Glenn’s take on this is that he agrees with the decision that the city made to let the house burn down. And to a point I understand the policy. But really, isn’t there a better way to make this point than actually letting the man’s house burn down? This was my first reaction, and still is to some degree. But as I was writing this, I learned the problem gets more complicated because the man doesn’t live in the city limits and therefore, I assume, the city doesn’t have jurisdiction to enforce penalties because the man chose not to pay the fee.
Still yet, it would seem there must be a better way to handle this. Since it appears that city residents pay for this service, perhaps through taxation of some sort, it would seem that the resources would be there to fight the fire. I say respond to the fire, make the county man pay a hefty fee on the spot, maybe $500, and then put the fire out. If he can’t pay the fee, then you’ve given him a second chance and you can let it burn down as long as no one is in the house.
Yeah I know, it’s not a perfect solution. And the end result might be the same. Bottom line is that the county has problems that really need to be worked out.
P.S. If you want to hear someone spin this as “the tea party’s idea of government a la carte”, then watch this.