Old Bay Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001 msnbc.com updated 8 minutes ago 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. Click link for rest of article. Taken at face value this seems really bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 taken at face value he should have bought protection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrifNick21 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Damn. That's the county right next to me. I've heard nothing about that. Wow. It's a shame they wouldn't put the fire out. Money is the root of all evil apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Two thoughts. 1 - I always thought of fire fighters as heroic. The ones in this story are not. They are mercenaries that showed up to watch a house burn because the homeowner didn't pay up. I don't care what the rules are there just isn't any heroism in that. Sad to see. 2 - If those people don't like being forced to pay for basic services on top of their income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes... don't vote for social Darwinist *******s that would legislate allowing peoples homes to burn down. I'm glad no one died because of this obvious stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 That's the free market at work. He and his neighbors will definitely pay the $75 next year (or they will set up a socialist fire department funded by taxes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostyj Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I'm a little torn at this. One one hand I do understand the side of the FD. Then there is the part of me that asks could you really just stand there and watch as someone looses everything? Knowing that you have the ability to do something about it. This is not a car and the owner trying to get insurance after an accident. Would they have helped if someone was trapped inside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Two thoughts.1 - I always thought of fire fighters as heroic. The ones in this story are not. They are mercenaries that showed up to watch a house burn because the homeowner didn't pay up. I don't care what the rules are there just isn't any heroism in that. Sad to see. They didn't show up to "watch it burn". They did not fight it, they fought to keep the property of the paying homeowner from burning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botched Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Why not put out the fire and then make them pay a fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 The article says that they showed up to put out the neighbors fire which had spread from the first callers house....they paid the fee. Otherwise, they wouldn't have even shown up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Why not put out the fire and then make them pay a fine? Read the article. The mayor says then no one would pay until they had a fire... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 If his car was on fire at his house...the firefighters would have put that fire out, right? I guess having a county wide tax suported fire department is too socialist, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pwyl Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 My local fire department has a similar policy, but with an added "common sense" bit. You can either A) pay the yearly fee, which gets you fire service AND a yearly inspection of your sprinkler system, or 2) not pay the fee, but if you have a fire and they have to come put it out, they charge you a much larger fee for the service. This seems like a much saner, and much more robust solution to the problem of how to provide a semi-voluntary-opt-in service and fund it appropriately without a tax hike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 If his car was on fire at his house...the firefighters would have put that fire out, right?I guess having a county wide tax suported fire department is too socialist, huh? Why would they,it is not their jurisdiction. People want to get services and not pay for them...why should the city pay to protect those outside it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botched Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Read the article. The mayor says then no one would pay until they had a fire... lol That mayor is dumb. Just make the fine significantly higher than the annual fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 This is all well and good until the "check to see if you're on the list" system breaks down and innocent people lose their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Why would they,it is not their jurisdiction.People want to get services and not pay for them...why should the city pay to protect those outside it? Human decency? You can always charge them after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Personally I think this is pretty horrible. It's their job to put out fires and they did nothing to help this family save their home. Fine or no fine, I don't see how they could just let it burn down, especially with those animals inside. If they could have put out the fire they should have. That said...why were these morons burning trash in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 My local fire department has a similar policy, but with an added "common sense" bit. You can either A) pay the yearly fee, which gets you fire service AND a yearly inspection of your sprinkler system, or 2) not pay the fee, but if you have a fire and they have to come put it out, they charge you a much larger fee for the service.This seems like a much saner, and much more robust solution to the problem of how to provide a semi-voluntary-opt-in service and fund it appropriately without a tax hike. Exactly. And this option (2) is no different from a lot of other rural areas. Refusing to put out a fire because someone didn't pay a service is horrific. Mean. Stupid. And hopefully, criminally liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Why would they,it is not their jurisdiction. I guess I am confused then. I never thought you had to be in anyone's jurisdiction (or even a resident) if your car catches on fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 This is all well and good until the "check to see if you're on the list" system breaks down and innocent people lose their lives. I would agree in the instance of such a policy within a city or county that only by consciously opting out should you be uncovered. That is not the situation in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 So if one of them was on fire and burnt to death right in front of the firemen...it would be cool if they did nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I guess I am confused then. I never thought you had to be in anyone's jurisdiction (or even a resident) if your car catches on fire. You would expect Texas to put out Oklahoma's fires? (Though many jurisdictions have cooperative agreements) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pwyl Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 This is all well and good until the "check to see if you're on the list" system breaks down and innocent people lose their lives. I don't think you understand what the words "rural area of Tennessee" means in the context of a small vs. large government debate. There's really just not much money in rural TN to support anything but small government. That being said, the system there is set up stupidly. Firefighting is one of those services that should transcend the "are you on the list" question. At first I was going to compare it to city trash pick up, and wonder if you would expect your trash to be picked up if you didn't pay the fee, but I think there is enough of a difference in at least the perception of the different services that you have to be much more intelligent about how you handle them. Cliffs: The man in the story is stupid for not paying for optional firefighting service and expecting to receive it anyway. The city is stupid for having a policy that doesn't have a fallback (even if it's much more expensive to the user) position that still allows for the delivery of this hot-button service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 *raises hand* This isn't all that different from an insurance company refusing to pay to rebuild a house if you haven't bought the insurance. Are they evil, too? Or should you know that when you own a house, you probably should buy insurance, just like if you own a house in an area which requires you to pay $75 for firefighters, you probably should pay the $75? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 You would expect Texas to put out Oklahoma's fires? (Though many jurisdictions have cooperative agreements) I expect the local fire department to put out a car on fire with out of state tags. That way, the fire doesn't spread (at the very least). Is that so hard to understand? Now, if my out of state tags cause me to get billed for putting out the fire, so be it. But atleast put out the damn fire. Otherwise, you are endangering everyone else who is a resident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.