Didnt pay for firefighting service: house burns!

CanadianKid

New member
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 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.

The fire fee policy dates back 20 or so years.

"Anybody that's not inside the city limits of South Fulton, it's a service we offer. Either they accept it or they don't," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker.

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.

South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

Cranick, who is now living in a trailer on his property, says his insurance policy will help cover some of his lost home.

"Insurance is going to pay for what money I had on the policy, looks like. But like everything else, I didn't have enough."


------------------------------------------------------------

CK Commentary:

You should live by the rules. So I'm not really sympathetic to the guy - his house burned down but he chose not to pay for the firefighting service....

And this is rural tennessee where everybody's conservative, and this guy from his pic on MSNBC looks like a redneck. So this system of private enterprise sure worked out for him....

I love conservatives who bitch about socialization of services, except when it comes and bites them in the ass!

So good riddance to this goofball he got what he deserved.

Its ironic that his next door neighbour did buy the firefighting service and therefore had his house saved!

You get what you pay for!

CK
 
As a rural firefighter myself (Damo might add something esle later) we respond to any fires whether they have paid the fee or not (ours is $25 per year) but if they haven't paid the fee they receive a bill from us, $150 for grass/brush fire, $500 for structure fire. Now some of the folks pay the bill and some don't, but if they do have insurance, the insurance company pays the bill. Then the insurance company requires the homeowner to pay the rural fire fighting fee from then on. The situation described here is pretty extreme to me.
 
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 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.

The fire fee policy dates back 20 or so years.

"Anybody that's not inside the city limits of South Fulton, it's a service we offer. Either they accept it or they don't," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker.

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.

South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

Cranick, who is now living in a trailer on his property, says his insurance policy will help cover some of his lost home.

"Insurance is going to pay for what money I had on the policy, looks like. But like everything else, I didn't have enough."


------------------------------------------------------------

CK Commentary:

You should live by the rules. So I'm not really sympathetic to the guy - his house burned down but he chose not to pay for the firefighting service....

And this is rural tennessee where everybody's conservative, and this guy from his pic on MSNBC looks like a redneck. So this system of private enterprise sure worked out for him....

I love conservatives who bitch about socialization of services, except when it comes and bites them in the ass!

So good riddance to this goofball he got what he deserved.

Its ironic that his next door neighbour did buy the firefighting service and therefore had his house saved!

You get what you pay for!

CK

Welcome to the libertarian utopia.
 
First of all, police and fire protection are socialized services. CK tries to blame this on conservative policies, but this is an example of the socialized service becoming fascist.

The conservative way to fund these socialist services is through property taxes, since the more your home is worth the more you need protection. If you don't pay your taxes the departments still provide services, but lien your property to get the money when you sell it, or they take your property and sell it for the taxes.
 
First of all, police and fire protection are socialized services. CK tries to blame this on conservative policies, but this is an example of the socialized service becoming fascist.

Your wrong again. This an example of a privatized service. The guy didn't pay for the service so he didn't get the service.

I love how conservatives like Damn Yankee just throw out "buzz" words for absolutely no reason.

If they cant give a logical rationale they will just use big words like "socialism" and "fascist" for no apparent reason.

Good job douchebag.

CK
 
This seems pretty cut & dried to me. The homeowner is required to either pay an annual fee or do without firefighting services. He exercised his right to choose not to pay. He now has to suffer the consequences. Yes, its a damn shame it happened. I'm sorry he lost his belongings. But he made the choice not be a part of the system.
 
This seems pretty cut & dried to me. The homeowner is required to either pay an annual fee or do without firefighting services. He exercised his right to choose not to pay. He now has to suffer the consequences. Yes, its a damn shame it happened. I'm sorry he lost his belongings. But he made the choice not be a part of the system.

It's pretty cut and dried to me, too. Cut and dried horseshit. Let's say the owner had children or an elderly parent living in the house.

Pay for service fire departments are fucking stupid. At the very least, the fire department should have put out the fire and sent him a bill which, if unpaid, allowed the local government to put a lien on the property. Letting a house burn to the ground for $75 is fucking stupid, particularly where the fire department shows up to the scene protect the fee-paying neighbor's house.
 
It's pretty cut and dried to me, too. Cut and dried horseshit. Let's say the owner had children or an elderly parent living in the house.

Pay for service fire departments are fucking stupid. At the very least, the fire department should have put out the fire and sent him a bill which, if unpaid, allowed the local government to put a lien on the property. Letting a house burn to the ground for $75 is fucking stupid, particularly where the fire department shows up to the scene protect the fee-paying neighbor's house.

You play by the rules that you are under....

Yes its a stupid thing to have a house burn down....

The firefighters SHOULD have to save the house if there was somebody inside it....

For example an Emergency Room in a hospital has to take a critically wounded patient with or without medical insurance.

However an ER doesn't have to take a person with a sprained ankle if they don't have medical coverage.

Do you understand dumbass?

CK
 
You play by the rules that you are under....

Yes its a stupid thing to have a house burn down....

The firefighters SHOULD have to save the house if there was somebody inside it....

For example an Emergency Room in a hospital has to take a patient with or without medical insurance.

However an ER doesn't have to take a person with a sprained ankle if they don't have medical coverage.

Do you understand dumbass?

CK


Nah, I don't quite get what you're saying. Maybe if you throw in a FEW more random CAPS and . . . . maybe some more one period too long ellipses for no apparent reason I'll BE able to grasp these DIFFICULT concepts with my FEEBLE . . . American mind . . . .
 
You play by the rules that you are under....

Yes its a stupid thing to have a house burn down....

The firefighters SHOULD have to save the house if there was somebody inside it....

For example an Emergency Room in a hospital has to take a critically wounded patient with or without medical insurance.

However an ER doesn't have to take a person with a sprained ankle if they don't have medical coverage.

Do you understand dumbass?

CK


It's just more proof that something that was at one time as commonplace as oxygen-SIMPLE HUMAN KINDNESS-has now gone the way of the Dodo.

Whatever happened to the concept of "people helping people"?

Sure, we Americans like to TALK about how charitable and compassionate we are, but then we read about how one group of humans, who are chartered with putting OUT fires mind you, could let another human being's house burn to the ground, WHILE WATCHING, over a measly $75.00

BRAVO America...way to set an example for the entire world to see.
 
It's pretty cut and dried to me, too. Cut and dried horseshit. Let's say the owner had children or an elderly parent living in the house.

Pay for service fire departments are fucking stupid. At the very least, the fire department should have put out the fire and sent him a bill which, if unpaid, allowed the local government to put a lien on the property. Letting a house burn to the ground for $75 is fucking stupid, particularly where the fire department shows up to the scene protect the fee-paying neighbor's house.

NOT PAYING THE FEE WAS STUPID PART
 
Welcome to the libertarian utopia.

128660447633304831.jpg
 
Your wrong again. This an example of a privatized service. The guy didn't pay for the service so he didn't get the service.

apparently they don't teach you the the difference between rural areas and municipalities. It should be obvious to rational people that the fire department services the TOWNSHIP as it should. Anything outside the township, they are not responsible for but will provide the service for a fee. This guy obviously knew about it but didn't consider it important enough......until he had a fire. The bullshit about all of this is you and other morons trying to make this look like some sort of conservative or libertarian unintended consequence instead of manning up for your own stupidity.
 
The sad thing is that you're serious.

consider it sad all you'd like. it's amazing how liberals like you are all about millions of regulations and following them, yet throw them all away at something you don't agree with.

seriously, what are the other stupid parts about this scenario. list them out or stfu.
 
This seems pretty cut & dried to me. The homeowner is required to either pay an annual fee or do without firefighting services. He exercised his right to choose not to pay. He now has to suffer the consequences. Yes, its a damn shame it happened. I'm sorry he lost his belongings. But he made the choice not be a part of the system.

I agree. Screw him. I mean, I don't understand why they don't do something like leaningright described, but ultimately this guy chose not to adequately insure himself against fire. He has no one to blame but himself.
 
Back
Top