The problem is that many people is looking at this as a make money operation, and that is just not possible. With the "oh but I have not use this service" mentality is not possible to live. I never use the police and the only time I had something to do with them it was not in my best interest, to say the least. But I understadn we have to have it and it must be to protect and serve EVERYONE! (they seem to forget that last word and some times even change it by the rich or a few) Should we privatize police too, "It will be Cheaper for Ya'll tax payers" I am sure there will be some people it might even think about it, hell the USA Military is doing it! (I am sure the Iraqis would take a military guy over a contractor any day) There are some basic things a human should have and the more advance the society is, the more of those things are paid collectively (look at some northern Europeans). It really upset me when people talk to me about a benefit BBQ's or stuff like that, I am thinking this should have been pay by the government and YOU are the one who does not want to pay more taxes and now that YOU have a problem come to US for help....
Anyway I think we are all preaching to the choir, Ivan -----Original Message----- From: Dan Beukelman Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 8:55 AM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Paying for fire response service (was AlabamaTown's Failed Pension..) This is much better stated that what I said but means the same thing. Without funding by everyone, the service will fail. I live in South Dakota. Our community fire department (full time) provides ambulance and fire protection for the surrounding rural area, all of which is too small to pay for a fire department themselves in entirety. Some of these smaller communities have volunteer services which can be called up if there is a large disaster, but the first responders are our town fire department. One township wasn’t taxing themselves enough to pay their share for the service. They ran out of money between road maintenance and fire service costs. They faced the prospect of having no fire protection since they couldn’t pay for it. The town, had to decide if they would continue to provide the service for this township that didn’t have enough money, for free (which would, in fact, be penalizing everyone else who contributes for the service) and risk loosing other payers the same way, or cutting off service. Fortunately for us, cooler heads prevailed, the township residents decided to increase their own taxes, in the meantime the town fire department continued providing service, but kept the unpaid fee on the books, saying it would need to be paid, with interest. The township is now paying off their unpaid debt to the town, and collecting enough in taxes to continue to pay the appropriate costs for their residents. Had the town caved and collect less, or nothing, other townships would have wanted equal treatment. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darryl McMahon Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:22 PM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Paying for fire response service (was Alabama Town's Failed Pension..) I'm interested in the economic mechanism(s) at play here. (I'm sure I have my own political biases, but I'm trying to ignore them for the moment.) Let's consider this as sort of a poor-man's version of game theory. Let's assume I have a house, and I want to keep it intact. What measures can I take to protect it (in this case, specifically from fire)? I could build it out of fireproof materials. As almost nobody does this, I assume it is generally considered to be cost-prohibitive. I could build in a fire-suppression system. Having experienced an inundation in a past place of work, those come with their own disadvantages (there was no fire, just flooding, paper records and electronic equipment were destroyed just as effectively). I could 'outlaw' all points of ignition within the structure, and surrounding it to the extent of my control. I would have to rethink my current space and water heating systems, and have a serious debate with my wife regarding accent candle lighting and kerosene emergency lamps, matches and lighters. Actually, it would be more than that. So far, not particularly practical, economical or required by code. Large communities, with decades of practical experience, have not followed those paths, but instead put massive resources into staffing and supplying fire departments. We have significant public education programs regarding the use of smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, basic fire prevention and to a lesser extent the acquisition, use and maintenance of fire extinguishers. I am assuming these are the result of rational expertise based on experience. Proceeding from the assumption that a fire-response service is a rational response to the threat of structure fires and related hazards to residents, it becomes necessary to fund that service. How to go about it, on a sustainable basis? Let's suppose a fire house includes 3 major trucks (pumper, ladder, utility/rescue), has a staff of roughly 30 (to support 7x24 response) and can reasonably service a radius of 8 km, with up to 8,000 structures. (I'm completely guessing here, but a quick search turned up a ratio of 1.5 firefighters per 1,000 population for the U.S., and one engine company per 15,000 to 20,000 population). A building, massive supporting infrastructure (e.g., water mains), 3 expensive pieces of rolling stock, and 30 full-time salaries plus benefits, and administrative overhead. As a wild guess, let's say that represents an annual expenditure of $4,000,000. That's about $500 a household per year. That figure is inflated as it includes more than fire services (such full-time services include domestic water supply, emergency health response and rescue capabilities). Moving to the volunteer model, the annual cost is likely to be more in the range of $150,000 a year (assuming the trucks and building have a service life of 30 years). Let's assume the $75 annual fee from the story. It takes 2,000 subscribers to support that cost. For a rural volunteer fire department, that seems in the ballpark to me. Let's suppose we get 10 call-outs a year for structure fires in the rural situation (1 per 200 structures per year, which seems high to me). If we only charge those whose structures actually require a call-out (user-pay to the extreme), the cost to them will be $15,000 per call-out. (At that price, I expect some will decline the service when it arrives, and will take higher personal risks trying to fight the fire themselves.) If they are not home to approve the charges, it is allowed to burn down without intervention. Seems less than optimal to me. Or we can move to the community pays model. Everybody pays $75 a year, and no questions about fighting the fire, whether anybody is home or not. Either via a tax, a subscription or whatever. Of course, someone will object to this tax or fee, as they can better spend it on 15 Starbucks coffees (or whatever). So, the inevitable result is that the number of funders will decrease, likely slowly at first (the freeloader model). But after a couple of years, the volunteers will get tired of going door to door begging for renewals. Some folks will figure, I didn't need the fire department for the past few years, so why not save the $75. Eventually, half the people don't subscribe, and the cost goes up to $150 a year for those that do. Somebody has a fire that is not a subscriber, and the volunteer fire department puts out their fire anyway because they agree to accept payment on the spot of whatever the going rate is. Word gets out that this happened. Next year, nobody pays for a subscription, figuring they can pay a small amount in the event they ever need the service. The volunteer department goes broke, as they can't make the loan payments on the firehouse, the trucks or the fuel bill. (An enterprising arsonist then wipes out all the structures in the community.) Also seems less than optimal. So, if you are the chief official for the volunteer fire service, and you can't get funded via the tax base, how do you propose to find the revenue to support the minimum required operating costs? Labour is already free or very close to it. Probably not paying municipal taxes on the firehouse. But there are real costs associated with having the building and equipment. Personally, I think I would end up where this situation did. I would elect to try to keep the service operational, hoping residents would have the sense to support it. However, if not supported by taxes or some form of mandatory payment, I expect with time someone will choose not to pay. Eventually comes the tough decision. If they have a fire, and have not paid to support the (volunteer) service, do you provide the service anyway (which will eventually lead to the end of the service being viable for the whole community), or do you make a very harsh example 'pour encourager les autres'? I'm curious, and looking for responses from this list. If you are in the position of the chief official, how do you fund desirable, low rate of incidence, high consequences, prevention operations when there are no mandatory mechanisms available? If you are in the position of a homeowner, and the funding mechanism is not mandatory, do you pay the annual subscription? Is there a price point where you will choose not to pay? What would motivate you to pay or not pay if the amount is small? Darryl On 30/12/2010 4:17 PM, Tyler Arnold wrote: > Except that $75 has very little to do with the actual cost of > fighting the fire; and accepting the money at the time of the fire > would have done just as much to offset the cost of the fire as > accepting it earlier would have. So saying the system works "if you > pay" isn't quite true: the luckless resident offered to pay, would > have paid, could have paid -- so if the system works "if you pay" > then the system could have worked right then and there. But it > *didn't* work because the $75 and the refusal to put out the fire is > nothing more than a childish moral scold that benefits nobody, > penalizes everybody, and only gratifies the shriveled hearts of > right-wing authoritarians. > > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Dan Beukelman<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Dec 30, >> 2010 12:26 PM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org >> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Alabama Town's Failed Pension is a >> Warning(NYT-article) >> >> The situation cited below is interesting. The person who’s house >> burned for $75.00 actually lived in the country. The rural >> residents don’t pay taxes for fire service (they could if they >> wanted to). So, since the rural residents didn’t want to tax >> themselves to provide a fire service a nearby town said they could >> provide to any individual that wanted to pay for it. This guys son >> had a house fire also, also hadn’t paid his $75.00 annual fee, but >> was allowed to pay it once the house caught on fire. Once that >> happened many people conveniently forgot, assuming that they could >> just pay when the fire happened, if no fire, save your $75.00. >> Anyway a new rule was implemented saying that if you don’t pay your >> $75.00 you are out of luck, that was done to encourage as many as >> possible to pay for this service and not wait until their home >> catches on fire. Had it not been for the nearby town offering fire >> service for a fee, no one would have responded. The neighbor to >> the guy who’s house burned, had paid his $75.00 and his house was >> protected from the fire spreading. The system actually works >> pretty good, if you pay, but these residents decided themselves >> that they didn’t need government provided fire service. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Doug Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 4:17 AM To: >> sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] >> Alabama Town's Failed Pension is a Warning(NYT-article) >> >> >> >> Luckily , in Australia, virtually all the Rural Fire services are >> staffed by volunteers (although there are some paid positions in >> support areas, Govt funded). I live on rural acreage,& some fdunds >> go to the RFS as donations, but there is no compulsion. I was >> really surprised with the claim about US rural FS: Australia has >> on occasions sent brigades from Australia to help fight the big >> fires in the US (& the US has reciprocated for Australia on >> occasions). >> >> The insurance link to fire brigades also happened in Australia in >> the 1800´s: there was a plaque attached to the front of the house >> proving you had insurance. (These are now a collectors item). House >> insurance now contains a levy that helps fund the Urban fire >> services. AS I stated, Rural Fire Services are volunteers, with >> some Govt funding for equipment& overheads. >> >> regards Doug >> >> >> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 05:53:34 am Erik Lane wrote: >>> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Ivan Menchero >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>>> Ivan PS: I am surprise the have not privatize the fire >>>> department in the USA! so you pay a monthly "insurance' and if >>>> you do not pay and there is a fire in your house you are out of >>>> luck! >>> >>> Unfortunately there are at least some fire departments that >>> already do >> work >>> like that. Here's a story about one that let a house burn, and >>> the outrage over it was slim to none, that I saw. I'm very >>> disappointed in the way things are going. >>> >>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/ >>> >>> >>> No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn Tennessee house in >>> ashes after homeowner 'forgot' to pay $75 fee >>> >>> Below: 1. - x - Jump to video People step up to help Gene >>> Cranick >>> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/#slice-2> - >>> video >>> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/#slice-2> >>> 2. - x Jump to vote Results below >>> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/#slice-3> - >>> vote >>> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/#slice-3> >>> 3. - x Next story in Life Storm, blizzard warnings stretch along >>> Atlantic<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40810424/ns/weather/> - >>> related >>> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/#slice-4> >>> >>> >>> - - >>> >>> Advertisement | ad info<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26613008/> >>> msnbc.com msnbc.com updated 10/6/2010 12:48:23 PM ET >>> 2010-10-06T16:48:23 >>> >>> - Share<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - >>> Print<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/# >> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/> > >>> - Font: - + - - >>> >>> Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground >>> last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. >>> >>> Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their >>> possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a >>> cat. >>> >>> "They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they >>> didn't >> do >>> it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. >>> >>> The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash >>> near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks >>> called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South >>> Fulton would not respond. >>> >>> "We wasn't on their list," he said the operators told him. >>> >>> Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he "forgot" to >>> pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide >>> firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to >>> rural residents for a fee. >>> >>> Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is >>> necessary to have the fire put out. advertisement | ad >>> info<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26613008/> Advertisement | ad >>> info<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26613008/> Advertisement | ad >>> info<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26613008/> >>> >>> His offer wasn't accepted, he said. >>> >>> The fire fee policy dates back 20 or so years. >>> >>> "Anybody that's not inside the city limits of South Fulton, it's >>> a service we offer. Either they accept it or they don't," said >>> South Fulton Mayor David Crocker. >>> >>> The fire department's decision to let the home burn was >>> "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association >>> representing firefighters. >>> >>> "Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a >>> list before running out the door to see which homeowners have >>> paid up," Harold Schaitberger, International Association of Fire >>> Fighters president, said >> in >>> a statement. "They get in their trucks and go." >>> >>> Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire >>> on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee. Story: >>> 'No pay, no spray' case: Firefighters 'threatened' >>> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39535911/ns/us_news-life/> >>> >>> "They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said >>> nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and >>> watched it burn," Cranick said. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Cranick, who is now living in a trailer on his property, says >>> his >> insurance >>> policy will help cover some of his lost home. >>> >>> "Insurance is going to pay for what money I had on the policy, >>> looks like. But like everything else, I didn't have enough." >>> >>> After the blaze, South Fulton police arrested one of Cranick's >>> sons, Timothy Allen Cranick, on an aggravated assault charge, >>> according to >>> >> WPSD-TV<http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-bur >>> >> ns-to-the-ground-104052668.html>, an NBC station in Paducah, Ky. >>> >>> Police told WPSD that the younger Cranick attacked Fire Chief >>> David Wilds at the firehouse because he was upset his father's >>> house was allowed to burn. >>> >>> WPSD-TV reported that Wilds was treated and released. >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>> scrubbed... URL: >>> /pipermail/attachments/20101226/f4d09f9b/attachment.html >>> _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing >>> list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel >>> >>> >>> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >>> >>> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives >>> (70,000 messages): >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ >> >> _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing >> list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel >> >> >> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >> >> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 >> messages): >> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ >> >> _____ >> >> No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3343 - Release Date: >> 12/27/10 >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >> scrubbed... URL: >> /pipermail/attachments/20101230/64f15c33/attachment.html >> _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing >> list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel >> >> >> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >> >> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 >> messages): >> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 > messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Darryl McMahon Project Manager, Common Assessment and Referral for Enhanced Support Services (CARESS) _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3348 - Release Date: 12/30/10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20101230/1f4adc77/attachment.html _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
