Firefighters watch as house burns: Homeowners owed city $75 fee

16 years ago

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.

I suspect that the city will get a bevy of $75 checks today, thanks to this "example."

Still this is awful. They said the house burned for hours.

Here is a link that might be useful: House burns as firefighters watch

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (36)

socks
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
That's just not right.
golfergrrl
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Because they didn't pay $75? Very cruel way to make a point.
Related Discussions
Brrrr! Ten Degrees Colder Than Forecast!
Q
Comments (23)
Keith, You know, I'm just kidding about him being a weather weenie! He is, in fact, the bravest man I know and puts his life on the line for his fellow citizens all the time, both in his professional career as a police officer (back when he was hired, they all were cross-trained as firefighters too) and in his volunteer capacity as a firefighter. Our son is the same way...he works as a professional firefighter/paramedic and then also as a volunteer firefighter on his own private time. You can bet that we immediately had a discussion here at our home about the Fulton fire as soon as we heard the story. Both DH and DS said the family clearly was at fault for failing to pay the fire membership fee (or whatever the heck they call it there), that the family knew the consequences and that the family gambled they'd never need the fire dept., and they lost. So, the family received virtually no sympathy from my two firefighters. Also, please note that they were burning trash in metal burn barrels and set their own place on fire by leaving those unattended. (I'm assuming the barrels were unattended since a person sitting there with a water hose could have quickly put out the fire when it spread from the barrel to the grass.). I would have liked to see them stand in front of the camera and say "This is entirely our own fault and we accept full responsibility. Since this particular area's fire fee has been in effect since 1990, there is no doubt in my mind that the family knew exactly what the consequences would be if they didn't have fire protection and had a fire because the same thing happened there just two years ago to another family. I have really mixed feelings about this, but I do want to defend the firefighters. Their hands were tied. If they had fought that fire, each and every one of them who fought the fire would have been dismissed from the department. Those firefighters had a moral and ethical obligation to obey their policy and could not fight that fire. I hate that the family put them in that sort of position to begin with. After all, if you choose not to have auto insurance or homeowners insurance, you surely do not call up an insurance company AFTER the fact and ask them to pay for your damaged home or car. Why should fire protection be any different? If the fire dept. disregarded their own policy and fought that fire, they'd be opening the door for every resident to decline to pay their annual fee. Then, the dept. wouldn't have enough money to operate and would cease to exist and no one would have fire protection. So, it is just a big mess, isn't it? My personal feeling is that while the family was wrong, in my heart I wish the fire dept. had the latitude to fight the fire and then to bill the family after the fact. In that case, the fire dept. should be able to bill the family for the FULL COST of fighting the fire, which my son tells me would be approximately $500 per hour. Then, it would be your choice as a homeowner to pay the $75 per year annual fee or to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars per fire incident in the event you had a fire. However, that was not an option the Fulton firefighters had available to them. You might be surprised to learn that more property owners in this country are in areas covered by volunteer fire departments than by professional fire departments. Volunteer departments receive miniscule amounts of funding from the state of Oklahoma and the amount that most receive from their county or city are not very large either. In our county, if you add together the money you get from the state and the county, you might...just might...have enough money to pay your annual fuel bill. Sometimes you don't have enough. I have personally witnessed, quite often, volunteer firefighters paying for fuel for the fire trucks or parts to repair fire trucks using their own personal funds with no expectation that they'll be repaid that money by their department. In order to have money for gasoline, insurance, fire station utilities, etc., we have to spend tons and tons of time on fund-raising. Our guys spend as much time on fundraising some years as they spend fighting fires. Something is wrong with the way we fund volunteer departments in this country, but you cannot blame departments for that. It is the fault of the governmental officials we elect. Do some departments get federal, state or local grants to help buy equipment, fix equipment, buy personal protective gear, etc.? Of course they do. However, to receive a grant you have to apply, apply, apply over and over and over again, year in and year out, and if you're lucky AND extremely good at filling out tons of paperwork over and over again, you might get a grant once or twice a decade. Smaller depts. who lack grant-savvy members rarely, if ever, receive grants because they haven't mastered the paperwork nightmare. Our dept. is very fortunate because we have a couple of guys who spend probably hundreds of hours per year working on grants, so we get a grant about once every 2 or 3 years. Without them, I don't know what we'd do but think we'd be in worse financial shape than we currently are, and we'd have older, less safe and less reliable equipment. It used to be that professional departments had the funding from their entity, be it a city or county or fire district, to cover their needs adequately. However, in the tough economic times we're in now, every fire dept. I know of, no matter how big and marvelous they are, is fighting to do more with less. Many depts. nationwide have laid off firefighters and even closed down entire stations because they lack the funding to maintain the level of service they once had. I think incidents like the Fulton incident will continue to occur because you'll always have people who won't pay their fair share until their house is burning...and, by then, it is too late. For the members of our fire department, there is nothing worse than being unable to save a burning structure, but sometimes by the time you arrive, the home is already fully engulfed and all you can do is try to keep the fire from spreading to the adjacent dwellings. I cannot even imagine our dept.'s firefighters standing by and watching a house burn because a family hadn't paid their fire protection fee. Doing that would go against everything the members of our department believe in. However, our county doesn't have a fee like that or a policy like that, so it isn't something we have to deal with. The only thing that really disturbs me about the Fulton policy is this: what if people are inside a burning home and are likely to die if firefighters do not suit up, go inside the house, find them, and carry them out? What then? I think that, morally, it is one thing to stand and let someone's home burn because they CHOSE not to pay the fee. It would be something else entirely different, though, to stand by and let someone perish in a fire. I would find that morally reprehensible. I know this isn't gardening-related, but I am glad we discussed it. For all of you who are involved with your local dept as a volunteer or who financially support your local dept., THANK YOU. For all of you who don't, please remember they need your support! There used to be a bumper sticker (it first appeared during a campaign to unionize firefighters and give them collective bargaining rights) that said "Suppose You Had A Fire, And Nobody Came?". Well, if you don't support your local volunteer depts., that could happen to you. Carol, If you're in a fire district with a required membership fee, I believe the insurance companies do require you to pay it or they can deny you fire coverage. Our county doesn't have a fee, though, so I have no first-hand experience with it. I do know, though, that if we send an insurance company a letter notifying them that we fought a fire at a piece of property they insure, most of them send us back a letter of gratitude and a check to help cover our costs. Unlike some residents, the insurance companies understand EXACTLY where they'd be without the volunteer and professional fire depts. Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention this: our local fire department had a big fund-raiser a couple of weeks ago and our whole community turned out in force and they brought their money with them. The fundraiser was a success and virtually ensures we'll be able to pay our bills for the next year, assuming no major disaster occurs. I am SO GRATEFUL to all the Love County residents who attended and who made our fundraiser a success. The residents are the reason that we do what we do, and they also make it possible for us to serve them by contributing money to the department to help pay its operating expenses. I feel so fortunate that in Love County the citizens support their VFDs. Dawn
...See More
Town Proposing a Fire Station Adjoining my property!
Q
Comments (28)
I don't know, jane, I think you may be underestimating the average person's ability to filter out familiar noises. Out last house was next to a train track. There was a major intersection nearby, so the trains would generally blow the horn as they approached. It didn't bother any of our babies (or our dog), but it did bother anyone who slept over at our house. I find it interesting that my husband (a firefighter) never misses a night alarm at the firehouse, yet never stirs if our dog barks or the kids wake in the middle of the night. I never fail to wake for the kids, but sometimes sleep right through a ringing phone. I think you are wise to check into how this will affect your property value, but you might find that the noise doesn't bother you as much as you'd think.
...See More
what happens to people who walk away from their homes?
Q
Comments (46)
murredduo Here is a thought to avoid simply walking away and having the lender foreclose. Simply give the lender the house. Have a deed prepared transferring it the lender as the new owner. Record the deed. By certified mail send the deed and the keys to the lender. Check with a real estate lawyer in RI to see if you can do that. Had it work here. The contract is if you don't pay, they can take the house --- so short-circuit it and give it to them. After you sign the deed and record it and send it, you no longer own it - the lender does and there is no one to foreclose against. (1) Thought you would qualify for the Medicare Savings Program through Medicaid - means the Medicaid program pays your Part B premium and picks up the deductibles and copays. Also your Part D (prescription plan) should have 0 premiums so long as you pick certain plans (make sure your drugs are covered by the plans) and you copays will be in the $5 or $6 range. (2) If you are getting a lump sum, paying off the credit cards and buying a small house with no mortgage is an excellent plan. (3) BUT - and here is a big 'but' - the idea of putting it solely in your wife's name (and your son ....a minor?) is not a good idea. Statistically 65-73% of people who become disabled end up divorced. The sudden poverty of disability destroys many marriages - even long term strong marriages have trouble withstanding poverty due to a spouse's disability. The better way would be to (a) Keep a life-interest in the property for you and (b) have your wife and son on the deed as the owners of the estate in the entirety interest with a reversion to you if they died before you. (That means you have the right to the property while you live and when you die, it goes to them and if you die first, it is theirs.) You really really really need to talk to an estate planning lawyer about how to title any property. If you have a life interest, no creditor will go after it -- can't sell that. If it is just tilted to you and your wife straight up and your wife is on the deed at all, they can file a lien against your interest in the new home but will have trouble foreclosing to collect on the lien because they have to give half of the money from a sale to her. If your son is on there, they only get a 3rd - not worth the trouble unless you all went to sell the house. (4) I seriously doubt that your wife can get a credit card in her name. She has not been on the mortgage and she doesn't have - and has not had - any income. She has to have a credit rating in HER name - not yours - to get a credit card. To have a credit rating that means she has had to have been on car loans or house loans to show she pays her bills. She also MUST have a source of income - your SSDI will not count for her income. About all she can get in the way of credit cards until she has an income and credit history would be 24%++ interest cards with annual fees of $75 -120 a year and credit limits of $300 -500. It will take her 4 - 5 years to even get up to a $2500 with credit limit increases. That is why not working, staying home and not having an independent financial life is a seriously bad idea for women. Something happens and they have to show a credit history or income to do something and they don't have it --- they do NOT exist in the financial world. Bottom line is she really needs to get a job -- it can be McDonalds, clerk in a gas station, retail clerk etc working part-time but work she must. If she does not work, she can not get credit for credit cards or loans. She also needs to be named on all accounts - like car payments etc (utilities aren't good enough for a credit rating). BTW having her on your accounts - 2nd card for a family member thing - does NOT get her a credit rating. The account is not in her name. Might be better to pay off the cards, keep them in your name and lock them in a drawer for emergencies. Just use them enough to keep them from getting cancelled for non-use like this month pay the electric with the card and them immediately pay off the card out of your income with the amount budgeted for electric. --- When the kids are all 18, your household size will drop to 2 people for the purposes of food stamps and a $25000 SSDI income will put you ABOVE the income limits for the Medicaid savings program and Medicaid and Food Stamps with a household of 2. (Assuming that is all straight SSDI and does not include dependent's benefits for minor kids.) Now when she is 65, imagine trying to pay for Medicare B for 2 people ($122 per person - $244 a month), Part D prescription plan ($45 a month per person -$90 per month), Medigap to cover copays but not deductibles ($135 per person -$270 per month) and the Part A and B deductibles (around $1447 per year per person - $2894 a year.) That will be $604 a month in just premiums and over $10142 for all premiums and deductibles (and not including drug copays.) That will be nearly 41% of your $25000 income leaving you only $1238 a month for food, dental & vision, clothing utilities, cars etc. Now if as I suspect that the total SSDI of $25000 includes dependents benefits for minor children - anywhere from 50% to 80% of what you are getting is for the kids - that changes when they hit 18 (or finish college at 21-22). So then when they are 18 (or until out of college at 21-22), your SSDI will probably drop to maybe $13888 -16666 a year or an average of $1272 a month. With just that income she could stay on Medicaid and you could stay in the Medicare savings program and both on Food stamps. At 62 she can draw a spousal benefit - but will take hit of around 25% less because she is not full retirement age (around 37% of what you get). At 66 she would get the full spousal benefit of 50% of what you get - and even if your SSDI drops because of the kids turning 18, her spousal benefit would send your income back up to over the limits for Medicaid, Medicare savings program and food stamps. Say she waits until age 66 to draw the spousal benefit * if the $25000 is just your SSDI and no dependents, then your combined income would be $37500 -- and you have to pay all the Medicare premiums, copays etc for both of you out of that. You are way over the income limit for Medicaid, Medicare Savings and Food Stamps of 135% of FPL for 2 people (right now $FPL is $16020 for 2 so multiple it by 1.35) * if the $25000 is, say, 65% higher than it would be because of dependents. when they are over 18 and she is 66, then your combined income would be $22727 - again above the income limits fore Medicaid, Medicare savings and food stamps --- and you have to pay all the Medicare premiums, copays etc. ($25000 divided by 1.80 = SSDI without kids + 50% of SSDI for her spousal benefit = $22727 vs Medicaid income limit of 135% FPL for 2 people of $21627) It is situations like this that cause what is called a "Medicaid divorce" so that people can keep their eligibility for Medicaid and get medical care because they can not afford the costs of other insurance. When you are planning, you have to think about how it will be in 10, 15 or 23 years. If you die before she reaches age 60 she has ZERO income. Nothing nada zip. Your SSDI will not continue except for any kid under 18 and then for the kids it would only be around 75% of what your BASE SSDI (not including extra for the kids) and are getting right now. At 60 as a widow she could get 75% of what your SSDI is (without the additional for the kids.) At 66, as a widow she would get your full base SSDI (assuming no additional for minor kids.) Right now you are at maximum income and benefits - Medicaid, food stamps, Medicare Savings Program etc --- kids leave SSDI will probably go down and she reaches the age for spousal benefits it goes up......and it can all affect whether or not you have to ante up the Medicare costs for 2 people. ANd again she needs to work if for no other reason than to stash what she makes in a retirement account for the future. If you have 2 adults and 3 minor children in the house, Medicaid cut off eligibility would be 135% of Federal Poverty Level - $28440 is FPL for 5 people. 135% = $38394. She could make $1000 -1050 a month (or $220 a weekly pay period) and not affect Medicaid & Food Stamps. That would mean $11000 or so to stick in the bank. If she does that for 22 years, you all would have saved $242,000 plus any interest. (Note her gross - not after-tax -earnings can't be anymore than that $1000-1050 in a month or Medicaid eligibility is affected for that month. If paid weekly, there will be 4 months with 5 pay periods and if paid every 2 weeks, there will be 2 months with 5 pay periods. Those are the typical pay periods for unskilled work - only kind she can get .She would just have to watch how many hours she is working a month - can't be full time) Bottom line is when you became disabled, life as you and she knew it ended -and that included the luxury of staying home with the kids and never working in a job. They can go to public school and she really needs to get a job. She is going to have to step up and get a job to help keep the family provided with electric, clothes and other basics. Living below poverty level (where you all are) is really hard. By getting a part-time job, she can ease that a lot - like increasing household net income by over 42% without effecting Medicaid and Food Stamps. Add in what would she do it if you died before she was 60 (some 16 years from now) and she only got $900 or so a month in SS benefits for the kids under 16 or got ZERO because there were no minor kids? Job - now - anything will do even stocking shelves. You are gonna need that money down the road. BTW adult kids living with you do not count in your household for figuring Federal Poverty Level.
...See More
Trying to figure out auction process - curiousity
Q
Comments (15)
I'll take a stab at answering some of your questions... 1.) Large difference between appraisal & judgment. It might be a junior lien holder that is foreclosing. For example, the property is appraised at $180K; there's a first mortgage with $60K outstanding (hypothetical); and a second for $14,895.53. Many times, a homeowner in trouble will keep payments on their first mortgage current but default on the second. In our example above, there's enough equity for the junior lien holder to foreclosure, take title subject to the priority lien, & still anticipate selling the property for enough to clear their position. 2.) Yes, that's probably correct about the taxes. You should pay a visit to town hall & take a look at the land records. That will tell you who the mortgagee(s) is. It will also tell you if my above guess is accurate as to who is actually foreclosing. If it's a junior lien holder foreclosing they have probably paid the taxes. A junior lien holder does not want the priority lien holder to foreclose in a case like this because that foreclosure would wipe out their subordinant position. 3.) Other monies owed. Yes, undoubtedly there are additional charges against the borrower. These would include penalties, late fees, accrued interest, attorney fees, auctioneer fees, advertising fees, appraisal, insurance, real estate taxes, etc. A foreclosing lender will include all of the above into their auction bid. 4.) Also, if it is a subordinate lien holder who is foreclosing anybody bidding at the auction would be taking title SUBJECT TO PRIOR LIENS such as a first mortgage. So, let's say you were the successful bidder at $21K. You didn't buy the property for $21K...you purchased it for $21K plus the $60K I noted as hypothetical above for a total purchase price of $81K & you are responsible for paying the first mortgage. Now, that's a whole 'nother bucket of worms because there's probably no assumption clause in the mortgage...so the holder of the first might require you to get a new mortgage. 5.) Real estate taxes are ALWAYS A PRIORITY LIEN. So, they would have to be paid. In your example though there is no tax lien. Somebody has paid the taxes (likely the lender). The lender would have taken the taxes into consideration in their bidding strategy at auction. So, there would be no consequence to any successful bidder at the sale. Any liens lower in priority than the foreclosing entity (other than real estate taxes, mechanic's liens) is distinguished in the foreclosure process. So, if Aunt Thelma is owed $10K...she loses. 6.) Your link only took me to the county page. I was unable to actually look at anything useful to your example. So, I can't comment on your "detective" work. 7.) NEVER assume there are no title problems. As example, maybe whoever built the house never paid the roofer & the roofer filed a Mechanic's Lien that has been sitting there all of this time. It's a priority lien. There's any number of title issues that could be a problem. Again, a trip to town hall will reveal title issues. 8.) Yes, he could be losing the property for $15K. I once foreclosed approximately $75K against a property appraised at $2.2M. (There were nesting bald eagles & my borrower couldn't sell the property because of the eagles.) I foreclosed & worked out a deal with the city to buy the property from the bank & establish a park around the nesting site. The city purchased the property for what I was owed plus cancellation of all of the back property taxes. Strange things happen. I'm guessing it's a second lien holder that is foreclosing based on what the attorney told you. 9.) Has he trashed the place? Gosh, who knows! 10.) Buying an REO is easier than purchasing at foreclosure auction but not nearly as much fun nor as exciting as standing there with your bidder paddle, "Do I hear $50K? I've got 50...do I hear $55K? Yes, back there in the corner...come on now, it's a great house...now do I hear $60K?" lol /tricia
...See More
carla35
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Two questions...
What if there were people (or pets) inside; would they have acted then?
And, how do you think the insurance company is going to handle (will they not pay out at all or will they try to sue the fire dept?). I can't see them liking this...

I thought fire dept fees were "forced" and paid by taxes so that these kind of things couldn't happen. It would be like cops only responding for people who pay them. Even hospitals take in people with out insurance in emergency situations... this doesn't seem right. Why is the fire dept collecting fees that people can choose to pay or not? They need to do an across the board tax increase if they need additional money instead.
tammyms
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
This is a very unfortunate situation. Apparently this has been a "hot topic" in that county for awhile now. When I watched the clip, near the end there was a mention of another fire they would not respond to in 2008.

It's a tough lesson to learn, watching your house burn to the ground over $75.00. I wondered why, after the fact, the homeowner offers to pay whatever it takes for them to put the fire out. Why didn't he just pay the $75.00 up front and not have to worry about it? That would be a no brainer for me.

Like one of them said, you have to draw the line somewhere.
Chemocurl zn5b/6a Indiana
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
It makes you wonder that if they didn't pay their homeowners insurance, if they would still expect the insurance to pay any/all damages. I wonder if they had insurance and what the stipulations were for having to pay for their fire 'protection'.

I see paying the Fire Dept for their future protection as being like insurance.

Yes, a sad situation.
azzalea
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
It's apalling, of course, and I don't know how someone who is sworn to help people could live with himself standing there watching.

BUT

Historically, it's not a new practice. Goes back to the 1700's. Back when our country was new, fire depts were employed by insurance companies. When you bought fire insurance for your home, you were given a 'fire mark'--an iron symbol to display on your home that indicated what insurance company insured your home. If a fire alarm went out, the fire dept would respond, but if your house didn't have 'their' firemark on it, would return to the station, leaving you in the lurch. Fire marks, are today, valuable antiques that are sought after by collectors.

Don't get me wrong--I think the story you posted was absolutely awful, just wanted to give a bit of historical perspective on it.
sjerin
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
This is what taxes are all about. I find it appalling the city felt they didn't have enough money to cover fire fighting costs for all their citizens. Those who are constantly screaming about having to pay taxes aren't thinking about the fact that there is a purpose for them....
danihoney
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Someone needs to force that town into the 21st century. That is ass-backward city politics! Don't attack the firefighters they LOVE fighting a good structure fire. It's possible that by the time they got there it was to far gone to fight and all they could do was keep it from spreading. That's difficult to understand to the person who's home is burning. They have to weigh the safety risks to their crew.
Not being dispatched to the fire sooner because of a measly $75 is the fault of the city that enforces that stupid law. Not the fire department.
kacram
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
a very sad thing.
$75 is a very low "tax" for fire.
very nominal fee indeed.

"Why didn't he just pay the $75.00 up front and not have to worry about it? That would be a no brainer for me."
mariend
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
I agree that it should be a flat tax instead of one by one. Then let the city/county vote on it. That way all either protected or none. But the fire fighters should NOT just stand there and watch it burn. That is not right.
jel48
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
I might be wrong, but the way I read the article, this is a City fire department and the $75 fee is assessed to county residents outside the city limit who want to pay for the extra service. It's possible that only city taxes pay for the fire department. That puts a 'little' different spin on things.

Like others, I think it was awful, but given the information in the article I can understand it better.

I once lived in a mobile home about 6 miles outside of a small town in Nebraska. Our home caught fire (from a gas water heater) in the middle of the day. I called the fire department and they were there within 12 minutes. This was a town of about 750 people, btw, and the fire department was 100% volunteer. The mobile home was totaled, but we were able to save some things from it. I can't imagine how much worse for this family, to have to stand and watch everything burn and the fire department wouldn't do a thing about it.
tammyms
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Thanks for that bit of info on the fire marks, Azzalea. I have never heard of that. Quite interesting.

The firefighters should not be blamed because it wasn't their decision to make. They have superiors to answer to, must earn a living like everyone else and do not deserve for someone to come to the fire station to assault them.

I had the same thought as chemocurl. Would they expect to be insured by an insurance company without paying the premiums?

It would seem that they knew the consequences because this has happened in that community before. Personally, I would not take that chance.

Tammy
chisue
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
A favorite history-based book of mine is "Down the Common". It's about how life was lived in English communities for centuries. One chapter concerns every citizen's DUTY to come running when the fire bell rang -- with a bucket or other container. The main character has only one vessel and has to dump her family's dinner stew to comply. Going hungry one night was outweighed by the risk of being shunned.
janie_ga
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
I had the same thought as chemocurl and Tammy.

In GA, the fire department is covered by county taxes- don't pay them and the county takes your house.

Where we live in WV, we pay a separate tax for fire- we live int he city limits (first time I got that bill, the tax office had to explain to me- but I gladly paid!). SOME of the firemen are paid. Some are volunteer and in many areas of the state they are all volunteer. Not sure what would happen if fire taxes were not paid here and I have NO plans to find out!

Seems to make a difference if the service is county-based or city-based.

I wonder if the homeowner never paid the tax or if they maybe didn't this year. Wonder what would happen if it was a rental house and the landlord did not pay the tax.
pattico_gw
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Those of us who live outside the city limits here have our own volunteer fire dept. It's about 4 mins from our home...It runs just like a regular fire dept. and has several trucks.
kacram
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
we have fire districts here.
city, and in the county. property taxes are distributed
to your fire district.
kacram
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
oh, forgot to add. Recently, one of the cities here
didn't want to be included in our fire district.
They contracted with our fire district and they didn't
like the cuts that our fire district was making. And thought their contribution was too high. So, they
decided that they were going to develope their own city
fire department. Turns out it was way to expensive, and
turns out the the city residents were actually paying LESS
than us county residents for fire. Was put up for
a vote, and all voted to remain with our fire district.
and the city residents are now paying what we pay. But
no one was left out of the coverage. If you don't
pay your taxes, I would assume that they would still
come and put out your fire. And your taxes will be
paid through auction of your property, or however
it's done when you are forclosed on for non payment
Chemocurl zn5b/6a Indiana
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Wonder what would happen if it was a rental house and the landlord did not pay the tax.
I would hope that if it was renters that they had sense enough and funds enough to carry renters insurance.

I 'think' in most cases landlords only carry insurance on the structures and liability, unless they are maybe providing the furnishings in the rental.
cynic
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Before you jump to conclusions and feel sorry for these nitwits, read the whole thing and watch the "report".

We do it differently in Minnesota but that doesn't matter, since this is the way they do it in Tennessee. To me, it's common sense to make fire protection an essential service and tax people for it but today there's so much hysteria over "cut taxes, cut taxes, read my lips - no more taxes" and without taxes (no matter what you call them) you can't pay for things since people demand to get paid for providing service.

Actually this is very funny and it's so simple. They live outside city limits. They're offered a service but won't pay for it. Sad that the homeowner is so greedy that they'll risk their home for $75, then expect ex post facto insurance. Sad that their neighbors were subjected to a fire caused by these retards but they themselves deserve no consideration - only a bill from the neighbor and from the fire department for putting out the fire on the neighbors' property that they caused. Talk about selfish. Did he call an insurance company and offer to "pay anything" for fire insurance while it burned too? He probably drives his car (or pickup) into a telephone pole then calls an insurance company to get insurance. That's just what he did. After all, one shouldn't have to pay for insurance until you use it, right? I suppose he wants them to repair his driveway at no charge too? That moron deserved what he got but his neighbors didn't.

Per the article:
"Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city (sic) of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay."(emphasis added)
Says it all. The people were fools, idiots, jack-aces or whatever else you want to call the morons and they endangered their neighbors all over $75. Funny that joker will spend money on a cell phone but not put the phone down for a month or so to pay for fire insurance when *he* starts fires. These imbeciles deserves no sympathy whatsoever. Only the neighbors deserve it.

And shame on WPSD for sensationalizing and deliberately mischaracterizing it like they did with "Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn." SHAME ON YOU! They *should* have said "Imagine your house and the lives of your family threatened with fire because your neighbor is so selfish they won't pay $75 for fire protection and expect another fire department to come to their rescue at no charge when they deliberately start neighborhood fires." They don't even say clearly how the fire started except that the idiots started it themselves.

Then to top it off: "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.
Well duh! WHAT A THICK-HEADED FOOL! I suppose he figures they'll deliver the mail too if you don't pay the postage. Wonder if he gets free cell service? Don't they give you the cell service without paying for it too? Must have been taking a few too many swigs from the old jug again. Instead of crying, they should be on their knees apologizing to their neighbors for destroying their property and finding out what it'll cost them for the damage they caused. But no, not these self-centered cretins. Absolutely incredible.

Does anyone know if Tennessee has a news council type thing for reporting the station for slanted reporting like this?
kacram
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
well said Cynic! lol

As far as slanted reporting, that is the norm around here.
probably the norm everywhere any more.
reporting it? wouldn't know to whom.
Sally Brownlee
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Glad we are 100% volunteers...I donate to 3 companies...all would show up regardless of my means or intent to donate.

My opinion...it should be a tax, not optional. More than one person will suffer due to their negligence.

But hey, what's new? We experience that type of abuse for public services everyday. But I get less and less sympathetic when someone has gold teeth, tattoed sleeves, and a smart phone, but can't pay their doctor and shows up at a food bank...

'growl!"
cynic
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
He'll probably sue the fire departments in Texas, Washington, Florida, New Jersey and Tehran for not responding too! And that incompetent reporter (who got an email from me - let's see if he and his news director respond) will be dancing around shouting WHY DIDN'T YOU PUT OUT THE FIRE FOR HIM????

No comments either on whether they're going to be charged with a crime. Should be. I'm curious what the fire was all about. Cooking a possum? Operating a still? Meth lab? Cremating granny because the funeral home would charge? And here, they'd be liable for the damage they caused too.

It's too bad it doesn't require intelligence to breathe. It's also sad that greed isn't painful. If it were so, those people would be in a world fulla hurt.

This really angers me when people pull stunts like this and expect sympathy and try to blame others. It also bothers me since I SOOOO want to toss in a couple "hicks", "hillbillies" or the like, but hillbillies, etc are for the most part honorable people, taking responsibility for what they do and paying their own way. These changelings don't deserve the compliment of being called a hillbilly! LOL
cynic
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
carla35 and sjerin, you don't understand. These clowns do *not* live in the City of South Fulton. They're not being treated any differently than anyone else in the same situation. They are offered City services for a fee. Just like in some places here, some people in outlying areas are offered city water and sewer, if they pay for it. The City of South Fulton has no responsibility to respond to county residents anymore than they're required to respond to fires in Colorado or Wisconsin. This is an *optional* service made available to people willing to pay for it.

And the fire department is not collecting fees, the department I'm sure operates under a strict budget and it's the City of South Fulton makes certain City services available to people for a fee but clearly they're not able to offer fire protection for the entire state, country or world. Without it they apparently have no fire department so if you don't avail yourself of the option, you're doing your own fire fighting. That's one of the disadvantages of living "in the country" rather than in the city. I'm pretty sure the city residents don't have an opt-out ability on the services.

It's an unusual way of doing things but not unique. There are many places with city agreements whereby city/county residents get services from neighboring cities/counties as a convenience to the residents.

And it's easy to say hey firemen, just go do it anyway. But that's a simplistic view. If they get injured or die fighting this, their City benefits would probably be in jeopardy. They would not get paid for it, on-the-job insurance would probably not apply, they'd have to have the health and life insurance on their own to cover themselves since it was not incurred in the line of duty. And then there's the obvious point: They give this guy free coverage, they set a precedent and they'll have to cover everyone else in the entire county. Then the next county will say, hey, you have to cover ME too!

There's a thing called personal responsibility. It's not right to hold the city, the fire fighters or the town's tax-paying residents responsible for someone else's greed. It's interesting that this fire went on for hours before getting to the house and they wouldn't call the neighbors for help. Maybe the neighbors know these people better than we do.
cynic
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Oh, and forgot to say, why should the firefighters risk losing their workman's comp on an injury because this guy won't pay $75 a *year*??? Sheesh! Oh I guess the firefighters could chip in and pay it for him...

The only thing "smart" about this guy is probably his phone.
tammyms
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Well cynic, alrighty then!! Don't beat about the bush!
I agree with you. LOL

Tammy
sjerin
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Yes, I understood that, Cynic. I don't think ANYONE should be able to opt out of fire protection. What do other rural areas do? I imagine they contract with the nearest city and the money is taken out of property/utility taxes. There are many in this country who view taxes as an evil that only enriches the politicians, and conveniently forget what services each and every one of us receives through them. It's a slippery slope when basic services become available to only those who choose to pay for them.
carla35
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
ditto what sjerin said.

If you're in the US you should be covered. Granted, maybe it will take longer for someone to get to you but there are some basic coverages that everyone should be entitled to. The government needs to set up municipalities to cover everywhere. (I can understand where some remote areas may also do a volunteer dept but it shouldn't be based on payment). Fire services should not be something a person chooses to buy or not.... Will the police go out there if needed, or do they need to pay a fee for the police too? Will FEMA venture out there if there is a natural disaster? I thougth fire personnel were public servants like police, and military...I didn't think anyone had to directly pay for their specific services. What if I am traveling in this county in a mobile home and it catches on fire...they just won't help?

I'm not upset at the firemen and I understand their position in this case. I just don't think they or the home owner should ever have been put in this predicament. Government needs to account that many people are idiots and won't fork out money for fire protection. Neighbors shouldn't be allowed to put other neighbors in this danger. Government should control this...not allow individual stupid (possibly poor) and selfish homeowners make these decisions that can effect the public.

And, again, what exacly would have happened if there was a child in the fire/house?
Laura Abbott
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
It should be part of the annual property tax, not based over and above the annual taxes already paid. It should be a line item in the County budget and not left to individuals to decide because then you are putting others in danger, not just the nitwits that don't want to participate. I am sure there are many other programs that give money away to those in 'need' (insert sarcasm here) that could be cut to offset this cost.
kacram
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
I could imagine that the people could have had
a vote on it. And maybe they chose to do it this way
who knows?

I hate it here that it is illegal to drive
with out insurance, but people do anyway. And I have
to buy more car insurance for those that won't. I hate
having to buy the "uninsured motorist" insurance.
The gov. is too wussie to make people SHOW PROOF of
insurance before they are allowed to get their license
and/or license tabs. Should be a requirement!
carla35
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
kat, I think the gov. does make people show proof of insurance when they get or renew their license (at least around here they do).

I think some people though just get a one month policy or cancel their insurance soon after getting their license; and, I wouldn't doubt many uninsured motorists are driving without any license too.
kacram
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
shouLd have said, the Washington stae gov. ... sorry. lol
User
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
I'm curious. Will insurance cover the damages? Or will they reject the claims because the family did not pay the dues. I'm going to guess that any claims to the insurance company will be rejected. It was probably a condition of coverage that the family pay dues.
workoutlady
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Agree with Cynic on this one. But I will say that around here, you can't opt out but your township can have the service provided by a different fire department. For me the charge is on my water bill. If I lived in a township, it would be on my property tax bill. They don't normally do that though. Also, my DH is on the volunteer fire department and he does get paid. Around here, most volunteer fire departments get paid. The volunteer part of it is that they do not have anyone on duty but instead when the pager goes off, whoever is on the fire department responds if they can. It can be a problem in the day when people are at work so most employers allow employees to go and fight a fire. In my DH's case, he works too far out to respond.
petaloid
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
This has to change.

Costs for fighting fires must be included as part of normal taxes, protecting all structures and inhabitants.

That is how it has been anywhere I have lived.

I had no idea that in modern times something like this could happen.
littlebit_gw
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
I am in RURAL WEST TN.....just minutes from the Obion Co line and that is NOT the way things are done here.(this happened on the other end of Obion Co

I guess South Fulton is taking the easy way out by just opting not to protect all of their residents in and outside the city limits.

Here our water bill is from one town...We pay a $1 a month for fire protection..We also have several volunteer fire dept..our closest one is 10 minutes down the road..Then the bigger town (10 minutes in the opposite direction) has 3 separate fire stations..They will respond if they are needed. We are protected by 3 different areas..This cost us $12 a year..if the the Volunteer or the Dburg fire depts responds to a fire, then they bill the homeowner AFTER the fire.

Cynic I am not going to stoop to your name calling level..but that Southern bashing was totally uncalled for. All I will say is Bless your heart..You just dont know any better.

littlebit
drewsmaga
16 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
I have to agree with Cynic on this. When we lived in rural (pop. Pat (who pays for car insurance, property insurance, flood insurance, life insurance, health insurance, yada, yada, yada)

Firefighters watch as house burns: Homeowners owed city $75 fee

Comments (36)

Related Discussions

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US