WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   Fire department watches house burn over $75 (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=784021)

2006maliblue 10-06-2010 2:25 PM

Fire department watches house burn over $75
 
I can't believe the fire department did this! What do you guys think?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39535911...ife/?GT1=43001

I feel if you pay the $75 fee put the fire out no charge, if you don't pay the fee then charge the homeowner the actual cost of putting the fire out! If they don't pay throw a lein on the house! Just thought it was sad they didnt do anything and watched as the guy lost everything including his animals.

brettw 10-06-2010 2:28 PM

Bet he pays his bill next time.

csaidler 10-06-2010 2:49 PM

As a fireman I think I would have trouble standing their and watching the guys house burn to the ground. That being said he had homeowners insurance and he had no problem paying that so what's another 75$ to protect his assets. It's pretty lame it happened but I bet everybody pays their 75$ now. Small fire depts have enough trouble funding them selves already. A new fire apparatus alone costs them half to 3/4 of a million. However had there been a life at stake I guarantee not on single firefighter would have just stood there and watched. Orders or no orders. That's my.02$

nickbot 10-06-2010 3:17 PM

it seems forgetting to pay this fee is akin to fogetting to pay your property taxes...i.e. i don't believe he simply forgot...in that case, i say tough shizz buddy...

if he honestly forgot...he is still SOL but at least I would feel sorry for him.

liquidmx 10-06-2010 3:20 PM

I am with you Rob. Pay the $75 up front or the actual cost at the moment of...including a mechanic's lein on the house. The only drawback is that with people upside down in their homes the lein may mean nothing...unless the bank takes pity realizing there wouldnt even be a property without the fire department.

The only other argument I have heard was someone saying to pay the $75 at the time of the fire...which is just dumb.

2006maliblue 10-06-2010 3:29 PM

I feel paying the $75 at the time of the fire is wrong, being its like an insurance policy and you can't get insurance after the fact. However if your willing to pay the total cost to battle the fire at the time, or a much larger fee, such as $5000 up front why wouldnt you put water on the fire? The neighbor actually told the firefighters he'd give them 5k on the spot to put water on the house, yet they refused and watched as it burned. Now I'm not ragging on the firefighters, its been reported most of them where disgusted and some left crying they where so upset but the oders came from above not to put one gallon of water on the house. I believe he could have forgotten to pay the $75 fee. I'm curious if he's paid the fee the last 10 years and just slipped in this case or if he's never paid the fee? i'd love to hear a little more on that.

10-06-2010 3:30 PM

Accountability and consequences for one's actions are a tough thing! No free lunches!

I bet he didn't forget to pick his kids up from school, or to buy groceries, or to get gas for his car... we all make choices.

grant_west 10-06-2010 3:36 PM

So let me get this straight:

You can come into this county illegal and recieve thousands of dollars in medical and other goverment aid.

But if your a person that odviously is here Legal and a US resident and a US Home Owner) that has not payed a $75 fire fee they watch your house burn???

That being said Yes I would never get behind or FORGET to pay my pay to spray fee.

THE REVELOUTION WILL BE TELIVISED

10-06-2010 3:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant_west (Post 1638562)
So let me get this straight:

You can come into this county illegal and recieve thousands of dollars in medical and other goverment aid.

But if your a person that odviously is here Legal and a US resident and a US Home Owner) that has not payed a $75 fire fee they watch your house burn???

That being said Yes I would never get behind or FORGET to pay my pay to spray fee.

THE REVELOUTION WILL BE TELIVISED

Yes, I bet the illegals who live next door to the guy pay the $75 because not paying has consequences. If we would do the same with medical and other government aid the same would happen, people would pay!

It will televised but with a liberal biased spin...

liquidmx 10-06-2010 5:22 PM

Just based on the extreme-ness of the decision I have to wonder if something else was going on? Maybe there is a history of the homeowner who had not paid the fee using city resources (without paying in). etc. I would be really curious to hear the "higher ups" reasoning for not putting out the fire.

deneng 10-06-2010 5:37 PM

Ditto, sounds like they wanted to make a point.

deneng 10-06-2010 5:42 PM

If they let the house burn then the insurance has to pay for rebuild. I can't wait to hear what the big time insurance lobyist say about this.

bmcgorrin 10-06-2010 10:28 PM

As a firefighter I would never want to be in this position. While property can be replaced and paid for by insurance lives, including pets, can not. This is a tragic situation all the way around but they should not have let the 3 dogs and a cat die over $75.00.

Michael 10-07-2010 12:48 AM

I agree with Brendan, The fire department has every right to let the house burn down, but it was ethically and morally wrong to let the animals die in the home over 75 bucks.

bcail 10-07-2010 5:52 AM

Anyone think the insurance company will go after the fire dept for not stepping in and saving the place?

psudy 10-07-2010 6:48 AM

No. I bet the insurance company tells him tough **** too.

brettw 10-07-2010 7:24 AM

When I saw this story on the news, they said that in some rural areas it's common to charge people for fire protection due them being too far out from the city, and due to the costs. These firefighters were required by law not to put down that fire. And an obvious argument a spokeswoman or someone said was that if they just put out the fire, nobody would pay the $75, and then they'd be out of money.

To me, I think paying for fire service has some obvious problems. Rural areas or not, people just need to be required to pay some sort of property tax addition to cover this. It just shouldn't be optional.

If this guy has homeowner's insurance, I hope he didn't 'forget' to pay that bill do. I'm pretty sure the insurance company wouldn't be nice either and just allow him to pay some premiums for them to give him a bunch of cash for a new house.

Hard lesson learned.

wakeworld 10-07-2010 9:57 AM

Although this sounds harsh, you have to look at the consequences of the actions of the firemen. If they had gone ahead and put out the fire, the number of people sending in their $75 fee the next year would would drop precipitously. Why pay before, when they'll allow you to pay if and when it happens. It's like paying your health insurance premium only in the years you get hurt. Not only that, but when one of the people that didn't pay the fee had their house burn down the future, they would probably sue the fire department claiming that they had set a precedent of allowing owners to pay the fee, or even the entire cost of the fire, after the fact.

On the other hand, I'm better there was a big ol' pile of $75 checks in the mail the day after this fire and everyone in this rural area will now be better protected. Sometimes it takes an Darwinian moment that may be detrimental to one, but improves society as a whole. I'd like to shake the hand of the guy who gave the order not to put out the fire because I'm sure it wasn't easy, but I think it was the right thing to do for everyone except one family that didn't pay their "insurance premium."

bigdtx 10-07-2010 11:55 AM

Damn Right!
And if that commie bastard don't get his car tags renewed and get's hit on the interstate - well he should die like freeloadin' scumbag he is.
And if he get behind on his electric bill and it's below freezing... well f**k him.
If he get's behind on his water bill - oops! guess you'll be sucking dirt - scumbag.
Ooh - his coat caught fire and he's burning to death - well I don't need to piss right now so I guess it won't get put out.
You people are amazing. A 68 year old man's house burns to the ground and you cheer like it's some kind of object lesson.
I hope that your parents or grandparents house burns to the ground under the same circumstances. Then let's see how much cheerleading goes on.

wakeworld 10-07-2010 12:17 PM

^^^^ Funny you give all those examples like they're absolutely ridiculous. I agree with all of them except for the first one, which really doesn't make sense. I'm amazed that you can't understand the consequences that would result if you don't make people responsible for their actions. If there is no punishment for not renewing your tags (it's not death by the way), people will not renew their tags. If you don't pay your electricity bill, but still get electricity just because it's freezing out, very few people will pay their bill in the winter. If you keep pumping water to someone's house even though they haven't paid for it, very few people will pay for it. Extend that result out and you now have an electric company, water company, fire department, DMV, etc. that cannot stay in business because they are not being paid for their services. Then nobody gets electricity, water, roads or fire protection. That's pretty much as common sense as it gets. I'm amazed that people in this day and age can possibly expect a different result. It's mind-blowing.

2006maliblue 10-07-2010 12:21 PM

Dave the more I've read on this story the worst it gets. The problem is the firee department has put other homes out who hadn't paid the fee, and even allowed other people in the past to pay the $75 directly to the fire fighters on the scene. In this case the acting fire chief, as the no longer have an actual fire chief is someone this homeowner has had issuses with in the past and it appears this may have been in spite.

Also Dave you mention it's "like paying your health insurance premium only in the years you get hurt" true allowing the fee to be paid after the fact, however wether you have insurance or not the hospital will still save your life if you show up with your arm cut off. They won't send you home because you have no insurance. There are consequences, but they should be the same as health insurance, you pay the $75 they put your house out and you have a great day. You don't, they put the house out and send you a bill for the full amount of fighting the fire!

2006maliblue 10-07-2010 12:27 PM

Dave I really don't understand how you can be so cold hearted? You need to have compassion for those who arn't fortunate enough to be able to pay there bills. Yes there should be consequences, however, how much sense does it make to freeze people out of there homes and allow them to burn? Guess you want to pay to subsidize there medical bills and pay for their housing. I feel what we should be shooting for is giving people a leg up and helping them become self sufficent instead of giving them hand outs, however there will always be times when people need hand outs! Did you forgot about toys for tots already? Put your Santa hat back on for a minute!

bigdtx 10-07-2010 12:39 PM

It's OK. Sound like Dave has never needed anything from anybody and never knew anybody that did.
To him anyone who falls behind on a bill is a scumbag and a deadbeat. F**k his house and family - it they were worth saving they'd be writing checks.

brettw 10-07-2010 12:40 PM

Billing people for the full cost of fighting the fire wouldn't be a bad idea. It'd have to be the kind of bill you can't get out of with bankruptcy like taxes. If a person refuses to pay, the fire dept. would need to have the right to garnish their wages until the bill is paid and/or seize the person's land. The owner would also have little right to contest the amount paid, which would include not only full wages for all personnel involved from the time they left the fire station until they got back but also a 'use of fire equipment' fee, which I would assume would be fairly hefty. So it's then up to these homeowners to pay an inexpensive $75 fire fighting 'insurance' premium each year or risk being financially ruined.

wake77 10-07-2010 12:46 PM

Thinking about the poor animals that had to suffer a cruel death over 75 bucks makes me question the morals of some of you on this forum. You guys supporting the firemen/chief in this case are poor excuses for human beings.

In the end, it's going to cost the taxpayers more than the 75 dollars so congratulations on making a stupid point.

wakeworld 10-07-2010 1:12 PM

Nice exaggeration Big D. Hope you feel better.

Robert, as far as I know, this conversation has nothing to do with those "less fortunate." We're talking about people who just would rather not pay a bill because the risk of consequences is low. However, if you want to make that argument, it is not compassionate to encourage the entire population to not pay their heating bill, which is what you would be doing by simply paying everyone's heating bill that decided not to pay. Compassion is starting a program to help those that can't meet certain needs and helping them to do so in an orderly fashion by determining whether or not they really need assistance. Randomly saying, "Whoever doesn't pay their bill will get their bill covered by the government" is a detriment to society as a whole and about as non-compassionate as you get. Just because a short term behavior appears to be compassionate, does not mean it is.

Unfortunately, there is a large swath of our society that thinks that way and that's why we have so many government hand-out programs. Although it makes those people feel good because they can point to a short-term "compassionate" action, they're long gone when the long-term damage hits society. Oh look...the United States is a perfect example right now!

cwb4me 10-07-2010 1:16 PM

they could have simply charged the cost to put out the fire and a penalty fee to discourage others from not paying their 75.00.the insurance company would have gladly paid that fee to save some of their costs. you can all laugh and make fun of this guy but you and his neighbors who have the same insurance are paying the bill. all insurance companies do is total their losses add payroll and profit and divide it among their insured. NOW LAUGH.

grant_west 10-07-2010 1:17 PM

Yea Isn't there a Better way to handle people that don't pay their $75 fee, Like what Brett W is saying. $75 get you basic fire service. If you don't pay the $75 your on the hook for FULL PRICE fire fight. So people have a choice. Some one that lets say didn't pay the $75 would be on the hook for like $10 grand to have their house put out. IMO when you have a a goverment department like the Fire choosing who they can and cant work with over money seems a bit 3rd world.

Or if that's the way we are gonna roll FINE. Im cool with. I pay my bills so Im not complaining. it lets do it at the HOSPITALS, Police Department, Ect. Call 911 and have them tell you Sorry sir. You haven't payed your taxes cops are not comming out to help you.

BTW this is how fire departments use to work long ago you paid fire department insurance or they would watch your house burn

10-07-2010 1:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wake77 (Post 1638817)
Thinking about the poor animals that had to suffer a cruel death over 75 bucks makes me question the morals of some of you on this forum. You guys supporting the firemen/chief in this case are poor excuses for human beings.

In the end, it's going to cost the taxpayers more than the 75 dollars so congratulations on making a stupid point.


Who the heck are you to question anyone's morality or ethics? What makes you so great? Morals are personal and influenced by one's surrounding and experiences. Really, who the heck are you? Some people believe that it is perfectly ok to live off the sweat of another man, while others believe the survival of the fittest or only the strong survive.

Who am I? Why am I here? You should read Epictetus, at least in my opinion, which means nothing.

supersonicmi 10-07-2010 1:22 PM

This is a sad but straightforward case. The guy even admitted that he didn't pay the fee because he assumed that if anything happened that the fire department would put out the fire anyways. The truly sad part is that it took a trajedy of this magnitude for people to take the fee seriously and start being accountable for their own actions and decisions!

wakeworld 10-07-2010 1:28 PM

Quote:

they could have simply charged the cost to put out the fire and a penalty fee to discourage others from not paying their 75.00
Agreed...and compassionate...to all.

wake77 10-07-2010 1:31 PM

"Who the heck are you to question anyone's morality or ethics? What makes you so great? Morals are personal and influenced by one's surrounding and experiences. Really, who the heck are you?"

Who the heck are you? You post all this crap that no one cares about and then act like they are your own words. How about some of your own personal ideas Sam? Your posts in the other thread are something that we can read by clicking on the links you provide. Of course, if we visit, we'll be number 100 and 101 of total people that have visited that site.

To applaud innocent animals that suffered because some guy didn't pay his 75.00 makes you a piece of sheet, plain and simple, no matter what kind of person I am or what I stand for.

ilikebeaverandboats 10-07-2010 1:31 PM

thats sad. hope they can come of with a more effective way to pay for it.

psudy 10-07-2010 1:40 PM

Not to be an Ahole, but how can you not get three dogs out of a burning moble home? They have front and back doors.

10-07-2010 1:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wake77 (Post 1638831)
"Who the heck are you to question anyone's morality or ethics? What makes you so great? Morals are personal and influenced by one's surrounding and experiences. Really, who the heck are you?"

Who the heck are you? You post all this crap that no one cares about and then act like they are your own words. How about some of your own personal ideas Sam? Your posts in the other thread are something that we can read by clicking on the links you provide. Of course, if we visit, we'll be number 100 and 101 of total people that have visited that site.

To applaud innocent animals that suffered because some guy didn't pay his 75.00 makes you a piece of sheet, plain and simple, no matter what kind of person I am or what I stand for.

I didn't question anyone's morals.... intelligence yes, morals no.

I have never claimed any words as mine that were not. I did not applaud anything... The ideas that I posted are what I believe, nothing original, I never claimed them to be...

Aren't you high and mighty!

wakeworld 10-07-2010 1:48 PM

Quote:

applaud innocent animals that suffered because some guy didn't pay his 75.00
This was an unfortunate consequence of an owner that was trying to save a few bucks, but I can't find anyone on this thread that applauded the death of animals.

wake77 10-07-2010 2:02 PM

"This was an unfortunate consequence of an owner that was trying to save a few bucks, but I can't find anyone on this thread that applauded the death of animals."

The owner will get a new home (and likely some extra money from an inevitable lawsuit) and the fire dept will get a slap on the wrist, but who paid the ultimate price? What point was made?

10-07-2010 2:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wake77 (Post 1638849)
"This was an unfortunate consequence of an owner that was trying to save a few bucks, but I can't find anyone on this thread that applauded the death of animals."

The owner will get a new home (and likely some extra money from an inevitable lawsuit) and the fire dept will get a slap on the wrist, but who paid the ultimate price? What point was made?

I seriously doubt that.

Quote:

Todd Cranick, son of Gene Cranick, tells Local 6 that his parents have received several thousand dollars from the insurance company to cover immediate costs. Cranick went on to say that the insurance plans on covering all damage and property losses. Right now, there is no fund set up to help the Cranick family.
What is the lawsuit for? Why the slap on the wrist? For what?

deuce 10-07-2010 2:15 PM

I have not read the whole post, but want to put down a vote for personal responsibility. Don't pay for an offered service, don't get it.

Wish I didn't have to carry car insurance and if I totaled my car, I could call and say... "Hey, I totaled my car and would like to pay the $$$$ for the last 6 months so you can replace it....where can I send the check?"

As far as I am concerned, the individual gambled and lost.... That is the way the ball bounces....

wakeworld 10-07-2010 2:19 PM

Quote:

who paid the ultimate price? What point was made?
Wow, is that a serious question?
- The owner learned to pay his "insurance" bills.
- If the owner's homeowner's insurance required him to keep up on the fire fee, he has now learned to read and abide by contracts he signs.
- His neighbors learned to pay for the fire service if they want it to be guaranteed.
- The fire department stays in business so that others can use their services in the future.

Yes, the horrible result of this tragedy will be personal responsibility, vibrant fire service and a better functioning society...gasp!

mendo247 10-07-2010 2:25 PM

Sad to say but he got exactly what he deserved. Personally if I was his neighbor and had been paying my fees and they went and put his house out I would have been pissed. That Fire Dept has some balls. Props to them for sticking to their guns. It is sad he had to loose his house to learn a lesson. The car insurance example is spot on.

csaidler 10-07-2010 2:37 PM

Does anyone know go what point the fire had progressed by the time the firefighters had gotten there. Just curious since ppl are upset about the animals. If the fire had developed to the point where it was obvious noone could survive there's no way I'd send my guys in there to save some dogs and cats. I couldn't realistically risk the lives of my guys in order to saves someones pets. Think about this knowing sometimes the fire dept shows up and the fire has just started and they can put it out. But sometimes, especially in rural areas if it takes them longer to respond, the house could be fully engulfed by the time the firefighters show up and from that point 1. There really isn't anything you could save and 2. Most fire depts would end up doing what these guys did, protecting the nearby exposures.

liquidmx 10-07-2010 3:07 PM

The animals died because of the homeowner NOT the firemen. How anyone sees this any differently is beyond me. That would be like blaming Purina for the hundreds of animals that starve to death because their owners refused to pay for the food. This has become a GREAT example reminding people that things in life are NOT free. I commonly hear people blatantly spout off about "the right to receive health care" (similar bi-lineal issue)...health care is NOT free...its that the people who DO pay their health insurance are paying for themselves and those who don't pay. If everyone paid their portions of health care it would be a LOT cheaper...and in this situation the fire insurance would probably be more like $25 rather than $75.

rowdy 10-07-2010 7:18 PM

The citizens of the county voted many years back to not have county fire protection to keep their taxes low. To help and provide some sort of fire protection to those who wanted it, many of the cities within the county offered a subscription based program, and drafted up agreements with the county saying protection would be provided if, and only if the fee had been paid. The cities are not required to respond outside of their jurisdictions, regardless, but do so based off of the subscription. Now if they had paid their $75 and not responded, this would be a different story. It's common knowledge in this county that you will not get service if you do not pay. Those of us who live in a jurisdiction with a professional fire department or a volunteer department with good mutual aid agreements don't have to deal with a lack of response.

I am too, really curious as to how involved the mobile home was when the FD arrived. As a firefighter, I've responded to a few mobile home fires and let me tell you, they burn very quickly. Mobile homes are not built to the same requirements that a foundation house is. My department's response times are well under 5 minutes, and every one of the fires I had been to the mobile homes were well involved to the point where we could not make an effective interior attack. A volunteer department's response times are usually in the 15-20 minute plus range. At that point of fire progression, you're most likely dealing with exposures. I am guessing the pets had perished well prior to the FD's arrival. Yes, it's hard to hear about animals dying, but I can imagine it wasn't a direct cause of a decision to not respond to the incident.

jtnz 10-07-2010 7:31 PM

If it were me I'd send $75 to each of those bastards, except I'd eat it first and send them the result.

ttrigo 10-07-2010 9:43 PM

"To applaud innocent animals that suffered because some guy didn't pay his 75.00 makes you a piece of sheet, plain and simple, no matter what kind of person I am or what I stand for"

please point out who was applauding the death of his animals.
this guy admitted to not paying his bill. it sucks he lost his home and pets because of it, but it is his own damn fault. I would be pissed if neighbors were able to pay the FD the $75 when they got there. that would be like paying for healthcare when you are diagnosed with cancer. (bad example, but you get the point)
lessons learned are not always easy. sometimes it takes a tragedy to get the point across.

wake77 10-07-2010 10:18 PM

"I would be pissed if neighbors were able to pay the FD the $75 "

How many posts have we read praising the firemen and that this guy learned a lesson by the fire dept not putting out the fire? I don't give a crap, if I had paid my 75 bucks for fire protection and my neighbor didn't and I knew that he didn't pay the fee, I, would not in any way, feel good that someone's house burned down. I mean I am sure that is what I would want to look at everyday, my neighbor's charred house. That would make me feel like a real macho man. "My neighbor didn't pay his 75.00, so I just laughed and watched his house burn." That's vindictive as hell, and I can not understand all of you people that have this giant boner about teaching someone a 75 dollar lesson.

"That would be like blaming Purina for the hundreds of animals that starve to death because their owners refused to pay for the food."

No, it is not the same. What would be the same is an employee for Purina knowing an animal is starving, put instead of walking over there and giving the animal some of the kibble from the ten-thousand pound bag of dog food sitting right next to them. Especially when it was their job to feed animal, but instead they choose just sit there ignoring their primary responsibility just to teach the other animals a lesson about paying their 75.00 kibble fee.

2006maliblue 10-07-2010 11:31 PM

I agree Jeremy, I also think allot of people are missing the point that he offered to pay not just the $75 fee but the full cost of fighting the fire at the time of the fire, which would have been considerbly more and they did nothing. The neighbor even offered them $5000 on the spot to do something and they refused.

I understand he didn't pay the $75 fee, wether it was a mistake or not who cares. He agreed to pay the FULL COST TO FIGHT THE FIRE and they refused? This is what I don't get.

I'm sure no one on here wants to see animals die nor do we wish for anyone to suffer the heartache theese events cause. But why would you allow someone to lose there whole life savings and there loved ones (the animals) over $75?

I'd be interested to find out what percentage of people pay the fee and what percentage doesnt? I think esential services such as police and fire should be supported soley off tax revenues not special fees such as this so soceity as a whole can benefit. Look at the problems this $75 fee has caused. Man lost his home and possesions, which means higher premiums for all other insured homeowners to cover his loss. Think about the negative attention to the fire department this fee has caused. Since when have firefighters been accountants checking to make sure a fee has been collected and looking to see if a house is covered or not? I always thought firefighters where hereos who rushed into buildings to save people and pets and saved our property from distruction. Maybe thats a warped view to have now that I'm older and it seems soceity is driven my greed. He who has the most wins, the biggest house, the newest boat, the extra money to buy the fire department. I'll be the first to admit there's been times in my life I didn't have $75 to my name and I'd sure hope and pray that the fire department would still come and give me service like a human being if I needed them wether I could afford $75 or not!

Personally everybody on this board who has applauded the fire department for not putting the fire out and watching that man lose everything he owns should be ashamed of themselves. When you walk into your garage and look at your $50,000 boat that slurps more then $75 in gas a day do you feel superior to this man because you've made it and maybe he hasn't? Personally I feel very fortunate and lucky to have what i have, and I'll stress the lucky part because no matter how hard anybody works you have to have luck on your side. I wish I lived closer cause I'd love to buy that poor unlucky guy a beer.

rowdy 10-08-2010 12:03 AM

This should provide some insight how fire protection works in Obion County:

http://networkedblogs.com/8Q6LE

This is a Fire Chief of a neighboring city of South Fulton in Obion County, Tennessee, making a statement about the fire protection of the county after the incident at the Crannick Residence.

supersonicmi 10-08-2010 9:28 AM

@ Robert. If people could pay on the spot, no one would pay the fee until they had a fire and thus it would defeat the purpose of the fee. The whole thing only works when everyone pays wether they have a fire or not. This is exactly like not having insurance and then wanting to pay after you have had an accident.

from EJ above: "Wish I didn't have to carry car insurance and if I totaled my car, I could call and say... "Hey, I totaled my car and would like to pay the $$$$ for the last 6 months so you can replace it....where can I send the check?""

This man even admitted he didn't pay the fee because he thought that if anything every happened, that they would come take care of it anyways; not because "he hadn't made it yet" or didn't have $75. I do feel for the man, I really do...this is a terrible thing to have ahppen to anyone... However, no one should ever feel ashamed of themselves for holding someone else accountable for their own decisions and actions!

For the record, I would buy the guy a beer and probably give him some money and a place to stay if i lived near him, but that is because i am a nice guy, not because he is entitled to it. It's unfortunate that sometimes people have to learn the hard way from tragedy to take respoonsiblity for their choices in life.

2006maliblue 10-08-2010 9:47 AM

Jon, I think the point everyone is missing with regards to this case is he offered to pay not just the $75 fee but the actual cost to fight the fire however much that may have been. The neighbor even offered 5k on the spot.

This is not the same as buying insurance after the accident but instead this is the same as going to a body shop and paying for 5k or 10k in damages to fix the car yourself. Sure if he had insurance it would have only cost him his deductable however being he didn't he would pay for the actual cost to repair his car. This case is more akin to him getting in an accident with his car, going to the body shop and saying fix my car what ever it costs I'll pay cash and the body shop saying we don't work for cash only insurance companies. Really doesn't make much sense. If your willing to pay the actual costs of the service(not $75) then allow him to pay and recieve the service.

I'm sure the fire department could have made money. One they could bill out the hours of the volunteers who do not recieve a paycheck, added more money to there budget, and the guys home owners would gladly pay a 10k or 20k fire fighting bill versus paying 100k for a total loss or what ever the total may come too!

mendo247 10-08-2010 10:06 AM

This is a perfect example with whats wrong with our country... You dont pay for a service but think its owed to you anyways.

supersonicmi 10-08-2010 10:44 AM

@ Robert. That's different than how I understood the incident in terms of him offering to pay 20K or whatever, besides how do that know if he even has the $$ just laying around to offer, sort of too late to make that promise with no assurance he can really pay for it... either way, waiting till your house is on fire to try to negotiating pricing i think we can all agree is not the responsible thing to do and probably shouldn't be rewarded.

nickbot 10-08-2010 11:04 AM

robert, your point is moot as he did not have the "option" of paying on the spot. their system says either you pay the $75 or you don't get the fire dept's help.
furthermore, a pay on the spot or pay the fee option would probably lead to no one paying the fee, hence to fire dept.

wake77 10-08-2010 11:47 AM

"This is exactly like not having insurance and then wanting to pay after you have had an accident."

That is B.S. Anyone with a fraction of common sense could tell the difference. You are comparing apples to whatever is the furthest thing away from an apple. The firemen and the chief ignored their primary duty and that is to protect and serve.

You ignore the bureaucracy and do your duty, plain and simple.

If the guy didn't pay, you fight the fire and protect the public, and then send the guy a bill (if he doesn't pay, you put a lien on his property).

Since you guys like the "car insurance" analogy so much...If you have an accident and you are hurt, do the paramedics ask for proof of car insurance? What if they let someone bleed to death because the victim did not have insurance? Are you guys okay with that?

nickbot 10-08-2010 12:35 PM

i think it's the police that protect and serve??

this is not like the medical case where the policy is basically to treat people and worry about how they will pay later.

he willingly disregarded his localities' fire protection policy...and then changed his mind when his house caught on fire...you can't have your cake and eat it too...

liquidmx 10-08-2010 1:22 PM

Jon makes a VERY good point/argument. The Fire department needs to be on call and ready to respond at all times. If the fire department allowed people to pay when the accident happens it would be incredibly expensive and they likely wouldn't have on-call firefighters (unless they are putting out fires everyday).

Economically its actually very similar to the health care situation we currently have, only in its infancy. People made the switch from paying insurance to taking the gamble and not paying insurance (knowing they would get help if needed). Then when they needed help they used the system without having paid in over the year(s). As such they end up with a high bill (potentially higher than the back fees they would have owed) because so many people had taken the risk and the hospital still needed to exist to treat people. Its hard to explain but the economics are there. If people start believing they can gamble and pay when needed...the yearly fees go up (for those still wishing to buy fire insurance) as well as the at point service fees...since there is less money to go around to support the program.

fly135 10-08-2010 1:24 PM

I wonder if the Fire Dept got any public funds other than the $75 paid each year. I wonder if the Firemen would want to hold the taxpayer responsible for a bail out if their pension plans performed poorly in the future and was underfunded. The right thing to do would be to put the fire out and bill the owner. If he has homeowners insurance I bet the insurance company would cover the charges and there's always the lien option.

supersonicmi 10-08-2010 1:43 PM

@ john. If they put it out and then billed people, why would anyone pay the $75 fee? and in turn (as M-Dizzle states) what revenue would fund the fire deprtments operations, which is made up primarily of volunteer firefighters anyways?

fly135 10-08-2010 2:18 PM

Because the fee for responding to the fire would be equivalent to the services offered. Which would be a lot more than $75. I find it strange that the fee would not be mandatory like taxes. Did the municipality take on the responsibility to inform the mortgage holders that there is no fire protection. And if the Fire Dept accepts any other taxpayers funds they should still have a responsibility.

I could easily see the municipality being sued and losing for the loss. It doesn't seem prudent to allow the Fire Dept to choose whether or not to perform their duty. Obviously I don't know the details, but IMO somebody was sticking their neck out to let the house burn.

If I was a volunteer firefighter I'd have to question my motives if I let a house burn. Seems counter intuitive unless he's volunteers because he likes seeing things burn.

2006maliblue 10-08-2010 2:29 PM

In the video Eric posted there was allot of insight into the department. First it is all volunteer so these firefighters are doing this to help people not make money, and they also mention there yearly budget is just $8,000. The amount of money offered by the neighbor was almost there total yearly budget yet they did nothing on principal? This is what I don't understand. Put a lein against the house and if people don't pay take there house. But don't just let it burn. How much pollution did this fire create? What are the enviromental impacts of allowing homes to burn? The fire department only responded after a paying neighbor called them. What if instead of pets in the home it was the homeowners grand children? What would the fire department do then? What happens when theres a car accident or a car fire? Does everyone there have to pay $75 a year to the fire department for there cars too? Seems like the system has to many flaws. Increase the sales tax by a 1/4 percent and offer coverage to everyone!

liquidmx 10-08-2010 3:42 PM

"Did the municipality take on the responsibility to inform the mortgage holders that there is no fire protection."

Again with the pointing fingers, haha. I thought that's just part of being a grownup and property owner...taking care of your shiz and not relying on someone else to do it for you. (flood inspections, etc.)

Robert, playing devils advocate...what is the history of the volunteer fire department budget? Has it continually decreased over the years? Were these guys professional fire fighters at one point where they lost their jobs due to a lack of funding? Should they have to risk their lives (as volunteers) over another person not willing to pay the "insurance" and help keep the firehouse open? It sounds to me like these firefighters are already offering up an incredible service for the community (for free no less)...which makes me further question the background and motive of their actions over slandering a volunteer firefighter's morals.

wake77 10-09-2010 7:46 AM

"I wonder if the Fire Dept got any public funds other than the $75 paid each year."

The chief said in the video that most of their funding comes from grants (which, if you chase the origin) is funded by taxpayers.

"i think it's the police that protect and serve??"

So explain to me what firemen's primary duties are.

The firemen had responded to the scene. So there would not be any extra fuel costs.
The firemen had responded to the scene. So there would not have been any extra personnel costs, but that is moot anyway because it was a volunteer FD.
To just sit their and watch someone's house burn, over a political issue (if you listen to the chief's interview it's easy to put 2 and 2 together), goes against everything a fireman should stand for. What if there had been some sort of explosive in the residence which lead to a blast that caused major damage to the neighbor's home?

deltahoosier 10-09-2010 11:58 AM

The fire depart was their to protect the public. They made sure the fire did not spread. This is another discussion where people can not understand cause and effect.

I have not looked completely into this but it sound like this discussion mentioned the guys house/trailer was outside the city limits. There are asked to pay a fee to protect his property. The fact that he is outside the limit and in the juristiction of a volunteer department means statistically they are not going to be able to get to a fire in time to save lives or even save a near total loss of the structure anyway. The structure was already lost if it was a trailer and since the guy did not pay the bill, they were more than likely making an example of a already lost cause. I don't think any self respecting person would see just a little fire on the side and stand there and watch while it lit up and burned. At the same time, there is absolutely zero reason for the fire department to put out your house for the sake of your property. The rule of thumb is 1) Life 2) Environment and 3) Property. They get there. House is already torched. There is no other environmental hazard like dangerous chemical plant or toxic sludge or so on and the guy is safe. All three conditions are met. They stand by to make sure no other properties are effected and use the issue to point out that they did not actively put water onto his already lost house due to his non payment. What, the guy gets a trailer burned 4/5 to the ground vs all the way?

While it seems harsh, no one works for free. Sooner you understand this, the sooner you will get ahead in life.

wake77 10-09-2010 2:20 PM

"no one works for free."

So how much does a VOLUNTEER firefighter make?

csaidler 10-09-2010 3:00 PM

I think you missed the point Jeremy. Money had to come from somewhere to pay for the 911 system, the radios, the tools, the fire apparatus, the training, and everything else that goes into making sure those VOLUNTEERS are able to put a fire out in the first place. I believe the correct question is not "How much does a volunteer MAKE?" , but " How much does a volunteer dept COST?". Which is way more than 75$. Don't pay car insurance don't get your car fixed. Don't pay homeowners insurance don't get your house fixed. Can't pay either one of those after the fact. Why should you be able to pay for this after your house catches fire. More so for those that say bill him the total cost of the firefighting effort. Whose to say he doesn't join the new "American way" and not pay for that either. Hell the fires out now. So the fire dept takes possession of the house right. Just for your info it probly cost more to properly demolish what was left of that trailer and haul it off than it was worth before the fire started. So the fire dept gets shafted again. Sorry if I'm not a bleeding heart, but the money has to come from somewhere. And I'd rather pay my own 75$. Then pay 150$ cuz every other person figured they don't have to. It doesn't work with healthcare why would this be any different?

talltigeguy 10-09-2010 4:39 PM

David (wakeworld), you said it better than I can say it myself. This guy might be part of the county commissioners who refused to make the fee mandatory, or at least he elected them to represent him. I think that fire and police protection should be part of his property taxes, but his politicians didn't think so, and this is a natural result.

If a fire truck costs $500,000, I think the true cost of putting out the fire is a lot more than 5-10k that we are talking about here, depending on the lifetime of the truck and how often it actually gets used. Charging people for putting out a fire is going to be complicated to figure out how much it is. The guy lives in a double wide, so he may not have the resources to pay the fee anyway. Then the fire department still has the same problem. No one pays the yearly fee, and no one pays the fee to put out the fire.

rowdy 10-09-2010 6:11 PM

The residence involved in this incident was inside of Obion County. Obion county's residents elect to not have fire protection to keep their taxes lower, a very very rare fire protection model. They have continually voted to keep things this way. There are 8 or so incorporated cities within Obion county that collect taxes to provide fire protection to their cities via their own fire departments. These department's obligations are the residents within their own cities, not the residents in the county. The residents of the county also supported an agreement that the cities would provide fire protection services to individual residents of the county if the residents paid a $75 annual fee to the city department.

A list of the paid residences is maintained at the dispatch centers. If you're on the list, the department will respond. If not, they won't. It's as simple as that. The residences understand the consequences of not paying the annual fee. Some of the cities will respond regardless of the fee, but they are not required to. The residents of the county have taken this for granted, as the fee collection has dropped significantly through the years. This puts the city departments in a tough place as their budget decreases due to the lack of fees, but their responses to the county increase, and in most cases the number of responses to the county outnumber the responses in their own city. It wouldn't be fair to raise taxes for the city when the county is the one who benefits. The cities are frustrated with the fire protection model in the county.

Think of it this way: You own a lawn mower and your neighbor comes over to borrow it to mow his lawn. He returns it, but never pays you for the gas or the maintenance. He does this week after week. Eventually you're going get tired of it and tell him to buy his own lawnmower.

imx 10-10-2010 12:45 AM

I can't understand (if Eric describes it correctly) how a Federal or State gov't system allows each County, which I am assuming to be similar to what we here call Shires, to decide and control things like emergency services. These really should be paid for from tax revenue, this ensures two things, EVERYONE is covered and ALL taxpayers share the cost equally making it cheaper individually and avoids the prospect of fire depts. scratching around cap-in-hand, looking to keep their gear and training adequate. We have a fire service levy that is in our annual rates, not one house or building in Australia would face a scenario like this, even in our rural areas that are primarily run by volunteers there are still fulltime supervisors and most of the equipment is paid for by state revenue. I assume you guys don't have to worry about 'forgetting' to pay for upkeep of your armed forces and I really fail to see how safekeeping of citizens and their property should be any less important so as to allow what appears to be a hotch-potch arrangement to be tolerated.

kko13 10-10-2010 7:08 AM

Makes me sad to be an American when I see something like this happen. So how many kids they going to let burn to death because someone forgot or couldnt afford to pay. I am not one to support law suites...but I hope this guy takes them for everything he can. Shame to anyone firefighter who stood back and watched. I have many friends that are EMT and FF and I know not 1 of them would stand back and do nothing even if it could cost them their job.If you support not trying to put out the fire your a poor excuse for an American.

deltahoosier 10-10-2010 8:17 AM

Kevin.

I guess I am going to have to be the a$$ that says quit being a bleeding heart non thinker. No one is going to sit back and watch someone die. How in the heck do any of you people even come to that conclusion. It is totally beyond me what goes through your and others minds. I am going to hit this two ways. First. There is ZERO obligation for anyone but you to give a rats a$$ about YOUR property. The pecking order it LIfe, Environment, and Property. The fire department is going to try and save the greater good before worrying one cent about your stuff and the certainly are not going to let anyone's kids burn. If you or anyone else is really worried about your kids burning, you certainly will not move out to the country away from fire houses. You certainly will not cut any holes through your fire rated walls. You will have permits and proper inspections for everything you do around your house. You will keep all flamables in fire cabinets. You will study the MSDS of all chemicals in your house and have the separated by hazard class in proper rated enclosures. You will not keep a 5 gallon can of gas in your garage. You get the picture? I bet you do very little to absolutely non of those things. I bet you don't even have a fire plan or ladders if you live in a two story. Don't blame the fire department for your choices.

The second approach is this. The guy chose to let his house burn by where he lived and his refusal to pay the fee/ tax. He is safe and he made the choice not to protect his property.

This is something the liberal mind does not take into count. They keep thinking we can pass regulation after regulation and suppress the people and now want to bitch as soon as someone can't afford to pay for it. Then throw in law suit after lawsuit and people can't hardly afford to do their job without the threat of being sued. This is your bed, now lay in it.

fly135 10-10-2010 9:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltahoosier (Post 1639322)
I guess I am going to have to be the a$$ that says quit being a bleeding heart non thinker. No one is going to sit back and watch someone die. How in the heck do any of you people even come to that conclusion. It is totally beyond me what goes through your and others minds. I am going to hit this two ways. First. There is ZERO obligation for anyone but you to give a rats a$$ about YOUR property.

Just because people don't subscribe to your selfish philosophy, it doesn't mean they are a non-thinker. I know you think, but IMO it is shallow minded and frequently deluded. Things like Catholics aren't Christians and invading Iraq was a smart decision come to mind. People don't think the same way as you because it isn't in their hearts to be so callous, shallow minded, and self centered. You come across as someone who has created a lot of mental demons that have consumed you intellectually.

wake77 10-10-2010 10:21 AM

"I guess I am going to have to be the a$$ that says quit being a bleeding heart non thinker."

If everyone lived their life as you did Delta, the world would be a miserable place. If you are a true follower of Christ, you leave your politics behind and do your damnedest to help your neighbor.

deltahoosier 10-10-2010 6:14 PM

It has zero to do with a follower of christ. Christ preached about accountability and throw away your belongings to follow him so why would you care about your property? Don't tell me about helping my neighbor Jeremy. Your help will lead to everyone being homeless and in bondage. NOTHING IS FOR FREE. The bible even speaks about working hard and not get caught up in your possessions. Also, if you really want to pull out the christian card, a christian may be disappointed that the house burned but may realize it is an opportunity to get out of a rut and get going in life. My brothers brother inlaw and wife were down to their last few dollars and their trailer was about to be foreclosed on. The lived in a poor smaller town in the midwest. Not a ton of jobs. They were in a dire situation by most peoples position. They were content to just live and ride it down until they were forced to make a choice. They decided to get a small loan and buy a rental. Now they have over a million dollars in property, live on 12 wooded acres with a pond and have around a 4000 plus square foot house. They would have done nothing until prompted. They now do good things and are very active in the community. Have girl scout camp nights on their property and so on. You never know.

Why would the world be a miserable place Jeremy? You mean having someone you can count on? You mean someone who will shoot straight with you? You mean someone who will share with you and ask nothing in return? You mean someone who was pretty much homeless at the end of my first year in college because we could not afford our family home. My mom moved to florida with my brother and I stayed and finished by hanging on friends couches and getting a small place with a girl and just making it. Moving 2500 miles as a 19 year old to a job making peanuts because it was the only opportunity and making a living on it. Having seen my mom and dad dead and gone before I was 25 and a brother by 34. I had to learn it all the hard way bud and I still share with people around me the lessons I learned to get here. I am very giving to people. I had to also learn cause and effect and learn how to be an individual but more importantly a good human because I had and have no one I can go leach off of. I understand this crap because I live it. Just scale it up. If everyone in their life learned to take care of themselves, then everyone would have more bandwidth to help each other because it would be an exception and not the rule.

Jeremy, it is very clear you don't understand cause and effect. You also do not seem to be able to distinguish between financial and government institutions vs humanity. You should help your neighbor but you can not help people that won't help themselves. That is the difference in character.

deltahoosier 10-10-2010 6:32 PM

Didn't see your post John.

You are not able to get that you can not give everything away. That is a fact. Catholics are not christians. The religion did not even come to be until nearly 400 years after christ. The first christians were followers of christ directly and not some man in a church. Again, you obviously are not researching and continuing to just repeat crap that you hear.

Invading Iraq from a long term strategic position was a smart idea. The muslim world is a huge problem and the west needs to live among them over there and show them that we are a compassionate people after all. I know that sounds ironic in a war, but, it is true. Again, I know you can't and won't understand since you have not even bothered to research a point from above and still repeat it to try and make a point.

John, I am a very simple person. I am very transparent and I will tell you the secret. I HATE idiots and LIARS. Very simple. If you are going to post something stupid, then be prepared to defend it. You guys love to try and throw emotions into factual debates. That is childish. Of course people have hearts but the last time I checked heart does not run government and financial institutions. Not everyone in the world plays by the same rules when it comes to matters of the heart either. I don't have any demons that get in the way of my intellect. I have real life experiences and many hours of researching facts the shape my intellect. I don't think you remember that little simple test that determined where I stand socially and politically? I was one of the only ones that was pretty much dead in the center of all ways. Matter of fact I was slightly left in the financial category. I just hate dishonest arguments. I guess that is my demon. Liars.

wake77 10-10-2010 7:08 PM

"Catholics are not christians. The religion did not even come to be until nearly 400 years after christ. The first christians were followers of christ directly and not some man in a church. Again, you obviously are not researching and continuing to just repeat crap that you hear."

"The History of the Catholic Church is traced by the Catholic Church to apostolic times. The history of the Catholic Church is an integral part of the history of Christianity and of Western civilization. The Apostles and many Christians traveled from Jerusalem to northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and Rome to found the first Christian communities. Christianity spread quickly through the Roman Empire, and by the second century there were many established bishoprics within the Empire including Northern Africa, France, Italy, Syria, and Asia Minor, and twenty bishoprics outside the empire, mainly in Armenia. Irenaeus (d. 202) defended the apostolic tradition."

Delta, it amazes me you have the gall to accuse someone of "repeating crap". You live in this bubble where you think you are always right, no matter what the situation is. You think anyone that has different opinions or beliefs that they are somehow beneath you. Truth is, you are probably the biggest idiot on this message board. Everything you spew from your hate-filled mouth contradicts what Christ teaches. You may "HATE idiots and LIARS", but you hold a special place in your heart for is HYPOCRISY and close-mindedness.

csaidler 10-10-2010 7:26 PM

"Makes me sad to be an American when I see something like this happen. So how many kids they going to let burn to death because someone forgot or couldnt afford to pay"

Just wondering when this story changed to kids and ppl dying. Pets died not humans, there is a difference. I guarantee had there been viable lives inside orders or no orders ANY firefighter would have gone in. However there were not humans lives at stake. Let's stick to the story at hand and not turn this into a religious argument. Thats been happening for over 2000 years and nothing is going to happen to change that here on wakeworld.

rowdy 10-10-2010 11:30 PM

Paul, this is a very rare model of fire protection in this country. It's the only county I've heard of that operates this way. Some states, like California, where I live and work, raise fire protection funds through sales tax, and require their counties and cities to provide fire protection so that incidents like this do not occur.

Kevin, a lawsuit would not hold up in court. One look at the county policy would show that the South Fulton Fire Department followed policy as voted on by the county residents and it would be thrown out. If anything, the blame would point back to the property owner's grandson, whose act of illegal burning started the fire.

Many residents of the city that I serve have inquired with us about this incident. I have done quite a bit fact finding and research to try to get to the truth behind all this.

First and foremost, please let me state that the departments will respond automatically if there is a report of a trapped person. An animal life is not considered a human life and is considered property.

Through my fact finding and knowledge of the fire service, I have gathered what I feel is a fairly good representation of what happened:

The fire started when the illegal burning of trash caught the residence's shed on fire. It quickly grew beyond the means of the garden hose that was used to attempt to put the fire out. At this time, a 911 call was placed. Per SOP's of the county, the address was checked against the database of those who had paid the annual subscription fee. The Cranicks had not paid, so the South Fulton Fire Department was not notified of the incident and the resident was informed as such. As the fire grew, a neighbor who had elected to pay their subscription fee, decided to call the department. The South Fulton Fire Department was dispatched at this time. The fire has now begun to consume the exterior of the mobile home, while creating an IDLH (immediately dangerous to life and health) atmosphere within the interior of the trailer. At this point members of the South Fulton Volunteer Fire Department are being notified and are reporting to the fire station to respond with the fire apparatus. It usually takes a volunteer fire department ten minutes on a good day to get the first piece of equipment responding from the station, add another 10-15 minute response to the rural area, and by the time the fire department arrives on scene the mobile home is more than likely well involved. There is no chance for the department to make an interior attack to attempt to save humans or animals, as the interior is not tenable. The mobile home is pretty much a total loss at this point. All the fire department can do now is protect exposures, especially with minimal equipment, personnel and water supply. The fire department kept the fire from spreading by stopping it at the neighbors fences. I strongly believe that the outcome would have been pretty much the same if the department responded to the initial call.

The Cranicks acknowledged that the did not pay the fee, but they knew the consequences of not paying the fee. In the 20 plus years that this system has been in place throughout the county, this has happened numerous times. This one just happened to receive a lot of attention. Yet the residents of the county elect to do nothing about it. I sure hopes this changes things in the county.

I strongly disagree with a subscription based system. It really places firefighters in a tough position when they want to do the most they can but are restricted by policy, as shown by this incident, and the ones who really lose are the residents themselves. The residents need to bite the bullet and pay a little more taxes and establish better fire protection.

imx 10-11-2010 12:08 AM

Thanks Eric, it just seems very strange that any sector of the emergency services any one of us may need could be organised this way. As you said, it puts those who are at the pointy end in a very awkward and potentially dangerous situation that could be avoided by making payment compulsory, much the same as what we call 'compulsory third party insurance' when you register a vehicle. You will also find people that are in this situation telling the responders that there are persons in the building so they will have to engage the fire and possibly put themselves at further risk than neccessary.

csaidler 10-11-2010 4:10 AM

Thank you Eric. Hopefully that clears it up for everyone.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:50 PM.