I'm all for it, why should I pay to protect some Californian's vacation house built in an extremely fire prone area? Granted I'd prefer a local tax vs. private firm.
By the way I've seen the neighborhoods being protected, and there isn't anything "Mc" about those mansions.
Comments (6)
Well, when you can't depend upon a prompt response from the National Guard, I guess you innovate and actually do something.
Posted by godfry | August 23, 2007 1:50 PM
Is this that new "umbrella/hydrant" McMansion-owners policy?
Posted by genop | August 23, 2007 3:09 PM
How do you keep up with all this esoteric stuff?
Posted by mrfearless47 | August 23, 2007 7:50 PM
I'm all for preventing fire damage to property.
But I don't like where this seems to be headed:
Allstate taking over public functions like Fire Departments, not to mention Security and Police, etc.
Private company unaccountable to citizens becoming literally All of the State.
Posted by Sam | August 23, 2007 9:42 PM
"Private company unaccountable to citizens becoming literally All of the State."
ANd protecting the Property of only those who are Current on their Premiums.
Posted by Sam | August 23, 2007 9:43 PM
I'm all for it, why should I pay to protect some Californian's vacation house built in an extremely fire prone area? Granted I'd prefer a local tax vs. private firm.
By the way I've seen the neighborhoods being protected, and there isn't anything "Mc" about those mansions.
Posted by steve | August 24, 2007 9:03 AM