Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Nevada Governor to Bill Fossett Widow For Search

Posted by timothy on Thu May 01, 2008 04:10 PM
from the don't-forget-to-tip-your-searcher dept.
The Almighty Buck Space
sonchat writes with news that Nevada's "Gov. Jim Gibbons intends to bill the widow of missing multimillionaire adventurer Steve Fossett for $687,000 the state spent in searching for the famed aviator last fall, a spokesman said." Though in some places charging for the cost of a search effort is routine, apparently in Nevada it is not.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Steve Fossett Declared Dead 221 comments
Parallax Blue writes "Millionaire adventurer Steve Fossett, who risked his life seeking to set records in high-tech balloons, gliders and jets, was declared dead Friday, 5 months after he vanished while flying in an ordinary small plane. The self-made business tycoon, who in 2002 became the first person to circle the world solo in a balloon, was last seen Sept. 3 after taking off in a single-engine plane from an airstrip near Yerington, Nev., heading toward Bishop, Calif. He was 63."
Submission: Nevada governor to bill Fossett widow for search by sonchat (819093)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Nevada Governor to Bill Fossett Widow For Search 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • It is? Really?

    Seriously, though, this is exceptionally lame. "We tried to find your husband.... and, uh, we didn't. All those helicopters, you know those aren't free..."
    • Some states and cities are getting that attitude.

      Case in point, where I used to live, most of the county's traffic went through one particular city. The main road through that city was actually, at one time, one of the 10 most accident-prone roads in the US.

      So, the city attempted to have a bill introduced: If you didn't have a registered residential address in that city, and you were involved in the accident (not even at fault, just involved) the total costs for the Sheriff's Dept., EMS, Fire Rescue,
      • In my state (Washington) even if you are a resident of the city where you have an accident, the Fire Department is entitled to bill you for services rendered--this when you pay property taxes to support the fire department.
        • The proper response is to stop funding them and let them run themselves like a business, then. I'm no libertarian, but when they try to be both a tax-supported service and a business enterprise - well, screw them.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by ultranova (717540)

              When an actual fire occurs, they bill it to the responsible party, if any, and typically it would be covered by fire insurance.

              So basically, if a fire occurs, my best bet is to not call the fire department but try to put it out myself, which of course risks having it spread and burn down half the city.

              Oh, and since the insurance company wants profits, I'll end up paying more than if I just funded the fire department completely through the taxes. A lovely setup. Clearly libertarian in origin.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SatanicPuppy (611928) *
        I'd consider that more of a grey area. Those people are paid specifically for traffic enforcement, cleanup, maintenance, etc, and the people who are in the accidents are liable for damages (through their insurance), and are on the road where they are supposed to be.

        In cases like this where someone gets themselves lost, it's a lot less clear-cut. The state usually puts forth a ton of effort to find these people, and often they end up eating thousands of dollars of rescue costs racked up by some joker who did

              • Now, I put in crazy hours (80-100 hour weeks) and I *earned* that money

                There's the problem. The only way we're going to improve the economy, is if people stop producing and working so much. If you work twice as much as a 40-hour-a-week person, you should be punished for it, by paying more tax instead of less.

                It's the economy, stupid!

                Here's the kicker, though. I spend maybe 1 or 2 days a week in my state, and I spend the rest of the time traveling.

                If you can time travel, I'm not surprised you only s

              • Dude, you seriously need to fire your accountant. Nobody pays 50% income tax any more. And why on earth is your legal residence in a high-tax state if you're hardly ever there? George Bush the First has his legal residence in Texas (no state income tax at all) where he hardly ever goes any more. The cute part is that his legal residence is a hotel room where he hasn't stayed for years.

                Now, to answer your question "why the fuck are you taxing me". Well, OK, maybe you deserve free search and rescue. But only
    • So you're advocating a sliding scale based on how much of him they found? Would you be arguing for them to pay if he HAD been found?

      Those searches are insanely expensive, and 99% of the time they're needed because the person who gets lost fails to take precautions.

      There is a point at which you need to take some responsibility for your own safety. You need to make sure people know where you're going, you need to make sure you can be found. Fossett did none of that, and cost the state a bundle looking for him
      • > So you're advocating a sliding scale based on how much of him they found?

        We found him, ma'm; that will be 500,000.

        Or, for 400,000, we could cut off a leg.
        • It's almost a truism that whenever a children get lost, more people die trying to find the children than there are children to be found.

          Just human nature.
    • Especially since he didn't die. He flew off and then faked his own death for the insurance money.
      he now lives on an island with Elvis, Jims Hendrix and Morrisson, Tupac, and Steve Irwin.

      • ...lives on an island with Elvis, Jims Hendrix and Morrisson, Tupac, and Steve Irwin

        Where they party every night with Herve Villechaize.

    • They could at least give some sort of money back guarantee, or work on contingency like lawyers do.

      "Okay, here's the deal. We'll go look for your husband, and you don't have to pay us anything unless we find him. But if do find him, we get one third of his estate."

      As far as she knows, they could have just flown some helicopters aimlessly around the desert for a couple of weeks and billed her for it. If the guy wasn't a billionaire, I doubt the idea of charging for the search would have ever entered their
      • Then the poor family is stuck trying to figure out if they want him found or not, and the state has no motive to look hard, because they're not likely to get their money back.

        In states that don't charge for rescues, the usual argument is that people wouldn't call if they needed rescue because they wouldn't want to pay. My thought is, if they REALLY needed rescue, they'd call.
        • The state's motive to look hard is that the emergency services are taxpayer funded and the taxpayers want to know that if they get in trouble, the emergency services will do their best to help them. If the state is going to be checking your credit before they decide to rescue you, then emergency services are useless. You would be faced with the choice of either not getting rescued or being faced with a bill that for most people would ruin them financially.
          • For the amount of searching that Fossett got, from a state where he didn't live, and didn't pay taxes, I'm finding it hard to be sympathetic. If you or I got lost, we'd never rate a million dollar search effort.

            Privilege has its price.

      • I don't think you are too far off the mark on this.

        According to Wikipedia (which is always right) they found 8 previously unknown (but non Fossett) crash sites while they were looking for him. It seems like they don't look very hard if they guy isn't rich.
    • Why not? You do something risky, why should the rest of us be on the hook for your rescue costs? Which occur whether the rescue succeeds or not. As TFA says, the state is short of cash. If they don't ask Mrs. Fossett for the money, it comes out of state programs or taxes. Considering the fact that the sum in question is a small percentage of the estate, and a fraction of what Fossett spent on any one of his many expensive stunts, I call this an ethical no-brainer.
    • This is a real douchebag move. I remember when Fossett disappeared, the search and rescue team was telling everyone that Fossett wasn't getting special treatment, that anyone lost in the desert would get the same treatment.

      But a $600000 bill? Would just anyone lost in the desert get a bill, or is it because the widow can afford it? If Fossett wasn't getting treated differently during the search, he shouldn't be treated differently now.
  • This is just plain awful. I'm sure she's going through enough without this added on top of everything. Shouldn't be charging anybody, especially the widow.
    • I live in Nevada, so I think my opinion ought to count for something.

      Not to be heartless, but the guy was known for adventuring -- or in other words -- endangering his own life for thrills. He flaunted standard safety protocols for entertainment, and lost his life for it.

      And lets not forget he had the financial resources to undertake these adventures.

      Even in death, he should pay to clean up the mess he left.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Arcane_Rhino (769339)
        While I think you have some legitimate points, lets not forget that, unless the state contracted outside of its normal search and rescue crews, the resources to search for the guy were already functioning and operational.

        I would be curious to see how much additional expense was really accrued. The fact that the money to pay for the operation (fuel, wear and tear on equipment, salaries, etc) came from the "Search and Rescue" budget (I do not really know their specific accounting practices) rather than the

    • Well, Saddam Hussein billed executionee's families for bullets used to put them down...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by R2.0 (532027)
      You are reacting to the flame-y headline. It should have read that Fosset's ESTATE would be billed. The guy had a metric fuckton of money - it's not like she's some woebegone character handling her husbands affairs alone.

  • I can understand... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tamuct01 (726718) on Thursday May 01 2008, @04:20PM (#23268286) Homepage
    ...if this was some wild goosechase. I mean that if you fraudulently sent the Police, etc. looking for someone, then you should be billed for it. But if it was a legitimate missing persons/accident, etc. as it appears to be in Fossett's case, then the next of kin should not be billed for the expense.
  • It just seems ridiculous to be billed for a matter you had no control over. Who makes the judgement call on how big of a search party and how long to look for? I have a hard time believing this is going to actually end up happening. Unless someone makes a habit of getting lost and repeatedly needing to be rescued, it should remain a taxpayer funded service.
    • Dear customer,

      Your letter was lost in the mail. We searched and searched, but didn't find it. As a result, we're going to bill you for half a billion dollars. If we find the letter and discover any money in it, we'll keep that that as well. And if there's anything blackmailable in it...

  • Widow of missing multimillionaire adventurer Steve Fosset IS NOW MISSING TOO

    State agencies are mounting a search party, in part because she's lost, but more importantly because she's lost and still owes them money.

    There are reports coming in that their children, legal heirs to property and debts, are also believed missing.
  • While I'm sure this woman has the money to cover this just from control of assets, I don't like the precedent it sets; what if this happens to someone that CAN'T foot the bill?

    Losing someone is strike one. Having to pay for the search is strike two. All of that happening AND being in debt for the rest of your life? That's not tolerable, in my opinion... and I have no faith in any government - national or local - to see through the red tape for people that can't necessarily handle the cost.
    • They're only asking, because she can pay. If she couldn't pay, they wouldn't be asking.
    • I go hiking a lot in Colorado - so I purchased theColorado Outdoor Recreation Search and Rescue [state.co.us] card.

      In Colorado at least, if they have to come looking for you, you DO get billed for search costs. The card insures that search costs are paid by the fund, not you - and it costs only $12 every five years! They state on the page tself it's not insurance, but search costs can get expensive and this means a world of dfference for someone like you say who may not be well off.

      You can't just have search costs be
  • Don't have to be powerful.

    All planes and boats should have one.

    And every outdoor adventurer should use one too.

     

    • Don't have to be powerful.

      All planes and boats should have one.

      And every outdoor adventurer should use one too.
      I believe Steve had a watch based personal locator beacon, although people were not sure if he had it on him.

      -Em

  • Due to the large amount of wealth that this family has access to, I don't see a problem here. If it was someone else without access to such large resources, I could understand this being a problem. They can definitely afford it. After all, what was the guy doing? Recreational flying.
    • So, you're saying the bill should be proportional to the wealth? So it's ok to give you a $1000 bill if your wife goes missing? A $10,000 bill if the husband in the big house up the hill goes missing? A $1,000,000,000 bill if Bill G goes missing?

      Fuck that. The law should treat people equally, independent of their money. That's the idea we should be striving for at least. Fucking over a widow just because she has cash is really low.
  • Well, she can obviously afford it now, can't she?

    Seriously though, what kind of brain dead cop would do something like this? You can't ask for worse press than billing a widow for the loss of her husband!
  • Welcome to capitalism, baby.

    But seriously, if she pays the bill, she should also bill them (or sue for) an amount for services rendered; as I recall, numerous other crashes and oddities were uncovered in the search, despite not finding Fossett.

  • In other news (Score:5, Funny)

    by fireman sam (662213) on Thursday May 01 2008, @04:44PM (#23268586) Homepage Journal
    The US government has decided to send the $3Trillion bill to Iraq for the search and rescue of the weapons of mass destructions (WMDs) even though the lost WMDs were never located.

    • I mean, how often does anybody actually survive a plane crash?
      Statistically speaking based on all recorded airplane crashes, you have roughly 50% chance of survival. Those odds go down if you are in the front of the plane (about 40% survival rate) vs back of the place (about 60%) - makes you think twice about that first class seat, doesn't it.

    • There are many different ways in which a plane can crash, they don't all involve a high-speed death spiral into the ground from 30,000ft. Even in the case of total engine failure, a plane basically just becomes a glider, which isn't an inherently uncontrollable craft. A competent pilot would likely be able to control their descent reasonably well in such a case, and even make a good safe landing if an appropriate stretch of ground is nearby. But if you happen to be flying over mountains or something else un

    • I mean, how often does anybody actually survive a plane crash?
      It depends on how you define crash. If you hit hard and break your landing gear and prop, is that a crash? Flip a Piper Cub over at 10 mph? Neither `crash' is likely to kill people.

      In any event, nobody knew if Fossett crashed. At the time, the hope was that he'd landed somewhere and was having a hard time getting somebody to find him (though his ELT should prevent that.)

    • That I feel I'm confident enough in my ability to survive most situations. Enough so that I would rather they not send a search party out for me, cause if I don't show up in a day or two, then I'm dead, and they are wasting money.

      There are a lot of cases where people are found after a week or two still alive (sometimes barely) - The recent case of that CNET editor comes to mind - his family was found after a few weeks, and he would have survived if he stayed with them too. But if they would have called off search - they would have all died. I wonder if they were billed for the rescue...

      Anyway, you might want to give up on yourself after a few days, but if *I* am LOST, just keep on searching. I could care less how much it costs.

      -Em

    • Oh please. Can you make food magically appear, no matter where you are?
    • Yes, it makes perfect sense to charge non-residents for things like this in a state where the vast majority of the economy is based on tourism. I'd certainly be more likely to take a vacation somewhere if I knew I'd get a huge bill from the government if I got lost.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lgw (121541)

      What's next, getting a bill from the police for investigating a crime done against you?

      Funny you should mention that: back when I used to delvier pizza for a living, I would get robbed and/or assaulted on a somewhat regular basis. On one occasion, I returned to the store still bleeding to encounter a police officer leaving the store with his free pizza. He called me and my manager idiots for delivering to that neighborhood, and wrote me a ticket for expired license plates. I got the bill, but the investigation: not so much.

      You can imagine my opinion on the police.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.