While California Fires Rage, the Rich Hire Private Firefighters
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Regardless of whether of not the right amount of taxes are spent on public firefighting, this seems admirable to me. If he had hired someone else to fight the fire, his foresight and preparation, if perhaps not his personal courage, would be as admirable.
What are they proposing? That people with means be prohibited from hiring people to perform services for them?
* fires are becoming an increasing problem and there isn't a sound, coordinated, public effort to deal with them right now; if the wealthy, who generally have a lot of political power, are shielded from the fire issue through their personal wealth, then there could be a diminished incentive to solve the problem generally for the public
* it's hard to fight fires and the wealthy could marshal firefighters that are needed for public usage and the public might not offer enough compensation/resources to protect the public
* more controlled burns
* continue to upgrade firefighting capabilities
* continue to hire more firefighters
* enhance preventative maintenance of power lines by cutting back brush
* enhance power infrastructure by insulating or burying lines
The fear is that a public service that should, within their capability, protect everyone without discrimination is over time going to be replaced by private services that only protect those who can pay.
I believe that is the point. Now we can contemplate whether that fear is justified, whether it should be dismissed, or if something should be done to resolve it.
Of course security and safety is already a privilege of the rich (to an extent), but you could go further in that direction. Or try to swing back.
A large real estate property pays large property taxes every year, so I don't understand your argument.
The problem is manyfold.
> Someone who has a very large house with very large grounds paying for additional private services for fire protection seems _fair_ to me.
The need to pay for additional services at all is indicative that the public service is insufficient to keep us and our property safe. Fire does not discriminate between rich and poor; that should be a concern for everyone, but only the rich can do something about it (by throwing money at it).
> Should the public pay for the increased cost to cover someone with a house and property much larger than what the median home and property is?
If the rich have more land and property to risk, then they should be paying more taxes too. The public service should not discriminate against them. Why is the service insufficient to keep their property safe, and how can we trust them to keep the poor safe?
Of course you can have more land than the average citizen without being FU rich. In that case, the land is probably your job, and someone else's food or job down the chain. Shouldn't the public service protect those too?
> And keeping the fires from spreading though their own property will no doubt have a beneficial effect on those around them, too.
Yep, helps all the rich in their rich enclave where the poor cannot afford to live.
> The wealthy are stepping up to the plate and paying for the additional services they need without public help.
One of the fears I perceive here is that it's a slippery slope. If public service is insufficient and privatization becomes more prominent, one day it's going to be the one and same fire service everyone needs, but only the rich can afford. See health care, etc.
It's not how property taxes on California work, in practice, because of Prop 13.
Our society is offensive, yes, but this is an entirely natural consequence of an unfettered accumulation of wealth.
Private Security, Private School, Private Transit, etc. Why not Private Firefighting?
Basic economics- demand of a service exceeds supply, expect newcomers to provide said service at a premium price.
The problem I have with people soaking negatively about this is: the private firefighters are reducing the workload of the public firefighters. It should be seen as a win-win.
Also, firefighting should be left to the properly trained, if not professionals. While I suppose the same argument could be made for nannies, I'd argue child rearing is much more forgiving to novice mistakes.
This is wrong. The wealthy will always be willing to pay for services that the poor cannot afford. The government is meant to provide consistent service to all regardless of wealth, for services we as a society deem essential to a functional collective.
When the rich and powerful lobby for a reduction in services to others, in order to benefit themselves financially, while then purchasing supplementary insurance for said thing undermines the collective good. This is the opposite of what should happen in society, especially after those same people gained the benefit of these things to gain their wealth.
> the private firefighters are reducing the workload of the public firefighters. It should be seen as a win-win.
This is also wrong. Instead of a force to care for all, this results in a reduced public force and an increased private force, where Rich Bob gets saved and Poor Bob has his house burned down. This is fundamentally at odds with the promise of a basic set of services that are equal across a society. Those with means pay a small bit more to help the collective of their countrymen all live more equitably.
How is that better?
No, it's better that everyone has that.
Why does everything have to be socialized?
I don't have any further commentary.
Barbra Streisand, Cher, and a host of others were exposed in a 'Good for thee, but not for me' moment.
Not all are bad, though. Jennifer Aniston tore out her sod and landscaped her property with drought-resistant foliage. There are some good ones!