Firefighters watch fire destroy house
In South Fulton, TN, a local fire department stood by and watched a house burn to the ground and kill three dogs and a cat because the family didn’t pay their $75 annual fee to the fire department. OK, the Cranick family didn’t pay their fee, but don’t fire departments get tax money, ostensibly paid by the Cranick family, to put out fires?
Mrs. Cranick claims she paid last year and the year before and it just slipped her mind this year. But like I said, if the fire department is required by law to not respond to emergencies at the homes of people who don’t pay the fee, should the tax money the department receives also be reduced by the same percentage if they don’t do the job for which they exist?
I’m not exonerating the Cranicks at all…they should have paid the fee since they remained in the area that requires it. However, has the county taken into account the fact that this law would also raise premiums of homeowner insurance policies, not to mention the lives they put in danger while they decide whether to roll out to a fire. What if a check is in the mail?
Aren’t liberals always telling us how essential taxes are because taxes pay for services like fire departments? Where did this fee come from, then? Around here, we have firemen standing on corners with boots panhandling for change. Where are the taxes going if they’re not going to these essential services?
And, oh, by the way; You guys in Montgomery County, Maryland are about to get charged a fee for ambulance service. (Washington Examiner link)
Under the measure, county residents’ insurance companies are charged between $300 and $800 per ambulance ride. Uninsured residents are not required to pay the fee and non-county residents are on the hook for any cost not covered by their insurance companies.
Yeah, and Legget, who has a million-dollar body guard contingent, is holding firefighters hostage by warning that if you don’t approve the fee, he’s going to cut fire department staffing by 10%. Of course, he won’t be giving up his body guards who were initially supplied during the days of the DC Sniper…but just continued for eight years – probably because of Leggett’s stunts like this.
Category: Taxes
I read the article from the local news station. From what I could gather, it sounds like they live in an unincorporated area of a county that does not have fire protection, so they’re required to pay a fee to the nearest city. They get a fee since they don’t live in the city and don’t pay taxes to the city, but they want to use one of its services.
That is the best explanation I could come up with since it doesn’t seem like “journalists” are actually trying to get to the bottom of what happened.
The whole thing is pretty stupid, though. I don’t see why they couldn’t just transfer the fee on the spot, or fight the damn fire and then get a lien on the property if they refused in the future to pay.
A little window in the conservative dream of a privatized America. If you guys get your way, this kind of thing will become commonplace. Every man for himself…..
Hey look, Joey, the whack-a-mole popped his head up yet again. Joey, maybe you ought to do just a tad of research. It had nothing to do with privatizing anything. Obion county, Tennessee has no fire department. Not a paid fire department, not a volunteer fire department. The fire department that responded was a city fire department, and the Cranick’s don’t live in the city, don’t pay taxes for fire protection, hence the fee.
Could the FD have handled it better? Certainly, they could have accepted the fee, or promise of payment on the spot, but for Joey boy to lay this at the feet of “privatization” is just laughable.
According to the story at the link, the families living outside the city limits are the ones who have to pay the fee for coverage. Presumably this means they’re not paying taxes for the service, but rather have to contract for the services themselves. At least the city is willing to extend the contracts to them rather than leaving them up to their own devices.
But just for a moment, let’s think about what happens when we do “the nice thing” instead of what actually happened. Assume the couple paid the fee once or twice before, and just “forgot” to pay it this time and they’d really like to settle up, now that the flames are consuming the roof, and that past performance somehow obligates the Fire Department to continue to provide service now. Why would anybody else ever pay the fee on time, then? Everybody would be better off to *NOT* pay the fee at all until their own fire starts, then pay the fee one time right then. It’s not like the Fire Department needs money to buy trucks or equipment or train people or anything. Can the fire department get by just fine on revenue of $75 once per residency?
Or assume the Fire Department agrees to that deal and is willing to let the homeowner pay the annual fee right now and get the service. Same result: nobody pays anything but $75 once when their house catches on fire. It’s unclear from this proposal how the Fire Department acquires trucks and equipment and trained personnel at no cost to the consumer.
Analogies to gaming the system on other forms of insurance are left as an exercise for the student.
Joe–hey, dipshit–do you realize this was business as usual in large cities around the world early in the previous century? That once the fee was paid, a plaque would be issued that would be hung or place on the building, so that if it got caught fire, the fire department would put it out. It was to the point that if a neighbor’s house caught fire (and no plaque was on it), the fire department would come and make sure YOUR house didn’t burn while his did.
Oh, and which political party is predominantly in charge in large urban areas in the US, then as now? FWIW, in rural areas such as where I live (fortunately fire service is included in my property taxes) one has to pay a fee to the county to ensure coverage. While I agree that this was pretty damn dumb of them to just sit and watch their house burn, the homeowner should have known that any insurance policy issued these days REQUIRES proof of fire coverage in a given area; i.e., you have to show you’ve paid the fee to the county/city in order for insurance to pay off or even obtain coverage in the first place.
This guy thought he could get off cheap, and it bit him in the ass.
The details differ, but the general concept remains. Inside the city limits, outside the city limits – if all you free market fundamentalists get your way with a pay-as-you-go system, houses burning down while firemen twiddle their thumbs will become commmonplace. Or letting people die because the didn’t pay their annual ambulance fee, or letting them get robbed because they didn’t pay their annual police fee, and on and on.
I wonder how it would have turned out if a family had burned to death while the fire chief watched? Tough s**t for the kids because dad was behind on his bills….
Well Joe, and anyone else who’s interested, I’ll go on record right now as perfectly OK with someone’s house being allowed to burn down if they haven’t paid into a system that exists to prevent it. Darwinism at it’s finest. While you whine about how mean or cold hearted that may be to the individual, I’m happy in the knowledge that it’s compassionate to the greater number of people by lessening their financial burden, and ultimately kinder to the victim, as they may, may, learn something valuable from the experience and better themselves so as to lessen the chance of something similar happening in the future.
Amazing how libturds like Joe love to claim that taxes are the price we pay for civilization, then get their panties wedged in their crack when a guy who doesn’t pay his taxes doesn’t get the same service as someone who does.
WHAT A CONCEPT!!!
And no, this ISN’T commonplace. In the case where a fee/assessment has not been paid, service is still rendered, then a MUCH larger bill (usually $5-7K+) is sent later.
BTW, Joe–I’ll ask you the same question McMahon asked Blumenthal last night: How do you create a job?
This family, seems to me, to be like Joe; to expect others to pay their way. Surely they knew of the need to subscribe to the nearest Fire Department, unless perhaps they were so antisocial that they didn’t converse with their neighbors, and so dumb as to not ask the realtor what the fire protection level is, (legal requirement of realtors).
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by dana l dillon, A Proud Veteran. A Proud Veteran said: Firefighters watch fire destroy house http://bit.ly/aDT0G6 Via This Ain't Hell […]
Why didn’t their insurance company make the payment for them? Seems to me, that would be in the interest of the homeowners insurance company to insure the fee is paid.
Been following this story and noting the alleged sequence of events.
Seems to me that the home owners were essentially at fault for not paying the fee.
BUT, there appears to be no reported mechanism in place to simply bill the homeowner for the fire call. So the city (and/or county) dropped the ball as well.
The idea that something like this could happen is outrageous!
Joe, why are you going on about privatization? This was a government agency that did this, if it were a private company you can bet your sweet ass the government would come down hard on them. Where I live the ambulance service is provided by a private company and they don’t wait for payment, check your insurance, or wait for the check to clear. They haul your ass to the ER and worry about payment AFTER the service is rendered. The simple solution in this case is to put out the fire and charge them the FULL price of the call if they haven’t paid their $75 fee.
“And no, this ISN’T commonplace. In the case where a fee/assessment has not been paid, service is still rendered, then a MUCH larger bill (usually $5-7K+) is sent later.”
==========
Exactly. All anyone has to do is look to our Healthcare system. Our hospitals are forced to give services to illegal aliens, who don’t pay for the services and don’t have insurance. This then drives up the cost of healthcare for every American citizen. It also drives hospitals out of business, since they are spending money on services for which they are not being repaid. Less hospitals in business hurts everyone. Less hospitals in business also hurts other hospitals, as they now have to receive more people, whether they can handle them all or not.
Thus, quality of service goes down.
Somehow though, people like Joe don’t understand this basic concept. They think that people should just get all services for free. I’m going to take a wild guess that Joe doesn’t run a business.
I’m not trying to defend the homeowners. They knew about this fee and blew it but should they really be punished by allowing their home to burn to the ground and allowing all of their pets to die because they didn’t pay a $75 fee?
Even though it was a gov’t agency, the incident provides a window into the privatized, crazy quilt, pay-as-you-go world the conservatives want to usher in. Why not just include the $75 dollar cost in your tax bill or something? I agree with Ponsdorf that the incident was outrageous. Where has common sense gone? has every citizen been reduced to a profit center?
Joe is right …
ALL the conservatives I know want to privatize the fire department …NOT
I heard a county official on WTOP this afternoon claim that Montgomery County has already cut services “to the bone”, so their only recourse is ambo fees or firing firemen. I am astonished to learn that country officials have bodyguards.
Why not just include the $75 dollar cost in your tax bill or something?
A city can’t raise the taxes of people who don’t live there. I still say that if it was privatized the company would get sued and the government would come down on them for it. Because it was a government service we get “sorry about your luck”
“I’m not trying to defend the homeowners. They knew about this fee and blew it but should they really be punished by allowing their home to burn to the ground and allowing all of their pets to die because they didn’t pay a $75 fee?”
==========
On the one hand, I agree with you. It seems ridiculous for a family to have to lose their house and pets over $75.
On the other hand, how often do people have to worry about their houses catching fire? Not often. Thus, if I knew that I could just not pay the $75 annual fee until I actually had my house burning, I’d just not pay the fee… ever. Now, imagine an entire area deciding not to pay the $75 annual fee. That’s a lot of money not getting to the fire department for costs they have.
But, surprisingly, I agree with Joe. Instead of making it a separate “fee” to pay, just include the $75 in with the overall property tax bill that I’m assuming these people annually do pay.
Problem is, it’s a question of TO WHOM the fee is paid.
But they DON’T pay taxes to that city, because they live OUTSIDE of it in an unincorporated area. That’s why they are charged a fee for fire service. It’s similar to where I live. Kids outside the city who want to go to school there have to pay for bus service, tuition, etc because their parents aren’t taxpayers in the city. They also pay full costs for ambulance and fire service if needed, and also extra fees for connection to the city water service.
I have no problem with that system. No problem at all.
Joe #16: I’m not thrilled that you agree with any part of what I said above (#12). Your logic is so flawed that I’m not sure the word ‘logic’ should even be applied?
If this provides a ‘window into’ anything it shows how government/bureaucracy even at the local level can screw things up. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with a citizen being a ‘profit center’.
To negate the “will only pay if my house catches on fire” scenario simply make a fine that goes into effect for non-payment of the initail fee. Make it HUGE, but still put out the fire. Now these people have nothing over a $75 fee. Sickening.
But, surprisingly, I agree with Joe. Instead of making it a separate “fee” to pay, just include the $75 in with the overall property tax bill that I’m assuming these people annually do pay.
As a county employee that works closely with that property tax paying public, and monitors budgetary responsibilities in order to address questions posed by that public, I’m here to tell you, in todays day and age, any, and I mean any increase in taxes brings immediate and loud condemnation from any and all.
Is what happened sad? Yep. Was it preventable? Yep, well maybe, from the sound of things the fire dept may have been too far away to do alot of good anyway.
In any case I don’t advocate a nanny state in any form, so while I can certainly feel for these folks, at the same time I’m not going to advocate going out of the way to take care of those who won’t take care of themselves.
It would be interesting to discover what caused the fire in the first place. Was it unforeseeable, or preventable? If they were so irrisponsible as to forget to pay for fire protection, how else might they have been irresponsible?
To negate the “will only pay if my house catches on fire” scenario simply make a fine that goes into effect for non-payment of the initail fee. Make it HUGE, but still put out the fire. Now these people have nothing over a $75 fee. Sickening.
Hell, make it were the home owner has to pay the majority of the cost of the response. ANYTHING BUT LETTING THE HOME BURN TO THE GROUND!!!
In addition, does the city check to make sure people’s taxes are not arrears before putting out fires in the city?
In addition, does the city check to make sure people are up to date on their tax bill before putting out fires in the city?
Perhaps if they did, in fact, pay the fee the last 2 years as they say they did, the Fire Dept. could and maybe should make an exception as this sounds like a terrible tragedy. On the other hand, as Michael in MI said,”how often do people have to worry about their houses catching fire? Not often. Thus, if I knew that I could just not pay the $75 annual fee until I actually had my house burning, I’d just not pay the fee… ever.” If they haven’t paid this $75 fee for the last couple of years as they claimed, then it becomes obvious they never had any intention of paying and the Fire Dept. could and should proceed in a different manner. Everyone is human and maybe it is possible the family legitimately forgot. As many of you have pointed out, you don’t usually worry a whole lot about your house catching on fire and so the $75 may have just been one of the last things on their mind.
Gary has the only legitimate answer to this ridiculousness. Do what is RIGHT and then bill them if necessary.
“But they DON’T pay taxes to that city, because they live OUTSIDE of it in an unincorporated area. That’s why they are charged a fee for fire service.” ========== I understand how and why the fees are set up that way. I guess I’m just trying to figure out an easier way to pay all the fees. I have an escrow account for my mortgage. I only have to pay my mortgage payment each month and then my lender takes part of that monthly payment and puts it into a separate escrow account in order to pay my annual insurance as well as my biannual property tax bills. This works out great for me, because I only have to worry about paying one bill — my monthly mortgage bill — and everything else is taken care of by the lender. Now, yes, I could easily just set up my own savings account to set money aside each month to save up to pay my taxes and insurance each year. But the escrow account is convenient. I do have to separately pay my water bill. So my suggestion of adding the fee into the tax bill to be paid all at once would put the responsibility on the city to then take $75 and pass it on to the fire department, instead of the house owners sending 2 separate bills. Now that I think about it, I’d rather people be in control of their money than relying on the government to get it to where it needs to be. So I retract my agreement with Joe (*whew* I feel better now). That said, what about Gary’s idea? Have the fee be $75, but if it is not paid, have a large fine required if the fire department needs to come to one’s house. It would be the same as lacking home insurance or lacking car insurance, where if you have an accident, instead of insurance paying for most of the damage, you’re stuck paying for all the damage. So the same would apply here. Instead of just paying the annual $75,… Read more »
What Gary said in #24…..
“In addition, does the city check to make sure people are up to date on their tax bill before putting out fires in the city?”
They don’t have to. Fire protection for the city as a whole is usually already paid for and provided by a city budget which likely collects it’s income from a variety of sources, not just property taxes. Unincorporated areas in this case would not follow that model as their fire protection is apparently covered on a case by case basis by individual families.
If the county in question is upset with this event, and the majority of county voters want more reliable fire suppression coverage that includes coverage for those that aren’t helping to foot the bill, they need to change their way of doing business and collectively raise the funds to establish their own fire district. This is in no way the fault of the city in question or the fire dept in question, their policies have been in place for at least 2 decades.
I have no problem with people paying a price for negligence, errors or oversights (as in Gary’s post #24), but just not the draconian, no-safety-net-at-all, win or die consequences that conservatives invoke. How does the conservative mantra differ from unadulterated Darwinism? How would that kind of society be any different from, “nature, red in tooth and claw”?
What “conservative mantra” are you invoking, Joey? First, you claimed this was the result of privatization, and got your head handed to you over your abysmal ignorance of the situation. Yet again.
But keep on keeping on, Joey. You don’t make sense, but then, you already know that, don’t you?
Where does that safety net begin and end Joe? And who gets to decide?
If I chose to live outside of the bounds of reasonable services, is it ok to burden the closest municipality with the consequences of my decision when things go wrong? And by what ‘right’ do I claim entitlement to protection?
“Nature, red in tooth and claw” is exactly what a good many people proclaim they want, right up until they are faced with the reality of it, then they whine and cry about how no one helped them when they suddenly discovered the reality was too much for them to shoulder.
Hey Joe… Just think of it as evolution in action.
Just to lighten things up a bit. Two semi-obscure references in one sentence. Both arguably applicable.
Like I said in my comment #13, if you don’t pay the fee charge them full price for the call. Here in Michigan once the coast guard tells ice fishermen to stay off of Great Lake ice in the spring if they have to rescue someone who didn’t listen, they have to pay the cost of the rescue.
In this story the fire department WOULDN’T EVEN DISPATCH until the neighbor called and asked them to come make sure his house didn’t burn. What if someone had been in there? The neighbor even offered to pay whatever the cost if they would just put it out. I understand that budgets are tight but it’s not like they didn’t have the manpower or equipment to respond…they were there!
Here in Colorado they have talked about enacting a “stupid hiker” law that would charge people the full price for their rescue if they were found to be, well, stupid, when planning their outdoor activity. If it was an unforeseeable circumstance, or an act of “god”, no charge. But at least they’ll pull the guy out of the woods and settle up later…..
This dastardly behavior or the fire department refusing to put out a fire when they were there on the scene because they were not paid to do so not only shows a serious faust in the character of these men but also shows it was pre meditated because they obviously had a list.
And to allow elderly people to lose their house compounds the low character of these bastards for following an order to take no action.
Perhaps the county needs an audit and morality check. When common decency is abandoned you have every right to expect abuse of tax dollar spending.
Yes they should have paid the fee. Yes there is a free rider problem if the fire department puts out the fire even though the fee is not paid. However this is a ridiculous case of paralysis created by a pencil necked bureaucracy responsible for nothing and to no one.
That’s why they call it civil service. It is provided for the general welfare of the community not to make a profit or avoid loss.
If an out of state driver careened into a telephone pole would they let him die if payment was not provided in advance? What if the children of the fee paying neighbor were in the house? Are they covered or not? What if there was a clerical error (never happens in govt, I know)? How do they fix it after the fact.
Standing around watching a building burn to the ground is simply wrong. It’s easy enough to lien the property to recoup the funds.
I can’t let this one go and hope you will tolerate another comment.
The job of a fire department is to put out fires and to rescue people. They are assigned an area of responsibility and when another fire department needs help they respond and the house was in their area.
The question here is if the house belong to one of the firefighters grand mother and she had not paid the tax would they have saved the house.
If it was the fire chief’s house or the mayor’s house and they had not paid the fee would they have saved it. I think they would. Now how far down on the government food chain do you have to be before they stand by while an elderly couple’s house burns down.
This is disheartening and sad in so many ways, most of which have been voiced above.
Fire (Police, Ambulance and the Military) are essential services. Key word is “essential”. The problem is that these services are taken for granted and perhaps overlooked by many, because they do not play an integral role in the daily life of the average Joe. (This is not directed at your reader Joe.) In other words, these services are not deemed by the individual to be essential to the individual until the imminent danger is staring them in the face. Would you forget to pay your heating bill in winter or your electricity bill? Probably not, because these are both integral to the individual’s daily life and routine.
The $75 is an annual fee? Seems a mere pittance to pay for an essential service, and yes, could be easily overlooked. If it was say $50 or $75 per month, that would be a different story. I find it interesting that the guys who fight the fires were even aware that the fee had not been paid. Is it standard procedure to check accounting records before responding and proceeding to the scene? I see that in this case, the homeowner admitted that they forgot to pay the fee, but, could you imagine the s-storm if it was discovered later that the fee had been paid? I wouldn’t have wanted to take that chance.
Hainer
You might want to do more research – you have no understanding of fire service and the law. You go under the assumption that we in the fire service have a moral obligation to put out a fire. If you had read more on this you would know that any life safety or rescue concerns would have been addressed. But a neighboring jurosdiction has no obligation to put out a fire in a different municipality. This is especially true when they voted for a non-mandatory fee vs a tax.
Public services arent free- so many abuse 911 and other services on what they assume these services are their for. Go look at Miami-Dade where 50% of 911 are useless. People consistantly call for directions or that their greasy fast food order was wrong.
This incident highlights what we pay for & expect of govt. Everyone should look at what service is actually available and whether sttaffing meets NFPA 1710 guidelines. Fairfax County, arguably one of the richest counties in the nation has under-staffed ladder trucks for years.
I go could on…..
Why in hell didn’t the Nashville Fire Department respond? They are out of that jusrisdiction as well, but they are in Tennessee, or Memphis, or Knoxville. They too are of a different jurisdiction than the homeowner who “saved” $75 by not paying the nearby jurisdiction the fee that they use to save neighboring homes.
Also, as a former volunteer firefighter, I wonder how much asshattery the homeowner committed to cause the firefighters to not do their thing anyway?
We only know what the press has told us, and by and large are making our comments based on assumptions.
Only Joe really knows what is going on here, and maybe Gordon Duff.
Look at it this way… we’ll eventually KNOW what moral/ethical requirements the fire fighters are under because ole’ homeless is only a lawyer’s phone call away from suing the pants off them.
Wanna bet that having first responders, of any kind, watching a fire happen and not responding (for ANY reason, even failure to make a $75 payment) won’t resonate well with the courts?
Very true, Scott. And wanna bet that some departments will just stop accepting payments, and not respond to fire calls outside their jurisdictions? As inevitable as a lawsuit is, so is that result.
So, sometime down the road, folks like the Cranicks and others will have no fire protection available to them, at all. Unless their county raises taxes and creates a fire department.
I heard that the firefighters involved would not be covered by insurance if injured while putting out a fire on an “uncovered” house such as this one. Can anyone here eleborate on this?
I have to agree with “Joe”- and I think that I will immediately cancel my life insurance but fill out all of the paperwork for a new policy with a post dated check. I am sure that I will then be covered should my wife and kids need to make a claim…sarc/ off
“Here in Colorado they have talked about enacting a “stupid hiker” law that would charge people the full price for their rescue if they were found to be, well, stupid”
Here in New Hampshire, we actually enacted it. And have sent out bills. Does that make us evil people, or does it mean that stupidity, in addition to being painful, should be expensive?