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

[lowbud]

I bet you that county sales and property taxes helped pay for that city fire department.

Maybe, maybe not.. tax bill should tell..

[Guest db99wj]

The mayor on a TV interview said that if they allowed the homeowner to pay when the fire happened, no one would pay the fee.

1. So this is all about money.

I would have broken policy.

[Guest GT_Rat]

Firetrucks and equipment aren't cheap so I doubt it paid for all of it, but it definitely paid for some of it. If everyone in the county were paying the $75 fee I could see it paying for their operating costs for a year, maybe, but I doubt this guy is the only cheapskate in the county. Me, I'd have paid the $75 just for the peace of mind and to support the FD. I pay more in property and sales taxes than someone that lives outside the city for the extra piece of mind as it is.

[Guest rockbottom12]

at some point along the line the guy payed taxes in one form or another that purchased that truck. even if they weren't "required" to do it, sometimes you just have to do what is right. when a man offers to pay whatever necessary why let him lose everything to set an example of $75. I dont know if i could sleep at night over that.

[mav]

My day job involves equipping E911 dispatch centers around the rural Southeast so I've got some insight to this case. Some background factoids:

• The guy Cranick had gotten a subscription offer from the South Fulton FD in mail for 20 years and never paid. So it was not like he didn't know the risk he was taking.
  
• He set up the fire himself in two barrels on his yard -- during a forest fire warning -- from where the fire spread to his house and threatened to burn his neighbors house.
  
• The fire occurred in the unincorporated Obion County and the City of South Fulton FD's insurance covers only dispatches to subscribers. Should the crew of the FD have violated their standing orders and risked their jobs, lives and the livelihoods of their families for a guy who was too cheap or ignorant to spring for a $75 subscription?
  
• The $75 annual fee does not cover the costs of even a single dispatch. If everyone decided to quit paying the $75 annual fee and just pay on the spot, there would be no funds to even have a FD.
  
• Neither the 911 dispatchers nor the FD crew on call could have legally accepted the guy's offer to pay the $75 on the spot.
  
• According to some web sites I've read, rural FDs collect about 40% of fees if they are charged after the fact and don't have the resources to go to court to collect unpaid fees.
  
• Being a first responder in rural Tennessee is not exactly a financially rewarding job. They put long hours in their own time away from their families and put their own money to buy equipment because the subscription fees don't cover all the costs.
  

Long and short, I'd recommend those of you who criticize the fire department put your money where you mouth is and join your local volunteer FD.

While I do have some criticism for how the fire dept. acted to the situation, it is nothing like the criticism for the policy itself. As stated earlier, I would have no problem with the policy if it stated that the fire dept will respond to the situation if the owner requests such a response. If said owner has not paid the fire protection fee, they are liable for the entire cost of the fire fighting response.

In regards to putting one's money where their mouth is, I pay a butt load in taxes and I see on a daily basis all the government waste. I would not mind if my tax dollars went to putting out a fire for someone who was totally irresponsible. Look at all the billions if not trillions we have spent on the bailouts, which if you boil it all down, deals with personal responsibility or the lack thereof. Additionally, due to the caveat I would have put in the policy, the owner would bear the cost of such action.

I understand that the current policy does not have such disclaimer, and that action from the fire dept. was contractually correct. However, it seems that they could look at this bad situation, and do some fine tuning to their policy.

[Punisher84]

While I do have some criticism for how the fire dept. acted to the situation, it is nothing like the criticism for the policy itself. As stated earlier, I would have no problem with the policy if it stated that the fire dept will respond to the situation if the owner requests such a response. If said owner has not paid the fire protection fee, they are liable for the entire cost of the fire fighting response.

In regards to putting one's money where their mouth is, I pay a butt load in taxes and I see on a daily basis all the government waste. I would not mind if my tax dollars went to putting out a fire for someone who was totally irresponsible. Look at all the billions if not trillions we have spent on the bailouts, which if you boil it all down, deals with personal responsibility or the lack thereof. Additionally, due to the caveat I would have put in the policy, the owner would bear the cost of such action.

I understand that the current policy does not have such disclaimer, and that action from the fire dept. was contractually correct. However, it seems that they could look at this bad situation, and do some fine tuning to their policy.

Big +1.

[Daniel]

This.

My day job involves equipping E911 dispatch centers around the rural Southeast so I've got some insight to this case. Some background factoids:

• The guy Cranick had gotten a subscription offer from the South Fulton FD in mail for 20 years and never paid. So it was not like he didn't know the risk he was taking.
  
• He set up the fire himself in two barrels on his yard -- during a forest fire warning -- from where the fire spread to his house and threatened to burn his neighbors house.
  
• The fire occurred in the unincorporated Obion County and the City of South Fulton FD's insurance covers only dispatches to subscribers. Should the crew of the FD have violated their standing orders and risked their jobs, lives and the livelihoods of their families for a guy who was too cheap or ignorant to spring for a $75 subscription?
  
• The $75 annual fee does not cover the costs of even a single dispatch. If everyone decided to quit paying the $75 annual fee and just pay on the spot, there would be no funds to even have a FD.
  
• Neither the 911 dispatchers nor the FD crew on call could have legally accepted the guy's offer to pay the $75 on the spot.
  
• According to some web sites I've read, rural FDs collect about 40% of fees if they are charged after the fact and don't have the resources to go to court to collect unpaid fees.
  
• Being a first responder in rural Tennessee is not exactly a financially rewarding job. They put long hours in their own time away from their families and put their own money to buy equipment because the subscription fees don't cover all the costs.
  

Long and short, I'd recommend those of you who criticize the fire department put your money where you mouth is and join your local volunteer FD.

[G27]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Where's the personal responsibility everyone wants?

He made a bad choice, and legally, the FD couldn't do a thing.

[Punisher84]

Well I concede. Don't agree, but I concede the argument. FWIW I pay my county fire protection and I pay my own insurance. I also make a living out of making sure people stay safe.

I think something should have been done differently. It's just my opinion and my belief. Sometimes doing the right thing isn't always easy or popular.

Isn't it Jamie who's sig line says "What's legal isn't always right and what's right isn't always legal."?

[G27]

Well I concede. Don't agree, but I concede the argument. FWIW I pay my county fire protection and I pay my own insurance. I also make a living out of making sure people stay safe.

I think something should have been done differently. It's just my opinion and my belief. Sometimes doing the right thing isn't always easy or popular.

Isn't it Jamie who's sig line says "What's legal isn't always right and what's right isn't always legal."?

Really? So those who believe that free-loaders shouldn't reap the benefits of the taxpayers are somehow not 'right' now, though legal?

Seriously?

Wow, Chuck. Just, wow.

[mikegideon]

You have a house on fire, and a fire department to put it out. The house burns to the ground anyway. I'm not even gonna suggest a solution, but I will say those are some retarded folks.

[Punisher84]

Really? So those who believe that free-loaders shouldn't reap the benefits of the taxpayers are somehow not 'right' now, though legal?

Seriously?

Wow, Chuck. Just, wow.

I don't see this as freeloading. I see this as careless yes, but like Mav said something should have been done different. Remember who you're talking to Brad, every night I see people who are on welfare, Tenncare, or no insurance, etc leeching off us at the hospital and the TN tax payer. They are rarely ever in a life threatening or even serious situation.

The guy paid his price for his careless stupidity and I agree he should have. I just think he should have been able to have his house saved and paid dearly monetarily to the fire dept after.

I've known people who have been victims of house fires even when a FD responded. It's a horrible thing I just don't think someone with a heart could stand by and watch. Everything he has is gone now. Some things I'm sure he'll never be able to replace.

So if you can sit there and tell me that's ok from a moral stand point then you are certainly not who I thought you were.

[TNFF319]

Agian, how can the FD make any money if no one pays until they need help? The man knew what he was doing. Even better, its been reported he set his own home on fire.

How can you sit there and watch it burn? 1. He didn't pay. 2. Could the house even be saved? 3. What if another call came in? What if that person had paid their fee? 4. What if a firefighter got killed saving just property?

The FD's policy stated if a life was endangered a rescue attempt would have been made. The man lost his property, and that does suck. I feel bad for him, but he rolled the dice.

[Punisher84]

If he did set the fire then obviously I'm gonna take a different stance and no, I wouldn't expect a FF to die just over property.

There are plenty of what ifs that can be thrown out. I just get tired of the slippery slope/total anarchy arguments. I'm just telling you guys what I feel would have been the right thing to do in my opinion based on the general circumstance.

[Rightwinger]

This is a microcosm of the reality our WHOLE country is experiencing across many levels. Fire Insurance, universal healthcare, bailouts, bankruptcy without stigma. It's polarizing us as a nation because way back when, it would be heartless to let that family suffer, but now, it's expected by a large percentage of the population that someone else is going to pay their way. It's going to all come crashing down and then that large portion of the populace, that's been trained by the government and other members of "their" society on how to draw off the resources of other's labor will have nothing and drag a good portion of those that were still trying to provide those resources into the pit. In a ER, it's called triage. In real life America today, it's starting to be more common that the limits have been reached. Those unwilling to manage their lifes in any form are going to suffer from it because there will be no other method available. This is just the beginning of "rationing" of resources. Wait till it starts happening involving human life and not property.

[TNFF319]

Im not sure how that dept got around the EPA clean air act. It is illegal to burn modern building materials. The FD should have been forced to put the fire out on those grounds alone.

It seems the FD could charge a $75 flat fee for people. If you don't pay, you pay X amount for the FD having to put your fire out. The trouble is that no one pays their bills anymore. We rarely get any of our bills paid back to us.

[mikegideon]

This is a microcosm of the reality our WHOLE country is experiencing across many levels. Fire Insurance, universal healthcare, bailouts, bankruptcy without stigma. It's polarizing us as a nation because way back when, it would be heartless to let that family suffer, but now, it's expected by a large percentage of the population that someone else is going to pay their way. It's going to all come crashing down and then that large portion of the populace, that's been trained by the government and other members of "their" society on how to draw off the resources of other's labor will have nothing and drag a good portion of those that were still trying to provide those resources into the pit. In a ER, it's called triage. In real life America today, it's starting to be more common that the limits have been reached. Those unwilling to manage their lifes in any form are going to suffer from it because there will be no other method available. This is just the beginning of "rationing" of resources. Wait till it starts happening involving human life and not property.

I would have charged him a grand and put the fire out. No harm done.

[Rightwinger]

I would have charged him a grand and put the fire out. No harm done.

The guy wouldn't pony up 75 bucks. You think he's going to pay anything after the fact? There were no winners in this situation no matter the outcome. If the FD has a heart, then the whole area loses it's fire department because others wonder why the hell they have to pay when others don't. No yearly dues, no money for equipment, repairs or fuel, NO Fire Dept!

It's not easy to read and worse to deal with if it's local, but there is no way out now....we either face the fact that the uncaring and irresponsible can no longer be sustained and they either become contributing members of the group or suffer tremendous loss as in this case. It's reached that point now. Those that don't care to pay a fee or get up and walk out of their soon to be hurricane flooded parrish are beginning to overload the system. It just can't continue like this without repercussions for us all.

Anyone have a house that's worth lots less than when you bought it for no other reason than "everyone" was entitled to a home of their own, even if they couldn't or wouldn't keep up the payments?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That guy didn't care any more about his house and family to pay for a service

he knew wasn't available any other way, and still assumes the FD will come

to put out his fire? He must have already been on welfare. Get something for

nothing and expect everything else.

He made a choice. It was the wrong one, but it was his.

[daddyo]

While it is pretty sad, they were not contracted to fight that fire. Simple as that.. Sorry..

I have to agree. I hate that this man lost his home and his belongings. But he gambled, and he lost. It would seem prudent for the FD to put some sort of provision in place that allows those who have not paid the fee to have access to services at a substantially increased rate.

"Sir, we see you did not pay your $75 annual fee. We will be happy to put your fire out for $750."

Sorry, but I see the responsibility being on the homeowner here. He even admitted it himself.

[vontar]

I heard about this yesterday at work, I heard different tales on how it went down. None as detailed as I have read here on the forum.

The guy Cranick had gotten a subscription offer from the South Fulton FD in mail for 20 years and never paid. So it was not like he didn't know the risk he was taking.

One main difference I have heard and I DO NOT know if this is true or not. A person at work said it was not like the guy never paid it in the past. One tale circulating around the office was that the man had paid it for like the past 15 years and was just late this year. If the man was just late on his payment it would be a twist on this.

Watch the Video at , found in the same orignal new story posted.

Rural Tennessee fire sparks conservative ideological debate | The Upshot Yahoo! News - Yahoo! News

The home owner said he paid it last year and the couple years before. He said he just forgot to paid it this year.

Edited October 6, 2010 by vontar

[Punisher84]

I heard about this yesterday at work, I heard different tales on how it went down. None as detailed as I have read here on the forum.

One main difference I have heard and I DO NOT know if this is true or not. A person at work said it was not like the guy never paid it in the past. One tale circulating around the office was that the man had paid it for like the past 15 years and was just late this year. If the man was just late on his payment it would be a twist on this.

What the Video at

Rural Tennessee fire sparks conservative ideological debate | The Upshot Yahoo! News - Yahoo! News

The home owner said he paid it last year and the couple years before. He said he just forgot to paid it this year.

Wonder what the argument will be for some of our fellow TGO goers then? Probably the same.

[Guest m&pc9]

So if you dont pay your car insurance, And have a wreck just send the insurance your premium and they will cover it. If your house catches on fire it is too late to pay for protection.

The fact is the vol. fire depts function on donation or subscription fees. When they run out of money we will be back to bucket brigades.

[Daniel]

Wonder what the argument will be for some of our fellow TGO goers then? Probably the same.

Yep. He did not pay he does not get the service.

[vontar]

BTW, Daniel, I like the image you are using now. Much easier to look at.

back to the topic. I wonder how late he was on paying. But it is kinda screwy if he was just a little late.