Tenn. Firefighters watch home burn to ground over $75 town fee

[packsaddle]

SOUTH FULTON — Authorities say firefighters in a far western Tennessee city let a mobile home burn down because the owner didn't pay a $75 yearly fee for fire protection.

Jeff Vowell, city manager of South Fulton, told the Union City Daily Messenger that the city fire department let Gene Cranick's doublewide trailer home burn last week because he didn't pay the subscription common in many rural areas.

Cranick's home is outside city limits, but South Fulton offers fire protection to nearby residents for a fee and did protect a neighboring house that paid.

Police say Cranick's son was so angry he later went to the fire house and punched the chief.

City officials didn't return calls and a message left at a phone listing for Gene Cranick was not immediately returned.

From an earlier USA Today report:

The mayor of South Fulton, Tenn., stands by his town's policy that led firefighters to watch from the sidelines while a man's county home burned to the ground because he hadn't paid the $75 fire protection fee, WPSD reports.

Gene Cranick, owner of the now-gutted house in Obion County, says he called 911 and offered to pay whatever it would take to get the firefighters to act, but they said they wouldn't do anything, WPSD reports.

They only responded when it looked as if the fire might spread to the house of a neighbor who had paid the fee.

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," Cranick tells the Paducah, Ky., TV station.

Mayor David Crocker says that's just city policy.

"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Crocker says.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20101005/NEWS01/101005079/Tenn.+Firefighters+watch+home+burn+to+ground+over++75+town+fee

 

[conarb]

Colorado has he right idea:

BOULDER, Colo.—Some homes threatened by a wildfire in the Colorado foothills west of Boulder were protected by a private team of firefighters hired by an insurance company to look out for its clients' property.The crew hired by Chubb Corp. was operating under an agreement the company has with Boulder County, the Boulder Daily Camera reported Tuesday.¹

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_16134045?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com

 

[packsaddle]

"When you don't have that policy and someone else does, it sets up a have and have-nots kind of feeling," she said.

It appears the thought of changing policies never entered her pea brain.

 

[jar546]

I don't agree with what they did but a mobile home would have probably burnt to the ground anyway.

 

[mark handler]

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," Cranick tells the Paducah, Ky., TV station.

So basicaly, he expects the town he does not live in, and does not pay taxes for, to subsidize him. Welfare can take a variety of forms.

 

[conarb]

We had that happen here a few months ago, I've searched the newspaper that I saw it in with no luck, but here's what happened as I recall.

In our delta area there are several islands with different fire districts, a home started burning and the residents called the fire department that they thought covered them, several engines showed up but refused to fight the fire because it was outside their boundaries, and no fire district covered that island. The residents thought they were covered because they paid a yearly tax on their property tax returns to the district that they called and did show up but stood and looked. Come to find out the County Assessors' office had mistakenly taxed the island residents giving the money to the district that they called, but the fact remains that the island wasn't within the district. I hope someone has the wherewithal to bring a legal action against both the county and the fire district, the residents had paid taxes for many years for a service that they weren't entitled to, the fire district received money to protect people it wasn't bound to protect, this would make an interesting legal case.

 

[Uncle Bob]

In that town; if someone has been taken to the emergency room before by the town's emergency service, and hasn't paid their bill; do they let them die of a heart attack the second time they are called out?

What the hell has this country come to?

So, Fire Fighters do not protect the public and their property from fires anymore.

Are they now, mercenaries?

When I was a volunteer fireman; we put out fires; regardless of where they were; and, we didn't ask if they had paid for the service.

That just makes me sick,

Uncle Bob

 

[RJJ]

It has become a country that you have to pay to play. That is if you are a citizen. This exact thing has been in the back of my mind for years. I was not surprised at all to see it on the news last night. They should of had sprinklers. See the coalition was correct and we that opposed just had it wrong. I am sure the federal government will step in and see this doesn't happen again.

 

[vegas paul]

Maybe the mobile home should have been required to have sprinklers... :grin:

 

[cda]

Sounds like old school days when you had a fire mark on your house and if you did not have one no firefight

Sounds like insurance if you do not pay got it they will not fix your house

 

[Builder Bob]

Posts from another thread about the same thing

It does go against what I believe in, however, the truth of the matter is that it costs money to drive and operate the big red trucks ---- At one Volunteer FD I was at, we use to take up collections to buy the next tank of fuel for big red and do fund raisers ---- This day and age, it takes to much time away from your primary job to do these types of activiies today- Today's work places are not as tolerent as they were when times were good.

Texas Transplant: Our City had a contract with the county to provide fire fighting in a certain area of the county. County cut the fee out of their budget this year and we have stopped responding to the calls in that area.I know it seems cruel to let a home burn, but the service was available for $75.00 per year and the family chose not to pay it. They made their own choice. Another angle to this is a lot of insurance companies for municipal corporations will not pay if a fire fighter or policeman etc. are injured or killed responding to a call that is outside the jurisdication unless an agreement is in place or mutal aid has been requested in the appropriate way. So what happens if a fire fighter is killed or injured fighting this fire, who takes care of the fire fighters family and health care cost.

Its a cold cold world out there, but this country is becoming more legalistic and sue happy and that happens to drive the decsions made all so often. If legal battles were decided on spirit and intent of the law with common sense being applied liberally, rather than laws being disected in the way that makes money for cheaters, liars and lawyers, things might be different.

Not very common, but still exists in Rural USA...... Basically, why provide a free service if you aren't paid for it. Not any different than you having a business and requiring payment up front for your services. This area does not have a tax based milage for fire service - the City raises revenue by "contracting" services outside the city limits.

This has been in existance for a very long time ----- Benjamin Franklin days to be exact

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedi...r-sign-plaque#

 

[vegas paul]

Somewhat related - our county provides EMT/paramedic to any and all accidents that occur within the county on either of our two Interstates that intersect here (I-70 & I-135). However, if the victim(s) aren't residents of the county (and many aren't, given that it is a major cross-country intersection), a $350 bill is presented - they ALWAYS respond, but payment is required if you aren't a county taxpayer.

 

[Min&Max]

What a dumb--- situation. They need to write an interlocal agreement so that the fire department just goes out and does what they are supposed to do---fight fires. The residents pay the fee to the county with their taxes and the county remits the fire coverage fee to the fire department.

 

[FyrBldgGuy]

When I read a discussion like this one it makes me wonder how much people really know about the history of the fire service. Most fire departments in the US are volunteer.

How many building departments are volunteer, or police departments? Some of those volunteer departments get by on donations only, some get taxes, and some collect fees.

Most states do not have laws requiring fire protection. It is a service that is provided if and only if an organization is willing to provide the service. So if some shlub does not want to pay for fire protection then he has that right. And when his home burns down that is also his right unless he causes damage to another. The owner of the double wide could have been charged with allowing a fire from his property to cause damage to another.

So who creates these laws? And who changes these laws?

Whens the last time you thanked some dumb volunteer fire fighter for giving up time and risking his/her life just so you could have a service that you really aren't paying enough for anyhow?

I know... I have been a volunteer fire fighter/chief and have spent many days and nights doing hard risky work. Then we would have pancake breakfasts so that we could get enough money together to install a bathroom in the fire station.

$75.00 = ?

 

[mark handler]

Welfare is Welfare.

If you don't pay taxes for the service, you are not entitled.

One interview I saw on TV of the fire chief, he said if there was a life safety issue they would have jumped in, but the owner choose not to pay for the fire service. They were not entitled to the service.

 

[Coug Dad]

Sounds like our new medical plan. Don't buy health insurance until you are sick and then the health insurance companies have to cover you, even with pre existing conditions. Who would have covered the injured or killed firefighter operating outside of thier jurisdiction? Would they, or their survivors then sue the fire district for operating outside of thier area. Reality bites and that homeowner got a big taste of the consequences of irresponsible, but deliberate, decisions.

 

[fatboy]

I was one of the first to post a WOW! on the other thread about this, but after builder bob and texas transplant posted replies, I had a change of heart. It is too bad this guys home burned down, but really, do you think he could have called his insurance agent in the middle of the fire and start a policy then? Who is responsible for the injured firefighters that should not have, by policy, fighting the fire? You' don't think the comp carrier isn't going to jump all over that?

He should have paid the $75, period. I do agree that it would make more sense to add it as a fee to the tax bills so that everyone is covered.

 

[TJacobs]

If the locals want to pay taxes so the fire department comes regardless, then they need to set that up. Otherwise, shut up and pay the subscription.

I'll bet the department sees a ***** in subscriptions...

 

[beach]

.....................................................................................................................

Back To Obion County

I wanted to add a new puzzle to the "Burn, Baby Burn" story from Obion County, Tennessee. Yesterday the blogosphere buzzed with the story of a South Fulton fire department letting a man's house burn down becasue he had not paid the $75 fee to subscribe to the town's fire service (he lived out of town and was not a taxpayer.)

Libs are exultant, crowing that this shows that... well, I guess it shows that only a paternalistic government can work, and that homeowners can't be trusted with basic decisions like whether to buy insurance.

Free market conservatives are scratching their heads. On the one hand, the homeowner made a decision, got the service he paid for, and is now experiencing the consequences. No one got hurt (although some cats and dogs are missing), so it's a tough love lesson for the many other rural residents who did (or did not) pay the $75.

On the other hand, the reality of having a fire department fight a neighbor's fire (who had paid the $75) while ignoring this man's plight does not sit well.

Do keep in mind that this is not a novel situation in Obion; it has happened before, and a study group puzzled it out back in 2008.

So on to the new baffler - what is happening on the insurance side?

Per this report, the homeowner had fire insurance which includes a rider obliging them to subscribe to the fire service. However, that rider is rarely in play and never enforced:

The family has coverage with Farm Bureau Insurance through local agent, Josh Simmons, who raced to the scene of the fire as soon as he learned about it....

...He said the insurance policy has a provision for a reduction in payouts if a fire protection service has not been subscribed but that the insurer has not enforced that in these situations.

If I were running this insurance company I wouldn't sit around wondering whether the client had remembered to pay the $75. I would build the subscription cost into the premium and pay the town myself, to be sure that my clients were on the town list as paid up and entitled to service.

And here is another baffler:


The Obion County, Tenn. family whose home burned on Sept. 29 while firefighters watched from their truck has insurance to payoff their mortgage but not enough to cover everything lost or to rebuild, according to the family and their insurance agent.

So they had a mortgage, yet the mortgage lender wasn't independently verifying their fire protection status? After the mortgage meltdown I guess I can believe almost anything about slack mortgage administration, but that is still surprising. If the insurance company took a hard line with the insurance, what would the bank do? Would it be that hard for them to independently check that the homeowner had subscribed for fire protection?

​

I wouldn't say that this incident represents the free market's finest hour.

On the other hand, for subtle economic analysis we can always rely on Prof. Krugman:

This is essentially the same as denying someone essential medical care because he doesn’t have insurance.

"Essential" medical care? No one died, or was even hurt. There was property damage.

So the question is, do you want to live in the kind of society in which this happens?

As opposed to a world where some guy from Princeton tells the people of Obion how to organize their town and county governments? Just who does Krugman suppose ought to be paying for this fire service? The homeowner does not live in South Fulton, he does not want to pay the subscription, and the externalities of his decision are very limited since his house burning down does not endanger his neighbors (the field fire was the problem which drew the fire department). Let's note that in more densely developed towns, the externalities and opportunities for free-riding are more obvious, since one house burning can endanger others. Which, we presume, is why South Fulton has a fire department.

On the one hand, it might be OK to live in the world Krugman envisions, where goodies fall out of the sky paid for by Someone Else. But a lot of people think there ought to be a link between decisions and consequences, and that it is not the role of government to break that link except in extreme circumstances. As to whether this situation was extreme, well, let's close with this:

The Cranicks said they also forgot to pay their fire service fee on time about three years ago. But the fire department then did not hesitate to put out a chimney fire and let them pay the fee the next day.

Hmm. I bet they promised never to apply for retroactive insurance again. A promise they honored until the next time.

AND ANOTHER THING! I am mystified by the missing dogs and cats. The usual supects presume them to be dead, but that makes no sense - there were several hours of suspense while a field fire (started by the grandson burning trash) approached the house, so there was plenty of time to liberate the cats and dogs. I am betting they ran off in the excitement, but if anyone can pin that down, I would like to know.

​

Posted by Tom Maguire on October 05, 2010

 

[rktect 1]

I wonder if the same policy is in force with the police department.

 

[beach]

I love this one:

Why would anyone pay for a service if they could avoid paying taxes, not pay the user fees and still receive the services? I'm actually starting my own freeloader society on the just west of the South Dakota border. You see, my freeloader society will pay no taxes and support no social services. However, if we need anything, we will call Minnesota and have them send their fire & police to our community to service our needs. Finally, we will send our children to the nearby Minnesota schools (won't pay for that either). How charitable are you guys feeling now? You wouldn't deny my children the opportunity to go to school would you?

 

[mark handler]

I want services but I don't want to pay for them.

What’s next, someone building unpermitted additions and asking the building department to inspect their work?

Someone coming across the border applying for food and shelter assistance while looking for work?

 

[texas transplant]

If the locals want to pay taxes so the fire department comes regardless, then they need to set that up. Otherwise, shut up and pay the subscription.I'll bet the department sees a ***** in subscriptions...

And if the fire department had put the fire out anyway and taken the $75.00 the next day the City would have probably seen a large drop in the number of subscriptions paid next year. Why pay $75.00 per year if I can get it by paying $75.00 only when I have a problem. Besides fires never happen to me, its always the other guy.

 

[Mech]

Mark - I agree.

What about fighting the fire for the $75, AND imposing a late fee - say $500? Discourage people from milking the system. Of course I'm sure the FD should have a policy signed before they hose down the structure for legal reasons. And if the owners refuse to pay, put a lien on the property.

Maybe the FD could have two payment plans:

(1) $75 annual coverage.

(2) $500 per callout.