This is BS, SHAME ON THE CITY! SHAME ON THE CHIEF, SHAME ON THIS BS LAW! http://abcnews.go.com/US/vi...-burns-home-11797320 Tennessee Firefighters Watch House Burn Down; Owners Didn’t Pay Subscription Fee OCT 3 2010 Posted in U.S. News by Dan Evon with View Comments
In certain parts of Tennessee, there is a $75 subscription fee for firefighter services. Gene and Paulette Cranick, of South Fulton, Tennessee, learned the hard way that the firefighters in Tennessee are not joking about the subscription fee.
A group of firemen arrived to an emergency call, then watched the Cranick’s house burn down, after they were ordered not to put out the fire because of an unpaid subscription fee.
When the fire spread toward a neighbor’s house, the firefighters did step in. The neighbor, of course, paid the subscription fee.
Mr. Cranick, the owner of the house, said:
“I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong.”
The Telegraph reports that the Cranick’s live in a rural part of Tennessee, out of the firefighters typical designated area. The people who live in South Fulton, Tennessee, can pay a $75 fee to have their house protected by firefighters, but it is not a mandatory fee.
Timothy Cranick, the owner’s son, was arrested shortly after his parents house burned down for punching the fire chief. Read The Full Story: Tennessee Firefighters Watch House Burn Down; Owners Didn’t Pay Subscription Fee – Indyposted
Sorry, im siding with the fire department on this one. He didnt pay a fee everyone else has to pay. If he had some hardship paying it, it would be a different story. But simply not paying it puts him at fault. If you dont buy insurance on your car and you have a wreck, guess what....your crap outta luck. If there was a life at stake, it would have also made a difference. Im sure the firemen would have acted to save lives.
IP: Logged
06:15 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Here if you don't pay your yearly "dues" the fire department will do the same amount of work to save your house as any other house, you just get an insanely large bill afterwords, if they could save the house or not.
When the house is burning is not the time to decide if a house should be saved or not. Save it, and sort out the payment later.
I'm trained in CPR for my job, so that if one of my clients needs life saving measures, I can attempt it. Should I find out if a person laying on the ground works for the company that trained me, or save his life, and worry about it later?
Brad
IP: Logged
06:30 PM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Keyword there is LIFE saving. Apparently there were no lives in danger as this guys house burned. I was wondering about the insurance angle myself. My guess is if he has paid fire insurance, there obligated to pay damages unless he caused the fire.
IP: Logged
06:37 PM
fierofool Member
Posts: 12995 From: Auburn, Georgia USA Registered: Jan 2002
A group of firemen arrived to an emergency call, then watched the ............ house burn down
I saw this very thing happen in '62 in what was then rural Duluth, Georgia. A rental house owned by the Whitehead family, and occupied by a classmate's family was located just outside the city limits. The Duluth Fire Department arrived, and found that Mrs. Whitehead hadn't paid a Fire Tax. They backed the tanker up in the field across the road and watched the house burn.
On another occasion, another classmate's home caught fire and the volunteer fire department refused to come out for the same reason. Several of us went to the fire station, took the tanker and fought the fire ourselves. We lost the house. We also left the truck sitting in the yard for the city to retrieve.
Keyword there is LIFE saving. Apparently there were no lives in danger as this guys house burned. I was wondering about the insurance angle myself. My guess is if he has paid fire insurance, there obligated to pay damages unless he caused the fire.
His dogs and cats died in the house, cats are good enough to save from trees bu not a house? pretty sure the cat doesn't pay for tree coverage.
IP: Logged
11:42 PM
Oct 6th, 2010
Adam1988 Member
Posts: 326 From: Tigard, Oregon, USA Registered: Jul 2007
Subscription fire departments have been operating this way since they were formed. A subscription based fire department are rural departments that are not funded by the city or taxes. They are only able to pay for their equipment and gear through patrons buying a yearly subscription - in this case the patron decided not to pay the $75. He decided to gamble and lost. Why should the department put its men's lives in danger or waste their resources to fix his problem when he doesn't pay their dues. They don't have any sort of duty to act, there were no lives in danger.
You can't crash your car up and then right afterwards try to buy insurance to cover it. Same concept. The guy chose to save $75 which is 20cents a day and lost his house.
We all love our cats/dogs but are you going to put human lives at stake for animals that are 99% already dead before they fire dept got there?
IP: Logged
12:14 AM
dn69141 Member
Posts: 448 From: Sidney Nebraska Registered: Feb 2010
I think what every firefighter that stood there and watched it burn lacked was the thing called moral. Just because someone tells you to push a guy off the cliff, does that mean you have too? This is the society we live in now, instead of helping someone we would rather watch it, film it, look the other way, anything but help it seems. Reguardless if they were told to put the fire out or not, they are firemen, and every fireman should have a personal and moral obligation to help anyone in need, no matter the circumstances.
We now live in a country where we pay taxes and obviously can't even count on the most basic services offered to us anymore. We live in a country where firefighters will sit back and watch someone's life be destroyed over a $75 fee. I hope every one of them who stood there has bad karma for the rest of thier lives for what they did. It's not the fact the guy didn't pay, it's the "treat people how you would like to be treated" fact that angers me. I'm seriously sickened by this.
IP: Logged
08:59 AM
Lambo nut Member
Posts: 4442 From: Centralia,Missouri. USA Registered: Sep 2003
We now live in a country where we pay taxes and obviously can't even count on the most basic services offered to us anymore. We live in a country where firefighters will sit back and watch someone's life be destroyed over a $75 fee. I hope every one of them who stood there has bad karma for the rest of thier lives for what they did. It's not the fact the guy didn't pay, it's the "treat people how you would like to be treated" fact that angers me. I'm seriously sickened by this.
You do realize that if no one paid the $75 fee in that district, there would be no fire dept. don't you. Taxes have nothing to do with this case. I've seen it happen here once, a long time ago. I don't get how most do not understand a simple concept. Pay the fee, or don't expect help when the time comes. The owner of the house destroyed their life over 75 bucks, not the fire dept. I guess if you don't get it, you don't get it. Same as mentioned about insurance on your car earlier. Can't buy it after the fact.
Kevin
IP: Logged
09:09 AM
dsnover Member
Posts: 1668 From: Cherryville, PA USA Registered: Apr 2006
My initial thought was 'shame on the fire department'. But after I thought about this for a while, I realized that the fee of 75 bucks is cheap insurance, which the homeowner should have gladly paid in advance. They didn't, and as such, they took on the responsibility for addressing their own fire situation. No different than car insurance. Is it cold-hearted? Probably. But I really am tired of people being irresponsible...or rather, having no sense of personal responsibility, and expecting everything to be just 'entitled' to them. Fire fighting costs big bucks. The state and federal government have imposed more and more training requirements, more and more equipment requirements, and fire departments - especially volunteer fire departments - generally have to do much of their own fundraising. And if they come up short on the 'required' equipment or training, they can be shut down or fined.
So, homeowner took a risk, and went without 'fire insurance'. Apparently, tried to purchase it _after_ the house was on fire. Hmmm....imagine being able to purchase car insurance to cover the wreck you already had, or health insurance to cover a pre-existing cond...(wait, I think the Federal guidelines say they have to allow that sometime soon) This was no different. Perhaps the next time the fire department sends out a bill, more people will pay attention.
The other side of this is that house fires are pretty devastating, regardless of the amount of water poured on them. Quite frequently a total loss of personal property anyway. At least this way, they will get a new house.....
I dont think I will be dropping any more money in fundraiser boots - if they won't count it toward the 'paltry sum' they require to save someone's house.
IP: Logged
10:19 AM
PFF
System Bot
dn69141 Member
Posts: 448 From: Sidney Nebraska Registered: Feb 2010
You do realize that if no one paid the $75 fee in that district, there would be no fire dept. don't you. Taxes have nothing to do with this case. I've seen it happen here once, a long time ago. I don't get how most do not understand a simple concept. Pay the fee, or don't expect help when the time comes. The owner of the house destroyed their life over 75 bucks, not the fire dept. I guess if you don't get it, you don't get it. Same as mentioned about insurance on your car earlier. Can't buy it after the fact.
Kevin
Just because something is "legal" or there is this "rule" doesn't mean that it is morally right. That's why America is in the situation it is in. This is nothing like insurance. Insurance pays out money, largs sums of money.Insurance is a a business where this is a fire department. They are supposed to be the good, trustworthy ones of the community. Everyone in America's should right to have the BASIC services provided by our government. That is what our founding fathers wanted, we just aren't like that anymore. This is cut and dry extortion. Soon you will have to tell me that I'll have to pay a $75 fee for "protection" of my land from law enforcement. I'll then have to pay another $75 fee for snow removal in the wintertime from off my street. Then I'll have to pay another $75 fee for..... Where is the limit?
Firefighters need money to operate I know this, I grew up in a town of 200 people and there was no fee..and still isn't so I know there is another way. Like fundraisers which my local firedepartment does every year...taxes..why can't the $75 fee just be added on to property tax? I'm not saying the man shouldn't have to pay it..but there is better means of getting their money so they don't have to refuse anyone.
It simply comes down to this...you volunteer to help people, yet then when the time comes you let something so small stop you from doing it. It's a scary day in America when it doesn't take anything but one person saying no for a whole group of "men" to morally do the wrong thing. At least the German soldiers when they were killing babies knew they would be killed if they didn't do it. These guys have no excuse.
[This message has been edited by dn69141 (edited 10-06-2010).]
IP: Logged
10:28 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
yup. this does highlite some of the failings of many things. there is no "good side" on this. especially being they were on site for the neighbor. every one involved should hang their heads in shame
what really makes this odd is that the home owners township has no fire dept, yet, has dense enough housing that one homes fire can effect the neighbor? this just does not sound right. someone is scamming.
this is exactly why these kind of things work best socialized.
IP: Logged
10:29 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
yup. this does highlite some of the failings of many things. there is no "good side" on this. especially being they were on site for the neighbor. every one involved should hang their heads in shame
what really makes this odd is that the home owners township has no fire dept, yet, has dense enough housing that one homes fire can effect the neighbor? this just does not sound right. someone is scamming.
this is exactly why these kind of things work best socialized.
there are quite a few neiborhoods like this in eastern colorado were i live. one that i looked at buying a house at did not have a fee unless there was an actual fire and it was pretty steep. I didnt buy there because it also drove the insurance costs up quite a bit. This was a few years ago but i dont think it has changed.
IP: Logged
03:50 PM
Lambo nut Member
Posts: 4442 From: Centralia,Missouri. USA Registered: Sep 2003
Sorry.... it IS fire insurance. You pay the fee for someone to protect your property from fire. Dont pay, you lose. end of story.
I'm trying to tell him this Roger, but he still does not get it. The $75 is to insure the fire dept will be there to put out your fire. In small communities like this, you do not have taxes that covers all the goodies like fire, police, parks, etc. In the bigger cities, yes, smaller towns, no.
quote
Originally posted by dn69141: That's why America is in the situation it is in.
No, the reason America is in the situation it is in, is because people expect something for nothing, such is the case here. If we don't stop crap like this, the something will run out, and we will be left with nothing.
This was no different. Perhaps the next time the fire department sends out a bill, more people will pay attention.
