Should there be limits on fire protection?

thomez · 07-18-2006, 10:06 PM

Watching the recent wildfires out west and cringing at every mention of the cost to fight these wildfires, I had to ask myself a question:

Should there be limits of governmental fire protection?

What I mean by this is that, should there be areas in which the government refuses to protect your home from fire?

People that build in these areas which burn every season by nature do not get an ounce of my sympathy. My immediate thought is that there should be burn zones where fire protection is not offered and which you whould simply have to pay outrageous insurance to protect your home if you just HAD to live in this area. This would let normal capitalism help people pick sensible places to place their homes and belongings.

I am personally just sick of seeing figures of 1,000,000 dollars to fight a fire to save these 23 homes in the middle of an area which naturally needs to burn every year.

Opinions and thoughts please? Is this reasonable? Unreasonable? What is your solution to protect the taxpayer from this outrageous expense?

Scrum · 07-18-2006, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

Watching the recent wildfires out west and cringing at every mention of the cost to fight these wildfires, I had to ask myself a question:

Should there be limits of governmental fire protection?

What I mean by this is that, should there be areas in which the government refuses to protect your home from fire?

People that build in these areas which burn every season by nature do not get an ounce of my sympathy. My immediate thought is that there should be burn zones where fire protection is not offered and which you whould simply have to pay outrageous insurance to protect your home if you just HAD to live in this area. This would let normal capitalism help people pick sensible places to place their homes and belongings.

I am personally just sick of seeing figures of 1,000,000 dollars to fight a fire to save these 23 homes in the middle of an area which naturally needs to burn every year.

Opinions and thoughts please? Is this reasonable? Unreasonable? What is your solution to protect the taxpayer from this outrageous expense?

I thought more of these fires are lit by a combination or drought and lightning?

thomez · 07-18-2006, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I thought more of these fires are lit by a combination or drought and lightning?

There are many areas of the country that should and would naturally burn every summer. We compound this issue by stopping them from burning for years at a time and then we can't contain them when they have 3 or 4 years of extra "fuel" that has grown in.

To answer your question though, yes, they start because it is mostly very dry and lightning strikes. This is a natural phenomenon that we hold the reigns of then it bucks out of control :happysad:

motivez · 07-18-2006, 10:12 PM

The same question can be asked of Hurricanes, Tornados, and pretty much every other natural disaster (dust devils?)

I think that unless we intend to have areas that are off limits for people to build houses (zoning laws perhaps), as long as they're paying their taxes that support firefighting and other services, it shouldn't really be a problem.

I personally think it's pretty stupid to build a house in an area where you have a reasonably good chance of having it destroyed by natural disaster year after year, but I don't know if the solution is to tell people to build there if they want, but we wont help them if shit happens.

Insurance rates, etc, are bound to be higher in these places.. would you suggest we levy a "danger tax" or something on people to help cover the additional cost of safeguarding their lives in the event of a natural disaster?

thomez · 07-18-2006, 10:16 PM

To answer the first line in your post - there are areas where only the government is stupid enough to give you flood insurance for a reason. And those acts of God ... remember?

I don't suggest we levy a danger tax. I say that we eliminate federal and state funding from fighting these wildfires unless they encroach on areas outside of a set "Wildfire Safe" zone. If people want to live in these hazardous places, let themselves and their local governments pay the price.

Ardentfrost · 07-18-2006, 10:18 PM

If you pay taxes for fire fighting, then fire fighters should be trying to keep your house from catching fire. If fire fighters have to work around the clock 12 months every year, the taxes that need to be collected to fund them will be greater, ie. the cost of living in that area will be higher. Plus, what motivez said about insurance rates in that area being higher is also true, rising the cost of living.

The government needn't add aditional incentives.

thomez · 07-18-2006, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

If you pay taxes for fire fighting, then fire fighters should be trying to keep your house from catching fire. If fire fighters have to work around the clock 12 months every year, the taxes that need to be collected to fund them will be greater, ie. the cost of living in that area will be higher. Plus, what motivez said about insurance rates in that area being higher is also true, rising the cost of living.

The government needn't add aditional incentives.

Would you then disagree that residents of San Fransisco are being unneccesarrily overtaxed to pay to fight the fires surrounding the homes of 10-100 people?

I have no problem with fire fighting, I think it is a reasonable government expense - but I see this to be as stupid as trying to stop the rain from falling in Seattle. Competing with nature we never win. Why not let those people who want to do this put up their own dollars to do so?

Ardentfrost · 07-18-2006, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

Would you then disagree that residents of San Fransisco are being unneccesarrily overtaxed to pay to fight the fires surrounding the homes of 10-100 people?

I have no problem with fire fighting, I think it is a reasonable government expense - but I see this to be as stupid as trying to stop the rain from falling in Seattle. Competing with nature we never win. Why not let those people who want to do this put up their own dollars to do so?

It sounds to me like they need to change the tax burden around a bit. I see no reason why the city can't charge the citizens that live near the fires more money for fire protection than everyone else. I doubt they would do it though, because I'm betting the 100 houses they're protecting are inhabited by rich people (which seems counter intuitive since they can AFFORD to pay more, but it just ends up meaning they have more clout)

thomez · 07-18-2006, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It sounds to me like they need to change the tax burden around a bit. I see no reason why the city can't charge the citizens that live near the fires more money for fire protection than everyone else. I doubt they would do it though, because I'm betting the 100 houses they're protecting are inhabited by rich people (which seems counter intuitive since they can AFFORD to pay more, but it just ends up meaning they have more clout)

Then they could afford to be cut off from federal and state fire protection and pay the outrageous insurance rates that they should have to pay

FutureMan · 07-18-2006, 10:28 PM

if you do that then that means no federal funds for houses on the beach after a hurricane right? no federal funds for houses along the fault line in california? no federal funds for trailer parks in tornado alley?

Ardentfrost · 07-18-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

Then they could afford to be cut off from federal and state fire protection and pay the outrageous insurance rates that they should have to pay

Insurance rates should still be really high for them.. Is it not? If so, why is it not? Is there some sort of government insurance price protection for them?

illavbill · 07-18-2006, 10:28 PM

I've always wondered about why people build in those areas. Same thing with the friggin trailers in tornado alley etc. @least you can just drive a new doublewide in after the tornado is done.

People who build in those areas should have to pay extra taxes to the firedepts that are responsible for saving their houses.

thomez · 07-18-2006, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by FutureMan

if you do that then that means no federal funds for houses on the beach after a hurricane right? no federal funds for houses along the fault line in california? no federal funds for trailer parks in tornado alley?

I do think anyone in a hurricane zone should have limited federal protection and should have to deal with crazy insurance costs.

Fault in California? that's a state problem, they can handle it on their own

tornado alley - isolated and unpredictable events which cannot be mapped out nearly as easily as a hurricane zone or a natural wildfire area, so I wouldn't go that far.

Ardentfrost · 07-18-2006, 10:36 PM

I'm originally from SC, I know for a fact insurance rates are affected state wide when a large hurricane hits. Hugo shot SC insurance rates through the roof for about 5 years. They gotta recoup cost, and even those of us who were well inland had to pay.

thomez · 07-18-2006, 10:38 PM

Makes sense to me. That's economics baby. The capitalist kind

illavbill · 07-18-2006, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

I do think anyone in a hurricane zone should have limited federal protection and should have to deal with crazy insurance costs.

Fault in California? that's a state problem, they can handle it on their own

tornado alley - isolated and unpredictable events which cannot be mapped out nearly as easily as a hurricane zone or a natural wildfire area, so I wouldn't go that far.

It just seems like such a waste when people move to the coast and get their stuff ripped down every few years. I REALLY hate seeing the news about the billions in aide given to the areas, year after year.

thomez · 07-18-2006, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by illavbill

It just seems like such a waste when people move to the coast and get their stuff ripped down every few years. I REALLY hate seeing the news about the billions in aide given to the areas, year after year.

I see it and feel like I minus well burn a 10 dollar bill.

illavbill · 07-18-2006, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

I see it and feel like I minus well burn a 10 dollar bill.

What does all the money go to when they send hurricane relief funds.

Does it go to individuals etc for home repairs?

thomez · 07-18-2006, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by illavbill

What does all the money go to when they send hurricane relief funds. Does it go to individuals etc for home repairs?

Some does and some I'm sure goes to contractors which rebuild infastructure etc... so you know a lot is wasted as part of huge beauracracy :happysad:

illavbill · 07-18-2006, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

Some does and some I'm sure goes to contractors which rebuild infastructure etc... so you know a lot is wasted as part of huge beauracracy :happysad:

I'm sure tons of its wasted. Stupid friggin politicians. IMO the government should just rebuild infastructure. Not individuals homes or businesses.

Give basic human needs and temporary shelter after they hit.