A Question of Responsibility
Friday, July 18th, 2008 By James Nesbitt
Residents of Hunters Ridge Apartment Complex in Toledo, which was destroyed on July 5th in a fire caused by burning fireworks that landed on the roof, have received some good news. From the Toledo Blade:
The 200 people left homeless by the Hunters Ridge apartment fire could be eligible for up to $40,000 in low-interest federal loans to help replace lost furniture and appliances.
…according to the Greater Toledo Area Chapter of the American Red Cross, 122 apartments were burned and only 12 percent of the occupants had renter’s insurance.
This development is no doubt helpful to the former residents of the complex, and their situation is tragic. They truly are innocent victims in this situation. However, that should not exempt them from the responsibility to protect their own assets. An entire industry has developed in this country to help property owners protect their assets from theft, natural disasters, and random fate. It’s called the insurance industry.
Many argue that exceptions should be made for these individuals due to their low levels of income. It’s the compassionate thing to do, after all. This is where the issue of charity comes in: when is it proper for government to use public funds from the treasury to engage in charitable acts? This story reminds me of a similar historical event to which I made reference only two weeks ago. Representative and Colonel David Crockett voted to give victims of a fire in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Georgetown funds from the treasury “to relieve [the] suffering women and children.” He deemed the disbursement proper because the treasury was “full and overflowing.” He later realized that government should not be in the business of charity, as it saps tax money from citizens just as destitute as those to whom the money is given. Instead, he advocated private charity by those in a position to give (for instance, the comparably wealthy representatives).
The Toledo story differs from this example, because the former residents are receiving loans which must be repaid. However, these borrowers are given reduced interest rates, described by the Small Business Administration itself (which provides the loans) as “below market rates.” Rates for some borrowers are limited to a maximum of 4%, which doesn’t even keep up with the current rate of inflation. In other words, taxpayers absorb the expense of a poor return-on-investment. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay the costs of other citizens’ failure to protect their own personal property, no matter how tragic their story.
