What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily • Hacker News Board

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#131

Post by inafewwords » Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 8:09 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #56

This is coming up because of the Tennessee "firefighters watched it burn over $75" story. But there's backstory to that story. The fire department in question served a nearby town, and had no responsibility for the area where the fire occurred. As a service to people living outside their area, you could pay $75/year to get "out of area" coverage. The people who lost their house did two things to keep them from being…

If a resident owner does not pay a $75 fee for the house, the assumption is nothing in the house is worth more than the piece of mind the $75 fee gives.

I suspect the firemen went there to asses whether there was 1)a high degree of danger to lives of people and 2)uncontrolled spread of the fire.

If there were people in the house, they would have more than likely used their expertise voluntarily to extract those people from the flames. But a house is just a house, even with sentimental value. (My dad is a bit of a hoarder and literally has junk that he holds on to because of "sentimental value.")

All in all, the priorities of the fire department were on the straight.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#132

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 8:13 PM UTC

anamax wrote: post #120

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then try watching the interview with the victim on MSNBC. They can waive the fees, as they have done before. And both him and his neighbor said "we'll pay however much you say". Their responser: burn it to the ground.

> And both him and his neighbor said "we'll pay however much you say". That's clearly not true. For example, he wouldn't have paid his house. Note that they're not set up to sign a contract at the scene and even if they were, it would be signed under duress, so it would be unenforceable. The only way "we'll pay" works is if he has the cash on hand. Do you really want to complain that they didn't offer that option?

Actually no. Under a theory of quantum meruit (something having worth), the firefighters could bill the homeowner unless he asked them not to assist. It requires showing a defendant knowingly received a benefit from the plaintiff and retained it afterwards - in this case, a house still standing.

Here's a recent Ohio case illustrating the principle - first fire-related one I found. Although this is about a bill for boarding up a property after a fire than actual firefighting, it explains the idea very clearly: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2010/2010-oh...

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#133

Post by Retric » Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 8:14 PM UTC

Semiapies wrote: post #117

tptacek wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying, the specifics of the situation --- a house that was probably worth low 5 figures --- do matter to me.

Fair enough, but why? I'm not trying to be leading here, I just don't understand.

Let's suppose the chance of a fire is 1% every 10 years. So 100 houses pay 100 * 75$/year * 10 years = 75,000$ per fire. Now if the house is worth As to why it might cost that much per fire, it's probably low probability event so you need to pay for all the time, training, and equipment that sit's unused between emergency's. Add in the overhead in showing up to events like this one where they receive zero compensation and you have a major free rider problem.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#134

Post by tptacek » Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 8:17 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #126

tptacek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does that logic end? If I build a house in Paulville, TX ("a gated community consisting of 100% Ron Paul supporters" on unincorporated land in West Texas), is the fire department of Dell City, TX obligated to put out fires there? How does that make sense?

Assuming it's the nearest town and someone in Paulville begs them to do so at any price, yes. And then you hand them a fat bill and if they don't pay, enforce it via the court, something you seem not to have considered. I am in no way suggesting that someone who is too cheap to buy a reasonable fee like $75 should get bailed out when they suddenly want in because their house is on fire, that's nothing more than rewar…

I actually priced doublewides before posting earlier. It's not $75,000. In rural areas, you can get doublewides for under $20,000. A crappy one might go for as little as $15k list.

In any case: I simply can't get around the fact that we're talking about a guy who deliberately moved to a locale that didn't have fire service. I can't understand what moral obligation could require the fire department from another city to come to his aid. We're all hung up on the fact that the fire department "stood by" and "watched his house burn down". But it wasn't his fire department!

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#135

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 8:26 PM UTC

anamax wrote: post #122

anigbrowl wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly, but first they'll file a tax lien, allowing them to garnish your wages or bank account etc., and make your credit record radioactive until it's lifted. If you've ignored a court summons, that might result in an arrest warrant providing for you to be taken into custody at a police stop. In general, you need to owe them quite a lot of money before they will go to the bother of looking for you, which is expens…

> Possibly, but first they'll file a tax lien, allowing them to garnish your wages or bank account etc., and make your credit record radioactive until it's lifted. If you've ignored a court summons, that might result in an arrest warrant providing for you to be taken into custody at a police stop. Actually, what they do is evict you and sell "your" house. That's what happened to the previous owner of my house.

Yes, that could happen...after they're granted a lien on the property because of the amount owed. Getting evicted is one possible outcome among many, whereas a lien is pretty typical and often sufficient to recover what's owed.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#136

Post by Semiapies » Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 8:33 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #133

Semiapies wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, but why? I'm not trying to be leading here, I just don't understand.

Let's suppose the chance of a fire is 1% every 10 years. So 100 houses pay 100 * 75$/year * 10 years = 75,000$ per fire. Now if the house is worth As to why it might cost that much per fire, it's probably low probability event so you need to pay for all the time, training, and equipment that sit's unused between emergency's. Add in the overhead in showing up to events like this one where they receive zero compensatio…

Working back from the fee is a very questionable assumption for the cost.

For that matter, I asked whether it was a case of people not reasonably being able to afford the cost five levels up; I'm asking about a "moral" distinction tptacek sees.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#137

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 8:49 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #134

anigbrowl wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming it's the nearest town and someone in Paulville begs them to do so at any price, yes. And then you hand them a fat bill and if they don't pay, enforce it via the court, something you seem not to have considered. I am in no way suggesting that someone who is too cheap to buy a reasonable fee like $75 should get bailed out when they suddenly want in because their house is on fire, that's nothing more than rewar…

I actually priced doublewides before posting earlier. It's not $75,000. In rural areas, you can get doublewides for under $20,000. A crappy one might go for as little as $15k list. In any case: I simply can't get around the fact that we're talking about a guy who deliberately moved to a locale that didn't have fire service. I can't understand what moral obligation could require the fire department from another city t…

The dollar amount is irrelevant, it's the principle of whether there is some duty to act or not. By this I mean legal rather than moral duty. They're two different things, though you could say that there might be some moral duty towards the neighbors who are otherwise going to have to live next to a charred shell.

If the guy calls up the fire department and they say 'sorry, busy fighting fires in our own town,' then too bad, that's what he gets for living in the boonies. But if they can help, and they are the only ones who can help, but they don't, it's a totally different situation. In those cases where they turn up and just watch, it's worse than not turning up at all.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#138

Post by eru » Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 8:54 PM UTC

Semiapies wrote: post #99

eru wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about building houses made of stone?

Even stone and brick houses have flammable components. Even a completely non-flammable concrete bunker would have survivability issues with ventilation and temperature if surrounded by a forest fire for any significant length of time.

Yes. Though it probably does make a difference, does it?

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#139

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 9:13 PM UTC

anamax wrote: post #123

anigbrowl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, so when his house catches on fire and you can put it out, you hand him a bill for $5000 or whatever the cost of a fire crew for several hours is. And if he doesn't pay, you sue him. You get the cost of providing the service back, he still has a house. Allowing the dwelling to burn to the ground just results in a destruction of wealth for zero gain.

> Yes, so when his house catches on fire and you can put it out, you hand him a bill for $5000 or whatever the cost of a fire crew for several hours is. That policy means that you can't afford to have a fire crew. The marginal cost associated with putting out fires is a small fraction of the cost of having a fire department. > And if he doesn't pay, you sue him. And you lose because contracts under duress are unenfor…

Well, obviously I can afford it because it's a small marginal cost; waiting for him to cough up the required sum is quite bearable.

And you lose because contracts under duress are unenforceable.

It's not so simple. Duress is where someone forces another into a bad position, eg by setting the house on fire first. A contract made under necessity (where the house is already on fire) will probably stand, unless it's for some wildly disproportional amount.

But in any case, a contract is not always required. In cases where one party knowingly accepts the beneficial services of another, they can be billed for it as if a contract existed.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#140

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 9:55 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #70

anigbrowl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most unlikely. The insuredness or not of a property has little bearing on the dangers it poses compared to any other burning building; it's the accountant who'd be upset, rather than the insurers.

When buying insurance for providing a service (especially a dangerous one), there are often conditions about the place these services may be performed and under what condition. It is pretty likely that their insurance policy will only cover them on homes that they are paid to protect. It might also be the case that a certain percentage of each yearly payment goes to insurance.

Indeed, but the judgment call about whether a fire can safely be fought would rest with the experts - firefighters.

If I own a very poorly maintained property but my $75, they may be obliged to turn up but I can't force the firefighters to enter an obvious firetrap just because I have a receipt for my payment. They'll do the best they can under the circumstances. The payment or non-payment of a premium tells you nothing about the safety risk of fighting a fire in any given building. Look at some worker's comp policies and you'll find the conditions revolve around the activity performed rather than exactly where that occurred. Otherwise you'd need to assess the financial risk for all possible firefighting scenarios in advance.

Here's an example application for insurance for a volunteer fire department (I can't give you a contract offhand because they're unique to each FD). The insurance company does ask what you claim, but this is in order to calculate what the premium should be. Note that this draws no distinction between whether or not lives are at risk from a given emergency call. If a FD has a policy of responding when that is the case (which they normally would), then the insurance is going to priced to include that anyway. Calls to which a response is purely optional probably make up a tiny fraction of the total, and would have a correspondingly marginal effect on premiums.

http://www.phly.com/products/forms/VFireDept/VolunteerFireDe...