AbandonedTrolley Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Depends how you look at this. Would you go do someone elses job for free if you had already offered your services for ?75 for the year and they refused to pay? Why should you? I agree the humanity side must be hard for the firefighters, but it's not their job to do it if it's not in their catchment. farmeunit 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 A report earlier today said there are ~400 out of jurisdiction residences & businesses who are offered these services and ~300 have paid the fee. The rest are rolling the dice, but I bet that number shrinks in the next few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
articuno1au Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Please read upthread - these people live in an unincorporated rural area outside the municipal limits and therefore pay no city taxes. As such, they are outside the fire depts jurisdiction and area of responsibility. As a courtesy the closest city and FD offers fire protection to these non-residents at a $75 yearly fee, which is used to cover expenses, extend the firefighters liability & workers comp insurances etc. These people rolled the dice, didn 't pay the fee, and lost the bet. I guess many people both in and out of the US still don't understand that vast tracts of the US don't "belong" to a city, town or village - their "address" is just the name of the local Post Office. There are none of the usual local services save for arrangements like these. Police coverage is by larger entities like County Sheriff's and the State Police/Rangers/Highway Patrol, and neither Counties or States offer fire services. While this is true, please explain to me how they justify arriving at the location AND THEN doing nothing. I understand the argument you make, but justify that part :\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiagosilva29 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I understand the argument you make, but justify that part :\Because **** them. That's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sikh Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Im not gonna read all 16 pages but shouldnt paying property taxes, go towards something like this? Or should now because this is bull****. While I agree yes, if they made exceptions, they would not be a fire department and then EVERYONE would be ****ed, and at the same time these people knew and thought "it wouldnt happen". Oh you mean something like a fire just STARTING accidentally be it user error or broken pipes or whatever isnt something to be careful for? While I do not agree with it, I understand the logic of the firefighters and would of paid my fee, at the same time the people sound stupid for "we knew the fee existed but never thought this would of happened"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfbane Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 While this is true, please explain to me how they justify arriving at the location AND THEN doing nothing. I understand the argument you make, but justify that part :\ They make sure the people are safe, then do nothing else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddo89 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 If the fire had spread to the property of someone who paid it, then they would need to combat it. And perhaps if there is someone in the house, they may rescue them. Something like that. But as said before, they rolled the dice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Please read upthread - these people live in an unincorporated rural area outside the municipal limits and therefore pay no city taxes. As such, they are outside the fire depts jurisdiction and area of responsibility. As a courtesy the closest city and FD offers fire protection to these non-residents at a $75 yearly fee, which is used to cover expenses, extend the firefighters liability & workers comp insurances etc. These people rolled the dice, didn 't pay the fee, and lost the bet. I guess many people both in and out of the US still don't understand that vast tracts of the US don't "belong" to a city, town or village - their "address" is just the name of the local Post Office. There are none of the usual local services save for arrangements like these. Police coverage is by larger entities like County Sheriff's and the State Police/Rangers/Highway Patrol, and neither Counties or States offer fire services. Ok. Why are these areas unincorporated? Why not bring them into the closest municipality and charge them a tax? Why leave them outside of a jurisdiction? Not enough votes there to give a ****, perhaps? Or perhaps the people in the city have a strict rule about how far you can be away from the city before they'll put out your house if it's on fire. Or do the people in these unincorporated area refuse to be incorporated into their closest municipality? As I said earlier. No one should have to take part in an A La Carte system for emergency services. It seems totally dehumanizing and cruel to me. Hell, if there was a small rural group of folk away from me and I was asked to pay a slightly higher tax rate to make sure basic services like fire fighters could fight their fires if needed, I'd be OK with that. Then again, I don't advocate a dog-eat-dog society, so that probably explains it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbandonedTrolley Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Also I would imagine that the first response is to send them out, rather than check if they had paid the money. I would assume that is done while they are on the way to the scene. Sorry have zero sympathy here. You gamble with things like this and you learn the hard way. As long as no one was hurt, I see nothing wrong with them sitting back and letting it burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P!P Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 In my opinion, the main thing property taxes should pay for is emergency and public services. In fact, that's about all they should pay for in my opinion. I understand that due to budget problems that some cities and counties are only "offering" the service, and you have to pay extra to get full service. That policy is dumb enough, but it's really dumb to show up at a property and let it burn. Has anyone mentioned yet that because the property burned down the property tax will be much less? I bet the county would have gotten more than the $75 fee in property taxes next year if they hadn't let it burn. If I were in this situation, I would just tell the fire dept. to get the hell off my property and get my hose. If taxes can't pay for the most basic of services, why am I paying them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pack34 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Ok. Why are these areas unincorporated? Why not bring them into the closest municipality and charge them a tax? Why leave them outside of a jurisdiction? Not enough votes there to give a ****, perhaps? Or perhaps the people in the city have a strict rule about how far you can be away from the city before they'll put out your house if it's on fire. Or do the people in these unincorporated area refuse to be incorporated into their closest municipality? As I said earlier. No one should have to take part in an A La Carte system for emergency services. It seems totally dehumanizing and cruel to me. Hell, if there was a small rural group of folk away from me and I was asked to pay a slightly higher tax rate to make sure basic services like fire fighters could fight their fires if needed, I'd be OK with that. Then again, I don't advocate a dog-eat-dog society, so that probably explains it. When an area is incorporated it's required to provide city water and sewage upon request. Areas like this run on well water and septic tanks. There aren't enough people to collect taxes from in order to make it worth while to lay down the infrastructure. Fire departments are local entities and this area isn't inside the city (they aren't paying taxes to it) so to extend services they offered a small yearly fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 That, plus a lot of these people don't want to incorporate - they don't have city property taxes, water & sewage bills, they don't have near the code requirements if they want to add an out-building, no dog licenses or limits on other animals, etc. etc. Tell them they should and they'll probably chase you off. The right to not belong if you want to is somewhat fundamental to the American psyche, even if the citified among us don't 'get' it any more. Where I grew up (I'm 62) the township was 36 square miles with 3 small villages in it. When I was 16 an election was held to merge the villages into one community covering the entire area, complete with the usual services. It went down in flames for the reasons above, and they are still that way. farmeunit 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozyborn Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 If that is the way they want to play it. then the next time the county property tax bill comes around. Go to court and not pay it for lack of service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Ok. Why are these areas unincorporated? Why not bring them into the closest municipality and charge them a tax? Why leave them outside of a jurisdiction? Not enough votes there to give a ****, perhaps? Or perhaps the people in the city have a strict rule about how far you can be away from the city before they'll put out your house if it's on fire. Or do the people in these unincorporated area refuse to be incorporated into their closest municipality? As DocM has already stated, some unincorporated areas are WAY outside any municipality (the area I grew up in was over 15 miles away from the closest city within my state, although only about 6 miles from a very small city in the next state). Some unincorporated areas may have populations that only number in the dozens, or hundreds if they are lucky, with population densities of only a few people per square mile. http://en.wikipedia....ty,_Mississippi That is the county I grew up in. The OVERALL population density is 181 per square mile, but of course outside the handful of cities it is much lower. Here's a map. Red areas are the 4 cities, blue areas are the CDPs (smaller communities, but not actually cities), the white area is all unincorporated. I grew up in the far lower righthand corner of that map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 If that is the way they want to play it. then the next time the county property tax bill comes around. Go to court and not pay it for lack of service. County, state and Federal taxes they pay. Elections they take part in. Community leaders & constables they elect. The rest they want no part of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt B Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 No matter what, this is an absolutely retarded policy. They should have just billed them the $75 or some other reasonable amount. Could you imagine the liability if firefighters show up to a place on fire but there is an error and they think the residents haven't paid when in reality they have? Simply ridiculous Muhammad Farrukh 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bambii Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 the fee is to cover the costs... but they are there, the cost of driving there was incurred anyway... water can't be that expensive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seizure1990 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 No matter what, this is an absolutely retarded policy. They should have just billed them the $75 or some other reasonable amount. Could you imagine the liability if firefighters show up to a place on fire but there is an error and they think the residents haven't paid when in reality they have? Simply ridiculous Try making the same argument about home insurance. Think about it for a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSoft Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I thought fire and police were part of your local / municipal taxes each year? Not if you live in an un-incorporated area like I do. Police are covered but fire service is an extra fee. Mines is $300 a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt B Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Try making the same argument about home insurance. Think about it for a bit. The comparisons to home insurance aren't valid. They are emergency services, to provide protection and aid. They were there, they did nothing. What happens next? Someone is robbing you but you didn't pay the fee so the cops show up to make sure they don't rob the house next door too? Simply put this shouldn't be an issue in modern society and most areas of the world have this sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSoft Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Ok. Why are these areas unincorporated? Why not bring them into the closest municipality and charge them a tax? Why leave them outside of a jurisdiction? Not enough votes there to give a ****, perhaps? Or perhaps the people in the city have a strict rule about how far you can be away from the city before they'll put out your house if it's on fire. Or do the people in these unincorporated area refuse to be incorporated into their closest municipality? It's not as easy as you want to make out. Incorporating an area wouldd increase the size of the area that they would go into. Additional voters, would you incorporate into one municipality or another etc. There is a lot of politics involved and very little the un-incorporated residency can do. As I said earlier. No one should have to take part in an A La Carte system for emergency services. It seems totally dehumanizing and cruel to me. Hell, if there was a small rural group of folk away from me and I was asked to pay a slightly higher tax rate to make sure basic services like fire fighters could fight their fires if needed, I'd be OK with that. Then again, I don't advocate a dog-eat-dog society, so that probably explains it. If you were given the option to not pay taxes for education because you don't have children would you take that option? You'll find that a lot of people would, if not most. Then what happens when you get married and have kids? You've opted not to pay the fee therefore your kids are not allowed to go to school. I know it's a silly example but it is kind of similar. People hate paying taxes. It is their money, not the governments. Given the option, some people will play it safe and pay the taxes/fees others will roll the dice. This couple rolled the dice and lost. The comparisons to home insurance aren't valid. They are emergency services, to provide protection and aid. They were there, they did nothing. What happens next? Someone is robbing you but you didn't pay the fee so the cops show up to make sure they don't rob the house next door too? Simply put this shouldn't be an issue in modern society and most areas of the world have this sorted. I'm assuming they were there to provide protection, make sure nobody was caught in the fire, so your arguement of provide protection kind of falls flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 It's not as easy as you want to make out. Incorporating an area wouldd increase the size of the area that they would go into. Additional voters, would you incorporate into one municipality or another etc. There is a lot of politics involved and very little the un-incorporated residency can do. I honestly don't understand this response. Why is it impossible to merge these areas into the closest municipality? Perhaps it's not as hard as you make out. If you were given the option to not pay taxes for education because you don't have children would you take that option? You'll find that a lot of people would, if not most. Then what happens when you get married and have kids? You've opted not to pay the fee therefore your kids are not allowed to go to school. I know it's a silly example but it is kind of similar. People hate paying taxes. It is their money, not the governments. Given the option, some people will play it safe and pay the taxes/fees others will roll the dice. This couple rolled the dice and lost. I have no children and even if I never have children I am happy to see my taxes go to maintain or build public schools. I get angry when I see private schools with wealthy peoples' kids getting government funding. I accept there are services I might not use right now I might need in the future, this is why I don't oppose taxation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richteralan Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I honestly don't understand this response. Why is it impossible to merge these areas into the closest municipality? Perhaps it's not as hard as you make out. Perhaps it IS difficult? sewage? water pipes? infrastructure? or even motorized road? Who is going to pay for all those? Are you going to build all those just for a few household in a 10 sq/miles rural area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Perhaps it IS difficult? sewage? water pipes? infrastructure? or even motorized road? Who is going to pay for all those? Are you going to build all those just for a few household in a 10 sq/miles rural area? But we aren't talking about any of these services, we are talking about fire fighters. Anyway, why is the idea of expansion a bad one? More people need more homes. Suburbs and city are filling up, the only way to provide to to develop more communities. But that is going way off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSoft Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I honestly don't understand this response. Why is it impossible to merge these areas into the closest municipality? Perhaps it's not as hard as you make out. I live in an un-incorporated area and would like to be merged. It is difficult. which municipality do you merge into? You may have two (or three in my case) surrounding you, so who gets the taxes, who gets the voters etc. The main problem with it is politics, the municipalities fighting over who gets them, who's municipality increases it's size etc. etc. Some people actually like to live in un-incorporated areas as they do pay less taxes (but you do have things like yearly fire fees to pay). Perhaps it IS difficult? sewage? water pipes? infrastructure? or even motorized road? Who is going to pay for all those? Are you going to build all those just for a few household in a 10 sq/miles rural area? Yep there are these things to consider as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts