Fire department lets house burn down over 75 dollars

[Rett Mikhal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee.
Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat.



"They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.
The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.


"We wasn't on their list," he said the operators told him.
Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he "forgot" to pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee.



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



His offer wasn't accepted, he said.



Article continues.


The fire department said they couldn't accept the fee at the scene because then everyone would only pay when their house is actually on fire. Oh, what a terrible world that would be, where services are paid for only when they're used and people trained to save your life and property do so without thinking of paperwork.


Utterly absurd. My first question was "did the owner of the house have a history of paying the fee, and didn't pay it this year because of economic turmoil or he honestly just forgot?"


If yes, the shit will hit the fan like it's the last day on earth to sue someone. If no, the county will bitch and moan they don't get enough money and he should have paid and blah blah blah.


I really don't have any sympathy for the kind of people who park a fire truck next to a fire and cross their arms thinking they're better than you as you beg them to save your house. There were even animals trapped inside. That's just sadistic bureaucracy.

 

[RobertVA]

In such instances they should have been legally required to put out the fire. The fire department should then be entitled to a large fee for their services and a penalty for not having paid the annual subscription fee. As occurs with real estate taxes and services provided by repair/remodeling/expansion contractors, transfer of the property title should be blocked until payment is made.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

AS a firefighter...this case disgusts me.

 

[Rett Mikhal]

Indeed. They have disgraced the good name of those who protect innocent people.

 

[kimc]

This makes me sick - especially the part about the animals.

 

[Small White Car]

Stories like this remind me of the Principal Skinner line: "Welcome to Dick Cheney's America."

But this time I think it's actually not fair to Cheney. I'm pretty sure this is even past his level. Who'd have thought I'd ever say that?

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Should have paid the bill. Consequences and the like.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

In such instances they should have been legally required to put out the fire.

Exactly. The way hospitals are required to treat true emergencies, whether or not the patient can pay.

 

[Sparky]

This is a perfect example of why essential services should not be voluntary. I blame the county here. They should be taxing every resident and paying the city for the fire protection.
I feel bad that he lost his trailer, but he didn't pay under the current rules/contract and he paid the price. If I "forget" to pay my insurance on my house or car I can't call them up and get insurance after my house is robbed or my car is in an accident. They would tell me tough luck. The firefighters did save a neighboring house once the fire passed the property line. (That neighbor had paid his fee so I guess that $75 is worth something.)

With any luck this will make the county residents aware that their payment system is in need of an overhaul. It's a tough lesson to learn but change does not often happen until after the worst possible scenario happens.

It's too bad that the animals died. I wonder if there was enough time to grab them before the house started burning.

 

[PsychoPere]

AS a firefighter...this case disgusts me.

My father -- a volunteer firefighter for the past 26 years, whose father was a volunteer firefighter for the same department -- agrees with you. He told me about this earlier while watching a video on MSNBC's website about it.

This is a perfect example of why essential services should not be voluntary.

Agreed. These counties in TN with this setup would seem to be hold-overs from the 18th century when almost all fire protection in the U.S. was based on insurance fees.

 

[drychlick]

this make me sick! pay or not firefighter should do there job

 

[Naira]

I don't understand. Aren't firefighters (no mater where they get paid from) obligated by the state (and their ethics!) to act first and sort out paperwork later?

If not, are people OK with this in that area?

 

[RJDiogenes]

That's ridiculous. Everybody involved should be fired and replaced with Human Beings-- and they should be sued until they have no homes.

 

[doubleohfive]

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 Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."
Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee.

"They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn," Cranick said.

This is absolutely disgusting. Appalling behavior from the people who are, ostensibly, there to protect the citizens of their jurisdiction. But only if they've paid up?

Should have paid the bill. Consequences and the like.

I don't know that I agree with this at all, Shameless. That's a really cavalier attitude to take. What if it had been your house? Or mine?

Look, it's one thing if someone doesn't pay their car insurance bill on time. It's one thing if they don't pay their gas bill or their phone bill ... by and large the late payment of these --or the simple decision to not pay said bill-- would almost never be tantamount to losing their home and all their possessions.

It'd be one thing if this family owed the state, the city, the town, or the fire department a large sum of money ... but for fuck's sake ... these firefighters refused to do their job --in an emergency situation-- over a measly $75.00?

That's some serious apathy right there. You (not you solely, McBundy, everyone) can quote regulations and bylaws and rules of conduct and stipulations all night ... but it's still not going to change the fact that these firefighters were in a position to do something to prevent this family from losing their home in an already perilous economy and recession (yeah, yeah I know the recession is "over" ...) and yet did nothing.

Fuck that shit. Those firefighters should be ashamed of themselves, not only for letting these poor people down in their hour of need but also for besmirching the good name of honorable firefighters everywhere else.

 

[Nachtkommen]

Should have paid the bill. Consequences and the like.

... Says some, until it happens to them or their family (and pets) ... then it's different.

 

[Kestra]

I don't really get how this works, but it seems like they could have a protocol in place where when a situation like this comes up, the bill is simply higher than the $75 fee and reflects the full costs or adds on some additional fee. Ideally essential services like this wouldn't be voluntary but if they insist on this system, there should really be a protocol in place that allows them to save the house (and animals!) without compromising the financial part of it.

Losing a home to a fire is incredibly devastating, not to mention the loss of their animals. I don't know if you guys have ever known anyone whose house has burned down. I've met a few and even when it's something far in the past, you can tell how strongly it still affects them.

 

[Lindley]

The insurance analogy is a good one. No, you can't expect to pay the premium once after an event and get full coverage. However, you should be able to buy a one-time service at a higher cost even without the insurance plan, surely?

It's worth noting that the house was in a rural area and outside the immediate jurisdiction of the responding fire department, but still.

 

[Scout101]

At the risk of just rehashing my posts in the TNZ version of this thread, will give it a go here too (but play nice)

-The firefighters absolutely should have put out the fire, it's crap that they didn't. Yes, all their rules say not to, he's not covered, but still gotta do it. They should have then presented him a bill for a couple thousand dollars worth of service charges though, to cover the labor, gas, water, fire truck rental, etc. Sends the same message that you should REALLY pay your bills, but without burning the guy out of his house...

-I have little to no sympathy for this guy, and it's mostly his own fault. He hadn't paid the bill in years, but had had the fire department come out 2-3 times already for burning brush in his yard that got out of control. The first two times, the fire department helped him out anyway. At some point, gotta stop trying to get it for free, especially if you're a higher risk. Also displays a lack of understanding how things work, thinking he could just pay the $75 when he had a fire. Why would ANYONE pre-pay if that was the deal? And if no one did, they don't have money to actually HAVE a fire department, so no one would show up. He's also responsible for the pets that died, as it was a slow-developing fire, and he spent the time arguing with the operator, and then the fire department, rather than getting his pets out first, and dealing with the fire second. And you can't buy insurance after a loss, not how the system works. Otherwise, companies would only be taking losses, and not taking in money to cover them. The $75 doesn't exactly cover the cost of responding to the fire, obviously...

-The county is also responsible, for letting this system exist. if they don't have a fire department, and are dependent on the city, they need to pay the city as a GROUP, and then levy the tax fee to the residents to cover it. Making it an optional fee for residents is stupid, and leads to the problem. Fire protection is expected, make the fee mandatory and collect it as part of property taxes.

The fire department is pretty cold for responding the way they did, but this is pretty much all on the guy, for not paying his fee (for years, not like he forgot, or was late on it). He gambled his house and pets on not having a fire, or being able to pay the fee afterwards if he did, hoping to save $75 a year. Gamble didn't pay off. His fault for being stupid.

 

[Teelie]

In this situation, neither of them were very smart. The least the fire department could have done was save the animals, maybe helped the man save some possessions and let the place burn down.

And the man should have paid the fee. If the fire department doesn't have money, it can't afford to pay the costs of being a fire department. He had several warnings and he had the unfortunately results of ignoring them be his house burning down and his pets killed.

I wonder though, would they just stand there and watch it burn if there had been people inside? Or if there were potentially toxic chemicals or explosives nearby? What line do they draw at standing to watch someone's house burn down before they step up and do their job, paid or not?

 

[Chaos Descending]

The animals were no doubt dead before the fire department arrived. They didn't show up until the fire was fully involved. The house was beyond saving by the time the fire department arrived to service the neighbor's call.

I wonder though, would they just stand there and watch it burn if there had been people inside?

No. As has been reported, the only way they respond to calls from non-paying customers is if there's a life at risk.

Or if there were potentially toxic chemicals or explosives nearby?

If a life is at risk, probably. If not, nope.

What line do they draw at standing to watch someone's house burn down before they step up and do their job, paid or not?

Technically they wouldn't be "standing around" because they wouldn't come out in the first place.

Again, the only reason they were there at all was for the benefit of the neighbor, who had paid his fee. And they weren't exactly standing around (if I have my facts right), they were fighting the neighbor's fire.