On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:02:44 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 25-8-2009 4:52, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 08/24/09 17:20, andrel wrote:
>>>> It's pretty common in small towns in the US that the volunteer fire
>>>> department isn't paid at all - they have to raise funds to buy
>>>> equipment.
>>>
>>> Bloody stupid and bloody irresponsible of the town they are serving.
>> 
>>     What Jim said. Towns over here (particularly in the part of the
>> country where he lives) are far flung, with some having only, you know,
>> 300 people in them. And they're not rare. I'd bet a *much* higher
>> percentage of the US lives in such places compared to where you're at.
>> 
> True but irrelevant, I think.

If the population in an area covered by a "local" volunteer department 
only consists of 25 people (and in some parts of Wyoming and Montana that 
is actually the case), the tax burden would be quite high.  It becomes a 
risk analysis as well as a cost/benefit analysis.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:01:49 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Every house here belongs to a town (or village if you like). Don't tell
> me even that is different in the US.

It is.  We have street addresses called "rural routes" - the post office 
is located in the nearest town, but the house is not actually in the town.

Sorry if you don't believe me, but that doesn't make what I'm saying 
false.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:59:01 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Sure, but sometimes that comes as a shock. That takes time to
> internalize and a few times asking for confirmation to get to the point
> that 'yes, they really mean this'.

Yep.  Like "not all houses are part of a town." :-)

> Sort of along the same line: I saw same images from Katrina today.
> Apparently the city council of New Orleans neglected looking after it's
> levee's. That also took some time before I could really believe that.
> How can something be of lesser importance than preventing 'natural'
> disasters? Well, getting re-elected probably is. Why you would re-elect
> someone who is knowingly taking risks with your life is beyond me

It depends on the size of the risk, first, and the potential for that 
risk to be realized.  Also, all politicians take some risks with peoples' 
lives.  In such a case, who would you vote for?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25-8-2009 22:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:01:49 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> Every house here belongs to a town (or village if you like). Don't tell
>> me even that is different in the US.
> 
> It is.  We have street addresses called "rural routes" - the post office 
> is located in the nearest town, but the house is not actually in the town.

To be slighly more precise: are there houses that are outside the 
juridical borders of a city?
Of course we have houses outside of town here, but the juridical areas 
of the towns in the Netherlands cover the whole country.

> Sorry if you don't believe me, but that doesn't make what I'm saying 
> false.

I have no problem to believe you, but what you seem to say does not 
match how we do things here, so I want to know if we are talking about 
the same thing.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-8-2009 22:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:02:44 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> On 25-8-2009 4:52, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> On 08/24/09 17:20, andrel wrote:
>>>>> It's pretty common in small towns in the US that the volunteer fire
>>>>> department isn't paid at all - they have to raise funds to buy
>>>>> equipment.
>>>> Bloody stupid and bloody irresponsible of the town they are serving.
>>>     What Jim said. Towns over here (particularly in the part of the
>>> country where he lives) are far flung, with some having only, you know,
>>> 300 people in them. And they're not rare. I'd bet a *much* higher
>>> percentage of the US lives in such places compared to where you're at.
>>>
>> True but irrelevant, I think.
> 
> If the population in an area covered by a "local" volunteer department 
> only consists of 25 people (and in some parts of Wyoming and Montana that 
> is actually the case), the tax burden would be quite high.  It becomes a 
> risk analysis as well as a cost/benefit analysis.

But then it would also not be possible to fund them from gifts.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:33:48 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 25-8-2009 22:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:01:49 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>> Every house here belongs to a town (or village if you like). Don't
>>> tell me even that is different in the US.
>> 
>> It is.  We have street addresses called "rural routes" - the post
>> office is located in the nearest town, but the house is not actually in
>> the town.
> 
> To be slighly more precise: are there houses that are outside the
> juridical borders of a city?
> Of course we have houses outside of town here, but the juridical areas
> of the towns in the Netherlands cover the whole country.

Of course all homes are in an area where law is applied (a judicial 
boundary).  But in some cases, that boundary is very, very large, and 
public services don't cover the entire area.

For example, a good friend of mine at work lost her grandson a couple 
years ago in a car accident.  The driver of the car was prosecuted for it 
(long involved story).  The court case was held in a town that was IIRC a 
significant distance from the actual area where the accident was.

If the accident hadn't happened near the freeway, it might've taken 
emergency services 20-30 minutes to get there.  As it happened, the Utah 
Highway Patrol was first on the scene.

>> Sorry if you don't believe me, but that doesn't make what I'm saying
>> false.
> 
> I have no problem to believe you, but what you seem to say does not
> match how we do things here, so I want to know if we are talking about
> the same thing.

We are talking about the same thing.  But the population density in the 
western US as a whole is very sparse compared to most European countries; 
I can understand why it's difficult to wrap one's mind around the idea 
that there isn't a fire truck "just around the corner" from any major 
area.

Randy Cassingham (who writes "This is True" wrote about his experiences 
as a volunteer EMS in his area.  He recently had to help someone who was 
having a heart attack - it took *him* 10 minutes to get to the location; 
the nearest ambulance/hospital was (I think he said) 25-30 minutes away.

http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-honest_to_goodness_good_stuff.html

(Starting at "Sunday Morning")

I don't know what his fire department arrangements are, but I imagine 
similar to their EMS arrangements.  The area he lives in is described in 
another post (http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-bear_country.html) as "550 
square miles" with about 4100 people.  That's a very low population 
density (about 75 people per square mile).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:35:22 +0200, andrel wrote:

> But then it would also not be possible to fund them from gifts.

Well, depends on if there's someone with a fair chunk of change and a 
generous heart to fill the need.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25-8-2009 22:53, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:35:22 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> But then it would also not be possible to fund them from gifts.
> 
> Well, depends on if there's someone with a fair chunk of change and a 
> generous heart to fill the need.

that's what I said, it is not possible.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-8-2009 22:53, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:33:48 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> On 25-8-2009 22:16, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:01:49 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Every house here belongs to a town (or village if you like). Don't
>>>> tell me even that is different in the US.
>>> It is.  We have street addresses called "rural routes" - the post
>>> office is located in the nearest town, but the house is not actually in
>>> the town.
>> To be slighly more precise: are there houses that are outside the
>> juridical borders of a city?
>> Of course we have houses outside of town here, but the juridical areas
>> of the towns in the Netherlands cover the whole country.
> 
> Of course all homes are in an area where law is applied (a judicial 
> boundary).  But in some cases, that boundary is very, very large, and 
> public services don't cover the entire area.

Ok, that is clear then. I am not going to roll back the tread to see 
where the misunderstanding arose.
> 
>>> Sorry if you don't believe me, but that doesn't make what I'm saying
>>> false.
>> I have no problem to believe you, but what you seem to say does not
>> match how we do things here, so I want to know if we are talking about
>> the same thing.
> 
> We are talking about the same thing.  But the population density in the 
> western US as a whole is very sparse compared to most European countries; 
> I can understand why it's difficult to wrap one's mind around the idea 
> that there isn't a fire truck "just around the corner" from any major 
> area.

Actually it isn't. Lots of places that are not densely populated here in 
europe.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:04:18 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> Of course all homes are in an area where law is applied (a judicial
>> boundary).  But in some cases, that boundary is very, very large, and
>> public services don't cover the entire area.
> 
> Ok, that is clear then. I am not going to roll back the tread to see
> where the misunderstanding arose.

Fair enough. :-)

>> We are talking about the same thing.  But the population density in the
>> western US as a whole is very sparse compared to most European
>> countries; I can understand why it's difficult to wrap one's mind
>> around the idea that there isn't a fire truck "just around the corner"
>> from any major area.
> 
> Actually it isn't. Lots of places that are not densely populated here in
> europe.

Well, true, but consider that the land mass of the US is 9,826,630 sq. 
km. and the population is roughly 307,212,123 people...(density of 31 
people per square km).  Compare to your IP address' home location of The 
Netherlands, 41,526 sq. km. and a population of 16,715,999 (density of 
402 people per sq. km.) and you start to see the difference I'm talking 
about.  Compare the US population density to pretty much any European 
country and you'll find the comparison is pretty consistent, overall.

Jim

Post a reply to this message