336 replies to this topic

[Islandgal]

Fireman stand around while home burns
Gene and Paulette Cranick, of South Fulton, Tennessee, lost their home after officers were ordered by bosses not to extinguish it. Fire fighters only arrived when the flames spread to the property of a neighbour, who had paid the fee. However, they continued to refuse to help the Cranicks.


Jeff Vowell, the city manager of South Fulton, said: "It's a regrettable situation any time something like this happens." Mr Vowell explained that there was no county-wide fire service and it was too expensive for the city's officers to serve surrounding rural areas like the Cranicks' as well.

Rural residents can gain access to the service by paying the annual fee. But "if they choose not to," Mr Vowell said, "we can't make them".

Mr Cranick said: "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong." His wife said the couple had offered to pay the fire fighters whatever was necessary for them to extinguish the flames, but the officers refused.

However they do not blame the officers themselves, she said. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault." The Mayor of South Fulton, David Crocker, told local reporters: "We're very sorry their house burned."

However he too stood by the subscription policy, arguing that offering a pay-as-you-go service would mean upfront costs could not be met.

About three hours after the fire began, Mr Cranick's son Timothy allegedly arrived at the South Fulton fire station and asked for Mr Wilds, the fire chief.

It is alleged that when Mr Wilds came forward and asked if he could help, Mr Cranick punched him. "He just cold-cocked him," Mr Crocker said. Mr Cranick allegedly had to be pulled off Mr Wilds by other firefighters, after having knocked him to the ground. The 44-year-old is said to have been taken to hospital after injuring his hand committing the alleged assault.

Mr Wilds was said by officials to be "doing OK". The Cranicks are temporarily staying in a mobile home.

[Seabee]

Perhaps it's time for them to start shopping for insurance to cover their loss.

[random42]

If they aren't covered by the city department, then they aren't paying the taxes that pays for the firehouse, trucks, equipment, training and salaries of the fire department. $75 seems pretty cheap to dodge the, likely higher, tax bill. I'd take that tradeoff in a NY minute.

If you own yer property, vehicle and homeowners insurance isn't necessary either. That doesn't mean your not an idiot for foregoing it. This guy rolled the dice and lost.

[orangecrush]

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

Very wrong.

ETA: They didn't even say they couldn't afford it, they just decided not to pay, figuring they would get something for free.

Edited by orangecrush, 04 October 2010 - 09:56 AM.

[Labyrinthine]

I'm sorry, but if they knew they were not covered by the city and they knew they were supposed to pay a $75 fee to have access to the service, and then chose not to pay it - why would they expect coverage? I receive fireman assistance because I pay taxes for it. I would not expect the same service if I paid nothing towards it.

[5ofus]

My DH is on our towns volunteer fire department. There isn't a fee here but some other towns have done something similar. I wonder if they'll pay the fee next time it's due.


There are a couple houses in town that if started on fire I'd show up with marshmallows.

[Tigz]

I wonder if the fire department also covers their rescue and emt's. If so, if someone has a heart attack....or if a child was trapped in the house, would they still refuse to help?

[butterflywings]

I understand there is no expectation of service without pay.

But as human beings to stand there and watch someone's house burn down over $75, when they have the absolute means to stop it, is incomprehensible to me. $75 effing dollars.

If they have a mortgage I believe they are required to have homeowner's insurance so hopefully they won't be homeless for long; unless the homeowner's insurance says they won't pay because they didn't pay the fee; then they are SOL.

They shouldn't be homeowners if they aren't willing to pay for risk management.

[zx10 guy]

I wonder if the fire department also covers their rescue and emt's. If so, if someone has a heart attack....or if a child was trapped in the house, would they still refuse to help?

I would imagine there would be some exceptions if the local government was smart in drafting this policy. I would guess there would be a clause to allow rendering of aid when there is a situation where lives are at risk. In your hypotheticals, if someone was trapped in a burning house, they would render enough assistance to get the person out without going to the extent of putting the fire out completely unless it endangers others or other property which is covered. In the case of someone who is suffering from a heart attack, I would imagine they will still render aid and try to recover any costs from any applicable insurance. If there isn't supplemental funding available, the local government just eats the cost.

[Jen23514]

I understand there is no expectation of service without pay.

But as human beings to stand there and watch someone's house burn down over $75, when they have the absolute means to stop it, is incomprehensible to me. $75 effing dollars.

If they have a mortgage I believe they are required to have homeowner's insurance so hopefully they won't be homeless for long; unless the homeowner's insurance says they won't pay because they didn't pay the fee; then they are SOL.

They shouldn't be homeowners if they aren't willing to pay for risk management.

I fully agree with the bolded part.

You would think ethically though the FF could put out the fire and haggle over the fees later.

Or maybe it's a liability issue on the FF's part..... IDK.

Either way, it's the homeowner's fault, but as someone who knows what it's like to watch your life burn to a 15 inch pile of ash..... well, I have other thoughts on the issue that aren't impartial, so I'll go hide in my corner now.

[Jen23514]

I wonder if the fire department also covers their rescue and emt's. If so, if someone has a heart attack....or if a child was trapped in the house, would they still refuse to help?

I would imagine there would be some exceptions if the local government was smart in drafting this policy. I would guess there would be a clause to allow rendering of aid when there is a situation where lives are at risk. In your hypotheticals, if someone was trapped in a burning house, they would render enough assistance to get the person out without going to the extent of putting the fire out completely unless it endangers others or other property which is covered. In the case of someone who is suffering from a heart attack, I would imagine they will still render aid and try to recover any costs from any applicable insurance. If there isn't supplemental funding available, the local government just eats the cost.

or maybe there should be a provision of pay the $75 upfront, and if you don't and we have to respond to your home, then it is $750 to be billed to you later with the threat of a lien (like taxes). There HAS to be a better solution that standing there and watching a house burn.

[orangecrush]

I understand there is no expectation of service without pay.

But as human beings to stand there and watch someone's house burn down over $75, when they have the absolute means to stop it, is incomprehensible to me. $75 effing dollars.

If they have a mortgage I believe they are required to have homeowner's insurance so hopefully they won't be homeless for long; unless the homeowner's insurance says they won't pay because they didn't pay the fee; then they are SOL.

They shouldn't be homeowners if they aren't willing to pay for risk management.

What the heck does not paying for something they don't want, have to do with the criteria for being a homeowner? It is their home and if they don't want to pay for "risk management", that is their choice (a bad one).

What next, they don't want to paint their house every two years, they shouldn't be homeowners? They have brown grass, they shouldn't be homeowners. That sounds like some crazy HOA, mess.

[orangecrush]

or maybe there should be a provision of pay the $75 upfront, and if you don't and we have to respond to your home, then it is $750 to be billed to you later with the threat of a lien (like taxes). There HAS to be a better solution that standing there and watching a house burn.

Personally, I think what they did was the right solution. I'll bet now they have stacks of checks on their desks from people, who thought they would come out even if the $75 was not paid.

It sucks, but some people always want something for nothing. In rural areas, you have to pay for some services that are common elsewhere or you won't get them.

[Snork Maiden]

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

Why would he think that? Seems like a lot to gamble.

I'd like more background info. Why didn't he pay? Was it late? Did he miss his renewal notice? Did he just decide he didn't feel like it? Could they not afford it?

I mean, if you decide to wing it, you can't be punching fire chiefs in the nose later on when stuff goes bad.

[VibrantEcho]

or maybe there should be a provision of pay the $75 upfront, and if you don't and we have to respond to your home, then it is $750 to be billed to you later with the threat of a lien (like taxes). There HAS to be a better solution that standing there and watching a house burn.

Personally, I think what they did was the right solution. I'll bet now they have stacks of checks on their desks from people, who thought they would come out even if the $75 was not paid.

It sucks, but some people always want something for nothing. In rural areas, you have to pay for some services that are common elsewhere or you won't get them.

This.

[orangecrush]

I mean, if you decide to wing it, you can't be punching fire chiefs in the nose later on when stuff goes bad.

You can, but you end up in jail.

[Labyrinthine]

I understand there is no expectation of service without pay.

But as human beings to stand there and watch someone's house burn down over $75, when they have the absolute means to stop it, is incomprehensible to me. $75 effing dollars.

If they have a mortgage I believe they are required to have homeowner's insurance so hopefully they won't be homeless for long; unless the homeowner's insurance says they won't pay because they didn't pay the fee; then they are SOL.

They shouldn't be homeowners if they aren't willing to pay for risk management.

What the heck does not paying for something they don't want, have to do with the criteria for being a homeowner? It is their home and if they don't want to pay for "risk management", that is their choice (a bad one).

What next, they don't want to paint their house every two years, they shouldn't be homeowners? They have brown grass, they shouldn't be homeowners. That sounds like some crazy HOA, mess.

There is a big difference between "risk management" and brown grass, and you know it OC. If they didn't want to pay their $75, fine. But it makes them irresponsible homeowners - particularly since the fire in their house put another house at risk - and their anger over the situation is misdirected.

[orangecrush]

There is a big difference between "risk management" and brown grass, and you know it OC. If they didn't want to pay their $75, fine. But it makes them irresponsible homeowners - particularly since the fire in their house put another house at risk - and their anger over the situation is misdirected.

Neither "risk management" nor brown grass, have anything to do with being able to be a homeowner, so there is no difference.

How does it make them irresponsible? Do their actions affect anyone else? The other home was not at really at risk, because they paid their fee.

Even if they are irresponsible, it has nothing to do with them being able to be homeowners. If they can pay their mortgage or own their house outright, then they should be homeowners. All of a sudden these random criteria have started popping up, regarding who should be able to own what.

I have a few of my own random criteria: If your kid hangs out in your yard, where other people can see them, you shouldn't be a homeowner. If your windows don't match, you shouldn't be a homeowner. If your kid is ugly, you shouldn't be a homeowner. If your Christmas lights are not done in a one or two color scheme, you should not be a homeowner. If the trees in your yard have squirrels, you should not be a homeowner.

[Snork Maiden]

You're out of pocket, and you know it, OC.

[Jen23514]

or maybe there should be a provision of pay the $75 upfront, and if you don't and we have to respond to your home, then it is $750 to be billed to you later with the threat of a lien (like taxes). There HAS to be a better solution that standing there and watching a house burn.

Personally, I think what they did was the right solution. I'll bet now they have stacks of checks on their desks from people, who thought they would come out even if the $75 was not paid.

It sucks, but some people always want something for nothing. In rural areas, you have to pay for some services that are common elsewhere or you won't get them.

I already admitted I'm less than partial on this topic. LOL

We didn't even have a real street address when we grew up until after I was out of HS and they implemented a county-wide 911 system. We were always "rural route #". No street signs, nothing for our road. If you wanted to tell people where to turn, you have to know we were the first road on the right after you turned off HWY X. So, I can sympathize with the troubles of rural departments, especially volunteer.

With that said, the owners obviously did their own cost analysis on the situation and decided $75 "insurance" wasn't worth the return. Maybe their cost analysis for the upcoming year will look a little different.

[Bad Doctor Frost]

Seems like just another backwoods southern small town...next issue.

[beli]

Fine or not.. Firefighters are there to do two things.

1. Protecting someone's property from becoming even more damanged from fire
2. Saving the lives of those in and around burning property.

I realize that the people were out of their homes by the time the firefighters got thereif they hadn't been? Would they have just stood by and watched it burn and let the people inside die?

There will probably be a lawsuit no doubt. I can clearly see even if they had homeowners insurance that they would not cover the cost of the house/belongings etc because the homeowners were negligant in not paying the towns "fee" i'm sorry but there should not be a "fee" for basic services like polie/fire safety.

Edited by beli, 04 October 2010 - 12:30 PM.

[orangecrush]

You're out of pocket, and you know it, OC.

Yeah. I am all sorts of pissy about fire assessment fees. They are hitting us with one here. It isn't voluntary and we are not rural. I think it should be opt-in. I have not had time to read up on everything, but I really need to know why my vacant lots, need to pay for emergency services. I mean, are the birds on the lots gonna call emergency services, when their kids fall out of their nests?

[Snork Maiden]

i'm sorry but there should not be a "fee" for basic services like police/fire safety.

There is always a fee. It varies on how its presented in different settings, but that stuff ain't free.

$75 is a small amount to save your home

[Bad Doctor Frost]

What would have happened if there was a small child trapped inside? Since people seem to like them for some reason...would they have done something then? And if they knew they hadn't paid the fee, why did they even come out? They would have looked a lot had they just not responded. Since they stood around, they just look like morons.