Sunday, November 30, 2008

Fire insurance marks, privatization and being careful which savior you wish for.

Welcome to the jungle, Matt.

New Albany fire chief wonders what no overtime in 2009 will bring, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).

The City Council passed it, now New Albany Fire Department Chief Matt Juliot has to live with it.

No money is appropriated for overtime pay in the department beginning Jan. 1, the result of budget cuts approved by the council …

… Juliot said losing the option of overtime may mean cutting service.

“At this point in time, I don’t know what else to do,” he said.


I don’t, either, but perhaps it’s time to humor the Kool-Aid drinkers in the Norquist camp and privatize the lot -- a complete and all-encompassing imposition of user fees on all the services people expect from government but wish not to pay for ... if by "paying" we mean taxes, and running the insulting risk that my money might be used by someone I don't like very much.

Never mind that the reverse might be true. Hypocrisy needn't make sense.

It’s even worse now owing to the economic malaise, but even in better times, we've seen voters pleading poverty, both in terms of cash and in the larger sense of communal insensibility, and opting for devotion to candidates like 3rd district councilman Steve Price, who vows to drown all government in the bathtub, and whose legislative agenda achieves the desired end of starving local authority of the resources to function – all in the name of the downtrodden, who simply can't deal with reality without assistance.

The question remains whether Price and his ilk really are helping this segment of the population.

At any rate, because local government continues to be populated largely by elected officials whose ambitions are indiscernible from the ward heeler’s bare minimum, and who won’t or can’t comprehend the notion of supporting reasonable efforts to make the pie bigger for everyone through paying periodic attention to good ideas about economic development proposed by trained and educated pointy-heads who can't be trusted by people who don't customarily read past the funny pages, budget cuts are duly made amid a heroic cacophony of nickel-and-dime political grandstanding.

As correctly identified by Chief Juliot, the inevitable result of this endlessly corrosive cycle of mandated legislative impotence is the slashing of services, which leads us to that most delicious of junctures, as the people so loudly demanding ever smaller government now must explain the prioritizing of resources made necessary by their refusal to pay a few dollars more – and bitching until the cows come home when the ambulance doesn’t show up all time.

Have they considered the re-privatization of fire services, and the re-establishment of fire insurance marking? Wikipedia helpfully explains the way it used to be.
Fire Insurance Marks
Fire insurance marks were lead or copper plaques embossed with the sign of the insurance company, and placed on the front of the insured building as a guide to the insurance company's fire brigade. They are common in the older areas of Britain's and America's cities and larger towns. They were used on the eighteenth and nineteenth century in the days before municipal fire services were formed. The UK marks are called 'Fire insurance plaques' the first to use the mark was the Sun Fire Office before 1700.


American Fire Marks
Fire Insurance has over 200 years of history in America. Famous fires include the Chicago fire of 1871 and the San Francisco of 1906. The early fire marks of Benjamin Franklin's time can still be seen on some Philadelphia buildings as well as in other older American cities. Subscribers paid fire fighting companies in advance for fire protection and in exchange would receive a fire mark to attach to their building. The payments for the fire marks supported the fire fighting companies. If the protected building were to suffer a fire only their fire fighting company would attend the call to extinguish the fire. Even if competitor fire companies were closer to the fire they would not do anything to prevent further damage or extinguish the fire. This caused bad public relations for the fire mark system. Municipal and rural fire departments support by local taxation became a more logical solution.
Here and now, in the contemporary Norquistian era of rampant selfishness disguised as reasoned doctrine, and where no one wants to pay for anything except their half-dozen weekly trips to Wally World, it looks like we’re back to old way of doing things, Mafioso-cum-protection style, to wit:

Need a fire put out, or a cop to come take the gun away from your meth-crazed stepson? Well, we sure hope you're taken the necessary advance steps to procure service contracts and insurance. Otherwise, we can't help you ... and anyone who can remember what a civilized society resembled, you may wish to pack enough heat to keep the wolves at bay until the monthly check clears.

And guess who will be hurt the most by such a system of non-governance?

The very same downtrodden people who Steve Price says he’s trying to protect from the 21st century. In an irony-free zone, neither he nor they are likely ever to awaken and figure that part out.

42 comments:

Randy said...

Hammer. Nail. Head. Thanks.

Bayernfan said...

I am ordering a 2nd rain barrel so that I may be able to fight my own house fire. The pressure isn't all the great in the hose, but if my wife and I work together, I think we may be able to handle it...

Daniel Short said...

I am all for paying the firemen overtime...but we should cut something else to pay for it.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

We already live in a county that has historically maintained comparatively low tax rates in a state with rates normally well below the national average. How has that helped us to be a better city and/or county?

If lower taxes really do lead to a better life, there should be an abundance of locally specific, comparative evidence to support that conclusion by now. Explaining where or what that evidence is should be easy for the "cutters" and yet they never mention it.

B.W. Smith said...

That reminds me that I've been meaning to stop by Wal-mart to get a new fire extinguisher.

Daniel Short said...

Jeff, times are tough everywhere. There is a budget that has to be adhered to. This is not the federal government...Do you want Mayor England to solicit China to buy NA city bonds? True, the tax rates are low compared to other areas. My mission is to keep them that way. Higher taxes is never the answer. Remember "work smarter, not harder" ? How about spend smarter, not more?

Highwayman said...

Speaking of cutting something else...did anyone but me notice that the vote by our concerned
Council that trimmed several thousand dollars from the City Clerk's "operating budget" slid the self same $$$ across the ledeger to be added to said Council's operating budget??

The justification I got from Ms. Garry was that the "Council" had already taken a hit for some $20K.

Further research however revealed that said twenty thousand was trimmed from the Council's "discretionary spending fund" as opposed to its "operating expenses."

Just to clarify "operating" means funds to pay salaries & buy everyday supplies.

"Discretionary" means funds for toys, trips, & perks that'd be nice to have but aren't really necessary.

Example; Gasoline is imperative if one is going to move out of the parking lot.

A GPS is optional considering one has a city map in the glove box.
(That is assuming one can read of course)

So let's strangle one of the few departments that is at least attempting to collect fine monies owed to the city and add it to yet another entity that has done nothing to improve that situation since it's incarnation January last.

Sounds like one hell of a forward looking plan to me!

The New Albanian said...

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy for the same councilman demanding budget cuts to simultaneously (and ritualistically oppose) virtually every effort to facilitate econonomic development and revitalization.

Which is what Steve Price does, and by doing so, he ensures that the people he purports to protect remain downtrodden, and with most indicators pointing at their lot worsening. Yet, for this, he is regarded as somehow wise and dependable.

THIS is the problem, not the prospect of marginally higher taxes.

Bayernfan said...

So, Daniel, will you step up and actually answer Jeff's question or leave it at "Times are tough"?

Highwayman said...

I said read not spell! "ledger"

Daniel Short said...

Bayer, it comes down to how one views themselves I guess. I like to do things for myself, have the government stay out of the way and actually enjoy the fruits of my labor. Some, on the other hand, expect to be kept and coddled. These types like the government's hand in everything they do. So, the evidence of lower taxes is all around us. I prefer to keep more of the money that I earn and can make the decisions for myself on how to spend it. Do you think the government, local or national, is more efficient than an individual?

Iamhoosier said...

Daniel,
Do you work for Hallmark?

Mark

The New Albanian said...

I prefer to keep more of the money that I earn and can make the decisions for myself on how to spend it.

Okay, so how far does this desire go? This isn't about the irrelevant "coddling", but rather, about what one's obligations are in a civil society mmade up of many more people than your core family.

Should you be able to opt out from paying for infrastructure that serves all the people?

If so, will you be doing some paving any time soon?

Should items like police and fire protection be privatized so that you can have the freedom of choice?

Please, tell me how your position plays out in terms of logiical conclusions.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Do you think the government, local or national, is more efficient than an individual?

In many, many cases, yes. A large collective in which everyone contributes a small amount has more buying power than a single wealthy individual or small group and, as such, can accomplish much more.

To Roger's point, it's public investment that maintains the infrastructure necessary to create individual and collective wealth in almost every case. Without it, your property would be near worthless and you'd be lucky to have an income at all.

And you still haven't answered the question: how has keeping our taxes so comparatively low made us more competitive in the regional, national, or international market?

Specific examples are welcome. More vacuous cliches and vague platitudes contribute little.

Daniel Short said...

Mark, I don't work for Hallmark but if they are hiring, let me know. Jeff, government is never, ever more efficient than individuals. The main reason for this is because it is not their money they are spending. So, they buy $200 toilet seats and try to run sewer systems themselves (these two instances are not related in any fashion other than they both stink). I pay my taxes for roads, education and shared municipal expenses. I have since I drew my first check and will continue to do so. I will fight every day for keeping the rate low, right where it is. No need to opt out. Jeff, why is it government's job to keep us competitive? If anything, they hinder our competitiveness by piling on more taxes for the small businesses. We compete globally and around the world by offering products and services that people actually want at a price they can afford. We keep our prices low and competitive by keeping the taxes low. Put more tax on the shops downtown and watch the prices go up. Then watch it go under as people go to Wally World for a better price. I guess now I will be called unpatriotic for wanting to keep taxes low. No matter what I think NA, this is the hand you were dealt and all the funds you will have for this budget. Better learn to make something with those lemons.

Bayernfan said...

Interesting, although the issue isn't nearly as black and white as either wanting to do things for yourself vs. being coddled by the government. Surely there's a happy medium that benefits all, no?

So, in what areas would you cut to keep those taxes low and ensure that citizens can expect adequate fire protection, Daniel?

Daniel Short said...

First would be an across the board cut for every department. In my job now, I must find waste and get rid of it. Efficiency is the key. Explore a four day work week for city employees. Take another look at drive home cruisers for city police employees. Dare I say the "L" word...Layoffs. It might be necessary.

B.W. Smith said...

government is never, ever more efficient than individuals.

Sigh. Don't you just love Indiana sometimes? That's the complexity of thinking we're dealing with.

Bayernfan said...

So let's up the unemployment rate, spend more money on unemployment benefits and add people to the welfare rolls. Really? Is that the key to keeping local taxes lower...lay people off and make people reliant on the state and federal government to take care of them while they look for work in a down economy (which happened under a tax slash happy administration, by the way). Sounds almost like passing the buck to me.

Daniel Short said...

First off, the administration was "spend happy." Second, if taxes were lower, more businesses would be able to hire. And yes, I do love Indiana sometimes. Whatever happened to living within your means?

Christopher D said...

One item of note to look at here, okay fine, we have to take a risk by cutting fire fighter overtime out to help balance the budget...
But why do we have to rely on overtime to ensure adequate coverage in the first place?

Iamhoosier said...

Daniel,
How did you decide that the tax rate is perfect(or nearly)as of right now?

Mark

Daniel Short said...

Mark, I never said it was perfect, I am just trying to keep it from growing. Christopher, great question. Why do we need the overtime?

Iamhoosier said...

Daniel,

You wrote,

"...I will fight every day for keeping the rate low, right where it is."

And I would take "living within you means" to also mean the tax rate is at least high enough.

Daniel Short said...

Mark, I was referring to Jeff I believe. He said our taxes were "comparetively low." So I will fight to keep it that way. Living within your means is not just for families. Municipalities used to have rainy day funds. Now the answer is more revenue.

Iamhoosier said...

Daniel,
So, are you saying that it is not at all possible that the tax rate too low? It's either just right or too high?

I'm not trying to trick you. Just trying to understand where you are really coming from. I'm sure none of us, here, relish the thought of paying more taxes. Also, remember that even Mr. Ramsey says that one way out of financial distress is more income.

Mark

Daniel Short said...

Mark, do I know you from somewhere? I don't think the tax rate is too high or too low, it just is... I certainly don't want it to go any higher and with hopes of actually lowering vanishing with the election, I hope to tie it down to where it is. I believe Mr. Ramsey is referring to personal income, like getting a second job. He deplores high taxes and admires those that live on budgets.

Highwayman said...

Chris,

Having spent a couple of hours at our premier fire house talking to our fire chief the answer to the overtime question is this.

His crews are charged with not only answering the call to fires but also to be first responder at any call that comes in.

Neither of these two events are on a specified time table. When the phone rings they go.

To further complicate the scenario the number of consecutive hours & days a given fireman can work is dictated by contract.

Add to that equation days off, personal or family health issues, and just plain fatigue puts him in the precarious position of having to decide which call not to respond to.

Having the provision to call back off duty employees & paying them overtime is his only failsafe position to not be backed into that corner.

So once again the BIG questions.

How lucky do we feel?

How much is the safety & security of our individual families worth?

Do we really want a city official/employee making that decision on an everyday basis?

Christopher D said...

We can not escape the fact that police and fire services are the lions share of the budget.
But we can do some things to make a difference:
#1: fleet cars with variable displacement engines, IE dodge Charger police cars, 8 cylinders when umph is needed, 4 cylinders when "cruising" = decreased fuel consumption on a fleet of cars that run 24/7.
#2: more fuel efficient vehicle for non-emergency cars; replace high mileage, unefficient vehicles (such as the police package lumina's used by the traffic department or the Chevy Tracker SUV's still in use) with ford focus getting 24/35 mpg or a similar vehicle.(clark county seems to not be suffering too much from this)
#3: traffic Officer can ride WITH the street sweeper, instead of following in another car during the seasons where cars are ticketed.
#4: decrease street sweepers to every other week, instead of every week april through october
#5: COLLECT PARKING FINES!
#6: Take a close look at who has city owned cell phones and why, and what services do they REALLY need with that phone (I.E. texting, internet, etc.)
Yeah, this stuff does not add up to ver a million dollars, and will cost some money to implement, but this is not going to get any better, and we have to change the way the city does business, or the city will go out of business!

Iamhoosier said...

Daniel,
I don't believe that we have ever met.

I probably should not even have brought up Mr. Ramsey because his advice is much more applicable to personal finance than government finance. However, he has given the advice, in situations where there is no more budget to cut, to get more income.

You seem to be saying that there is enough income to provide adequate police, fire, roads, etc. In other words(yours)"shared municipal expenses". Am I reading you correctly? If so, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

If I am not reading correctly, my apologies for being so dense.

Mark

Daniel Short said...

Mark, I don't believe you are dense. Quite the opposite. I do believe there is enough funds available. The city needs to prioritize, cut the waste and work with what they have. Chris has some good ideas on this. Mr. Ramsey also says when the budget is tight, get rid of the cable TV and eating out.

Christopher D said...

It can go much further as well:

•How much money does the city spend on desktop printers and ink when a centralized all in one machine can serve an entire office? And generally for less money per page (worked for my clinics very well)

•What fees are collecting for building inspections? And are those fees equal to similar fees collect in near by cities?

•Where did all the parking meters go? ( a veritable mint in the making, even more so with the Y attracting the crowds it is, 25 cents per hour, or buy an unlimited parking pass annually)

•Jeffersonville police are now “selling” digital sets of accident scene photos to insurance agencies, drivers, etc for $25 per set… The cost, a small digital camera for each patrol car. (how many wrecks happen annually in the city?)

•A nominal fee for street department junk pick ups (those who dump the stuff illegally all ready are)

•Fleet gas cards… Are we paying interest on the gas we are purchasing? We didn’t pay interest when we had city gas pumps for city vehicles.

$300,000 in overtime expenditures is a lot of money for just the fire department alone, but the money is out there, it will just take some creative ways to find it or recoup it. And getting creative is a hell of a lot better than risking public safety!

Daniel Short said...

That's the spirit Chris. I am sure there are other ideas out there as well. Let's hear them...

Iamhoosier said...

Chris,
You mentioned that some of your ideas will cost money. Of course it will. You hit the nail on the head. It's called investing in the future. Unfortunately, many around here, including some Council members, don't want to spend, period.

I'm not so naive as to believe that the "belt" can't be drawn somewhat tighter. Where I was trying to go with Daniel, is the investing in the future. We can't draw the belt tight enough to put more police on the street.

Right now, I can't think of anything that would be a better investment for New Albany's future than investing in better law enforcement--including code enforcement. That will take take more bodies.(I'm not discounting the "will" to get it done but that's another topic)

All this talk of belt tightening is just an attempt to save what we already have. I'm saying, what we have is not enough.

Iamhoosier said...

And before someone wonders who my relatives are on the police force, the only police officer that I can call by name is Jack Messer. And that's because I sat on a committee with him.

Bayernfan said...

Most of the ideas that Chris just mentioned will cost people money, Daniel. So it's not revenue collection you're against, it's just when they're called taxes?

Bayernfan said...

The more I think about it, the more I like it Daniel. I want the city to go to a "pay per use" trash pickup fee as well. Since we recycle and compost, we only put our trash out once every 3 to 4 weeks. It's not fair that I have to pay the same amount as someone who gets it collected all the time.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

I think we should change all major thoroughfares across Floyd, Clark, and Jefferson Counties (excluding those in the downtowns) to toll roads, use the revenue to build public transit, and then make sure the road tolls are always more expensive than the transit fares.

Discounts could be given to those living within city limits and those who have legitimate agricultural concerns in the counties.

Otherwise, living outside the city on a larger plat of land further from business and government centers and using highways and INTERstates as local access roads is a luxury that the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for when what we really need is basic transportation in the inner core.

We'd save a bundle on maintenance, put our resources toward the greater common good, and those that use the big roads the most would pay for them.

The New Albanian said...

Goldamm, bloogill ... youse a Communiss, rihd? That's plumm Unamrricun.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

If by Unamrricun you mean utterly sensible then, yes, it is. I was born at Floyd Memorial, however.

It wasn't my fault, though, so I don't think I should have to move or spend the rest of my life paying for the less enlightened among us who demand government coddling everyday and then act outraged when they're asked to help pay for their bad choices as if their entitlement program is somehow better than anyone else's.

Got an unsustainable lifestyle? Good for you. Let me know how paying for it is going. I'll be on the train.

rob said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The New Albanian said...

Bye bye, spammer Campbell.