ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Which comes right back to Lords point, which you are neglecting for the last while.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
We should privatize the fire department
- Thread starter FreakyLocz14
- Start date
In units that are rented, the landlords pay for the services.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Not all units are rented. In the case of towns homes or condos, often none are. Ever seen an aparement high rise where you get dozens-hundreds of units in one building. Many of those units are owned (not rented) by single entities.
AGAIN, my house doesn;t HAVE to be attached to someone else's. If my neighbor's house is on fire and is not being serviced because he doesn't want to pay it puts my home and the surrounding homes in a much greater danger even if they are being serviced.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
How is it fair that someone in a small building pays the same as someone in a mansion?
How is it fair that someone 400 metres from the fire station pays the same as someone 40KM away?
How is it fair someone in a hard to reach 17th floor apartment pays the same as someone in a bungalow?
How is it fair that someone 400 metres from the fire station pays the same as someone 40KM away?
How is it fair someone in a hard to reach 17th floor apartment pays the same as someone in a bungalow?
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Well, technically, they already do under current law (assuming they have equal incomes). - referring to the states of course.
Restrictive covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This can help solve the problem of townhouses and condos. Condominium complexes are owned by somebody else, who can require those who purchase units within their complex to purchase fire services in order to live there.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
I know, I'm just trying to show Freak that the idea is problematic.
Also I doubt the mansion owner will earn as little as the bungalow owner
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Are you planning to address this point OP?
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Frankly we would have to require that restrictive covenant be imposed, by law for that to work. At that point, why privetize at all? All of the sudden people who own homes have a choice, but people who own condos, town homes, etc. do not.
FWIW not all condo complexes are owned by somebody else.
And again (last time, I promise), why should my safety be compromised because my neighbor doesn't want to pay the fee. I am talking in a house, not attached to his, that is burning down. Windows are blowing out, pieces of burning wood/ash are floating over to my house, all because he refuses to pay. This puts my life in direct danger even if my home is being serviced.
Also, another point. What if there is a large fire someplace. Let's say government land that needs firefighters flown in (this happens almost once a year in California). Where do you get the manpower? A private entity can service whomever they want. If they are making more money keeping the guys in Beverly hills alive, they won't be sending flocks of their men (if they have them) to save the mountainside.
My point is, on a daily basis, sure government run fire services seem to be hemorrhaging money. On a day where a wildfire risks hundreds to thousands of home/families, it is essential to have a government organization that can instantly mobilize enough men from around the nation, if need be, to get the job done.
FWIW not all condo complexes are owned by somebody else.
And again (last time, I promise), why should my safety be compromised because my neighbor doesn't want to pay the fee. I am talking in a house, not attached to his, that is burning down. Windows are blowing out, pieces of burning wood/ash are floating over to my house, all because he refuses to pay. This puts my life in direct danger even if my home is being serviced.
Also, another point. What if there is a large fire someplace. Let's say government land that needs firefighters flown in (this happens almost once a year in California). Where do you get the manpower? A private entity can service whomever they want. If they are making more money keeping the guys in Beverly hills alive, they won't be sending flocks of their men (if they have them) to save the mountainside.
My point is, on a daily basis, sure government run fire services seem to be hemorrhaging money. On a day where a wildfire risks hundreds to thousands of home/families, it is essential to have a government organization that can instantly mobilize enough men from around the nation, if need be, to get the job done.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
He did, in a half-baked way (IMO). Basically said that people in those situations should be required, by contract, to pay the service.
Wrong, a lot of a fire dept revenue comes from local property taxes.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Well, I had it half right I guess. In Cali, a lot of your property tax is based on land. In theory the guy living in the bungalow could be paying far more than the guy living in the mansion. Just depends on how much land he is sitting on (and as little as a quarter acre makes a huge difference).
EDIT: Here is an example for Los Angeles County (near where I grew up)
http://www.fire.lacounty.gov/DoingBusiness/DoHowFunded.asp
My brother lives in a townhouse. HE owns HALF the building, his neighbor OWNS the other half. So your response there is to have the state require the purchase of fire protection from a private entity. My bet is, your against "obamacare" for that very reason.
In NY, land is a lot less a factor than the structure on the land. I have a 2200 sqft home. My taxes used to be about $4100 a year. I put a shed in my back yard, they went to $4550. I bought 60 acres from my neighbor, and it went to $6200.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
I would think it probably has a lot do do with population in the city, what grows on the land, etc. In LA, if you are lucky enough to find a plot of land, it is going to be mostly dense underbrush and other plant life that sets ablaze if you so much as look at it wrong in the hot dry summers.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
I think property taxes are the fairest way to pay for the fire service (amongst other things ofc!). The sooner they (re)implement it here the better.
They address my earlier point too I guess.
You still have not explained how you are going to get the private companies to pay for the services.
Lets try this again.
Oakland califorina, population around 450,000 people. Fire department staff at any minute, 135 firefighters on 26 fire engines, 7 fire trucks, and a few other vehicles.
Total cost to keep 135 firefighters on duty for 24 hours a day 365 days a year at minimum wage is....$6,504,300. That is not including training, equipment, consumable resources, insurance, or anything else. Just to pay 135 people to be on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Total cost for the same service provided by the great city of Oakland California, $7,000,000 dollars. That number includes training, equipment, consumables, insurance, health, retirement, system maintenance, and the 100's of other services provided by the fire department every year.
Before you go there, here is what the oakland fire department has to go through on a average year. Total number of calls requiring the fire department, 75,000 a year. 75000 call requiring the fire department per year is about 1 call per 7.5 minutes all year long, average response time, 10 minutes. Total number of fire call per year is 1,150 calls per year. That is 3 fires per day, every day all year long.
But these are just numbers, let us look at the fact on the ground.
Experiment in Private Fire Protection Fails for a Westchester Village - NYTimes.com
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I still want to see this point addressed. My neighbor's house catches on fire. They don't have fire service. So the fire trucks sit at the station and do nothing. Meanwhile I have to twiddle my thumbs and wait for my house to catch on fire? Really? That's a plan? Then when my house actually catches on fire, I can call and they'll come put my fire out. But the neighbors house is still on fire. Will the fire department sit there and wait to make the fire doesn't spread again? Or do they leave and I have to call again later when my house catches on fire again? And now I have to explain this to my insurance company. It's very much in my best interest to have my neighbor's house not catch on fire and not spread to my house if it does.
Legally, they have to put out the fire. Failure to do so would be a breach of contract between you and the fire company in which you are paying the fee. But the other small problem is the fact that you will need to adjust your home insurance too. When you have a public fire department attack the house fire, they are doing so at their own risk, it is part of the fire charter, and only is exempt if the house becomes a fire trap, ie you are storing propane tanks in the house or a hoader.
If there is a private contract between you and a private firm, you will need to adjust your insurance because they can and will sue you if anyone becomes injured while fighting a fire on your property. When you sign the contract, ie pay the fee, you are in a contract that can allow them to seek not only insurance, but reimbursements for putting out the fire. They can add anything to the contract they want after they are the only fire fighting service available.
I still want to see this point addressed by the op.
D
Dark Jedi
Guest
How about this. When your house catches fire from your neighbors house who didnt pay the money. Then the fire dept puts yours out. Then when your homeowners insurance finds out this fire could of been prevented. You really think they are going to pay?
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Its insurance. Of course they wont pay
D
Dark Jedi
Guest
Well yeah but this gives them a good reason not to pay. Smart aceIts insurance. Of course they wont pay
landovr
Android Enthusiast
Is This what you want.
YouTube - ‪Fire Dept Lets House Burn Because Fire Fee Is Not Payed.‬‏
I am a firefighter and I couldn't imagine letting someones house burn down even if someone told us to.
YouTube - ‪Fire Dept Lets House Burn Because Fire Fee Is Not Payed.‬‏
I am a firefighter and I couldn't imagine letting someones house burn down even if someone told us to.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
To be completely fair though, municipal fire departments face similar problems with insurance. For example, our city fire department will only respond to fires within the city limits. There is a city fire station that is literally about half a mile or so from the boundary line. On the other side of that line is an area of houses that is protected solely by a volunteer fire department. We have had situations where a house has caught on fire and the city firefighters caught all kinds of flack for not responding. By the time the time volunteers got out of bed, got dressed, drove down to the station, got all the equipment together and drove to the fire, it had already been burning for 20-30 minutes. A full equipped, staffed 24/7 fire station was half a mile away. However, they cannot respond outside of that line. If they do, their insurance will NOT cover them for any injuries that are suffered.