Seriously. If you have to subscribe to your fire department, there really is no reason not to.
This method of paying for fire service in advance — a bit like paying Triple A for their services — has gotten recent national attention due to the aftermath of the dark side of this arrangement: no pay, no spray. Whether by oversight or by a willful roll of the dice, if your membership isn't current when your house catches fire, firefighters will arrive and watch your house burn to the ground, and perhaps spray your paid-up neighbors' properties if the fire on yours gets out of control.
Harsh? I prefer the term “fair”
I don't think any reasonable person would wish a house fire on anyone. To say that what happened to Gene Cranick and more recently to Vicky Bell is unfortunate would be a huge understatement. But if the fire department made exceptions for anyone, the precedent would be set and no one would pay. Vicky Bell and her boyfriend “were aware but thought this would never happen to them” and called the fire department, hoping that they were bluffing. Instead, they were added to the list of examples of what can happen if you don't keep your fire subscription up to date.
Seventy-five dollars a year works out to less than 21 cents per day. It's not free, but it's hardly unreasonable. It's certainly worth having the cavalry come in to save your stuff and perhaps your life.
If this is how your jurisdiction operates, pay it. It's a true bargain. Fire can happen to you.
$75 is cheap and better than the taxes the city may increase to cover the cost. This may catch on!
I agree but I think this is something that they should somehow build into property taxes or whatever other funding sources. Given the choice, people will often make…bad choices. The FD did the right thing because of the way the rules were written, but I don’t think the rules should have been written this way. I’m not for the government ruling every choice we make, but if it’s already been proven that people will make bad choices, maybe this is something that shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Besides, doesn’t it take time for the FD to have to consult the list to see if they should fight the fire or not? Even if you paid, seems these extra minutes of verification time could be costly.
I’ve commented elsewhere on this situation. I believe the way it works is that they will show up to make sure that no people are in danger. Once that’s established then they’re under no obligation to attempt to preserve property.
So the fire department is performing their primary responsibility that is built into the property taxes – saving lives.
I can see not wanting to pay the additional fee if the property you own isn’t worth saving – a hunting shelter or some such. If it’s your home then pay the money.
Are they going to call some random property insurance company and expect to get a payment even if they’ve never paid a premium? Same thing.
Why isn’t there the alternative to pay the firefighters like any other business at an hourly rate per firefighter if you don’t pay for the subscription? Why do they have to let the place burn down as opposed to simply charging a much higher bill to the home owner if they choose to accept the service?
If this is a subscription where is the competing fire companies? Can they even exist to cover fires the local one won’t put out at an hourly rate?
What about gas explosions from letting houses with natural gas burn down?
$75 for fire insurance? That’s a bargain and would lead to peace of mind. It’s fair but, of course, absolutely awful that they had to lose everything to learn the lesson.