var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
elmo3
February 19, 2010 3:20 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

T-shirt? I'm only worried about the lube! Will that be included, or is that extra? Or will the dry hump create yet another $400 call?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Griking
February 19, 2010 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While I don't care for this new policy I personally can't wait for the next person to call 911 complaining that their fast food burger wasn't prepared right.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
fsnuffer
February 19, 2010 3:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So if the deductible for my car is $250 dollars and it catches on fire it would make more sense to save $50 and not call the fire department. As a second point, if you have the direct numbers to the fire and police departments will you still have to pay?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Nyall
February 19, 2010 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The summary was vague.
The actual article says that this is medical only.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Coyote
February 19, 2010 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So when grandma is saying her arm feels numb ya give her a minute to walk it off.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Scrutinizer
February 19, 2010 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So if I see some one having a heart attack I might have to ask myself if I can afford to call for help.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Clumber
February 22, 2010 4:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No, no, no, you just frisk them for THEIR phone and call from it. Excuse me ma'am, I have to go through your purse before I start CPR....

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JulesNoctambule
February 19, 2010 3:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That's absolutely disgusting.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 20, 2010 12:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's actually the pristine, clarion example of how social services would be delivered, if Libertarians had their way.
That, or a return to how fires were handled before \"Socialism\" took place.

Quite the Randian Paradise, huh?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
February 20, 2010 1:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thanks for your fanatically inaccurate claim, Straw Man Jim.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 20, 2010 4:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You can't embrace an ideology that always favors private, for-profit approaches to everything except National Defense if you're going to continually carve exemptions for every case where your ideology crashes on the rocks of sensible thought.
A public 911 system can't be rationalized under Libertarian principles, so what you're left with is a model much like what Tracy, CA adopted.
I sympathize that it stings when one's ideology is proven unworkable in the real world, but the fault doesn't lie in the precocious child pointing and giggling, it lies with the Emperor sauntering about the town square naked, his naughty bits a-jangling.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Conformist138
February 22, 2010 9:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Amen. Call it what you want, I really don't care about anyone's political labels, but the fact is that we NEED public services that are provided to everyone, that are free to use. As it is, people fear getting sick cuz they can't pay for it, or won't go to hospitals until they're near death since they know it will financially ruin them. Now people will be too scared to call for help because they're poor? Fuck that. Give me socialized services: public schools, public libraries, public streets and highways, toll-free 911, etc. What's next? The police offering financing before they come help you? In a country where there are people making $1,000,000+ a year, this is disgusting and unacceptable. In the end, it takes the poorest people and either blocks them from calling for help or sticks them into debt for daring to need it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
anime_runs_my_life
February 20, 2010 12:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Disgusting, yes. But it's California. They're so broke the cities and towns will do anything to try and make money. Yet another reason why I'm glad I left that state when I did.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
February 20, 2010 12:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

On your way out, I hope you thanked Proposition 13. And the idiots clamoring for expensive programs who, when it comes time to pay for them, whimper, \"Paying taxes is unfair!\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ArcanaJ
February 19, 2010 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Agreed. What's next? Charging case by case for police/fire services? For rape kits? Repulsive.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
annexw
February 19, 2010 4:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Fun (horrible) fact: some districts charge for rape kits.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
utensil42
February 19, 2010 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Including Wasilla, AK. Or, they used to at least.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Emperor Norton I
February 19, 2010 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The Alaska Legislature outlawed charging for rape kits after Caribou Barbie started doing so in Wasilla. She claimed the police chief made that rule, but she hired him & he immediately did it.
Chalk that up to another one of her lies!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JulesNoctambule
February 19, 2010 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Indeed they did. Also disgusting, and shameful.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
DoubleEcho
February 19, 2010 3:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the 911 center is paid for by taxes, then why are they charging fees instead of raising taxes? That's double dipping so you can tell people \"No tax hikes!\"

This is just like the bullshit they pull in some towns where the fire departments try to charge for putting out house fires and extricating people from vehicles. Then they tell people \"Bill it to your insurance company\". Yes, because it's the home/auto insurer's duty to supplement tax revenue for city/county emergency services. Yay!

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Hoss
February 19, 2010 4:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If they're this desperate for funds, they probably increased taxes to the Prop 2½ limit and added the fee on top of it

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wrjohnston91283
February 19, 2010 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Very unlikely considering Prop 2 1/2 is a Massachusetts law and the post refers to a city in California.

You're thinking of Prop 13.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nick1693
February 19, 2010 6:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

God I hate 2 1/2.

As a high school student, I have to say the first thing to be rejected is a vote to raise the taxes above 2 1/2 for things like education.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
athmsVT
February 19, 2010 3:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While I agree that this is rather ridiculous, it is worth noting that it is probably attempt to stop frequent callers. There are some people that call to report anything. Just like frequent travelers on ambulances even in non emergencies.

I have a neighbor that complains when I drive 15 mph in a 10 mph zone that is the street/parking lot in front of my townhouse. They called the police. Two police officers sat at the end of the road for about 2 hours. I am not sure you can get a ticket going that slow. It was a waste of tax payers money. The point of the fee is to try to get at the abusers, and avoid charging everyone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WagTheDog
February 19, 2010 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No, I live near Tracy, and I can tell you it has everything to do with the city of Tracy's fiscal problems. Like most central valley towns, housing values have gone down, bankruptcies are up, and tax revenue is way way down.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
February 19, 2010 5:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

California should probably just give in and legalize prostitution, marijuana and gay marriage. Income tax, income tax, civil services fees.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DoubleEcho
February 19, 2010 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Then make an ordinance that fraudulent or non-emergency calls are charged that fee - don't make everyone pay.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rocket80
February 19, 2010 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hit the nail on the head. Personally I would support a system like this (same with roads, schools, etc etc. To me, paying for using a service is how it should work) HOWEVER...we are already paying taxes in this situation so what the hell? You can't add a fee on top of taxes, that's insane.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
QuantumRiff
February 19, 2010 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the police bust a drug dealer in your neighborhood, do you get the bill? Your getting the benefit.. They could easily split it up among all your neighbors.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pantheonoutcast
February 19, 2010 3:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And if you call from a cell phone with a non-Tracy area code and exchange, it would be....free?

Actually, I've always wondered that. If I took my 516 cell phone to another state and dialed 911, who would pick up?

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
Jay911
February 19, 2010 9:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Your cell phone will connect to the 9-1-1 center that handles the cell tower you're currently accessing, regardless of where your phone is registered to. Furthermore, laws in North America require cell carriers to accept 9-1-1 calls from any wireless provider on their cell tower outright. So if you were, say, a Verizon customer in an area with no Verizon service, but you were in range of an AT&T tower, you would be able to connect to 9-1-1. In fact your phone would most likely say \"SOS\" or \"Emergency Only\" on the display in place of the signal strength bars.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bonzombiekitty
February 22, 2010 7:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

For clarification -

FCC E-911 regulations require has two phases. Phase I was primarily to get you to the correct 911 call center for your location. While in many cases, you can just go off of where the cell phone tower your call is being serviced from, it's not always the case since a tower can serve multiple call center service areas. So better technology was needed to get that correct.

We're in phase II now, which means that not only do they have to send your call to the correct location, they have to be able to locate you within a certain radius (i.e. 50 meters). So in theory, your call not only goes to the correct call center, they also know where you are located.

Of course regulation enforcement isn't perfect, and neither are the different ways of locating people on a cell phone. Verizon uses AGPS, but that doesn't work indoors and works poorly anywhere that doesn't have a clear view the appropriate satellites (i.e. dense urban areas). AT&T and T-Mobile use network based solutions, one of which is provided by the company I work for. The benefits of their system is that it works indoors and very well in dense urban areas, but if you're out in the middle of nowhere it doesn't have enough towers to perform a very good location.

There's been some push to make the requirements more strict, which will probably mean hybrid systems that combine the best of both worlds.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
1kamaz
February 20, 2010 1:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm pretty sure your phone's area code determines how your emergency calls are routed. I recently had to call 911 in Los Angeles from my NYC cell phone number and reached NYPD.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
1kamaz
February 20, 2010 1:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm pretty sure your phone's area code determines how your emergency calls are routed. I recently had to call 911 in Los Angeles from my NYC cell phone number and reached NYPD.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TCama
February 19, 2010 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I called 911 once on the New York State Thruway. I think it went to the county dispatch for that county, or possibly a local state police barracks. Whatever the case, it knows where you are.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tonberryqueen
February 19, 2010 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Even in my area code, I get the state police, not local. It's probably just the nearest 911 call center to the cell tower being used for the call.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ktetch
February 19, 2010 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

From what I remmeber about this, it goes to the 'local' 911 center, or as locally as possible. It's not a satelite phone after all, you're connecting to a cell. That cell has a physical location, which means you're in proximity to it. Thus a cell tower should direct 911 calls to it's local center.

E911 is even better in that respect, in that the cellphone passes on info. iirc t-mobile 2g uses times of signals to multiple towers to get a location, while 3g (basically all modern phones) use assisted GPS, which passes that info to the dispatcher.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
February 19, 2010 3:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Assuming your carrier is E-911 compliant, when you dial 911 on your mobile phone it locates where you are, and forwards the call to the local police non-emergency number. Although, as far as I know, it does *not* forward the call to the local 911 operator - just the police non-emergency number (which is a reason why relying on E-911 is problematic.) I would assume that those calls aren't billable, if they go to the police non-emergency number.

BTW when I say \"non-billable\" I'm not implying that billing for 911 calls is right.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
QuantumRiff
February 19, 2010 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No.. each tower is programmed with the nearest 911 center. E911 just specifies that the cell phone will send its location data in a certain format to the same 911 center, to get around people on cell's reporting accidents, and not knowing where the heck they are.

Most office PBX's are similar. Many companies use a centralized phone system, that runs all sites, however, each location has a normal phone line that is kept free (or disconnected if needed) and 911 calls are routed there.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CTrees
February 19, 2010 3:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So if you're a resident of this town, would it not make sense to buy an old cell phone, keep it charged but leave it without a SIM card, and use that to call 911 (since you can still call on an \"inactive\" cell phone), so if they try to charge you, you can claim that you weren't the one to make the call (i.e., someone else called for you, though you didn't ask them to)?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
xredgambit
February 21, 2010 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was thinking this as well.
I'd probably do a 911 and run at a pay phone (if there was one) just on principal.
Or else Get old track phone or an old deactivated phone
Dial 911
Turn off phone and take out battery
???
Profit

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Cantras
February 19, 2010 3:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Okay, so... an alternate way of looking at it is that they pay a $48 tax for 911 access, and a $300 fee if they get busted not paying it?
It sounds 1000x more reasonable when it's put that way, though I still see shadyness in making it \"optional\" -- I see a lot of people living paycheck to paycheck not paying for it, figuring they won't have an emergency, and then being up a creek when they have an accident.

Question: is the $400 for non-residents who happen to have an emergency in town, or for people who live maybe outside city limits but still use tracy's 911 service? And if it's the latter, do they have the option to pay the $48 dollars?
Also: Is it the 911 caller, or the person 911 is for? Not that either of those are awesome choices...

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Sumtron5000
February 19, 2010 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Out of towners who are in Tracy will be \"punished\" for not paying the annual fee that they did not have an option of paying, or maybe even never knew about. Next headline: \"Out of Towner Watches Man Bleed to Death on Sidewalk\" (or sues injured victim for $400)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
johnjamesthree
February 19, 2010 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Then present it as what it is A tax hike of $4 per month added to the phone bill. The problem with opting in to things like 911 is that nobody wants to pay $4 more per month, until there is an emergency.
The concept is what government is supposed to do. It is why we pay taxes for roads as opposed to just on the roads we drive. We ALL pay for our local police even if we do not use them. Imagine if police protection were only available to those that could afford it, or those that used it. I can see it now. \"well it's only $2000 he stole from me, and I don't want to pay ANOTHER $500 to have the police come out\"

This is a top ten in stupidity ever. What happens to out of towners who may be staying at a local hotel and have a heart attack. I guess the advice would be don;t get robbed or sick in Tracey

Reply
\"user-pic\"
axhandler1
February 19, 2010 4:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Or just don't spend any time in Tracy, ever. That's what I'm taking away from this article.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WagTheDog
February 19, 2010 3:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You'd have to add it to all phone bills. Land lines and cell lines. Otherwise, everyone just cancels their land line, and then you have even less revenue. My land line costs $12/month. The taxes on it are $13.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
harsa321
February 19, 2010 3:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And who ends up paying, the caller or the victim... it doesn't sound legal, as the idea of it puts an individuals' life at possible risk. How many people will forgo calling to not be charged?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Applekid
February 19, 2010 3:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Looks like my Chicken Nugget emergency just got more expensive.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
fjordtjie
February 19, 2010 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

she called like 3 times too, right?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
sirwired
February 19, 2010 3:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

WTF? Just raise taxes by ~$50/yr / household and be done with it. What's next, extra \"subscription\" fees for Police and Fire too?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cant_stop_the_rock
February 19, 2010 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

California actually has limits on how much towns are able to increase taxes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dantsea
February 19, 2010 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"What's next, extra \"subscription\" fees for Police and Fire too?\"

http://www.ruralmetro.com/

Growing up in a town near Phoenix, this was the local fire department and ambulance service. It was a subscription model.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hypnotik_jello
February 19, 2010 3:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

sounds good to me, if you're too poor to afford the police or fire department that's your own fault!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hypnotik_jello
February 19, 2010 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

yeah of course it is. my [/snark] tag got deleted.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
freelunch
February 19, 2010 4:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

bear in mind, like any 'emergency' service... care is a privilege, and not a right.

If you pay for it through taxes then everyone gets access. If they decide to do a fee model, then only those that pay get the service.

Note: the firefighters will still show up to a fire, but only to ensure that the fire does not spread to a paying members property. If the owner of the burning house does not have insurance, and does not pay the fire fighter service fee, then it is their own damn fault.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
azsumrg1rl
February 19, 2010 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Freelunch is not joking. At least, that's how it works in the Phoenix metro area. What Freelunch failed to mention is this is only a problem for unincorporated areas (i.e. county islands), as these homeowners do not pay city taxes for fire and police services. It's also a very good reason why we made sure we bought a house within city limits.

As far as the other commenter's link to Rural/Metro, I'm guessing he/she lived in one of the outlying cities. Otherwise, the city would have its own ambulatory services (like Phoenix does) or it would contract with a company like Rural/Metro, Southwest Ambulance (a subsidiary of Rural/Metro), or PMT to for emergency transport services (like Glendale, Peoria, and Tempe do). It's not quite the same as charging for a 911 call because if you don't elect to have the ambulance transport you to the hospital, you (or your insurance) are not subject to any extra fees.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dantsea
February 19, 2010 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It was a smaller outlying area, though now it seems to be acres and acres of subdivided foreclosures.

I do recall that R/M responded to a neighbor and self-proclaimed non-subscriber's house when it caught fire (he considered their fees nothing less than extortion). The firefighters ensured we didn't go down in flames, yes, but they didn't stand by and let his house burn down -- they actually extinguished the conflagration very quickly. He was later billed for the services (I remember having to hear the initial diatribe). When he refused to pay, they slapped a lien on his property, and if he still lives there, I'm sure he's yet to stop talking about that turn of events.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wrjohnston91283
February 19, 2010 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nope - I've heard of that - you have to be a member to get them to put out your fire - otherwise they let it burn. The fire department will generally only act to rescue people out of the home or to prevent it from spreading to members property. Once everyone is safely out, they just sit back and prevent it from spreading.

I feel that as long as the department will provide public safety for free (rescue and prevent spreading to public areas) I'm fine with it. I would never not pay, but if my neighbor doesn't want to, so be it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
veg-o-matic
February 19, 2010 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

He's not joking.
Robert Nozick has learned to use the internet from beyond the grave!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
swarrior216
February 19, 2010 3:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

is this legal?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
mommiest
February 19, 2010 11:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Aren't we required to stop and give assistance in some cases? Traditionally, that includes calling emergency services when needed. This might amount to requiring someone to pay a fee just because they are nearby when an accident happens. I guess it depends on exactly how these laws are written, but yeah, I'm guessing illegal.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pschroeter
February 19, 2010 3:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I see my neighbor collapse in his backyard, will I be billed? Can he refuse to pay for my call? Do you want me pausing and deciding if I can afford to call 911 before I call them for you or myself? This is absolute madness and I would recall everyone in city government who voted for it.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Sumtron5000
February 19, 2010 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Exactly. I bet that most of the time, the 911 caller is not the one who needs help themselves- it's family member, friend, or bystander. They are the ones who are going to have to make that decision about someone else's life.
Question- If I am in a room alone with someone and I watch them have a heart attack, and I don't call 911, am I held liable? If the answer is yes (which I hope it is), then this new fee is going to create huge lawsuits.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BraytonAK
February 19, 2010 3:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

We already have enough people in this country (USA) having to determine if their health is worth the expense put on them by \"insurance\" and hospitals, so now we can have everyone question whether something is an emergency or not and increase the potential that their delay in deciding to make the call makes the situation worse? There's yet another legal matter some greedy people would sink their teeth into.

Instead of using 911, just post direct numbers to the Fire and Police departments.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MrAP
February 19, 2010 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The problem with your theory is that ambulance and fire department services generally can't dispatch themselves. If you call them direct, they'll tell you to call 911.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
tonberryqueen
February 19, 2010 3:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So what happens when somebody's driving down the road, notices an accident, and calls 911? They get charged $300 for being a good Samaritan?

Yeah, this sounds like a really good idea.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
regenerator
February 19, 2010 3:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No joke. I called 911 just the other day because a guy was driving like a complete maniac: driving much faster than was safe, kept cutting off or tailing other cars, was swerving in his lane, and appeared to be tripping out on something (he was jerkily moving all over the place in his seat). I was honestly scared for the other cars around him, so I called and reported the car's description and plate number.
I'd be pissed if I were billed for a \"good samaritan\" action like that!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JonStewartMill
February 19, 2010 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Most states have a tip line to report drunk drivers; you might want to find what it is where you live, and call them instead of 911.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Elphaba
February 20, 2010 12:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here in Utah, they've recently put signs up all over the place telling people TO call 911 if they suspect a drunk driver.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kevin
February 19, 2010 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That is insane. There's no reasonable way to charge people who see something bad happen and report it, they'll simply stop trying to help. No way I'm paying $400 to call in an car accident I drive by or a crime that isn't hurting me directly. Guess it just sucks to be in trouble if you can't call for help yourself.

And if they charge the person who needs help, what happens when they didn't want someone to call?

This is dumb on every level.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TailsToo
February 19, 2010 3:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nice - so if I saw an accident, and people needed help, they want to charge me $400 to make a call that might save someone else's life?

Good luck with that. I hope the city council all gets a clue (or at least gets voted out.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sirwired
February 19, 2010 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hmmm... with further thought, as a counterpoint:

My local rescue squad where I used to live also had a \"subscription\" available. You paid the subscription, (I think it was $80/yr) and you would not owe money beyond what your insurance paid (if you had insurance.) I'm not sure how different this is. Their basic billing was $300/trip, IIRC. (Identical to this proposal in CA.)

I guess I always thought of 911 as a \"basic service\" just like police and fire protection, while I thought of ambulance service as part of healthcare costs, where we, in the US, expect to pay for everything.

What would Tracy do if you didn't pay? Probably send you to a collection agency, just like if you didn't pay a hospital or doctor's bill.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Hoss
February 19, 2010 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Town of Tracy -- Fire everyone in your town government!!!! I mean, what the cripes is government for if it is not to provide the basic services that one calls 911 to get? Is this your tax on the most vulnerable among you? Fire the bastards

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
friendlynerd
February 19, 2010 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I bet town sees it crime rate skyrocket because nobody will call 911 to report crimes in progress.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
shepd
February 19, 2010 3:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Bingo!

Out of my 5 calls to 911 for three separate incidents, three of them were to report (and update about) a car that had driven into a building near the drive-thru I was at at about midnight. The people driving it had exited and were trying to make a sly getaway, leaving the unplated (probably stolen) vehicle there.

Not that they ever got caught, since the police are slower than molasses in winter here (hence me phoning 911 more than once to try to keep them updated on where the perps had fled, as I was boneheaded enough to follow them), but you can bet I would have just ignored it if I'd have had to pay for those calls. $1,200 out of my pocket to stop GTA, burglary, and probable drunk driving? Sorry, I'm not buying it. Hello crime rate!

The other two calls were to boot a loiterer from my store, and another to boot a customer that shoved me from my store. I'd have called local police directly, but having done that once before, they won't do anything about anything (Okay, they will actually send a bylaw officer to ticket/tow a car in your space after several hours, that's all I've gotten from them) unless you call 911. Which is stupid, but there you go.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tchann
February 19, 2010 3:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's a surefire way to decrease the population, at least.

Guaranteed you'll see people more willing to shrug off a heart attack than pay the $300 for the phone call.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
QrazyQat
February 19, 2010 3:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They're creating a situation where there's a big disincentive to call if it's not you hurt or being robbed. Then the victim will be suing the city. Even one such case will be a much bigger outlay for the city than swallowing the costs for 911 service.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shaftoe
February 19, 2010 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am reminded of that scene in Gangs of New York where competing Fire Engine companies get into a fight over who gets to put out the fire while the tenement burns

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
lihtox
February 19, 2010 10:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Now there's an idea; someone should set up a competing 911 service! (I think someone in that town should go through the motions of doing so, just to make a point.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
February 19, 2010 4:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In Chicago in the early days, it was the opposite problem. The fire department was privately owned. You had to buy an emblem and put on your house or they wouldn't put the fire out. Capitalism at its finest.

BOT- I think the solution is to institute a fine for calling 911 for a non-emergency (or not significant emergency). If you call 911 because you have a headache, you should be fined. Of course, the problem is along the margins. If my appendix ruptures, is that a sufficient emergency? I would say yes, but you know that you'd get a bill.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Emperor Norton I
February 19, 2010 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You have confused the Chicago Fire Dept. with the private Chicago Fire Insurance Patrol and its predecessors which shut down in 1959. The CFIP went to fires of its members & attempted to prevent damage to the contents of the buildings that were burning or adjacent.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
redskull
February 19, 2010 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Except in this case the house will burn because no one wanted to pay to call the fire dept.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Thorzdad
February 19, 2010 3:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This isn't a surprising move, actually. On one hand, it might cut-down on the non-emergency calls 911 gets. On the other hand, with budgets the way they are, it may well be that current taxes don't completely cover 911 costs. And it's a whole lot easier to add a fee than it is to get a tax increase these days.

Just recently, there was a story here about a local volunteer fire department billing a family for putting-out their house fire. To the tune of $23,000. Unless people get their heads on straight about taxes and properly funded public safety services, you're probably going to see a lot more of this.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Sumtron5000
February 19, 2010 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you pay the annual fee, you could still call 911 over your chicken mcnuggets allllll day long.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hoss
February 19, 2010 4:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If it's to reduce abuse, just give an allowance of free calls in the year like an employer give paid sick days

Reply
\"user-pic\"
failurate
February 19, 2010 3:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think this would cut down on actual emergencies calls as well.

Citizens of Tracy, you all might want to start DVR'ing Survivorman and anything featuring Bear Grylls.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Mock
February 19, 2010 3:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'd pay the $48 then call every time I have a headache or hangnail.

After all, I've paid for it!

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Jfielder
February 19, 2010 4:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hey, could EMS bring me some chapstick? My lips hurt real bad...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
raygun21
February 19, 2010 3:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ah! Great counterpoint to the \"dissuade frivolous calls\" argument. How many times have the police heard the \"I pay your salary\" line? And if you get a subscription, shouldn't you get your money's worth?

Wonder if they have a cap a la Comcast?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nick1693
February 19, 2010 8:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Off topic, I know.

Comcast has the highest cap I've seen yet. Other ISPs have been trying to keep it under 10 GB/month.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
legwork
February 19, 2010 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Local governments can be at least as corrupt/weasely as big ones. My guess is this is really just making noise to encourage passage of a local tax increase.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
ardaiel
February 19, 2010 3:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I realize that this looks like a blatant attempt to make money, but there's actually more behind it. We've all seen the news reports about people making bogus 911 calls for non-emergencies. \"911, McDonald's won't make my chicken nuggets right!\" It's very, very common for people to call for 911 for an ambulance because they just want a ride, food, money. They know their situation isn't an emergency - they just want to take advantage of the service. In the meantime, there's a real emergency somewhere. A man is having a heart attack, a child is drowning in a pool. But because the emergency personnel had to respond to this bogus call, people with real problems may be dying. If you know any paramedics, ask them - it happens often, and it drives them nuts.
I'm not a fan of the idea of having to pay money to call 911. But I'm also not a fan of dying because the paramedics were busy dealing with a bogus call. And I'm not saying charging for 911 is the right answer - just that there's probably another reason behind it besides making money for the town.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Nicole
February 19, 2010 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Then fine the people making the bogus calls.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
February 19, 2010 3:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Im ok with people making FRAUDULENT 911 calls being charged, and things like that.

If an aronist lights a building on fire, id like him to be responsible for the cost of the emrgency services to put them out. If a person gets caught commiting a crime, id like them to be fined the cost of the police investigation.

But, if I see joe collapse becasue he is out running, I want that ambulance there ASAP and neither joe nor I to worry about that cost.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
aaron8301
February 19, 2010 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This has to be against federal law. If it isn't, Californians should be calling their Legislators and Congressmen.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
February 19, 2010 3:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review
California city leaders say it was a split decision but they needed to find a way to close a $9-million budget gap.

So? That doesn't mean you get to do something stupid, unethical, and bat-shit insane to fix the problem!

I can't believe that their only excuse for this is, \"Oh, we needed the money\".

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
flugennock
February 19, 2010 4:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hell, I totally believe it. After about twenty years of increasingly batshit behavior by government officials -- not to mention citizens -- in this country, I'll pretty much believe any such reports of batshittiness.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
February 19, 2010 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ah ... but don't you see, that's how local governments get money? Usually the scenario happens with budget cuts, not with revenue schemes (like this one). It's all a \"set up\" to get people to consent to massive tax hikes. Here's how it usually goes:

1. Money is tight, so a budget is proposed that has cuts specifically designed to annoy and/or anger people. Like getting rid of high school football, or closing libraries or recreation facilities. Sometimes layoffs of teachers or closures of schools is proposed but those are rarer.

2. These proposed cuts -- whatever they are -- spawn (predictable) outrage. People show up at hearings, or sign petitions, etc. demanding the cuts not be made.

3. Officials say something along the lines of, \"OK, well, if you don't want to cut X, Y and Z, we have no choice but to raise taxes.\"

4. Taxes end up getting hiked ... even though other, less obtrusive, cuts -- such as letting go of extra, overpaid town personnel who got useless, cushy jobs as favors from officials -- were possible.

What I see here is that, instead of proposing a budget cut that will inspire outrage, they've instead proposed a \"fee\" which will pretty much accomplish the same goal. The real truth of municipal budgets is that there is ALWAYS true \"fat\" which can be cut, so that services are not affected and taxes are not raised, but officials will inevitably REFUSE to implement those. Instead they manipulate people into accepting a tax increase.

Full disclosure: I've been an elected official in a (very small) municipality. I know the game and how it's played. I do not tolerate it here, where I live (and this town is small enough to make this particular game very hard to play), and I suggest the people of Tracy CA -- and every other municipality in the country -- not to tolerate it, either.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
redrolla
February 19, 2010 3:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So, the $48/year give you unlimited 911 calls. Could a resident pay it and then call 911 ALL the time? Need a ride home from the bar? Call 911, you paid for it! Could a non-resident pay the $48 fee and then call the Tracy 911 system as much as they want?

(not condoning this, lots o sarcasm)

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
pantheonoutcast
February 19, 2010 3:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think that sounds like a perfectly logical idea. Since one is paying for an unlimited service, one should be able to use that service an unlimited number of times. If they pulled this stunt in NY, there would be people calling every 11 seconds.

But Californians are used to taxes - unless this issue also involves migratory birds nesting in endangered trees owned by a same-sex, Spanish-speaking couple in Berkeley, I doubt there's going to be much of a protest.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
aggrazel
February 19, 2010 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The first lawsuit from someone dying because they didn't want to pay the fee because they only felt \"a little odd\" and thought they'd pull through will put an end to this.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
awer25
February 19, 2010 3:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"...new plan to make money\"

Tell the police to stop leaving their cars idling all day while directing traffic - that should have a few dollars ;)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
February 19, 2010 3:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, this probably helps pave the way for residents to run for city council to oust the current members.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
MountainCop
February 19, 2010 3:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. Oh, wait... it's California...

911 services are already funded through sales taxes, property taxes, even your phone bill has a 911 charge.

Yeah, the funding for 911 services comes up short, but this is not the way to solve it.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
February 19, 2010 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What they should do instead is charge $5000 for phony/prank/non-emergency 911 calls.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
JWMcDonald
February 19, 2010 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just key in the Police and Fire department local phone numbers into your speed dial...don't use 911...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tonberryqueen
February 19, 2010 4:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That doesn't work in most places if you need someone to come out.

I tried that a few times in my old apartment in a loud, drunken party-filled neighborhood a few times, because I felt that complaints about excessive noise certainly didn't necessitate a 911 call (or even the time a drunk, naked man banged on my apartment door and then tried to get into the apartment across the hall before disappearing). When I called the local precinct, I was told that I had to call 911 first and be routed through if I wanted somebody to actually come out.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Shred
February 19, 2010 3:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
February 19, 2010 4:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hmm...now how much does Onstar cost?

if they just charged all residents a tax, wouldn't that significantly lower the cost per household? If it were, say, $5 tax per household I don't think anyone would be upset.

And they better be careful saying you get \"unlimited\" access, cuz I can imagine all the lonely folks who will call just to discuss the weather, or complain about the lack of barbecue sauce at McDonald's, etc.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
newsbunny
February 19, 2010 4:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can see charging people who make silly calls, like \"I have gum in my hair'.

But -- real emergencies? That's a lawsuit waiting to happen. The first time someone doesnt' call because they're having chest pains or whatever...my goodness. Suit o rama. And I won't blame the plaintiff.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ubermex
February 19, 2010 4:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would be mad, but it's not like they won't reverse this in less than 24 hours after it hits national news.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Underpants Gnome
February 19, 2010 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

According to a 911 dispatcher I talked to a while ago, upwards of 50% of all 911 calls in my area are people who sat on their cell phones. (Some brands dial 911 if you mash all the buttons). A $300 bill for shifting in your seat while driving by the wrong town seems a bit steep...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
MitchV
February 19, 2010 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is the part where an entrepreneur starts advertising a *new* and cheaper emergency number in the area... that number in turn will forward to the 911 service that the service pays $48 for each year.

Fear not Californians, I'm sure that Pelosi will tack on a rider to the next health-care reform bill so that other states can subsidize you and this 911 fee will go away.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Skellbasher
February 19, 2010 4:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There's a 911 fee on every telephone bill, landline or wireless, that is intended to pay for this.

No way this stands up to a legal challenge.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
DanKelley98
February 19, 2010 4:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What a week. School spies on kids at home through laptop webcams. Now Tracy, California wants to charge for 911 calls.

How do idiots get such power?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ianmac47
February 19, 2010 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So if you call from a pay phone, does the phone company get the bill?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dantsea
February 19, 2010 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Finally, the beginning of the end for all those oppressive socialist policies that are ruining America. Good work, citizen-lawmakers of Tracy! Good work.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
hamburglar
February 19, 2010 4:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If they give out a free t-shirt, perhaps it could say \"STOP SNITCHING - you can't afford it anyway.\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JWMcDonald
February 19, 2010 4:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just key in the Police and Fire department local phone numbers into your speed dial...don't use 911...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
tonberryqueen
February 19, 2010 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They won't dispatch from those numbers. 911 has to route you through. I know, because I used to call the local police precinct for issues in my neighborhood that I felt needed an officer to respond, but didn't constitute emergencies. (Painfully loud parties still going on at 3am, for instance. Or drunk people repeatedly attempting to get buzzed into my building.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
February 19, 2010 4:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That'll kill off good samaritans in a hurry. The local taxi service should see a nice uptick in ER visits though.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Crim Law Geek
February 19, 2010 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm by no means adept at the relevant regulations, but if memory serves, a lot of the equipment used in 911 call centers is paid for by the feds (using money from the FCC fees in your phone bill). I'd love to see this idiotic proposal get totally smacked down by the mighty hand of the Feds.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
JoJack82
February 19, 2010 4:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just imagine if you not only had to pay for the 911 call but also had to pay for the ensuing hospital visit.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
QuantumRiff
February 19, 2010 4:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Do they then loose all state and local telecom funding? I know on my phone bill, i have a 911 fee.

But really, fine people that call for non-emergencies, but you don't want to do what they are doing...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
KrispyKrink
February 19, 2010 4:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Reminds me of a scene written in Jennifer Government.

I guess the next time I pass through Tracy and I happen to see a crime in progress, a child being kidnapped, a woman being raped, I'll keep on going on my way and ignore the whole thing.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mobybvr
February 19, 2010 4:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you're in a car wreck, you will get billed for things like the ambulance ride to the hospital and cost to repair guide rails you dented. So why not bill people for 911 calls or for the cost of police stopping by to handle a domestic violence call?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
tonberryqueen
February 19, 2010 4:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

For some people, insurance will probably cover most or all of that. If they have no insurance and can't pay, the rest of us taxpayers will absorb that cost.

Besides, how would this work if, say, I happened to walk by somebody collapsed on the street and dialed 911? Would I get charged for helping them? Would they get charged because the call was about them? What if it wasn't really an emergency--they just fainted for a moment, for instance, and were fine after, but I'd called because they were unresponsive? What if somebody had already called it in and I didn't know it? (This last one almost happened to me two weeks ago. I was leaving a subway station, noticed somebody slumped against one set of doors on the ground, with nobody nearby or even glancing at him while walking by. I leaned down, asked him a few times if he was alright to no response, then pulled out my phone to call an ambulance. At that point, a transit employee came out, told me that an ambulance had already been called, and went back inside to keep blocking those doors.) Hell, what if I called because I found a guy on the ground with no pulse and needed the cops to come see the body?

Besides, I get charged a 911 fee on my cell phone bill each month. Isn't this what that's for?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
one800higgins
February 19, 2010 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wouldn't it make more sense to charge $300 for prank callers and not for legit calls? If I got in a car accident and called 911 to get an officer there, I would be PISSED about a $300 charge.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
A.Mercer
February 19, 2010 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What would happen if you lose your cell phone and some prankster makes a few thousand calls to 911 on it? Would you owe a million dollars? This kind of fee makes 911 prank calls more attractive to the pranksters. They now feel like they are getting back at an abusive system.

Payphones and per-minute, store bought cell phones. There is no way to trace these (if the user does things right). People could go out and slam 911 without much fear of being caught. They could easily do this now but there is not much point in it. There are some people out there who know that pranking 911 is even more fun since the city will be wanting its money and there is no one to collect from.

I can see this whole think leading to a ton of prank calls.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
oldwiz65
February 19, 2010 4:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So if you are from out of town and you see someone hit by a car, it will cost you $400 to call for help? How will they collect the money anyhow? Do you have to give your MasterCard/Visa number before the call will go through? Great - people die cause emergency services was delayed for credit card verification.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
flugennock
February 19, 2010 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Note to self: If I should ever happen to be in Tracy, California, and I should happen to see a city councilmember's house on fire, I'll grab some hot dogs and marshmallows instead of calling 911.

The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire!
We don't need no water, let the m@th3rf%ck3r burn!
Burn, m@th3rf%ck3r, burn!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
RevancheRM
February 19, 2010 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Law of Unitended Consequences: thay may be trying to reduce repeat/prank callers, but they'll also have the effect of causing legitimate users considerable pause when reporting issues not directly related to the caller.

\"Sorry, neighbor: I realize your wife has gone into labor and is already crowning, but I *just* cannot afford the $400 hit.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
tweeder82o
February 19, 2010 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

what happens if you...

call from a pay phone, or say a courtesy phone at the gym...

or

call directly to the police or fire station and have them dispatch from there...

or

drive like a maniac, to take your injured self or others to the hosital (no one dare to call 911 to report you if you do)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
cbutler
February 19, 2010 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Bullets are cheaper. Then I'd save even more by calling the non-emergency line to report a break in since its no longer an immediate 911 emergency.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
enomosiki
February 19, 2010 4:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Someone needs to set the town hall on fire right after the plan is passed.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Thora
February 19, 2010 5:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe they're doing this to discourage the amount of bogus 911 calls. Maybe if it costs $400 for each call then people won't call 911 when McDonald's gets their order wrong.

Still, despicable. Innocent people shouldn't be charged for emergency assistance.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
February 19, 2010 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This has got to be illegal somehow. The dispatchers are usually part of the town infrastructure and paid for with taxes. How can they legally further charge you separately from taxes for a public safety service.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Corinthos
February 19, 2010 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Pftt. Yeah I seen that woman being brutalized but I didn't want to pay 400 dollars so I went on my way.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
sisterfunkhaus
February 19, 2010 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe they should just start ticketing HUGE amounts people for non-emergency calls to 911. That might disuade people from making calls about chicken nuggets or to check the time.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
hansn
February 19, 2010 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is plainly a bad idea. So plain, in fact, I suspect there's an internal political struggle going on. It sounds to me like there was a disagreement on how to raise revenues, and someone's bluff got called. I can't imagine anyone thinking they were going to get re-elected with that sort of proposal.

911 service is probably the most popular service provided by government, in that people are probably more willing to pay taxes for 911 service than almost any other. It is, of course, an old political trick to fund less popular programs with existing taxes, then have a levy or new tax to fund the popular ones. King County (Seattle) used to do this with Medic One (the emergency medical services) program.

Many states also have a requirement that they make their phone available for reporting bona fide emergencies. I wonder if that is true in California.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
February 19, 2010 6:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The 2 linked articles are TERRIBLE. There's a more complete article in the \"Tracy Press\" that describes this as a fee for service when the fire department responds to medical emergencies and car accidents. This is pretty standard stuff for small EMS systems, the system my partner worked for before he started medical school billed people for ambulance service, especially if they were transported by the ambulance. In fact they used the same billing/data service, ADPI-Intermedix. As far as I know, the rural community where he worked did NOT offer the subscription option, it was strictly fee-for-service.

So, it's not a fee for CALLING 911, it's not a fee for having the police respond to crimes or people in distress, it's a fee for having paramedics treat you and/or transport you to a hospital.

http://www.tracypress.com/view/full_story/6376328/article-Council-chooses-paramedic-fee-collector?instance=home_news_bullets

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Economists Do It With Models
February 25, 2010 2:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I saw the local articles too- here's another one:

http://www.tracypress.com/view/full_story/6446617/article-Paramedic-fees-make-the-news-%E2%80%94-again?instance=home_news_bullets

But they don't entirely clear up the issue: \"Several people he talked to thought Tracy would pay up every time someone dialed 9-1-1. That’s not the case. They’re charged the fee only if the local fire department responds before an ambulance to a medical emergency.\"

That's nice, but can the person calling 911 control whether the fire department or ambulance shows up first? It seems like this clarification just changes the system to \"you might get charged $300 if you call 911,\" and the original problems still remain.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FrankReality
February 20, 2010 12:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I agree with you - this practice is actually fairly common. My local fire association (a non-profit volunteer fire department that covers a small town and the surrounding townships) charges $600 for a fire call or first responder call. Ambulance calls go to a private ambulance service on a fee for service basis - I have no idea how much they are, nor do I know the charge to send a medical chopper.

The county also has a fee for burglar alarm systems that call into the sheriff's department. False alarms get charged. Too many false alarms and the sheriff's department drops you from the system.

I also agree with some posters who mentioned a ticket for a false 911 call is a good idea.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Griking
February 19, 2010 6:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Don't our taxes pay for these services already?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
VRB
February 19, 2010 6:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is one of those situations where a bunch of people just say \"So pay the bill.\"

In reality, this should be funded by taxes and maybe some of these geniuses thinking up this pricing plans should give up their salary to pay for 911 calls.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
s017jrs
February 19, 2010 8:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So if I go visit that town can I pay them $0.13/day incase something happens during my stay, instead of the $400 for the year?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
s017jrs
February 19, 2010 8:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So if I go visit that town can I pay them $0.13/day in advance incase something happens during my stay, instead of the $400 for the year?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
alienaa
February 19, 2010 8:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

http://www.tracypress.com/view/full_story/6376328/article-Council-chooses-paramedic-fee-collector?instance=home_news_bullets

Apparently, the fee is applied if the fire dept is dispatched for a non-fire 911 call. The problem is that the firemen are usually first responders for all 911 calls. Property taxes already pay for things like fire & police (911 operators usually work under the Sheriff).

Too bad the residents couldnt apply the fees as a credit towards their annual property tax bills.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
diamondkim
February 19, 2010 9:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

1) I know that CA has huge budget issues, but how is this permissable?
2) Isn't this a state provided public service that we all pay as a monthly phone bill surcharge?
3) Have they considered the safety ramifications for when people don't call to report emergency situations due to their refusal or inability to pay?
4) How about only charging those who abuse 9-1-1 (like these people http://www.oddee.com/item_96669.aspx)?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
theadtraylor
February 19, 2010 9:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is this the new public option of health insurance?

If there's an emergency at my place, I will just walk to the fire station a block away and ask for help.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
nacoran
February 19, 2010 9:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I guess I won't be calling 911 (from the passenger seat) when I see drunk drivers on the road.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jay911
February 19, 2010 9:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As you might be able to tell by my userid, I work in the system (but not for that city). I don't agree with billing ALL callers, but certainly there is a need to deal with some of the nuisance callers, like the ones mentioned in the comments such as the ones complaining about their fast food not getting done right/on time. It's definitely not a favorite of all of us - we already have people holding off on calling for an ambulance because they're afraid of paying the bill, we don't need people putting off getting help in a life- or property-threatening emergency because they fear the invoice from 9-1-1. At the same time, it would be nice if we could deter the people who call in the total BS. It might also help with the people who phone in and say \"I saw a car in the ditch 25 minutes ago and I think they had a crash\" - well did you stop and check on them? \"No, I just thought about calling you now, but it's really not a usual place to stop!\" So we send an ambulance and rescue out for the \"car crash\" which turns out to be a guy whose radiator overheated and he's waiting for a tow truck.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
February 19, 2010 11:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The fee is for the ambulance run and/or paramedic services rendered, not for calling 911. The Consumerist posting is based on the two awful articles they linked, Tracy's local paper has a more reasonable description of the fee.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
TardCore
February 19, 2010 10:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If they are going to charge they better stop charging my the ridiculous fees on my monthly phone bills. Double dipping? WTF?

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Elphaba
February 20, 2010 12:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

A couple of years ago, I walked into my split level house. Upon entering, there was a massive crash upstairs. The cats had greeted me on the landing, so I knew they didn't cause the crash. I walked out of my house, locked the door, and called 911. The police walked across the street from the station, but by the time they got there, I realized that the HOA was working on the roof, unannounced, which was the cause of the crash. The police officer asked if he could do the search just in case, and he was training a new officer. I consented, even though my house was a mess.

I shouldn't have to worry about a $400 bill for something which my taxes are already paying for. I shouldn't be worried about a huge bill when I need help. When I called 911, I was very concerned someone was upstairs. What I would have done would be to search my house myself, a very dangerous proposition when you think someone who doesn't belong there is in your house.

More people will drive loved ones to the hospital rather than calling an ambulance, costing people needed emergency treatment en route to the hospital. My car isn't equipped to dispense Oxygen, something many people on the way to the hospital need. Now I have no problems with cities charging for the Ambulance ride, but to charge for the police or fire to come to your house is insane. Here, even the ambulance responding and checking someone out, say after a car accident doesn't incur a bill.

I call 911 on occasion when I see a car accident or other problem while driving. I'll tell you right now that would stop if I was getting the bill. Who would get the bill in that case, the person who caused the accident, or the person who called it in?

This is a tax on emergency services, something already paid for with taxes. Also, is the $48 per household or per line? Would my family pay $48 total, or $144 as we have 3 phone lines?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
dg
February 20, 2010 12:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Isn't this something that's supposedly covered by local tax revenues? I'd charge them if the call was FALSE, but not for a genuine emergency... That's just ludicrous...

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
duncanblackthorne
February 20, 2010 2:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This can't be legal.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JamieSueAustin
February 20, 2010 3:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I know bogus calls are a problem. In my life I've called 911 three times, once for a friend who was non-responsive, once for a missing child, and once 911 was called for me (so I'll own that one.) I've had the police show up to my door for 911 calls I DIDN'T make three times. It happened three days in a row. They were very pissed, but as my son was still an infant and I was the only one home, I couldn't fathom how the calls came from my location, unless maybe it was a switch board issue at the phone company. I called the phone company to have them look into it and asked the officer to contact 911 and make sure my phone number corresponded with my address. It didn't happen again after that.

Reasonably, a person shouldn't have to use 911 services often. A 2 call per year limit seems a reasonable way to dissuade prank calls. Past 2 calls there should be a charge for any non-life threatening emergency. That way the city can gain revenue from those who are actually wasting city funds with their Chicken McNuggets.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
DCS
February 22, 2010 10:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow. There's nothing like crappy reporting with absolutely no fact checking to stir up the hornet's nest, is there? Channel 13 should have it's broadcast license revoked.

First and foremost, there is NO CHARGE FOR DIALING 9-1-1. Period. Free call. End of conversation. (Yes, there's a small monthly per-line fee on the order of 1 dollar or something, but there has been for years, everywhere in the US. Its not a per-use fee.)

The costs discussed are for a medical RESPONSE from the fire department. Further, the cost is billed to the individual's insurance, not the individual. I can't find the actual legislation that I'm sure is required to put this in place, but from the Tracy City Council agenda dated 5/19/2009 (http://www.ci.tracy.ca.us/uploads/fckeditor/File/city_council/agendas/2009/05/19/06.pdf) here are a few pertinent snippets.

======
While billing insurance companies for fire services will help ease the financial pressure on the
Fire Department, the program does not seek to recover costs from citizens or business owners
themselves. The billing company sends a courtesy copy of the fee invoice to individuals for whom
service was provided, but this is only to inform the individual the Fire Department has billed their
insurance provider. For individuals with health insurance, their companies will be billed at a flat
rate of $300.00 for medical 9-1-1 calls. In the event of motor vehicle accidents, auto insurance
coverage for fire service is included in most policies.
Exceptions to the billing program include fees not assessed to insurance companies for structure
fires in single-family homes. In addition, those on Medicaid or Medicare, or those without health
insurance, will not be billed for medical 9-1-1 calls involving Fire Department personnel.
...
Those households that sign up for the $48 annual membership fee will have the costs of
any fire department EMS response covered through their membership fee.
================

Sheesh.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
DEVO
February 23, 2010 12:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That's awesome. I definitely want to think twice about saving a strangers life.

Reply
","");