Firefighters let man's home burn down over $75 fee.

[Guest 731david]

I can see both sides of the story & I'm one of those right wing nuts who believe everyone should carry thier own weight, but I ain't gonna park my ass in front of a mans house in a fire truck & watch it burn to the ground...

[mikegideon]

I've already said that they should have done what they could, and sort the money out later. With that said...

It was a mobile home. I haven't watched one burn in a few years, but they can go up fast. I'm sure the newer ones have some fire retardant stuff in their construction. But, they're still going to burn a lot faster than real studs and drywall. My guess is that the place was gone by the time they got there. It may have been gone within their normal response time. We have news folks involved, and with that comes copious amounts of BS.

[Guest Jamie]

Wow... A long read here.

And having read the whole thing, I'm struck by a couple of things:

One, folks don't seem to catch the fact that $75 is nothing more, in this instance, than the monetary amount or cost of taking responsibility and doing what a person needs to, to protect and keep their home. It's the effort involved with taking responsibility... sort of like making sure your guns are clean and in working order, so you know they'll do what you need should you ever have to defend yourself, or making sure your vehicle doesn't need something before you go on a long trip.

Mr. Cranick obviously didn't think enough of his home to be bothered with such things, and also apparently thought that he didn't have to be because other people would make up for his deficiency: I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid...."

Something was mentioned further up about communities pitching in and helping their neighbors put out fires, back before there were any organized fire departments...

Well, the fact is, that was you're only choice, back then. You helped out your neighbors and they helped you. However, I'd be willing to bet that a healthy adult person that never turned out with the rest of the townfolk, when there was a fire, probably had a pretty good chance of seeing those people stand around and watch his place burn to the ground if he/she ever had a fire.

And that's sort of what Mr. Cranick did... he sat back and didn't help out, then expected to be helped when he needed it.

Charity was also mentioned, further up the thread... My thought on that is that sure, help out someone who can't help themselves, if you can. But people who choose not to do what they need to? Screw 'em. Let them deal with the consequences of their own actions and choices.

The fellow in this instance obviously could have paid the required fee, but for whatever reason decided not to. It doesn't sound like he just didn't have the money, otherwise he wouldn't have said he'd pay once the blaze got going.

Sucks to be him, I guess.

Oh, and I notice the Bible and it's god were mentioned again... And without starting a religious conversation, I'd just like to point out that that particular deity is apparently more than happy to let a person take the fall for bad decision-making... thus the supposed existence of Hell. He's even been known to set a choice before folks, according to the stories written there, and then "bend 'em over a stump", so to speak, when the person made the wrong choice.

So I fail to see where he ( God ) would have a problem with Gene Cranick's house burning down due to not one but two poor choices on Mr. Cranick's part. ( Not paying the FD fee and then building a fire when there's a burn ban in place. )

What else...? Hmm... It's a long thread and I'm sure I'm missing or forgetting something.

Anyway, it's probably not important.

The facts, as they stand at the moment, point to somebody shirking their responsibility and thinking somebody else would take care of things. And that's something that the human race in general, and the population of this country in particular, is far too guilty of.

And no, I don't lose a bit of sleep, or have any trouble looking in the mirror when I say that I could indeed stand there and let them pay the price for their poor choices.

But then I guess I'm just a mean ol' bastard, when it comes right down to it.

[safeandsecure]

Everyone has a choice. So they followed orders. Good for them. I learned in the Army not to follow a bull**** order.

Unless you have more info than I have, hard to call this a bull**** order. (Unless Dispatch relayed the info, the FFs on duty may never have even received the initial call. Then, once on-scene at the neighbor's property, may have been too late to do anything ... I wasn't there and don't know.)

And unless I'm badly mistaken, soldiers face reprocussions for failing to follow an order. Same with FDs.

I said that I wouldn't get into the rest of this discussion, but I personally could not have stood by and watched someone's home burn without at least trying to help. But then again, I'm close to retirement. Might be different for the FFs in question.

[raydog1]

Glen Beck said let 'er burn. As you know, Glen's voice comes directly from God. So, what you got against God?

Not only that but he had his "restoring honor" posters on the wall behind him. The word CHARITY in big bold letters as he and Pat made fun of the guy's accent & situation. A guy who's lost so much. Everything is political now. Everybody is the enemy.

Sent from my HTC Incredible using Tapatalk Pro

[TNFlyer]

The way it should be is that if you don't pay the $75, fine, but if we have to come put your house out you're on the hook for the entire bill. But, just don't let the house burn.

[Pain103]

If he wanted the fire protection service he should have paid for it like everyone else. Maybe instead of bitching at them I would bitch the county see why they didn't have protection from a county agency.

[vontar]

safeandsecure

To answer part of your, the news crew was on scene with the firefighters. The footage shown at that point was to late to save the house, but from what I gather was around 2 hours after the event started. It looks like the fire was still going when the fire department was packing up and leaving. Still a danger to spread to anything else I guess.

IAFF Condemns Tenn. Dept's Decision Not to Fight Fire | Firehouse.com same link from other posts

Seems there was about 2 hours of time from the fire getting out of control to getting to the Trailer.

BTW, a no pay, no spray maybe setting up other dangerous situations, like was pointed out in another post.

Not that it has anything to do with this story other than shed some perspective;

Two or three winters ago on one of years first school snow days it seems it was, either the Jackson FD or the Madison County FD stopped at their jurisdiction line within 1/4 mile and sight of a burning truck that had hit a pole.

A very young man DIED in that fire.

Back to Gene Cranick , this guy seems to have only missed paying this year. He had paid in other years.

What if someone had been trapped inside, sorry, you have not paid your fire protection fees this year.

I am not saying he was not at fault. Put out the fire, sent him a bill.

I am in agreement with others, it seems in the time available, they had time to get the pets out.

He failed to pay 75 dollars this year, so he gets to lose his home in a one time event.

Lets tally this up.

He Failed to pay 75 dollars, should have then changed him

X amount per hour to fight the fire. I think someone said Rural Metro is 1200 an hour for example.

Lets say 3 hours. $3600

Instead, he is going to be making a claim to his insurance company now for probably, and I am taking a wild guess maybe $20,000 maybe more. I know in the video he said he didn't have enough. I have no idea how much coverage a person can get on a double wide trailer is. He will start rebuilting.

Like most people, I am am probably a little short on my home insurance coverage and need to look into that since it has been several years since I did. I just updated my auto insurance 2 months back.

Edited October 7, 2010 by vontar

[TGO David]

Ok so what I'm gathering here is that ...

• It's ok that the fire department let this guy's home and all of his possessions burn to the ground to make a point.
  

• This fire department has no societal obligation to do the right thing; it has an obligation to extract $75 from you ahead of time, in exchange for which it will perform certain duties.
  

• Public safety is therefore a commercial endeavor and therefore if you don't pay, you suffer.
  

Am I reading this right? Do any of you taking up for the FD in this case not have the slightest twinge in your gut that maybe, just maybe the wrong decision was made here and that the people responsible for that decision are complete a-holes? Because, you know... it seems to me that a FD should exist to serve and protect, not to charge and to collect.

I guess I'm just old fashioned that way. I kind of expect more from people who go into certain vocations.

[vontar]

Ok so what I'm gathering here is that ...

• It's ok that the fire department let this guy's home and all of his possessions burn to the ground to make a point.
  

• This fire department has no societal obligation to do the right thing; it has an obligation to extract $75 from you ahead of time, in exchange for which it will perform certain duties.
  

• Public safety is therefore a commercial endeavor and therefore if you don't pay, you suffer.
  

Am I reading this right?

That seems to be the general feeling here.

I am not for that in a fire department. When it comes to Emergency services. Take care of the Emergency first.

[Daniel]

If they were allowed to fight the fire anyway and charge him for the costs encured in doing so I would have no problem with that. The rules and regulations the cities FD is governed by do not though. I of course feel sympathy for the man I wish he had paid the fee and they could have helped him. I can not blame the firemen for this though.

[TGO David]

If they were allowed to fight the fire anyway and charge him for the costs encured in doing so I would have no problem with that. The rules and regulations the cities FD is governed by do not though. I of course feel sympathy for the man I wish he had paid the fee and they could have helped him. I can not blame the firemen for this though.

So by this thinking, we all should hope and pray we never have a wreck or other personal emergency on our way through this part of the state... because if we haven't paid our $75 ahead of time, we're screwed. Or would a traveler just be taken care of au gratis rather than be forced to watch his car burn to the ground?

Like I said... slippery slope. Seems that the decision was made to make a point.

[Guest Jamie]

Ok so what I'm gathering here is that ...

• It's ok that the fire department let this guy's home and all of his possessions burn to the ground to make a point.
  

If he opted out of their service and no one's life was in danger, then... yes.

It's his stuff, and if he doesn't place enough value on it to see that it's covered, as best he can, in case of a a disaster of some kind, then why should anybody else give a rat's ass?

• This fire department has no societal obligation to do the right thing; it has an obligation to extract $75 from you ahead of time, in exchange for which it will perform certain duties.
  

"Right thing" is relative.

It's hardly the right thing to not pay your insurance, make sure whatever fees that are imposed where you live are paid, then go and set up a situation - one that's breaking the law and endangering your neighbors - that causes you to need all of those things done that you didn't do... and then throw a fit because nobody else tended to those things for you, or rescued you from your own stupidity.

• Public safety is therefore a commercial endeavor and therefore if you don't pay, you suffer.
  

Well, given that my home owner's insurance rates ( which the mortgage co. requires I have ) depend on how close the nearest fire department is, and probably would also be dependent on me paying any fees to said department if such were required... then I suppose from that point of view firefighting and public safety are very much a commercial or business endeavor.

If, on the other hand, you can and so choose to opt out of any of those things, then that's on your own head, not someone else's.

Am I reading this right? Do any of you taking up for the FD in this case not have the slightest twinge in your gut that maybe, just maybe the wrong decision was made here and that the people responsible for that decision are complete a-holes? Because, you know... it seems to me that a FD should exist to serve and protect, not to charge and to collect.

The wrong decision(s) was most certainly made... but not by the fire department, in my opinion. And yes, anybody who would do the things I outlined above are indeed complete a**holes.

As far as the FD goes... well, maybe a municipal FD is an expected service, since they'er usually paid for with various city and/or county taxes... But a volunteer FD, that relies on donations and fees to even exist? I just don't think they're a service that one can expect or demand.

I guess I'm just old fashioned that way. I kind of expect more from people who go into certain vocations.

And it's that Expecting and Demanding that's causing all of us the most trouble, these days. People think they can do or say anything they please and not suffer any repercussions from it... that someone else will/should come along and make it all right, and cover their asses from suffering any harm.

That all needs to stop. Nothing is going to get any better - and will probably get much worse - until it does, and people change the way they think.

BTW... I'm of the opinion that Mr. Cranick should probably be jailed, or at least heavily fined, for starting, or allowing to be started, that fire in the first place, since that did put not only his own life and property at risk, but also the lives and property of others at risk.

But then, the folks in charge may very well figure that his home burning up is punishment enough...

And one other thing... if the situation were exactly the same, except the person involved was a crackhead and convicted pedophile... and the cause of the fire were, oh, say... the meth lab in his kitchen catching fire... how many folks would be saying he got what he deserved and the the firefighters were in the right for just standing around and watching it go?

Like I said, "the right thing" is relative.

[vontar]

slippery slope turns into Scare the masses into line.

Other areas are about to bring this time of program into affect. Before this event I had never even heard of this type of service yet this had been a fact of life for 20 years in that part of the state.

[Daniel]

I am from Knoxville but outside the City limits in Mt. Olive. We had to pay Rural/Metro, a private for profit business, to come and help us if we had a fire or needed an ambulance. This is not unusual. The only difference is that the city did not make it so they would be covered by insurance by helping anyway and charging after the fact.

[Guest Jamie]

slippery slope turns into Scare the masses into line.

How 'bout this one: Everybody wants to get all bent out of shape about the Mexicans sneaking in, not paying taxes, then expecting various public services to take care of 'em any way...

How is that really different from the guy not paying his "fire tax" but expecting the FD to provide service any way?

Do y'all think the illegals should be denied service and run the hell out of here or not?

If so, shouldn't that same measure be applied to anyone else here, legal or not?

[G27]

One thing I've heard, but haven't been able to confirm, was that part of the decision stems from the FD not being 'under contract' with this particular property. As in, they would have been working without any insurance to cover the firefighters or the dept from lawsuit / injury/ etc had they engaged this fire.

No idea if this is true or not, but might make more sense as to why the decision was made as it was.

[daddyo]

Ok so what I'm gathering here is that ...

• It's ok that the fire department let this guy's home and all of his possessions burn to the ground to make a point.
  

• This fire department has no societal obligation to do the right thing; it has an obligation to extract $75 from you ahead of time, in exchange for which it will perform certain duties.
  

• Public safety is therefore a commercial endeavor and therefore if you don't pay, you suffer.
  

Am I reading this right? Do any of you taking up for the FD in this case not have the slightest twinge in your gut that maybe, just maybe the wrong decision was made here and that the people responsible for that decision are complete a-holes? Because, you know... it seems to me that a FD should exist to serve and protect, not to charge and to collect.

I guess I'm just old fashioned that way. I kind of expect more from people who go into certain vocations.

Did the man who refused to pay the $75 have ANY responsibility here?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

One thing I've heard, but haven't been able to confirm, was that part of the decision stems from the FD not being 'under contract' with this particular property. As in, they would have been working without any insurance to cover the firefighters or the dept from lawsuit / injury/ etc had they engaged this fire.

No idea if this is true or not, but might make more sense as to why the decision was made as it was.

Yup, dunno if that is true either. One can get sued and possibly lose big for the simple act of being a good samaritan at the side of the road. Supposedly (and strangely enough) more a risk for a professional such as a doctor or nurse than an ordinary citizen.

[Guest db99wj]

I think all parties involved were wrong....period.

[RobertNashville]

Sometimes I wonder just how deep the desire for liberty and independence really goes in today's society....I'm beginning to think it doesn't go all that far or maybe it's just that so many no longer understands it.

I think it true to say that most of those who hold the 2nd Amendment dear to their hearts also profess to hold the Constitution and our democratic republic way of government based on personal liberty and independence equally dear. Well...you cannot have personal liberty and independence without equal measures of personal responsibility; at least you can't have the former without the latter for very long.

Public services, be they emergency services such as law enforcement, fie, and medical or more mundane services like water, sewer, sidewalks and roadways (to name but a few) all have to be paid for. How they get paid for varies a great deal but at the end of the day NOTHING IS FREE; nor in my always humble opinion should it be free.

The person at the heart of this story, Gene Cranick, chose to live in a area that did not have fire protection (as in, he wasn't paying for that protection through property taxes which is how it's usually handled in an incorporated area/city). However, the local town (South Fulton) who was under no obligation to do so, offered city fire services to residents outside of the city limits to those who wanted it in exchange for a small fee (a pretty common way of handling the need in such areas).

Mr Cranick didn't pay (at one point he said he decided not to pay then I believe he said that he had forgotten to pay and I think at one point he also said that the fee had been waived at one point and he assumed it would be again). Regardless of which is correct, the bottom line is that he didn't pay the fee.

How then is this city fire department obligated to put out this man's burning home once it catches fire? If they are going to provide fire department services whether anyone pays or not then why should anyone pay? If no one pays, how long would there be a fire department? Are some here suggesting the those who do live inside the city limits and do pay their taxes for their fire department are also obligated to provide free fire department services for those who pay nothing?

Mr Cranick and his family have certainly suffered and for that I truly am sorry. Further, I wouldn't be "mad" at the fire department had they decided put out the fire. I'm more concerned that many seem to think they (the fire fighters) have an obligation to act regardless of whether their services have been paid for or not...that is not a position I would associate with a belief in freedom, personal liberty or personal responsibility.

In my opinion, the fire department was not obligated to act and Mr. Cranick, who didn't pay, is not entitled to have fire department protection...while certainly not all, that's part of what personal responsibility is all about and at the end of the day, the fault for all of this rest on the person who's face Mr. Cranick sees in the mirror when he shaves.

Edited October 7, 2010 by RobertNashville

[Guest jackdm3]

Aggravation is free.

[raydog1]

Some reports are coming in that, instead of an annual $75 fee, they could have had a meager $0.13 increase in property taxes but was voted down.

Can anyone confirm this? Who would be against a few pennies added to their taxes to ensure fire protection?

Sent from my HTC Incredible using Tapatalk Pro

[A.J. Holst]

Fees paid to Fire Companies is not new. My grandfather was a 30 year veteran of the FDNY and had quite a bit of memorabilia. One collection of items were cast iron plaques, typically oval, 12" or so long by 8" in height. The plaques had a image of a what looked to be a horse drawn fire truck or pumper, with numbers bracketing the image.

I asked, "what is that?"

"Back in the day, you paid a fee to the local fire company and they would give you a plaque. If you had a fire, you were paid up, your fire was put out. The numbers identified which fire company would come to your house."

"What if you didn't have a plaque."

"The fire department would let your house burn down..."

[safeandsecure]

Vontar, you seem to have missed the point I tried (probably poorly) to make. I do not and can not blame the guys riding the trucks with the info I have now. They have to do what they are told, or risk losing their own jobs. The necessity of following orders in the fire service is akin to those of the military, in that failure to follow orders can (and often does) result in injuries or loss of life.

I'm not saying no one is to blame. First, responsibility lays with the homeowner. If there's any other "blame" to place, it falls on the politicians and elected officials there who failed to provide fire service to the county. After that, policy and SOPs come into play. Whoever is responsible for those may have to share in the blame. For example, if Dispatch (generally handled in rural areas by services outside the FD) never relayed the info to the station, then they wouldn't have known to respond. If they were notified, some officer had to order response. If this has come up before, and it likely has, then some sort of precedence has alreay been set. Etc., etc.

But I can't place it on the guys who ride the trucks with the limited facts I now have. I know too many, both paid and volunteer, and this discussion, believe me, has played out in fire houses and stations across the state and country. To a man (and woman), everyone I've talked with have said they couldn't have just "stood by and watched."

It's the work we do. Most of us are good at it. Most of us like helping people or we wouldn't be in this line of work (cause it sure ain't the pay or benefits). So yeah, most of us, and I don't know a single FF who wouldn't have helped, would WANT to do what we could. There may be some, somewhere, who wouldn't have responded, but I personally don't know a single one.

Blame someone. Someone deserves it. Blame several someones. Maybe several people deserve blame. But don't blame the guys on the trucks, unless and until the facts, and ALL the facts are in, and then, if they deserve the blame, I'll jump on the pile with you.