From my understanding of the situation, that original article isn't accurate at all. The family lived in an area (outside the city limits) that doesn't have a fire department. None of their taxes went to a fire department. They had the option of paying the $75 annual fee to have the city fire department be available to them if necessary. They were sent letters and were also called about the situation, and they chose not to pay the fee. The family got fair warning.
The general premise has been true for twenty years in that area -- it was not a surprise to them. Apparently, a similar situation happened within the past few years in the area, and still the family chose not to pay the fee. The homeowner was quoted as saying something like, "I thought they would put out the fire anyway even if I didn't pay the fee." The city gave the analogy that you can't call an auto insurance company and say you want insurance after you've had a car accident.
I think one can certainly discuss whether one should have the right to decline fire coverage, or whether fire coverage should be an expectation as to part of the way your taxes should be spent, but I don't think it's legitimate to imply (as I think the first article does) that the family was misled in any way.
"What was the name of that cheese that I like?"
"you can't run away forever...but there's nothing wrong with getting a good head start"
"well I hope and I pray, that maybe someday, you'll walk in the room with my heart"
