I have a problem with the policy but not with the fact that they let the house burn down. They shouldn't have the policy in the first place but now that they have it people should ****ing pay the damn fee.

I'm going to assume that they have a crapload of $75 fees coming in right about now. They probably only need to let one house burn down every few years to achieve maximum participation.

I said "if" it's too high, because it seems pretty damn high but I have no way of knowing for sure.

Don't really wanna get bogged down in an AC debate, but I think the market way would be quasi-contract. I know it's a judicially created concept but it's born more of fairness than judicial overreaching.

I agree it sucks, but if you put out my neighbor's fires for free, why should I pay the fee when I know that you'll do the same for me?

By "better option" I mean compared to sitting there coldly watching someone's house burn down. Obviously the best option is to pay the damn fee beforehand, just like the best option isn't to re-create something you saw on Tosh when you don't have insurance, but I'd rather the doctor remove the screws from the retard's head than the doctor watch the kid die.

fwiw we already had most of these discussions in this thread. Which was quite fun.

I have considered the incentives, but they don't outweigh the prospect of allowing homes to be burnt down with fire fighters watching. I think it's a problem with policy. I don't get why it is not covered via other city taxes.

They don't live in the city.

Which is exactly why I think it's appropriate to allow the homeowner to pay the full retail price for the job if they haven't paid the fee.

Either

*pay small yearly fee
*pay a couple to a few thousand dollars to save your house/belongings (or institute timotheeeeeee's lawyer thing)
*watch house burn to ground.

jfc lirva. we need a lirv containment thread.

did anyone actually read the article i linked? it's good i promise.

In the fire case, note that the department in question is a city agency and the people who pay the $75 are outside the city (it's "free" for city residents).

What you're looking at is a failure of the county government.

ez game

I was wondering where the hell the other city's fire department was or whether the county just has unprotected areas under its jurisdiction.

pvn - I'm glad you're finally on board that there is significant benefit to be gained from govt doing it's job well, and that a failure of govt leaves people in a worse state than when the govt does it's job well. So I'm sure you'll agree the obvious solution is that the country govt should simply be stronger and do a better job like it does almost everywhere else in the country.

Do counties have their own fire departments where you guys are? Around here the cities handle it.