• 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

FreakyLocz14 said:
Then there is a legal term for that. It's called shit out of luck.
Click to expand...
Great. So, I would currently fall into this situation. Therefor, a privatized FD would never get my stamp of approval. Seems to me like far too many people in the US would be, as you put it, "shit out of luck" for this to be a very good idea.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Anybody actually tried to find examples of privatized FDs and how well they work or how much they fail? Perhaps we are assuming things we should not assume, and the sky is not falling after all.
Click to expand...

No, but the theoretical issues with them have been discussed ad nauseum within the thread. Not saying there isn't a good answer to these issues, but would sure like to here them. As long as there are still blatant hols in a plan, then that plan is fail in my book.
 
Stinky Stinky said:
I did find an interesting read though:

Fire Department Watches As House Burns Down | WallStreetOasis.com
Click to expand...


Sucks very much for their pets. There was no reason they had to die, but seeing as how animals are property, in legal terms, it was the same as letting the house burn. Shame...

Also, as I stated, sucks very much for the neighbor whos house caught on fire. Sure they put it out, but there was damage incurred ONLY because the neighbor didn't pay for said service.

Lastly, what a cheap bastard. $75 a YEAR that he wasn't willing to pay? I bet his water and sewer fee is about that or more A MONTH.
 
Ok here is the exact opposite. lets say your house catches fire and you have fire coverage through your private FD. Now lets say during the blaze your neighbors house catches fire from yours. He opted not to have fire coverage. What happens now with your private FD?
 
lordofthereef said:
Sucks very much for their pets. There was no reason they had to die, but seeing as how animals are property, in legal terms, it was the same as letting the house burn. Shame...

Also, as I stated, sucks very much for the neighbor who's house caught on fire. Sure they put it out, but there was damage incurred ONLY because the neighbor didn't pay for said service.

Lastly, what a cheap bastard. $75 a YEAR that he wasn't willing to pay? I bet his water and sewer fee is about that or more A MONTH.
Click to expand...

I read the piece and it was sad.

That said, let me ask this: suppose paying the fee is not required by law? We know what happened from the article. What if hundreds of people do not pay the fee? In this economy, chances are, people will look for ways to reduce costs and likely, most do not think the unthinkable will happen to them.

If my house is next to yours and your house catches fire, and you do not pay the fee, what if my house is damaged? Who pays?

Do we have a private FD that every property owner is required to pay?
 
Bob Maxey said:
How Success of Private Fire Departments Undermines ObamacareThe Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

One page, might help.
Click to expand...

This doesn't discuss any of the issues brought up in this thread (which are essentially the same issues you brought up one post below this). To kill two birds... errr posts... with one stone, I don't have an answer to your question below, which is why I am currently in opposition of such privatization. I can pose a question though... If we are foced to pay a privatized FD service, what is the point of privatizing in the first place? So we can pay people less who are willing to risk their lives for less?
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
Then there is a legal term for that. It's called shit out of luck.
Click to expand...

Then that is a fail right there. If I am sitting in the ashes of a burned house because my neighbor didn't want to pay for fire protection, I am extremely unhappy. Yeah I can sue him, but he just lost his house. What are the chances he has any money now?
 
oh yes. Fire departments should be able to make their decisions on whose lives to save based on which fires are most profitable to extinguish. Very smart.
 
A.Nonymous said:
And those who can't afford to get no fire service?
Click to expand...

Perhaps . . .

1- They suffer loss or they likely pay for it if they rent or buy; chances are, they will have no choice because of the potential issues for others, so the cost is added to other things. The city could treat it like sewer and water which is required. No pay and you are removed from your house.

2- They say no, they can't afford it, so 'we the people' pay their fees along with our fees so it becomes costly and bureaucratic and some private concerns get rich

3- This space left intentionally blank

4- We have private service that fails and public services are added to compensate, which makes the cost greater than leaving well enough alone

5- Believe the government because they do not lie, fudge data, hide costs, or mislead us and eventually, it costs us a grand a year

In thinking about this, what about business concerns? In Salt Lake city, there are plenty of empty buildings downtown.
 
Bob Maxey said:
In thinking about this, what about business concerns? In Salt Lake city, there are plenty of empty buildings downtown.
Click to expand...
This is something that didn't cross my mind but is a valid point. I don't know much about this, but... the vacant building are still owned by someone, right? So wouldn't the building owner be responsible here?
 
lordofthereef said:
This is something that didn't cross my mind but is a valid point. I don't know much about this, but... the vacant building are still owned by someone, right? So wouldn't the building owner be responsible here?
Click to expand...

Yes. I think there is a statute most places that mention something called a "Public Nuisance." Not sure if it applies, however.

One can be sued if a child plays around something on my property that the state or city determines is attractive to kids with exploring on their mind.
 
lordofthereef said:
This is something that didn't cross my mind but is a valid point. I don't know much about this, but... the vacant building are still owned by someone, right? So wouldn't the building owner be responsible here?
Click to expand...

Technically yes, but the building owner may be in a situation where he couldn't care less what happens to the building and has basically written it off as a loss. If it falls down or gets condemned, they don't care.

The fact is that at the end of the day, it's in the best interests of everyone that everyone have fire insurance. What if there's a block of buildings or homes that are basically abandoned (like you find in a lot of cities) and therefore aren't covered by insurance. If those buildings catch on fire, it's very much in the best interests of the entire town to not let those buildings burn out of control until they catch something else on fire that is actually covered.
 
I believe privatization should be reserved for things where a reasonable level of competition in the marketplace can be achieved. Things like police, fire and infrastructure should be publicly owned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom