We should privatize the fire department

[Bob Maxey]

But what is the cost to the public to get the service?

Forget the costs; chances are, whoever lends you the money to purchase Dark Jedi Estates will require fire insurance or whatever you call it to be paid to protect their financial investment.

Anyone think I am wrong, corrections are welcome.

 

[Dark Jedi]

Forget the costs; chances are, whoever lends you the money to purchase Dark Jedi Estates will require fire insurance or whatever you call it to be paid to protect their financial investment.

Anyone think I am wrong, corrections are welcome.

I actually had this happen with a bank when I bought a car once. They said full coverage. Well I got full coverage and one day I saw my payment had went up. I inquired about it and they told me I didnt have fire insurance. So they put it on my loan. I said you told me all I needed was full coverage. Then I said if the car was to burn wouldnt the insurance pay? They said yeah and I said now take that crap off.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

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. Hypocrite much?

You're wrong. A restrictive covenant is a private contract, not an agreement with that state.

 

[lordofthereef]

You're wrong. A restrictive covenant is a private contract, not an agreement with that state.

Ok, great. So how do we force someone to enter said private contract so our homes don't burn down?

And still the point of my home being in greater danger by the simple fact that the neighbors around me don't want to pay for a firefighting service has not been addressed. I feel like we are beating a dead horse here and that I should probably remove myself from a conversation going nowhere. Aside from your opinion, the general consensus seems to be that privatizing the fire dept. would be a terrible idea anyway.

Also, may I request everyone stop this "you're wrong" nonsense? Read your statement without that sentence. Does it still get the point across? Sure, but it's a whole lot less abrasive (and yes, I am aware you weren't the first/only one to respond in this way).

 

[nlsme]

You're wrong. A restrictive covenant is a private contract, not an agreement with that state.

A "private contract" between who? My brother owns his property, and his neighbor owns his. Now, when the local government goes to private fire depts. , who is gonna make it to where ones property is not physically connected to another property that has 0 fire protection?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

A "private contract" between who? My brother owns his property, and his neighbor owns his. Now, when the local government goes to private fire depts. , who is gonna make it to where ones property is not physically connected to another property that has 0 fire protection?

The contract is agreed upon between the property owner and the person who purchases the property as a condition of that purchase.

 

[ElasticNinja]

^That doesn't address the point.

EDIT: Wait, are you saying to purchase a house I'd have to get a solicitor to get my non fire covered neighbour to insure his house o.0
What if he doesnt??

 

[lordofthereef]

The contract is agreed upon between the property owner and the person who purchases the property as a condition of that purchase.

But what entity is requiring this contract be agreed upon under the terms of sale? If I want to sell a property and I am not required to have the seller enter the contract that is one less thing to worry about. In other words, when I sell my house, I am not going to bother requiring this at all... In fact I might advertise "screw those fire department prices. By my house and you won't have to worry about those pesky fees".

 

[RiverOfIce]

So now we have to agree with a contract that can state anything they want with out the need to provide a service? Given the nature of fires and emergencies you can not guarantee service. Take about corporate welfare!

But please address the cost issue. How are you going to provide service that is equal to what the city is already receiving for less then the city is paying. Please select any given city that you think could provide the same services now for cheaper then the public system.

Just select one city.

 

[Vihzel]

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.

That is horrible. If that's what privatization brings... then I say a firm NO.

 

[Bob Maxey]

The contract is agreed upon between the property owner and the person who purchases the property as a condition of that purchase.

And, I think, there is a third party that can sometimes be part of the sales agreement. What about the rules in place that are defined by the covenant restrictions, boards, and other groups? I am thinking of gated communities, for example, that likely require fire insurance to protect the other owners.

I know of several places that restrict sales by virtue of a board of directors with the power to disallow you from moving in and restricting what you can do with your property. I know someone that had a difficult time moving into a building because of these approval issues.

One such place is magnificent and many people are not allowed in for any number of reasons.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The rules would be put in place by the mortgage holder I would assume.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

But what entity is requiring this contract be agreed upon under the terms of sale? If I want to sell a property and I am not required to have the seller enter the contract that is one less thing to worry about. In other words, when I sell my house, I am not going to bother requiring this at all... In fact I might advertise "screw those fire department prices. By my house and you won't have to worry about those pesky fees".

You are free to set whatever restrictive covenant you want, or not have one at all, if you have complete domain over the property.

 

[lordofthereef]

Again, at some point down the line someone is bound to not have complete domain over the property, hence, at some point, it is likely that your neighbor will have no obligation to pay for this service.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Again, at some point down the line someone is bound to not have complete domain over the property, hence, at some point, it is likely that your neighbor will have no obligation to pay for this service.

Personally, I'm a big fan of any deal that makes my neighbor pay for maintenance of my property. As long as I'm not doing the same to his of course.

 

[lordofthereef]

^^^ Amen!

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Again, at some point down the line someone is bound to not have complete domain over the property, hence, at some point, it is likely that your neighbor will have no obligation to pay for this service.

Restrictive covenants can restrict entire neighborhoods. If you move into a community where everybody else has agreed to abide by a covenant, you are legally expected to do the same.

 

[nlsme]

What is my brother suppose to do? How is he protected? They both already own the property. So the local government decides to go private. Who is going to make his neighbor, who does not have a mortgage, pay for this service. And even IF he did, that contract(the mortgage) is ALREADY in place, and thus, the bank can't force it upon him. Could he sell? Who would buy a property knowing that only half the structure is protected?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

What is my brother suppose to do? How is he protected? They both already own the property. So the local government decides to go private. Who is going to make his neighbor, who does not have a mortgage, pay for this service. And even IF he did, that contract(the mortgage) is ALREADY in place, and thus, the bank can't force it upon him. Could he sell? Who would buy a property knowing that only half the structure is protected?

He's protected if he pays for fire services.

 

[nlsme]

If he sells, the new owners would pay for fire services.

Who would buy a property, when the other half of the property, that is physically attached, does not, nor will ever, have protection?

 

[nlsme]

He's protected if he pays for fire services.

No, he lives in a townhouse. That he owns half of. His neighbor owns the other half. Who can force his neighbor to purchase said service? The neighbor doesn't have a mortgage, and even IF he did, that contract ,(the mortgage) is ALREADY in place, and thus, the bank wouldn't be able to force it. But he doesn't, so again, for the fifth time, who would force him to get it. If he refused, what could my brother do? Sell? Who would buy a property knowing that the physically attached house next to it does not, nor will ever ever have said protection?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

No, he lives in a townhouse. That he owns half of. His neighbor owns the other half. Who can force his neighbor to purchase said service? The neighbor doesn't have a mortgage, and even IF he did, that contract ,(the mortgage) is ALREADY in place, and thus, the bank wouldn't be able to force it. But he doesn't, so again, for the fifth time, who would force him to get it. If he refused, what could my brother do? Sell? Who would buy a property knowing that the physically attached house next to it does not, nor will ever ever have said protection?

He can sue and claim that the property is jointly at risk, which would be a valid claim of damage.

 

[nlsme]

He can sue and claim that the property is jointly at risk, which would be a valid claim of damage.

Wow, so in essence, the state would force his neighbor to purchase this service, from a private company.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Wow, so in essence, the state would force his neighbor to purchase this service, from a private company.

No, he would force his neighbor. The lawsuit is between two private persons.

 

[nlsme]

No, he would force his neighbor. The lawsuit is between two private persons.

And the government would pass the judgement...In essence, the government would force it upon the neighbor, to purchase said service, from a private company. And you are against Obama care, for this very reason.

Liberals are known for being two-faced hypocrites.