No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

Quote :

"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. "We wasn't on their list," he said the operators told him. Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he "forgot" to pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee. Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out. His offer wasn't accepted, he said. The fire fee policy dates back 20 or so years. "Anybody that's not inside the city limits of South Fulton, it's a service we offer. Either they accept it or they don't," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker. The fire department's decision to let the home burn was "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association representing firefighters. "Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go." Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee. "They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn," Cranick said. South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire. Cranick, who is now living in a trailer on his property, says his insurance policy will help cover some of his lost home. "Insurance is going to pay for what money I had on the policy, looks like. But like everything else, I didn't have enough." After the blaze, South Fulton police arrested one of Cranick's sons, Timothy Allen Cranick, on an aggravated assault charge, according to WPSD-TV, an NBC station in Paducah, Ky. Police told WPSD that the younger Cranick attacked Fire Chief David Wilds at the firehouse because he was upset his father's house was allowed to burn. WPSD-TV reported that Wilds was treated and released. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/

Seems like this guy, his family, and his now dead 3 dogs and a cat could have used a little socialism.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 9:16 AM. Reason : ]

10/6/2010 9:12:06 AM

The only difference between this and "socialism" is that this guy chose not to spend the $75 fee it costs to maintain the Fire Department. In a socialist society, the power of the state would have compelled him to spend the money no matter what.

10/6/2010 9:19:24 AM

Sounds like he should have coughed up the 75 bones.

10/6/2010 9:19:32 AM

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/10/05/libertarians-offer-hilarious-response-to-firefighters-letting-tn-home-burn/



Im impressed that this fee business has been going on for 20 years though



I gotta imagine this is hard on the firefighters, who probably give a damn about the finances.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 9:23 AM. Reason : .]

10/6/2010 9:20:21 AM

I mean, for all the jaw-jacking about "libertarianism" v. "socialism" the real question comes down to, "should this man's $75 been given voluntarily or be taken by force" because one way or another, the FD would have gotten the man's money if they're going to operate.



In this case, the man screwed up and lost his house. It is a bitch, but this isn't a failure of libertarianism.

10/6/2010 9:34:26 AM

Quote :

"Cranick, who is now living in a trailer on his property, says his insurance policy will help cover some of his lost home."

insurance policy??!?!?

why didn't he just offer to pay the insurance premium after his house burned down?

10/6/2010 9:49:55 AM

I guess the only question that comes up for me is the inevitable: "what if someone had been trapped inside? what would the firefighters do in that situation?"

10/6/2010 9:59:48 AM

^ The "saving your loved ones" rider was probably an extra $50. Peace out, grandma.

10/6/2010 10:14:12 AM

^
NO. You may be joking, but that kind of misinformation contributes to irrational bigotry against libertarianism.

^^
Emergency rescue is different from property protection.

(There is a lot of misunderstanding how proper libertarianism should apply.)

Only if the fire had a reasonable risk of spreading to other areas (i.e. endangering lives,) should the fee be compulsory. As for the animals? Hopefully someday democrats will stop being bigoted against libertarians and work to create a more socially-liberal libertarianism where animal lives are valued as more than mere property.

Not counting the animals in this situation, and since the home is rural and thus not a reasonable risk to other lives or property, there is no reason, besides possibly private charity, to have put the house fire out for "free".

10/6/2010 10:52:51 AM

Not counting the jews, I'd say the holocaust wasn't that bad.

10/6/2010 10:55:51 AM

He wasn't in the city. A 75 dollar fee for firefighter protection, per year? Are you kidding me? That's ridiculously cheap, compared to how much you might pay through local taxes. If you "forget" to protect your home and family, you're an idiot. In a free society, people are free to make their own decisions, and deal with the consequences of bad decisions. As much as the some people would like to hold a gun to the head of anyone that could potentially make bad decisions, it's morally wrong to do so.

10/6/2010 10:57:25 AM

Unless those bad decisions bring harm to other people. Then it would be morally wrong not to hold the gun to their head. I gotta be honest, I'm starting to lean more toward including animals in this equation as well.

10/6/2010 11:08:26 AM

^^
Exactly, exactly, exactly.

^^^
What's your fucking problem?
I was distinguishing to make a general point.
I don't even know you, but I bet I'm ten times the animal rights advocate that you are.

Whether or not there were animals there is a separate issue from the general one about firefighting fees, and I already said that animal lives should perhaps be protected the same as Grandma's...

Why are you being such a fucking jerk?


^

Quote :

"Unless those bad decisions bring harm to other people"

or an unreasonable risk of harm. (something many "armchair" libertarians forget.)

And yes, I'm a libertarian (small 'l') and I don't think that animals are mere property.
Now.... Lonesnark and Earthdogg? I don't know... They're more like big 'L' libertarians.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 11:16 AM. Reason : ]

10/6/2010 11:11:22 AM

I would feel better about it if they made the guy sign an opt-out agreement so that everyone was clear on what would happen in case of a fire. If the guy truly did forget to pay, it's kind of shitty to let his house burn down.

10/6/2010 11:37:31 AM

Quote :

"If the guy truly did forget to pay, it's kind of shitty to let his house burn down"

In your opinion, sure. But that's nothing to base policy on.

If the guy truly did forget to change his oil, it's kind of shitty to let his car break down.
If the guy truly did forget to wash his face, it's kind of shitty to let him break out in acne.
If the guy truly did forget to roll his car windows up in the rain, it's kind of shitty to let his car get water damage.
If the guy truly did forget to pay his phone bill, it's kind of shitty to let his phone service get cut off.
etc.


Sorry... There is no place in a free society for your forced, or even opt-out mandatory charity scheme.
Personal responsibility, son. Personal responsibility.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 11:45 AM. Reason : ]

10/6/2010 11:44:37 AM

Personal responsibility is an outdated burden from the 20th century.

10/6/2010 11:53:20 AM

lol

10/6/2010 11:56:40 AM

^^^ I'm guessing you don't see the difference between the examples you reeled off vs. someone's entire house burning down over forgetting to pay a $75 fee.

Update: He didn't forget.

Quote :

"“I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,” said Gene Cranick."

So fuck 'em. But still, if you have to send them out there anyway for the neighbor's fire, it seems silly and a little sick for them to just stand around and watch the other one burn along with the pets inside it.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2010 11:57:56 AM

This is not libertarianism.

A privatized fire department would have been far less offensive in this situation.

The dude told the firefighters when they got there that he would pay for them to save the house, whatever it cost.

The government fire department says no because they are retarded.

A private fire dept. would have said - "OK! Let's do it!"

And then they would have had a legal claim against his insurance payout, or against him generally if he had no fire insurance.

10/6/2010 12:02:23 PM

There's no guarantee that a private fire department would have done shit.

In fact, in order to preserve the value of the subscription it would be in their best interest not to do shit so they don't have people stopping paying their $75 a year just to have ad-hoc fire protection when their house is actually on fire.

At the very least I suspect a private fire department would have charged him an enormous penalty to preserve the value of paying 75 a year. And if refused that they still wouldn't be obligated to do anything.

10/6/2010 12:21:10 PM

I don't have a problem with that.

You can pay $75 (or whatever, probably a little more) a year to the private FD for protection, or you can do it ad-hoc for possibly thousands of dollars once your house is actually on fire.

The idea that they would choose not to do the ad-hoc protection is fine by me. But I think it's safe to say they would act on most pleas for help (especially when that plea somes with "I'll pay whatever it takes").

But, you have to admit that is superior to the system this guy got, at the very least. If you forget to buy tickets in advance, you can still get them at the door for a lot more $$$.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 12:29 PM. Reason : a]

10/6/2010 12:28:26 PM

He said he would pay anything. If he had indeed been paying in years past, a normal business would have records of that. They'd probably charge 75 plus a penalty. Either way, it'd be worth it.

10/6/2010 12:30:59 PM

Quote :

"Unless those bad decisions bring harm to other people. Then it would be morally wrong not to hold the gun to their head"

sounds like a good rational for mandated health insurance

10/6/2010 12:34:01 PM

Quote :

" If you forget to buy tickets in advance, you can still get them at the door for a lot more $$$"

This has merit.
If they refused the $75 annual fee, they should still have the option of paying, I don't know, $500? on the spot...

10/6/2010 12:36:41 PM

yeah but then nobody would pay anything until their house actually caught fire

why pay $75/year for 20 years on the 2% change my house will catch fire. if my house actually does catch fire, the $500 will still be cheaper than $1500/20year. then the fire dept can't fund itself and has to shut down

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 12:41 PM. Reason : but we all know this already. that's why fire protection is mandated through taxes]

10/6/2010 12:39:54 PM

^
Right, but then the fee is way more, as to cover the costs... like insurance.

(Dude, I just threw out a number... In the other thread, people suggested $750 or even $5000)


[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 12:44 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2010 12:41:48 PM

nah

just pay your taxes on time

10/6/2010 12:42:27 PM

What taxes?

10/6/2010 12:43:00 PM

all of them

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM. Reason : who has $5-7k just laying around in case their house catches fire? not me]

10/6/2010 12:43:21 PM

^
Holy fucking duh!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's why you pay the $75 instead.

Do you not know how insurance works?

You pay a little, in the chance that something bad happens. If you don't, you're stuck with the full cost if it does.


And you still haven't explained what taxes you're talking about -- this is a fee structure, not taxes.

[Edited on October 6, 2010 at 12:46 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2010 12:46:13 PM

qfred out

10/6/2010 12:47:42 PM

It would have to be greater than 75 dollars multiplied by the actual chance of your house burning down in a year. In 2009 there were 377,000 residential fires in America. I'll round down on the number of families to 100 million. Approximately 1 in 265 chance of having a residential fire.

In order to make the one-time charge expensive enough, it would need to be around $19,875. (though I'm certain they could make it a bit less to be actually prohibitive in the minds of the buyers even if it actually is not the case)

Quote :

"sounds like a good rational for mandated health insurance"

I'm pretty sure that's the argument being made. It's a difficult sell for me calling my insurance premium increase a harm caused directly by someone's fatness. Especially when I see the record profits insurance companies are making.

10/6/2010 12:49:19 PM

Where in the world do you get $19875?

10/6/2010 12:54:59 PM

Quote :

"I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,” said Gene Cranick."

Wow, this guy's an idiot. If that was the case, why would ANYONE pay the $75??

10/6/2010 12:55:51 PM

75 * 265

The annual fee multiplied by a rough chance that you will experience a residential fire in a year.

10/6/2010 12:56:21 PM

The problem here is we still allow unincorporated areas to exist in this country. Every square inch of America should be annexed into a city, period. When people are allowed to live in the country they get these crazy ideas like "human beings can exist separate from the Great Government". No one can exist without the Great Government.

10/6/2010 1:01:17 PM

Glad to see the system worked, if they save his house then no one continues to pay the $75 and then the fire department can't afford to do its job properly.

Sucks for the guy though, he took a really bad gamble not buying fire insurance in this case. At least he's been saving $75-yr to put towards his new house

10/6/2010 1:12:36 PM

It's a shame they didn't offer to buy his property at a discount while it burned so the government could build a low-income housing project on the site. That would have been a win for everyone.

10/6/2010 1:14:59 PM

That $75 is just an arbitrary number some gov't person thought up. Neighboring towns had similar policies for $50 and $100, with no actual data or pricing strategy. Plus, FD's do a lot more than just fight fire - they check on "that burning smell," gas leaks, and other stuff. Not all of their revenue would have to come from structure fires.

It would no doubt be in the thousands of dollars to get a fire crew to actually fight a fire like that, though.

Another element in there - if private, pay-to-play FDs were commonplace, home/fire insurers would make it a condition of insuring you that you pay the private FD's premium. Nobody would insure a home against fire if that person had not paid for fire protection.

10/6/2010 1:17:38 PM

Insurance is good at reminding you to pay elective fees that prop up your entire livelihood. Municipalities, on the other hand, suck at it. One time I found out my car's registration expired over a year ago, and I hadn't gotten a single letter.

In any case, this system is an embarassment to us...us being humanity. The homeowner's property was wasted and the fire department spent money to look like jack-asses. Everybody lost.

10/6/2010 1:19:52 PM

They're sure on top of their billings though. Do they pull up Quickbooks every time they get a call for help?

Or is this dude just known as "the guy who doesn't pay" and they were just waiting for him to get a fire?

10/6/2010 1:29:14 PM

Quote :

"Another element in there - if private, pay-to-play FDs were commonplace, home/fire insurers would make it a condition of insuring you that you pay the private FD's premium. Nobody would insure a home against fire if that person had not paid for fire protection."

How is that any different than a tax? If they can't buy a house without insurance and they can't have insurance without paying the FD, then why not just tax the fee and fund the FD that way? Hey problem solved!

Quote :

"In any case, this system is an embarassment to us...us being humanity. The homeowner's property was wasted and the fire department spent money to look like jack-asses. Everybody lost."

The people who do pay the 75 dollars a year won and the FD won. They continue to have fire service and understand that the service they pay for has value. Other people who may have considered not paying the bill now have a fresh example to convince them to pay the bill and the fire department gets to continue to exist.

It's retarded that their taxes don't pay for FD but since they don't, they're stuck with this system.

10/6/2010 1:51:40 PM

Suddenly the gov't doesn't have an incentive to protect taxable property? lol

Gotta wonder how much they're losing in property taxes now.

10/6/2010 2:06:38 PM

Oh, I'm sorry, I mis-read this to be that the FD belongs to the incorporated town, which does not receive revenue from said house, hence the requirement for a $75 fee. So, again, they're losing nothing.

10/6/2010 2:15:20 PM

Quote :

"How is that any different than a tax? If they can't buy a house without insurance and they can't have insurance without paying the FD, then why not just tax the fee and fund the FD that way? Hey problem solved!"

There is no problem to solve. But there are a couple reasons that come to my mind why the private way is better:

1) Private FD's would have a strong tendency toward local monopolization. But I'd take a de-facto, not legally enforced, private monopoly over a public, legally enforced monopoly any day of the week.

2) There is still choice involved, even if in most cases it's a technicality. That's better than no choice at all.

3) Pricing is usually going to be more just than taxation. High-risk areas (I've got no data to back that up, but surely fires and fire-calls are not uniformly distributed) would pay more, and folks who take fire precautions could get discounts (just like safe driver discounts). That's more just than whatever taxation scheme the local authority comes up with.

10/6/2010 2:15:35 PM

10/6/2010 2:27:51 PM

This just in: private FD's fiddle while Christians burn.

10/6/2010 2:30:21 PM

^1 and 2 are just your personal opinion. 3 is interesting, but the fee for fire protection in a higher risk area is negligible compared to the actual cost of responding to a fire. You could make the fee higher to the point where it makes a difference, but then developers simply wouldn't build in areas deemed high risk. Then you have to create and fund a whole bureaucracy for fire risk evaluation, which would just be corrupted by developers anyways.

Quote :

"So, again, they're losing nothing."

Does not compute. I thought fire departments cost money.

10/6/2010 2:34:46 PM

Quote :

"3 is interesting, but the fee for fire protection in a higher risk area is negligible compared to the actual cost of responding to a fire. You could make the fee higher to the point where it makes a difference, but then developers simply wouldn't build in areas deemed high risk. Then you have to create and fund a whole bureaucracy for fire risk evaluation, which would just be corrupted by developers anyways."

1 and 2 are my opinion, but that doesn't mean they can be outright dismissed

My car insurance went up 35% when I moved to Durham from Raleigh (even with USAA). It was an interesting surprise. But I consider it fair, because I'm well aware that Durham is messed up.

Is homeowner's insurance higher in a high-crime area? If so, would not the same argument stand?

I'm not sure why you would need a government risk evaluation bureaucracy. Insurance companies do that for themselves all the time. With fires and fire calls, and data on damages, it's relatively easy.

10/6/2010 2:49:52 PM

I wish the justice department worked like this. I could murder all the bums I could care for.

10/6/2010 2:52:45 PM