Why should we pay taxes if these agencies are billing for services?

I don't understand how some of you can confuse two obviously different situations and expect tax payers to foot the bill for both equally.

If I go out in the middle of July with plenty of dry fuel around, particularly in a state known for enormous wildfires, and through my own RECKLESSNESS, CHOOSE to light off fireworks, then YES, I SHOULD be billed for my own RECKLESS behavior.

If I cross the bar when the Coast Guard says not to, and I CHOOSE to do so anyway, and then must be rescued because of my own RECKLESSNESS, I SHOULD be billed for my own RECKLESS behavior.

If I climb Mt. Hood when it is closed due to weather conditions, and must be rescued, I SHOULD be billed for my own RECKLESS behavior.

Why should everyone else foot the bill for my stupidity?

These same whiners will be the first to shoot down a levy if the coffers run dry, yet they expect their tax money to cover embiciles doing things that could have been prevented.

500.00 is usually what your homeowners policy will pay to reimburse the fire department.

Moral of the story, "pay attention" !

He has been charged but has he been found guilty?

What if this fire cost millions of dollars. Should he have to pay that too (on top of the taxes he pays or his landlord pays for fire protection anyway)?

What happens if he decides NOT to pay the bill from the fire department? Is that a crime?

Really, if a crime was committed, he needs to be fined per ORS. If no crime was committed, it's a bully tactic to send him a bill for something that was obviously an accident.

Don't just feel that because it's 'emergency services' that you should throw money at it. THINK about how this is working: You pay taxes every year, then they bill when they're actually used and without a competitive bid or any competition whatsoever, thus, the DOUBLE TAX

And NO, insurance companies do NOT reimburse the fire department for residential fires. That's why I'm raising this point: it's a double standard (and a double tax) to have to pay for fire protection, but when they actually respond to something then they send a bill on top of that.

Consider this: If they hadn't responded, wouldn't their costs have been the same? Same people on payroll, same insurance, etc. Did they burn $2400 in fuel? I don't think so.

I can see that some of you need to do some volunteering. Most of the Rurals and City Departments will bill for their services if they can recover some of their costs (no one has really budgeted for $4 gas) if the circumstance warrants - Like the CORP train 3 years ago starting a fire along the tracks, or Motor Vehicle Accidents, Dunes Accidents or dummies using fireworks inappropriately. Also there are established hourly rates for the cost on an engine, rescue vehicle, rescue personnel etc available to departments.I remember a couple with a motor pulling a vehicle behind it started a forest fire at least 15 years ago and the state billed them $1.5M. Everyone should check their liability insurance coverage to see what limits your companies may have put on these services.

double tax:... the candle fire probably had insurance on their home, and the insurance company will reimburse the fire dept....

coos resident... if they "CHARGE" him, they would have to charge him with arson, which arson is with content, he did not intend to start a fire. if he gets charged, then the money goes to the state, if the fire dept sends him a bill, which is a fine, then that money stays in the fire dept fund.

the chief gets paid, & sum others, the "tax" you are all so worried about, covers the engines, insurance, maintenence, gas, uniforms, utility expenses at the fire hall- need i go on... and even though they are "volunteer" firefighters...when they respond to a fire, they do get paid. when they have firedrills, meetings, and their time, yes it is volunteer, but maybe you should talk to a volunteer, and they do get paid as soon as those lights on top go on and the truck is rolling down the road. and the person responsible for the fire, does have fines to pay, to the fire dept... they are determined by how many
"volunteers" were called out, how big it was, and how long it took to put it out... granted they dont get paid much, and they do alot of things around the community, ex: going to the schools, parades,airport.. always remember, there is a can at the fire station,they do accept donations for their support, so do yourselves a favor, instead of complaining, maybe you should all chip in, you never know, it maybe your house someday, heaven forbid if they ran out of gas along the way.

TO OVER TAXED::::If you would have read the article, you would have seen that this idiot was charged with a crime. I would agree that he should have been charged with a lot more, he got off real lucky. Read and think before you speak. It works wonders.........duh

Several good points to consider in these posts, especially: 1 - how did they come up with the amount for the bill? 2 - why send a bill? why not charge him and he can pay/serve accordingly?

Why doesn't North Bend fire bill for the candle-started fire the other day that burned part of a home? That was negligent too, wasn't it?

Should all fire responses be billed? If so, then why tax, make it a for-profit business?

If he broke a law, why not charge him criminally and have him pay a fine or serve time as others?

To send a bill for something he has no cost control on, or secondary bids is ridiculous! Charge him in court if he broke a law. Sending a bill at some ridiculous rate (many of those on this fire were volunteers) is absurd. This fire was controlled in about an hour, so $2400 per hour????

What if it ballooned like the Biscuit fire and cost millions of dollars to suppress? Should he pay millions of dollars and be financially ruined for the rest of his life?

Think about it.......

Yes people, he has to take "responsibility". Our fire services arent there to fix your screw ups. And he screwed up.

i totally agree. our taxes are there to help those in need and not to be taken advantage of intentionally when someone knowingly and willfully breaks the law. they should have to pay for reimbersment!

I wonder if the fact that it was an "unlawful" use of fire had something to do with the person being billed?

Double tax-

Saying the man is "double taxed" would be like saying a traffic violator should not have to pay a fine, since we already pay for police.

Kind of interesting that we pay taxes for these services, then they bill when they are actually (and rarely) called into service.

It's good to see someone being held accountable for their actions.