Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Phillips The Roof, The Roof, The Roof is on Fire: Let the MF-er Burn or Not?
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:29 AM
I assume by now that everyone and their uncle has read about Gene Cranick, the West Tennessee man who did not pay his $75 fire subscription fee — and so, when his house caught fire, the fire department stood around and watched it burn.
I am really torn on this. On the one hand, I understand the mayor's position. If you don't pay the fee, you don't get fire protection. Your stupid decision, your loss. On the other hand, we live in a society. No asshole is an island. Does Cranick really have the right to refuse fire protection for his whole family? Does he really have the right to put his neighbors' property in danger? Or what if it went wild? Does he have a right to put the whole county or, heck, western part of the state at risk?
Yes, it would seem that putting out fires of people who hadn't paid the fee would just encourage everyone to not pay the fee until they needed fire protection. But check out our state law (68-102-121):
Officer may remedy dangerous conditions at expense of owners. —
If any party fails to comply with the order as modified on appeal by the court or the commissioner, and within the time fixed by either of them, then the officer is empowered to cause the building or premises to be repaired, torn down, demolished, materials removed and all dangerous conditions remedied, as the case may be, at the expense of the party or parties.
That law deals specifically with buildings that are a fire hazard but have not yet caught fire. So it's not applicable in this case. But doesn't it seem like this approach could work in a fire situation as well? This may be a new state law we need: If fire protection is available to you by subscription and you refuse to pay for it and the fire department has to come to your house to remedy that dangerous condition, you're going to be charged for it — the cost of work missed (assuming the firefighters are volunteers), the cost of running the truck or trucks, the labor, etc.
A modest proposal: Make it costly — say, $10,000. That way, it makes more sense to just subscribe and pitch in — but people aren't left with no way to save their homes if they discover they're married to a fire-defying dumbass, and their neighbors aren't put at higher risk while the fire is left to just burn itself out.
Comments (34)
Showing 1-34 of 34
you're already there. put the damned fire out and send them a bill. the hell is wrong with people??
like
dislike
Betsy:
No, this is exactly the kind of system the tea-baggers want - less government, with taxation for services relegated to "fees" voluntarily paid. These folks don't want to live in a society worth paying for. And this is the result.
The fire department didn't show up until the property next door, who had, oh by the way, paid their fee was threatened. Again the media is spinning this in the worst possible light.
The American tradition involves volunteer fire departments who helped neighbors in danger for no pay at all.
This is pretty disgusting--but as the paid up folks next door would find out, no house IS an island. Those screaming about mandatory payment on health insurance (and, presumably, car insurance) --but not inevitably mandatory help for the stricken in emergency rooms, paid for by the rest of us--might learn something here. Though I doubt it.
You pay taxes to support this stuff. Paying 'protection' sounds like something out of a mob story. Fire departments are obligated to put out EVERY fire, every time. What a racket.
"The fire department didn't show up until the property next door, who had, oh by the way, paid their fee was threatened. Again the media is spinning this in the worst possible light."
I'd like to hear how that detail casts the fire department in a better light.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fire-depart…
Tennessee state law forbids the fire department to bill the homeowner after the fact.
>Florida became the most recent state last year to ban such fees for emergency services. Seven other states, including Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee, have some sort of law banning accident fees. Indiana banned police response fees in 2008, but the law did not include provisions for fire departments.
Also burrito, no, he didn't pay taxes to support this stuff. He is in an unincorporated area of the county which pays *nothing* towards fire protection. See their official county site:
http://troy.troytn.com/ocfire_myths.htm
Myth: Fire Protection Services is a basic Emergency Service that Obion County provides and everyone in Obion County automatically has this basic life-saving service.
Fact: No -- Obion County does not provide this basic service. If you live outside an incorporated city or town & do not purchase an annual subscription service, you do not legally have any Fire Protection Service.
Why should someone risk their life protecting something you didn't think was worth $75 a year to protect yourself? Most rural areas are NOT taxed for fire protection. So burrito is incorrect in assuming this home was already paying taxes for fire protection. This home was outside the city limits, therefore since an ESD(Emergency Services District) was not in place in which the homeowners paid taxes to, then they were not paying taxes for fire protection. The department, which is funded by city taxes and responds to fires within the city limits(the people who actually were paying taxes for fire protection) had no obligation to respond to a fire outside the taxing jurisdiction. This is why the subscription was started for homes outside the city limits which pay no taxes for fire protection. I live in a rural area and it is like pulling teeth to get voters to vote for an ESD which places a tax based on property value which goes directly to emergency services such as fire and ambulance. It is amazing how many feel they should receive these services for free, not realizing people must volunteer their time away from their families to save their property and family members in the event of a fire. If they believe filling their car with a tank of gas costs a lot, how about that tanker to send to your home filled with water, the expenses incurred in keeping equipment in running order so it will start to get to your fire, the overhead expenses, or the bunker gear which costs thousands of dollars per set to try to keep firefighters safe, some of who never return home to their families because they died protecting something you didn't feel was worth spending money to protect to begin with...think about it.
The homeowner said in a TV interview that the fire had spread from a neighboring farmer's field. If that's true, it will be interesting to see what legal theories that farmer's insurer tries to use when it comes time to sort out comparative liability.
So is there a database or checklist of paid subscribers that's consulted before the firefighters head out? Or do they just know who pays for the service because it's such a small community? If I pay the $75 and then move, does the fire protection follow me, or stay on the property? Is there an installment plan? If I were to volunteer by helping with bake sales or sexy firemen photoshoots for a calendar, could I get out of the fee? Is it bundled into local renters' insurance policies? Is it responsibility of the landlord or tenant? If a person dies in a fire and no one is around to hear it because of principled indifference, do they make a sound? (Yes, they scream.)
As I understood it the Man's son was burning trash and caught the house on fire. Also as I understand it the Fire Protection comes out of South Foulton which is in a different county from the man's house. I agree if you don't pay there should be a mechanism to still put out your fire and maybe that change will come.
I thought the story I saw on the TV news was that the fire department stod by until it spread to the neighbor's field. (the one who had paid his $75.) Then they acted to put out the fire. I don't know if there are insurance and liability issues for putting out a fire in a non-subscriber's house, but what if a fireman had been hurt or killed. Would he have been covered?
I also equate it to jurisdiction. Since he wasn't a subscriber, it's like he wasn't technically in their jurisdiction. Just as if the first farm over the Obion county line in Lake County caught on fire. Would Obion be expected to put that one out? No.
If you don't pay your car insurance, would you expect to be able to write a check for a monthly premium payment after you run over somebody and be off the hook? Nope, you'd be responsible for total damages.
It's a thorny issue, no doubt. The moral is, be insured and pay your subscription fees if they are offered.
What about the three dogs and cat who died in this fire? How could anyone -- especially a firefighter who is supposedly dedicated to saving lives -- stand there and allow them to die? And what would they have done if a person was inside? This is shameful. They should all be fired and prosecuted.
This has nothing to do with the tea party....unless you also want to ad a comment for your side that we should take care of you even though you REFUSE to contribute financially. It's an unfortunate fact that pets typically perish in home fires regardless of response from a department. They usually run and hide under beds and cannot be coaxed out & a firefighters life isn't worth taking time looking for fluffy while a building burns down around him. Furthermore, I would believe if a person had been in the building it would have been a very different story.
(With all due respect to the thousands of people that volunteer in TN everyday) I guess we're NOT the Volunteer State? This is the fault of whoever put the $75 rule in place. It can't be something that can be FORGOTTEN about. The fire subscription service puts lives at risk; period. And it's definitely going to cost the state/community more than $75 to help this guy get back on his feet. This is an example of when not to follow the letter of the law and exercise common sense and follow the spirit of the law. This west Tennessee community had the opportunity to be proud of themselves and rise to the occasion but now they're an embarrassment.
I want to reiterate, the owner of this home didn't think his/her's life, pets and property were worth a mere $75 a year to save in the event of a fire. A fact many seem to want to overlook. They had a choice and made it. But for some reason, some cannot grasp the concept that this is about the homeowner taking responsibility for his/her own choices.
And why do people believe they should recieve such an important service for free? If they lived in the city limits, they would have been paying taxes for this....If you take care of it without them having paid the $75, what incentive is there for anyone else....and do you know what it costs to run a fire department?....I just don't get it.
When I lived in Knox County, we were offered fire & ambulance services through Rural Metro. It was relatively expensive -- north of $350 per year. We decided to self-insure, with the knowledge that they would bill us about $1,000 per hour plus about $350 per truck if I remember correctly. This is how it should have been handled -- bill them for their services if they didn't subscribe, period. It's unconscionable to stand by and watch it burn.
abbiehuxley,
"This is an example of when not to follow the letter of the law and exercise common sense and follow the spirit of the law."
Really? And when a fireman gets injured or killed not following the letter of the law, do you think that 'common sense and the spirit of the law' will prevent the lawyer representing the fireman's family from wiping out the fire department and the local government?
Or if the firemen had accidentally injured a member of the family that was not covered, do you think that the family would say "That's ok. We know you meant well. Forget about legal action." Of course not. The odds are good that they would be in court ASAP suing the fire department for injuring a member of the family. And since the department was acting outside of the rules, there is no limit to the costs to the community.
ya'll are nuts, you ALWAYS help someone in dire need or danger.
If you are worried about 75 bucks or insurance liabilty let's hope its not you lying in the road injured when I drive by.
Could you clean the headline up a little? On the front page of yahoo and you get an MF-er. Show a little class or at least a some brains.
“I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,” said Gene Cranick.
Cranick chose to live in a RURAL area. Cranick chose not to pay the $75 fee. I live in rural Tennessee and our fee is $500. The CITY isn't obligated to provide services to RURAL residents because RURAL residents don't pay CITY TAXES. Get it, Gene? And the big question was never asked or answered. DID CRANICK HAVE INSURANCE?, and if not, well, there's another choice Cranick made. The media seems to be obsessed with fires lately and they're trying to 'shock and awe' readers by fanning the flames (excuse my pun) over Cranicks' plight. THIS IS NORMAL STUFF for the all of us who live in the country vs. the city. Would city dwelling readers be shocked to find out no one picks up our trash and we dispose of it ourselves? Is it surprising we can shoot guns all day long in our backyard? We don't have to put dogs on leashes and we can have chickens in the yard. The weeds can grow to 10 feet tall and we can shoot squirrels while we sit on our back porches. No one cares if there's 20 junk cars in the yard and the barns don't have to meet building codes. THAT'S WHY CRANICK LIVES IN THE COUNTRY. If he wants city privileges (free fire protection), well he's going to have to give up his backwoods lifestyle. Am I being mean and heartless? Maybe, but I earned the right. Our home in the country burned in 1989 and it was gone before the volunteer fire department could even get to our rural location, and we had paid the $500 fee. And thankfully...we....had...insurance.
Although you can't find complete reporting and evidence in the finger-pointing press, I suspect Cranick had insurance on his double-wide and contents. He is not reported to be destitute or lacking for a place to live now. Thankfully his family is safe although his pets did lose their lives. He didn't pay the fire service fee and is suffering the consequence.
Swerving slightly, one could make a comparison of this situation to the coming health insurance (notice I did not say health care) revolution where one can become insured any time even on the way to the hospital for a costly reason. Why then would someone purchase insurance before they actually need it? Many will wait until services are absolutely necessary, purchase a policy, have the situation tended to and then drop the policy. Don't think it won't happen.
I really love the comments blaming the fire department for pet deaths. Cranick had time to: 1. Run around with a garden hose trying to play hero. 2. Get his family up and about from their nap taking while the fire was unattended and spreading. 3. Call 911 and ask them to respond - denied, he hadn't paid. 4. RE- call 911 and offer to pay the $75, sorry, declined. 5. Continue to argue with 911 offering to pay $500 - sorry, declined. The SFFD only responded when later, the neighbor got worried about the fire approaching his property. H had paid the subscription fee, and the SFFD responded as contracted for. Tn has a law in place already concerning animal cruelty, will we see Cranick charged for his actions? This is not the fault of the SFFD... this is the fault of the idiot VICTIM
Cranick sounds like a total dick. Where I'm from (a damn Yankee) we never had a subscription system, even in the very rural townships. The fire company was volunteer, but the facility and equipment was paid for by taxes. Here in a larger borough where I live now it's the same. The departments can still have bake sales, fairs and BBQs, but everyone has fire protection.
Wow. Just curious. Here we have ambulance service and paramedics thru the fire departments. They are paid for their services thru insurance or self-payment. Our company that we would use has an ambulance club that you can join yearly that will cover ambulance fees that health insurance doesn't cover. The fire company has a rescue vehicle they can use too if there are multiple injuries in a major accident. But taxes are the way the services are covered here, including trash and recycling.
Well, the pets were left to die though there seemed time enough to save them. Were the occupants of the house lying drunk and even smoking, heaven forbid? Do we know this?
I always sign on to see what the SISSY'S from Gay Ole Party are crying about and displaying the total ignorance it takes to be a GAY OLE PARTY member. Thanks once again SISSY republicans fo a laugh...
Send the FLEA BAGGERS in. Flea Baggers have all of the answers! OPPS tea parties aren't for MEN!
He didn't forget to pay, he admitted that he elected not to. Three years earlier Cranick had a chimney fire which the fire dept. put out, at which point Cranick paid $75. The fire dept. taught him the wrong lesson by charging a nominal fee.
This was classical government failure, not market failure. These firefighters were government bureaucrats for whom profits and morality were not considerations upon which they could act. Private firefighters would have put out the fire in a jiffy for a tidy profit, given that most of their costs are fixed. A reasonable price, say $10k, would have been a great deal for Cranick too. A for-profit company would have a strong incentive to keep the cost reasonable, since reputation is critical for private companies not backed by government coercion.
These firefighters did NOT operate on a private, for-profit basis. They acted EXACTLY like government employees. Union City Fire Chief: "Right, wrong or indifferent, it was not the decision of the South Fulton Fire Chief or of his firefighters to not put water on the structure. Their orders came from their city manager and mayor."
Incidentally, county law does not permit private fire fighting companies to operate.
It is strange that some people draw a conclusion that this is somehow related to the Tea Party platform of responsible and conservative expenditures. Government should be in the business of providing security, infrastructure, and other basic services, so firefighting would be something that I think should be covered. The "subscription" fee should be mandatory, like a tax, even if your community is unincorporated.
