Don't pay fees? Fireman watch your house burn... problem?

[sillysod]

tennesse huh? hahaha

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee.

Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat.

"They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.


The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.

"We wasn't on their list," he said the operators told him.
Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he "forgot" to pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee.

Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out.

His offer wasn't accepted, he said.
The fire fee policy dates back 20 or so years.

"Anybody that's not inside the city limits of South Fulton, it's a service we offer. Either they accept it or they don't," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker.

The fire department's decision to let the home burn was "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association representing firefighters.

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee.

"They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn," Cranick said.
South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.
Cranick, who is now living in a trailer on his property, says his insurance policy will help cover some of his lost home.

"Insurance is going to pay for what money I had on the policy, looks like. But like everything else, I didn't have enough." <- HUH?

After the blaze, South Fulton police arrested one of Cranick's sons, Timothy Allen Cranick, on an aggravated assault charge, according to WPSD-TV, an NBC station in Paducah, Ky.

Police told WPSD that the younger Cranick attacked Fire Chief David Wilds at the firehouse because he was upset his father's house was allowed to burn.

WPSD-TV reported that Wilds was treated and released.

[dj_rice]

I'm on the fence on this one

[kertejud2]

I'm sure the residents of South Fulton are relieved that their tax dollars didn't go to putting a fire out at somebody else's house. I for one applaud the fiscal conservatism displayed by what is usually a remarkably socialist institution such as the fire department. Dollars before sense I always say.

[TomcoPDR]

It's like car insurance, you just can't pay on the spot when you actually get into an accident.

[Type_S1]

On one side I think letting someones house burn is ridiculous...but so is not paying $75 for fire safety

[jaysas_63]

this is ridiculous....am i the only one that thinks this fire dept is a stone throw away from a protection racket??

these guys are a disgrace

[mazdavirgin]

Couple problems...

First it is ethically unconscionable to have shown up and not attempted to put out the fire. Even refusing to show up to put out the fire is of questionable ethics seeing the mandate of the fire department and the fact that fires spread they don't just affect one person. Plus the residence was in theory occupied since they allowed the family pets to burn to death.

Two where do you draw the line? Do you also want to pay the police service an insurance fee in case they have to show up when your house is being robbed? Starts sounding a lot like protection money.

Three pay for fire service was tried in the 1700's in england and well it was found that the firemen were going out and setting fires and watching whole neighborhoods burn down. Fire service just like immunizations should be mandatory for everyone since it has an impact on not just you but your neighbors.

[kenny]

The good news? I bet everyone else that was in arrears paid up their $75.

[psycoticclown]

Now what if there was a baby inside and those assholes stood around and watched as everything burned down? Fire coverage should be something that is covered and mandatory. Standing there and looking on is ridiculous. If they got there earlier and put out the fire, they probably would have done less work in the end anyways as the neighbors place would have been fine too. Easier to put out a small blaze then to stand around and watch until it grows huge and then try to put the bigger fire out

[TomcoPDR]

Originally posted by psycoticclown
Fire coverage should be something that is covered and mandatory.

He lived outside the "mandatory" fire coverage limits.

who lives outside the city limits, admits he "forgot" to pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by TomcoPDR
He lived outside the &quot;mandatory&quot; fire coverage limits.

Homeless people don't pay taxes should we deny them medical coverage and police service?

[Hakkola]

Just wrong. Letting a house burn is fucked up, animals died, and what if there were people inside? I'm fine with the 75 dollar fee, but maybe instead of letting a house burn they should charge the owner of a property to recoup all the costs of the trip for the fire department.

Guy is an idiot for not paying the fee but I still feel that this was a shitty move by the fire dept.

[jaysas_63]

Originally posted by TomcoPDR


He lived outside the &quot;mandatory&quot; fire coverage limits.

are you playing devils advocate, or do you actually believe it's just for a firefighter to watch a mans home burn to the ground with his loved ones inside??

[Mibz]

If you want devil's advocate, ask yourself what would have happened if a paying person's house burnt down because the FD was too busy putting out a non-payers fire.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by dj_rice
I'm on the fence on this one

Ditto.

They lived outside the town, knowing their county doesn't have a fire dept., and they didn't pay the fee if they knew they had to. A fee that has been around for 20 years, and you could pretty much call fire insurance. It isn't the towns fault that the county doesn't have it's own department, or an agreement between the county itself and the town, not individual people.

I could be wrong, but I was always under the assumption that a firefighters first and foremost job was to stop a fire from spreading, not to save one house and it's contents. The whole inception of a fire dept. was so entire cities wouldn't burn to the ground.

I feel bad for the animals though

[TomcoPDR]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


Homeless people don't pay taxes should we deny them medical coverage and police service?

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


Ditto.

They lived outside the town, knowing their county doesn't have a fire dept., and they didn't pay the fee if they knew they had to. A fee that has been around for 20 years, and you could pretty much call fire insurance. It isn't the towns fault that the county doesn't have it's own department, or an agreement between the county itself and the town, not individual people.

I could be wrong, but I was always under the assumption that a firefighters first and foremost job was to stop a fire from spreading, not to save one house and it's contents. The whole inception of a fire dept. was so entire cities wouldn't burn to the ground.

I feel bad for the animals though

[jaysas_63]

Originally posted by Mibz
If you want devil's advocate, ask yourself what would have happened if a paying person's house burnt down because the FD was too busy putting out a non-payers fire.

it wouldn't have bothered me as much if the fire dept refused to come on site, because they didn't want to use their resources for a un-paying house... but rather they were already ON SITE, and stood there and watched their neighbors house burn to the ground. the use of resources, man power, and time would have been virtually identical if they had just turned on the hose sooner and spray the house rather than just stand around, and wait to spray the fence.

what this shows is not only a fucked up system that doesn't provide what in my opinion is a necessary service to all citizens, but rather a utter lack of humanity, and decency of those individual firefighters who just stood their and watched there neighbors house burn down.

[SKR]

I'm on another messageboard where this is being discussed. Here's what I remember, bear in mind I'm not a fact checker so this might not be 100% accurate.

- The fee has been in place in the region for 20 years
- Several times, alternatives have been proposed and rejected by the residents in favor of the current system
- This isn't the first time it's happened
- This person has been a resident for 16 years
- This isn't the first time he "forgot" to pay the fee
- He also didn't have enough insurance to cover his losses, so he's potentially just cheap
- By the time the fire department got there it would have been too late to save the house, and probably too late to save the pets

My opinion is you can only help someone so much. He had every opportunity to protect himself from this situation and chose not to. I can't imagine living in a place where emergency services aren't automatic, but this is the way that these people wanted to live.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by TomcoPDR

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


Homeless people don't pay taxes should we deny them medical coverage and police service?

Homeless people don't "forget" to pay their taxes, they don't have any legitimate income to pay it, and even if they did, the first 7 grand or so is tax exempt. Besides, in the USA, they DON'T get health care or much at all in the way of police protection.

We aren't talking about Canada, nor are we talking about a brand new introduction of this fee. It's been around for 20 years. Canada has laws that protect every ones home from fire, the US doesn't, if the people in that county wanted a different system, they would have changed it long ago.

[S4maniac]

Ya, so how about if the owner opted out, put out the fire then make the owner liable for the entire cost of the fire plus "admin" costs? If the owner doesn't pay, put it on title plus interest.

No matter how much info the owner ignored ... how can anyone let a house burn with animals, or worse, people inside?

So just wondering .. how could anyone even get fire insurance without informing the insurance company of even a chance of firefighting assistance?