I live in a rural area with a similar FD arrangement. You pay your membership fee. It’s pretty clear when they send the notices out that you have zero access to services if you don’t.
As the story notes, the firemen were on hand to protect the property of the neighboring owner. Everyone who lives in a rural FD area knows the rules.
These stories pop here from time to time, and they are usually misunderstood. There are no hydrants. It’s usually a couple of trucks with water tanks on the back. The resources are limited and you don’t expose the paying customers to extra harm by using up the water on the house that didn’t pay.
They tried to skimp on $75 and it didn’t pay off. It is sad that they lost all their possessions, but most of that would probably be lost in the smoke and water damage anyway. Their insurance will pay for the house and contents. Hopefully, they will choose to pay their membership fee in the future.
Frankly, I think almost all government "services" ought to be financed in the same manner. I mean, if you can get your garbage collected at a lower cost than the government charges you (usually through taxes), then why shouldn't you be able to use the lowest-cost service? Ditto schools - I'm paying enormous taxes to support a school system that I don't even use! Let the parents bear the cost of their own offspring, including the cost of education.
Maybe not.
Insurance companies usually do not like to pay out on fire damage if the property owner had access to fire department services and did not subscribe of his own volition.
When I was looking for a house I found that many companies would not give me a loan or wanted a larger down payment. When I get enough equity I might try to move. What is insurance like to get out in the boonies?
Do they respond if someone is trapped inside, or is it another $75 per head?
Yep that is the way it is in rural areas. I pay 35.00 a year for service. These people wanted something for free. They probably had no homeowners insurance either. They were too cheap to pay thier 75.00.
It seems harsh, but I agree with you. If these folks don’t have to pay in advance, why should anyone else? And if no one pays in advance, how do they buy the equipment to answer ANY fire calls?
Some have said that they should be charged with the actual cost of putting out the fire. My guess is that they would refuse to pay it, as they refused to pay the measly $75 in advance. Their argument: We never agreed to pay the cost to put out the fire. And, by the way, what IS the cost to put out the fire? How is it calculated?
I’d feel differently, perhaps, if these people had said they could not afford the fee (although I doubt that is the case).
It seems we always join these discussions at the point AFTER the fire, but almost everyone would agree BEFORE the fire that if you refuse to pay for the service that you ought not to receive it.