Rural Tennessee fire sparks conservative ideological debate

[Audrey]

IMO the fire dept. service should be a regular levy on the property taxes thereby guaranteeing both service for residents and operating funds for the fire department. I think the policy as they have it is completely ludicrous.

[RoughCollie]

Christ said nothing about the government forcing taxpayers to cough up for fire protection if they didn't want it.

 

The Cranicks forgot to pay the bill. Is that so hard to understand?

[RoughCollie]

If money is the issue, fight the fire and bill the guy after. But refusing to fight the fire at all? I can't see any line of reasoning that, to me at least, wouldn't seem to be simply a way to justify a lack of moral action.

 

Money was NOT the issue. The Cranicks and their neighbor offered to pay the actual cost of fighting the fire -- even if it was $5K or $10K. They had their checkbooks out and the money in the bank to cover the expenditure.

[Murphy101]

It is my understanding that the FD did not respond to the initial call (before it had reached the house) because the homeowner hadn't paid to be included in fire protection services. By the time the FFs responded to a second call, the fire had reached the house and was too far gone to attempt to extinguish.

 

If the family couldn't afford $75, how could they possibly afford the real cost of fighting the fire?

 

My husband is a member of the chemical fire brigade where he works. Fire protection is a service that is paid for with our local tax dollars. It is not free. The homeowner should have paid the $75. If he "forgot" or "couldn't afford it", he still must take responsibility for his actions.

 

:iagree:

 

I really don't care about his pets either. (and yes, we'd bawl like babies over our pets if they died in a fire.) Fire men risk their lives to save HUMANS, not pets, not photographs - humans. Regardless, now we read the family had TWO HOURS to empty their home out and apparently didn't do squat?:confused:

 

This man and all his human family are alive and well, which is a hell of a lot more than many people can say after being foolish enough to start a debris fire without basic common safety measures.

 

Like others, I want to know when the fire dept actually even got the call to ride in. I'm highly suspect that the mobile home never had a chance. At best, it would have been terrible water damage to everything. Those hoses knock in windows, tear off shingles.. Really it might be better than fire for a regular home, nut I bet a mobile home wouldn't hold up well at all.

 

As for the people standing with check book open - thank goodness the FD

couldn't be bribed into needlessly risking their lives!!!:001_huh:

[Rivka]

Well, we don't actually know how many years he paid. We know that the two years his house caught fire he had not paid. This does not equate to he paid the other years.

 

I wondered about that. It seems like pretty long odds to me that they would forget two years out of twenty, and have fires both of those years. But I'm sure the fire dept will be producing payment records at some point in this process.

[Mejane]

Well then, all the people arguing that this was his just desserts should be incredibly happy.

 

I'm sick to my stomach.

 

 

 

You might be getting just a wee bit over-emotional about this. No one is saying they're "happy" this family was burned out. What most of us are saying is that the FD had a case for not putting out the fire... for many reasons. Many have also agreed it is bad policy. None of us knows the whole story, including you.

 

Let's :chillpill: on the finger-pointing.

[Murphy101]

IMO the fire dept. service should be a regular levy on the property taxes thereby guaranteeing both service for residents and operating funds for the fire department. I think the policy as they have it is completely ludicrous.

 

 

I agree. Problem is, very few rural communities could afford it that way. There simple is not enough in property taxes to fund their own fire dept.

 

So what happens is they contract out to communities nearby that can afford it.

 

Even then it is spotty for rural areas.

 

For example, I once lived in a rural community that had two fire trucks.

 

They did not have a fee system, they just went.

 

BUT since the outer communities were not actually funding them, the rule was they could never take both trucks outside their own community. That way, the paying community always has first service. If their own community needed both trucks, then the one sent out would be called off to service it's own community.

 

They also never sent out trucks for small debris/brush fires or pets. For a brush fire? A guy in a pick up would have gone to see if it needed a fire truck or if locals with hoses and dirt could handle it.

 

There just wasn't enough money to drive fire trucks all over hill and dale.

 

In fact, an elderly neighbor died with a cop and a fireman on his front porch because there wasn't a local ambulance service with proper medical equipment and training to help while he died of heat stroke.

 

This is the nature of rural living.

 

When seconds matter, helps is many long minutes away.

[Murphy101]

I am surprised if the insurance company pays anything?

 

Last I knew arson, even if by negligence, is an automatic no payment.:confused:

 

Interesting....

Edited October 7, 2010 by Martha
Bad wording

[Joker]

I am surprised if the insurance company pays anything?

 

Last I knew arson, even if by negligence, is an automatic no payment.:confused:

 

Interesting....

 

Its not arson - its an accident. If they have insurance the company should have to pay.

[RoughCollie]

I am surprised if the insurance company pays anything?

 

Last I knew arson, even if by negligence, is an automatic no payment.:confused:

 

Interesting....

 

The insurance company has been very helpful and is paying the policy in full.

 

Arson is a crime and is not the same thing as negligence.

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

The insurance company has been very helpful and is paying the policy in full.

 

Arson is a crime and is not the same thing as negligence.

 

Of course. Arson is intentional. This house was not set on fire intentionally.

[Audrey]

I agree. Problem is, very few rural communities could afford it that way. There simple is not enough in property taxes to fund their own fire dept.

 

So what happens is they contract out to communities nearby that can afford it.

 

Even then it is spotty for rural areas.

 

For example, I once lived in a rural community that had two fire trucks.

 

They did not have a fee system, they just went.

 

BUT since the outer communities were not actually funding them, the rule was they could never take both trucks outside their own community. That way, the paying community always has first service. If their own community needed both trucks, then the one sent out would be called off to service it's own community.

 

They also never sent out trucks for small debris/brush fires or pets. For a brush fire? A guy in a pick up would have gone to see if it needed a fire truck or if locals with hoses and dirt could handle it.

 

There just wasn't enough money to drive fire trucks all over hill and dale.

 

In fact, an elderly neighbor died with a cop and a fireman on his front porch because there wasn't a local ambulance service with proper medical equipment and training to help while he died of heat stroke.

 

This is the nature of rural living.

 

When seconds matter, helps is many long minutes away.

 

 

I live in a very rural area, Martha and our levy is not for "our own" fire department. It is for the regional fire department. Everyone is paying into it to keep it running and it is staffed by local volunteers who go through training at their own expense. We still manage to make sure everyone's fires are attended with the promptness and expertise one should expect from any fire department. I am sure there are areas more sparsely populated and remote than mine, but I doubt there are very many.

 

I'm having a pleasant and lovely evening, but I'll step out of the discussion now because this is a hot issue for me (no pun intended) as my dh is a volunteer fire truck driver. I'm quite likely to commit a banning offense if I continue.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Well then, all the people arguing that this was his just desserts should be incredibly happy.

 

I'm sick to my stomach.

 

:iagree:

[Haiku]

Regardless, now we read the family had TWO HOURS to empty their home out and apparently didn't do squat?:confused:

 

Actually, they spent the two hours trying to contain the fire.

 

Tara

[lionfamily1999]

Ah, yes, Christianity (Christ) is all about making sure we live with our consequences. Grace must die a long, painful death.

No, it's apparently about making laws or bringing suits against people who don't behave like Christians.

 

Are we now assuming the fire dept. was peopled with Christians?

Ignore is not the appropriate term here. Many have covered this already, but the fire district doesn't extend to the Crannick's area. The people in the uncovered area had the choice to participate in fire protection services. For whatever reason, they chose not to participate. The fire department acted accordingly.

 

I believe people must say what they mean and mean what they say. If you say,"No thanks" to something, I assume since you're a grownup that you mean it.

 

Grownups take responsibility for their action or inaction.

:iagree:

Just musing here...then the FD tells the 911 operator "nope" and the 911 operator says to the homeowner "They're not coming!"

 

Just seems so strange...

If you don't have 911 service, then yes, the operator will tell you you're out of their area. Sorry, call someone else. Btdt.

 

If you have 911 service, then they can bounce you around from operator to operator until either someone finds out who has your service and you're connected or you give up.

 

The operators I've had experience with will know without having to bring in another person, in which case they tend to say, "I'm sorry, you're not in our area... you'll need to find the number for your local whatever OR let me transfer you to the right dispatch center." In their case, it was probably something like you are not in our are, I'm sorry.

We once lived in an odd location in DC. Our housing was in the district on a military base, but right on the Potomic river. We smelled a fire as we were coming home on night and I called on my cell phone to report it. The closest cell was evidently across the river in Virginia. I was transferred a couple of times from one 911 center to another as they tried to find the one that covered our juristiction.

 

I imagine that there are similar transfers in more rural areas from one dispatch center to another as a call is taken by a central 911, then passed along to the sherrif's department or specific city police departments.

Yep.

I don't care about libertarian philosophizing at this point; there's no way around the fact that it's morally reprehensible for a community to be AWARE of a person losing life and/or property in a catastrophic way and not try to help prevent or stop it. Even if the person didn't pay a bill and they somehow "deserved" to lose everything, it's STILL morally reprehensible.

I disagree. I would have never expected our neighbors to intervene when we lost our home or during the looting that followed. It's dangerous to intervene in most of those circumstances and I would not want my neighbors risking life or limb to rescue our stuff.

It's just as reprehensible as turning someone away for emergency medical treatment because they can't pay the bill. Those who can help have a moral obligation to do so, no matter what their superiors tell them. This fire department should have mutinied against their superiors and done the right thing. Period. What they did[n't do] is sickening.

Speaking from what moral stand point? Again, are we assuming that all of these people were Christians?

This is a clear example of how libertarian ideals can FAIL. The whole idea behind small government is that it isn't NECESSARY to have big government, since communities and neighbors will step in when help is needed. REALLY? It doesn't look like anyone did that here.... This is actually the WORST combination of big government and libertarianism; on one hand, libertarians want to hold the man responsible for his choice to not have fire protection, and completely alleviate any blame of the FD. On the other hand, the Big Bad government is PREVENTING the local fire department from helping a citizen in dire need because of a few unpaid dollars. It would be similar to withholding emergency health care due to unpaid back taxes, or failing to send an ambulance to pick up a stroke victim because someone didn't pay their last hospital bill.

The government has nothing to do with it and here, there is no ambulance service if you haven't paid them in the past. We don't have public ambulances. The paramedics will come out and take a look, but they don't transport if you owe them money.

Did the owner logically deserve to have his house burn down because he CHOSE to not pay for fire service? Sure...I guess he made a choice that panned out badly for him. It was a bad choice and he bore the brutal consequences. Should his community have allowed his house to burn down to purposely punish him because for his bad choice? Only if we think it's okay to not care about our neighbors.

What should his community have done? It sounds like his community was doing what they could.

I'm sorry. I just can't bring myself to care that some superior told this FD that they couldn't do anything. Shame on every last one of them for standing there and doing nothing. It's completely un-American. :glare:

Unchristian.

...

 

Wow. I'm just...appalled and sickened. I can't IMAGINE my husband standing by and watching someone's house burn down, when he had the power to stop it from happening. I know I want to teach my children that choices have consequences, but at the same time I want to teach them that we are to be compassionate and merciful to those who make bad choices. Do unto others....

Again, a Christian teaching. That's great, that's fine and dandy, I teach my children the same thing. However, you cannot enforce Christian behavior. If you do, then it lacks the entire purpose, which is choosing to behave in a way that glorifies God.

Politics should NEVER matter more than people.

 

No, you're right, he just said to love your brother as yourself.

So, let's pass a law that we have to love each other.

The Good Samaritan story covers this territory unless Christ meant to praise the folks that walked by the poor fellow in distress.

 

Somehow I think not.

 

If money is the issue, fight the fire and bill the guy after. But refusing to fight the fire at all? I can't see any line of reasoning that, to me at least, wouldn't seem to be simply a way to justify a lack of moral action.

They did their job.

[Murphy101]

Actually, they spent the two hours trying to contain the fire.

 

Tara

 

Oh come on now then which is it? They were begging pleading and they got their checkbooks out ( but not their pets) or they single handedly tried to put out the fire?

 

This tale of woe is so twisted and messed up and lacking so many relevant details it's very nearly a waste of journalism.

 

If this was a controlled derbis burn, there should have been water and dirt available to put it out. You would think someone who had already had a fire dept call in the past would be more careful.

 

I have a feeling the fire dept is getting the shaft media spin style.

[goldberry]

Reading this story with interest....

 

In my rural community, the local ambulance service has faced severe cuts in the amount of state funding and grants it has received in the last several years. Last year, they went to election to increase their tax levy in order to keep providing a certain level of service. The tax levy was voted down. The ambulance service is now forced to cut their amount of ambulance and staff available. It is quite possible at this time that if too many calls come in at once, SOMEONE is not going to get responded to in a timely manner.

 

So, when they don't show up for a call because they don't have the staff and vehicles available - who's fault is that? The ambulance service would likely be villified, when it really is the fault of the community who voted down the tax increase.

 

Also in our state, we are facing three amendments right now that are labeled "tax reform". I'm all for tax reform! But these three amendments will take money away from schools, fire departments, ambulance services. Everybody thinks "hey, that's great, save me some tax money". But what happens when emergency services doesn't show up for their emergency?

 

When there are necessary services being provided, and no one would want or expect to be refused those services, then everyone should share in the cost. Period.

[goldberry]

One other thought, does anyone else see a clear comparision here with the health care situation? In our country, no one is going to be turned away from an emergency room. No one is not going to be transported to the hospital after a car accident because they don't have health insurance. That being the case, why are folks outraged that it should be required for everyone to carry health insurance?

 

It would seem to me that if you don't think a person should be required to carry health insurance, then it would be ok for someone to "opt out" of paying for other services, like fire or ambulance. If that choice is allowed, then it would only be fair not to provide services to that person. I just don't really see the difference.

[Haiku]

Oh come on now then which is it? They were begging pleading and they got their checkbooks out ( but not their pets) or they single handedly tried to put out the fire?

 

 

I'm merely repeating what the news article said. But I don't see how trying to put out a fire and calling 911 are mutually exclusive. You claimed that they didn't do squat during the two hours between the report of the fire and it reaching their house. According to the news reports, that's not true.

 

Tara

[RoughCollie]

That being the case, why are folks outraged that it should be required for everyone to carry health insurance?

 

Wait until you find out how much it costs. Our health insurance cost us $1800/mo in Mass before it was required.

 

First year required, $1500/mo. We were happy!

 

Second year required, $2000/mo.

 

Third year required, $2500/mo

 

Fourth year required, $3000/mo

 

Three years after health insurance was required, we went from paying $1500/mo to double that.

 

The report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care foundation, showed that the average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008, 40 percent higher than in 2003.

 

Now, the Commonwealth Fund report projects that without significant cost reforms, an annual family premium in Massachusetts will soar to $26,730 by 2020.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/08/22/bay_state_health_insurance_premiums_highest_in_country/

 

We are self-employed so we pay a lot more for health insurance.

Edited October 8, 2010 by RoughCollie

[LisaKinVA]

In the past couple of days, I have learned a lot more about the situation in Obion County...

 

The county actually approved a county fire department in 1987... but has yet to fund it. So, a department exists "on paper." They actually planned for not one, but two departments.

 

The county has as a part of their policy with the cities of a charge of $500 per rural call, regardless of subscription, BUT, the cities have only been able to collect 50% of the time.

 

75% of all municipal fire department's structure calls are rural.

 

As recently as 2008, a presentation to the Obion County Commissioners was made to fund the fire department -- several reasonable options were given -- but the Obion County Commissioners would not hear of any funding for their own fire station (approved a decade earlier), and wanted to continue things as they were (subscription-type services, and other policies with municipalities within and adjacent to the county).

 

Some of these solutions included:

 

1. Add a monthly fee to each electric meter in only the rural areas of the county (raising $300-$500k a year dependent on a $3 or $5 a month fee)

 

2. Add a monthly fee to each electric meter in both the rural and municipal areas (raising $260-645k a year, dependent on a $2-$5 fee)

 

3. Increase property taxes by .13 per sq. ft. -- yielding approximately $550,000

 

4. Annual Subscriptions of $116 per household

 

The proposal goes on to say that the subscription model has failed in the past, and #4 would really not work.

 

So, the county realized there was a problem -- solutions were proposed -- and rejected by the County Commissioners who prefered to leave the system as it was -- and actually voted to expand the same "pay-to-spray" system to the rest of the county.

 

I still don't agree with the confusing "maybe" scenario -- if you haven't paid we MIGHT come out, if we feel like it -- (which is currently the case, it has not been, "no never." But more a "well maybe." Additionally, the county does have in place a "back up plan" of a $500 fee, which may be why the homeowner was confused about the policy... interesting to see if detrimental reliance came into play here.

 

But, I am willing to cut the city a bit of slack (not much, because imo they were part of the problem by NOT simply sticking with a policy of "no" for 20 years. "Maybe" or "Probably" just breeds confusion, and encourages people to roll the dice. The FD had done this more than once in this neighborhood alone... NOT for Mr. Cranick, but for his son... and a neighbor.) I am willing to cut the city some slack because the county KNEW this was a problem and flat-out refused to deal with it. The city, probably strapped for funds, knowing that the county KNEW about the problem and STILL refused to take action, decided to make a point and say, "sorry, not coming." Making this family the poster child for dues payment... or perhaps getting the county off it's collective arse and do something for a change.

 

Fires present a clear and present danger to the community. In the area most recently affected, this was not some "far off country place" -- this was more like a suberb -- where fire at one person's home is likely to spread to another. It is reckless and fool-hardy. The fire started in fire barrells (which are apparently commonplace), spread to the grass, engulfed a shed, and then the house. From the footage I have seen, the family was probably doing a decent job of fightnig the fire... since it took over two hours to reach the house less than 100 yards away (Yes, this was a house -- not a mobile home -- Mrs. Cranick said was the same house the woman's mother, and grandmother had lived in -- I kind of doubt "mobile homes" were around 100 years ago, and I don't know of any mobile homes with chimneys, either).

 

There has been a lot of mis-reporting, under-reporting... opinion slinging everywhere... but in sum:

 

1) Mr. Cranick should have paid the $75. BUT he had a reasonable expection (part of detrimental reliance) on the fact that the FD would come anyway based (a) on prior relatively recent experience in their neighborhood, enabling people to pay after the fact and (b) the County policy's $500 fee. People's assessments of "cheat" and "freeloader" imply no payment ever, there is no evidence that Mr. Cranick ever "cheated" the system, or intended to "freeload."

 

2) The County Commissioners should not only have acknolwedged the system was flawed, but should have acted to fix it instead of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "everything is fine." Fire represents a clear and present danger to the community as a whole, and should not be contracted on a house-by-house basis -- especially in cities, and suberbs where houses are closer together.

 

3) The city FD should have stuck with there "no means no" for 20 years, instead of actively engaging in a selective enforcement policy of "if we feel like it." If they had not responded to 100% of the fires that had gone without pre-payment, we quite possibly would never have gotten to this point in the first place. HOWEVER, since the FD had made it their "unwritten" policy of helping, and accepting payment later -- I still maintain that they had an obligation to assist.

 

We can fingerpoint and blame and be callous all we want to, but these are the facts of the case. You can't just leave it in simple terms... it is not a simple issue. You can't just blame the man and call him names, without taking into account the FD's own history of assisting REGARDLESS of prior payment, AND the apparent "back up" policy of being charged $500 instead of the up-front $75. If he truly "chose" not to pay, vs. "forgot" to pay, that choice was reliant on the knowledge that the FD had acted before AND the county had a back-up plan. That was not being ignorant or stupid.

 

Lastly, if people in the county are as angry as they say they are over this, they should "fire' their county commissioners who were more than willing to accept a system they knew was bad for everyone, instead of pushing for an affordable solution for everyone.

[unsinkable]

In the past couple of days, I have learned a lot more about the situation in Obion County...

 

The county actually approved a county fire department in 1987... but has yet to fund it. So, a department exists "on paper." They actually planned for not one, but two departments.

 

The county has as a part of their policy with the cities of a charge of $500 per rural call, regardless of subscription, BUT, the cities have only been able to collect 50% of the time.

 

75% of all municipal fire department's structure calls are rural.

 

As recently as 2008, a presentation to the Obion County Commissioners was made to fund the fire department -- several reasonable options were given -- but the Obion County Commissioners would not hear of any funding for their own fire station (approved a decade earlier), and wanted to continue things as they were (subscription-type services, and other policies with municipalities within and adjacent to the county).

 

Some of these solutions included:

 

1. Add a monthly fee to each electric meter in only the rural areas of the county (raising $300-$500k a year dependent on a $3 or $5 a month fee)

 

2. Add a monthly fee to each electric meter in both the rural and municipal areas (raising $260-645k a year, dependent on a $2-$5 fee)

 

3. Increase property taxes by .13 per sq. ft. -- yielding approximately $550,000

 

4. Annual Subscriptions of $116 per household

 

The proposal goes on to say that the subscription model has failed in the past, and #4 would really not work.

 

So, the county realized there was a problem -- solutions were proposed -- and rejected by the County Commissioners who prefered to leave the system as it was -- and actually voted to expand the same "pay-to-spray" system to the rest of the county.

 

I still don't agree with the confusing "maybe" scenario -- if you haven't paid we MIGHT come out, if we feel like it -- (which is currently the case, it has not been, "no never." But more a "well maybe." Additionally, the county does have in place a "back up plan" of a $500 fee, which may be why the homeowner was confused about the policy... interesting to see if detrimental reliance came into play here.

 

But, I am willing to cut the city a bit of slack (not much, because imo they were part of the problem by NOT simply sticking with a policy of "no" for 20 years. "Maybe" or "Probably" just breeds confusion, and encourages people to roll the dice. The FD had done this more than once in this neighborhood alone... NOT for Mr. Cranick, but for his son... and a neighbor.) I am willing to cut the city some slack because the county KNEW this was a problem and flat-out refused to deal with it. The city, probably strapped for funds, knowing that the county KNEW about the problem and STILL refused to take action, decided to make a point and say, "sorry, not coming." Making this family the poster child for dues payment... or perhaps getting the county off it's collective arse and do something for a change.

 

Fires present a clear and present danger to the community. In the area most recently affected, this was not some "far off country place" -- this was more like a suberb -- where fire at one person's home is likely to spread to another. It is reckless and fool-hardy. The fire started in fire barrells (which are apparently commonplace), spread to the grass, engulfed a shed, and then the house. From the footage I have seen, the family was probably doing a decent job of fightnig the fire... since it took over two hours to reach the house less than 100 yards away (Yes, this was a house -- not a mobile home -- Mrs. Cranick said was the same house the woman's mother, and grandmother had lived in -- I kind of doubt "mobile homes" were around 100 years ago, and I don't know of any mobile homes with chimneys, either).

 

There has been a lot of mis-reporting, under-reporting... opinion slinging everywhere... but in sum:

 

1) Mr. Cranick should have paid the $75. BUT he had a reasonable expection (part of detrimental reliance) on the fact that the FD would come anyway based (a) on prior relatively recent experience in their neighborhood, enabling people to pay after the fact and (b) the County policy's $500 fee. People's assessments of "cheat" and "freeloader" imply no payment ever, there is no evidence that Mr. Cranick ever "cheated" the system, or intended to "freeload."

 

2) The County Commissioners should not only have acknolwedged the system was flawed, but should have acted to fix it instead of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "everything is fine." Fire represents a clear and present danger to the community as a whole, and should not be contracted on a house-by-house basis -- especially in cities, and suberbs where houses are closer together.

 

3) The city FD should have stuck with there "no means no" for 20 years, instead of actively engaging in a selective enforcement policy of "if we feel like it." If they had not responded to 100% of the fires that had gone without pre-payment, we quite possibly would never have gotten to this point in the first place. HOWEVER, since the FD had made it their "unwritten" policy of helping, and accepting payment later -- I still maintain that they had an obligation to assist.

 

We can fingerpoint and blame and be callous all we want to, but these are the facts of the case. You can't just leave it in simple terms... it is not a simple issue. You can't just blame the man and call him names, without taking into account the FD's own history of assisting REGARDLESS of prior payment, AND the apparent "back up" policy of being charged $500 instead of the up-front $75. If he truly "chose" not to pay, vs. "forgot" to pay, that choice was reliant on the knowledge that the FD had acted before AND the county had a back-up plan. That was not being ignorant or stupid.

 

Lastly, if people in the county are as angry as they say they are over this, they should "fire' their county commissioners who were more than willing to accept a system they knew was bad for everyone, instead of pushing for an affordable solution for everyone.

 

Wow, Lisa, great post.

 

So in regard to the $500 fee...is that what a HO would be charged if the FD responded and the HO hadn't previously paid the $75? Like a penalty fee?

[LisaKinVA]

Wow, Lisa, great post.

 

So in regard to the $500 fee...is that what a HO would be charged if the FD responded and the HO hadn't previously paid the $75? Like a penalty fee?

 

That's what it appears to mean, according to the Obion County Fire Department Proposal from March, 18, 2008, as well as a few other references I have seen.

[Danestress]

It sounds like they were calling the fire department over a period of time as the brush fire was spreading towards the house.

 

So why did they not get the three dogs out of the house, if they had that time? They lost three dogs in that fire, and it seems like that was not necessary. I am sure there is an explanation, but I am curious about how this occurred.

[LisaKinVA]

It sounds like they were calling the fire department over a period of time as the brush fire was spreading towards the house.

 

So why did they not get the three dogs out of the house, if they had that time? They lost three dogs in that fire, and it seems like that was not necessary. I am sure there is an explanation, but I am curious about how this occurred.

 

Well, I can see a few possibilities...

 

(1) The animals were possibly indoor/outdoor animals, it would be possible to think the animals were outside (instincts would most likely have kept the animals away from the blaze...) and not realize they were not outside until it was too late (all of their energy was focused on fighting the fire, and trying to get the FD out there).

 

(2) They were so busy fighting the fire, that by the time it reached the house, it was too late. Going into the house would have been too dangerous.

 

(3) Everyone assumed that someone else had taken care of the pets.

 

I find it highly unlikely that the family willingly left their pets inside the home without any thought whatsoever.

[Danestress]

I find it highly unlikely that the family willingly left their pets inside the home without any thought whatsoever.

 

I was more thinking that maybe the fire spread much more quickly than some have indicated in the thread. I think if it really took more than half an hour or so, someone would have been level-headed enough to say, "Okay, is everyone out? Are the animals out?"

 

I guess this is the reason people needs plans for fires. We probably need to talk about this in our household. Where does everyone meet up for a head count? What is our plan for the pets?

 

My dog is my baby. He would be the FIRST thing I thought about after I counted human heads, and I am sure these people are absolutely devastated to have neglected that issue. I feel really sorry for the grandson that started the fire.

[aude sapere]

LisaK,

 

Informative post. However, if this family wanted fire service protection, they should have paid the fee.

 

Would a responsible homeowner

 

a) play by the rules, and pay the fee

 

or

 

b) think maybe I'll be covered... let's just wait for the fire

 

The blame for this incident rests solely on the shoulders of the homeowner.

[mommaduck]

LisaK,

 

Informative post. However, if this family wanted fire service protection, they should have paid the fee.

 

Would a responsible homeowner

 

a) play by the rules, and pay the fee

 

or

 

b) think maybe I'll be covered... let's just wait for the fire

 

The blame for this incident rests solely on the shoulders of the homeowner.

Again the owner neither "neglected to play by the rules" nor "think maybe I'll be covered". He FORGOT to pay the bill.

[Mejane]

I asked my husband (former FF) about this when he came home from a business trip last night. He said his department also charged dues. Many people did not pay them, and the FD would bill them for costs later. He said they recouped almost nothing. :glare: In his district, reminder notices were sent out. People still did not pay. (Don't know if that was the case with the Cranicks.) FDs depend on these dues to update and maintain equipment. FFs are being put at risk when people do not pay (for whatever reason.)

 

He also said FFs never go into burning buildings for pets. Sad, but understandable.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Mejane

[Murphy101]

I was more thinking that maybe the fire spread much more quickly than some have indicated in the thread. I think if it really took more than half an hour or so, someone would have been level-headed enough to say, "Okay, is everyone out? Are the animals out?"

 

I guess this is the reason people needs plans for fires. We probably need to talk about this in our household. Where does everyone meet up for a head count? What is our plan for the pets?

 

My dog is my baby. He would be the FIRST thing I thought about after I counted human heads, and I am sure these people are absolutely devastated to have neglected that issue. I feel really sorry for the grandson that started the fire.

 

Yes. That was my point. Either the fire spread fairly slowly as they had time to get checkbooks, make multiple phone calls, beg and plead and they weren't as attached to their pets as they claim. OR it went quicker and the fire dept couldn't have done anything to begin with. It doesn't seem rational that both situations apply.

 

 

 

 

 

Sure we can say out of jurisdiction FD should have helped because they had at times in the past. But I disagree. I don't think I or anyone else is obligated to keep offering a handout just because they have been generous in the past. 75% of their calls were rural and 50% of the time, that FD was getting screwed by those outlying areas. Essentially, 50% of the time another city was doing fire calls for zero compensation. And now those areas want to whine that they are POd because the free service was cut off? Not much sympathy on that count from me. They should have insisted on having a just system in place.

 

As for the barrel fires. Yes, debris is often burned off in barrels. And anyone of even average intelligence has water and dirt on hand to put it out if necessary. They also don't usually start it near their shed or anything else if at all possible. If not possible, they make double sure about that water and dirt. That is why I said I was surprised the insurance company didn't label it arson. It sure sounds like a lot of stupid went into making that accident. And they had had a previous fire call, so it's not like they didn't have experience to teach caution.

 

I'm trying to think how unbelievably POd I'd be if my neighbor purposely started a fire in his backyard without making sure water and dirt were nearby and then didn't pay attention to the fire and lo and behold - a blaze starts up destroying his property and risking mine.

 

I think there is a lot of very misdirected anger at those firemen.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Martha
Wording

[DaffodilDreams]

I haven't read through all of the posts, so maybe this has been referenced already. In case not, though, here is a statement made by the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters:

 

The fire department's decision to let the home burn was "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association representing firefighters.

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schaitberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

 

I agree with the IAFF.

 

By the way, South Fulton is now supposedly reviewing their policy. Too little, too late for the Cranicks, though.

[TravelingChris]

Actually for those who say this wouldn't have happened with our ancestors, it certainly did. Walking around Charleston, SC on a tour, we heard about how houses had symbols up to show which insurance company/fire department they had subscribed with. That was the one who responded to their fire.

 

I have no issues with the fire department at all. This fire was not in their jurisdiction. The Cranicks decided to live in an area with no guaranteed fire protection and then decided not to pay the $75 fee to get it. Some people choose rural areas to live in. Some of these areas do not have the same services that those of us who chose urban or suburban areas have- services like fire departments, street cleaners, libraries, community centers, etc. The taxes are higher in the areas that have these services. You make your choice. I am a cautious person and choose to always make sure I live in an area that has fire and police protection. My rent is higher because I live in an area with services. Others choose to live where the costs are cheaper but the potential harms are greater.

[aude sapere]

Again the owner neither "neglected to play by the rules" nor "think maybe I'll be covered". He FORGOT to pay the bill.

 

His lack of personal responsibility is tragic, but doesn't change the fact that he did not pay.

[mommaduck]

His lack of personal responsibility is tragic, but doesn't change the fact that he did not pay.

Agree, but neither should we falsely accuse him of intent that was not there.

[aude sapere]

Agree, but neither should we falsely accuse him of intent that was not there.

 

 

What intent? He didn't pay. Whether deliberately or not, he didn't pay.

 

 

When a bill is due, "I forgot to pay it" doesn't change the fact it wasn't paid.

 

The theory of "I forgot to pay" doesn't absolve one of the responsibility -- have you tried "oops, I forgot to pay" with your mortgage? A health insurance premium? An auto insurance premium?

 

Non-payment is non-payment, regardless of cause.

 

And has the same result - no payment, no service.

[LisaKinVA]

What intent? He didn't pay. Whether deliberately or not, he didn't pay.

 

 

When a bill is due, "I forgot to pay it" doesn't change the fact it wasn't paid.

 

The theory of "I forgot to pay" doesn't absolve one of the responsibility -- have you tried "oops, I forgot to pay" with your mortgage? A health insurance premium? An auto insurance premium?

 

Non-payment is non-payment, regardless of cause.

 

And has the same result - no payment, no service.

 

Actually, mortgages, car insurance, life insurance, car loans, and even most credit cards pretty much all have grace periods, and a period of ACTIVE efforts to contact the person regarding the oversight. Most times, there may be a penalty for late payment -- but you aren't simply cut off (or kicked out). In the examples you list there is no "oops, I forgot." Every effort is made to correct the problem before you have any potential of being cut off.

 

Legal does not make it right...

 

A credit card company of which you have been a customer for the past 5+ years or more has the legal right to increase your interest rate if you are late for a payment. The card company changes hands, resulting in some confusion as to where bills get paid/sent... payment is set up electronically, but doesn't go out according to a revised schedule. It's received one day late. Credit card company increases the interest rate from 10% to 39% -- yeah, it's legal. The bill was paid late... but the credit card company could have exerted some grace. Family pays off the credit card in full. 6 months later, despite no other late charges or credit issues -- the card company CLOSES a different account with a balance. Sure, they are within their legal right to do so -- but that doesn't make the actions right. Then, 6 months after that, they close the account without any balance or issues in a year. Sure, they have every legal right to do so -- but it doesn't make it right.

 

Just because the city feels it was legally correct reverting to their 20+ year written policy, they had ignored doesn't make it right -- in fact it creates a NEW legal issue called "detrimental reliance" which very well could open the city up to a lawsuit.

 

Yes, the man didn't pay. Perhaps the city was in it's legal rights to abdicate a 20-year standing unwritten policy of assisting -- that would be for a court to decide, but the law actually stands more with the family on this one, based from the facts I've been given, researched and read

 

BUT, if anyone deserves to hold the blame? It's the county commissioners who have known about the problem for over a decade, and when presented with a program that would eliminate the issue did nothing. To me, the buck stops THERE.

 

Lastly, there is probably a very good reason communities no longer use those fire markers from the 19th century on houses... the system did not work. People realized that even if the fire doesn't start in my house (where I paid for my subscription), if my neighbors did not pay and the fire is raging -- by the time the fire department answers my call, my house will very likely be gone too. Additionally, during this "for profit" subscription enterprise, firefighters fought about who was supposed to put out the fire... while the houses burned. I would also hazard to guess that firefighters realized that the faster a fire could be contained, the less damage or potential damage all around.

 

It wasn't effective, it didn't work. It was replaced. The time has long since passed for Obion County to fix it's problems. These areas are no longer sleepy rural farms with wide open spaces and plenty of time to get there... they are now much more densely populated suburbs of the city and the responsibilities are much greater.

 

Now, I have to get ready to leave for Williamsburg and Jamestown... Hopefully, I can pull myself away long enough to get everything packed, loaded, and prepared :tongue_smilie:

[mommaduck]

What intent? He didn't pay. Whether deliberately or not, he didn't pay.

 

 

When a bill is due, "I forgot to pay it" doesn't change the fact it wasn't paid.

 

The theory of "I forgot to pay" doesn't absolve one of the responsibility -- have you tried "oops, I forgot to pay" with your mortgage? A health insurance premium? An auto insurance premium?

 

Non-payment is non-payment, regardless of cause.

 

And has the same result - no payment, no service.

Apparently you aren't understanding that I was responding to a post that was falsely accusing him of this. I'm not arguing if it was paid or not, I'm arguing that we should not falsely accuse someone of deliberate intent the situation is otherwise. It's called slander.

 

But then, I guess some people think that's okay.

Edited October 8, 2010 by mommaduck