I understand the fee of $75 dollars is for the fire department to put out a fire. However, does the fee also include rescuing individuals from a burning structure (house/barn/whatever?) Would this fire department have attempted a rescue of a person if the fee had not been paid? Please someone tell me that they wouldn’t have just sat outside and watched the house burn with a family inside.
It's an extra twenty bucks if they have to carry someone. Cash only up front please.
I'm not in this county, but grew up with a private subscription fire service. The county couldn't afford to provide it and the private sector offered a cost effective solution for families who needed it. Reduction in homeowners insurance more than covered the dues. At that time, the FD would intervene in a fire if there was a life at stake without question. If the only threat was to property, they would come but not intervene. Even if you are there, it is still costly to fight a fire.
Liberals say that the government has to run Social Security because people are too stupid and undisciplined to save for themselves. Reading comments from conservatives on this thread, I fear the libs may be right. Kind of sad.
Yes. If the fee wasnt paid, and a life was in danger the department would have rescued the person and put out the fire.
But being that no lives were in danger and the trailer was a total loss anyways they let it burn.
Yes. If the fee wasnt paid, and a life was in danger the department would have rescued the person and put out the fire.
But being that no lives were in danger and the trailer was a total loss anyways they let it burn.