Avweb - GAO Rejects Big Air Tanker Ban

Doug F said:
Well sure! Just the same as you own a piece of your neighbor's home when your local fire department keeps it from burning down after that unfortunate 'fried turkey' event. That's how that works, right?
Click to expand...
The local fire department protects my house, same as my neighbors. And when they put out the fire next door, that means it won't get to my house. Even if I never have a fire, the existence and proximity of the fire station is insurance (and reduces my insurance premiums). There is zero chance that a woodland fire will ever be fought with 747 tankers within 100 miles of here. So the benefits of that are entirely external, and I don't even benefit from neighborhood effects. So slightly different.

Fire services used to be something you contracted for, and still are in some places.
 
Lindberg said:
The local fire department protects my house, same as my neighbors. And when they put out the fire next door, that means it won't get to my house. Even if I never have a fire, the existence and proximity of the fire station is insurance (and reduces my insurance premiums). There is zero chance that a woodland fire will ever be fought with 747 tankers within 100 miles of here. So the benefits of that are entirely external, and I don't even benefit from neighborhood effects. So slightly different.

Fire services used to be something you contracted for, and still are in some places.
Click to expand...

So this gets into the weeds pretty quick. Protecting forests is a public benefit. Forests provide wood, O2, cooling, scenery, and probably some other useful things. Wineries provide income for many people and yummy wines for the rest of us. Managing forest fires is something I'm open to paying for. People who choose to live in high danger areas (dry forests, near beaches, on top of crumbling cliffs) should bear a large part of the cost for those risks. When those people live in high risk areas that are also areas of public benefit splitting up costs starts to get complex. For example, do we force people and businesses who have beachfront property to suck up 100% of the cost to repair after a storm? Doesn't that amount to taking of the land by the government since the property values drop if the cost to live there becomes prohibitive? Or does the ownership of this kind of land transfer to the hyper-wealthy since only they can afford the costs and public access to beaches goes away? I used to live in FL so this is an issue I've thought about for a while.

This isn't an easy issue and I don't have a good answer. It's likely to be an increasingly complex issue we discuss as climate changes and risk profiles change. It's already happening with flood maps and there's a fair amount of conversation about what's fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top