What services should you have to pay for?

[mhsjax]

It's different because...

(a) Taxes are not a choice. This man had a choice. Actually, he had several choices - he chose to live in an area without its own fire department, he chose not to opt into the available fire protection, and he chose to burn trash outside.

(b) If you do not pay your taxes, they will generally be taken from you, one way or another. You'll lose your house and then it won't be your problem if it burns down.

Yes, but it takes a while for them to take your house away from you. What happens if your house catches on fire before that? It doesn't happen over night.

 

[mhsjax]

I suppose you could say that because here if you don't pay your property taxes you lose your house so it doesn't matter any longer.

Deleted

 

[wvjules]

I watched an interview with the guy and thought this was interesting.

Mr. Cranick said three years ago his son's house had a fire and even though his son hadn't paid the fee, the fire department did respond and they allowed the fee to be paid the next day. Mr. Cranick said he was the one who went down and paid the fee the next day for his son's house. So maybe he figured he could skip the fee with no consequences?

But then he also said he knew of three or four other houses that were allowed to burn recently because the fee wasn't paid. So you kind of wonder why didn't he make sure he was paid up?

He did say he had insurance thank goodness.

http://www.examiner.com/us-headline...-s-house-burn-pets-die-over-75-00-video-video

So this fire department routinely lets houses burn down? There has to be a better way than "they did't pay so let 'em burn". Yes, what he did was wrong by not paying. What the FD did was even more wrong.

 

[HelenePA]

It seems like a lot of posters here are not taking note of a very important part of the story - the man did not live within the city limits. The fire department does not cover this man's property area. They offered their services to the nearby rural areas for a small fee.

To those saying that the firefighters were in the wrong, does your fire department respond to fires in the nearby cities? Would you want your taxes going towards your fire department fighting fires in surrounding cities where they don't pay for fire protection? Or would you rather have your city's firefighters available to protect you and your neighbors (as your taxes are paying them to do)?

yes mine do in fact go to near my cities (lol our population per town is about 2500) as well as them coming to ours... but then again we dont pay for this thru taxes. Its all raised by each fire co.. mine has 4. One is right behind my house

 

[sbell111]

Even if the man DID forget and DID offer to pay the insurance fee when he called 911 that is too late and not really the fire fighters' fault. You HAVE to pay insurance when you are not sure you will need it or else it cannot support itself. Can you imagine if people who forget to buy health insurance could just buy it (for the normal price even) right when they have a heart attack but not carry it otherwise? Or buy car insurance when calling 911 AFTER they are in a wreck. That is not how things work.

This isn't insurance, it's a fee. Look at it like the fees that you pay every year to renew your car's registration. My car's renewal is due in July. If I forget to renew it until September, it doesn't get extended until the following September, I merely paid two months in arrears and it still expires the following July.

If he had forgotten, I have a feeling the story would have played that up. You know, "man pays his dues for 19 years, but forgets on year 20 and his house burns down." Instead, his actual quote was "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong." To me, that suggests that he deliberately didn't pay, assuming they'd take care of him either way. As Hannathy said, it doesn't exactly put him on the moral high ground.

In previous local news stories regarding this issue, it was made clear that he merely forgot to pay the fee.

I would typically fall on the side of "no pay, no play" but there is a whole societal component that comes into fire fighting. Let's say that the winds picked up suddenly and the neighbors house caught fire. Would they have been negligent if their inaction set up a scenario where someone else's life or property was lost? I think the inaction really opens up their organization to a lawsuit for negligence.

As I understand it, the fire department was there hosing down the neighbor's home to make sure that it didn't catch on fire. Seems like they could have merely pointed their hoses at the house that was actually ablaze, however.

The man CHOSE to live in an area without a fire department. The man had a CHOICE to use the services from another town's fire department for $75/year, which breaks down to $1.50/week-one less cup of coffee a week basically. The man CHOSE NOT to pay the $75 and paid the consequences. The fire department has ZERO blame here-heck, the gas to get the trucks to his place probably would be more than $75.

Your post left the rails when you state that he chose not to pay the fee. He accidently failed to pay the fee. Regarding the fire truck's gas, no more fuel would have been used as the fire department was on the scene. They just didn't lift a finger to put out the fire.

In related news, one of the homeowner's sons went to the fire house and socked the fire chief. Good for him.

 

[allison443]

So this fire department routinely lets houses burn down? There has to be a better way than "they did't pay so let 'em burn". Yes, what he did was wrong by not paying. What the FD did was even more wrong.

I guess so.. I am not familiar with this concept of living where there are no basic services...where there is no fire department to automatically respond to your home and where you burn your own garbage (which is what started the fire).

I am not willing to be that self sufficient, and I pay pretty high property taxes for the services I want and need. I guess some people don't mind it and that's why they live outside town limits.

I agree with you there has to be a better way.

 

[mhsjax]

It seems like a lot of posters here are not taking note of a very important part of the story - the man did not live within the city limits. The fire department does not cover this man's property area. They offered their services to the nearby rural areas for a small fee.

To those saying that the firefighters were in the wrong, does your fire department respond to fires in the nearby cities? Would you want your taxes going towards your fire department fighting fires in surrounding cities where they don't pay for fire protection? Or would you rather have your city's firefighters available to protect you and your neighbors (as your taxes are paying them to do)?

I understand your point to an extent. HOwever, if the fire department did go into another town where someone was paying the fee and your house caught on fire, they still wouldn't be available to you, they would be in the next town. So weather they pay or not, the fire dept may not be available.

I guess using that logic, then each town should have it's own fire dept.

Their availability has nothing to do with payment.

 

[sbell111]

It is interesting to note that when 911 was initially called, the fire had not yet reached the home. Had they responded, they could have easily and safely put out the fire.

 

[Anjelica]

Kind of interesting:

"Cranick's son, Timothy, was so angry he later went to the fire house and punched the chief, police said. The younger Cranick was charged with aggravated assault and is free on bond, according to authorities."

 

[sbell111]

International Association of Fire Fighters condemns South Fulton Fire Department's actions

A local fire department's decision to let a home burn is attracting national attention and sparking national debate.

A firefighters group is lashing out against members of their own. The International Association of Fire Fighters is condemning the South Fulton Fire Department for their actions last week.

Fire crews refused to put out a house fire in Obion County, Tennessee, because the owner did not pay the $75 coverage fee. The Association's general president released a statement Tuesday on the city's policy of subscription fire service.

The IAFF statement reads, in part, "We condemn South Fulton's ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn't be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go."

The statement also reads, "Because of South Fulton's pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."

Todd Cranick, son of Gene Cranick, tells Local 6 that his parents have received several thousand dollars from the insurance company to cover immediate costs. Cranick went on to say that the insurance plans on covering all damage and property losses. Right now, there is no fund set up to help the Cranick family.

The IAFF is headquartered in Washington, D.C., representing nearly 300,000 full-time professional firefighters and paramedics.

 

[allison443]

Kind of interesting:

"Cranick's son, Timothy, was so angry he later went to the fire house and punched the chief, police said. The younger Cranick was charged with aggravated assault and is free on bond, according to authorities."

I wonder if this was the same son who had the fire in his house three years when he hadn't paid the fee, and they responded to the fire and allowed him to retroactively pay the fee.

 

[okeydokey]

the first report I read did mention that dogs and cats were in the house and burned to death. How horrible. Shame on those firefighters.

I think you will see so much uproar that this policy will now be changed.

 

[tlbwriter]

In related news, one of the homeowner's sons went to the fire house and socked the fire chief. Good for him.

So you're advocating violence? Nice.

 

[allison443]

the first report I read did mention that dogs and cats were in the house and burned to death. How horrible. Shame on those firefighters.

I think you will see so much uproar that this policy will now be changed.

I also hope the policy will be changed. Of course that will mean taxes will be raised on everyone, so we will see how happy people are about that.

 

[mhsjax]

So you're advocating violence? Nice.

No more violent than standing there and watching a house burn with animals inside.

 

[tlbwriter]

No more violent than standing there and watching a house burn with animals inside.

Yes, it is too bad that the homeowner didn't get his animals out of the house after his son accidentally set it on fire. I fail to see how that makes it appropriate for his son to go punch somebody.

 

[HelenePA]

good for the son... he let animals die.. shame shame shame on that "fire chief!"

 

[Anjelica]

If you watch the MSNBC interview its quite interesting. He starts off saying he forgot to pay and will "suffer the consequences" but then goes into a rant about how they waived the fees for his son 3 years ago and other households, etc. but they didn't waive his.

Then he goes on a rant about his tax paying dollars going back to the city and how they don't put the prisoners there but in the county jail - he doesn't come off as the most intelligent guy in the world. Either that or he is just really nervous to be on camera.

Apparently per Keith Olbermann (not a fan but whatever) indicated that all their findings indicate the fire department is NOT happy with this setup, etc. And per Mr. Gene Cranick some of the fire fighters went home and cried about it.

Not in the interview but in a write up regarding his insurance policy Mr. Gene Cranick stated:
“Insurance is going to pay for what money I had on the policy, looks like. But like everything else, I didn’t have enough.”

...And I certainly don't believe hitting the fire chief was at all appropriate....moron.

 

[dodukes]

Yes, but it takes a while for them to take your house away from you. What happens if your house catches on fire before that? It doesn't happen over night.

Regarding property tax, I live in a big city, as far as I know everyone gets service here whether you are late on taxes or not.

As far as this story, I think if the fee is mandatory then yes, they should have hosed down the house and let him pay later along with fines and fees associated (same with taxes) but if the fee is optional then I think he is just out of luck, its a risk you take same with having full coverage on a car or not or not having home insurance.

I think the town should address this and make it mandatory and part of their tax system and let the town "pay" the other town, to prevent somethign like this from happening again.

Like a PP, Im used to living somewhere where everything is a given, police, fire and whatever else, so I wouldnt even know that in some places you ahve to pay.

Can someone enlighten me as to what happend if you move into one of these towns and no one tells you about this fee and your house starts to burn? How does that work, do they tell you when you buy the house, does the city send a letter? I mean seriously if I moved somewhere like this I would have no clue that I wasnt entitled to fire services (since I have always had them available as part of the tax system).

 

[mhsjax]

Yes, it is too bad that the homeowner didn't get his animals out of the house after his son accidentally set it on fire. I fail to see how that makes it appropriate for his son to go punch somebody.

I didn't say it was ok, I said it wasn't any more violent than that.
Both violent acts as far as I am concerned.