Couple that with the significant financial loses to the community and that you now have a homeless family and you see why you shouldn't have opt-in fire protection or health insurance.

Or the risk to adjacent properties.

Now replace "fire department" with "Health insurance".

 

Or over-draft protection...

What if this guy got stuck in his house when it was on fire. What they have let him burn?

What if this guy got stuck in his house when it was on fire. What they have let him burn?

They'd probably save people from the building but not attempt to put the fire out.

They'd probably save people from the building but not attempt to put the fire out.

This is another area where this becomes dicey. Each state has slightly different rules about Duty to Act - and its entirely possible that this ordinance is in violation of that, which means its going to be overruled in court if challenged. But The rules are different from state to state, so I don't know.

 

It's just a terrible idea all around.

 

I would imagine that any home owners insurance claim is going to be denied because they neglected to pay for fire protection services, though it may be tricky because the fire department knowingly let the house burn to the ground instead of doing their job and billing for services. If there's a mortgage on the home, I would be the bank is pissed.

 

If this ordinance and the actions taken by the mayor aren't illegal if not criminal, they should be. It benefits absolutely no one to let this house burn down.

Or over-draft protection...

"I'm sorry sir, your card has been maxed out. I'm afraid I have to kill you now."

t passed a rule after this incident allowing the rest of that county to set up similar opt-out systems.

 

 

Didn't we have this same story a couple years ago?

 

Wouldn't it be wonderful if a private company could offer fire protection services for less and undercut the county?

 

 

I don't know how you're going to undercut $75 a year. There must be some other funding sources.

BTW Gene Cranick is now known as the dumb f*** that didn't pay the fee. Around town, similar stupid ass things will be known as pulling a Cranick.

t passed a rule after this incident allowing the rest of that county to set up similar opt-out systems.

Court case to follow, and I doubt this will stand up.

 

Why is fire-fighting even an optional service? How do you get homeowner's insurance without it, and what kind of bank wouldn't want the property securing the debt to be protected?

 

I really cannot see any benefits from having this sort of system.

Why is fire-fighting even an optional service? How do you get homeowner's insurance without it, and what kind of bank wouldn't want the property securing the debt to be protected?

 

I really cannot see any benefits from having this sort of system.

There are so many levels where this sort of set-up is idiotic, and probably illegal.

 

A communal fireprotection service sounds like socialism and that's wrong.

 

There are areas of the country without any fire protection services. I'm not certain who would write the law that fireprotection was required? Would the county write it for a town? The state for a county? The feds for the states for the county for the town? I'm guessing this isn't a legal issue.

A communal fireprotection service sounds like socialism and that's wrong.

 

There are areas of the country without any fire protection services. I'm not certain who would write the law that fireprotection was required? Would the county write it for a town? The state for a county? The feds for the states for the county for the town? I'm guessing this isn't a legal issue.

I highly doubt you can find an area in the lower 48 that does not have 911 coverage and police, fire and EMS service available to it.

 

this county should read "Nudge"

this county should read "Nudge"

 

I'm actually reading that right now.

I'm actually reading that right now.

omg BOok club?

 

Me too...back and forth b/w nudge and an'o'er one.

Apparently the man had a few dogs and a cat in the house.

 

The whole situation is bizarre.

Libertarianism run amok here. I've heard the idea of pay-per-service for fire before and it's such a terrible idea. I had trouble explaining why until this happened.

Libertarianism run amok here. I've heard the idea of pay-per-service for fire before and it's such a terrible idea. I had trouble explaining why until this happened.

 

I think I'd even be ok with paying the annual fee - with the understanding that you'd have to pay for the service used if you don't, but this is ridiculous and a little heartless.

that wouldn't work, nobody would opt-in. There'd have to be a penalty larger, but one still capable of being paid while also saving the property.

 

Or you could just do opt-out. opt-out opt-out opt-out.

I think I'd even be ok with paying the annual fee - with the understanding that you'd have to pay for the service used if you don't, but this is ridiculous and a little heartless.

 

 

that wouldn't work, nobody would opt-in. There'd have to be a penalty larger, but one still capable of being paid while also saving the property.

 

Or you could just do opt-out. opt-out opt-out opt-out.

 

I think he means you'd be stuck with the bill for the operation, which would be in the thousands of dollars.

I think he means you'd be stuck with the bill for the operation, which would be in the thousands of dollars.

 

Exactly,

 

The first 10,000 dollar brush fire on my land would make me remember to make my 75 dollar annual payment from that moment forward.