't trust local government bureaucracy. Can you imagine if you had paid but there was a mess up in the paperwork/database that said you didn't and then have that be the reason for your house and potential loved ones to die? Not to mention all the bad PR this will generate and lawsuits likely to follow, hell according to the article one of the firefighters got assaulted afterwards.

Do you honestly think that if someone's life was in danger the firefighters would just throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, you didn't pay?" Seriously, are you kidding me?

Wolfstan wrote:Interesting. So he lives such a remote place that he has to pay an optional surcharge to have the FB come out, but not remote enough for taxes in general I assume?

What about law & order? Does he have to pay a surcharge for that? Or if not can he have his own justice?

Differing levels of responsibility. When you're talking about a city you have a good sized tax base to spread the cost of a fire department out over. The cost isn't particularly huge to anyone. A county though can be quite large, the population is low and the population density is even lower. In the case of a fire department the cost of providing enough firefighters, equipment, and station houses to cover the area adequately could leave the burden on the home owners (and those who typically live outside the city aren't the highest income to begin with) in the hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year. In this case the city was willing to extend its coverage into the county so long as home owners were willing to spend $75 a year on it. It's perfectly reasonable. The city is extending some of its services to those who are not in its tax base for a rather paltry sum. The home owner benefits because he can now have fire department coverage for a very low cost compared to what he'd be stuck with if the county had to do it on its own. Really its a win for everyone involved except the fire fighters because the cost of a call out is going to FAR exceed that $75 and they're going to be spending more time in their trucks hauling ass out into the county to cover these people.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Although failure of payment of council tax is one of the only debts for which you can be imprisoned in the UK.

A debtor's jail holdover? Elaborate more.

EDIT: Darn it! I couldn't resist the Off-Topic Forum anymore!

Frazzled wrote:Again, UK = smaller than the lair of Loch ness Weinie

The best things come in small packages

In a right proper sized country there is a lot of space and a lot of different ways things are done. It depends on the county/state.

Again, this is quite confusing to people from a nation which is all centrally controlled to a large extent. You see, in a real country like merry ol' England, we all pay the same taxes and get the same rights back from them no matter where we live, as those taxes are then distributed through the system to hospitals, police, fire services, politicians' rent boys, etc to ensure that everyone has coverage.

Just because your house is a bit hard to get to, does not mean you should have to pay extra to be protected from fire, crime, etc if you are paying the same taxes as everyone else.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Just because your house is a bit hard to get to, does not mean you should have to pay extra to be protected from fire, crime, etc if you are paying the same taxes as everyone else.

Ah, getcha. Here's the error. he's NOT paying the same taxes or assessments. He mooched out of it. hence my hostility to him.