Geez people, this has nothing to do with political ideology.
True, yet you continue the partisanship by replying to someone blaming the right. Why didn't you reply to any of the people carping about "typical liberals, never want to pay for anything?" I think it could easily be spun the other way, as a typical wing-nut who doesn't want to pay his fair share. You can just hear him sputtering, "I already pay too much in taxes. Why should I pay more? Why aren't those free-loading apartment-dwellers paying anything?" Never mind, of course, that he as a home and property owner gets far greater value from fire protection than a renter would, just as the very wealthy gain far, far more value from tax-funded services and infrastructure than do the poor ... generally speaking.
But Fern is right, this topic really shouldn't be a partisan issue.
It's simply a small county trying to deal with services the best way they can.
There are only about 32k people in the whole county, 18k are in one of the little towns with a fire dept. So, there are about 14k people spread out in rural areas outside of a little town.
I live next door in NC in a county that's considered small and rural and we have about 200k people, about 6 times larger. I understand their problem somewhat.
For a fire dept to be effective you need a fire dept station somewhat nearby so they can respond quickly enough. There's simply too few people for that in a county of their size, they'd never be able to afford it.
I bet there's a good chance most people living out in the county with a house fire would have their home destroyed even if they pay the $75. They're just not close enough to a station. The difference is most likely limited to how much is left over after a fire and needs to be bulldozed.
Most of you people seem like you're from urban areas and just don't understand the differences in living in sparsely populated rural areas.
While my county rural county is far larger than this guy's, we still have problems with ambulance service, which also requires quick response times. You just can't afford to place stations all over the place to guarantee quick response.
Agreed, all true.
This situation is just a function of living in a sparsely populated rural area. Jeebus, it has nothing to do with political ideology.
Fern
Umm, it doesn't seem to be. The fire department was on the scene, yet chose to do nothing.
That said, I fully agree with those who think the fire department acted properly. Assuming they confirmed no human lives were at risk, I think they made the correct call.
The homeowner made a fully-informed decision to not pay for fire coverage. He chose to accept a direct and obvious risk. He therefore had no right to expect the fire department to magnanimously save his
property from the consequences of that decision (plus the subsequent decision to do open burning knowing they had no fire protection). Fire equipment costs money, fighting fires is dangerous, and the homeowner decided that those costs and risks weren't worth the nominal cost to him. Oops. You chose poorly.
I agree it would have been a different story had there been imminent danger to human lives. I'm also pretty comfortable the fire department would have acted had that been the case. This was just about property, however, and property can be replaced.