>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^werbwerb:
Why are we speculating about how a privatized department would work? This wasn't a private department and FDs aren't going to be privatized anytime soon.
...
twisting it to rail against the "Tea Party" is just silly.
If privatization is a total red herring, please describe how it would work differently.
Further, I would ask you to characterize the Tea Party's policy preferences when it comes to government services. Would they prefer this subscription-based service idea, or would they prefer a universal fire service paid for with property taxes?
I'd also like you to tell me what you think should happen to people when they don't pay. Should the fire department let the house burn down?


I'm not going to try and describe how a private FD would work. I'm not for privatization of FDs so I have no idea.

I don't know. I'm not a Tea Party member and I'm not particularly interested in their policy preferences. However, Olbermann takes a one sentence shot at them using this incident and does not elaborate further on why.

It doesn't matter what I think. It's up to the cities who offer services that extend beyond their city limits. They're the ones who must decide on a policy by weighing all of the factors.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^werbwerb:
This is ridiculous and has nothing to do with privatization.
How would privatized fire departments work differently? What would they do if people didn't or couldn't pay?
If they put out all fires regardless of whether people have paid, why not just bake it into people's property taxes? Why make payment some sort of optional thing?
If it's a matter of wanting to charge more for rural residents, just make them pay a higher property tax rate for living outside city limits.


Why are we speculating about how a privatized department would work? This wasn't a private department and FDs aren't going to be privatized anytime soon.

That's an option, however I suspect people living out in the counties would fight tooth and nail not to have their taxes raised even if it meant fire protection from the nearest city. These people are adults and can make their own decisions. If they want to live in a place with no volunteer department and choose not to pay a nominal fee to a nearby city they know the risk. It sucks that this guy's house burned down, but him trying to get national sympathy on TV and Keith Olbermann twisting it to rail against the "Tea Party" is just silly.

This is ridiculous and has nothing to do with privatization. I know a couple others have already pointed this out, but I think it needs another post. If I live in a city and my taxes go towards my city's FD, I don't want them going out of city limits (unless it's a mutual aid agreement call) to provide service to people who don't help fund them. You can't live out in the county and expect the nearby city's taxpayers to pay for your fire protection and utilize that city's personnel and apparatus when you haven't contributed any funds yourself which pay for all of that. If this "victim" wanted fire protection he should have moved within city limits or paid the $75 fee, or even organized a volunteer department.

And, wow, Keith Olbermann. He pays county taxes, NOT the city taxes which pay for the department that wouldn't respond.