Cassandra – the fee is important to the financing of the FD. True,a single $75 fee doesn’t pay for much but all the $75 fees together cover enough costs to provide protection to those who need it in a given year.
The fee is not mandatory – it is voluntary. If you want the protection, pay the fee. If you don’t pay the fee, don’t expect the protection. It’s an individual choice and with choice (or freedom) comes responsibility.
Regarding expectation of service, it may stand up in court but it’s a shame that one act of compassion legally binds you to provide a lifetime of welfare.
What if the Cranicks had just paid the fee, adequately insured their property, didn’t set a fire so close to their home, got their pets out before the fire started in the home…then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
And why does the amount of money matter? The city was providing a valuable service for a very low cost. Pay the fee, get the service. Don’t pay, protect your home yourself.
show me where they had an expectation of welfare? They were more than willing to pay for the cost of the service (not just the fee).
No one is saying they should have “just been helped” without any responsibility — but for the fire department to stand outside and watch the house burn when the family said they would cover the costs means it’s NOT about a $75 fee, or covering their costs — it’s about making the family an example.
In my opinion, this was a very poor handling of the situation.
I am no liberal… but I do have a conscience. In this case, it would have been much better to put out the fire when it was just a brush fire, and save not one house, but two in the process. The family should have been fined, and covered the cost.
And AFTER that, we can talk about changing tax policies, or whatever.
At least for me, I too respect the homeowner for accepting the consequences of his actions (failing to pay the fire fee).
If any of my comments can be interpreted as “boo hoo” or “deal with it,” they are directed at the attitude that he should get services for which he did not pay. That attitude is not his but seems to be that of many comments on this board.
After reading most of the commentaries, I have found many very good points written by the contributors on both sides of the issue.
I can appreciate the no-nonsense approach of no payment, no service as a fiscal conservative. And, as a Liberatian, I want government out of my personal life.
But government has tried to do all things, be all things and tax all things.
A few questions arose:
Who pays the fire service fee for rental property? The landlord has interest to protect his property and the tenant also needs protection.
If an severe automobile accident occurs with the at-fault party from another county, would the fire department respond to the fire without trapped individuals?
I go back to my origin statements. The fire service fee could have been levied as a tax or even attached after the loss to the property as a mechanics lien. There are multiple ways this fee could have been collected such as the mortgage escrow, fire insurance premium, included on a utility service or billed as part of the property taxes.
The basic point is this community has failed to solve its problem with collection of a fire protection fees. It would be interesting to see the collection rate and prior services rendered without collection of this fee.
This homeowner has paid a very severe penalty. It was a cruel penalty more severe than applied to an arsonist under criminal judgements.
The county residents should setup a volunteer fire department supported by a minimal fire tax billed with the county property tax. Every property owner should be required to participate.
As a benefit, the property owners would see significant reduction in their insurance premiums. An under protected fire districts premium are easily 50 percent higher than protected fire districts.
As to the homeowner being underinsured, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to see that their property is insured to replacement cost. Most insurance fire policies include a coinsurance clause with a coinsurance penalty for being underinsured.
However, the majority of insurance agents do NOT understand this clause. At a NCPIA meeting, it had a E&O continuing education course with a mock trial. Over 75 percent of the agents attending thought a total loss claim would be paid at replacement cost if the property was insured with 80 percent at the time of loss.
The insurer is only liable to pay the policy limit. Only partial losses insured within the coinsurance clause are paid at replacement cost.
Several endorsement can help protect the homeowner from being under insured such as the inflation guard endorsement, guaranteed replacement cost endorsement or a 25 percent additional coverage endorsement.
The homeowner could install a sprinkler fire suppression system for added protection for about 2% addtional construction cost.
This county needs to find a better way to serve its community. Services provided are not free. Someone has to pay. Fire protection is a basic service that local government can best serve and protect all.
Why does the county or any governmental authority need to be involved? Though maybe not perfect, there is a something in place to provide needed services. Remember, government services cost money (usually more than it should) and that money has to come from somewhere.
Fires spread. The fact that this one only destroyed one house, and damaged another is fortunate.
Brush fires can spread very rapidly — wind patterns can change quickly spewing additional fires and increasing the risk to life and limb. This started as a contained fire that got out of control… the risks there go up exponentially.
And this is a rural community. If this type of approach had been taken in an urban setting with dense housing, the results would be devastating (history shows us this, if little else).
IMO, this is a legitimate function of government. It is in the best interests of the community at large to have fire protection — if only to prevent unnecessary carnage (be it property, animal or human).
There would be no fire service in the area at all if the residents had not agreed to pay the fee. Until recently there was no fire service at all from the city. Saving human life is different and the fire and police would all have responded differently if they thought human life was in jeopardy.
Get all your facts straight people, we are talking about property only, not some humanitarian tragedy.
I think that is where the disconnect is. People like TN and Cassandra go off on emotional rants without even looking at the facts or wanting to know more. You two need to question what you are told and form logical mature opinions and not let your bleeding hearts rule your lives.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Cassandra – the fee is important to the financing of the FD. True,a single $75 fee doesn’t pay for much but all the $75 fees together cover enough costs to provide protection to those who need it in a given year.
The fee is not mandatory – it is voluntary. If you want the protection, pay the fee. If you don’t pay the fee, don’t expect the protection. It’s an individual choice and with choice (or freedom) comes responsibility.
Regarding expectation of service, it may stand up in court but it’s a shame that one act of compassion legally binds you to provide a lifetime of welfare.
Thank you for your intelligent post, Ned.
What if, what if, what if…
What if the Cranicks had just paid the fee, adequately insured their property, didn’t set a fire so close to their home, got their pets out before the fire started in the home…then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
And why does the amount of money matter? The city was providing a valuable service for a very low cost. Pay the fee, get the service. Don’t pay, protect your home yourself.
show me where they had an expectation of welfare? They were more than willing to pay for the cost of the service (not just the fee).
No one is saying they should have “just been helped” without any responsibility — but for the fire department to stand outside and watch the house burn when the family said they would cover the costs means it’s NOT about a $75 fee, or covering their costs — it’s about making the family an example.
In my opinion, this was a very poor handling of the situation.
I am no liberal… but I do have a conscience. In this case, it would have been much better to put out the fire when it was just a brush fire, and save not one house, but two in the process. The family should have been fined, and covered the cost.
And AFTER that, we can talk about changing tax policies, or whatever.
At least for me, I too respect the homeowner for accepting the consequences of his actions (failing to pay the fire fee).
If any of my comments can be interpreted as “boo hoo” or “deal with it,” they are directed at the attitude that he should get services for which he did not pay. That attitude is not his but seems to be that of many comments on this board.
After reading most of the commentaries, I have found many very good points written by the contributors on both sides of the issue.
I can appreciate the no-nonsense approach of no payment, no service as a fiscal conservative. And, as a Liberatian, I want government out of my personal life.
But government has tried to do all things, be all things and tax all things.
A few questions arose:
Who pays the fire service fee for rental property? The landlord has interest to protect his property and the tenant also needs protection.
If an severe automobile accident occurs with the at-fault party from another county, would the fire department respond to the fire without trapped individuals?
I go back to my origin statements. The fire service fee could have been levied as a tax or even attached after the loss to the property as a mechanics lien. There are multiple ways this fee could have been collected such as the mortgage escrow, fire insurance premium, included on a utility service or billed as part of the property taxes.
The basic point is this community has failed to solve its problem with collection of a fire protection fees. It would be interesting to see the collection rate and prior services rendered without collection of this fee.
This homeowner has paid a very severe penalty. It was a cruel penalty more severe than applied to an arsonist under criminal judgements.
The county residents should setup a volunteer fire department supported by a minimal fire tax billed with the county property tax. Every property owner should be required to participate.
As a benefit, the property owners would see significant reduction in their insurance premiums. An under protected fire districts premium are easily 50 percent higher than protected fire districts.
As to the homeowner being underinsured, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to see that their property is insured to replacement cost. Most insurance fire policies include a coinsurance clause with a coinsurance penalty for being underinsured.
However, the majority of insurance agents do NOT understand this clause. At a NCPIA meeting, it had a E&O continuing education course with a mock trial. Over 75 percent of the agents attending thought a total loss claim would be paid at replacement cost if the property was insured with 80 percent at the time of loss.
The insurer is only liable to pay the policy limit. Only partial losses insured within the coinsurance clause are paid at replacement cost.
Several endorsement can help protect the homeowner from being under insured such as the inflation guard endorsement, guaranteed replacement cost endorsement or a 25 percent additional coverage endorsement.
The homeowner could install a sprinkler fire suppression system for added protection for about 2% addtional construction cost.
This county needs to find a better way to serve its community. Services provided are not free. Someone has to pay. Fire protection is a basic service that local government can best serve and protect all.
Why does the county or any governmental authority need to be involved? Though maybe not perfect, there is a something in place to provide needed services. Remember, government services cost money (usually more than it should) and that money has to come from somewhere.
Fires spread. The fact that this one only destroyed one house, and damaged another is fortunate.
Brush fires can spread very rapidly — wind patterns can change quickly spewing additional fires and increasing the risk to life and limb. This started as a contained fire that got out of control… the risks there go up exponentially.
And this is a rural community. If this type of approach had been taken in an urban setting with dense housing, the results would be devastating (history shows us this, if little else).
IMO, this is a legitimate function of government. It is in the best interests of the community at large to have fire protection — if only to prevent unnecessary carnage (be it property, animal or human).
Thumbs up to Barry Seay and Lisa K.!
There would be no fire service in the area at all if the residents had not agreed to pay the fee. Until recently there was no fire service at all from the city. Saving human life is different and the fire and police would all have responded differently if they thought human life was in jeopardy.
Get all your facts straight people, we are talking about property only, not some humanitarian tragedy.
I think that is where the disconnect is. People like TN and Cassandra go off on emotional rants without even looking at the facts or wanting to know more. You two need to question what you are told and form logical mature opinions and not let your bleeding hearts rule your lives.