Could a fire department really let a home burn?
Citizens, and not fire departments, choose what level of fire and emergency services protection they receive through their local public policy processes
Editor’s Note:Editor's note: With a volunteer fire department in central B.C. saying people who haven't paid an annual fee will be on their own if their house catches fire, Chief Adam K. Thiel says it's actually not that new of a trend.
With the continued challenges of the present economic environment, stories such as that of a department being prepared to "let homes burn" if fees go unpaid are becoming increasingly common. In fact, however, there's nothing new here...
Fee-based fire and emergency services provision has been around for a long time. Some of the earliest fire departments in the United States operated under the same model.
If you visit Colonial-era cities today, you might still see the "firemarks" on early buildings reflecting their protection by one fire company or another, depending on the group to whom the property owners paid their dues.
Similarly, it's a generally accepted practice for EMS agencies, public and private, to bill the users of their services for transportation, medical care, and supplies.
And you may not believe it, but there are still places in the U.S. where no organized fire protection exists. Places where, if a building burns, nobody is charged with responding to the incident.
Over time, however, most jurisdictions have chosen to provide fire protection as a "public good" funded by (usually through tax dollars), and available to, the community as a whole. But that's a choice...
The new (old) reality is that — right, wrong, or otherwise — citizens (not fire departments) get to choose what level of fire and emergency services protection they receive through their local public policy processes.
As obvious advocates for ensuring that everyone has access to fire and emergency services, we firefighters might not like it, but what's the alternative?
Life safety situations aside, should we really place firefighters at risk to protect buildings where the property owners, as in this case, have made the explicit choice not to fund fire protection? What do you say to the family of a fallen firefighter who is killed trying to save something the owner didn't care enough about to pay $160 per year?
Think about it...and stay safe!
Recommended for you
Join the discussion
The comments below are member-generated and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of FireRescue1.com or its staff. If you cannot see comments, try disabling privacy and ad blocking plugins in your browser. All comments must comply with our Member Commenting Policy.
FireRescue1 top 5
- Official: FDNY firefighter may have been jolted from bucket
- NJ fire dept.'s apparatus fleet 'in dire need of replacing'
- Video: Volunteer firefighter-EMT rescues girl who fell out of bus
- Off-duty firefighter hospitalized after being shot multiple times
- More than 200 firefighters battle massive 5-alarm building blaze