Re: [Biofuel] Paying for fire response service (was Alabama Town's Failed Pension..)

[Joe Street]

I canceled my house insurance years ago and the bank that holds my 
mortgage is none the wiser.  Why should I pay the premiums? If the place 
burns I can declare personal bankruptcy like any corporate entity.  Why 
should individuals play any differently?

Joe

Tom Thiel wrote:

>One element that serves to equalize the decision forces is the cost  
>of insurance premiums. A homeowner who chose to opt-out by not paying  
>the annual fee would face fire insurance cancellation, astronomical  
>premiums or non-collection of damages upon investigation after an  
>unprotected fire. If an institution (the bank) holds a mortgage on  
>the house, it would require fire (and other) insurance which would  
>require fire protection. Such forces serve to overwhelm the majority  
>of people's potential decision to not support the local fire  
>protection service. Common-good systems require participation by all  
>affected parties. Withdrawal from a system is something that an adult  
>might choose. Such decisions have real consequences. This scenario  
>brings such consequences into clear focus.
>
>Tom Thiel
>USA
>



___
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/

Re: [Biofuel] Alabama Town's Failed Pension is a Warning (NYT-article)

[Joe Street]

Noam Scheiber describes something resembling a lateral rather than hierarchical 
organization although he still assumes some overarching control frame it seems 
which is a departure from pure lateral networking. That is more the way nature 
organizes things and hopefully if Schieber is right this reorganization will 
take a hint from the great creator of Nature. Hardt and Negri allude to such 
things in the book Multitude. 

"I'd guess that most organizations a generation from now will be 
pretty small by contemporary standards, with highly convoluted 
cell-like structures. Large numbers of people within the organization 
may not even know one another's name, much less what colleagues spend 
their days doing, or the information they see on a regular basis. 
There will be redundant layers of security and activity, so that the 
loss of any one node can't disable the whole network. Which is to 
say, thanks to Wikileaks, the organizations of the future will look a 
lot like Š  Wikileaks."





___
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/

Re: [Biofuel] Alabama Town's Failed Pension is a Warning (NYT-article)

[Jeromie Reeves]

You make it sound like the company is to return 100% of the money to
the group who pays in. That is not the case. The company is to find as
many people who want to pay in to the fund, while not needing to ever
draw from that fund. Everything that does not get drawn is then free
for the company to use as it pleases. This is exactly have
unemployment and social security works. It takes from the many to give
to the (hopefully) few.
When that few grow to close to the many, the system breaks down. You
need to add more many or take away more few.

As far as setting fixed caps on payouts because adjusters were just
paying what ever they felt like, seams logical. Its like buying a
burger. I would feel cheated if I paid for a 1/2lb burger and got a
1/4 instead and you paid for a 1/2 but got a full 1lb, just because
your server felt like giving you more, or me less, on any given day.
This is bad business for any business. The more product that is moved,
the higher profits are. Could that insurance corp have afforded to pay
out a bit more to people? Very possible.


On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Tyler Arnold
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, that's because insurance companies' business model is to 1) accept money 
> in return for a promise to give it back when needed and then 2) don't give it 
> back.  That's it.  Their profit is inversely related to their payouts. I used 
> to work for a small software startup which made a kind of auto insurance 
> claims management/decision support software that was supposed to account for 
> the fact that newbie claims adjusters were all over the map when it came to 
> payouts.  Our software would use custom calculations based on different 
> scenarios to set the upper and lower limits of a given payout and would 
> prompt the claims adjuster to find a number between those limits.  It worked 
> really well -- I learned that our main customer was thrilled with it when 
> they discovered that after using our software for one year they had saved $50 
> million USD in payouts.  That's $50 million that was given to them by 
> California drivers in the expectation that the money would be paid back out 
> in the event of an accident; money which the company kept for itself instead. 
>  So instead of buying $50 million worth of car repair and medical bills or 
> whatever people needed, it paid for $50 million worth of hookers and blow for 
> insurance company executives.*  I no longer work for this company, but I hear 
> they are doing very well.
>
>
> * This may not literally be true.  I don't care.
>
>
> -Original Message-
>>From: Zeke Yewdall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Dec 28, 2010 6:41 PM
>>To: "sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org" 
>>
>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Alabama Town's Failed Pension is a Warning      
>>(NYT-article)
>>
>>Same here.  That's quite common in rural areas here.  Often property
>>taxes via special levies that we vote upon fund the equipment, etc,
>>but the staff volunteers their time.  The insurance companies don't
>>like this and charge higher premiums than houses in town with a paid
>>fire department but we're also finding out after 170 houses burned in
>>the forest fire this fall that so called insurance is quite a scam as
>>they are trying to avoid paying the benefits that were supposedly paid
>>for.
>>
>>On Tuesday, December 28, 2010, Jason Mier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> i have never, and will never live in an area where the fire department is a 
>>> paid service. all the FD's around me are volunteer, except for the village, 
>>> which is paid via property taxes, and when the opportunity arises, i do in 
>>> fact volunteer my time to the department. any other scheme is by and large, 
>>> foolish.
>>>
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 21:16:45 +1100
 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

Re: [Biofuel] Alabama Town's Failed Pension is a Warning(NYT-article)

[Jeromie Reeves]

As someone else stated, when people are allowed to pay when they have
a fire, then only people who have fires will pay. That does not work.
Remember that rural fire coverage is not paid for by taxes (i am sure
there are grants and such that people can make use of) but by the
local fees. It takes a lot of payments (both in the number of people,
and the years they pay them) to cover fires, as most people have less
then 1 fire in their life on average.

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Tyler Arnold
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>>>       
>>>       -   video
>>>       

Re: [Biofuel] Paying for fire response service (was AlabamaTown's Failed Pension..)

[Ivan Menchero]

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 t

Re: [Biofuel] Paying for fire response service (was Alabama Town's Failed Pension..)

[Aleksander Kac]

{Small Snip}
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
{Big Snip}

How it functions in Europe, particularly Slovenia where I live, is like this:
pro and voluntary fire/othe

Re: [Biofuel] Paying for fire response service (was Alabama Town's Failed Pension..)

[Doug]

Darryl,
 you are way out in your estimates: Our local Volunteer FS looks after ~ a 
20Km radius, in a reasonably populated (for rural) area. In our area of about 
50Km radius there would be possibly 10 rural FD, & the paid FS in the 
townships. Equipment would normally be changed at ~15 yrs. The issue is that 
service parts are hard to source after ~10 yrs, so that would be a reasonable 
service life for much equipment.

 Our rural FS are funded by both the State & Federal governments, mainly by 
grants. Their is also a fire levy collected from the House insurance industry. 
I think our system works well: it is a form of ´user pays´, but also a form of 
social engineering. There is no requirement in Australia for a homeowner to 
actually have insurance, but their property will always be protected by the 
Fire Service. The insurance Co´s accept the levy because it limits their 
risks.

 As a comment on Rural Insurance, my policy is a reasonable cost considering 
what is covered. For comparitive suburban policies, I guess the premium would 
be similar for equivalent value properties.

regards Doug


On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:21:58 am Darryl McMahon wrote:
> 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,
> a

Re: [Biofuel] Paying for fire response service (was Alabama Town's Failed Pension..)

[Dan Beukelman]

That scenario works fine as long as.1.  The bank doesn't catch on (they can
call you home loan for non-compliance with terms) and, more importantly 2.
You don't have any equity in your home.  If you have a $200,000 house and
own $100,000 then you stand to lose $100,000 when the house burns down/blows
down/explodes/or collapses.   

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Joe Street
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 10:35 PM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Paying for fire response service (was Alabama Town's
Failed Pension..)

 

I canceled my house insurance years ago and the bank that holds my
mortgage is none the wiser.  Why should I pay the premiums? If the place
burns I can declare personal bankruptcy like any corporate entity.  Why
should individuals play any differently?

Joe

Tom Thiel wrote:

>One element that serves to equalize the decision forces is the cost 
>of insurance premiums. A homeowner who chose to opt-out by not paying 
>the annual fee would face fire insurance cancellation, astronomical 
>premiums or non-collection of damages upon investigation after an 
>unprotected fire. If an institution (the bank) holds a mortgage on 
>the house, it would require fire (and other) insurance which would 
>require fire protection. Such forces serve to overwhelm the majority 
>of people's potential decision to not support the local fire 
>protection service. Common-good systems require participation by all 
>affected parties. Withdrawal from a system is something that an adult 
>might choose. Such decisions have real consequences. This scenario 
>brings such consequences into clear focus.
>
>Tom Thiel
>USA
>



___
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: 1435/3349 - Release Date: 12/30/10

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20101231/cefbcaa7/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/

Re: [Biofuel] Paying for fire response service (was Alabama Town's Failed Pension..)

[Dan Beukelman]

I like the idea of charging drunken drivers for emergency response.  I wish
we would implement that here.

 

Your discussion of fire service " Not to critcize your views, but fire and
other catastrophic protection must be free." Presumes that you don't
currently pay for fire service, but you do, you just don't realize it.  The
MOD gets taxes from your federal government to pay for this service so the
service isn't free, everyone contributes based on your countries taxing
model.  In the case of the guy who's house burned down over the $75.00 fee
the people had voted not to pay for fire service, they didn't want it, they
didn't want to pay for it - which is their right.  A nearby town offered to
provide it on a fee basis for anyone who wanted it, that doesn't require
them to respond to those that don't want it and didn't pay for it.  

 

 



How it functions in Europe, particularly Slovenia where I live, is like
this:
pro and voluntary fire/other catastrophic/ response teams work side by side.
The pro firemen are financed by the ministry of defence (tax money), as is
search&rescue.
Voluntary fire stations are quite common in rural areas, but metropolitan
voluntary fire stations are not an exception. It's considered a hobby for
addults,
a passtime for youngsters (boys and girls alike), something to do to get
out of the house. You don't pay firefighting, not as a yearly fee and not
as a one time or event based payment. What you can do is buy a calendar from
the
local firefighters each year (you pay as much as you feel), or you visit
your local
firefighters at one of their fundraiser garden parties. Everybody is
invited, but
funds are not raised per se, e.g., you can contribute if you like, but
you're not obliged.
The most of the money they get on a garden party is by selling drinks and
food. Needless
to say, these garden parties are fierce. If you're not used to have serious
fun, don't stay too late. Depending on the coverage, the voluntary
firefighting societies
can get vehicles and equipment paid by the MOD, for example: if the local
voluntary firefighters cover a part of the autobahn, they will get hydraulic
tools for rescuing passengers from crashed cars and a vehicle to carry them.
What you do pay for, is if you need water delivered. But this is a symbolic
fee, like
you pay for the water, the fuel needed for the engine and a small tip
for the driver. This is used a lot in places  that run on cisterns.
Search and rescue is free except in the case you're drunk. Then there is the
possiblity
of a full rescue fee to pay. Which in the case of a helicopter transport can
be "ouch".

Not to critcize your views, but fire and other catastrophic protection must
be free. No matter whether you live in the city or 20 miles out. Slovenian
firefighters,
specially the voluntary societies, will travel 100 and more kilometers to
help their mates
out in heavier events. Distance is no argument.

___
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: 1435/3349 - Release Date: 12/30/10

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20101231/d70b2638/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/