Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground

[Dreadnaught]

Holy crap.

Okay, I understand the idea that there are administrative districts and you can't operate outside of them in most circumstances. But areas with subscription-based fire services? Jesus, what an obviously terrible idea.

Even worse is the FD refused to take the money basically being thrown at them at the scene and just watched.

Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground

Story Created: Sep 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM CDT
Story Updated: Sep 30, 2010 at 12:31 AM CDT

OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.

Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.

"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.

Because of that, not much is left of Cranick's house.

They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.

The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.

"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.

It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.

We asked him why.

He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.

We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.
"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.

Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.

"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."

To give you an idea of just how intense the feelings got in this situation, soon after the fire department returned to the station, the Obion County Sheriff's Department said someone went there and assaulted one of the firefighters.

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local...104052668.html

[littlelolligagged]

Yay, kapitalism!

It's downright socialist to think that these services will be provided for you without paying for them.


Seriously, it's despicable. I mean, he even offered to pay them for it then - and, and, and...

Ugh.

Is there any particular reason why they don't have another fire department for the people who don't live in the actual city? Hell, I can think of 5 firestations within 10 miles of my house - and I may be missing one because I never go in one direction. If the ones in my county are tied up for whatever reason the ones from the other will respond.

[Dreadnaught]

Having the fire districts of a particular state cover that entire state (even if the land is not inhabited) seems like a no-brainer. My old fire department frequently helped neighboring counties.

[littlelolligagged]

Hell - states will even send emergency responders to other states to deal with emergencies.

Okay, I can see the fire department refusing to deal with getting a kitten out of a tree (yes, I do know they don't really do that service anymore in many places, it's just an illustrative point), but an actual emergency?

This is why I have a huge problem with an article I read somewhere a while ago making emergency responders a service paid for by the people who need them - as in, you need to call the cops for a car accident for some reason, you have to pay for them. It could have been something that came up here, or I could have read it and meant to make a post about it and never did. It just seems to me that any system where you have to weigh the benefits of having police or firefighters come to you will lead to people with less means deciding protection/rescue just isn't worth it.

[Angel_Mapper]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but why would you not pay and then act outraged when this happens? On the other hand I had no idea there were places where you had to pay for fire services, and who thought that was a good idea?

[Dreadnaught]

The issue seems to be that the area is a rural area. It's actually 27 miles (43 kilometers) away from the city in question: http://goo.gl/maps/WmJT

Presumably, they have no fire service of their own, so the adjacent fire department decided to offer fire protection to people outside their main protection zone for a fee.

[GGT]

But I'll bet their property taxes are super low.

[Lewkowski]

Okay, I understand the idea that there are administrative districts and you can't operate outside of them in most circumstances. But areas with subscription-based fire services? Jesus, what an obviously terrible idea.

See the first part is terrible. The second party not so much.

I mean if someone is trapped in a house then sure the Firemen have a moral duty to act to get someone out. However as far as being required to service a home that didn't pay for the service, I guess I just don't see the huge deal here. Its like getting mad at OnStar because you didn't renew your subscription and then you want their help.

[Being]

But I'll bet their property taxes are super low.

They should put some of the money they saved toward the purchase of big-ass fire extinguishers.

[GGT]

They should put some of the money they saved toward the purchase of big-ass fire extinguishers.

I wonder how much they paid in homeowner's insurance, and how their claim will be processed? If the underwriters knew about this pay-as-you-go fire protection, I'll be they'd never write a policy in that county.

[Being]

I wonder how much they paid in homeowner's insurance, and how their claim will be processed? If the underwriters knew about this pay-as-you-go fire protection, I'll be they'd never write a policy in that county.

I get a discount on mine because there is a fire hydrant less than 300 feet from my property and another discount because there is a fire station less than a mile away.

[Dreadnaught]

See the first part is terrible. The second party not so much.

I mean if someone is trapped in a house then sure the Firemen have a moral duty to act to get someone out. However as far as being required to service a home that didn't pay for the service, I guess I just don't see the huge deal here. Its like getting mad at OnStar because you didn't renew your subscription and then you want their help.

Except there is a clear public interest here: no one benefits from raging fires that just won't be fought. Only fighting them when they appear on the doorstep of your "zone" doesn't really help fight the big fires.

[EyeKhan]

Holy crap.

Okay, I understand the idea that there are administrative districts and you can't operate outside of them in most circumstances. But areas with subscription-based fire services? Jesus, what an obviously terrible idea.

Even worse is the FD refused to take the money basically being thrown at them at the scene and just watched.

New title: Lolbertarian Doesn't Pay Municipal Taxes (or Fees) And Doesn't Get Fire Services. See, paying for civilization is Good DIP SHIT.

[EyeKhan]

Yay, kapitalism!

It's downright socialist to think that these services will be provided for you without paying for them.


Seriously, it's despicable. I mean, he even offered to pay them for it then - and, and, and...

Ugh.

Is there any particular reason why they don't have another fire department for the people who don't live in the actual city? Hell, I can think of 5 firestations within 10 miles of my house - and I may be missing one because I never go in one direction. If the ones in my county are tied up for whatever reason the ones from the other will respond.

The way I understood it, the county - ie the voters - never approved a fire department, I presume because they didn't want to pay the required taxes. So, to get fire services they could pay an annual $75 fee to the neighboring county where the voters weren't so stupid. But you know, that's just a tax and if you're too stupid to pay taxes for a fire department in your own county, why the hell would pay for one in the neighboring county? At gun point. You know, the government MAKING you give up your own money. Bull SHIT!

Just playing devil's advocate here, but why would you not pay and then act outraged when this happens? On the other hand I had no idea there were places where you had to pay for fire services, and who thought that was a good idea?

You ALWAYS have to pay for fire services. That's one thing property taxes get you. And if your community refuses to levy a tax for that simple very basic service, why would you expect to get something for nothing? Big Government bad, right? Not when your house is on fire, apparently.

[Dreadnaught]

Do we really have to get that nasty? It's clear this area doen't have a community to actually tax. It's known as a tax base; you need enough people to justify certain services. Detroit is sure losing its tax base, we both know it has nothing to do with property taxes.

But when it comes to fire departments, it makes sense to levy an income or sales tax for a wide chunk of land. Fires don't exactly stop at county lines after all.

[Khendraja'aro]

What Chaloobi in his "Well, you voted for it!" rant forgot: You usually don't have 100% nay-sayers.

[EyeKhan]

Do we really have to get that nasty? It's clear this area doen't have a community to actually tax.

No, that is not clear. Not from the article and not from the story I heard on the radio.

Detroit is sure losing its tax base, we both know it has nothing to do with property taxes.

Not sure what your point is with this comment, but, as an aside, Detroit also has an income tax levied against residents and against anyone that works with in city limits. How fucked up is that?

But when it comes to fire departments, it makes sense to levy an income or sales tax for a wide chunk of land. Fires don't exactly stop at county lines after all.

I don't know what the best way to tax is.... But I think in this case, the refusal to put out this guy's fire comes from more than just a callous firehouse. There's a bug up someone's ass about taxes and fees, who pays and who's refusing to pay, so much so that this fire department did what we all here would ordinarily think was unthinkable. . . . .

[EyeKhan]

What Chaloobi in his "Well, you voted for it!" rant forgot: You usually don't have 100% nay-sayers.

I guess I was projecting in all that. I don't know exactly why this place doesn't have a fire department. I don't know why this guy didn't pay the fee to cover his own house. I don't know why the fire department took the seemingly extreme measure of letting the house burn. But the whole thing brings to mind the libertarian argument against taxes of any kind. Well, here you have an example of a libertarian utopia. This guy didn't have to pay any taxes to support a Big Government fire station -- and he got what he paid for....

What do you mean by 100% naysayers anyway?

[Flixy]

This is why I have a huge problem with an article I read somewhere a while ago making emergency responders a service paid for by the people who need them - as in, you need to call the cops for a car accident for some reason, you have to pay for them. It could have been something that came up here, or I could have read it and meant to make a post about it and never did. It just seems to me that any system where you have to weigh the benefits of having police or firefighters come to you will lead to people with less means deciding protection/rescue just isn't worth it.

And if you get robbed you have to pay an extra fee for police, too?

I suppose in the capitalist utopia that means you can also hire a PI instead of the police. Free market!

The issue seems to be that the area is a rural area. It's actually 27 miles (43 kilometers) away from the city in question: http://goo.gl/maps/WmJT

Presumably, they have no fire service of their own, so the adjacent fire department decided to offer fire protection to people outside their main protection zone for a fee.

It seems very strange to me that it isn't just included in taxes. If it was just your own problem, sure, but fire also threatens the entire area. THe 'fee' could just as well be a mandatory tax. Which would be fair to link to the value of the property, since that's how much you benefit from fire protection

Do we really have to get that nasty? It's clear this area doen't have a community to actually tax. It's known as a tax base; you need enough people to justify certain services. Detroit is sure losing its tax base, we both know it has nothing to do with property taxes.

Eh? If there's 100 people there you can tax 100 people. I don't get what you're saying here. If the community is too small to justify its own fire department (I can imagine that would be too expensive), you can 'merge' your fire county with the neighbours, like they did here. And pay for it with your taxes. Over here police departments can span more than one county, AFAIK, that doesn't seem to give much problems.

But when it comes to fire departments, it makes sense to levy an income or sales tax for a wide chunk of land. Fires don't exactly stop at county lines after all.

Or property taxes, since it is linked to protecting your property that would make sense

I do still say it's a bit of a 'Well, you voted for it!'issue. They did vote for it, and even if they didn't agree with it they could have paid the fee which they didn't. Apparently, they didn't think they needed fire protection, or like the article says "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," and got burned for it. Too bad it took a burnt down house to show the stupidity of that reasoning.

Isn't this a bit of a problem with the protesting against mandatory health insurance? Some people don't want to pay for it, and if they don't pay for it they still get the emergency healthcare at the expense of those who did pay for it. Only in this case they expected the emergency response but did not get it.

[Illusions]

But areas with subscription-based fire services? Jesus, what an obviously terrible idea.

If only we had come up with some way to pay for these things ahead of time, and on a yearly basis, with costs that reflected how much property you needed protected, or how valuable that property was. Oh well, maybe somebody will think of something in the future.

[EyeKhan]

If only we had come up with some way to pay for these things ahead of time, and on a yearly basis, with costs that reflected how much property you needed protected, or how valuable that property was. Oh well, maybe somebody will think of something in the future.

[GGT]

....But when it comes to fire departments, it makes sense to levy an income or sales tax for a wide chunk of land. Fires don't exactly stop at county lines after all.

Still fantasizing about buying a chunk of land and not paying property taxes, huh.

What if it's very rural land not connected to public water pipes (hydrants), and the nearest fire dept doesn't have a tanker truck? How much sales tax would have to be levied to cover possible future use of a helicopter dropping chemical retardants? Would those firefighters be state employees or private contractors? How close are others' homes to your land? If it's a wooded lot and your marshmallow campfire blows an errant ember that burns down their homes, can they sue you?

[Steely Glint]

I don't understand how you can be against this but FOR the private healthcare system of America.

At least Lewkowski is consistent.

[Khendraja'aro]

I guess I was projecting in all that. I don't know exactly why this place doesn't have a fire department. I don't know why this guy didn't pay the fee to cover his own house. I don't know why the fire department took the seemingly extreme measure of letting the house burn. But the whole thing brings to mind the libertarian argument against taxes of any kind. Well, here you have an example of a libertarian utopia. This guy didn't have to pay any taxes to support a Big Government fire station -- and he got what he paid for....

What do you mean by 100% naysayers anyway?

I meant that even if there's a vote against or for something, there are always people on the other side who voted differently.

Besides, why didn't they do what the oh-so-great healthcare in the US does on a regular basis? Why didn't they put out the fire anyway and then bankrupt the family with a huge bill?

Oh, wait...

[GGT]

Who is the "you" in Steely's post?

[Steely Glint]

YOU

(dreadnaught)

[GGT]

And if you get robbed you have to pay an extra fee for police, too?

I suppose in the capitalist utopia that means you can also hire a PI instead of the police. Free market!

It seems very strange to me that it isn't just included in taxes. If it was just your own problem, sure, but fire also threatens the entire area. THe 'fee' could just as well be a mandatory tax. Which would be fair to link to the value of the property, since that's how much you benefit from fire protection

Eh? If there's 100 people there you can tax 100 people. I don't get what you're saying here. If the community is too small to justify its own fire department (I can imagine that would be too expensive), you can 'merge' your fire county with the neighbours, like they did here. And pay for it with your taxes. Over here police departments can span more than one county, AFAIK, that doesn't seem to give much problems.
Or property taxes, since it is linked to protecting your property that would make sense

I do still say it's a bit of a 'Well, you voted for it!'issue. They did vote for it, and even if they didn't agree with it they could have paid the fee which they didn't. Apparently, they didn't think they needed fire protection, or like the article says "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," and got burned for it. Too bad it took a burnt down house to show the stupidity of that reasoning.

Isn't this a bit of a problem with the protesting against mandatory health insurance? Some people don't want to pay for it, and if they don't pay for it they still get the emergency healthcare at the expense of those who did pay for it. Only in this case they expected the emergency response but did not get it.

I don't understand how you can be against this but FOR the private healthcare system of America.

At least Lewkowski is consistent.

I meant that even if there's a vote against or for something, there are always people on the other side who voted differently.

Besides, why didn't they do what the oh-so-great healthcare in the US does on a regular basis? Why didn't they put out the fire anyway and then bankrupt the family with a huge bill?

Oh, wait...

Lewk sounds consistent because he's a shill for the private insurance industry, for pretty much everything. Anything else is tantamount to the gummint taking his money at gunpoint to help others that don't deserve a damn thing that could be called community.

[Nessus]

YOU

(dreadnaught)

You get +20 exp and 500 gold if you can explain how his inconsistency stems from his Jewishness

[EyeKhan]

I meant that even if there's a vote against or for something, there are always people on the other side who voted differently.

Presumably those are the folks paying the annual $75 fee.... Its not like anyone who really wants fire coverage (before their house is actually on fire) can't get it. They just pay their annual $75.

Besides, why didn't they do what the oh-so-great healthcare in the US does on a regular basis? Why didn't they put out the fire anyway and then bankrupt the family with a huge bill?

A life wasn't at stake here - just a dumb-ass's house. I'm certain there's going to be litigation here, though.

[Ominous Gamer]

Saw this on the news this morning, they quoted the home owner as saying "I know I didn't pay, but I still figured they would come out in an emergency."

Frankly, the homeowner got what he deserved in this case. Firefighting as a pay service is bad, but thats about the only way you're going to get an city to send its own resources ~30 miles outside its lines. Even around my city, that would be an impossibly large area to cover and most of our city limits are surrounded by water. The firefighters were on the scene to monitor an event that didn't involve them. When the problem extended they reacted. I can only hope that somehow the 2nd home owner who suffered gets to sue the first home owner.

Paying for a service like this, only after you discover you need it, thats got to be the dumbest way to think a service like this would be sustainable. Thanks for your $75 payment, now give us a few hours to use that to purchase our firefighting equipment!