Firefighters Let House Burn Because Owner Didn't Pay Fee 2058
Dthief writes "From MSNBC: '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.'"
Re:Well Duh (Score:3, Informative)
In small towns, the taxes may barely be enough to pay for utilities, police, and roads. Some towns don't even have their own fire department and must pay fees to neighboring cities.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:5, Informative)
He didn't forget to pay. He chose not to pay. He received a bill and then a phone call and was advised his home would not be protected if he didn't pay.
No different then letting your life insurance policy lapse, then you die, and your spouse tries to collect $1 mil by paying this months premium.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:3, Informative)
The county he lives in does not have a fire department. A nearby city does. The city FD (which is funded by the tax base of the city only, not the county at large) allows county residents to pay the $75 for them to cover them as well, but since they don't live in the city itself, the city can't compel them to pay. And the county apparently isn't willing or able to fund their own FD out of the county tax base.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well Duh (Score:4, Informative)
This is fucking incomprehensible to me.
County and city taxes pay for county and city services and infrastructure. Federal taxes pay for federal services, to which the military belongs. They are completely different taxes.
Now some cities and municipalities may qualify for grants and what-not from federal and state sources, but none of that changes that this idiot gambled and lost. Paying $75/hr for fire service is an easy, low IQ decision. Not to mention dirt cheap.
The real failure, IMOHO, is the fact the fee is not mandatory.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Summary Missing a Few Details (Score:2, Informative)
In addition his neighbor did the same to the firefighters. They refused.
Finally, according to the guy, he pays public safety taxes that go to things like shiny new fire engines, that they can drive out to his house (so they can toast smores and watch it burn).
My issues are two fold:
1. The guy offered to pay (he claimed that he forgot about the fee, who hasn't missed a bill payment once in their life?)
2. This runs afoul of the Good Samaritan Laws. Anyone who was driving by that might have helped out, saw the firefighters and figured they were handling things.
For those who think he got what he deserved, think about this: if you're driving though this town and your car catches fire, you didn't pay the fee, so they won't try in save it, but they'll watch your car burn.
Emergency services are not optional. They must be funded through taxes. We need a law to state this, I mean just look up the crash tax. [calcrashtax.com]
I pay my taxes so these people are covered when driving though my town, why am I not covered by them when I drive through their town?
Re:socialism (Score:3, Informative)
In London, in the 1800's fire protection was provided by private companies.
They discontinued this because the private companies quickly turned into a mafia-style protection racket. "Nice house you got here...It'd be a shame if it burned down."
Competing fire departments would set fire to other departments protected houses, and block the road in between, then sit out in front of the burning house with their own people, negotiating with the homeowner while his house burned down behind him.
Yea, no corruption there.
Re:Gambling with your home is a bad bet (Score:5, Informative)
There is a lot more information about this out there from other sources
According to the Mayor of the Town involved
1. The policy is if there is human life at risk, the department responds and rescues, but only fights the fire enough to effect the rescue
2. This person did not "forget" to pay. The fire department called him in August to tell him that they had not received his payment and he would not receive fire protection until he did
3. In an earlier interview, the guy said "I knew I didn't pay, but I thought they would come anyway". Now in interviews he says he forgot
4. Fire Service should be tax based, but in Tennessee, to put a new tax in place, like a fire protection district, requires a positive vote in favor of the tax. For 20 years, this County has regularly voted against such a tax.
5. The Community of South Fulton, who's fire department responded, is located in Kentucky. So not only do you have a city fire department responding out of their protection area, they are responding into another STATE.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Informative)
South Fulton used to send out bills of $500 to non-payers for fire response. Less than 50% of the people paid that bill.
They realized that they would have to get a court order to collect the rest.
Subscription districts suck.
Re:Nope, not kidding. (Score:4, Informative)
There is one problem - being the neighbor of the guy who didn't pay. Now your house is more likely to catch on fire.
In TFA, the neighbor's property did catch fire, and the firefighters fought it up to the property line. IMHO, paying taxes for firefighting services for the whole community is a better idea, but in some areas I guess the collective decision is to let everyone make their own choice. It's the way that things used to be - you can see the "fire marks" (usually a metal star or suchlike) on older buildings; you'd get the mark from your insurance company, and their private fire fighters would only put out fires at properties with the right mark.
Re:Counterpoint (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Libertarians get blamed for this? (Score:3, Informative)
It was a neighbouring city government that had agreed to provide fire services on an individual basis to people in a county that didn't want to either set up it's own fire department or be annexed by the city.
In this case the city government was just like a private contractor.
Oh shut up (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing that tires me more than a frothing libertarian is a frothing libertarian hater, of which there seem to be more than actual libertarians.
If you knew anything about what the hell you were talking about you'd realize that libertarians aren't opposed to all government, just parts of it. As with any group of humans there's variance, some are quite moderate, some are more extreme. However you find that things like military and public safety, which fire departments are, are things they almost universally are ok with taxes paying for.
There's a big difference between saying "Reduce or eliminate many government programs," and saying "Eliminate ALL government." That would be anarchists, not libertarians.
Also please realize the people suggesting bill him mean "Bill him for the cost of putting out the fire." It would be a case of "Pay $75/year in insurance, or pay the full cost if there is a fire."
That is the proper way to handle a situation like this, since fire is a public safety issue. Not putting out a fire should never be an option since the problems isn't that a house may burn down, it is that all of them may burn down. Ask London what happens when you lack proper fire control.
This would also happen in ancient Rome. (Score:4, Informative)
Even 3rd world African countries have free fire protection.
In fact, as far has I know, the last state that asked a fee for fire protection was Rome. I think that says a lot about USA. Even more when I see so many comments here in Slashdot supporting the fire department action.
Re:This is America (Score:3, Informative)
Also it says in TFA that this has been their policy for the past 20 years, so it's kind of hard to blame Obama for it; the only weird thing is that there don't seem to be reports of this having happened before. Maybe the media just didn't pick up on it last time?
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:sorry, mod me down for way off topic but... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Uh.. (Score:3, Informative)
You then claim this money off of his insurance or get a court to enforce him to pay it back in installments (when again, you can bill him for any costs arising through doing this).
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:3, Informative)
He didn't forget to pay. He chose not to pay.
Ah, yet another person who reads the one article and believes they know everything about it. As much as you will hate hearing it, you are absolutely wrong. This was a case of forgetfulness. He had paid the fee on-time for years and years past, and slipped his mind this time. And that's not my assuming, that's my reading articles, listening to news bits, and quotes directly from those who handle fees and from Mr. Cranick.
And it's EXTREMELY different than life insurance. Life insurance is paying fees for benefit. This case is paying fees so you don't lose everything you own. It is a case when no policy like this will ever be right. There are plenty of better ways to go about this situation... They chose about the dumbest one possible.
The Tea Party Vision for America (Score:2, Informative)
Workman's Comp Insurance (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know how this might have played out in this situation, but over the past couple days I have read forum posts from Fire Chiefs in other parts of the country that say this is an issue.
A fire departments Insurance is only in place when they are responding to emergencies in their jurisdiction or when responding to legitimate requests for mutual aid into other jurisdictions.
Some of the Insurance Carriers are taking a hard line about subscription areas or areas without fire protection districts. If the fire department responds into areas without fire protection, the Insurance companies are refusing insurance claims for injuries or equipment damage because the fire department is covered in their own jurisdiction only. Subscribers in subscription areas are considered as being under their jurisdiction. Non-subscribers are out of district.
These Fire Chiefs are struggling with the moral dilemma this puts them under. The only way around it is for them to have a Contract or Memorandum of Understanding with the County that all the homes/businesses in the subscription area are part of their jurisdiction. Some counties have been reluctant to sign such agreements.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Informative)
OSHA considers a house fire to be "Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health"
All my personal protective equipment comes with warning labels that even when wearing the equipment properly, I can still be killed in a fire that the equipment will survive.
Every time I enter a building that is on fire it counts as "substantial personal risk". I am definitely at less risk than someone without the training or equipment, but I am still at risk.
If I am injured on a fire that my department has no legal responsibility to respond to, the Workman Comp Insurance provider can deny my claims.
Unless there is a pre-written agreement between the County and my Community, responding to a non-subscribers house fire is an out of jurisdiction response. The Subscription fee is what gives my fire department jurisdiction.
Re:What is next a cop fee and if you don't pay rap (Score:5, Informative)
Bad news: the scotus has already ruled that police can, in fact, legally stand by as you are raped. Even if they know about it. Even if you call for help.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia [wikipedia.org]
Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html [nytimes.com]
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Informative)
"Duress": I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Black's Law (quoted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress) defines duress as: "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]".
In other words, I can induce you to sign a contract with any LEGAL threat that I so please, and the contract is still binding. But if my threats are inherently illegal (such as threatening to hurt you, hurt your family, destroy your property, blackmail you), then the concept of duress applies, and you have a defense against my breach of contract claims.
This definition makes a lot of practical sense, if you think about it. If duress were a broader concept that included me refusing to provide you with services if you don't sign a contract, then I wouldn't even legally be able to tell you the point of signing the contract, in the first place. Under that kind of twisted logic, if you asked "Why should I sign this contract agreeing to pay you $20 to mow my lawn", and I responded "Because I won't mow your lawn for free", then I'd be subjecting you to duress. Clearly, that's not conducive to basic business arrangements.
In this case, the firefighters would be threatening to withold a service (fighting the fire consuming the man's house), which doesn't seem to be an illegal threat, to me. Granted, the house represents a very serious economic and emotional loss to this man and his family. I don't want to belittle that. But it's not like the firefighters set the man's house on fire, in the first place.
Now, there are some situations where a society will legally or socially obligate an individual member to act on behalf of his fellow man in a time of need. Some jurisdictions even have laws requiring you to aid another human being in distress, as long as you're not putting yourself in harm's way (like in the Seinfeld finale). So everything I said, above, assumes that this little Tennessee burg isn't one of situations.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Informative)
they could charge the homeowner whatever turns out to be the actual cost of the service (the annual cost of having the resources available divided by the average number of fires per year, plus a surcharge for "forgetting" to pay). It might be several thousand dollars, and it's up to the homeowner to decide whether his house is worth paying for the service or not.
All fine and dandy except for one niggling problem:
Federal law limits post-fire bills to $500. This isn't enough to keep people paying the $75, nor enough to cover actual expenses. So they let it burn.
Re:What is next a cop fee and if you don't pay rap (Score:3, Informative)
What is next a cop fee and if you don't pay the cops will just stand there as you get raped as you did not pay the fee?
Well, yeah. You think the cops have any legal obligation to protect you?
Think again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia [wikipedia.org]
If all hell breaks in your town ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_riots [wikipedia.org] ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina [wikipedia.org]) whose responsibility is it to protect your own skin?
Yours.
P.S. Many a person were incensed after the L.A. Police Chief pulled all of his uniformed officers out of the L.A. riots and left citizens to fend for themselves, and there were even more pissed off when gun stores were telling them that there was a mandatory 10 day waiting period regardless of the raging riots.
Re:This is why Libertarians are morally bankrupt (Score:1, Informative)
You know what the number one cause of fires was during those times? Fire departments.
[Citation needed]
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:1, Informative)
One of my friends was injured in while hiking through the mountains in Colorado and had to be taken out in a helicopter. Had he purchased a fishing license or "outdoor card" from the state, the rescue operation would have been covered under the terms of the license. Since he had not, the state will be sending him a bill. Seems the same model would work in other emergency situations such as this one.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:2, Informative)
He didn't forget to pay. He chose not to pay.
Ah, yet another person who reads the one article and believes they know everything about it. As much as you will hate hearing it, you are absolutely wrong. This was a case of forgetfulness. He had paid the fee on-time for years and years past, and slipped his mind this time.
And? Every month except last month I've paid my water bill on time. Last month I forgot to mail it until the day after it was due, and consequently the city charged me a late fee. Which I paid. The reason Mr. Cranick did not pay his $75.00 fee would only be relevant if he were genuinely prevented from doing so—which he wasn't, as far as I can tell.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Informative)
I live in the next town over, across the state line in KY, so allow me to expand on this a little.
The fire subscription fee has been in existence for 20 years for those living within a certain distance of South Fulton in Obion County. It has never gone up in 20 years. It is a meager fee for such service, yet a large portion of those eligible still gamble with it. Before 1990, the rural folks flat out didn't have fire service, period. South Fulton FD would not respond outside the city limits, so this is considered an expanded service for those outside the city limits, not a gov't paid and provided service like it is for those inside the city. And we use the term "city" liberally. South Fulton has a population of maybe 2500 people and falling as the old die off and the young leave for lack of employment opportunity.
Had there been a person in the home whose life was in danger, the firefighters would have been legally obligated to respond to save the person, but once the person is rescued, their duty ends for those without a fire subscription. Also, I don't understand why his pets died. From what I've been told, it took almost 2 hours for the fire to go from the burn barrels to his shed and ultimately to his house. He had lots of time to rescue his pets and his most important documents and possessions before the fire got to his house, but he instead assumed that the SFFD would come save his pets and property even though his fee was not paid. He expected something for nothing and got exactly what he put effort into - nothing.
As for the property next door, it was a harvested soybean field on fire, not another home. They have special tanker trucks with big spray booms to deal with such.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:3, Informative)
Refused? Any evidence of that? For what it's worth, Cranick says he forgot.
Now, in a situation like that, the hardest core libertarian would agree with the idea of forming a contract on the spot to extinguish the fire in exchange for a price acceptable to the fire department.
"Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out."
In other words, not the $75 fee to get insurance for a pre-existing condition, but the actual cost.
Either he's lying or the fire department is actively vindictive.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:2, Informative)
Uhhh...in a lot of states the government DOES force you insure your car.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, here in Manatee County, FL, the County EMS costs $650 + mileage per response. Blue Double Cross only pays a portion of that, BTW, but uninsured people or ones who haven't hit their health ins. deductible pay the full amount.
Worse = Baylfite, the private (non-profit) medical helicopter co. that flies all accident victims here to the closest trauma center, across the bay in St. Petersburg -- for a $5100 "liftoff fee" plus $1000 per mile flown. And they WILL fly you if your apparent injuries meet an arbitrary point system.
Example: Over 55 plus a broken arm = "fly to trauma center" even if you're sitting up and chatting with the cops. And then, like as not, Double Cross or another insurer will only pay $1000 or so, and you are stuck with the rest.
Fun, isn't it? :)
Re:Gambling with your home is a bad bet (Score:1, Informative)
Wrong on #5 - I live in Fulton, KY. We are separated from South Fulton, TN by State Line Road, also known as KY-116. The Fulton FD and SFFD do have agreements in place to assist each other in fighting major fires, but in this case this incident is all happening with TN folks.
Re:Another win (Score:3, Informative)
Because that's exactly what it is. Show me anywhere on a national level that the Libertarian party has demanded the removal of essential services. Complaining about taxes isn't the same thing because there is clearly way too much waste in govt.
Reqd car insurance is for liability, not the car (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, what many states in US generally require is not that the *car* be insured, but rather the *driver* -- the legal requirements are for liability insurance [wikipedia.org] for drivers, which makes some sense to me. The Wikipedia article on vehicle insurance [wikipedia.org] goes into public policy somewhat.
If Joe collides with Kelly, and it's Joe's fault, then Joe is liable, and it's his responsibility to cover Kelly's expenses. Liability insurance makes sure that Joe can pay to cover such costs. If Joe has no liability insurance, and is too poor to pay for Kelly's expenses, then Kelly is stuck out through no fault of her own. Many states require liability insurance before they allow someone to get a driver's license, and thereby provide all drivers a measure of protection from the potential malfeasance of other drivers.
Cheers,
Re:Insane (Score:3, Informative)
I'm amazed at how many people are (t)rolling out the line "If everyone could pay on the spot then they'd only pay $75 when they needed it".
Don't you think the policy makers would involve some sort of penalty?
They tried that first. $500 bills after the fact. Not enough people paid so they stopped.
What is wrong with everyone in a society all paying for something that nearly everyone benefits from? Like fire protection? Newflash, the free market just doesn't work for everything.
Re:No, that's not it at all (Score:3, Informative)
Only if you agree to it.
A conscious adult has the right to refuse medical treatment of any kind. They can't fly him anywhere if he says he refuses their treatment. He may have to sign a paper saying this, but it is still his decision.
We covered this in a First Responder class. If you come across a conscious patient who is bleeding profusely but still awake and alert, and he refuses your assistance, you are not legally allowed to touch him.
The "solution", as we were told, is to stand there and wait until he passes out, and then he's no longer able to refuse treatment and you can go to work on him.