No Pay, No Spray

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.

Are you so chock full of emotion that you cannot see straight?

I can see just fine and emotions have nothing to do with this. Pure logic and common sense.

Why should anyone buy car insurance, if all you have do is wait until you have an accident, then walk into State Farm with a check for $100 and demand them fix your car?

20-30% of this country still does not have car insurance. That is why we have uninsured motorist coverage.

If you did this, then everyone else would too.

Baloney. I have always had car insurance and do not care if anyone else does or not. It protects me, my family and my assets in case I cause an accident that hurts someone else. The car itself is the least reason I buy car insurance. It is to protect everything else.

And, instead of yelling at the FD, why no anger towards the idiot who has a $200,000 home and won't pay $75/yr to protect it against fire?

The guy did not pay the $75. Ok, he is a dumbass and should pay 10 times that. But the FD committed a much worse infraction. They allowed the pets to die, endangered the entire county by letting a fire burn that could have spread to the neighbors and well beyond that.

Fires are not car accidents. They are extremely dangerous and have killed millions. You see one that is completely uncontrolled, you put it out, and worry about the monetary part later. The entire cities of Chicago and San Francisco have burned to the ground. That is why you have firefighters, who spend 95% of their entire career not fighting fires, for the one ocassion that may save many lives. Their utter disregard for the possible consequences of not controlling that fire as soon as they could have has definitely put them into the Firefighters Hall of Shame.

So, next year we don’t pay either, because we know that we’ll just depend on the good hearts of the FD to put our homes out, too. Trouble is, the FD is not supported by the county and has bills to pay. Without anyone paying their annual fee, the FD goes bandkrupt and now now one has a FD to call.

...at which time the community rethinks its approach to supporting this service. They aren't going to do without a fire department.

But, you are espousing a Nanny State; where the Gov’t ‘knows whats best for everyone’. This is a Conservative principle - People have the God given right to be idiots, and they pay the price for their stupidity. That’s exactly what this homeowner did. He took a $75 gamble, and lost big.

I had a chance to visit with a Fireman an hour ago; and we discussed this.

Did you know that in Utah (I will not address your state, as I don’t know your state laws), a Fireman who operates outside of his contracted area not only operates WITHOUT his health insurance, but can also be held liable for any fire damages that take place.

He went on to state that the $75 constituted a ‘contract’, so any FD operations outside of their ‘contracted area’ are at personal risk, and their personal liability.

So, if this took place in Utah - the Firemen could be personally sued by the homeowner for any damages he thinks they may have aggrevated in their effort to save his home.

So, why should anyone pay the FD the $75 monthly bill? The FD will put your home out anyway.

The truth of the matter is that the homeowner had a chance to exercise Personal Responsibility, and failed miserably. Your response is to exercise the “Nanny State” solution.

Fires are EXACTLY like car accidents. They happen to anyone, without warning - that’s why it’s insurable.

Consider, I had a chance to visit with a local (Orem, UT) fireman and got some inside dope on this topic. We discussed it a little bit.

In Utah, if a Fireman goes outside of his assigned area, he can be held personally liable for any damage done by the fire. So, if this had taken place in Utah, the firemen could be sued for the damage done to the uncovered homeowner’s home.

Secondly, because firefighting is dangerous work, there are restrictions as to when your Medical Insurance is voided; one such restriction is fighting fires in areas outside your assigned area.

Consider, according to Tom - the $75/annual fee constitues a ‘contract’ for the FD to protect that property. Fighting fires outside of the ‘contracted’ area would expose the firemen to both legal, as well as personal injury, without legal or insurance protections.

If nothing else, this exercise will get every other idiot in the county to pony up $75.

They aren't going to do without a fire department.

Have you priced the cost of a Fire Truck ? Figure a used one around $200K, now we add equipment, training for the volunteers, a station house and assorted support - it doesn't take long before we are well over $1 Million (and that's buying used and going cheap). Not every county has that much money available, especially in today's economy.

Now, I'm guessing here ... I'm guessing that some non-Gov't group formed this FD as an investment, and the cost of $75/household was what was established as a practical cost that would have to be charged.

Again, think of this like insurance (darn cheap insurance!!). You don't wait until you get a flood before you demand coverage. In this case, the FD NEEDS that money to keep fiscally viable. If people don't pay $75 annually, the FD closes shop. No one can force you to pay for a service - so some idiots opt to take their chances. This idiot risked his home, his family's life and everything he owns to save $75/yr. And he lost.

This is America, you have a right to be as stupid as you want to be, it is not up to everyone else to cover and protect the stupid people. That's what a Nanny State does.

Fires are EXACTLY like car accidents. They happen to anyone, without warning - that’s why it’s insurable.

It is obvious you have never been around fires. You have no clue how dangerous they are.

Consider, according to Tom - the $75/annual fee constitues a ‘contract’ for the FD to protect that property. Fighting fires outside of the ‘contracted’ area would expose the firemen to both legal, as well as personal injury, without legal or insurance protections.

Sounds like the firefighter unions have ruined Utah. I am guessing none of these guys ever have to help out during national disasters like 911 or Katrina either. Sweet union deal for the Utah firefighters. I'll bet they only have to work 20 years and get 100% salaried retirement with 100% medical coverage for life. And most of them have probably never been near a fire.

God, this country is going down the tubes. Between unions and liberals, this place is eventually going to burn down from coastline to coastline. Noone will step out of their little fire feifdom and we will all die, including them.

So let's use an analogy here. Let's say that everybody on my street except for me buys hurricane insurance.

Sure enough (as is my luck), a hurricane hits and destroys every house on my street including my own.

However, while the hurricane is still raging, I call the insurance company to purchase hurricane insurance so that my house can be covered as well. Should the insurance company sell me my insurance?

As a postscript, let me assure you that unlike the idiot in Tennessee, I was at least able to get my dogs and cats out of the house.

So let's use an analogy here. Let's say that everybody on my street except for me buys hurricane insurance.

But you cannot do anything about a hurricane. In your case the homeowner is out of luck. But what if a fire starts in a house at the end of the block. It is not insured with the fire company so they let it burn. But then an explosion occurs catching two more houses on fire and spreads so fast that 50 more houses are destroyed.

If putting the fire out on the first house would have saved the other 50 houses, should the firefighters have put out the fire on the deadbeat's home or not?

Life is hard, it’s harder if you are stupid.

Funny...I just posted to you on the thread about the lab puppies and how you so beautifully expressed your feelings for your dog. Two dogs and a cat died in this fire.

I understand what many are saying about the guy not paying the $75, but it doesn't take away the fact that this is a horrible system to pay for the services of a fire department. It forces people to hold back their decent impulses to save lives. Do you suppose the firefighters are proud of themselves?

As a former volunteer firefighter, who attended many firefighting schools/classes, I was taught the ONLY time one enters a burning mobile home is when there is a person inside. The mobile home motto is “if it’s empty, let it burn.” They are so dangerous when on fire, no responsible fire department will send in firefighters if there is no one inside. The situation might be different in a city with a paid department, but I know of NO volunteer department that would risk the life of their firefighters for an empty mobile home. They will spray water on it, but not go in.

Finally, someone able to clarify this and take the emotion out of it! Now it makes sense. Thank you.

>> The town should have anticipated this situation would come up and voted to make this part of the property tax bill.
Schools, local government, water, sewer, and police coverage usually aren’t voluntary. You either have them or you don’t.<<

What part of conservative don’t you understand? You want less government then demand that the government should have made them do something?

Much as the free market is to be preferred, the fact is that some goods are inherently collective, because it is impossible to disentangle the costs and benefits to the neighbors from the costs and benefits to the immediate purchaser.

Consider the quintessential example of a collective good -- defense. If this guy didn't pay his "defense fee" and a bunch of Osama-wannabees drove him off his land and set up a terrorist training camp, then (by the logic of some people on this thread) defense forces should ignore the situation. Obviously, this is absurd. A terrorist training camp -- like a fire -- is a menace to everyone in the area.

I would assume that the Fire Department saturated the ground and the neighboring homes to prevent the spread of the fire.

Nope. The neighboring (paid) house was damaged. These guys failed to provide the service for which they had been paid.

Watch out for swarthy gents on the neighbor's land. I hear he didn't pay his defense fee....

There’s nothing conservative about letting a family home burn to the ground. Certainly not over seventy-five bucks. It’s not an ideological issue at all. That has to be the most small-minded thing I’ve ever heard of. It’s beyond pathetic. It is truly disgusting.

And just plain stupid. See Message # 75.

Interesting.

You know, I'm pretty libertarian (with a small L), but it seems to me that providing for a community service such as a fire department might arguably be a legitimate function of government.

I'm not certain that I'm right in this regard, but it seems worth having the discussion.

I am more certain that standing by with your fire equipment and watching someone's house burn is fundamentally evil.

Interesting.

You know, I'm pretty libertarian (with a small L), but it seems to me that providing for a community service such as a fire department might arguably be a legitimate function of government.

I'm not certain that I'm right in this regard, but it seems worth having the discussion.

I am more certain that standing by with your fire equipment and watching someone's house burn is fundamentally evil.

You know, I'm pretty libertarian (with a small L), but it seems to me that providing for a community service such as a fire department might arguably be a legitimate function of government.

One of the basic distinctions between libertarians and anarchists is that the former recognize that there are such things as collective goods and the latter do not. The anarchists have some clever theories to support alternative economic models in which there are no collective goods, but I don't find them very convincing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.