3 ms·
I had not heard that. Reports I saw at the time said he "forgot". At any rate, in response to the story, the county changed it so paying when your house was al
by HWR_14 4y ago
I had not heard that. Reports I saw at the time said he "forgot".
At any rate, in response to the story, the county changed it so paying when your house was already ablaze was a punitive but not impossible option. I believe it was $3,500 when they instituted it.
Which, frankly, seems like the proper way to handle the moral hazard.
- david422 4y agoThat's still the same problem though. If nobody pays the town is still going to be out money even if it's possible to collect $3500. And the reason they don't put out the blaze and then just charge if someone doesn't have insurance is because they won't be able to collect. How do you deal with freeloaders in society?
- tsimionescu 4y agoDefinitely not by letting them or their belongings burn down.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- HWR_14 4y agoThe town was paying for a fire department anyway. The additional fee ways for people outside the town. Meanwhile, governments have excellent was of collecting on low-four figure debts secured by real estate. And, as I pointed out, the appropriate punishment for freeloading is paying a heavy fine when you opt to use it.
- fatbird 4y agoThe problem is that the municipality is a subordinate gov't within the county. They have no leverage over people outside the municipality, and basically had to have a court fight for every uncollected fee/fine, which rapidly ate all the money that could be collected... if the person living almost tax free on unincorporated land in a mobile home had the money to be collected.