If You Don't Pay, The House Burns Down!

[Avernus]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/04/county...s-subscription/

 

As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.

 

The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee. In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick’s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county’s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department. Because the county’s fire services for rural residences is based on household subscription fees, the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground:

 

Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won’t respond, then watches it burn. That’s exactly what happened to a local family tonight. A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

 

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn’t do anything to stop his house from burning. Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay. The mayor said if homeowners don’t pay, they’re out of luck. [...]

 

We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception. “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t,” Mayor David Crocker said.

 

there's a little bit more in the link, but this is pretty much what happened...crazy chit...Tennessee is a great spot if you want to re-live the 1800's....

[Ursa Majoris]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/04/county...s-subscription/

 

 

 

there's a little bit more in the link, but this is pretty much what happened...crazy chit...Tennessee is a great spot if you want to re-live the 1800's....

I don't agree. It looks to me like insurance - don't pay it, you won't get benefits from it. If they had put the fire out, why would anyone pay in the future? I don't agree with the whole subscription methodology but that's beside the point - he put himself and his home at risk and has paid the price.

[Perchoutofwater]

I don't agree. It looks to me like insurance - don't pay it, you won't get benefits from it. If they had put the fire out, why would anyone pay in the future? I don't agree with the whole subscription methodology but that's beside the point - he put himself and his home at risk and has paid the price.

 

+1

 

Though I understand the subscription methodology for areas outside the city. In order to adequately protect the city itself (their primary purpose) they need to make sure that they have enough equipment and personnel. By selling subscriptions for areas outside the city limits, it helps the fire department to plan and pay for additional personnel and equipment costs associated with protecting a larger area.

 

I live outside the city limits, but have a volunteer fire department that protects my area. They do not sell subscriptions but they do have fundraisers many times a year. We typically try to go to and give to them a couple of times a year. Honestly I would prefer the subscription method, as then I would know that the fire department statistically has the personnel and equipment to handle the number of people it protects.

[The Irish Doggy]

I tend to agree with the firefighters on this one. But did they have to salt the earth so nothing would ever grow again? [/Flanders]

[SEC=UGA]

One question... Why the frack did they even go out there if they knew the guy didn't pay the subscription? I'll have to say, that by them being out there and doing nothing, that is pretty bad.

 

And another question, if someone had been trapped inside would they have allowed that person to die? Also, isn't it incumbent upon the FD, legally, for them to take action in cases like this if they are on the scene, couldn't they be held criminally liable for being negligent if the fire had spread to a subscribers house or if another person had died from the spreading of the fire?

 

I understand where they are coming from and the financial repercussions it could have had if they had extinguished the fire, but by not extinguishing the fire they could have jeopardized the well being of many of their subscribers.

Edited October 5, 2010 by SEC=UGA

[cre8tiff]

They went out there to protect the neighbor's property from the fire spreading.

 

This really turns my stomach, especially after the man tried to pay it on the spot. Would it have hurt them to take the fellow's money and put out what was then a small fire?

 

Read up on the way fire departments worked in Roman times. Buy a token to put on your house, and they would come put it out. No token, no help. Nice to see how far we have come.

[TimC]

It's like all insurance. If you wait for the disaster to hit to pay, it never works. It's the main reason everyone should be forced to carry insurance or die a horrible death. Hospitals should employ this and you'd see people paying for insurance instead of bleeding out on the sidewalk trying to slap the doctor a 20.

[BeeR]

As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.

No bias or lack of rationality there.

 

The counter is that "conservative version" believes in accountability, where the so-called "progressive" one believes in giving stuff to people who haven't earned it. Wow what an incentive for people to work harder and smarter to better their lives. But that is also admittedly biased and an oversimplification of the truth, which probably lays somewhere between the 2.

 

As stated this guy gambled and lost. No one to blame but himself.

 

That said, "privitization" of firefighters seems very odd to me. That should IMO be govt supplied, even for rural areas, much like police etc.

[Perchoutofwater]

One question... Why the frack did they even go out there if they knew the guy didn't pay the subscription? I'll have to say, that by them being out there and doing nothing, that is pretty bad.

 

And another question, if someone had been trapped inside would they have allowed that person to die? Also, isn't it incumbent upon the FD, legally, for them to take action in cases like this if they are on the scene, couldn't they be held criminally liable for being negligent if the fire had spread to a subscribers house or if another person had died from the spreading of the fire?

 

I understand where they are coming from and the financial repercussions it could have had if they had extinguished the fire, but by not extinguishing the fire they could have jeopardized the well being of many of their subscribers.

 

Good points. From what I can gather the house is out in the country and was not a immediate threat to surrounding property. They fire department only responded once a subscriber's property was threatened. I would think the fire department probably would get into trouble if they had responded and there was someone in the house and they took no action, but that was not the case in this instance. I'd think they probable would be liable if the fire spread to the property of one of their subscribers.

[dmarc117]

as i have said before, this is coming to a city near you. probably not to this degree, but when the cops and firemen realize the pension coffers are empty, expect a lower standard of service.

[TimC]

That said, "privitization" of firefighters seems very odd to me. That should IMO be govt supplied, even for rural areas, much like police etc.

 

Definitely. I don't care how broke ass rural poor your little county is, they should have access to firefighting services without this subscription BS.

[cre8tiff]

It's like all insurance. If you wait for the disaster to hit to pay, it never works. It's the main reason everyone should be forced to carry insurance or die a horrible death. Hospitals should employ this and you'd see people paying for insurance instead of bleeding out on the sidewalk trying to slap the doctor a 20.

 

Good point, this.

[dmarc117]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/10...reaking+News%29

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

the big difference between left and right had always been how much of a safety net each side thought should exist. Not wether it should exist or not.

in the past one would have been hard pressed to find a right winger argue that everyone should totally be left to their own devices, consequences be damned. Not Rush, not Hannity, not Newt. They all beleive in some form of a safety net.

I see that that is changing.

As I said before, I am shocked at just how much the state provides for in France, and pretty dismayed at a lot of it.

But to see a society in which a basic public service such as a fire service is treated as a private industry really bothers me.

And to see that someone, in this case a fire chief, feels the need to enforce those tenents so rigidly shocks me to the core.

Bunch of friggin savages.

Looks like I got out of dodge just in time...

[Perchoutofwater]

the big difference between left and right had always been how much of a safety net each side thought should exist. Not wether it should exist or not.

in the past one would have been hard pressed to find a right winger argue that everyone should totally be left to their own devices, consequences be damned. Not Rush, not Hannity, not Newt. They all beleive in some form of a safety net.

I see that that is changing.

As I said before, I am shocked at just how much the state provides for in France, and pretty dismayed at a lot of it.

But to see a society in which a basic public service such as a fire service is treated as a private industry really bothers me.

And to see that someone, in this case a fire chief, feels the need to enforce those tenents so rigidly shocks me to the core.

Bunch of friggin savages.

Looks like I got out of dodge just in time...

 

The city provides basic fire service to the residents of the city. It offers fire services to those in the surrounding area for a price. I really see nothing wrong with that. Why should they get something that they didn't pay for, especially when they had the opportunity to pay for it at a reasonable rate? How is the city to staff and equip the fire department if it doesn't know how many people it is supposed to protect?

 

I'm surprised there wasn't a volunteer fire department. Of course maybe those that would need it were unwilling to support a volunteer fire department.

[dmarc117]

the big difference between left and right had always been how much of a safety net each side thought should exist. Not wether it should exist or not.

in the past one would have been hard pressed to find a right winger argue that everyone should totally be left to their own devices, consequences be damned. Not Rush, not Hannity, not Newt. They all beleive in some form of a safety net.

I see that that is changing.

As I said before, I am shocked at just how much the state provides for in France, and pretty dismayed at a lot of it.

But to see a society in which a basic public service such as a fire service is treated as a private industry really bothers me.

And to see that someone, in this case a fire chief, feels the need to enforce those tenents so rigidly shocks me to the core.

Bunch of friggin savages.

Looks like I got out of dodge just in time...

 

 

The city provides basic fire service to the residents of the city. It offers fire services to those in the surrounding area for a price. I really see nothing wrong with that. Why should they get something that they didn't pay for, especially when they had the opportunity to pay for it at a reasonable rate? How is the city to staff and equip the fire department if it doesn't know how many people it is supposed to protect?

 

I'm surprised there wasn't a volunteer fire department. Of course maybe those that would need it were unwilling to support a volunteer fire department.

 

 

the fire dept couldve put it out. then send a bill, put a lien on the property, etc. dont firemen take an oath to serve and protect?

[Azazello1313]

the big difference between left and right had always been how much of a safety net each side thought should exist. Not wether it should exist or not.

in the past one would have been hard pressed to find a right winger argue that everyone should totally be left to their own devices, consequences be damned. Not Rush, not Hannity, not Newt. They all beleive in some form of a safety net.

I see that that is changing.

As I said before, I am shocked at just how much the state provides for in France, and pretty dismayed at a lot of it.

But to see a society in which a basic public service such as a fire service is treated as a private industry really bothers me.

And to see that someone, in this case a fire chief, feels the need to enforce those tenents so rigidly shocks me to the core.

Bunch of friggin savages.

Looks like I got out of dodge just in time...

 

in france, the firemen would just go on strike because they can't get 18 weeks of vacation per year, and your house still burns down.

 

seems like a better model for firemen services is to take it out of property taxes, rather than this kind of subscription thing. but if that's the model you chose for whatever reason, I don't get why this is such a worrisome development. guy chose to bet $70 on the likelihood that his house wouldn't burn down, and he lost the bet. this happens all the time with insurance, investments, straight-up wagering, and so much more. if we're talking about a loss of life, it becomes a much different question. but this is about personal property the guy didn't feel compelled to insure.

[Azazello1313]

the fire dept couldve put it out. then send a bill, put a lien on the property, etc. dont firemen take an oath to serve and protect?

 

that would probably be a better solution as well, if you're stuck with this subscription type service.

[Perchoutofwater]

the fire dept couldve put it out. then send a bill, put a lien on the property, etc. dont firemen take an oath to serve and protect?

 

What happens if the fireman respond to the call of someone who chose not to pay for the service and there is a fire in the city or at one of their subscribers houses and they are unable to respond to those? If anyone is to be faulted it is the guy that didn't pay for the service, and based on what he has said, he understands that.

[dmarc117]

What happens if the fireman respond to the call of someone who chose not to pay for the service and there is a fire in the city or at one of their subscribers houses and they are unable to respond to those? If anyone is to be faulted it is the guy that didn't pay for the service, and based on what he has said, he understands that.

 

 

i was going to ask about this, but found it..........

 

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. However, in the United States, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.

[TimC]

In France if someone yells "Fire", they think it's the Germans coming again and put their head between each other's asscheeks and wait for an American come save them.

[BeeR]

As I said before, I am shocked at just how much the state provides for in France,

Nothing France does surprises, let alone shocks me. It's France.

 

Then again, I could say the same for this country.

[wiegie]

I don't agree. It looks to me like insurance - don't pay it, you won't get benefits from it. If they had put the fire out, why would anyone pay in the future? I don't agree with the whole subscription methodology but that's beside the point - he put himself and his home at risk and has paid the price.

bingo

 

(this is not the first time this has happened and I have used the example in my classes before)

[bpwallace49]

I dont get why they still went out there and watched his house burn down. the whole system seems asinine to me, but I assume they voted and chose that ass-backward style of fire prevention. The fact that guy chose not to pay it is his own cheap fault.

 

Fund the fire department through property taxes if you want, but this seems very "Gangs of New York"-ish to me . . .

 

My business heavily contributes to the police and fire department funds everytime they call . . . cause if you DONT and you serve alcohol, you can count on a cop car sitting by your facility entrance for weeks afterward fishing for guys that have a had a few beers before driving 4 blocks home. It is a shakedown . . but towards a cause that I want at my back if we ever REALLy need them.

[Azazello1313]

I dont get why they still went out there and watched his house burn down.

 

I can think of two good reasons: 1) to ensure there were no people in danger, and 2) to be sure the fire didn't spread.

 

My business heavily contributes to the police and fire department funds everytime they call .

 

you mean you're contributing to (and encouraging) telemarketer scams, dumbass. read this, this and this:

 

When you receive a phone call from a telemarketer asking for help for some police, fire or public safety organization, your safest course of action is to simply hang up.

 

At best, the solicitor will probably take the lion's share of your donation. At worst, the caller is an outright fraud.

"I want to be sure that the public understands this. This is not the North Andover Police Department making these phone calls," North Andover Police Department Chief Richard Stanley said.

 

We've all received the calls for cash, but it's illegal for police officers to make them, so who is it on the other end of that line? Team 5 Investigates discovered they are professional telemarketers who work on commission. Some allege that they use high-pressure tactics.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Azazello1313