Libertarian Fire Service

Aetius wrote:

An excellent description of why trying to run such things via the government is inefficient, unproductive, and completely reliant on forcing money out of people in order to provide service. However, this is definitely, clearly, and obviously not a Libertarian problem, as the headline of the topic tries to imply.

It *is* a Libertarian problem because the fee-for-service set up is exactly what a Libertarian world be like. Want fire protection? Pay a subscription. Want cops to respond when someone breaks into your house? Pay a subscription. Want to drive on decent roads? Pay tolls. And if you don't pay the fees the standard response is "tough sh*t".

Aetius wrote:

You're right, but not for the reasons you think. One, a rural fire company might be comprised of community volunteers, with funding going towards equipment. Volunteer fire departments are common, cost far less than full-time fire departments, and would almost certainly have sufficed in this situation. Two, a for-profit or non-profit fire company would almost certainly develop a different infrastructure than the system of firehouses, rarely-used equipment, and full-time firefighters that we have now. In this case, a few fire extinguishers would have sufficed at the beginning - which, notably, the homeowner did not have. Three, it probably would cost more, because you are ignoring the taxes that subsidize the city fire department in this case - the $75 per house almost certainly does not reflect the actual price of service.

One, the South Fulton fire department already consists of mostly volunteers. The document hints that the only full time firefighters in Obion County are in Union City, meaning *all* of South Fulton's Fire Department are volunteers. Two, South Fulton only has a single fire station, two fire engines, one pumper, and a service truck. That's it. It's pretty hard to "develop a different infrastructure" when the existing infrastructure is bare bones to begin with. And, three, you're absolutely right that the service would cost more, but that's not because I'm ignoring the municipal taxes. It would cost more because even the existing fee of $75 wasn't enough to pay for the actual cost of servicing the surrounding rural areas.

How much South Fulton municipal taxes goes to funding its fire service? I don't know. My Google-fu failed to turn up any budget documents for the city, let alone the fire department. Considering it's a town of 2,500, I doubt they're bringing in millions in tax revenues. If you examine the document I linked to, South Fulton's FD responded to 23 rural calls and would receive $60,000 to cover those costs if the countywide funding was put in place. They responded to 30 city calls in the same time period, so I'm going to make an assumption that the funding they get from city taxes is somewhat proportional. That would mean it would cost around $150,000 a year to fund both the city and rural fire service.

Somehow I just don't see a private company investing in all the infrastructure and turning a profit on $150,000 in revenues. Instead, switching from a city or county fire service to a private fire service would dramatically increase costs.

Forget volunteers, you'd need to pay them to put their necks on the line or at least make sure they're covered for disability insurance if you could find a sucker who would work for free to make you money. You'd charge way more than $75 per household. In fact, you'd likely charge several hundred dollars a year just to answer the phone when someone called. Actually putting out the fire would cost more since you'd charge for every firefighter's time, the equipment used, the water sprayed on the fire, etc. You'd do it because you could because, hey, who's going to stop you from charging $25,000 to put out a fire? It's what the market will bear (and what the article fuzzyb linked to shows is already being charged).

The end result might be marginally better fire service, but at a price that no one in the county could actually afford. Home insurance might cover it, but residents would end up paying more for the coverage (again, likely more than the $75 city fee). So between the higher subscription fees and higher insurance costs you'd end up with a private system that was more costly than than the existing government system. By definition, doing marginally more for a lot more money would make the private fire protection service less efficient than an government-run FD.

CheezePavilion wrote:

If you paid for an emergency service thinking you were protecting your property, and you found out the business knew that for the vast majority of customers it could only prevent the serviced property from being "outright destroyed" and that the best you could hope for was "significant damage," what would you call that? I'd call that a scam.

No. The rural residents paid a $75 fee only to have the fire department come out to their property (if they lived within 5 miles of the city limits) and try to put out a fire if called. That's it. Like every other FD, there's no service level guarantee.

The county residents have the simple choice of paying the fee and waiting the 11 minutes for the city FD to get there or trying to put out the fire by themselves.

No semantic arguments you try to make will change the fact that a fire can get pretty danged out of control in 11 minutes and that even the act of putting out a fire damages a structure, whether from cutting holes in it to reach the fire or spraying it with thousands of gallons of water.

And this entire back and forth about how damaged or not the house would be came from your insistence that the government could get paid by using the house as collateral. I simply pointed out that a damaged home isn't worth all the much and that the cost for putting out the fire might actually be more than what the property was worth. Instead of admitting your plan for funding the fire service left a bit to be desired you shifted over to calling it a scam.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Right, but those two statements can both be true, so I don't see your point, because if it *is* a scam, this whole discussion is moot because the government did the wrong thing in offering the service in the first place: we don't even need to get to the question of whether they should have let it burn down.

Maybe I'm not being clear: you can't support one part of your argument with facts that render a prior, necessary (i.e. prerequisite) part of your argument unsound. You've got a bootstrapping problem here.

The only person saying it is a scam is you and, to be honest, I'm not sure why you keep insisting this.

The county government created Obion County Fire Department on paper and didn't fund it. The eight city governments in the county that already had fire departments covered for the lack of a real county FD by agreeing to respond to rural calls a set distance from their city limit and they did so largely out of the kindness of their hearts. That provided fire coverage to most of the county.

However, when it got too expensive for those city FDs to absorb all the costs of fighting rural fires the fee-based system was put instituted. And even with the fee system, most of the cities in the county will still put out your fire even if you didn't pay (South Fulton wasn't one of those cities).

So I'm really curious how something that evolved over 20 years, with the cities trying to do the neighborly thing helping out rural residents in need, suddenly became a scam, especially when the fees charged for rural residents is actually less than the actual cost of providing the coverage. That's one heck of a scam, charging less than your cost.

CheezePavilion wrote:

And people in the big square landlocked states get all kinds of services largely paid for by the little bitty coastal states--city/rural is not the only divide when it comes to taxes spreading the wealth around in America. I think we should first check if the people of that city are without sin when it comes to taking the tax dollars of other regions before we start applauding them for casting this first stone.

That Uncle Sam can shift federal taxes from state to state isn't the same as what's facing the residents of Obion County. It's local government, meaning they actually have to pay for the services they provide with local taxes. They can't count on fickle supplemental revenue streams.

At the end of the day all we're talking about half a million dollars. That's it. Half a million dollars raised from rural residents and they get fire protection without any pesky fees. Heck, they'll get better service because that 500K includes more people, equipment, and building two additional fire houses that will improve response times and fire coverage.

OG_slinger wrote:

No. The rural residents paid a $75 fee only to have the fire department come out to their property (if they lived within 5 miles of the city limits) and try to put out a fire if called. That's it. Like every other FD, there's no service level guarantee.

edit: Yeah, but other FDs aren't asking you to pay for service as if you were hiring a private contractor. It just seems strange to me that we hold the government when it turns a traditionally public service into a business to a lesser standard in how it treats the consumer than we would a stereotypical used car salesman--even they have to comply with lemon laws.

No semantic arguments you try to make will change the fact that a fire can get pretty danged out of control in 11 minutes and that even the act of putting out a fire damages a structure, whether from cutting holes in it to reach the fire or spraying it with thousands of gallons of water.

It's not a semantic argument to point out that if all that is true, the issue isn't that people have unrealistic expectations of a fire service they didn't subscribe to, but that people in general have unrealistic expectations of the fire service, subscription or not.

And this entire back and forth about how damaged or not the house would be came from your insistence that the government could get paid by using the house as collateral. I simply pointed out that a damaged home isn't worth all the much and that the cost for putting out the fire might actually be more than what the property was worth. Instead of admitting your plan for funding the fire service left a bit to be desired you shifted over to calling it a scam.

Right--so what's the problem with that? I made an argument. You made a counter-argument. I pointed out that your counter-argument rests on facts that mean I don't even have to make an argument. Maybe I'm not making myself clear: it's like if, say, you sued me, I offered a defense, and you tried to rebut my defense with facts that show you didn't even have jurisdiction to sue me in the first place.

Right, but those two statements can both be true, so I don't see your point, because if it *is* a scam, this whole discussion is moot because the government did the wrong thing in offering the service in the first place: we don't even need to get to the question of whether they should have let it burn down.

Maybe I'm not being clear: you can't support one part of your argument with facts that render a prior, necessary (i.e. prerequisite) part of your argument unsound. You've got a bootstrapping problem here.

The only person saying it is a scam is you and, to be honest, I'm not sure why you keep insisting this.

Maybe I didn't make it specific enough: it's a scam because if this were a private business, it would be something similar to false advertising or an implied warranty.

So I'm really curious how something that evolved over 20 years, with the cities trying to do the neighborly thing helping out rural residents in need, suddenly became a scam, especially when the fees charged for rural residents is actually less than the actual cost of providing the coverage. That's one heck of a scam, charging less than your cost.

I never said it was a *smart* scam. In fact, if the fire department can do as little as you say they can, it's not even a smart service. I guess the residents of that city should be glad less of their taxes are going towards a service as useless as you have made it out to be, but really, they should be mad *any* of their tax dollars going towards it. I mean, it may have been a neighborly thing to do, but given the picture you paint of the situation, they might as well of had someone drive a car out there to throw money on that burning house as send the fire department.

I also think it's interesting that earlier in your post you talked about me making semantic arguments, and now you want to discuss if this technically qualifies as a 'scam' ;- D

And people in the big square landlocked states get all kinds of services largely paid for by the little bitty coastal states--city/rural is not the only divide when it comes to taxes spreading the wealth around in America. I think we should first check if the people of that city are without sin when it comes to taking the tax dollars of other regions before we start applauding them for casting this first stone.

That Uncle Sam can shift federal taxes from state to state isn't the same as what's facing the residents of Obion County. It's local government, meaning they actually have to pay for the services they provide with local taxes. They can't count on fickle supplemental revenue streams.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here/why it's not the same. If you're making an argument based on taxes staying within the borders they are collected in, I don't see how any of that is relevant.

At the end of the day all we're talking about half a million dollars. That's it. Half a million dollars raised from rural residents and they get fire protection without any pesky fees. Heck, they'll get better service because that 500K includes more people, equipment, and building two additional fire houses that will improve response times and fire coverage.

Oh, that we agree on, so I guess you could say that at the end of the day, we agree.

Why in the world would it have to be Federal? Where did that come in?

MacBrave wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I picture a wise old libertarian sitting at his home while his neighbors' houses burn, smiling wistfully as natural order is dealt out to those that are too weak, dumb, or poor to take care of themselves. I don't want to live in that world.

And who would force you to live in such a world? Are you saying libertarians don't believe in charity and helping their neighbors?

I'm not going to say all libertarians because everyone is different, but for the libertarians I have personally known as coworkers/friends/family, selfishness was definitely one of their stronger personality traits. I don't think any one of them would just sit and watch their neighbors house burn, though. They'd be too busy wetting their own house down with a garden hose in case of sparks.

Robear wrote:

Why in the world would it have to be Federal? Where did that come in?

For me, it's realistic brainstorming based on a lifetime of observation. My state likes to talk game about gettin the Fedrul Gubmit out of The People's (here defined as mining and oil concerns, mostly) lives, but when the going get's tough we trip over our skirts scurrying to them for help. So it'd have to be the Feds, unless some big company was asking for it.

Robear wrote:

Why in the world would it have to be Federal? Where did that come in?

Because most of the liberals and socialists here think an over-reaching, all-powerful federal government is the answer to all this country's problems, including fire protection in rural areas. Personally I am of the opinion that government is more effective the more local it is, but hey when you have virtually unlimited money like Washington thinks it has and when push comes to shove you ignore the Constitution that power is basically unlimited.

ruhk wrote:

I'm not going to say all libertarians because everyone is different, but for the libertarians I have personally known as coworkers/friends/family, selfishness was definitely one of their stronger personality traits. I don't think any one of them would just sit and watch their neighbors house burn, though. They'd be too busy wetting their own house down with a garden hose in case of sparks.

Interesting that more and more individuals mistake personal responsibility for selfishness. Another symptom of the growing nanny state where your neighbor's business is more important than your own.

MacBrave wrote:
Robear wrote:

Why in the world would it have to be Federal? Where did that come in?

Because most of the liberals and socialists here think an over-reaching, all-powerful federal government is the answer to all this country's problems, including fire protection in rural areas. Personally I am of the opinion that government is more effective the more local it is, but hey when you have virtually unlimited money like Washington thinks it has and when push comes to shove you ignore the Constitution that power is basically unlimited.

So it is more convenient to attack straw men than discuss the issue. I've said several times that the best solution would have been a county wide tax that was used to provided fire service for everyone. That's pretty local.

You are misstating the issue to hide the fact that you support a system that already proved to be hazardous to the health of a community. We got here because privately run fire departments that compete for our dollars resulted in terrible service that increased the destruction of property and loss of life. You are arguing that when communities got together and voted to pool their resources that it somehow violated the constitution. Seriously, I don't want to live in the world you keep promoting.

Jayhawker wrote:

So it is more convenient to attack straw men than discuss the issue.

Just like the "libertarians are selfish" straw men?

Jayhawker wrote:

You are misstating the issue to hide the fact that you support a system that already proved to be hazardous to the health of a community.

Who has died under the system in Obion County?

Jayhawker wrote:

You are arguing that when communities got together and voted to pool their resources that it somehow violated the constitution.

Not my argument at all. I put forth the supposition that certain individuals would be happy with a federally operated fire department, an idea which probably would be unconstitutional. Local communities are free to get together pool their resources as the citizens of those communities see fit.

MacBrave wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

So it is more convenient to attack straw men than discuss the issue.

Just like the "libertarians are selfish" straw men?

The "libertarians are selfish" is an observation, not an argument.

Jayhawker wrote:
You are misstating the issue to hide the fact that you support a system that already proved to be hazardous to the health of a community.

Who has died under the system in Obion County?

FFS already. For the THIRD time:

In the late 19th century, the demand of central command for fire companies took place within cities because the fire companies would fight over fires or not put out an fire because the owners didn't have fire insurance.[citation needed] Insured properties had plaques with the insurance company's names affixed to their exterior called fire marks. This caused areas of a city to be badly damage by fires and caused many deaths. Cities started to form their own fire departments as a civil service to the public, forcing private fire companies to shut down, and merging their fire stations into the city's fire department.

Seriously, THAT is the core reason I favor local taxpayer supported fire departments. Making up that anyone in this thread has favored a federal fire department is intellectually dishonest. You might call it a straw man. We can point out that Obion country has a poor way of handing ling fire protection without implying that the federal governemn t should be in charge.

Jayhawker wrote:
You are arguing that when communities got together and voted to pool their resources that it somehow violated the constitution.

Not my argument at all. I put forth the supposition that certain individuals would be happy with a federally operated fire department, an idea which probably would be unconstitutional. Local communities are free to get together pool their resources as the citizens of those communities see fit.

Fine. Go argue with those people that are supporting federally funded fire departments. That hasn't been the argument here. It has only been brought up by libertarians in what amounts to a poorly formed slippery slope argument.

For me, it's realistic brainstorming based on a lifetime of observation. My state likes to talk game about gettin the Fedrul Gubmit out of The People's (here defined as mining and oil concerns, mostly) lives, but when the going get's tough we trip over our skirts scurrying to them for help. So it'd have to be the Feds, unless some big company was asking for it.

Still, it seems like the proper political venue for firefighting would be the state or local government. Federal resources should apply for inter-state, Federal or other areas where the first two are inapplicable.

I do take your point, though. There's a recent WaPo poll (reported on in today's paper) that shows that people are evenly split on whether government should be bigger or smaller, but overwhelming majorities support the major Federal programs (Social Security, health care, education, etc.) People are confused, it seems. They want less government but more services.

Because most of the liberals and socialists here think an over-reaching, all-powerful federal government is the answer to all this country's problems

I don't think we have any socialists here. But your statement is just wrong, and very unfair to those of us who spend a lot of time trying to discuss these things, rather than just make stuff up about the folks we disagree with.

Interesting that more and more individuals mistake personal responsibility for selfishness.

Blame that on Ayn Rand, I'd say.

I put forth the supposition that certain individuals would be happy with a federally operated fire department, an idea which probably would be unconstitutional.

Your "certain individuals" would be the "most of the liberals and socialists here", and you're still wrong about that. Don't tell other people here what they think and then pretend you're just talking about some other group out there.

EDIT: Is this not the TF2 thread? Long enough.

Robear wrote:

Still, it seems like the proper political venue for firefighting would be the state or local government. Federal resources should apply for inter-state, Federal or other areas where the first two are inapplicable.

Too right. The implication that anyone is advocating Federal Fire Departments is way off, I feel. I chose to brainstorm something that I imagine is closer to bank insurance--a Fed fund that ensures local FDs get compensated for fighting rural fires, because very quickly can a fire become a Federal problem.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Robear wrote:

Still, it seems like the proper political venue for firefighting would be the state or local government. Federal resources should apply for inter-state, Federal or other areas where the first two are inapplicable.

Too right. The implication that anyone is advocating Federal Fire Departments is way off, I feel. I chose to brainstorm something that I imagine is closer to bank insurance--a Fed fund that ensures local FDs get compensated for fighting rural fires, because very quickly can a fire become a Federal problem.

Is this fund to fight fires on/threatening public land, or to put out fires on private land/property? The former is a very good idea, and I think the wildfires in California and other places over the past decades showcase the need for it. If it is the latter, how does this address the concern that has been oft-raised where the people who already pay for fire service through local taxes(city residents) being asked to subsidize(double-dip by paying additional federal taxes on top of their city property taxes) those who have refused to fund the service?

Kraint wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Robear wrote:

Still, it seems like the proper political venue for firefighting would be the state or local government. Federal resources should apply for inter-state, Federal or other areas where the first two are inapplicable.

Too right. The implication that anyone is advocating Federal Fire Departments is way off, I feel. I chose to brainstorm something that I imagine is closer to bank insurance--a Fed fund that ensures local FDs get compensated for fighting rural fires, because very quickly can a fire become a Federal problem.

Is this fund to fight fires on/threatening public land, or to put out fires on private land/property? The former is a very good idea, and I think the wildfires in California and other places over the past decades showcase the need for it. If it is the latter, how does this address the concern that has been oft-raised where the people who already pay for fire service through local taxes(city residents) being asked to subsidize(double-dip by paying additional federal taxes on top of their city property taxes) those who have refused to fund the service?

Does it have to address that concern? No one seems to be concerned with those people that already pay for fire service through state taxes (non-California residents) being asked to subsidize (double-dip by paying additional federal taxes on top of their state taxes) those who have refused to fund the service.

It seems strange to be more concerned with making residents of the same state pay for each other than we are about residents of one state pay for residents of another state. I don't get the logic that if there's a city next to where I live, it's more unfair for me to expect them to fund my fire service if they're in the same county than to expect them to do so if they live not only in another county, but in an entirely different state.

Robear wrote:
Because most of the liberals and socialists here think an over-reaching, all-powerful federal government is the answer to all this country's problems

I don't think we have any socialists here. But your statement is just wrong, and very unfair to those of us who spend a lot of time trying to discuss these things, rather than just make stuff up about the folks we disagree with.

I would loosely call myself a democratic socialist, though modern socialists tend to cringe from the term "socialist" because the current movement bears little to no resemblance to the early communist movements that it gets wrongly associated with.

As for the "over-reaching, all-powerful federal government is the answer to all this country's problems" comment, that's missing the point in exactly the way that I mentioned above. Something that libertarians tend to miss is that we live in a society, which requires a certain level of interdependence and co-operation amongst individuals. Functions tend to get placed in the hands of a governing body simply because it's the most reliable way to ensure that a base level of needs gets met for the most people, the "I've got mine, you've got yours" approach. This system isn't perfect, and can be gamed at times, but leaving these things up to the free market tends to lead to a very few individuals getting much more than they need while the rest get little or none, exemplified by the slogan of a libertarian co-worker I once had: "I've got mine so f*ck you."

It's exemplified by more than slogans. In the 2 decades or so, income inequity has increased greatly in the US.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Kraint wrote:

Is this fund to fight fires on/threatening public land, or to put out fires on private land/property? The former is a very good idea, and I think the wildfires in California and other places over the past decades showcase the need for it. If it is the latter, how does this address the concern that has been oft-raised where the people who already pay for fire service through local taxes(city residents) being asked to subsidize(double-dip by paying additional federal taxes on top of their city property taxes) those who have refused to fund the service?

Does it have to address that concern? No one seems to be concerned with those people that already pay for fire service through state taxes (non-California residents) being asked to subsidize (double-dip by paying additional federal taxes on top of their state taxes) those who have refused to fund the service.

It seems strange to be more concerned with making residents of the same state pay for each other than we are about residents of one state pay for residents of another state. I don't get the logic that if there's a city next to where I live, it's more unfair for me to expect them to fund my fire service if they're in the same county than to expect them to do so if they live not only in another county, but in an entirely different state.

I think the bolded part of my statement is the important differential. My federal taxes aren't going to put out a house fire in the city of LA, they are going to deal with a natural disaster on federal land. Those are very, very different things.

But I'm not sure I follow the rest of your statement. Our government, whether you like it or not, is set up such that different services are handled at different levels. You seem to have no problem letting people abandon their responsibilities with no cost to themselves. The people in the unincorporated section of the county decided to not pay for a fire department. Fine, that is their choice. But, believe it or not, that means there is no fire department on hand. If you want their neighbors to fork out extra cash so these people can get services for free, I have a real problem with it. You are advocating taxation without representation of the residents of South Fulton and all the surrounding cities.

Kraint wrote:

Is this fund to fight fires on/threatening public land, or to put out fires on private land/property? The former is a very good idea, and I think the wildfires in California and other places over the past decades showcase the need for it. If it is the latter, how does this address the concern that has been oft-raised where the people who already pay for fire service through local taxes(city residents) being asked to subsidize(double-dip by paying additional federal taxes on top of their city property taxes) those who have refused to fund the service?

Well, I'd say first off that fire doesn't give a damn about whether land is public or private, and that's the biggest concern from my point of view. Change conditions a little and "We're here to stop it from spreading" becomes a sick joke. I said earlier in this thread that I didn't understand why they didn't put out the fire and present the homeowner with a bill. As others have noted, it's hard for the local FD to collect. Imagine this Fed fund pays the local FD for their trouble, and presents the homeowner the bill. The Feds seem exceptionally good at collecting on debts. Mac's silly fears of a Federal Fire Gestapo are allayed, responsibility is still rewarded because timely payers are covered, and my air is clearer in the summer time.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Well, I'd say first off that fire doesn't give a damn about whether land is public or private, and that's the biggest concern from my point of view. Change conditions a little and "We're here to stop it from spreading" becomes a sick joke. I said earlier in this thread that I didn't understand why they didn't put out the fire and present the homeowner with a bill. As others have noted, it's hard for the local FD to collect. Imagine this Fed fund pays the local FD for their trouble, and presents the homeowner the bill. The Feds seem exceptionally good at collecting on debts. Mac's silly fears of a Federal Fire Gestapo are allayed, responsibility is still rewarded because timely payers are covered, and my air is clearer in the summer time.

You've still got the federal government running the service, then. As soon as the federal government is involved, there will be new regulations to set the amount that it costs to fight a fire. You've got regulations to identify what is involved in a fire fighting effort. You've got people pushing for discounts for people who make less than $N a year. You will see payments cut off until the state meets some guideline the federal government comes up (see highway budgets vs. drinking age). Government money is exactly why the federal government has all of its current authority, thanks to the wonders of interstate commerce administration and funding as a carrot/stick.

I wish the solution were this simple, but I don't see a system where the federal gov't doesn't use this to take additional authority.

Kraint wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Kraint wrote:

Is this fund to fight fires on/threatening public land, or to put out fires on private land/property? The former is a very good idea, and I think the wildfires in California and other places over the past decades showcase the need for it. If it is the latter, how does this address the concern that has been oft-raised where the people who already pay for fire service through local taxes(city residents) being asked to subsidize(double-dip by paying additional federal taxes on top of their city property taxes) those who have refused to fund the service?

Does it have to address that concern? No one seems to be concerned with those people that already pay for fire service through state taxes (non-California residents) being asked to subsidize (double-dip by paying additional federal taxes on top of their state taxes) those who have refused to fund the service.

It seems strange to be more concerned with making residents of the same state pay for each other than we are about residents of one state pay for residents of another state. I don't get the logic that if there's a city next to where I live, it's more unfair for me to expect them to fund my fire service if they're in the same county than to expect them to do so if they live not only in another county, but in an entirely different state.

I think the bolded part of my statement is the important differential. My federal taxes aren't going to put out a house fire in the city of LA, they are going to deal with a natural disaster on federal land. Those are very, very different things.

Oh, sure--of course. That would just be the parks service or something if it was Federal land. Just I thought you mean *all* public land which would include land owned by the state of California/Orange County/City of Anaheim/etc.--not all land is either private or Federal, public land can be state/county/municipal/etc. I'm guessing now it's easier to follow my statement.

But I'm not sure I follow the rest of your statement. Our government, whether you like it or not, is set up such that different services are handled at different levels. You seem to have no problem letting people abandon their responsibilities with no cost to themselves. The people in the unincorporated section of the county decided to not pay for a fire department. Fine, that is their choice. But, believe it or not, that means there is no fire department on hand. If you want their neighbors to fork out extra cash so these people can get services for free, I have a real problem with it. You are advocating taxation without representation of the residents of South Fulton and all the surrounding cities.

One thing about this: it's not taxation without representation. Aren't these cities part of the county? If so, the city residents are also county residents. If they can vote for county officials then they are represented in the county government, and I've never heard of a city where the residents can't vote in county elections.

CheezePavilion wrote:

One thing about this: it's not taxation without representation. Aren't these cities part of the county? If so, the city residents are also county residents. If they can vote for county officials then they are represented in the county government, and I've never heard of a city where the residents can't vote in county elections.

If I recall correctly, the tax decision would only effect those in the unincorporated parts of the county. It was made by county officials and reflected the views of people who would have been directly affected. Now, if this had been put up to a general vote, it would have been unfair as well. I am guessing city residents would statistically overwhelm the unincorporated folks, and would have skewed it towards the tax. Further, I seem to remember reading that the unincorporated area of the county is actually covered by something like 6 different fire departments, not all of them in Obion county. They would have no say, and wouldn't be paying any taxes towards or receiving money from the county.

The whole situation is quite stupid, in my opinion. But, if my above statements are accurate, I think the county officials handled the decision as fairly as one could hope. Fair treatment doesn't make the resulting decision right (even blathering morons get to vote), but it is the will of the people.

Kraint wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

One thing about this: it's not taxation without representation. Aren't these cities part of the county? If so, the city residents are also county residents. If they can vote for county officials then they are represented in the county government, and I've never heard of a city where the residents can't vote in county elections.

If I recall correctly, the tax decision would only effect those in the unincorporated parts of the county. It was made by county officials and reflected the views of people who would have been directly affected. Now, if this had been put up to a general vote, it would have been unfair as well. I am guessing city residents would statistically overwhelm the unincorporated folks, and would have skewed it towards the tax.

I think I'm the one having trouble following now: I don't see the relevance to your complaint that this is taxation without representation. Best I can make out you're talking about taxation without a direct vote, but that's something different.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I think I'm the one having trouble following now: I don't see the relevance to your complaint that this is taxation without representation. Best I can make out you're talking about taxation without a direct vote, but that's something different.

The people of the cities who are providing service had no say in the county's decision to not levy additional taxes on the residents of the unincorporated parts of Obion County. Nor should they have had one in the current system (subscription-based fire service from the cities). Yet your expectation, as I read it, is that the city residents should be paying for the fire service for those areas from their taxes, even after it was shown that the county residents were unwilling to pay even small fees for the service (issues with both paying the $75 insurance or the $500 post-fire fee).

Kraint wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I think I'm the one having trouble following now: I don't see the relevance to your complaint that this is taxation without representation. Best I can make out you're talking about taxation without a direct vote, but that's something different.

The people of the cities who are providing service had no say in the county's decision to not levy additional taxes on the residents of the unincorporated parts of Obion County.

What do you mean they had no say? Didn't they have a vote in the county elections just like the residents of the county outside the city? Can't someone from the city become a county freeholder or whatever they call the elected county officials in Obion?

CheezePavilion wrote:
Kraint wrote:

The people of the cities who are providing service had no say in the county's decision to not levy additional taxes on the residents of the unincorporated parts of Obion County.

What do you mean they had no say? Didn't they have a vote in the county elections just like the residents of the county outside the city? Can't someone from the city become a county freeholder or whatever they call the elected county officials in Obion?

When the county commissioners brought up the funding of this, they only consulted the people of the non-incorporated areas. What else would you call it? What if the city that was providing the subscription service was in another county?

If the unincorporated residents hold this much sway over the county government, that they can impose what amounts to tax on city residents for the county residents' benefit, how could the city residents not feel under-/unrepresented?

Kraint wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Kraint wrote:

The people of the cities who are providing service had no say in the county's decision to not levy additional taxes on the residents of the unincorporated parts of Obion County.

What do you mean they had no say? Didn't they have a vote in the county elections just like the residents of the county outside the city? Can't someone from the city become a county freeholder or whatever they call the elected county officials in Obion?

When the county commissioners brought up the funding of this, they only consulted the people of the non-incorporated areas. What else would you call it? What if the city that was providing the subscription service was in another county?

If the unincorporated residents hold this much sway over the county government, that they can impose what amounts to tax on city residents for the county residents' benefit, how could the city residents not feel under-/unrepresented?

I wouldn't call it taxation without representation if the people of the incorporated areas vote for the county commissioners. Whatever else it is, it's not that: you're making an argument about the tyranny of the majority here, which is different from--and most importantly, a much more difficult argument to make than--taxation without representation.

I said earlier in this thread that I didn't understand why they didn't put out the fire and present the homeowner with a bill

Because they had no right to. Basically, unless you have tax paid coverage, or pay into a program like the $75, then you don't have coverage. You can't risk your guys getting hurt and not having medical coverage because legally you shouldn't have put out the fire, the firemen come first. Most likely this is all moot though. Long travel time + initial response time = the house is probably full off, which means at best they were only going to contain it to the property anyway. Also, who ever said that letting the animals die was animal cruelty, that's preposterous. You don't risk human life for animals.