Skip to content

Burn, Tea Party, Burn

© Keith Tucker

Not just the house, but three dogs and a cat died in the fire. While firefighters were ordered to stand there and do nothing. To me, that is criminal. Especially since the homeowner stood there with an open checkbook and offered to pay whatever it cost to put out the fire.

The cartoon also makes the point that the fee is the same for all houses, so people with small houses are actually subsidizing people with large, expensive houses. Also, the county decided to charge an optional fee, rather than use property taxes or other sources of funds to pay for fire fighting. Not only that, but because the fee is optional, the fire department has to spend time and resources collecting the fee, and when a fire occurs, they have to figure out if they are allowed to respond to the fire. Dumb and dumber.



  1. Morrius wrote:

    But at least the guy still has his $75 that the government won’t get their hands on.

    Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 1:31 am | Permalink
  2. patriotsgt wrote:

    Firstly, I find it unbelievably absurd that fireman watched the house burn down for $75 dollars. If the gov’t cannot protect the property and lives of its citizens then it has uterly failed. They should have at the least put out the fire and billed them the entire cost, likle if you are uninsured and need a ambulance.
    Here are 2 solutions I see to prevent this in the future. First, have the $75 paid annually as part of the escrow acct of the mortgage, just like homeowners and taxes, I can’t believe the mortgage companies don’t already require this. If the mortgage is paid off then it’s still uup to the homeowner, just like taxes.
    Second is, just like education costs, the local gov’t adds $75 to property tax or into the sewer charge, since they add everything else into that unofficial tax.

    I personally think the local fire chief should be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, by showing up and watching the house burn down.

    Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 8:44 am | Permalink
  3. Iron Knee wrote:

    I heard on the radio yesterday that the county commissioners paid for a study that recommended that they NOT do the $75/year subscription, but instead include it in property tax or even just pay for it out of normal county funds (they had a surplus). But the commissioners (coincidentally all Republicans) wanted a subscription fee.

    I couldn’t find a link to an online article about this, so I didn’t include it in my post. But if anyone can find out if this is true, please let me know.

    The mortgage companies don’t care if you have fire service, they only care if you have home insurance, which luckily these people did have. Unfortunately, the insurance won’t bring their pets back.

    Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
  4. patriotsgt wrote:

    If thats true IK, then it goes again to mismanagement and incompetence of elected officials. This as i’ve been trying to say recently in various posts, it goes all ways and is immuneto party affiliation. For instance I just saw an interesting list of salaries by various elected officials domestic and foriegn. there were 2 US politicians who do not accept a salary, Ahrnold (spelled intentionally with the h) in CA, and Bloomberg in NY. All others even though many are wealthy millionaires take all they can get. Pelosi is the highest paid in congress and the presidents errand guy makes 102K yr (10k more then the VP). Interestingly the PM of Singapore is the highest paid at 2.86 million.

    Here’s the link:

    Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 2:17 pm | Permalink
  5. patriotsgt wrote:

    Thats Pelosi that makes 10k more then Biden not the personal aide.

    Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
  6. Kevin wrote:

    Seems pretty straight forward to me. The guy chose to live in an city (or an unsubsidized area) that openly and honestly, with no intentions to cover up or hide, that they did not have their own fire department. Residents were given the option to opt into a neighboring cities fire coverage, and were given the freedom to choose whether they would like to pay the $75 or whether they would like to take their chances. This guy took a gamble and lost.

    You cant take out car insurance after the crash. So he only wants to pay the $75 when he is sure he needs it? It doesn’t work like that.

    Ontop of it all, who in their right minds would blame the firefighters? They did their job and duty just like they do every day. This guy needs to take responsibility for his own actions and choices and stop blaming everyone else for his own short sighted greed, trying to save a measly $75. Next time, move into the city where the Fire Department is paid for by your taxes, or pay the stupid extremely minimal fee.

    Its fucking disgusting.

    Monday, October 11, 2010 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
  7. Kevin wrote:


    @PATRIOTSGT: Ambulance services and fire services are different. Life vs property. I GUARANTEE absolutely with out a shadow of a doubt if there was a person in that building, they would have gone in for them. Do you know Fire Fighters risk management? Risk alot to save a life. Risk little to save little. Risk nothing to save property.

    The chief made the right call. What happens if a firefighter is hurt putting out a fire for someone who did not pay for their services?

    I personally think the insurance company should not cover this. This guy made an idiotic choice, and needs to pay the price for it.

    Monday, October 11, 2010 at 4:02 pm | Permalink