No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

[YosemiteSam]

Wow. Let me just say; I can see both sides of this story, but letting a families house burn down and dogs and cats die is unacceptable.

They should have went and put out the fire, then charged the family the full cost of what it required to do the job. Not just the $75 annual fee the homeowner didn't pay. (I serious doubt he *forgot*, I'm betting he just didn't pay it)

============================================

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.

Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out.

His offer wasn't accepted, he said.

Complete Story

 

[ZeroClub]

No county-wide firefighting service, huh?

 

[Kangaroo]

The insurance company is going to sue them for not rendering a public service and not billing him they will probably when in court too and the city and county will be out the cash.

Think about this people have to take anyone into an ER when they are hurt I am sure this is going to apply to firefighters putting out a house fire.

 

[burmafrd]

lawsuit. And in this case well deserved. Its like a cop standing around doing nothing across the street because that is out of his district.

 

[Concord]

You would have to be a real fine human being let alone a fireman to stand there and watch a man's house burn down and let his animlas die over $75.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

FTA

The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee.

===

So the city offers protection for the city but the rural areas only get protection for a fee because there is no actual county fire department?

Kind of sounds like this is a voluntary fee instead of the normal state, county or city tax so I am not sure how that would work.

I hope the guy did not "forget" to pay his insurance bill.

 

[ShiningStar]

lawsuit. And in this case well deserved. Its like a cop standing around doing nothing across the street because that is out of his district.

I think its set up where you cant sue an officer for stupid. IM not sure but ive heard of laws and protections and stuff like that about it. But even if your a voluntary firefighter, and you know animals are in there. That is just beyond dispicable.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I think its set up where you cant sue an officer for stupid. IM not sure but ive heard of laws and protections and stuff like that about it. But even if your a voluntary firefighter, and you know animals are in there. That is just beyond dispicable.

Does not even have to be a firefighter IMO...It is just despicable as a Human Being running that outfit.

 

[Gzus]

I can personally see both sides in the right.

For one, yeah there is a moral imperative to jump in there that most human beings should have. Firefighters being who they are should have jumped in and tried to save the guy's animals. And yes if the guy pays county taxes then he's entitled to certain public services.

However, if it has been established by law that the guy has to pay a certain fee to provide for the upkeep of those public services and doesn't then I don't think he should be able to use those services. How is it fair to the other upstanding citizens who pay their dues? They pay, but they don't use; and in turn he doesn't pay, but he does use? No that isn't right. So in the end you gotta pay up or your stuff will burn. In a rural county like his the tax revenue isn't very high and you can't expect the same level of public services that you would in more urban areas, and that is the reasoning for the fee. I completely understand why they didn't jump in and help, and I would not be surprised if some of the firemen wanted to jump in and help but were told from supervisors not to. In the end those firemen are insured through the Fire Dept for whatever injuries they may incur on the job, if they get hurt going into a building that they weren't supposed to be in the insurance, I guarantee you, wouldn't cover it.

Sucks for the guy and his pets but in the end you gotta pay for what you want, nothing is free (not even public services).

 

[Hostile]

I was a fireman for 7 years. I have heard of things like this before, but I've never heard of a FD enforcing it by not responding. Generally there is an annual fee and if you have not paid it your incur a MUCH higher cost if they show up. That can be paid by Insurance.

On the opposite side of this, the guy who owned the Sonic drive in in my hometown always gave us half price discounts. One time I asked him why. He said, "if my house is on fire or I'm hurt I want you guys to come a running."

 

[VietCowboy]

This has been on the news here (obviously). It isn't fair to the other citizens who do pay for it each year. Like the Mayor said, if you only charge the resident when their house is on fire, NO ONE would pay for the service unless their house is on fire. I agree that if you don't pay, you shouldn't be getting that service even if you offer to pay the full price when there is a fire. Most likely, the cost that residents pay each year is far and above the cost of attending to the fires.

I also don't believe he "forgot" to pay the fee.

Now if there was a person inside that house on fire that needed help, I do think the firefighters do have a responsibility to rescue that person, but not to put out the fire.

 

[SupermanXx]

No Pay, no spray

OHHH the possibilities.... lol

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

OHHH the possibilities.... lol

:laugh2: Remember Family Friendly (but the evil side of me is laughing)

 

[Kangaroo]

This has been on the news here (obviously). It isn't fair to the other citizens who do pay for it each year. Like the Mayor said, if you only charge the resident when their house is on fire, NO ONE would pay for the service unless their house is on fire. I agree that if you don't pay, you shouldn't be getting that service even if you offer to pay the full price when there is a fire. Most likely, the cost that residents pay each year is far and above the cost of attending to the fires.

I also don't believe he "forgot" to pay the fee.

Now if there was a person inside that house on fire that needed help, I do think the firefighters do have a responsibility to rescue that person, but not to put out the fire.

I doubt that I think they will lose and they could have billed the guy for the cost and not just the $75 dollars.

I bet they lose in court

 

[Hostile]

This has been on the news here (obviously). It isn't fair to the other citizens who do pay for it each year. Like the Mayor said, if you only charge the resident when their house is on fire, NO ONE would pay for the service unless their house is on fire. I agree that if you don't pay, you shouldn't be getting that service even if you offer to pay the full price when there is a fire. Most likely, the cost that residents pay each year is far and above the cost of attending to the fires.

I also don't believe he "forgot" to pay the fee.

Now if there was a person inside that house on fire that needed help, I do think the firefighters do have a responsibility to rescue that person, but not to put out the fire.

That shouldn't matter. These guys risk life and limb to save homes, pets, and people. If the Fire division makes money so much the better because less of the burden on taxpayers.

 

[VietCowboy]

I doubt that I think they will lose and they could have billed the guy for the cost and not just the $75 dollars.

I bet they lose in court

Here is why I don't think so:

1) This is not a unique policy. I see this type of policy in many places across the US.

2) This isn't the first time this has happened. If a previous incident has not caused these policies to change, this indicates that the damages the county or fire department incurred was not high.

3) It has been made very clear that to get fire services, they have to pay an annual fee. The guy admitted he knew it, and again, I highly doubt he "forgot."

4) The only reason the fire department was there was because of the neighbor who did pay. If something had happened to the firefighters while battling his fire that was not covered, the insurance for the firefighter may not have covered the cost of injury/death.

Also, the amount of homes that require fire services each year is a lot less than the amount of homes that don't require it. If you only pay (even full price) when you need it, it will likely not be equal to the amount you pay for the service each year. The annual fee goes to pay for year round service, not just for services rendered. Again, if no one paid unless their house was on fire, the fire department wouldn't have the funds for emergency services 24/7.

I don't see how this is much different from paying for insurance for anything else. If you don't pay for the services, if something happens, you can't just retroactively have it reinstated.

 

[VietCowboy]

That shouldn't matter. These guys risk life and limb to save homes, pets, and people. If the Fire division makes money so much the better because less of the burden on taxpayers.

The point of it was that the fire department does have a responsibility to those who pay for their services. This guy did not pay for it, and only expected to pay for it when he needed it. Sorry, but if everyone in his county did that, that would mean more of a burden on the main county's taxpayers.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, here is what I will say about this. These Firemen did not show up, with the intent to watch the house burn down. Somebody has ordered them not to assist. Find out who the orders are coming from and that will tell you a lot.

I don't disagree that people must pay for services. Heck, if the only time people paid for this service is when there house was on fire, every house would burn down because you wouldn't have the funds to sustain a department. However, I will bet you hard money that there is more to this story and it's going to be politically driven. I suspect that we have not seen the end of this as yet. That's a shame.

 

[Hostile]

The point of it was that the fire department does have a responsibility to those who pay for their services. This guy did not pay for it, and only expected to pay for it when he needed it. Sorry, but if everyone in his county did that, that would mean more of a burden on the main county's taxpayers.

I don't disagree with you on this. The problem arises when someone does not pay as he did. The way to handle that is have it written into the contract ahead of time that there is a set price to respond and it is non negotiable. If someone does not pay it, seize the property for breach.

I do not blame this FD at all, but I would have shown up and done my job and let it go to litigation for payment as opposed to litigation for neglect.

 

[VietCowboy]

I don't disagree with you on this. The problem arises when someone does not pay as he did. The way to handle that is have it written into the contract ahead of time that there is a set price to respond and it is non negotiable. If someone does not pay it, seize the property for breach.

I do not blame this FD at all, but I would have shown up and done my job and let it go to litigation for payment as opposed to litigation for neglect.

I definitely agree with this if possible. Not sure what you mean by contract.

Given the guy did not pay, not sure how he could sign a contract ahead of time saying he'll pay etc etc.

Unless you mean a contract with the fire department's insurance company that would pay for injuries and damages to the firefighter. This would probably increase their premium, which they'd probably pass onto the residents.

p.s. Our local news tonight featured a nearby county firefighter who say that their services rely a lot on donations for upkeeping. So, I'm guessing that taxes isn't enough either. I can definitely see the repercussion of that fire department if they chose to help out because if they are already struggling financially, imagine what would happen if no one paid unless they had a fire. Definitely not.