I suspect you would find services limited in the middle of the Arabian desert as well.
The United States is enormous and many parts of it are incredibly sparsely populated. For example, Niobrara County in Wyoming has a population of 2,467 and an area of 6,810 km^2, or a population density of 0.36/km^2.
For comparison, the Northern Borders province, the least dense province in Saudi Arabia, has as population density of 3.4/km^2, almost ten times more people per square kilometer.
People outside of the US really have no idea how empty much of the country is. I think there's an assumption that just because much of the land is livable (i.e. not desert, bare rock, etc.), it must occupied. But that's simply not the case here.
Then perhaps the core issue is zoning land properly and making sure people don't spread out too thin.
That being said, the locality in question sounds very much like the low density suburban locale that I'm currently living in. It costs a pretty penny for the government to maintain services here, since there are only about 100 homes in an area at the edge of the desert (which at a rate of 75 per home per month as stated in the article wouldn't be able to cover a basic firefighting service). Of course, that does not bother the government in providing funds for everything from a local police station, hospital (yes, not a clinic), fire station, municipality, garbage collection, etc. The only thing missing (for the local Arabs mostly) is a government school, but then folks with families don't bother with it.
I could draw a similar example of my place in India, which has similar low density characteristics, and to make matters worse, is located in a hilly part of the district, but that doesn't stop the govt. from providing a local police force and fire fighting service complete with a helicopter.
Some amenities are basic needs that if you don't receive, then what the hell are you paying taxes for? Freedoms per second?
And no, I'm not a stranger to America's vast landscape. The fact stands that there should have been better zoning - or don't expect any facility at all, but don't make news out of it.
On a side note, the main link of this thread quotes the example of insurance companies in London in the 1830s, who would compensate each other in case their firefighters took action on fires not in their jurisdiction. If our forebears had such sensible foresight and collective responsibility, then why not America today?
Or you could just let people live where they want to live and make sure they are aware of and agree to the consequences of that choice, which it sounds like they were in this case.
> If our forebears had such sensible foresight and collective responsibility, then why not America today?
Seems like you're generalizing an awful lot from one random news article that is news largely by virtue of the fact that what it describes is unusual.
I think there is a difference between a remote place that is difficult to access and a place that is not entitled to use public firefighters' service. IMHO the former has no bearing on the latter.
I am not judging the way things work in the US, just commenting that I don't think that population density is relevant here as the issue is one of right.
Now, of course, if you live 100 miles from the nearest town it may well take hours for the police or firefighters to show up when you call them. That's another issue.
Edit: I must have written something offensive without realising it...
> I don't think that population density is relevant here as the issue is one of right.
It is absolutely relevant because services can only be logistically and economically viable at certain levels of density. Fire services aren't very useful if it takes them a two-hour drive to reach the fire. So they have a maximum radius where they are useful. They only provide value to the people within that radius. If the density is too low, then there aren't enough people in there to afford supporting fire services.
Public services are not expected to be 'economically viable' on their own. Moreover, whether there are enough people to support service is also a purely administrative and political issue.
You're not addressing my point, either, which is that there is a big difference between getting a crap service because you're hard to reach (which does happen including here in Europe) and having no right to call for help in the first place.
Again, I am not criticising, I am just thinking that there are different, separate issues here.
> Public services are not expected to be 'economically viable' on their own.
They inherently are. If these neighborhoods have fire coverage equivalent to that of a metropolis, but they would be paid for via taxation at the rate of $50K per year per household, that's not economically viable.
Public services are socialised. This means that every single person is not expected to pay as much in tax as necessary to pay for all the services they use. The aim is only that this be the case on average.
So in general people who live is more isolated houses end up being effectively subsidised by everyone else.
In your example the 'problem' stems from a tax base that is too narrow because of administrative and political choices.
In any case, that is NOT the point of my previous comments.
Much of the Midwest is sparsely populated but not unpopulated - you’re never more than a half mile from a house but never much closer than that. It can cause weird servicing issues.
State and local governments aren't exempt from tort laws, etc. If they commit to service a location 100 miles away, and can't practically do so, or someone gets hurt in trying to make heroic efforts to do so, they can and will get sued. And in such a suit, making that sort of unrealistic commitment can and will be held against them.
I don't think that this is how it works (paying taxes doesn't entitle to a level of service) but I admit I don't know US law.
As a side note, in this very case the issue wasn't remoteness since they could have had access to firefighters for a small annual fee. Rather it was a legal and administrative issue. But I would indeed be curious if voluntarily paying a fee rather then being taxed can have an impact on any enforceable expectation of service.
The United States is enormous and many parts of it are incredibly sparsely populated. For example, Niobrara County in Wyoming has a population of 2,467 and an area of 6,810 km^2, or a population density of 0.36/km^2.
For comparison, the Northern Borders province, the least dense province in Saudi Arabia, has as population density of 3.4/km^2, almost ten times more people per square kilometer.
People outside of the US really have no idea how empty much of the country is. I think there's an assumption that just because much of the land is livable (i.e. not desert, bare rock, etc.), it must occupied. But that's simply not the case here.