Lunch Break: Firefighters let home burn to the ground
To give us a break from the daily grind…
Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won’t respond, then watches it burn. That’s exactly what happened to a family recently.
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.
Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.
Oct.06, 2010 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Make it like insurance. You can either pay the yearly premium for protection or at the time your house burns down you can pay the actual out of pocket costs of for the truck, water, police, fireman, etc who have to respond. The cost needs to be pretty high or else everyone will just wait til their house burns down and pay the fee meaning that no fireman/equipment will be available. I feel bad for this guy though – they should have put out the fire and fought over the payment later (and he definitely should have to pay – being a freeloader shouldn’t be free).
Completely wrong.
A fire department is not in the insurance business. They obviously knew beforehand how they were going to respond. This is wrong – because it opens the door to extortion. If they get away with this, there is simply no barrier or reason why they can’t jack up the price of their “service”.
South Fulton is basically in a shakedown scheme.
Does the owner have to meet building code? if so – why?
The city is playing with the principle of Caveat -Emptor “Let the buyer-beware”, but you cannot hold to that only when it’s to your benefit. This smacks of dirty hands.
That’s crazy! What if there had been someone trapped inside that house?
What if there’s a dispute about having paid the fee, like the homeowner says they paid it, but the city has no record because of a mistake or something – -that kind of mistake happens all the time! But the time to argue isn’t when the house is on fire. For heaven’s sake, someone could be killed! What an insane policy. The people of that county need to get that changed, pronto. Ridiculous and dangerous. I’m glad I don’t live there.
CT – I disagree. The cost basis for dispatching a crew to put out a fire is pretty much averaged out over the number of houses being served over a period of time. Because one is unfortunate enough to suffer a fire, does that mean the burden of the entire dispatch should be carried?
What then of all the other payments made to the fire company? It then becomes a windfall for them, and we are right back to making it “profitable” for the fire company to actually have fires.
The fee should be predicated on the structure cost as assessed for taxes or tax basis, and reflect the complexity involved in putting out a fire in that structure. Make it so it’s in no one’s interest to have a fire burning, but align the costs so that someone with a tiny cabin is not penalized for fire service compared to someone with a multi-story mansion.
Then no one should be able to opt-in or out, because the City also has an interest in the tax basis of the property. Really, after thinking about it – this is a case of the City of South Fulton cutting off its nose to spite it’s face. The city is assuming that the owner will rebuild on that property. What if he decides to put up a tent – a movable temporary structure? To be fair, they now need to tax him at that rate…. which I imagine would be very low. Their future interest in the tax revenue is shot – because they didn’t get the fire fee?
Is it my imagination or are people who are running cities etc. getting awfully forgetful about the underlying reasons why things were run a certain way before?
It sure seems like it.
Well the cost is spread out over those paying. But this is the classic economic problem that if everyone knows they don’t have to pay b/c they will receive the service anyway, then no one will and the fire dept is unsupported. My understanding (and perhaps this is incorrect) is that this is operating more like a private fire department in that it is not propped up by local city taxes. So by having people pay for protection (most of whom will not need it) they are in essence collecting insurance premiums to spread the costs of the few people who actually do need fire protection. Unless you’re saying that a city must have a fire dept supported by local taxes and that a city can’t choose this way of setting things up, then I fail to see what other mechanism there in this type of situation to insure that people pay the fees to spread out the costs.
And for the record – I don’t think this is the best system either for the reasons people have mentioned (someone could be killed, there should be protection for the whole community etc). But I do think that local municipalities have the right to make these decisions – some choose not to have fire departments at all and instead pay fees to neighboring towns for protection. I see no reason that this type of system shouldn’t be allowed provided that all fires/safety issues are handled first and disputes about fees second.
CT @ 1:26pm
We have overlapping responses. It’s in the city’s interest to collect the fire fees as part of the tax collection process – then it’s a matter of distributing those fees by either hiring a private fire company or running a public service. Those also have their own pros and cons, but at least the city’s interest is secured and people have the option of opting-in or out by moving into or out of that city.
I saw this on another forum, and someone made an interesting comment in response to it.
“Fire protection should be a basic right of everyone, regardless of whether they can or will pay an extra fee, if only for the reason that under the right circumstances a fire can spread out of control, doing damage to everything in the vicinity regardless of whether any fees have been paid, and also costing lives.”
While I don’t think that the policy on firefighting in this particular area is right, nor am I defending the city, I think our knee-jerk outraged reaction is more due to the way that we have organized fire protection in this country. And it’s a good system. Everybody pays for the firefighters in taxes so that anybody (supposedly) can call them up in an emergency. And I’ve had to call the firefighters before in an emergency, so I know how much of a relief it is to be able to do that.
Having said all that, the truth is, fire protection is not a basic right of everyone. And, this being an abortion blog, we argue about rights all the time, so you can all see the problem you run into when trying to say that it is. It doesn’t derive from anywhere. All the reasons listed in the above quote where that person claimed it is do not justify calling something a right as much as they just make it a smart thing to have available. But that’s not a right. Murder violates someone’s right to life. Theft violates their right to own property. Barring arson, however, a fire can not violate anyone’s rights any more than a tornado or a flood can. It just is.
So I don’t necessarily think that setting up the local fire department this way is wrong in a moral sense. I do think it’s a bad system and ought to be altered, but that’s a different issue.
CT @ 1:26 I see no reason that this type of system shouldn’t be allowed provided that all fires/safety issues are handled first and disputes about fees second.
Agreed – I think what they did was incredibly stupid just on the basis of life risk alone. Cranick may want to check with the AG’s office if the fire dept violated state Good Samaritan laws. It would have been tragic if someone died in the house due to their failure to act. As I said before – a fire dept is not an insurance company, and we should not think of them as such.
Chris,
I think we more or less agree except that you keep saying that a fire dept shouldn’t be thought of as an insurance company which I tend to agree with from a pragmatic standpoint (ie I think it’s easier and safer to fund a local dept or pay a neighboring town with tax dollars). But here it WAS set up like an insurance company – you pay your fee for protection if you want it. I think Kelli Hu raised the right question- is fire protection a right? I don’t have an answer to that except to say that in reality many cities do not treat it as such and I don’t think I have a problem with cities making those decisions themselves. Presumably if the citizens want fire protection they will reflect that desire when electing their local officials. The problem in this case, from my perspective, was not the fee setup. It was the fact that there was no option for someone who hadn’t purchased the protection to get it…at some cost….when the time came as well as the fact that the question of that cost should come AFTER questions of safety. When fire depts are set up like this they should act like emergency rooms – treatment first, payment second.
I agree with most of the other people, when I first read this story I thought about potential for lost lives. They should stop the fire, then get payment. And to discourage this in the future, make it a substantial one (5 years worth perhaps – or cost of trip – enough to hurt and discourage free loading).
CT - October 6th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Agreed. And particularly about the emergency room type approach. That’s ethically correct.
Our own town is currently thinking through these issues as we transition from a volunteer type service to one which is more reliant upon the town. Safety obviously comes first, but when it comes to talking about distribution of costs, one does have to take the town’s interest as well as the individual property owner’s interest into account.
Are these firefighters volunteer or paid? I agree with CT’s initial comments. The company needs to be financially solvent and not just collecting throughout the year. Actually, the cost should be assessed as part of the city or county income tax, or be worked in as part of sales tax. This current system is horrendously callous. In dry windswept conditions burning embers could well have traveled to other homes and started fires all over the area. Whether or not those owners paid is hardly the point. Despite their having paid, they would nevertheless suffer damage to their homes, increases in their insurance premiums, pay additional deductibles,lose time from work, possibly have to stay at a hotel for some period of time, all because these callous boobs can’t see past the yard of the homeowner who didn’t pay. Someone needs to do some time in jail for this one.
Don’t forget the lives of the three dogs and one cat who died in this fire. The fire department should face charges of animal cruelty for selfishly letting those innocent animals die.
This is absolutely despicable. For crying out loud: put out the fire, and then *sue* them for the back-pay afterward, if you must… but don’t let the bloody building burn! I completely agree with the commenters who pointed out the potential human deaths and actual pet deaths; would these “fire fighters” have been twiddling their thumbs while a child was screaming out the window, simply because the owner hadn’t “paid up”?
I dont’ know why firefighter fees can’t just be part of their taxes. The firefighters work for the city right? Then any ‘fee’ shoudl just come out of city taxes.
Beyond that, the fire dept should generally operate like EMS/ERs generally run, which is save lives first, figure out billing later. Nobody gets refused care.
See, now all you conservatives are going all Socialistic – make them treat everyone regardless! Where did your lack of compassion go? If somebody can’t pay, then burn baby burn!
I mean, I was told that those without health insurance should call their church and be supported by them – maybe these folks should call their church and they could put out the fire!
Tongue planted firmly in cheek.
Chris, not only would it have been tragic if someone died in the house due to their failure to act. It would have been murder.
Ex-GOP- the fact that people already can’t be refused life saving care is part of the reason the whole “people are dying in the street so we have to do something anything now now now….we don’t even have time to read it it’s so urgent!!!!! (but we can have it not take effect for 2 years….it’s not THAT urgent)” rang a little bit hollow. It’s not all or nothing. And it’s exactly that condescending nonsensical caricature of the opposition that the left used to justify cramming this down our throats. No one who opposed this could possibly have had a well founded belief that this would make things worse. If you didn’t support this particular radical overhaul of our healthcare system (whatever it was…we had to wait for the bill to be passed to find out), then it meant you were completely uncompassionate to the flaws in the system. The idea of creating insurance pools out of organic community organizations (churches, unions etc) so that people could obtain group coverage outside of an employment setting was a valid idea (oh but the other side didn’t actually have any ideas…i forgot).
Two points CT:
– But these firefighters weren’t denying “life saving care” – like a person without health insurance, we were simply seeing the financial ruin of a family right before our eyes!
– Yes – the right didn’t have ideas – what bill introduced proposed church based insurance offerings?
The home was outside the city limits. Homeowners knew they had to pay $75 a year to be covered.
Would anyone say Progressive had to cover damages if a customer bought the policy after the crash?
Cases like this cause an emotional response before people have time to think about the consequences. Same thing happened with the disastrous Obamacare. But every time new details come out we find that O-Care isn’t going to lower costs, it isn’t going to increase the number fo people covered.
The city can’t levee taxes on the home owners outside city limits. So they offer the service for a fee.
No one doubts if someone called and said someone was trapped in the house, the firefighters would have gone it. So those who raise that false issue are smoking something.
No one has a right to force someone else to serve them, not since the 14th amendment was ratified. For this same reason, health care is not a right. It is a service we pay for as we need or can afford it. Those with more money can buy more service just as they can buy bigger homes and go to nicer restaurants.
The same illogical thinking that drives people to push a “right” to health care also makes them think housing and food should be free. But we all know how that sucks the life and ambition out of people.
Crap. I just deleted my comment. I’m too tired to rewrite it. The gist – opponents of Obamacare were not sitting around cheering the financial ruin of families any more than the people here are saying “If you can’t pay, burn baby burn!” But I see no reason to destroy a system that works (The US has the best health care in the world) rather than address the flaws in the system particularly making sure that people have access at a reasonable cost. The vast majority of people who have insurance are happy with it. The problem is that unless you get group insurance through work it’s cost prohibitive. One thing the GOP suggested was allowing individuals and associations to pool together to get the group rates that employers have access to. One line along which people could choose to form an insurance association would be through a parish, local trade organization etc. Ok – too tired. Off to dream about all the suffering that could have been mine to enjoy had Obamacare not passed. *oh the wasted financial ruin!!!! sigh*
“No one doubts if someone called and said someone was trapped in the house, the firefighters would have gone it. So those who raise that false issue are smoking something.”
Yeah. You are.
My father had a severe heart attack on a Saturday night in April 1970, BEFORE passage of the emergency medical care act.
He was taken to the closest local hospital (private) where he was denied treatment because he didn’t have medical insurance. The nurse supervisor in the emergency room told me my father would be transported to the county hospital some 30 minutes away where they had a “charity ward.” Meanwhile, my father’s color was GRAY, like ET, and his lips were turning BLUE.
I explained that ability to pay was not an issue, but it was of no avail. Finally, after reading an accreditation certificate from the American Hospital Association which was posted on the wall, I realized there was no doctor on duty. I demanded that the nurse supervisor produce the doctor. She telephoned him! He was off-site at a cocktail party!
After explaining to the good doctor my recently acquired knowledge of hospital accreditation requirements, that an admitting physician be on duty 24 hours a day, the good doctor admitted my father and finally attended to him 4 hours later in a drunken state.
I told the good doctor that if my father died that night… Well, you don’t want to know what I told the good doctor.
Moral: Don’t preach to me about what “caring” people would do if they knew someone’s life was in danger.
Full Disclosure: My father was in hospital for two weeks. The bill, over $10,000 was paid by cashier’s check on the day of his discharge.
The hospital was run by the Catholic church.
What really surprises me is the backwards nature of Tennesee. Many areas include such a fee in property taxes for the county, so the money is then distributed to the correct fire protection district. If you’re not paying your property taxes you have a much bigger issue. And this allows the firefighters to basically fight any fires at any time within their zone of protection. Even foreclosed homes and other structures are covered (where the property is vacant and nothing was paid). A far better solution. But not Tennesee. Here the home owner has to send in a $75 fee to the nearby city each year. I mean come on now .. people lose bills all the time or forget small items. Does the city send out reminders to folks saying “Look, you didn’t pay the fee and if you don’t here’s what can happen”? I doubt it. How many other homes in the area have neglected to pay the fee, so it’s tough luck sucker. Stupid county is what this all comes down to.
Don’t forget the lives of the three dogs and one cat who died in this fire. The fire department should face charges of animal cruelty for selfishly letting those innocent animals die.
I thought the same thing. Imagine how the poor things suffered.
And Ex-GOP, not all prolifers are conservatives and/or Republicans.
This is what happens when technicalities trump common sense.
Moral of this sad story: Don’t start fires in metal trash cans on your property if you haven’t paid your fire protection bill.
Ex:
I’m not sure what your point is exactly, but I think we have gone over this ground before. No one is opposed to safety net health care. I have asked it before: name one congressman or woman who has said such a thing. It is Obamacare that has crossed the line–making cradle to grave health care an entitlement, and in a manner that will destroy the positives of the current system even as it threatens to bankrupt future generations. Already the costs of Obamacare are being felt in increased premiums and in companies dropping some coverages because the mandates are so unrealistic as to drive these companies out of business if they do not take those actions.
Re: the animals, I’m actually extremely confused by that. B/c in the video we’re led to believe that the fire took over 2 hours to spread from the area near the trash cans to the house. You couldn’t get the animals out? Something is not right about this story. Also for good or bad – the fact that firefighters would no put out fires if you didn’t pay seems to be well known in this area b/c the policy has come up many many times and this has happened before according to the news story. The homeowner admitted that he didn’t forget to pay – it wasn’t an oversight. He just said, “I thought they would come even if I didn’t pay but I was wrong.” So he actually was expecting to just get a free ride. This whole thing is stupid on all sides from soup to nuts.
Good Samaritan, anyone?
My question is what happens when your insurance company says they are not going to pay your claim because if you had paid your fire fighter bill these things would not have been burned and damage would have been kept to a minimum.
I don’t think that if I was a fire fighter I could just sit there while their dogs and cats were burned to death, what’s worse is they let a barn burn down before that with horses in it…
So a small fire breaks out at a house that hasn’t paid, and then it spreads to the neighbors house who also has not paid. Finally after burning down 5 houses that have not paid it reaches a house that did pay, now the whole neighborhood is burning and they have to try to keep one house safe in the middle of it?
Taxes pay for fire fighters and they put out fires… where did it get screwed up?
Come on Biggz – where would we be in life though if we taxed everyone and then they received services, care, and coverage because of those taxes?
Nobody should come between YOU and your firefighters.
Heck, if EVERYONE was covered, would they have to ration the amount of houses they could go to?
The key really, if you want your house saved, is to either be rich enough to have coverage, or get near death. If the person ran back in their house, then the firefighters would have no choice!
We can’t go your direction Biggz though – this “universal coverage”. That’s SOCIALISM! And you know where socialism leads us – yup, straight to hell.
:-)
Why does a person have to be “rich” to afford insurance? Actually, the vast majority of Americans have managed somehow to insure their health, cars and homes prior to Obama coming to office. Now we have Obamacare, and the vast majority of Americans are going to say: Why should I pay while others are not going to pay?
A few weeks ago a woman drove her late model SUV out of the local Planned Parenthood facility and when we told her about alternative places where she could get the same pregnancy tests and ultrasound for free she responded that PP had provided those free to her. Two points: The PP tests “free”?? It is our taxes. Second point: If she can afford to drive the late model SUV why am I paying for her tests?? This is exactly the type of distortion that comes about when gov gets involved in anything beyond their legitimate role which is to protect our rights and security.
Jerry – if you look at the numbers, the number of people covered by employer plans has been on a steady decrease, and the numbers of uninsured has been on an increase. So while a majority have coverage, that number has been falling over the past decade.
I hear you though – do you hear about the rich and their bickering on capital gains taxes and the level it should be at? A lot like the lady with the SUV at PP. Everyone wants the least impact on their pocket book.