5 ms·

If it wasn't a gov agency, something could have been worked out on the spot. Ask them if they want to pay the full price, what is it $10k, $20k?. If you don't

If it wasn't a gov agency, something could have been worked out on the spot. Ask them if they want to pay the full price, what is it $10k, $20k?. If you don't pay, you'd have the lowest priority. But there is no reason other than bureaucracy that they couldn't have handled it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
s0rce 4y ago
Do people have that cash lying around, what guarantee would you have that people would pay? Maybe you can take the deed to the house that you saved?
- jefftk 4y ago
  Seems like the agreement could be backed with the threat of a lien on your property.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    The property that just burned down?
    - michaelt 4y ago
      The fire brigade would borrow the technique of Marcus Licinius Crassus and buy your property as it burned, improve its value by extinguishing the fire, then rent it back to you.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jefftk 4y ago
      If the firefighters can't keep it from burning to the ground, I doubt you want to be paying for them to do anything. Even then, there's still the value of the land.
    - s0rce 4y ago
      Presumably they would save it by extinguishing the fire then if you can't pay the cost of the service they take the property or place a lien on it.
- ddalex 4y ago
  Hold on there Crassus.
- modderation 4y ago
  If they do have that cash laying around, hopefully it's not stored on-premises.
TeMPOraL 4y ago
Article doesn't seem to agree with you here, instead citing different reason: > South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.
- jefftk 4y ago
  dantheman was proposing agreeing to pay the full cost (tens of thousands of dollars), not just the advance fee ($75).
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    Fires are pretty rare, I'd take that bet.
  - Arainach 4y ago
    How do you calculate the "full cost" of having staff on call 24/7, well maintained equipment that's regularly inspected, building inspectors to verify that fire code is being met to keep usage down to sustainable levels, and so on? The full cost isn't $10k in salary and gasoline and foam, it's millions.
    - aaronax 4y ago
      Total cost of running the department for a year, divided by the number of callouts. Possibly weight the callout types depending on approximate resources consumed. Though I am fully in support of just letting the house burn.
      - mook 4y ago
        These costs still exist in a hypothetical year with zero fires, though. Additionally, people whose house were just on fire with zero insurance are probably not in a good financial position (anymore), and they are unlikely to be able to pay…
anotherman554 4y ago
"If it wasn't a gov agency, something could have been worked out on the spot." Or there would simply be no fire service at all because the rural area isn't profitable to service.
ghufran_syed 4y ago
the guy who can’t pay the insurance fee isn’t usually going to be able to pay the full price of the services

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

s0rce 4y ago

Do people have that cash lying around, what guarantee would you have that people would pay? Maybe you can take the deed to the house that you saved?

jefftk 4y ago
Seems like the agreement could be backed with the threat of a lien on your property.
- triceratops 4y ago
  The property that just burned down?
  - michaelt 4y ago
    The fire brigade would borrow the technique of Marcus Licinius Crassus and buy your property as it burned, improve its value by extinguishing the fire, then rent it back to you.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jefftk 4y ago
    If the firefighters can't keep it from burning to the ground, I doubt you want to be paying for them to do anything. Even then, there's still the value of the land.
  - s0rce 4y ago
    Presumably they would save it by extinguishing the fire then if you can't pay the cost of the service they take the property or place a lien on it.
ddalex 4y ago
Hold on there Crassus.
modderation 4y ago
If they do have that cash laying around, hopefully it's not stored on-premises.

TeMPOraL 4y ago

Article doesn't seem to agree with you here, instead citing different reason: > South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

jefftk 4y ago
dantheman was proposing agreeing to pay the full cost (tens of thousands of dollars), not just the advance fee ($75).
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Fires are pretty rare, I'd take that bet.
- Arainach 4y ago
  How do you calculate the "full cost" of having staff on call 24/7, well maintained equipment that's regularly inspected, building inspectors to verify that fire code is being met to keep usage down to sustainable levels, and so on? The full cost isn't $10k in salary and gasoline and foam, it's millions.
  - aaronax 4y ago
    Total cost of running the department for a year, divided by the number of callouts. Possibly weight the callout types depending on approximate resources consumed. Though I am fully in support of just letting the house burn.
    - mook 4y ago
      These costs still exist in a hypothetical year with zero fires, though. Additionally, people whose house were just on fire with zero insurance are probably not in a good financial position (anymore), and they are unlikely to be able to pay…

anotherman554 4y ago

"If it wasn't a gov agency, something could have been worked out on the spot." Or there would simply be no fire service at all because the rural area isn't profitable to service.

ghufran_syed 4y ago

the guy who can’t pay the insurance fee isn’t usually going to be able to pay the full price of the services