This is an insurance publication so rather than address this as a thirty year veteran and past fire chief; I will address this as a thirty year veteran of the insurance industry.
“Hello Mr/Ms Insurance Agent, my house is on fire so I need some fire insurance…”
I have actually had people come to my office to buy auto insurance because the police officer was waiting at the accident scene for them to come back with an insurance ID card. They did not buy insurance from me but I see from the comments that most of you would have sold them a policy because you want to be compassionate.
The deal was, pay $75 get fire service, don’t pay and you get nothing. This is a pretty simple concept. If you could pay the fee once the fire started, why would you pay it before? Nobody would pay and there wouldn’t be any fire service for anybody.
Even if one of your clients forgot to pay their insurance, the company would reinstate only with a ‘no loss’ letter, apply it to this situation.
And to the jerk who thinks firefighters just sit around and drink beer waiting for the alarm to sound, join your local fire company and see if you can make it through the basic instructional firefighting class. In NJ, that takes four months of your time. Then, add on the hazmat classes, rescue classes, incident command classes, truck company ops, engine company ops, pump ops, fire police, rehab, decontamination and the actual time fighting fires and in three or four years with the hundred or so hours of additional study and you can call yourself a firefighter.
This is an unusual occurance but has occured in the past in other jurisdictions. The courts in all cases that I am aware of have ruled that the fire department is not required to engage in a fire attack but is required to take necessary steps to preserve human life (that would be rescuing trapped homeowners). A lawsuit would be pointless and perhaps frivolous since they would be demanding a service that they had not paid for.
I think this tragedy strikes a nerve with many because it goes to the heart of what we feel as a community versus what we feel as an individual. We feel it important to emphasize individual responsibility but we also recognize that there are situations and issues we should address as a community, that are in fact best addressed as a community. It seems to me that basic police and fire protection, as well as education, are the minimums a society should be willing provide. Otherwise the actions/failures/disabilities/mistakes, etc. of adults and parents get visited upon innocent children, seniors and those unable to care for themselves. If government will not provide those basic services, what is its purpose? Do we really want a society that says go fend for yourselves no matter the situation, that would let the homes of children, and maybe the children themselves, burn for the mistakes of their parents? Someone didn’t pay a $75 fee– should the punishment really be that they should lose their home? I don’t believe that represents America. It makes no moral or economic sense. America has more sense of community, more compassion, more common purpose and common sense than this tragedy shows and what happened here is not in the American spirit. Must everything be about taxes and money? America is great because we balance the needs of individual freedom with the needs of community. Once we lose that balance, we lose America. This really s bigger than one fire, one family, one city. It’s about whether we are one America.
It was stated that two (2) dogs and a cat died in the fire. Not doing something to stop should be considered cruelty to animals.
Theses people are paying taxes to some LOCAL or STATE government and fire and police should be included in that not a separate charge. I’m tired off this CRAP from government stating that they need more money, we pay a lot in taxes, manage our money well and stop inventing extra fees. There should not be a trash, fire, or etc. fee.
By this county thinking if I have someone holding a gun to my head and I haven’t paid all my taxes I should be left be robbed or killed. I’d like to point out that half of all our taxes go into local education, should we be charging familys an education fee?
The county can handle both aspects of this situation by simply informing homeowners that if they require service and have not paid the rediculicous fire fee they will be charge for the cost of the service in it’s entirety or fined.
Again these people are paying taxes to some government agency, I must ask what the hell are our taxes for if not BASIC SERVICES. KNOCK OFF the creative add on fees.
Cruelty to animals? Oh, brother, give me a break. Are you saying it’s cruelty if a human, trained or not, decides not to risk his or her life by entering a fire-engulfed building to rescue animals? Have you ever entered a burning building? I’ll let you talk to one of my three brothers who are FDNY firefighters what it’s like. It’s heroism to risk a life to save another human life; it’s stupidity to risk a life to save an animal.
It seems to me the homeowner made several choices that increased their risk to financial loss: they failed to pay the required fee for fire protection; they failed to adequately insure their home and possessions; and they failed to exercise good judgement by burning trash too close to their home. I feel sorry this happened to them, but the fire department isn’t to blame. Plus, by the time the fire dept arrived, it’s highly likely the mobile home was fully involved and was already a total loss.
Last, how do you know these people were paying taxes? They were in a rural area and had no permanent structure on the property. I know many that empathize with our current government think the government should provide cradle to grave protection for all our wants and needs, but I believe we should provide for ourselves to the extent possible. These homeowners made choices to spend money elsewhere and to risk their home and belongings. At least the homeowner could admit this. It’s a shame all you fire department criticizers can’t have the same clear thinking.
Your argument is ridiculously to the extreme. Nobody indicated the fire dept would not have responded to save lives. You are making that assumption. I believe we should take care of ourselves to the extent of our means. That doesn’t mean we should fight our own fires. It does mean we should pay for the protection we cannot provide. There homeowners decided to spend money on an RV (in additon to their home), yet chose not to spend $75 for fire protection, or money for adequate insurance, or money for garbage collection, choosing to burn it instead. Nobody was hurt and nobody but the responsible parties are out of money.
The Chief should be fired for not helping these people. Let them pay it THAT day if necessary. What happened to people helping people. And to see they paid it in the past and honestly forgot, where’s the benefit of the doubt here? human kindness. glad I don’t live in that county.
The firemen who stood by should not be allowed near the public equipment they enjoy playing cowboy on as an excuse to drink beer with their buddies any more.
This is the “Tea Party’s” approach to public services – it takes special people though to follow through and actually stand there watching while someone’s home burns to the ground.
I can’t believe the firefighters just stood by and watched. I know they were obeying their cheif, but like D said, ‘What happened to people helping people’? I don’t think I would be able to stand by and watch a house burn. And for the truck to be there on the scene and not do anything??? The truck was already there. Why not help? It sounds from the article that the family is very humble. I hope everything turns out ok for them.
I really have no words….How anybody could watch a family’s home burn down is almost impossible to believe. I hope they run the fire chief out of town!!!
fire him only after deducting the cost of fuel, etc. from his pay. if they weren’t going to doing anything, why waste the expense to just watch it burn??? they put out a field of weeds on fire but not someone’s house. wow, amazing
Wow, this is what we’ve come down to. Simply put, this is the most ridiculous load of @#$ I’ve seen in some time. They should have put the fire out, then charged them for call, plain and simple. What if there had been a person in the house? A child? You let a house burn down and pets die over a lousy $75?
I am not a fan of the Tea Party. But, this sad story has nothing to do with them. You don’t know the political leanings of anyone mentioned in this story. Stick to the facts, genius!
Most of us reading this are in the insurance business. Some of you think the chief should be fired because his department didn’t put out the fire for a family who did not pay for fire service. Some even said they should have been allowed to pay the fire service charge the next day. What if everyone did this and the fire service had to shut down due to lack of funding? What if the family forgot to pay the homeowners premium instead? Would you expect the insurer to pay the loss and then ask for the premium after the fact? This is certainly an unfortunate event, but let’s keep things in perspective.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Forget it. Why pretend to be a Christian Nation any more. Take care of ourselves and piss on the rest. Eye for an Eye. Wall Street over Main Street. Let them eat cake. Quit complaining and get a job. Tea Party all the way, uncheck and unleashed.
AMEN brother! To prevent this, the insurance carrier should pay these fees and bill the insured for them…just like taxes. It’s unfortunate but you can’t pay for coverage after a covered event, otherwise nobody would buy it ahead of time.
I agree with Pat, too. They didn’t pay, so they didn’t get the service. No life was in danger, only property. And, the person “forgot” to pay the fee. How many insureds claim the same thing, or that they never got the bill. We know how inaccurate that is. This is a pay-in-advance service. Paying afterwards is an unsustaining method.
Why dont they take that fee out of the property taxes each year and give it to the Obion county to cover their fees. This is stupid to leave it up to the individual, it is an emergency service for heavensake. Or do they not pay property taxes in that county? They pay for some governmental service, tack it onto that.
Understanding the issue about paying for insurance after the fact, but I have firsthand knowledge of Carriers making exceptions. Our agency had an insured for 8 years with the same carrier, and when the husband suffered a heart attack and the wife overlooked the premium payment the carrier paid the claim due to the circumstances. Another case was an insured had made their payment 27 times in a 30 month timeframe after cancellation. The carrier paid the claim.
Pat- I agree with you but this is an emergency service. Everyone should have access to it, also most homeowners policies (all that I know of ) pay firefighters services. I can guarantee you the insurance company would have gladly paid to minimize the damage done to the home. Firefighter/Paramedics also serve as emergency responders to 911 medical calls..are they going to stand there and watch someone die because they didnt pay $75. Come on! I am a strict conservative but I believe that everyone deserves access to emergency services no matter what.
I thought homeowners policies have a sub limit of $500 to pay fire dept fees after a fire. I could be wrong as I write business insurance & not homeowners.
A fire is a safety hazard so it should not matter whether they paid the fee before or after the fire. This situation has no comparison to buying insurance before a fire starts especially if the fire dept could have billed the insurance company for their expense.
The Cranicks are amazing people for being so forgiving of their public servants for standing there allowing the pets to suffer & die, & watch all their memories burn to ash. I would not be so forgiving.
The fire dept had set precedent when they put out the chimney fire when the Cranicks had not paid the fee. Lawyers are going to be all over this one. The mayor should fire the fire chief.
If someone’s life was at risk, then emergency services should be provided and the cost of the service should be billed afterwards. Nothing in the article indicated this was the case, and although unfortunate, loss of the property is not an emergency. The service was not paid for and was not provided. Perhaps this insurer should require proof of payment of the annual fire service fee before renewing policies in areas like this.
If I was a subscriber to the fire service, and the the fire department fought a fire for a non-subsciber, I would file a law suit against them and undoubtedly win it. If you want the service, you pay for it. If the fire dept is fighting a non-subscriber fire when a subscriber needs them, then they are in far more trouble than if they ignore the non-subscriber. Having a warm and fuzzy attitude about it doesn’t pay the piper.
Patti – I’m not sure why you are attacking me personally. I am simply addressing this as an insurance professional. My church affiliation is really none of your business and irrelevant here, but since you asked I am an active volunteer in my church and community. If this happened in my community, I would be on the committe to try and raise funds to help this family.
This is an emergency service for goodness sakes. Everyone should be entitled to emergency service, they could have charged the people afterward. The fire department is a not for profit entity. It is not a corporation. Now the insurance company has paid out a lot more than they would have had the fire been put out, now that claim will be passed onto the other people insured by that company in the form of premiums. It’s 6 of 1 or 8 of the other..come on other people will pay for this and a lot more than $75.
Personally I would have had no objection if the Chief fought the fire, but neither of us is privy to the fire service contract or what liabilities they would open themselves up to if they did so. I know they responded to an earlier fire at the same home when a fee hadn’t been paid, but they may have been advised not to do so going forward. What if they fought the fire and someone got hurt? What if their insurer wouldn’t pay because this family wasn’t a customer?
Ok, so if you don’t pay the fee, they don’t put the fire out…but what if someone had been inside and in danger? What happens, is there a clause that allows treatment of the fire if human life is in danger? I’d always say someone is in the house if I live in that county…better to pay later and home saved.
Not sure what you meant by “What church do you not go to?”…Are you saying that only Christians are kind-hearted and willing to help others? That is the thing with some Christians…they want to act holier than thou and think they are still “good Christians”. Just because you’re Christian doesn’t mean you’re perfect, and just because you’re Christian doesn’t mean you’re better than anyone else.
By the way, I’m Christian, and my husband is an atheist. You know how we get along? We don’t judge each other. That’s what good PEOPLE do, regardless of religion.
Fire service in the county is voluntary. If you want the service, you pay $75 in advance. If you don’t want the service, you don’t pay. Everyone doesn’t want to be charged $75 by either the county or their insurer, as then it wouldn’t be their choice. Change the laws if you want, but don’t fault people who follow them. That isn’t fair.
The people who lost their home and their pets obviously understand this and accept it. They didn’t pay, therefore they didn’t get the service. In a perfect world, people would be required to make wise choices or someone would make them on their behalf. But, the facts are the facts. I’m sure the firemen felt terrible but that doesn’t change the facts.
I wonder if this fire department receives and subsidies from federal or state organizations? If so that comes from tax payer dollars which this man surely pays. Sounds like a good lawsuit to me. I would hate to be the fire fighter that allowed animals to die in that home. If it had been a person I guess they would have let them die in the fire too? Yes there is some personal responsibility here but it does not change the fact that the fire department did not do what they are sworn to do? Shame on this municipality!
first of all, they should have fought the fire because not every living thing was accounted for! just because all the humans exited out of the building what about their pets?! afterall, they are living and breathing animals and are like children to the family. how can you just sit and stare a building to flames when in fact, they said it could have been saved?! they could have easily gotten the insurance to pay the $75 fee on hindsight or even the agent probably would have spent his own money to give that to them. what if he had given them the fee at the time of the fire? would you take my credit card now?! and save my house? i can see a lawsuit going to happen over this and the firechief being fired! if they came out just to protect from a brush fire, why not have saved the house too. it would probably have cost less to save the house and repair then the actual cost of the house. i can see the county paying money out in a big way over this bad decision. what if the firechief had forgetton to pay his bill? would they say sorry charlie?! DON’T think so!
You’re dealing with feelings instead of facts. The reason we have the rule of law is to avoid people acting based on how they feel, rather than what the facts demand. Yes, it is unfortunate. It was also avoidable. The family should have paid for the service. They didn’t. Those are the facts.
From what I recall the Good Samaritan just jumped in and helped the beaten man in the ditch, gave him a room and food. It was the priest and the Levite that asked all the questions of how the man got their and then left the man to die, or burn.
Wouldn’t a better policy be that, if you do not pay the $75, we’ll put the fire out but you will be responsible for the entire cost of the operation? they could put a lien on the property to ensure payment. The insurance would probably pay for the cost of extiguishing the blaze and the firefighters would get some valuable experience. I’m guessing they don’t fight a lot of fires out that way.
If they’re anything like here, the go to a car accident or two, play a lot of XBox and shop at Publix. Then take the next three days off.
Why should a municipal Fire Departments tax payers pay for fire protection for a non-municipal resident?
Would you expect a payment from an insurance company who you hadn’t paid your premium to?
Would you expect an insurance company to let you pay your late premium after a fire and cover the loss?
I saw this on the news and on message boards and I personally think he should not only be fired but also brought up on charges. There are good Samaritan laws all over the country and I am sure this “Chief” broke whatever law TN has along these lines. I also hope the insurance company, and family sue the crap out of them.
I may not live in the town or area, but that should also say something. Look at how aweful this is making your area look! I for one will be on the look out for anyone saying they are from this area and asking if they are firemen. If they say yes, I will ask them to leave my place of business.
Seems like your comparing apples & oranges. The insurance company is a busniess entity that’s either suppose to make a profit or pay it’s owners/shareholders. They pay for losses and but don’t save lives. On the other hand the Fire Dept. saves lives and fights fires. They do little else when they aren’t. When Fire Dept’s become profit making organizations then they can lose the compassion part of their jobs.
I believe it’s you that needs a reality check. The homeowner had a choice to contract for services and chose not to, either deliberately or accidently. All HUMAN LIFE was accounted for. Regardless of how important pets are to people, you think it’s okay to risk human beings to save an animal. Firefighters risk their lives enough. I should know. I have three brothers, all FDNY, and all involved with 911.
There may be a lawsuit, but they’ll lose. These people didn’t pay taxes for fire protection, nor did they pay the required fee. Plus, you have no idea whether the home could be saved. This was a mobile home, located outside the fire district, and would likely have been a total anyway.
There aren’t any laws broken here. If the chief let them fight the fire, it’s likely that would have broken a law or ordinance. Do you even know what Good Samaritan laws are? There wasn’t any human life in danger. Good Samaritans aren’t compelled to protect property.
So why did the firefighters stay there? IN CASE the field caught on fire? How did they know it would? They should have not responded at all if these people were not on the subscription list. They are supposed to respond to a field fire…did the the field owner pay the $75? Where is that fee coming from if paid at all? The facts are, indeed, the facts, but it sure seems cold hearted.
Agree that it’s not their job to risk their lives for animals. Never should be. But if you can spray water on adjoining land/brush, you can spray it on the mobile home. Firefighters, with all due respect to your brothers, shouldn’t make judgement calls on who to help unless their own safety & security precludes it. If they did, we’d have Fire Fighters and First Responders refusing service to some drunk or accident victim who has injured themslves by their own stupidity or drunkeness.
A similar fire service billing system was used in rural North Carolina decades ago. Several homes burnt and were total losses simply because a small fire service charge was not timely paid. In todays government bureaucracy of motor vehicle registrations, motor vehicle inspections, federal taxes, state taxes, county property taxes, city taxes, fire protection fees, multiple student forms, vaccination records, health care forms, etc…it would be nice if it could be made simpler.
Finally, a smarter system prevailed. The local fire department fee (tax) is added to the county real property and personal proprety tax billings. Just because your property taxes (fire tax)aren’t paid, doesn’t mean you don’t have fire protection. The fire tax is secured against the property as a tax lien.
Additional fire taxes are often collected in property insurance premiums. Theses funds become political grants for politicans to dole out to get re-elected.
I would agree the Good Samaritan laws should prevail and the official in charge should become personally liable for his failure to act. And if some other reason for his failure to act such as a personal gudge can be identified for his failure to act, then punitive damages should be levied against him.
Here is some additional information you need to know. Firefighterclosecalls.com quotes the homeowner Gene Cranick as saying “I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,”. Sounds like this wasn’t a case of forgetting to pay but taking a chance and losing. Next, on fixfulton.org it indicates that the city commission decided more than 10 years ago that firefighters would not be allowed to respond to a fire at a non-subscriber location. This was a longstanding community policy, not something unexpected. Last, according to an ABCNEWS.com story earlier this year, Darlene Fairchild of New Castle, IN received a bill for almost $28,000 to cover the costs of her fire department’s services. If the fire department were not prevented by the rules from responding to Mr. Cranick’s house, would he be able to pay that kind of bill? If not, who would pay the bill?
From what I read, it wasn’t the responding firefighters who made the call, it was the chief. Again, no human life was in danger, just a mobile home and material possessions. The homeowner rolled the dice and lost. To their credit, they appear to be admitting it.
There is the other side. If South Fulton did not have this program of selling protection to people outside the city then more houses may have burned and nobody would blame South Fulton. This is the 2nd time the Cranick’s needed fire service and had not paid. What is a fire department to do? You can not do it without money. If you do not need to pay then nobody would. It is sad but true.
It is unbelievable to me that this so called Chief Wilds had the audacity to allow this family’s modest home to burn to the ground. It is disgusting and a blot on the good people of TN who have common sense and compassion. For the lack of $75 this fool of a chief acted like a liberal democrat who is an idiot. He should be fired, disgraced and appalled by the people of South Fulton.
Yes, you lack both decency, common sense, and the ability to show some kind of compassion. I am sure as the home owner begged for the assistance of the firemen and pleaded to pay the $75 he owed, it was refreshing to watch him suffer. Those who point to the need to provide for the expenses of the fire department overlooked this fact. The man admitted his error and asked for help and he was ignored. Horrific behaviour of the fire chief cannot be dismissed. He should be fired and his subordinates that supported this demonstration of utter disregard.
This is no different than any other financial transaction. If I am hungry and can’t pay for food, my grocer does not feed me. If I do not pay my utility bill, I am cut off. If I do not pay my insurance bill, I am cancelled. They messed up, they suffer the consequences. There is really no debate here.
I am truly sorry for their loss and not without empathy, but they could have avoided this problem.
No time to read all the posts this morning, but it seems to me the carrier should collect the fee as part of the insurance premium and pay the Fire Department. If the homeowner doesn’t have insurance, well some people just can’t be saved from themselves-you just can’t fix stupid…
If the carriers think collecting and paying FD fees is WAY to much work and would rather pay fire claims they should require proof of payment from the insured to write and then renew a policy.
What is all this about compassion? No, sorry, the fire department IS NOT a charity! If they resonded to this fire, do you think ANYONE would ever pay the fee? How about a customer that wants to buy insurance AFTER their accident? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. This country isn’t a charity. People need to stop thinking they are entitled to something for nothing, that’s not the way the world works.
Acting like a liberal dem? Are you kidding? That’s what you’re acting like – by saying they should have received services for “free”. THAT is liberal. The fire chief did what was right – set an example. If you want your house fire to be put out, PAY THE FEE. If you forget, then you’ll have to take responsibility for that.
Fulton is a city. Its tax payers pay for fire protection. I expect it costs more than $75 a year. They pay it in their tax. Fulton is in Obion County. Obion County provides NO FIRE PROTECTION. If you live in this area you are on your own. The kind people of Fulton are willing to sell you fire protection for only $75 a year. Because of this fire protection for $75 many people think why pay they will come anyway. Fulton can not do it, they do not have the money. This is the 2nd time the Cranick tried this. They where kind the 1st time but something had to be done. You can not keep abusing the people Fulton again and again. If you don’t like it you have to get your town to run it’s own fire department, pay the big bucks and stop abusing the generosity of your neighboring city. Fulton IS NOT YOUR FIRE DEPARTMENT, you have no right to expect service from them if you did not pay. Many people don’t understand that paying the $75 at the time of the fire does not work. A fire cost many thousands of dollars to put out. If you had to run the Fulton fire department you would go broke or teach people the hard lessen. This is what the hard lessen looks like.
According to the article, “The Cranicks said they also forgot to pay their fire service fee on time about three years ago. But the fire department then did not hesitate to put out a chimney fire and let them pay the fee the next day.”
I would expect the FD had also done something like this for others, and this sets up a reasonable expectation for service, along with payment after the fact for services rendered, just like an unwritten contract. The fact that the department decided to ignore THIS time breaks that unwritten contract — and is, imho, grounds for a lawsuit.
Unwritten contracts, in many states are as legally binding as written contracts. And in this case, the FD had a previously adhered to a different standard than the one established.
Was the city offering to take on the county’s fire protection on a subscription basis. This is not the first time this has happened. Won’t be the last. And what will people think when they get their records mixed up and refuse to put out a fire at a home that actually did pay? Dumb.
I am pleased Alex has realized he needs to become a volunteer firefighter in his community so he can help others.
As a Fire District in NJ, we struggle every year to keep our budget as low as possible, having the second lowest budget in the county and yet more than a third of the taxpayers are unwilling to vote for the budget. Of course, we still respond and put out fires for the State group homes, churches and other tax-exempt properties and even those that are behind in paying property taxes.
Everyone should be entitled to fire protection and it appears that it is available for a $75 per year fee. America is about freedom of choice. If their house had not burned, would there be a discussion about how they saved money in tight economic times by recognizing that the chance of a house fire in any given year is very small?
The issue here is one of personal responsibility. The government is not your parent. They are not here to keep you from making mistakes or to take care of you. You screw up, you pay the price for your mistake.
I bet the neighbors are all up to date on the service fee now!
i like the idea! more of us should volunteer at the fire department in many ways. most cities even offer training so long as you commit to a few days a month on the job. if you volunteer, then you should not have to pay for any service because you help others as well as yourself.
but when it comes to personal responsiblity, where do you see that in society today? more and more folks keeps suing for the big pockets of others, when actually they were responsible. for example, i order coffee and it’s hot! there have been several other articles in IJ that we have talked about where the folks should take their lumps because it’s the lawyer looking for money no matter who’s paying. personal responsibility is a big thing as an almost forgotten trait.
Great idea Jane. And insurance carriers could give their insureds a plaque to hang on the front of their house to show they have fire insruance and the fee was paid; we could call them firemarks.
This was tried and proved problematic. The insurance company delys slightly at policy inception and the house burns down in the interim, the policy cancels for non-payment but the notification isn’t pulled.
$75 is a reasonable charge. A bill is sent, you stroke a check, done.
Tragic as this is, I must agree with all those who are able to objectively assess this incident. The Chief should not be fired. The Township did not act unfairly. The homeowner was at fault by not making the fire protection payment a priority by making the payment on time. A society cannot survive by picking up the tab for peoples inability to take responsibility for themselves. This is a lesson in that concept. Altruism is not the way the world operates.
People need to understand there are consequences to their own failures. This wasn’t the first time the guy failed to pay on time. In addition, he was under-insured so now he’s whining about the insurance money. Why did the agent allow him to go under-insured? The system needs to be reformed. Having a “list” is a throwback to the old “fire marks” of Ben Franklin’s era. EVERYBODY should be required to pay the fee. It shouldn’t be optional. That way, everybody’s property is protected. EVERYBODY can afford $75 a year. That’s .21 cents per day to protect your largest investment.
ok, if you want to use that logic, then let the homeless be homeless and do not offer them any medical care, a night indoors during the winter, a hot meal provided by salvation army and many other things…. many homeless can succeed if they put their minds to it. many have friends and relatives that don’t want to help them but would rather ignore them. how many of them do you see stand on the corner with a sign, but if you look them over – many are clean, clean clothes and just mispelled a word on the cardboard sign? some of them claim to be a VET and should be helped by the VA. if so, then why are they on the corner? makes you wonder about the personal responsibility.
are we that uncompassionate that we can’t help a neighbor? so what if it’s after the fact, they could easily have made the $75 like they had before. or at least, have them offer time at the firehouse as community service for services rendered.
remember the fire department is not a profit business, if it were, i think we are shorting ourselves. we are missing putting a better fire fighting system in place if it was. how many smaller fire departments don’t have an up-to-date equipment?
thing we have to remember it was a family and their home, INCLUDING THEIR PETS! a life is a life not matter. if you have to cover a brush fire that can cause damage to the wildlife and the farmland and other buildings, then you can cover this.
Really !!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life. They let a family home burn because of $75.00. I think that needs to change. What if someone was in the home? Would they let them die? In light of the current state of economy, and so many Americans out of work, something needs to be done to change this. Shame on the peoople that watched their home, their life go up in smoke. Really !!! OMG !!!!
Woodkchuck: the analogy to helping out a homeless person is lost on me. These people weren’t homeless and they could afford the lousy $75.00 fee. It was THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to pay it ON TIME. Look what happened the first time they “forgot” and the dept. put out their chimney fire. They figured, what the hell, it worked then, it should work now. The fact that they were traveling and forgot is the cause of the problem. Where does covering peoples failurE to assume their own responsibility stop? The issues is always “who is going to pay?” Society shouldn’t have to compensate for individual failures. Responsible people are sick and tired of those who make mistakes and expect us to clean up their mess.
most homeless can do something about their lives and take responsibility and contribute back to society, instead try to rely on donations from the local charities from shelters to food. yet many can actually work but don’t want to! many can be taken in by relatives but they don’t want to! yet they want freedom to rely on others to assist them. but let’s foot the bill on those that are not but living in section 8 housing. how many of them can actually work but don’t because they love the free money the gov’t gives them. so, where does one own’s personal responsibilities come into play?
It’s ok not to have any personal responsibility. Look at the disasters. No flood insurance, FEMA will pay. I let my policy expire and now I have a claim, I should be able to pay late and have my claim paid. After all, as all liberals will repeat as a mantra, “it’s for the children.”
Did you even read the other 40 comments before yours? This was all addressed. All souls were safe, it was only property at risk. The fire dept charges a fee in advance. The homeowner chose not to pay it (for the second time – they had a fire before) and lost their home. It’s the insurance company that really got shafted here. Because of the homeowners negligence in failing to keep their fire protection current, they now have a total loss.
Why is it better to remove personal responsibility? Why is it better to have government involved in collecting and redistributing funds? Do we have that little faith in the individual?
I also found it interesting that this family forgot to pay in the past and got the service anyway. Could that have been incentive to forget again?
Those who comment negatively will one day have something horrible happen to them, and you will be reminded how you responded to what happened here. If they would put out the brush fire, then they should have put out the house fire. They let 3 animal lives die in that fire. Shame on anyone that would not try to do something to put out this fire. The reject who was talking about that he didn’t pay his water bill (making light of what happened to this situation) and his cat died. You are by far one of the most ignorant and self absorbed people I’ve heard. I hope they’re sued, they shouldn’t have stood by. Their neighbor’s were willing to pay their fee. These are older people paying $75, it’s like the mafia. Oh.. you want protection, you pay me, I protect you, if not, well if something happens.. oh well. Shame on everyone that is so cruel and without compassion. You wait, you’ll have your time when you’re in need and will not get it, you will be reminded of how cruel and heartless you are. There are people drinking and driving out there that HAVE car insurance, and because they have car insurance does that mean it’s ok for them to drink and drive. There can be so many debates on this. The bottom line? This fire department was in the wrong. They only saw a chance to make this family and EXAMPLE. One definition of communism is this: a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. Here we think we’re so awesome and no one at all should help someone else out. Shame on everyone that is so self involved that they couldn’t care less about the hurt someone else is feeling. I live in Tennessee and I’m totally ashamed that this sort of situation happened.
Try paragraphs Living in Tennessee. I don’t agree with your points, but it would be a lot easier to understand them if they didn’t look like one long sentence.
Kevin, you do not even make sense. When I stated that it’s communism it’s because that’s how they’re responding to it. This isn’t a car accident on the side of the road. Okay for all you ignorant sons of biscuit eaters. Let’s get something straight right freaking now. Let’s see, so say you see a child being attacked by a dog. Do you just stand there? or do you go help? The moral of this story is to HELP. Get that stupid $75 off your selfishly immature brains for 5 seconds. I don’t care if this man EVER pays the $75 the fact of the matter is that they were not responsible enough to SEE if there was EVEN a person inside. We’re not talking about FREAKING INSURANCE! Gawd get off your tripping. We’re talking about the FIRE DEPT charging an annual fee of $75. Stop putting INSURANCE in place of a annual fee. How moronic. Does anyone even remotely pay attention? This isn’t about INSURANCE good grief. So, what you careless and heartless people out there are saying is that if YOU personally SEE a human,dog or any other creature in a house, that heck yeah.. they haven’t paid their fee LET IT BURN BABY BURN… some of you are seriously in need of some SERIOUS checkups from the neckup. First this is NOT about insurance, electric, or any utility bills. This is about a FIRE and not one single one of them went to see if there was any LIFE in this house. So.. what should they have done? They first and FOREMOST should have took it upon themselves and been like ok we have to make sure there isn’t anyone in this house. So, they’ve not paid their annual bill. Okay, then let it burn since you all are so cold hearted. Remember now, there was life that could have been saved in that house, and you had grown adults acting like they couldn’t do anything for themselves. I hope they’re sued for every ounce of money that they have. Do not tell me that it’s the owners fault for the animals dying, because they weren’t even there or they would have ran into that home to save their pets. One day… ONE DAY all you people that keep judging this family will have a reality check. Why don’t you actually pay attention to what is going on instead of constantly running back to.. well if I didn’t pay my insurance, or utilities would I expect them to leave it on? Well, duh this isn’t a utlility bill. This is a fire.. TWO totally separate things, and it’s not insurance. If I see someone ground gasping for air cause they’re choking, do I just say.. Oh well, you ate that food, so choke. Good luck to every single one of you who do not have a heart, soul or a brain that you are able to LOGICALLY think.
I don’t think the insurance company would have a case. The story said the policy had an exclusion if the customer didn’t pay a fire protection subscription. If they choose to pay when the contract says they don’t have to, the fire company isn’t liable for their loss.
Aren’t you the compassionate one, too. Some of us look at this objectively and understand the homeowner made a choice, took a risk, and lost. Plus, they caused the fire through their own negligence. And you, oh compassionate one, are wishing bad fortune on us.
I love dogs; can’t stand cats and birds, though I don’t wish them dead. But I’m sick and tired of animal lovers equating the death of a pet to the death of a human being. I tell you what. I’ll have one of my FDNY brothers take you into a burning building and see how quickly you would be willing to risk your life to save an animal. Still, sometimes they do it. Way above and beyond the call of duty.
Somehow you think that it’s about the $75. It’s not. Letting someone pay for a pay-in-advance service AFTER the service only encourages others to do the same, and then you lose the service for everyone, since the provider doesn’t have the funds to survive. And shame on you for equating paid fire protection to a mafia shakedown. I suppose your insurance company is part of the Russian mob, since they won’t protect you unless you pay the premium. And of course my alarm company is strong-arming me because they want to be paid each month to monitor my home. Hmmm, why don’t I just wait until my alarm goes off to pay them?
You cite communism. What you’re espousing is socialism. You want the government to assume all responsibility for the individual. There are plenty of places you can move if that’s what you want. Thank God, the United States still has individual freedoms. But with these freedoms comes responsibility.
Unlike your unkind wishes for me and others on this forum, the only wish I have for you is you open your eyes and mind and clear the clouds from them.
But here is the problem, the fire department had ALREADY ESTABLISHED a pattern of helping people who HAD NOT paid, and ALLOWING them to pay later. This is tantamount to an unwritten contract, and gives people a REASONABLE expectation for service.
The fact that the fire chief decided after the fact NOT TO honor the unwritten contract THEY had established points to selective enforcement of a policy.
Selective enforcement of policies — especially in cases like this — are not morally or legally enforceable.
If someone decides 3 years after the establishment of an unwritten contract to change that contract — they must notify people of the change in writing, and BOTH parties must acknolwedge the change.
Unwritten contracts are established by word and deed.
Yes, the policies need to change. Yes, personal responsibility is important, HOWEVER, unwritten contracts ALSO have to be enforced. Selective enforcement leaves everyone unsure of expectations and policy implementation. THAT is the real problem that everyone seems to ignore.
Fire the chief. This is an area where the fire department is paid for in taxes by the city of Fulton but the folks living in the county have no other source of fire protection, really. Fire protection is a necessary service. Stop the stupid debate over personal responsibility and put your selves in the shoes of the Cranicks watching your memories go up in flames as well as your home. You know NOTHING about their circumstances nor their troubles nor why they really did not pay that silly bill. The idiot county should be billing on the tax bill these charges, then there is NO debate. The charge is so tiny, really, that the money is probably not the real issue………..
To those of you so big on personal responsibility, I am glad that you can foresee the future and know that you will NEVER lapse. I suppose that if you drive off the road after traveling too fast for conditions, and land in the river, you will slap aside the hand that reaches out to help you…because you are going to take personal responsibility and claw you and your family up the riverbed all by yourself. Sure, you BETCHA! I also bet you NEVER missed paying a bill in your lifetime and so therefore can afford to be so very sanctimonious.
Some of you people are just idiots. The Cranicks should have paid; they didn’t. Was the consequence really commensurate for the lack of the $75 fee?
So kind of you to fling insults at some of us. It’s amazing how rude the shelter of the internet has made some people.
You, Cassandra, don’t know all the circumstances, either. There are very, very, few homeowners that can’t afford to pay $75 for a vital service. It’s evident these people could, since they were willing to pay it at the time of the fire. They have money for an RV, to travel, and to have pets. The CHOSE not to pay the $75, CHOSE not to adequately insure their home, CHOSE to irresponsibly burn trash next to their home, CHOSE to live outside the fire protection district, and are suffering the consequences. And we’re the idiots by your definition?
Why is it the county’s responsibility to provide fire protection. Where does that responsibility end? If a person decides to live far out in a remote location, many miles from any town, who should be responsible for protecting their property? And are forgetting the homeowner pulled this stunt before – not paying for protection and having a fire?
Thank goodness election day is less than four weeks and we can start getting this mindset that others will take care of us behind us.
What in Gods name has happened to our country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How can anyone just stand there and watch a home being burnt, with possible lose of life!!!! I am just at awe!!! I am so upset, How dare you people, this has to be fixed and charges should be applied,and eye for and eye, and I strongly believe most americans feel the same way Its just NO one does anything, the government is to work for us,
Kevin, I beg to differ…you ARE an idiot…you make a ton of assumptions with no real facts…just sanctimonious liberal bashing for no apparent reason as this is not really a liberal vs. conservative issue. it is just COMMON sense and some good old compassion.
The fee is clearly not that important to the survival of the FPD or else it would be larger. If this is a mandatory fee, put it on the tax bill and stop setting people up to make an error (or the bill get lost in the mail, or blow away in the mailbox or the check get misdirected or misposted, etc).
The fire chief is an idiot and deserves to be fired as well. He drags everyone out to the scene to watch the house burn up? How stupid is that? He could have put out the house fire and spared the burning field which could have been someone’s crops. What if something was in or under that field that could have blown up? How stupid is it not to put out the fire to avoid just what happened…the spread of additional fire? Not to mention the total lack of the “milk of human kindness…” but then, I suppose he is your relative since you obviously lack that as well.
And Lisa is correct; they had precedent to expect the service since the chief disobeyed the “10 year rule” once before. So the chief is DOUBLY stupid for compounding his error.
USE common sense; if the fee is mandatory, make it mandatory on the tax bill and cut out the crap.
Sheesh. Read the article. Everyone was out of the house when the fire dept arrived. There wasn’t any danger of loss of life. This was the homeowner’s doing, not the fire dept.
Sorry Sharon, but in FL I may have a reasonable expectation the police will enforce the law, but there is no cause of action if they do not.
Unwritten contracts, except expressed verbal ones, and reasonable expectation only carry a short distance. Here, the terms were clear: Pay your fee and the fire company will respond if and when needed.
Cassandra, it is childish to call someone an idiot that you don’t know and when you clearly don’t know all of the facts here. The homeowner Gene Cranick was quoted as saying “I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,”. Sounds like this wasn’t a case of forgetting to pay but taking a chance and losing.
Next, on fixfulton.org it indicates that the city commission decided more than 10 years ago that firefighters would not be allowed to respond to a fire at a non-subscriber location. This was a longstanding community policy, not something unexpected. The Chief was following longstanding policy. If the community didn’t like the policy, they should have changed it a long time ago.
And last, while I am saddened at the loss of the animals, this family called 911 before the fire spread to their house. It sounds like they may have had time to move them to safety but didn’t do so. Someone should ask them why.
Thank you, Cassandra, for the kind words. I never mentioned liberal. But thanks for tying socialism with liberals. I knew it was there, but thanks for clarifying.
And like most liberals, when you can’t back up your record with facts, you resort to name calling.
Since you cannot have a civilized discussion, this will be my last reply to you.
If you watched the interview, the homeowner mentioned he offered to pay the full cost of the fire service (not just the $75 fee). He also did not “whine” about the insurance payout- he merely said the policy paid the amount of coverage he purchased, which wouldn’t be enough to rebuild but that they were “on the ball.”
It’s also not clear if the fire service would or would not have been able to prevent a total loss should they have chosen to respond.
What’s truly stunning however is the total lack of compassion in the American political discourse which is indisputably unprecedented in our history. As the homeowner mentioned, “people don’t think you can forget these kinds of things but sometimes you do.” He, on air, admitted his mistake and said he would live with the consequences. It seems to me this is exactly the attitude the compassionless on this board seem to demand, but they pile on him with comments like “boo hoo” and “deal with it.”
one thing to note, that the insurance company did pay off the loan of the house, knowing that it was a fire that destroyed her. interesting, because if that is the case, then why did the fire department not save the house? the insurance company would have paid for the service.
$75 although does not seem alot, but apparently was at the time of the payment required… but the county sounds like it is being served by the city, why doe the county not help with making better arrangements for emergencies like these… loss of life does matter, not matter if human or animal….
I understand public policy and all. But I just kept thinking as I read this, “the FIREFIGHTERS stood and watched the house burn down over a $75 fee?!?!” I’m sorry, but that is ridiculous. If someone (a person) had been trapped inside would they have stood by? And yes, $75 can be a lot of money, but put out the fire and then I’m sure someone will give you that money. Heck I would have donated it myself. What a sad world we live in.
Cassandra – the fee is important to the financing of the FD. True,a single $75 fee doesn’t pay for much but all the $75 fees together cover enough costs to provide protection to those who need it in a given year.
The fee is not mandatory – it is voluntary. If you want the protection, pay the fee. If you don’t pay the fee, don’t expect the protection. It’s an individual choice and with choice (or freedom) comes responsibility.
Regarding expectation of service, it may stand up in court but it’s a shame that one act of compassion legally binds you to provide a lifetime of welfare.
What if the Cranicks had just paid the fee, adequately insured their property, didn’t set a fire so close to their home, got their pets out before the fire started in the home…then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
And why does the amount of money matter? The city was providing a valuable service for a very low cost. Pay the fee, get the service. Don’t pay, protect your home yourself.
show me where they had an expectation of welfare? They were more than willing to pay for the cost of the service (not just the fee).
No one is saying they should have “just been helped” without any responsibility — but for the fire department to stand outside and watch the house burn when the family said they would cover the costs means it’s NOT about a $75 fee, or covering their costs — it’s about making the family an example.
In my opinion, this was a very poor handling of the situation.
I am no liberal… but I do have a conscience. In this case, it would have been much better to put out the fire when it was just a brush fire, and save not one house, but two in the process. The family should have been fined, and covered the cost.
And AFTER that, we can talk about changing tax policies, or whatever.
At least for me, I too respect the homeowner for accepting the consequences of his actions (failing to pay the fire fee).
If any of my comments can be interpreted as “boo hoo” or “deal with it,” they are directed at the attitude that he should get services for which he did not pay. That attitude is not his but seems to be that of many comments on this board.
After reading most of the commentaries, I have found many very good points written by the contributors on both sides of the issue.
I can appreciate the no-nonsense approach of no payment, no service as a fiscal conservative. And, as a Liberatian, I want government out of my personal life.
But government has tried to do all things, be all things and tax all things.
A few questions arose:
Who pays the fire service fee for rental property? The landlord has interest to protect his property and the tenant also needs protection.
If an severe automobile accident occurs with the at-fault party from another county, would the fire department respond to the fire without trapped individuals?
I go back to my origin statements. The fire service fee could have been levied as a tax or even attached after the loss to the property as a mechanics lien. There are multiple ways this fee could have been collected such as the mortgage escrow, fire insurance premium, included on a utility service or billed as part of the property taxes.
The basic point is this community has failed to solve its problem with collection of a fire protection fees. It would be interesting to see the collection rate and prior services rendered without collection of this fee.
This homeowner has paid a very severe penalty. It was a cruel penalty more severe than applied to an arsonist under criminal judgements.
The county residents should setup a volunteer fire department supported by a minimal fire tax billed with the county property tax. Every property owner should be required to participate.
As a benefit, the property owners would see significant reduction in their insurance premiums. An under protected fire districts premium are easily 50 percent higher than protected fire districts.
As to the homeowner being underinsured, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to see that their property is insured to replacement cost. Most insurance fire policies include a coinsurance clause with a coinsurance penalty for being underinsured.
However, the majority of insurance agents do NOT understand this clause. At a NCPIA meeting, it had a E&O continuing education course with a mock trial. Over 75 percent of the agents attending thought a total loss claim would be paid at replacement cost if the property was insured with 80 percent at the time of loss.
The insurer is only liable to pay the policy limit. Only partial losses insured within the coinsurance clause are paid at replacement cost.
Several endorsement can help protect the homeowner from being under insured such as the inflation guard endorsement, guaranteed replacement cost endorsement or a 25 percent additional coverage endorsement.
The homeowner could install a sprinkler fire suppression system for added protection for about 2% addtional construction cost.
This county needs to find a better way to serve its community. Services provided are not free. Someone has to pay. Fire protection is a basic service that local government can best serve and protect all.
Why does the county or any governmental authority need to be involved? Though maybe not perfect, there is a something in place to provide needed services. Remember, government services cost money (usually more than it should) and that money has to come from somewhere.
Fires spread. The fact that this one only destroyed one house, and damaged another is fortunate.
Brush fires can spread very rapidly — wind patterns can change quickly spewing additional fires and increasing the risk to life and limb. This started as a contained fire that got out of control… the risks there go up exponentially.
And this is a rural community. If this type of approach had been taken in an urban setting with dense housing, the results would be devastating (history shows us this, if little else).
IMO, this is a legitimate function of government. It is in the best interests of the community at large to have fire protection — if only to prevent unnecessary carnage (be it property, animal or human).
There would be no fire service in the area at all if the residents had not agreed to pay the fee. Until recently there was no fire service at all from the city. Saving human life is different and the fire and police would all have responded differently if they thought human life was in jeopardy.
Get all your facts straight people, we are talking about property only, not some humanitarian tragedy.
I think that is where the disconnect is. People like TN and Cassandra go off on emotional rants without even looking at the facts or wanting to know more. You two need to question what you are told and form logical mature opinions and not let your bleeding hearts rule your lives.
I think this is the most passionate discourse I’ve ever seen on IJ. Lots of strong opinions on opposing sides, each with a valid argument to make. Most have been civil, even when attacked. A few have resorted to name-calling. Why is it that we all feel so strongly about right and wrong here, so much so that we cannot accept that both sides have rights and faults? Surely as insurance professionals and fellow humans, we can have respect for each other’s opinions even if we aren’t in agreement. Can’t we agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable ourselves?
I will tell you why some I am name calling here: because I cannot for the life of me see how a fire department equipped and ready can stand to watch a fire burn down a house and most of the accumulated possessions of a family and refuse to do anything when it is fully in their power. Anyone that condones such behavior, especially by a governmental organization whose function, purpose and mission is to save lives and property REGARDLESS of $75 dollar fees or the humble acceptance of the homeowners, is an idiot. I cannot wrap my brain around this in any way. Hopefully, I never will because I surely will not be able to like the person that stares back at me in the mirror each morning.
But can’t you see that by resorting to name calling you say more about yourself than the people you’re calling idiots? Everyone that sees it differently from you can’t be an idiot just because you don’t agree with them. That logic isn’t worthy.
$75 a year is not that much at all! How else do you suppose the City FD is to fund themselves. If they are running calls in the County, they’d use all their yearly budget real quick if homeowners outside the city limits didn’t pay the $75, but depended on their services.The COUNTY needs to step up and fund a FD or every resident needs to fork over the $75 a year. You listen to this guy on the videos and he makes it sound like it’s all the FD’s fault, but years ago espically in the North if you didn’t pay your fire preimums then they would do the same thing. Those departments would not put out your fire, and this was a normal thing. A lot of volunteer depts do this all the time, even now. AND the homeowner’s son Assulted the City Fire Chief! “I just forgot to pay my $75,” is not acceptable, you wouldn’t forget to pay your homeowner’s insurance preimum and then expect them to pay for your properity because you “forgot to pay?” A major insurance company would be the same way the City FD was, and not recieve ANY negative publicity.
By the way, No HUMAN life was at stake, therefore no action needed. Not to sound cold, but I’m not dying for your fido! Who’s going to explain to my children that I died because your dog/ cat/ other family pet was in a burining house?
I respect their right to disagree, but for heaven’s sake, sometimes there are things that are just WRONG and STUPID. As I said, I cannot imagine having an equippped and ready FD stand around and watch someone’s home burn to the ground over a $75 fee. Again, this is REALLY beyond my comprehension. And I think it was cruel…an effort shoulod have been made.
Many of those arguing so vehemently that the homewoner deserved what he got will someday need to depend on the kindness of strangers…we all do, sooner or later in this life. I hope they remember the hard line they took with others as they reach out to the offered helping hand…
Cassandra – Of course it would have been better if there was a different policy in place in that locale, but the fact is this has been the policy for at least 10 years – don’t pay, you don’t get service. If the FD had ignored this and put out the fire, would you have stepped up to pay their mortgages if they got fired? Don’t forget, services in remote areas are just not the same as in the city or suburbs. It is simply a fact of life. Sorry but you sound like some of the people who said homeowners in New Orleans should get money to rebuild even though they didn’t buy flood insurance or even homeowners. It’s a tough thing to see someone become homeless, but sometimes it is because they made poor decisions. When that happens, they need to own up to their mistakes, as this family seems to be doing.
This is what we’ll be looking at if the Republicans get their way. They want to privatize every aspect of social services — from our school system to the postal service.
If someone breaks into your house, but you haven’t paid for the private-sector-run police service because you lost your job, you’ll just be robbed and maybe murdered.
in the original article it stated that the reason the fd responded was only because of the brush fire that might happen but was not allowed to save the house…
ok, so they sat there and watch the house burn and did not have to handle any brush fire… so did they waste time/money and energy to respond anyways? who has to pay for that? not the homeowner!! so now that we wasted all this valuable resources to sit, why not have used it to save property as the code of any true fire department and that includes lives of any living thing (PETS!) afterall, how many times have we heard the fd get called for a cat in the tree?
if someone breaks into my home and i am not there but i see lights on in the house, am i calling the PD? YES! will they respond? YES! will they enter the property and secure it and take the robber/burglar into custody? YES! so why do we do differently to the FD and a fire to property?
and for those folks think that pets don’t count, don’t run over my cat or dog, because i will sue for my losses….
The difference is that in this locality there is no FD service. The FD is from the nearby city, not the county outside the city where this house was situated. This homeowner did not pay taxes for fire protection and did not pay the required fee to get the city’s FD protection.
Police services are likely provided by county or state officials. If you live in the burbs, you don’t call the city PD. You also don’t call a private security company which you have not subscribed to.
Being involved in a number of fires with animals inside, they most likely died from smoke prior to the fire ever getting to them.
Doesn’t really make you feel any better…just a fact.
As far as the incident…reports state that the home was a double wide trailer. Anyone that knows anything about trailer fires..they burn quick and are usually not saved. So Mr. Cranick called 911 and they denied service (at this time it was a fire in his yard). So when did the FD get to the scene once contacted by the neighbor who paid for the service? How much of the Cranicks house was on fire? From reports, the house was already on fire once the fire department arrived for the neighbor. I never saw a trailer saved once it was on fire. They are so economically built and with so much plastic there is really no saving them.
Then there is the question of the pets. Some reports I read state that the fire burned in the yard for about 2 hours from the time Cranick called 911 to the time it got to the house. You couldn’t get the animals out in that time. Say it was only 15 minutes…you are saying they couldn’t get them out?
As far as the subscription service. There are a lot more of these then people mention. For insurance purposes…this is a step above of not having a fire department as they are usually more then 5 miles away and water has to be hauled.
Why I do feel for these people, how do you forget to pay a fee to protect your house. They were called and sent a letter by the city and rejected both requests.
I also agree there is a better way to handle this. Fire departments cost a lot of money to maintain. Where is that money going to come from to start a new one in this area or make the city’s department larger to protect a poriton of the county. Myself, I live in a township with a decent fire department with 5 stations. The local city is trying to annex the poriton of the township where we live and this was put on last years ballot. I choose to vote against it as I didn’t want to pay the city’s taxes. Now I made a decision and if our fire department goes down hill, I have no one to blame but myself.
Finally, with all of the back and forth name calling. People who understand the pay to play and defend it are not cold hearted. They are looking at it from a technical stance. Those who look at this from a compassionate side, I understand that too. People don’t normally want bad things to happen to people…except if they are really really bad people… This is not a Republican, Democrat or Tea Party thing…. This was a system put in place by this city and the local county residents…you want service pay us. If you opt not to pay us we can assume you do not want our service and management our budget accordingly.
One more thought … the FD was on site to protect against a potential brush fire which is part of their duty to the city as that could spread and impact the city.
Sir, I respectfully take issue with your broad-brush attacks. There are some areas that are definitely government domain, and others that are not.
While I would definitely argue in favor of government services which protect and enforce laws, and protect the general welfare of the people in more specific ways, that does not mean the government has a responsibility to care for everyone from cradle-to-grave.
There is no one-size fits all here, and I think the argument of public good can definitely be made for fire protection — not so much for tax-payer funded pornography, and other things.
Oh, right, I forgot. Government has been doing such a great job running things. And let’s not forget how great our schools are doing. Thanks for reminding us.
Let’s see. Between my three brothers in the FDNY, they have over 50 years experience. They’ve never been called to save a cat from a tree and they haven’t sworn an oath to risk their lives to save pets. Regardless how valuable a pet is to its owner, it’s not worth risking a human life to save it.
Your PD argument doesn’t work. You’re paying taxes for police protection, so they respond. No where did it say if human lives were in peril the fire dept would have stood by.
Kevin, I agree. My dad was also FDNY and I understand first hand the dangers (he was disabled after a roof collapsed on him in a fire). To others, let’s not forget that the South Fulton FD is not obligated to even offer this service outside the city limits. If this wasn’t a pay option and the same thing happened, would you still expect them to go put out this fire?
Yes. Because they set up a precedence of doing it before. There was no other fire at the time, preventing them from acting here. If the precedence had been different (in other words, they had always let homes burn regardless before), I would argue no. But this situation is akin to the fire chief flipping a coin and saying… “tails, you lose.”
I am shocked and truly dissapointed by the comments of many so called insurance professionals. If we gave away coverage to everyone for free there would be no industry. I am so tired of everyone spending my money.
I do not want to pay to rebuild your home along the mississippi. I don’t want to subsidize your premium for your coastal home. I do not want to pay for your fire protection.
Grow up and stop putting your hand out.
Hey, JC…guess what…we DO all pay for the coastal home, we DO all pay for the flooding on the Mississippi if not in subsidies to NFIP, in the portion of our taxes that go to FEMA and most assuredly when our premiums increase to cover the assessments of the underfunded state pools, artificially depressed for political reasons. And we will ALWAYS pay for that because the states (and citizens within them) most often calling for less government and personal responsibility and states rights ALWAYS have their hands out for fed money, or BP money, or want to expand coverage that we ALL pay for rebuilding the same homes over and over and over because they are built to close to the sea…As well as the demographic fact that most of our population lives close to the coast…a fact of life and a fact that affects our society and where our tax monies go. this is not going to change. Look at the demographics……
And ANYWAY, this is NOT an issue of INSURANCE but governmental service NOT rendered by a department charged with saving life and property by their very existence. There is no one else, apparently, to provide this service except the Fulton FD. This is a necessary service. Since no one can really fight fires on their own, the county is totally ingenuous in not making those who must pay Fulton City ALL pay and on a tax bill, as other entities do most often. But to applaud this FPD for standing there doing nothing while someone’s home and hearth burned is sheer idiocy. What if someone actually had been in the house….were they going to watch that burn, too…over a $75 fee??? that the homeowner had paid in the past probably for years…since the article states they had lived in the home for 21 years and had also missed paying once before and the FD did put out the fire?
Get serious.
Kevin, we ALL support the brave fire fighters; that is not the issue and never was. Yes, out here where I live, firement DO go in to fires to save pets and animals. They even have special oxygen masks for pets…and I live in a semi rural area with a volunteer FPD…that I pay for on my tax bill. Yes, they DO come and get cats out of trees. But in life or death situation, I would not want to endanger a fireman to save a cat or dog. THAT is not what we are arguing about here.
JC if this makes me a bleeding heart because these folks who had lived there for years and had paid the fee prior were never given the benefit of the doubt by the fire chief, then I will BLEED away, any day, any time.
We don’t live in a perfect world. People make mistakes. They take risks which are foolish.
Many have argued, why should my tax dollars go to pay for someone who didn’t pay. It is a good point.
A few have been very unprofessional.
The argument could be made for the following:
1. Why should my tax dollars go to provide food to the people of New Orleans that failed to leave or prepare for a disaster?
2. Why should my tax dollars go to rescue a mountain climber?
3. Why should my tax dollars go to save a sinking yacht or a milllion dollar beach house?
4. Why should my tax dollars go to pay for abortions?
5. Why should my tax dollars go to subsidize slum lords (welfare capitlaize)?
6. Why should my tax dollars be used to develop a third world country?
As a business person, I spend numerous hours assisting insurance, real estate, tax payers, etc which may lead to a sell of a product or service.
Every organization including government is in the business of solving the customer’s problem. Whether its an insurance company accepting the financial exposure being transfered by a client; a school system educating our children; the Federal government defending our freedoms or the pizza delivery person bring pizza, your business is to solve the customer’s problem. When you fail to do this basic function, you’re out of business.
Most of the comments are really not directed toward this irresponsible homeowner or to the callus Fire Chief. The basic frustration is simply, I tired of being my brother’s keeper. I have carried him, provided for him and he still won’t carry his load! And, he is bankrupting me.
so we in our right minds think it’s ok not to save a house that puts a roof over somebody’s head. provides protection from the elements. the children have a home to grow up in.
according to the article, the firefighters said that the house could have been saved. they were out there only because of a possible brush fire. so, if you already are on the scene, you could have spared the house from total destruction.
so we sat there and watch the house burn. did we sit and have smores? what a waste of time!
are you going to tell me that this subscriber fee applies to emt services? police services? what happen to the creed of protecting your neighbor. back in the old days, there would have been a bucket brigade.
granted this happen to folks before, but with today’s economy would it not have been better served to have saved their house? here’s what is interesting – think about this – if the insurance paid off the loan on the house because of the fire, then why did the insurance folks not pay for fire services that could have been rendered? it probably would have paid, if there was a possible loss of human life because they would have had to fight the fire.
so they were caught in a conundrum. but when you stop and think about it, would not compassion have played the better choice? i think this should be a lesson for the county, to provide better protection and possibly include a fee in some form of property tax. afterall, $75 is an easy cost versus $28,000 or more.
now think, if the fire chief’s house was on fire and he had not paid the fee – what do you think that answer would be? fight the fire or just let it burn?
Yes, from a “technical” standpoint, one can argue that the fire department was within their “right” to not help the family.
But, more than one person was willing and able to pay the actual costs of the service — meaning they were more than willing to “pay to play.” At this point, if the issue was merely money, the money offered would have covered the costs to put out the brush fire before it consumed a house.
Mistakes happen… and I would wager I’ll make more of them as my brain becomes more addled as I age. Forgetfulness runs in my family.
I only hope, that should I need the mercy and grace of people who are in a position to assist, they will.
The city has assisted this family, and I would guess others in the past — on a pay to play basis, after the fact. What makes this situatio unique is that instead of accepting payment for services rendered, the family was made an example, most likely to “scare” other families into paying in advance.
That makes it more of a moral issue than a legal one.
If one has agreed to accept payment after the fact in the past, for services rendered *and there has been no stipulation made that this is a one time deal,* I can see why people (more than one here, not just the family — but the family’s neighbors also had the same impression) would expect that the same type of service would be available again.
I don’t know why the family couldn’t get the animals out in time. I do know they were trying like mad to put the fire out and prevent it from reaching the house. Perhaps by the time they realized that (a) the fire was going to get the house regardless it was too late to enter, or (b) maybe they thought their animals were outside already, and didn’t realize it until it was too late (out here in the country we have lots of indoor/outdoor pets, so I could see someone not realizing the cats/dogs were still inside), or (c) maybe each person thought someone else had gotten them out.
Regardless, the animals died, and the opinion of most people that in this case, pay-to-play (or pay to spray) wasn’t the only story — as the family and their neighbors were more than willing AND able to pay $5,000-$10,000+ to get the fire out.
Money was definitely not the issue. Making this family an example, however does appear to be one.
First – pay the fire service
Second – buy enough insurance
If someone chooses to do neither then let them live with the consequences. Life is hard sometimes.
Lastly – Wudchuck – you’re an idiot
First let me say once again that I feel for these people.
They orginally called the fire department to report their fire and have them come out. In the fire department’s eyes, the Cranicks were not located in an area where they fight fires. (It would be like me calling a neighboring fire department to respond to my fire….they just aren’t coming. I need to call MY fire department…in this case Mr. Cranick did not have a fire department.) Pay the 75 bucks and then you’re in their area.
Where people really seemed to be worked up is that the fire department was on the scene (at some point for the neighbor) but just stood there and watched the fire. By all videos that I could find, the house was pretty much gone when the fire department was there. Would water have put out the flames…sure…but it wasn’t saving anything…contents or structure.
The last time the fire department put out fires for someone that had not paid, according to Mr. Cranick was three years ago. Could it be that at some point in those three years something changed with the city’s policy.
I agree and disagree, this was about the $75 in regards to if you no pay… we no spray. There has to be a better way, but rules were followed by all involved and the outcome was foreseeable by all….well maybe not the national attention.
Dasfuk….love your comments and agree 100%. Based on the bleeding heart comments, it appears most are coming from the younger generation that doesn’t understand personal responsibility or accountability. What the hell, excuse everyone’s mistakes; somebody else will clean up their mess. I wasn’t raised that way. This nation is becoming jello. It no longer stands for anything and has no backbone. Self-reliance is a memory. Nice work kids.
Young and shaking my head at Eli. Age discrimination works both ways, pal. You have no idea how old the people posting on here are. What a silly assumption!
I see this story from both sides, but I would rather be considered a “bleeding heart” than heartless.
ok, first of all, i am not of the younger generation…
secondly, what happen to human kindness? or compassion? if it was my house or your own house, don’t you think it would be nice to save it? in the wild, wild west, we would have had a fire brigade with everyone pitching in to put the fire out.
third – if the insurance (as per the article) paid off the home and it was loss due to a fire, why then could the fire department not have save the house and sent the insurance company a bill?
fourth — there was a loss of life. and yes, saving a pet is saving a life. if not, then why are we so much into criminal activity when we don’t take care of our animals? so, do we file criminal lawsuit against the city and it’s fire department for allowing the animals to die without an attempt to save the house and the pets?
i can see this going a long way into a court battle and a lawyer raking up some good $$$$ into his pocket…
haha… fun to be called part of the “younger generation.” That hasn’t happened in a long time.
No. I’m all for personal responsibility, but there is a lot more to this story than simply “he didn’t pay, so there.”
FACT: The Fire Department had a history of providing service REGARDLESS of pre-payment. (something everyone who is screaming he didn’t pay, so what ignores).
FACT: The County also, apparently had, a back-up charge of $500 paid per rural call for fire service.
It was NOT unreasonable based on prior FD history (not just one occurrence, but several in just this neighborhood alone), for someone to expect this service to continue to be available in the future. This was not a stupid assumption, but one based upon FACTS.
FACT: The County KNEW their contracting/subscription county service was a problem. They voted in 1987 to have a County Fire Department. They haven’t funded it.
FACT: The County was presented with a funding proposal in 2008, but the county commissioners stuck their fingers in their ears and refused to even consider it. They acknowledged the system didn’t work, but refused to take any measures to fix it.
FACT: 75% of the fires in the county are in unincorporated areas. The counties were not paying the cities what they had agreed. Most likely, the cities were getting fed up of footing the bill.
The city apparently said, “enough is enough” — and apparently without making a big deal about it — decided to go with the written policy and after 20 years to the contrary refuse to service homes who had not pre-paid.
This made this family the poster-child for the problems that the county knew about, but refused to fix.
This situation has made countless other fire departments in similar arrangements mad at the fire department who refused.
While I can give a bit of slack to a city that was trying to address a problem the county government refused to deal with — the city bears part of the blame for developing a history of helping and taking payment later — creating what became a “detrimental reliance” on services that seem to have been abruptly cut off.
There are fingers to point in every direction. Hopefully the county will finally step up and fund their fire department.
Fires — represent a clear and present danger in a community. Fires spread, as this one did. Fire services are not something that should be provided for as protection for the community at large.
Opps….you forgot this is a government run fire department. As much as you want this (like all liberals) to be someone elses fault, its only his. Listen to his other interviews on MSNBC. He forgot to pay 3 years ago and he found out after his fire. This old guy is crocked and you know it. He was trying to get out of paying 75 freaking dollars. Valuable lesson to you and all the other Obama fans. IT IS HIS FAULT. HE GOT A BILL HE DIDN’T PAY. NO COVERAGE!
I bet the revenue for the VOLUNTEER fire department goes through the roof this next year. I am sure the same volunteer firefighters who showed up with marshmellows, really appreciate all of this press.
Lets look at this, The reason for the mandate for health insurance is that liberals will not buy health insurance. By far more democrats are uninsured than republicans. The reason why this guy did not pay the $75. is that he knew that they would come and why should he pay. just like the liberal who shows up at the emergency room knowing that they have to treat him. I say stop treating him and maybe he will buy health insurance.
It is too funny to watch liberals all upset when they dont pay for something and not recieve it.
As difficult as this situation was, the property owners knew in advance they had to pay the fee in order to get service. This is like what some people will do under the new Healthcare fiasco. They will wait until they get sick and then get Health Insurance because they know they won’t be turned down. These people thought they could get away with not paying and the Fire Dept would still come out and fight the fire. Until this country returns to personal responsibility and accountability, these types of situations will continue to happen.
I have not read all the posts yet. I am about halfway through. Some of you stated since these people had a fire before, not paid the fee and still got service, there was a prcedent. Ever consider that they had been told, possibly in writing, that a second failure to pay the fee would result in absolutely no fire protection.
I have not read all the posts yet. I am about halfway through. Some of you stated since these people had a fire before, not paid the fee and still got service, there was a prcedent. Ever consider that they had been told, possibly in writing, that a second failure to pay the fee would result in absolutely no fire protection.
This fits right in with the Republican World View; Pay up Or Burn!
Over the top? NO. Many Repugs have come out in FAVOR of such a screwed up policy. Do we care so little for our fellow man now that we let his property burn?
Republicans; government for the rich, by the rich, for the large corporate interest. Only.
How has this degenerated into a tirade against the Republicans? World View? How about advocating personal responsibility and accountability for all citizens? If we have to buy HO, Auto Insurance as part of our responsibility and we choose to live in an area protected by a VFD in a modular/mobile home, it seems to me that we would be responsible enough to pay a nominal fee for protection. These VFD’s have to have some revenue or they can’t respond to fires on the customers that do pay the charges. Get a life Adjustor.
Your view of Republicans has clearly been established by the very liberal news media. The ten wealthiest residence in my county are Democrats. The largest land owner is a Democrat.
The Republican party in my county is controlled by small business owners.
Was it Democrats or Republican county commissions who failed to fund the county volunteer fire department or both? I believe this topic has brought out the frustrations of good people who see individuals and our government not being responsible for themselves and solving our important problems.
The real questions to be answered are should the fire service been provided, had a precendent been set by the city’s prior actions, are there a better ways to collect the fire service fee, does the lack of fire service prevent economic development, does the home owner policy include a fire service fee, and is the homeowner policy enforceable?
The policy may not be enforceable since there was a known hazard the client failed to act upon.
To merely paint this situation as a Republican or Democratic failure is simply childish. It demonstates the inability of a person to be responsible for protecting his property and his local leaders failure to do what it right for its citizens.
How sad,
We will not help our brother in need over $75 and their name not on a list.
Times may be hard,you do not have to be hard.
We are all children of God, so help your brother.
How sad, Carolyn, that you don’t realize this isn’t a story about compassion, it’s a story about personal freedom and choice. The family CHOSE to live in a remote location without fire protection; the family CHOSE to not pay the required fee (they had the $75); the family CHOSE not to carry adequate insurance; the family CHOSE to burn trash (was the even legal?) close to their home; the family CHOSE not to check on the pets until it was too late. In addition, refreshingly, the family CHOSE to accept responsibility for their action and inaction.
There are some that say the fee should be added to the property tax bill. I’d say that’s probably a good idea in urban and suburban areas where protection for all is important. In rural areas, where it’s only on home that’s affected, that should be a choice of the property owner, as is a choice to carry insurance.
Let remember, the homeowners made conscious choices, suffered consequences because of them, and accepts the outcome. This has nothing to do with not being compassionate. Stop the bleeding heart rhetoric about helping our brothers. The Cranicks chose not to help themselves; why, then, should we be obligated?
After reading most of the posts on this story, I am inclined to agree with Kevin. Most of these posts show how divided we are as a country. This country used to be about individual freedom and responsibility. Bleeding heart liberal Progressives seem to think everything should be given to them. In this case, a homeowner chose not to be responsible, was negligent in his actions and expected to get a service he was not entitled to because he didn’t subscribe to his fee that he had known about for many years. This should be a wake up call for citizens that responsibility and accountability are important and society shouldn’t have to pay for mistakes people make in their personal business.
Kevin is right. We try to tell people to raise the coverage on their house and what do they say? “I do not want to do that. I have enough coverage. You just want more money out of me.” Well, I bet they wished they had taken responsibility and paid the $75. And, I bet they wish they had taken the agent’s advice to raise their coverage. Too late.
Cranick was an idiot and is now paying the price. If a man is living out in the middle of nowhere in a modular/mobile home with no hydrants and does nothing to protect himself by paying his FD fee,didn’t buy proper coverage for the home, then burns trash next to his home which started the house fire, I think he acted very irresponsibly and it is no wonder he had a bad outcome in this situation. Even Cassandra might agree with this.
Thank you, Gwen. I have a pretty thick skin, so didn’t take offense to your posts. It’s great to be able to have dialogues with people from all over that you would normally never cross paths.
It’s kind of chicken and the egg scenario. So many people look to government for assistance and there are less friends, family, church, community to help than there had been. Is government filling the role of the others, or have the others stopped assisting because government’s involved? I don’t know the answer to that. I do know that when people relied on others in times of need, they worked to get themselves out of their despair, and repaid the kindness when they could. Now, with government entitlements, people don’t work to improve their lot, and continue to expect more and more from the gov’t. And government continues to expand these social programs under the guise of helping those in need. Rather than helping, though, they continue to make citizens dependent on the government and little incentive is provided to end the dependence. It’s sad that this happens, and it’s robbing the will of generations of dependents.
Kevin and the rest of you are correct that the person didn’t pay the required fee and could have prevented all this. It is also correct to say someone has to be hard hearted to watch a home burn down while fireman were right there and could have put it out but instead watched it burn. Since you are all full of your righteous personal accountability I sure hope none of you even need even an ounce of compassion from someone someday or better yet I hope you run into someone just like you who won’t help anyone who needed it despite their poor choices. You are right about the choices made but others are right too for wanting to help a human being in need.
The Fire Dept could have put out the fire and charged a response fee to the guy. They could charge him $1,000 for their trouble and then he would think the $75 he didn’t pay twice would be a bargain. This guy was given every chance to be responsible and didn’t take it. I have a hard time feeling sorry for him.
It amazes me that some on this board are feeling more sorry about this than the homeowner. The Cranicks know they screwed up and accept the consequences.
When do we stop making up for the poor choices that others make? I’m tired of bailing out people who are too lazy, too stubborn, too selfish, or too stupid to take care of themselves. Nobody was in danger here. It was a matter of not protecting someone’s property because that person chose not to protect it themselves. Why is that my responsibility? I didn’t make these bad choices. In America, we’re moving to providing everything for everyone. Enough already. I have a pretty good life – nice home, some luxuries, etc. But nobody gave them to me. My wife and I worked our butts off for them, and still do. I don’t ask for help from anyone. I take care of myself. Why do I have to make sure so and so doesn’t lose their home to foreclosure. Buy what you can afford. The banks didn’t make you buy the house. I could be living in an even nicer house and be driving nicer cars. But we made the choice not to buy anything we couldn’t afford even if one of us lost our job. Yet, I’m supposed to pay for my neighbors’ homes because they weren’t as responsible. Baloney. Many of the same people in foreclosure still have cell phones, cable TV, nice cars, etc, and still get to keep them even when bailed out. What about personal sacrifice? Guess what, sometimes life gets hard. Sometimes things get really bad. But it’s not the end of the world. The strong pick themselves up and lift themselves out of the despair. The weak and lazy stay down crying “woe is me” and talk about the rich as if success is evil. It’s very sad that so many have become so wimpy.
I have compassion for my fellow man, but not when they’ve caused their problems. That’s just not my problem, and I don’t apologize for it. And don’t try to lay a guilt trip on me, it won’t work.
Well said Kevin. These bleeding heart bloggers think everyone should be rescued from all situations no matter how stupid or irresponsible they are or how many chances they were afforded to do the right thing. When you don’t show some personal responsibility for your actions or inactions, you deserve what you get. The government has been taking the American People towards total dependency for some time with all the give a way programs. Whatever tragedy that happens is always someone else’s fault. In this case, it was the HO’s fault and he is living with the consequences.
If you don’t like the way America is going, please feel free to move. Nobody is forcing you to stay here and “bail out” all of your fellow citizens. Maybe a communist country would be more up your alley, or perhaps a country that is so poor and famined, there is no organized government to force you to pay money towards anything, because money is non-existant. But don’t waste your time on here b!*ching about it. If you are so passionate, send letters to your congress representative, governor, etc. CHANGE STARTS WITH YOU! :)
Hey, never said I wasn’t for people being responsible for their own actions. You just take stuff to extreme examples. You are right that this family is taking responsibility. It is more to the point that the fire department was there watching it burn down and did nothing. If your home were on fire and I was your neighbor I would help as much as I could regardless of how the fire started or what you paid or didn’t. You wouldn’t have asked for my help but I would offer it. Maybe your own stupidity started said fire and if so I am not supposed to help because you deserved it for being stupid? I don’t want to bail out the world, bought a house I could afford too. I just couldn’t watch something like this happen and not do something to help. I still believe there can be a balance between not wanting to bail out the world and letting someones house and pets burn up while I stand there. I would not feel sorry for the guy who didn’t pay the $75 but I would also try to put out the fire. Balance. You can think anyway you want but that doesn’t mean either of us are wrong for our beliefs. I for one sure don’t expect you to feel any guilt. Believe and think what you want.
I suppose we, as a society should purchase HOBT’s for all the poor unfortunate apartment dwellers who invariably do not have insurance when there is a fire. Most of these people apparently can’t afford a $150 policy for their belongings, but they have flat screen TV’s and beer in the refrigerator at all times. News reports all the time state the people lost all their belongings in the fire and didn’t have insurance. These people are irresponsible as in this case.
What the hell are you talking about, Gwen? Let’s look at what the American government forced us to do this year to bail out people and unions:
1. Took over GM and made my GM stock worthless, while protecting the unions.
2. Made us finance the purchase of cars for others by offering tax-payer financed rebates, while at the same time required the destruction of perfectly good used cars.
3. Made us finance the purchase of appliances by offering rebates financed by taxpayers.
4. Made us finance the purchase of homes by offering, yes, you guessed it, taxpayer-financed rebates.
5. Screwed the bondholders of Chrysler by forcing them to take less than they were entitled and giving the benefit to the unions.
6. Do we even want to get into Obamacare?
These are just a few of the outlandish policies of our current Socialist government. I, unlike our leaders, think America is the greatest country of the world. And I am doing something about getting the country back. For the first time in my life, I’ve contributed to the campaigns of Conservatives all over the country. In fifteen days, if things go right, we should be able to restore a government that believes in the constitution, smaller government, lower taxes, and, yes, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
So, Gwen, sit back with the other bleeding hearts, feel sorry for all that’ wrong in your life, and think about how that hope and change is working out.
This wasn’t the first time this family tried to get away with not paying the fire fee. They had a previous fire, they hadn’t paid the fee, and the fire department put the fire out, allowing them to pay the next day. This time, they weren’t going to bail these people out. A fire department isn’t a charity. Nobody was in danger, only loss of property. I agree with the fire department.
Wow, Conservative. How ignorant for you to assume that all “apartment dwellers” that do not have renter’s insurance have large, flat screen TVs and fridges stocked with beer. You know the saying, about what happens when we assume? It makes an *** out of you and me, but in this case, it’s just you that looks like an ***. You are very lucky to have no struggles in life whatsoever, but there are people out there that genuinely have been dealt a bad hand, and are doing everything in their power just to make it from day to day.
I have a friend who just lost her house becasue she got laid off a year ago, has not been able to find a new job, and this is mainly because of health issues she has. She is 29. She has been undergoing surgeries for a medical condition that is extremely rare since she was 17. Luckily this disease has not totally crippled her, but it has impeded her ability to work.
The funny thing is, she isn’t getting any help from the state, her mortgage company, etc., and she has tried. So to think that all people that are having it rough get help from YOUR paycheck, you are desperately incorrect.
I’m just glad that I am well enough to work full time, earn the money that I earn, and have some compassion for people who truly are in a bad situation not brought on by themselves. I try not to judge and assume, as some others posting here do.
Kevin, my life is wonderful. That is why I like to help those less fortunate whenever possible. I contribute to the United Way, to Animal Shelters, to underprivileged women so they can receive mammograms, and many disease-related charities. You, my friend, come off sounding very selfish and greedy.
I am thankful to not be in a situation where I need assistance from the government. I also pray every day that I will never be in the situation to need government assistance. You really never know. Things could change drastically in an instant.
The funny thing is, I agree 100% that they should have paid the $75 fee. I also feel it should be made mandatory, because some people do and will not take personal responsibility. The family in this article (except the son, who punched the fire cheif in the face) are accepting responsibility for not paying the fee and their trailer home subsequently burning to the ground. Good for them.
It is simply a question of morals and ethics that is being debated here. It was a tough situation, I’m sure. The firefighters probably did want to put out the fire, but were not able to due to the residents not paying the fee. It’s basically a bad situation all around, and there are valid points on both sides of the fence. But this has turned into way more than the article at hand. It has jumped all the way into political madness.
There will always be many opinions on ANY subject put out to the public. People (and this is not necessarily directed at you, Kevin) need to learn that it will always be this way and accept it.
I’m glad your life is wonderful, Gwen, I really am. I wish everyone’s life was wonderful. Fact is, that’s not the case. There are many stories of hardship. Some tug at my heart; others don’t. Those that do generally involve unforeseen circumstances that affect life and health. Material losses don’t bother me as much, especially when those material losses could have been protected.
We all have definitions of what’s greedy and what’s selfish. To some, anyone that has more than them must be greedy and selfish. You don’t have any idea what I give to charities, and I choose to keep that private. Suffice to say I donate, including blood and I’m on the bone marrow registry. These things are more valuable than money.
Why is that we need to look to government if we need assistance? That was never the case before. Community, family, friends, and church was the only assistance and support we needed. Then, primarily in the twentieth century, government decided they needed to take care of us. It’s amazing we survived all those years without government handouts. This continual spoonfeeding has made us weak. I’ve been an insurance agent for 33 years. The most difficult product to sell is disability insurance, yet a person is 8x more likely to become disabled before 65 than die. Why, then, doesn’t everyone carry this insurance? Social Security is one reason. Why buy coverage when the gov’t will take care of you? Social Security, through changes and amendments, morphed into a far more encompassing program than originally designed. I carry disability insurance, live a lifestyle that enables me to survive if I became disabled, and to weather unemployment. My wife lost her job last year. Instead of milking unemployment, she got a part-time job. She has friends that tell her she’s crazy to work when she could get unemployment. Some of them rejoice when the benefits get extended, and don’t actively seek work. It’s not in my or my wife’s nature to live off others when we can provide for ourselves. Our life is impacted by her job loss (she did make a very good income) and adjusted to her much lower income. But since we never lived beyond our means and saved money “just in case”, we’re able to keep our home and other things.
I don’t believe this is a question of morals and ethics. I’ve never once questioned morality or ethics in these dialogues, though I, and others that agree with me, have been labled as greedy, selfish, uncompassionate, etc. And I’m not sure the firefighters lost sleep over it. There have been countless times that clients have suffered losses and did not have coverage. I feel a little badly, but then remember the choice not to have the coverage was their’s. If they bought the coverage, they’d be covered. Since they didn’t, they’re not. I’m not happy they suffered the loss, and wish they hadn’t, just like the firefighters, I’m sure, wished the Cranicks home hadn’t caught fire. But I doubt they lost sleep, either. It wasn’t their fault, it was the Cranicks’ fault.
Like you said, Gwen, there will always be opposing viewpoints on most subjects. But when I think some viewpoints and actions are harmful (like our current government), I’m not going to accept it. I’m going to try and change it.
First, I’m very sorry to hear about your wife losing her job. Secondly, I completely understand/agree with your first paragraph. Thirdly, I apologize for name calling. I do not know you except from your posts on this website. I’m sure you are a very nice person, and I did not mean to call into play whether or not you donate money to charities or any other worthy causes. I was more so trying to make a point.
When I said my life is wonderful, I did not mean it is without troubles. While I am not a rich person monetarily, compared to others less fortunate than me, I may be considered to be.
The Cranicks were not necessarily less fortunate. I do not know their money situation. As I said in my previous post, I agree 100% that they should have paid the $75 when it was due, or at the very least, if they could not, for some reason, afford the $75, contacted the county and asked if there was a payment plan they could get on, etc. Basically, they should have at least made ANY attempt to pay.
To quote you, you posed the question “Why is that we need to look to government if we need assistance? That was never the case before. Community, family, friends, and church was the only assistance and support we needed.” Unfortunately, that system has broken down in the past few decades, and I don’t necessarily think it has anything to do with government involvement. It has to do with people’s changing attitudes and looking out for one’s self and own interests. This is not to say that everybody is selfish and only cares about themselves. There are plenty of people out there willing to help. Sadly, you also have people that don’t have the resources you mentioned above available to them.
To quote you again, “And I’m not sure the firefighters lost sleep over it. There have been countless times that clients have suffered losses and did not have coverage. I feel a little badly, but then remember the choice not to have the coverage was their’s. If they bought the coverage, they’d be covered. Since they didn’t, they’re not. I’m not happy they suffered the loss, and wish they hadn’t, just like the firefighters, I’m sure, wished the Cranicks home hadn’t caught fire. But I doubt they lost sleep, either. It wasn’t their fault, it was the Cranicks’ fault.” You state that you do feel a little badly, but then move on, because you know it is not your fault they didn’t choose to have the coverage to begin with.
Kevin, that is all I wanted to hear from you! In your other posts, you come off sounding like a heartless person who could care less. I now know that you do care, just in a very logical way. I feel the same way. You feel bad for people that they lost whatever, but at the same time you know it’s because of their own accord.
Gwen, I am glad you finally saw the light and stopped attacking Kevin for his views. There are many community organizations in most cities and towns to help the unfortunate in our society without resorting to the government for everything. My church helps many poor people down on their luck. United Way, Salvation Army and others also help. Somehow, this country needs to return to the idea of people helping people. The American people are the most generous on earth. Hopefully, you agree that we shouldn’t have 41.8 million people on food stamps. This is an indictment on our government putting Progressive policies in place to make people dependent on government. If we had a government which promoted and encouraged the free enterprise system, we would have much less unemployment and fewer people on the dole. 11-2 is a start to return to the proper role of government.
Note to Observer: I was never attacking Kevin for his opinions; I very much believe in everybody’s right to their opinion. What I was criticizing was his seeming lack of any compassion at all. I understand his views better now that he has said he does have sympathy/empathy for the people losing their home and belongings; and I agree with his view that you can feel bad for people, but at the same time realize that they brought it on themselves. I believe in both taking responsibility for one’s own actions, and also helping fellow mankind whenever possible. I agree with you that there should be less people on government assistance programs. I just hope the economy/government does change for the better.
Wow David, I thought this article and postings died a natural death in October. Were you on a world cruise or just catching up before Christmas break? You are right that this entitlement crowd wants the government to handle everything. Beware of the government employee who shows up and says “I am from the government and I am here to help”. They have an ulterior motive.
This is an insurance publication so rather than address this as a thirty year veteran and past fire chief; I will address this as a thirty year veteran of the insurance industry.
“Hello Mr/Ms Insurance Agent, my house is on fire so I need some fire insurance…”
I have actually had people come to my office to buy auto insurance because the police officer was waiting at the accident scene for them to come back with an insurance ID card. They did not buy insurance from me but I see from the comments that most of you would have sold them a policy because you want to be compassionate.
The deal was, pay $75 get fire service, don’t pay and you get nothing. This is a pretty simple concept. If you could pay the fee once the fire started, why would you pay it before? Nobody would pay and there wouldn’t be any fire service for anybody.
Even if one of your clients forgot to pay their insurance, the company would reinstate only with a ‘no loss’ letter, apply it to this situation.
And to the jerk who thinks firefighters just sit around and drink beer waiting for the alarm to sound, join your local fire company and see if you can make it through the basic instructional firefighting class. In NJ, that takes four months of your time. Then, add on the hazmat classes, rescue classes, incident command classes, truck company ops, engine company ops, pump ops, fire police, rehab, decontamination and the actual time fighting fires and in three or four years with the hundred or so hours of additional study and you can call yourself a firefighter.
Laura,
This is an unusual occurance but has occured in the past in other jurisdictions. The courts in all cases that I am aware of have ruled that the fire department is not required to engage in a fire attack but is required to take necessary steps to preserve human life (that would be rescuing trapped homeowners). A lawsuit would be pointless and perhaps frivolous since they would be demanding a service that they had not paid for.
I think this tragedy strikes a nerve with many because it goes to the heart of what we feel as a community versus what we feel as an individual. We feel it important to emphasize individual responsibility but we also recognize that there are situations and issues we should address as a community, that are in fact best addressed as a community. It seems to me that basic police and fire protection, as well as education, are the minimums a society should be willing provide. Otherwise the actions/failures/disabilities/mistakes, etc. of adults and parents get visited upon innocent children, seniors and those unable to care for themselves. If government will not provide those basic services, what is its purpose? Do we really want a society that says go fend for yourselves no matter the situation, that would let the homes of children, and maybe the children themselves, burn for the mistakes of their parents? Someone didn’t pay a $75 fee– should the punishment really be that they should lose their home? I don’t believe that represents America. It makes no moral or economic sense. America has more sense of community, more compassion, more common purpose and common sense than this tragedy shows and what happened here is not in the American spirit. Must everything be about taxes and money? America is great because we balance the needs of individual freedom with the needs of community. Once we lose that balance, we lose America. This really s bigger than one fire, one family, one city. It’s about whether we are one America.
It was stated that two (2) dogs and a cat died in the fire. Not doing something to stop should be considered cruelty to animals.
Theses people are paying taxes to some LOCAL or STATE government and fire and police should be included in that not a separate charge. I’m tired off this CRAP from government stating that they need more money, we pay a lot in taxes, manage our money well and stop inventing extra fees. There should not be a trash, fire, or etc. fee.
By this county thinking if I have someone holding a gun to my head and I haven’t paid all my taxes I should be left be robbed or killed. I’d like to point out that half of all our taxes go into local education, should we be charging familys an education fee?
The county can handle both aspects of this situation by simply informing homeowners that if they require service and have not paid the rediculicous fire fee they will be charge for the cost of the service in it’s entirety or fined.
Again these people are paying taxes to some government agency, I must ask what the hell are our taxes for if not BASIC SERVICES. KNOCK OFF the creative add on fees.
Cruelty to animals? Oh, brother, give me a break. Are you saying it’s cruelty if a human, trained or not, decides not to risk his or her life by entering a fire-engulfed building to rescue animals? Have you ever entered a burning building? I’ll let you talk to one of my three brothers who are FDNY firefighters what it’s like. It’s heroism to risk a life to save another human life; it’s stupidity to risk a life to save an animal.
It seems to me the homeowner made several choices that increased their risk to financial loss: they failed to pay the required fee for fire protection; they failed to adequately insure their home and possessions; and they failed to exercise good judgement by burning trash too close to their home. I feel sorry this happened to them, but the fire department isn’t to blame. Plus, by the time the fire dept arrived, it’s highly likely the mobile home was fully involved and was already a total loss.
Last, how do you know these people were paying taxes? They were in a rural area and had no permanent structure on the property. I know many that empathize with our current government think the government should provide cradle to grave protection for all our wants and needs, but I believe we should provide for ourselves to the extent possible. These homeowners made choices to spend money elsewhere and to risk their home and belongings. At least the homeowner could admit this. It’s a shame all you fire department criticizers can’t have the same clear thinking.
Your argument is ridiculously to the extreme. Nobody indicated the fire dept would not have responded to save lives. You are making that assumption. I believe we should take care of ourselves to the extent of our means. That doesn’t mean we should fight our own fires. It does mean we should pay for the protection we cannot provide. There homeowners decided to spend money on an RV (in additon to their home), yet chose not to spend $75 for fire protection, or money for adequate insurance, or money for garbage collection, choosing to burn it instead. Nobody was hurt and nobody but the responsible parties are out of money.
The Chief should be fired for not helping these people. Let them pay it THAT day if necessary. What happened to people helping people. And to see they paid it in the past and honestly forgot, where’s the benefit of the doubt here? human kindness. glad I don’t live in that county.
I am suggesting to South Fulton Mayor David Crocker, that Obion County should change its town motto to:
“Obion County, where compassion cost $75.00 a month.”
I have written the mayor an E-Mail and I am posing it in the comments about the town.
The firemen who stood by should not be allowed near the public equipment they enjoy playing cowboy on as an excuse to drink beer with their buddies any more.
This is the “Tea Party’s” approach to public services – it takes special people though to follow through and actually stand there watching while someone’s home burns to the ground.
I can’t believe the firefighters just stood by and watched. I know they were obeying their cheif, but like D said, ‘What happened to people helping people’? I don’t think I would be able to stand by and watch a house burn. And for the truck to be there on the scene and not do anything??? The truck was already there. Why not help? It sounds from the article that the family is very humble. I hope everything turns out ok for them.
I really have no words….How anybody could watch a family’s home burn down is almost impossible to believe. I hope they run the fire chief out of town!!!
fire him only after deducting the cost of fuel, etc. from his pay. if they weren’t going to doing anything, why waste the expense to just watch it burn??? they put out a field of weeds on fire but not someone’s house. wow, amazing
Wow, this is what we’ve come down to. Simply put, this is the most ridiculous load of @#$ I’ve seen in some time. They should have put the fire out, then charged them for call, plain and simple. What if there had been a person in the house? A child? You let a house burn down and pets die over a lousy $75?
I am not a fan of the Tea Party. But, this sad story has nothing to do with them. You don’t know the political leanings of anyone mentioned in this story. Stick to the facts, genius!
Most of us reading this are in the insurance business. Some of you think the chief should be fired because his department didn’t put out the fire for a family who did not pay for fire service. Some even said they should have been allowed to pay the fire service charge the next day. What if everyone did this and the fire service had to shut down due to lack of funding? What if the family forgot to pay the homeowners premium instead? Would you expect the insurer to pay the loss and then ask for the premium after the fact? This is certainly an unfortunate event, but let’s keep things in perspective.
I totally agree with Pat. But why didn’t the fire department send out reminder notices to everyone that had paid in the past and didn’t renew?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Forget it. Why pretend to be a Christian Nation any more. Take care of ourselves and piss on the rest. Eye for an Eye. Wall Street over Main Street. Let them eat cake. Quit complaining and get a job. Tea Party all the way, uncheck and unleashed.
AMEN brother! To prevent this, the insurance carrier should pay these fees and bill the insured for them…just like taxes. It’s unfortunate but you can’t pay for coverage after a covered event, otherwise nobody would buy it ahead of time.
I agree with Pat, too. They didn’t pay, so they didn’t get the service. No life was in danger, only property. And, the person “forgot” to pay the fee. How many insureds claim the same thing, or that they never got the bill. We know how inaccurate that is. This is a pay-in-advance service. Paying afterwards is an unsustaining method.
I run across idiots everyday but none quite as stupid as you.
Why dont they take that fee out of the property taxes each year and give it to the Obion county to cover their fees. This is stupid to leave it up to the individual, it is an emergency service for heavensake. Or do they not pay property taxes in that county? They pay for some governmental service, tack it onto that.
Well, guess it doesn’t matter now… if you can’t pay, then burn.
Reminds me of a line from a book I once read “…and the worm unable to find any more victims, began to consume itself…”
Understanding the issue about paying for insurance after the fact, but I have firsthand knowledge of Carriers making exceptions. Our agency had an insured for 8 years with the same carrier, and when the husband suffered a heart attack and the wife overlooked the premium payment the carrier paid the claim due to the circumstances. Another case was an insured had made their payment 27 times in a 30 month timeframe after cancellation. The carrier paid the claim.
Pat- I agree with you but this is an emergency service. Everyone should have access to it, also most homeowners policies (all that I know of ) pay firefighters services. I can guarantee you the insurance company would have gladly paid to minimize the damage done to the home. Firefighter/Paramedics also serve as emergency responders to 911 medical calls..are they going to stand there and watch someone die because they didnt pay $75. Come on! I am a strict conservative but I believe that everyone deserves access to emergency services no matter what.
I thought homeowners policies have a sub limit of $500 to pay fire dept fees after a fire. I could be wrong as I write business insurance & not homeowners.
A fire is a safety hazard so it should not matter whether they paid the fee before or after the fire. This situation has no comparison to buying insurance before a fire starts especially if the fire dept could have billed the insurance company for their expense.
The Cranicks are amazing people for being so forgiving of their public servants for standing there allowing the pets to suffer & die, & watch all their memories burn to ash. I would not be so forgiving.
The fire dept had set precedent when they put out the chimney fire when the Cranicks had not paid the fee. Lawyers are going to be all over this one. The mayor should fire the fire chief.
If someone’s life was at risk, then emergency services should be provided and the cost of the service should be billed afterwards. Nothing in the article indicated this was the case, and although unfortunate, loss of the property is not an emergency. The service was not paid for and was not provided. Perhaps this insurer should require proof of payment of the annual fire service fee before renewing policies in areas like this.
If I was a subscriber to the fire service, and the the fire department fought a fire for a non-subsciber, I would file a law suit against them and undoubtedly win it. If you want the service, you pay for it. If the fire dept is fighting a non-subscriber fire when a subscriber needs them, then they are in far more trouble than if they ignore the non-subscriber. Having a warm and fuzzy attitude about it doesn’t pay the piper.
That’s an excellent idea, Pat. Or, the insurance company should include the fee in their homeowners premium and send the fee to the fire department.
Pat,
You’re a hard ***, and probably that perfect person I have heard is out there. Glad to know you exist for the rest of us.
P.S. What church do you not go to?
Patti – I’m not sure why you are attacking me personally. I am simply addressing this as an insurance professional. My church affiliation is really none of your business and irrelevant here, but since you asked I am an active volunteer in my church and community. If this happened in my community, I would be on the committe to try and raise funds to help this family.
Good, would you forgive the Fire Chief if he had put out the fire?
wouldn’t need a fund raiser if the fire department had done it’s job.
This is an emergency service for goodness sakes. Everyone should be entitled to emergency service, they could have charged the people afterward. The fire department is a not for profit entity. It is not a corporation. Now the insurance company has paid out a lot more than they would have had the fire been put out, now that claim will be passed onto the other people insured by that company in the form of premiums. It’s 6 of 1 or 8 of the other..come on other people will pay for this and a lot more than $75.
Personally I would have had no objection if the Chief fought the fire, but neither of us is privy to the fire service contract or what liabilities they would open themselves up to if they did so. I know they responded to an earlier fire at the same home when a fee hadn’t been paid, but they may have been advised not to do so going forward. What if they fought the fire and someone got hurt? What if their insurer wouldn’t pay because this family wasn’t a customer?
Ok, so if you don’t pay the fee, they don’t put the fire out…but what if someone had been inside and in danger? What happens, is there a clause that allows treatment of the fire if human life is in danger? I’d always say someone is in the house if I live in that county…better to pay later and home saved.
Patti,
Not sure what you meant by “What church do you not go to?”…Are you saying that only Christians are kind-hearted and willing to help others? That is the thing with some Christians…they want to act holier than thou and think they are still “good Christians”. Just because you’re Christian doesn’t mean you’re perfect, and just because you’re Christian doesn’t mean you’re better than anyone else.
By the way, I’m Christian, and my husband is an atheist. You know how we get along? We don’t judge each other. That’s what good PEOPLE do, regardless of religion.
Fire service in the county is voluntary. If you want the service, you pay $75 in advance. If you don’t want the service, you don’t pay. Everyone doesn’t want to be charged $75 by either the county or their insurer, as then it wouldn’t be their choice. Change the laws if you want, but don’t fault people who follow them. That isn’t fair.
The people who lost their home and their pets obviously understand this and accept it. They didn’t pay, therefore they didn’t get the service. In a perfect world, people would be required to make wise choices or someone would make them on their behalf. But, the facts are the facts. I’m sure the firemen felt terrible but that doesn’t change the facts.
I wonder if this fire department receives and subsidies from federal or state organizations? If so that comes from tax payer dollars which this man surely pays. Sounds like a good lawsuit to me. I would hate to be the fire fighter that allowed animals to die in that home. If it had been a person I guess they would have let them die in the fire too? Yes there is some personal responsibility here but it does not change the fact that the fire department did not do what they are sworn to do? Shame on this municipality!
Who’s doing the judging? Who said i was a Christian? I’m Jewish…
Go back and start reading from the beginning. Pat’s first statement.
first of all, they should have fought the fire because not every living thing was accounted for! just because all the humans exited out of the building what about their pets?! afterall, they are living and breathing animals and are like children to the family. how can you just sit and stare a building to flames when in fact, they said it could have been saved?! they could have easily gotten the insurance to pay the $75 fee on hindsight or even the agent probably would have spent his own money to give that to them. what if he had given them the fee at the time of the fire? would you take my credit card now?! and save my house? i can see a lawsuit going to happen over this and the firechief being fired! if they came out just to protect from a brush fire, why not have saved the house too. it would probably have cost less to save the house and repair then the actual cost of the house. i can see the county paying money out in a big way over this bad decision. what if the firechief had forgetton to pay his bill? would they say sorry charlie?! DON’T think so!
You’re dealing with feelings instead of facts. The reason we have the rule of law is to avoid people acting based on how they feel, rather than what the facts demand. Yes, it is unfortunate. It was also avoidable. The family should have paid for the service. They didn’t. Those are the facts.
Pat,
From what I recall the Good Samaritan just jumped in and helped the beaten man in the ditch, gave him a room and food. It was the priest and the Levite that asked all the questions of how the man got their and then left the man to die, or burn.
I don’t see any lawsuits coming out of this. These are people that basically move on, you can tell by the story.
Actually, it’s more of a novelty than that. They are apparently people who accept the consequences of their choices. How rare!
Wouldn’t a better policy be that, if you do not pay the $75, we’ll put the fire out but you will be responsible for the entire cost of the operation? they could put a lien on the property to ensure payment. The insurance would probably pay for the cost of extiguishing the blaze and the firefighters would get some valuable experience. I’m guessing they don’t fight a lot of fires out that way.
If they’re anything like here, the go to a car accident or two, play a lot of XBox and shop at Publix. Then take the next three days off.
Why should a municipal Fire Departments tax payers pay for fire protection for a non-municipal resident?
Would you expect a payment from an insurance company who you hadn’t paid your premium to?
Would you expect an insurance company to let you pay your late premium after a fire and cover the loss?
Get real people!!
I saw this on the news and on message boards and I personally think he should not only be fired but also brought up on charges. There are good Samaritan laws all over the country and I am sure this “Chief” broke whatever law TN has along these lines. I also hope the insurance company, and family sue the crap out of them.
I may not live in the town or area, but that should also say something. Look at how aweful this is making your area look! I for one will be on the look out for anyone saying they are from this area and asking if they are firemen. If they say yes, I will ask them to leave my place of business.
Seems like your comparing apples & oranges. The insurance company is a busniess entity that’s either suppose to make a profit or pay it’s owners/shareholders. They pay for losses and but don’t save lives. On the other hand the Fire Dept. saves lives and fights fires. They do little else when they aren’t. When Fire Dept’s become profit making organizations then they can lose the compassion part of their jobs.
I believe it’s you that needs a reality check. The homeowner had a choice to contract for services and chose not to, either deliberately or accidently. All HUMAN LIFE was accounted for. Regardless of how important pets are to people, you think it’s okay to risk human beings to save an animal. Firefighters risk their lives enough. I should know. I have three brothers, all FDNY, and all involved with 911.
There may be a lawsuit, but they’ll lose. These people didn’t pay taxes for fire protection, nor did they pay the required fee. Plus, you have no idea whether the home could be saved. This was a mobile home, located outside the fire district, and would likely have been a total anyway.
There aren’t any laws broken here. If the chief let them fight the fire, it’s likely that would have broken a law or ordinance. Do you even know what Good Samaritan laws are? There wasn’t any human life in danger. Good Samaritans aren’t compelled to protect property.
So why did the firefighters stay there? IN CASE the field caught on fire? How did they know it would? They should have not responded at all if these people were not on the subscription list. They are supposed to respond to a field fire…did the the field owner pay the $75? Where is that fee coming from if paid at all? The facts are, indeed, the facts, but it sure seems cold hearted.
Agree that it’s not their job to risk their lives for animals. Never should be. But if you can spray water on adjoining land/brush, you can spray it on the mobile home. Firefighters, with all due respect to your brothers, shouldn’t make judgement calls on who to help unless their own safety & security precludes it. If they did, we’d have Fire Fighters and First Responders refusing service to some drunk or accident victim who has injured themslves by their own stupidity or drunkeness.
A similar fire service billing system was used in rural North Carolina decades ago. Several homes burnt and were total losses simply because a small fire service charge was not timely paid. In todays government bureaucracy of motor vehicle registrations, motor vehicle inspections, federal taxes, state taxes, county property taxes, city taxes, fire protection fees, multiple student forms, vaccination records, health care forms, etc…it would be nice if it could be made simpler.
Finally, a smarter system prevailed. The local fire department fee (tax) is added to the county real property and personal proprety tax billings. Just because your property taxes (fire tax)aren’t paid, doesn’t mean you don’t have fire protection. The fire tax is secured against the property as a tax lien.
Additional fire taxes are often collected in property insurance premiums. Theses funds become political grants for politicans to dole out to get re-elected.
I would agree the Good Samaritan laws should prevail and the official in charge should become personally liable for his failure to act. And if some other reason for his failure to act such as a personal gudge can be identified for his failure to act, then punitive damages should be levied against him.
Here is some additional information you need to know. Firefighterclosecalls.com quotes the homeowner Gene Cranick as saying “I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,”. Sounds like this wasn’t a case of forgetting to pay but taking a chance and losing. Next, on fixfulton.org it indicates that the city commission decided more than 10 years ago that firefighters would not be allowed to respond to a fire at a non-subscriber location. This was a longstanding community policy, not something unexpected. Last, according to an ABCNEWS.com story earlier this year, Darlene Fairchild of New Castle, IN received a bill for almost $28,000 to cover the costs of her fire department’s services. If the fire department were not prevented by the rules from responding to Mr. Cranick’s house, would he be able to pay that kind of bill? If not, who would pay the bill?
From what I read, it wasn’t the responding firefighters who made the call, it was the chief. Again, no human life was in danger, just a mobile home and material possessions. The homeowner rolled the dice and lost. To their credit, they appear to be admitting it.
There is the other side. If South Fulton did not have this program of selling protection to people outside the city then more houses may have burned and nobody would blame South Fulton. This is the 2nd time the Cranick’s needed fire service and had not paid. What is a fire department to do? You can not do it without money. If you do not need to pay then nobody would. It is sad but true.
Next time this happens, call 911 report the fire but speak in spanish! Should not have a problem with them responding and putting out any fire.
It is unbelievable to me that this so called Chief Wilds had the audacity to allow this family’s modest home to burn to the ground. It is disgusting and a blot on the good people of TN who have common sense and compassion. For the lack of $75 this fool of a chief acted like a liberal democrat who is an idiot. He should be fired, disgraced and appalled by the people of South Fulton.
Yes, you lack both decency, common sense, and the ability to show some kind of compassion. I am sure as the home owner begged for the assistance of the firemen and pleaded to pay the $75 he owed, it was refreshing to watch him suffer. Those who point to the need to provide for the expenses of the fire department overlooked this fact. The man admitted his error and asked for help and he was ignored. Horrific behaviour of the fire chief cannot be dismissed. He should be fired and his subordinates that supported this demonstration of utter disregard.
This is no different than any other financial transaction. If I am hungry and can’t pay for food, my grocer does not feed me. If I do not pay my utility bill, I am cut off. If I do not pay my insurance bill, I am cancelled. They messed up, they suffer the consequences. There is really no debate here.
I am truly sorry for their loss and not without empathy, but they could have avoided this problem.
It’s the “liberal democRATS” fees and taxes on everything that is to blame.
No time to read all the posts this morning, but it seems to me the carrier should collect the fee as part of the insurance premium and pay the Fire Department. If the homeowner doesn’t have insurance, well some people just can’t be saved from themselves-you just can’t fix stupid…
If the carriers think collecting and paying FD fees is WAY to much work and would rather pay fire claims they should require proof of payment from the insured to write and then renew a policy.
What is all this about compassion? No, sorry, the fire department IS NOT a charity! If they resonded to this fire, do you think ANYONE would ever pay the fee? How about a customer that wants to buy insurance AFTER their accident? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. This country isn’t a charity. People need to stop thinking they are entitled to something for nothing, that’s not the way the world works.
Acting like a liberal dem? Are you kidding? That’s what you’re acting like – by saying they should have received services for “free”. THAT is liberal. The fire chief did what was right – set an example. If you want your house fire to be put out, PAY THE FEE. If you forget, then you’ll have to take responsibility for that.
Fulton is a city. Its tax payers pay for fire protection. I expect it costs more than $75 a year. They pay it in their tax. Fulton is in Obion County. Obion County provides NO FIRE PROTECTION. If you live in this area you are on your own. The kind people of Fulton are willing to sell you fire protection for only $75 a year. Because of this fire protection for $75 many people think why pay they will come anyway. Fulton can not do it, they do not have the money. This is the 2nd time the Cranick tried this. They where kind the 1st time but something had to be done. You can not keep abusing the people Fulton again and again. If you don’t like it you have to get your town to run it’s own fire department, pay the big bucks and stop abusing the generosity of your neighboring city. Fulton IS NOT YOUR FIRE DEPARTMENT, you have no right to expect service from them if you did not pay. Many people don’t understand that paying the $75 at the time of the fire does not work. A fire cost many thousands of dollars to put out. If you had to run the Fulton fire department you would go broke or teach people the hard lessen. This is what the hard lessen looks like.
According to the article, “The Cranicks said they also forgot to pay their fire service fee on time about three years ago. But the fire department then did not hesitate to put out a chimney fire and let them pay the fee the next day.”
I would expect the FD had also done something like this for others, and this sets up a reasonable expectation for service, along with payment after the fact for services rendered, just like an unwritten contract. The fact that the department decided to ignore THIS time breaks that unwritten contract — and is, imho, grounds for a lawsuit.
Unwritten contracts, in many states are as legally binding as written contracts. And in this case, the FD had a previously adhered to a different standard than the one established.
Was the city offering to take on the county’s fire protection on a subscription basis. This is not the first time this has happened. Won’t be the last. And what will people think when they get their records mixed up and refuse to put out a fire at a home that actually did pay? Dumb.
I am pleased Alex has realized he needs to become a volunteer firefighter in his community so he can help others.
As a Fire District in NJ, we struggle every year to keep our budget as low as possible, having the second lowest budget in the county and yet more than a third of the taxpayers are unwilling to vote for the budget. Of course, we still respond and put out fires for the State group homes, churches and other tax-exempt properties and even those that are behind in paying property taxes.
Everyone should be entitled to fire protection and it appears that it is available for a $75 per year fee. America is about freedom of choice. If their house had not burned, would there be a discussion about how they saved money in tight economic times by recognizing that the chance of a house fire in any given year is very small?
The issue here is one of personal responsibility. The government is not your parent. They are not here to keep you from making mistakes or to take care of you. You screw up, you pay the price for your mistake.
I bet the neighbors are all up to date on the service fee now!
i like the idea! more of us should volunteer at the fire department in many ways. most cities even offer training so long as you commit to a few days a month on the job. if you volunteer, then you should not have to pay for any service because you help others as well as yourself.
but when it comes to personal responsiblity, where do you see that in society today? more and more folks keeps suing for the big pockets of others, when actually they were responsible. for example, i order coffee and it’s hot! there have been several other articles in IJ that we have talked about where the folks should take their lumps because it’s the lawyer looking for money no matter who’s paying. personal responsibility is a big thing as an almost forgotten trait.
Great idea Jane. And insurance carriers could give their insureds a plaque to hang on the front of their house to show they have fire insruance and the fee was paid; we could call them firemarks.
This was tried and proved problematic. The insurance company delys slightly at policy inception and the house burns down in the interim, the policy cancels for non-payment but the notification isn’t pulled.
$75 is a reasonable charge. A bill is sent, you stroke a check, done.
Tragic as this is, I must agree with all those who are able to objectively assess this incident. The Chief should not be fired. The Township did not act unfairly. The homeowner was at fault by not making the fire protection payment a priority by making the payment on time. A society cannot survive by picking up the tab for peoples inability to take responsibility for themselves. This is a lesson in that concept. Altruism is not the way the world operates.
People need to understand there are consequences to their own failures. This wasn’t the first time the guy failed to pay on time. In addition, he was under-insured so now he’s whining about the insurance money. Why did the agent allow him to go under-insured? The system needs to be reformed. Having a “list” is a throwback to the old “fire marks” of Ben Franklin’s era. EVERYBODY should be required to pay the fee. It shouldn’t be optional. That way, everybody’s property is protected. EVERYBODY can afford $75 a year. That’s .21 cents per day to protect your largest investment.
ok, if you want to use that logic, then let the homeless be homeless and do not offer them any medical care, a night indoors during the winter, a hot meal provided by salvation army and many other things…. many homeless can succeed if they put their minds to it. many have friends and relatives that don’t want to help them but would rather ignore them. how many of them do you see stand on the corner with a sign, but if you look them over – many are clean, clean clothes and just mispelled a word on the cardboard sign? some of them claim to be a VET and should be helped by the VA. if so, then why are they on the corner? makes you wonder about the personal responsibility.
are we that uncompassionate that we can’t help a neighbor? so what if it’s after the fact, they could easily have made the $75 like they had before. or at least, have them offer time at the firehouse as community service for services rendered.
remember the fire department is not a profit business, if it were, i think we are shorting ourselves. we are missing putting a better fire fighting system in place if it was. how many smaller fire departments don’t have an up-to-date equipment?
thing we have to remember it was a family and their home, INCLUDING THEIR PETS! a life is a life not matter. if you have to cover a brush fire that can cause damage to the wildlife and the farmland and other buildings, then you can cover this.
Really !!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life. They let a family home burn because of $75.00. I think that needs to change. What if someone was in the home? Would they let them die? In light of the current state of economy, and so many Americans out of work, something needs to be done to change this. Shame on the peoople that watched their home, their life go up in smoke. Really !!! OMG !!!!
Woodkchuck: the analogy to helping out a homeless person is lost on me. These people weren’t homeless and they could afford the lousy $75.00 fee. It was THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to pay it ON TIME. Look what happened the first time they “forgot” and the dept. put out their chimney fire. They figured, what the hell, it worked then, it should work now. The fact that they were traveling and forgot is the cause of the problem. Where does covering peoples failurE to assume their own responsibility stop? The issues is always “who is going to pay?” Society shouldn’t have to compensate for individual failures. Responsible people are sick and tired of those who make mistakes and expect us to clean up their mess.
i guess, ed, you have not figured everything out…
most homeless can do something about their lives and take responsibility and contribute back to society, instead try to rely on donations from the local charities from shelters to food. yet many can actually work but don’t want to! many can be taken in by relatives but they don’t want to! yet they want freedom to rely on others to assist them. but let’s foot the bill on those that are not but living in section 8 housing. how many of them can actually work but don’t because they love the free money the gov’t gives them. so, where does one own’s personal responsibilities come into play?
It’s ok not to have any personal responsibility. Look at the disasters. No flood insurance, FEMA will pay. I let my policy expire and now I have a claim, I should be able to pay late and have my claim paid. After all, as all liberals will repeat as a mantra, “it’s for the children.”
Hey gang..
I haven’t paid my water bill in a while. I called the city and they gave me an extention but I decided to pay my cell phone bill instead.
Today, after several times calling, they refuse to turn on my water.
Everyone in my home has become very “parched” as of late… infact my cat died yesterday.
(RIP Mr. Snugglesworth. His thirst for life was never quenched.)
City should’ve turned my water back on instead of sitting there doing nothing. The city is insensitive, cruel to animals, and my community is selfish.
Infact, now that I think about it – my life insurance company should pay my water bill.
Am I right or am I right? Who is with me?
Did you even read the other 40 comments before yours? This was all addressed. All souls were safe, it was only property at risk. The fire dept charges a fee in advance. The homeowner chose not to pay it (for the second time – they had a fire before) and lost their home. It’s the insurance company that really got shafted here. Because of the homeowners negligence in failing to keep their fire protection current, they now have a total loss.
Why is it better to remove personal responsibility? Why is it better to have government involved in collecting and redistributing funds? Do we have that little faith in the individual?
I also found it interesting that this family forgot to pay in the past and got the service anyway. Could that have been incentive to forget again?
Those who comment negatively will one day have something horrible happen to them, and you will be reminded how you responded to what happened here. If they would put out the brush fire, then they should have put out the house fire. They let 3 animal lives die in that fire. Shame on anyone that would not try to do something to put out this fire. The reject who was talking about that he didn’t pay his water bill (making light of what happened to this situation) and his cat died. You are by far one of the most ignorant and self absorbed people I’ve heard. I hope they’re sued, they shouldn’t have stood by. Their neighbor’s were willing to pay their fee. These are older people paying $75, it’s like the mafia. Oh.. you want protection, you pay me, I protect you, if not, well if something happens.. oh well. Shame on everyone that is so cruel and without compassion. You wait, you’ll have your time when you’re in need and will not get it, you will be reminded of how cruel and heartless you are. There are people drinking and driving out there that HAVE car insurance, and because they have car insurance does that mean it’s ok for them to drink and drive. There can be so many debates on this. The bottom line? This fire department was in the wrong. They only saw a chance to make this family and EXAMPLE. One definition of communism is this: a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. Here we think we’re so awesome and no one at all should help someone else out. Shame on everyone that is so self involved that they couldn’t care less about the hurt someone else is feeling. I live in Tennessee and I’m totally ashamed that this sort of situation happened.
Try paragraphs Living in Tennessee. I don’t agree with your points, but it would be a lot easier to understand them if they didn’t look like one long sentence.
Kevin, you do not even make sense. When I stated that it’s communism it’s because that’s how they’re responding to it. This isn’t a car accident on the side of the road. Okay for all you ignorant sons of biscuit eaters. Let’s get something straight right freaking now. Let’s see, so say you see a child being attacked by a dog. Do you just stand there? or do you go help? The moral of this story is to HELP. Get that stupid $75 off your selfishly immature brains for 5 seconds. I don’t care if this man EVER pays the $75 the fact of the matter is that they were not responsible enough to SEE if there was EVEN a person inside. We’re not talking about FREAKING INSURANCE! Gawd get off your tripping. We’re talking about the FIRE DEPT charging an annual fee of $75. Stop putting INSURANCE in place of a annual fee. How moronic. Does anyone even remotely pay attention? This isn’t about INSURANCE good grief. So, what you careless and heartless people out there are saying is that if YOU personally SEE a human,dog or any other creature in a house, that heck yeah.. they haven’t paid their fee LET IT BURN BABY BURN… some of you are seriously in need of some SERIOUS checkups from the neckup. First this is NOT about insurance, electric, or any utility bills. This is about a FIRE and not one single one of them went to see if there was any LIFE in this house. So.. what should they have done? They first and FOREMOST should have took it upon themselves and been like ok we have to make sure there isn’t anyone in this house. So, they’ve not paid their annual bill. Okay, then let it burn since you all are so cold hearted. Remember now, there was life that could have been saved in that house, and you had grown adults acting like they couldn’t do anything for themselves. I hope they’re sued for every ounce of money that they have. Do not tell me that it’s the owners fault for the animals dying, because they weren’t even there or they would have ran into that home to save their pets. One day… ONE DAY all you people that keep judging this family will have a reality check. Why don’t you actually pay attention to what is going on instead of constantly running back to.. well if I didn’t pay my insurance, or utilities would I expect them to leave it on? Well, duh this isn’t a utlility bill. This is a fire.. TWO totally separate things, and it’s not insurance. If I see someone ground gasping for air cause they’re choking, do I just say.. Oh well, you ate that food, so choke. Good luck to every single one of you who do not have a heart, soul or a brain that you are able to LOGICALLY think.
I don’t think the insurance company would have a case. The story said the policy had an exclusion if the customer didn’t pay a fire protection subscription. If they choose to pay when the contract says they don’t have to, the fire company isn’t liable for their loss.
Aren’t you the compassionate one, too. Some of us look at this objectively and understand the homeowner made a choice, took a risk, and lost. Plus, they caused the fire through their own negligence. And you, oh compassionate one, are wishing bad fortune on us.
I love dogs; can’t stand cats and birds, though I don’t wish them dead. But I’m sick and tired of animal lovers equating the death of a pet to the death of a human being. I tell you what. I’ll have one of my FDNY brothers take you into a burning building and see how quickly you would be willing to risk your life to save an animal. Still, sometimes they do it. Way above and beyond the call of duty.
Somehow you think that it’s about the $75. It’s not. Letting someone pay for a pay-in-advance service AFTER the service only encourages others to do the same, and then you lose the service for everyone, since the provider doesn’t have the funds to survive. And shame on you for equating paid fire protection to a mafia shakedown. I suppose your insurance company is part of the Russian mob, since they won’t protect you unless you pay the premium. And of course my alarm company is strong-arming me because they want to be paid each month to monitor my home. Hmmm, why don’t I just wait until my alarm goes off to pay them?
You cite communism. What you’re espousing is socialism. You want the government to assume all responsibility for the individual. There are plenty of places you can move if that’s what you want. Thank God, the United States still has individual freedoms. But with these freedoms comes responsibility.
Unlike your unkind wishes for me and others on this forum, the only wish I have for you is you open your eyes and mind and clear the clouds from them.
But here is the problem, the fire department had ALREADY ESTABLISHED a pattern of helping people who HAD NOT paid, and ALLOWING them to pay later. This is tantamount to an unwritten contract, and gives people a REASONABLE expectation for service.
The fact that the fire chief decided after the fact NOT TO honor the unwritten contract THEY had established points to selective enforcement of a policy.
Selective enforcement of policies — especially in cases like this — are not morally or legally enforceable.
If someone decides 3 years after the establishment of an unwritten contract to change that contract — they must notify people of the change in writing, and BOTH parties must acknolwedge the change.
Unwritten contracts are established by word and deed.
Yes, the policies need to change. Yes, personal responsibility is important, HOWEVER, unwritten contracts ALSO have to be enforced. Selective enforcement leaves everyone unsure of expectations and policy implementation. THAT is the real problem that everyone seems to ignore.
Fire the chief. This is an area where the fire department is paid for in taxes by the city of Fulton but the folks living in the county have no other source of fire protection, really. Fire protection is a necessary service. Stop the stupid debate over personal responsibility and put your selves in the shoes of the Cranicks watching your memories go up in flames as well as your home. You know NOTHING about their circumstances nor their troubles nor why they really did not pay that silly bill. The idiot county should be billing on the tax bill these charges, then there is NO debate. The charge is so tiny, really, that the money is probably not the real issue………..
To those of you so big on personal responsibility, I am glad that you can foresee the future and know that you will NEVER lapse. I suppose that if you drive off the road after traveling too fast for conditions, and land in the river, you will slap aside the hand that reaches out to help you…because you are going to take personal responsibility and claw you and your family up the riverbed all by yourself. Sure, you BETCHA! I also bet you NEVER missed paying a bill in your lifetime and so therefore can afford to be so very sanctimonious.
Some of you people are just idiots. The Cranicks should have paid; they didn’t. Was the consequence really commensurate for the lack of the $75 fee?
So kind of you to fling insults at some of us. It’s amazing how rude the shelter of the internet has made some people.
You, Cassandra, don’t know all the circumstances, either. There are very, very, few homeowners that can’t afford to pay $75 for a vital service. It’s evident these people could, since they were willing to pay it at the time of the fire. They have money for an RV, to travel, and to have pets. The CHOSE not to pay the $75, CHOSE not to adequately insure their home, CHOSE to irresponsibly burn trash next to their home, CHOSE to live outside the fire protection district, and are suffering the consequences. And we’re the idiots by your definition?
Why is it the county’s responsibility to provide fire protection. Where does that responsibility end? If a person decides to live far out in a remote location, many miles from any town, who should be responsible for protecting their property? And are forgetting the homeowner pulled this stunt before – not paying for protection and having a fire?
Thank goodness election day is less than four weeks and we can start getting this mindset that others will take care of us behind us.
What in Gods name has happened to our country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How can anyone just stand there and watch a home being burnt, with possible lose of life!!!! I am just at awe!!! I am so upset, How dare you people, this has to be fixed and charges should be applied,and eye for and eye, and I strongly believe most americans feel the same way Its just NO one does anything, the government is to work for us,
Kevin, I beg to differ…you ARE an idiot…you make a ton of assumptions with no real facts…just sanctimonious liberal bashing for no apparent reason as this is not really a liberal vs. conservative issue. it is just COMMON sense and some good old compassion.
The fee is clearly not that important to the survival of the FPD or else it would be larger. If this is a mandatory fee, put it on the tax bill and stop setting people up to make an error (or the bill get lost in the mail, or blow away in the mailbox or the check get misdirected or misposted, etc).
The fire chief is an idiot and deserves to be fired as well. He drags everyone out to the scene to watch the house burn up? How stupid is that? He could have put out the house fire and spared the burning field which could have been someone’s crops. What if something was in or under that field that could have blown up? How stupid is it not to put out the fire to avoid just what happened…the spread of additional fire? Not to mention the total lack of the “milk of human kindness…” but then, I suppose he is your relative since you obviously lack that as well.
And Lisa is correct; they had precedent to expect the service since the chief disobeyed the “10 year rule” once before. So the chief is DOUBLY stupid for compounding his error.
USE common sense; if the fee is mandatory, make it mandatory on the tax bill and cut out the crap.
Sheesh. Read the article. Everyone was out of the house when the fire dept arrived. There wasn’t any danger of loss of life. This was the homeowner’s doing, not the fire dept.
Sorry Sharon, but in FL I may have a reasonable expectation the police will enforce the law, but there is no cause of action if they do not.
Unwritten contracts, except expressed verbal ones, and reasonable expectation only carry a short distance. Here, the terms were clear: Pay your fee and the fire company will respond if and when needed.
Cassandra, it is childish to call someone an idiot that you don’t know and when you clearly don’t know all of the facts here. The homeowner Gene Cranick was quoted as saying “I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,”. Sounds like this wasn’t a case of forgetting to pay but taking a chance and losing.
Next, on fixfulton.org it indicates that the city commission decided more than 10 years ago that firefighters would not be allowed to respond to a fire at a non-subscriber location. This was a longstanding community policy, not something unexpected. The Chief was following longstanding policy. If the community didn’t like the policy, they should have changed it a long time ago.
And last, while I am saddened at the loss of the animals, this family called 911 before the fire spread to their house. It sounds like they may have had time to move them to safety but didn’t do so. Someone should ask them why.
Thank you, Cassandra, for the kind words. I never mentioned liberal. But thanks for tying socialism with liberals. I knew it was there, but thanks for clarifying.
And like most liberals, when you can’t back up your record with facts, you resort to name calling.
Since you cannot have a civilized discussion, this will be my last reply to you.
Great post, Pat.
Though I don’t condone the irresponsible choices the Cranicks made, I respect them for owning up to the mistake and accepting the consequences.
If you watched the interview, the homeowner mentioned he offered to pay the full cost of the fire service (not just the $75 fee). He also did not “whine” about the insurance payout- he merely said the policy paid the amount of coverage he purchased, which wouldn’t be enough to rebuild but that they were “on the ball.”
It’s also not clear if the fire service would or would not have been able to prevent a total loss should they have chosen to respond.
What’s truly stunning however is the total lack of compassion in the American political discourse which is indisputably unprecedented in our history. As the homeowner mentioned, “people don’t think you can forget these kinds of things but sometimes you do.” He, on air, admitted his mistake and said he would live with the consequences. It seems to me this is exactly the attitude the compassionless on this board seem to demand, but they pile on him with comments like “boo hoo” and “deal with it.”
one thing to note, that the insurance company did pay off the loan of the house, knowing that it was a fire that destroyed her. interesting, because if that is the case, then why did the fire department not save the house? the insurance company would have paid for the service.
$75 although does not seem alot, but apparently was at the time of the payment required… but the county sounds like it is being served by the city, why doe the county not help with making better arrangements for emergencies like these… loss of life does matter, not matter if human or animal….
Sigh… How can I ever respond to such eloquent writing? I’m overwhelmed by the level of maturity you exhibit.
I’m so glad I don’t live in TN.
I understand public policy and all. But I just kept thinking as I read this, “the FIREFIGHTERS stood and watched the house burn down over a $75 fee?!?!” I’m sorry, but that is ridiculous. If someone (a person) had been trapped inside would they have stood by? And yes, $75 can be a lot of money, but put out the fire and then I’m sure someone will give you that money. Heck I would have donated it myself. What a sad world we live in.
Cassandra – the fee is important to the financing of the FD. True,a single $75 fee doesn’t pay for much but all the $75 fees together cover enough costs to provide protection to those who need it in a given year.
The fee is not mandatory – it is voluntary. If you want the protection, pay the fee. If you don’t pay the fee, don’t expect the protection. It’s an individual choice and with choice (or freedom) comes responsibility.
Regarding expectation of service, it may stand up in court but it’s a shame that one act of compassion legally binds you to provide a lifetime of welfare.
Thank you for your intelligent post, Ned.
What if, what if, what if…
What if the Cranicks had just paid the fee, adequately insured their property, didn’t set a fire so close to their home, got their pets out before the fire started in the home…then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
And why does the amount of money matter? The city was providing a valuable service for a very low cost. Pay the fee, get the service. Don’t pay, protect your home yourself.
show me where they had an expectation of welfare? They were more than willing to pay for the cost of the service (not just the fee).
No one is saying they should have “just been helped” without any responsibility — but for the fire department to stand outside and watch the house burn when the family said they would cover the costs means it’s NOT about a $75 fee, or covering their costs — it’s about making the family an example.
In my opinion, this was a very poor handling of the situation.
I am no liberal… but I do have a conscience. In this case, it would have been much better to put out the fire when it was just a brush fire, and save not one house, but two in the process. The family should have been fined, and covered the cost.
And AFTER that, we can talk about changing tax policies, or whatever.
At least for me, I too respect the homeowner for accepting the consequences of his actions (failing to pay the fire fee).
If any of my comments can be interpreted as “boo hoo” or “deal with it,” they are directed at the attitude that he should get services for which he did not pay. That attitude is not his but seems to be that of many comments on this board.
After reading most of the commentaries, I have found many very good points written by the contributors on both sides of the issue.
I can appreciate the no-nonsense approach of no payment, no service as a fiscal conservative. And, as a Liberatian, I want government out of my personal life.
But government has tried to do all things, be all things and tax all things.
A few questions arose:
Who pays the fire service fee for rental property? The landlord has interest to protect his property and the tenant also needs protection.
If an severe automobile accident occurs with the at-fault party from another county, would the fire department respond to the fire without trapped individuals?
I go back to my origin statements. The fire service fee could have been levied as a tax or even attached after the loss to the property as a mechanics lien. There are multiple ways this fee could have been collected such as the mortgage escrow, fire insurance premium, included on a utility service or billed as part of the property taxes.
The basic point is this community has failed to solve its problem with collection of a fire protection fees. It would be interesting to see the collection rate and prior services rendered without collection of this fee.
This homeowner has paid a very severe penalty. It was a cruel penalty more severe than applied to an arsonist under criminal judgements.
The county residents should setup a volunteer fire department supported by a minimal fire tax billed with the county property tax. Every property owner should be required to participate.
As a benefit, the property owners would see significant reduction in their insurance premiums. An under protected fire districts premium are easily 50 percent higher than protected fire districts.
As to the homeowner being underinsured, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to see that their property is insured to replacement cost. Most insurance fire policies include a coinsurance clause with a coinsurance penalty for being underinsured.
However, the majority of insurance agents do NOT understand this clause. At a NCPIA meeting, it had a E&O continuing education course with a mock trial. Over 75 percent of the agents attending thought a total loss claim would be paid at replacement cost if the property was insured with 80 percent at the time of loss.
The insurer is only liable to pay the policy limit. Only partial losses insured within the coinsurance clause are paid at replacement cost.
Several endorsement can help protect the homeowner from being under insured such as the inflation guard endorsement, guaranteed replacement cost endorsement or a 25 percent additional coverage endorsement.
The homeowner could install a sprinkler fire suppression system for added protection for about 2% addtional construction cost.
This county needs to find a better way to serve its community. Services provided are not free. Someone has to pay. Fire protection is a basic service that local government can best serve and protect all.
Why does the county or any governmental authority need to be involved? Though maybe not perfect, there is a something in place to provide needed services. Remember, government services cost money (usually more than it should) and that money has to come from somewhere.
Fires spread. The fact that this one only destroyed one house, and damaged another is fortunate.
Brush fires can spread very rapidly — wind patterns can change quickly spewing additional fires and increasing the risk to life and limb. This started as a contained fire that got out of control… the risks there go up exponentially.
And this is a rural community. If this type of approach had been taken in an urban setting with dense housing, the results would be devastating (history shows us this, if little else).
IMO, this is a legitimate function of government. It is in the best interests of the community at large to have fire protection — if only to prevent unnecessary carnage (be it property, animal or human).
Thumbs up to Barry Seay and Lisa K.!
There would be no fire service in the area at all if the residents had not agreed to pay the fee. Until recently there was no fire service at all from the city. Saving human life is different and the fire and police would all have responded differently if they thought human life was in jeopardy.
Get all your facts straight people, we are talking about property only, not some humanitarian tragedy.
I think that is where the disconnect is. People like TN and Cassandra go off on emotional rants without even looking at the facts or wanting to know more. You two need to question what you are told and form logical mature opinions and not let your bleeding hearts rule your lives.
I think this is the most passionate discourse I’ve ever seen on IJ. Lots of strong opinions on opposing sides, each with a valid argument to make. Most have been civil, even when attacked. A few have resorted to name-calling. Why is it that we all feel so strongly about right and wrong here, so much so that we cannot accept that both sides have rights and faults? Surely as insurance professionals and fellow humans, we can have respect for each other’s opinions even if we aren’t in agreement. Can’t we agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable ourselves?
“We are so blessed because no one was hurt”
Well, you know, minus the two dogs and cat who slowly burned to death in the house.
I will tell you why some I am name calling here: because I cannot for the life of me see how a fire department equipped and ready can stand to watch a fire burn down a house and most of the accumulated possessions of a family and refuse to do anything when it is fully in their power. Anyone that condones such behavior, especially by a governmental organization whose function, purpose and mission is to save lives and property REGARDLESS of $75 dollar fees or the humble acceptance of the homeowners, is an idiot. I cannot wrap my brain around this in any way. Hopefully, I never will because I surely will not be able to like the person that stares back at me in the mirror each morning.
But can’t you see that by resorting to name calling you say more about yourself than the people you’re calling idiots? Everyone that sees it differently from you can’t be an idiot just because you don’t agree with them. That logic isn’t worthy.
$75 a year is not that much at all! How else do you suppose the City FD is to fund themselves. If they are running calls in the County, they’d use all their yearly budget real quick if homeowners outside the city limits didn’t pay the $75, but depended on their services.The COUNTY needs to step up and fund a FD or every resident needs to fork over the $75 a year. You listen to this guy on the videos and he makes it sound like it’s all the FD’s fault, but years ago espically in the North if you didn’t pay your fire preimums then they would do the same thing. Those departments would not put out your fire, and this was a normal thing. A lot of volunteer depts do this all the time, even now. AND the homeowner’s son Assulted the City Fire Chief! “I just forgot to pay my $75,” is not acceptable, you wouldn’t forget to pay your homeowner’s insurance preimum and then expect them to pay for your properity because you “forgot to pay?” A major insurance company would be the same way the City FD was, and not recieve ANY negative publicity.
By the way, No HUMAN life was at stake, therefore no action needed. Not to sound cold, but I’m not dying for your fido! Who’s going to explain to my children that I died because your dog/ cat/ other family pet was in a burining house?
Tragic
I respect their right to disagree, but for heaven’s sake, sometimes there are things that are just WRONG and STUPID. As I said, I cannot imagine having an equippped and ready FD stand around and watch someone’s home burn to the ground over a $75 fee. Again, this is REALLY beyond my comprehension. And I think it was cruel…an effort shoulod have been made.
Many of those arguing so vehemently that the homewoner deserved what he got will someday need to depend on the kindness of strangers…we all do, sooner or later in this life. I hope they remember the hard line they took with others as they reach out to the offered helping hand…
Cassandra – Of course it would have been better if there was a different policy in place in that locale, but the fact is this has been the policy for at least 10 years – don’t pay, you don’t get service. If the FD had ignored this and put out the fire, would you have stepped up to pay their mortgages if they got fired? Don’t forget, services in remote areas are just not the same as in the city or suburbs. It is simply a fact of life. Sorry but you sound like some of the people who said homeowners in New Orleans should get money to rebuild even though they didn’t buy flood insurance or even homeowners. It’s a tough thing to see someone become homeless, but sometimes it is because they made poor decisions. When that happens, they need to own up to their mistakes, as this family seems to be doing.
This is what we’ll be looking at if the Republicans get their way. They want to privatize every aspect of social services — from our school system to the postal service.
If someone breaks into your house, but you haven’t paid for the private-sector-run police service because you lost your job, you’ll just be robbed and maybe murdered.
How does that society sound to you.
ok. let’s throw another wrench in the works…
in the original article it stated that the reason the fd responded was only because of the brush fire that might happen but was not allowed to save the house…
ok, so they sat there and watch the house burn and did not have to handle any brush fire… so did they waste time/money and energy to respond anyways? who has to pay for that? not the homeowner!! so now that we wasted all this valuable resources to sit, why not have used it to save property as the code of any true fire department and that includes lives of any living thing (PETS!) afterall, how many times have we heard the fd get called for a cat in the tree?
if someone breaks into my home and i am not there but i see lights on in the house, am i calling the PD? YES! will they respond? YES! will they enter the property and secure it and take the robber/burglar into custody? YES! so why do we do differently to the FD and a fire to property?
and for those folks think that pets don’t count, don’t run over my cat or dog, because i will sue for my losses….
It sounds like an imaginary world to me. The same one where republicans poison the water and the air and make old people eat dog food. Get real.
The difference is that in this locality there is no FD service. The FD is from the nearby city, not the county outside the city where this house was situated. This homeowner did not pay taxes for fire protection and did not pay the required fee to get the city’s FD protection.
Police services are likely provided by county or state officials. If you live in the burbs, you don’t call the city PD. You also don’t call a private security company which you have not subscribed to.
Being involved in a number of fires with animals inside, they most likely died from smoke prior to the fire ever getting to them.
Doesn’t really make you feel any better…just a fact.
As far as the incident…reports state that the home was a double wide trailer. Anyone that knows anything about trailer fires..they burn quick and are usually not saved. So Mr. Cranick called 911 and they denied service (at this time it was a fire in his yard). So when did the FD get to the scene once contacted by the neighbor who paid for the service? How much of the Cranicks house was on fire? From reports, the house was already on fire once the fire department arrived for the neighbor. I never saw a trailer saved once it was on fire. They are so economically built and with so much plastic there is really no saving them.
Then there is the question of the pets. Some reports I read state that the fire burned in the yard for about 2 hours from the time Cranick called 911 to the time it got to the house. You couldn’t get the animals out in that time. Say it was only 15 minutes…you are saying they couldn’t get them out?
As far as the subscription service. There are a lot more of these then people mention. For insurance purposes…this is a step above of not having a fire department as they are usually more then 5 miles away and water has to be hauled.
Why I do feel for these people, how do you forget to pay a fee to protect your house. They were called and sent a letter by the city and rejected both requests.
I also agree there is a better way to handle this. Fire departments cost a lot of money to maintain. Where is that money going to come from to start a new one in this area or make the city’s department larger to protect a poriton of the county. Myself, I live in a township with a decent fire department with 5 stations. The local city is trying to annex the poriton of the township where we live and this was put on last years ballot. I choose to vote against it as I didn’t want to pay the city’s taxes. Now I made a decision and if our fire department goes down hill, I have no one to blame but myself.
Finally, with all of the back and forth name calling. People who understand the pay to play and defend it are not cold hearted. They are looking at it from a technical stance. Those who look at this from a compassionate side, I understand that too. People don’t normally want bad things to happen to people…except if they are really really bad people… This is not a Republican, Democrat or Tea Party thing…. This was a system put in place by this city and the local county residents…you want service pay us. If you opt not to pay us we can assume you do not want our service and management our budget accordingly.
One more thought … the FD was on site to protect against a potential brush fire which is part of their duty to the city as that could spread and impact the city.
Sir, I respectfully take issue with your broad-brush attacks. There are some areas that are definitely government domain, and others that are not.
While I would definitely argue in favor of government services which protect and enforce laws, and protect the general welfare of the people in more specific ways, that does not mean the government has a responsibility to care for everyone from cradle-to-grave.
There is no one-size fits all here, and I think the argument of public good can definitely be made for fire protection — not so much for tax-payer funded pornography, and other things.
Oh, right, I forgot. Government has been doing such a great job running things. And let’s not forget how great our schools are doing. Thanks for reminding us.
Let’s see. Between my three brothers in the FDNY, they have over 50 years experience. They’ve never been called to save a cat from a tree and they haven’t sworn an oath to risk their lives to save pets. Regardless how valuable a pet is to its owner, it’s not worth risking a human life to save it.
Your PD argument doesn’t work. You’re paying taxes for police protection, so they respond. No where did it say if human lives were in peril the fire dept would have stood by.
Kevin, I agree. My dad was also FDNY and I understand first hand the dangers (he was disabled after a roof collapsed on him in a fire). To others, let’s not forget that the South Fulton FD is not obligated to even offer this service outside the city limits. If this wasn’t a pay option and the same thing happened, would you still expect them to go put out this fire?
Yes. Because they set up a precedence of doing it before. There was no other fire at the time, preventing them from acting here. If the precedence had been different (in other words, they had always let homes burn regardless before), I would argue no. But this situation is akin to the fire chief flipping a coin and saying… “tails, you lose.”
I agree, Pat. Seems the Fulton FD would be better off (from a liability stand) to not offer this service to those outside their district.
Sorry about your Dad. It’s a dangerous job and they are way underpaid for the risk.
I am shocked and truly dissapointed by the comments of many so called insurance professionals. If we gave away coverage to everyone for free there would be no industry. I am so tired of everyone spending my money.
I do not want to pay to rebuild your home along the mississippi. I don’t want to subsidize your premium for your coastal home. I do not want to pay for your fire protection.
Grow up and stop putting your hand out.
Hey, JC…guess what…we DO all pay for the coastal home, we DO all pay for the flooding on the Mississippi if not in subsidies to NFIP, in the portion of our taxes that go to FEMA and most assuredly when our premiums increase to cover the assessments of the underfunded state pools, artificially depressed for political reasons. And we will ALWAYS pay for that because the states (and citizens within them) most often calling for less government and personal responsibility and states rights ALWAYS have their hands out for fed money, or BP money, or want to expand coverage that we ALL pay for rebuilding the same homes over and over and over because they are built to close to the sea…As well as the demographic fact that most of our population lives close to the coast…a fact of life and a fact that affects our society and where our tax monies go. this is not going to change. Look at the demographics……
And ANYWAY, this is NOT an issue of INSURANCE but governmental service NOT rendered by a department charged with saving life and property by their very existence. There is no one else, apparently, to provide this service except the Fulton FD. This is a necessary service. Since no one can really fight fires on their own, the county is totally ingenuous in not making those who must pay Fulton City ALL pay and on a tax bill, as other entities do most often. But to applaud this FPD for standing there doing nothing while someone’s home and hearth burned is sheer idiocy. What if someone actually had been in the house….were they going to watch that burn, too…over a $75 fee??? that the homeowner had paid in the past probably for years…since the article states they had lived in the home for 21 years and had also missed paying once before and the FD did put out the fire?
Get serious.
Kevin, we ALL support the brave fire fighters; that is not the issue and never was. Yes, out here where I live, firement DO go in to fires to save pets and animals. They even have special oxygen masks for pets…and I live in a semi rural area with a volunteer FPD…that I pay for on my tax bill. Yes, they DO come and get cats out of trees. But in life or death situation, I would not want to endanger a fireman to save a cat or dog. THAT is not what we are arguing about here.
JC if this makes me a bleeding heart because these folks who had lived there for years and had paid the fee prior were never given the benefit of the doubt by the fire chief, then I will BLEED away, any day, any time.
We don’t live in a perfect world. People make mistakes. They take risks which are foolish.
Many have argued, why should my tax dollars go to pay for someone who didn’t pay. It is a good point.
A few have been very unprofessional.
The argument could be made for the following:
1. Why should my tax dollars go to provide food to the people of New Orleans that failed to leave or prepare for a disaster?
2. Why should my tax dollars go to rescue a mountain climber?
3. Why should my tax dollars go to save a sinking yacht or a milllion dollar beach house?
4. Why should my tax dollars go to pay for abortions?
5. Why should my tax dollars go to subsidize slum lords (welfare capitlaize)?
6. Why should my tax dollars be used to develop a third world country?
As a business person, I spend numerous hours assisting insurance, real estate, tax payers, etc which may lead to a sell of a product or service.
Every organization including government is in the business of solving the customer’s problem. Whether its an insurance company accepting the financial exposure being transfered by a client; a school system educating our children; the Federal government defending our freedoms or the pizza delivery person bring pizza, your business is to solve the customer’s problem. When you fail to do this basic function, you’re out of business.
Most of the comments are really not directed toward this irresponsible homeowner or to the callus Fire Chief. The basic frustration is simply, I tired of being my brother’s keeper. I have carried him, provided for him and he still won’t carry his load! And, he is bankrupting me.
I hope it sums it up!
so we in our right minds think it’s ok not to save a house that puts a roof over somebody’s head. provides protection from the elements. the children have a home to grow up in.
according to the article, the firefighters said that the house could have been saved. they were out there only because of a possible brush fire. so, if you already are on the scene, you could have spared the house from total destruction.
so we sat there and watch the house burn. did we sit and have smores? what a waste of time!
are you going to tell me that this subscriber fee applies to emt services? police services? what happen to the creed of protecting your neighbor. back in the old days, there would have been a bucket brigade.
granted this happen to folks before, but with today’s economy would it not have been better served to have saved their house? here’s what is interesting – think about this – if the insurance paid off the loan on the house because of the fire, then why did the insurance folks not pay for fire services that could have been rendered? it probably would have paid, if there was a possible loss of human life because they would have had to fight the fire.
so they were caught in a conundrum. but when you stop and think about it, would not compassion have played the better choice? i think this should be a lesson for the county, to provide better protection and possibly include a fee in some form of property tax. afterall, $75 is an easy cost versus $28,000 or more.
now think, if the fire chief’s house was on fire and he had not paid the fee – what do you think that answer would be? fight the fire or just let it burn?
Yes, from a “technical” standpoint, one can argue that the fire department was within their “right” to not help the family.
But, more than one person was willing and able to pay the actual costs of the service — meaning they were more than willing to “pay to play.” At this point, if the issue was merely money, the money offered would have covered the costs to put out the brush fire before it consumed a house.
Mistakes happen… and I would wager I’ll make more of them as my brain becomes more addled as I age. Forgetfulness runs in my family.
I only hope, that should I need the mercy and grace of people who are in a position to assist, they will.
The city has assisted this family, and I would guess others in the past — on a pay to play basis, after the fact. What makes this situatio unique is that instead of accepting payment for services rendered, the family was made an example, most likely to “scare” other families into paying in advance.
That makes it more of a moral issue than a legal one.
If one has agreed to accept payment after the fact in the past, for services rendered *and there has been no stipulation made that this is a one time deal,* I can see why people (more than one here, not just the family — but the family’s neighbors also had the same impression) would expect that the same type of service would be available again.
I don’t know why the family couldn’t get the animals out in time. I do know they were trying like mad to put the fire out and prevent it from reaching the house. Perhaps by the time they realized that (a) the fire was going to get the house regardless it was too late to enter, or (b) maybe they thought their animals were outside already, and didn’t realize it until it was too late (out here in the country we have lots of indoor/outdoor pets, so I could see someone not realizing the cats/dogs were still inside), or (c) maybe each person thought someone else had gotten them out.
Regardless, the animals died, and the opinion of most people that in this case, pay-to-play (or pay to spray) wasn’t the only story — as the family and their neighbors were more than willing AND able to pay $5,000-$10,000+ to get the fire out.
Money was definitely not the issue. Making this family an example, however does appear to be one.
First – pay the fire service
Second – buy enough insurance
If someone chooses to do neither then let them live with the consequences. Life is hard sometimes.
Lastly – Wudchuck – you’re an idiot
First let me say once again that I feel for these people.
They orginally called the fire department to report their fire and have them come out. In the fire department’s eyes, the Cranicks were not located in an area where they fight fires. (It would be like me calling a neighboring fire department to respond to my fire….they just aren’t coming. I need to call MY fire department…in this case Mr. Cranick did not have a fire department.) Pay the 75 bucks and then you’re in their area.
Where people really seemed to be worked up is that the fire department was on the scene (at some point for the neighbor) but just stood there and watched the fire. By all videos that I could find, the house was pretty much gone when the fire department was there. Would water have put out the flames…sure…but it wasn’t saving anything…contents or structure.
The last time the fire department put out fires for someone that had not paid, according to Mr. Cranick was three years ago. Could it be that at some point in those three years something changed with the city’s policy.
I agree and disagree, this was about the $75 in regards to if you no pay… we no spray. There has to be a better way, but rules were followed by all involved and the outcome was foreseeable by all….well maybe not the national attention.
Dasfuk….love your comments and agree 100%. Based on the bleeding heart comments, it appears most are coming from the younger generation that doesn’t understand personal responsibility or accountability. What the hell, excuse everyone’s mistakes; somebody else will clean up their mess. I wasn’t raised that way. This nation is becoming jello. It no longer stands for anything and has no backbone. Self-reliance is a memory. Nice work kids.
Young and shaking my head at Eli. Age discrimination works both ways, pal. You have no idea how old the people posting on here are. What a silly assumption!
I see this story from both sides, but I would rather be considered a “bleeding heart” than heartless.
ok, first of all, i am not of the younger generation…
secondly, what happen to human kindness? or compassion? if it was my house or your own house, don’t you think it would be nice to save it? in the wild, wild west, we would have had a fire brigade with everyone pitching in to put the fire out.
third – if the insurance (as per the article) paid off the home and it was loss due to a fire, why then could the fire department not have save the house and sent the insurance company a bill?
fourth — there was a loss of life. and yes, saving a pet is saving a life. if not, then why are we so much into criminal activity when we don’t take care of our animals? so, do we file criminal lawsuit against the city and it’s fire department for allowing the animals to die without an attempt to save the house and the pets?
i can see this going a long way into a court battle and a lawyer raking up some good $$$$ into his pocket…
haha… fun to be called part of the “younger generation.” That hasn’t happened in a long time.
No. I’m all for personal responsibility, but there is a lot more to this story than simply “he didn’t pay, so there.”
FACT: The Fire Department had a history of providing service REGARDLESS of pre-payment. (something everyone who is screaming he didn’t pay, so what ignores).
FACT: The County also, apparently had, a back-up charge of $500 paid per rural call for fire service.
It was NOT unreasonable based on prior FD history (not just one occurrence, but several in just this neighborhood alone), for someone to expect this service to continue to be available in the future. This was not a stupid assumption, but one based upon FACTS.
FACT: The County KNEW their contracting/subscription county service was a problem. They voted in 1987 to have a County Fire Department. They haven’t funded it.
FACT: The County was presented with a funding proposal in 2008, but the county commissioners stuck their fingers in their ears and refused to even consider it. They acknowledged the system didn’t work, but refused to take any measures to fix it.
FACT: 75% of the fires in the county are in unincorporated areas. The counties were not paying the cities what they had agreed. Most likely, the cities were getting fed up of footing the bill.
The city apparently said, “enough is enough” — and apparently without making a big deal about it — decided to go with the written policy and after 20 years to the contrary refuse to service homes who had not pre-paid.
This made this family the poster-child for the problems that the county knew about, but refused to fix.
This situation has made countless other fire departments in similar arrangements mad at the fire department who refused.
While I can give a bit of slack to a city that was trying to address a problem the county government refused to deal with — the city bears part of the blame for developing a history of helping and taking payment later — creating what became a “detrimental reliance” on services that seem to have been abruptly cut off.
There are fingers to point in every direction. Hopefully the county will finally step up and fund their fire department.
Fires — represent a clear and present danger in a community. Fires spread, as this one did. Fire services are not something that should be provided for as protection for the community at large.
Opps….you forgot this is a government run fire department. As much as you want this (like all liberals) to be someone elses fault, its only his. Listen to his other interviews on MSNBC. He forgot to pay 3 years ago and he found out after his fire. This old guy is crocked and you know it. He was trying to get out of paying 75 freaking dollars. Valuable lesson to you and all the other Obama fans. IT IS HIS FAULT. HE GOT A BILL HE DIDN’T PAY. NO COVERAGE!
I bet the revenue for the VOLUNTEER fire department goes through the roof this next year. I am sure the same volunteer firefighters who showed up with marshmellows, really appreciate all of this press.
Lets look at this, The reason for the mandate for health insurance is that liberals will not buy health insurance. By far more democrats are uninsured than republicans. The reason why this guy did not pay the $75. is that he knew that they would come and why should he pay. just like the liberal who shows up at the emergency room knowing that they have to treat him. I say stop treating him and maybe he will buy health insurance.
It is too funny to watch liberals all upset when they dont pay for something and not recieve it.
Solve the problem and add the $75 fee to your property taxes.
As difficult as this situation was, the property owners knew in advance they had to pay the fee in order to get service. This is like what some people will do under the new Healthcare fiasco. They will wait until they get sick and then get Health Insurance because they know they won’t be turned down. These people thought they could get away with not paying and the Fire Dept would still come out and fight the fire. Until this country returns to personal responsibility and accountability, these types of situations will continue to happen.
I have not read all the posts yet. I am about halfway through. Some of you stated since these people had a fire before, not paid the fee and still got service, there was a prcedent. Ever consider that they had been told, possibly in writing, that a second failure to pay the fee would result in absolutely no fire protection.
I have not read all the posts yet. I am about halfway through. Some of you stated since these people had a fire before, not paid the fee and still got service, there was a prcedent. Ever consider that they had been told, possibly in writing, that a second failure to pay the fee would result in absolutely no fire protection.
This fits right in with the Republican World View; Pay up Or Burn!
Over the top? NO. Many Repugs have come out in FAVOR of such a screwed up policy. Do we care so little for our fellow man now that we let his property burn?
Republicans; government for the rich, by the rich, for the large corporate interest. Only.
How has this degenerated into a tirade against the Republicans? World View? How about advocating personal responsibility and accountability for all citizens? If we have to buy HO, Auto Insurance as part of our responsibility and we choose to live in an area protected by a VFD in a modular/mobile home, it seems to me that we would be responsible enough to pay a nominal fee for protection. These VFD’s have to have some revenue or they can’t respond to fires on the customers that do pay the charges. Get a life Adjustor.
Your view of Republicans has clearly been established by the very liberal news media. The ten wealthiest residence in my county are Democrats. The largest land owner is a Democrat.
The Republican party in my county is controlled by small business owners.
Was it Democrats or Republican county commissions who failed to fund the county volunteer fire department or both? I believe this topic has brought out the frustrations of good people who see individuals and our government not being responsible for themselves and solving our important problems.
The real questions to be answered are should the fire service been provided, had a precendent been set by the city’s prior actions, are there a better ways to collect the fire service fee, does the lack of fire service prevent economic development, does the home owner policy include a fire service fee, and is the homeowner policy enforceable?
The policy may not be enforceable since there was a known hazard the client failed to act upon.
To merely paint this situation as a Republican or Democratic failure is simply childish. It demonstates the inability of a person to be responsible for protecting his property and his local leaders failure to do what it right for its citizens.
Let’s let this article die already! :)
How sad,
We will not help our brother in need over $75 and their name not on a list.
Times may be hard,you do not have to be hard.
We are all children of God, so help your brother.
How sad, Carolyn, that you don’t realize this isn’t a story about compassion, it’s a story about personal freedom and choice. The family CHOSE to live in a remote location without fire protection; the family CHOSE to not pay the required fee (they had the $75); the family CHOSE not to carry adequate insurance; the family CHOSE to burn trash (was the even legal?) close to their home; the family CHOSE not to check on the pets until it was too late. In addition, refreshingly, the family CHOSE to accept responsibility for their action and inaction.
There are some that say the fee should be added to the property tax bill. I’d say that’s probably a good idea in urban and suburban areas where protection for all is important. In rural areas, where it’s only on home that’s affected, that should be a choice of the property owner, as is a choice to carry insurance.
Let remember, the homeowners made conscious choices, suffered consequences because of them, and accepts the outcome. This has nothing to do with not being compassionate. Stop the bleeding heart rhetoric about helping our brothers. The Cranicks chose not to help themselves; why, then, should we be obligated?
Have a nice day.
After reading most of the posts on this story, I am inclined to agree with Kevin. Most of these posts show how divided we are as a country. This country used to be about individual freedom and responsibility. Bleeding heart liberal Progressives seem to think everything should be given to them. In this case, a homeowner chose not to be responsible, was negligent in his actions and expected to get a service he was not entitled to because he didn’t subscribe to his fee that he had known about for many years. This should be a wake up call for citizens that responsibility and accountability are important and society shouldn’t have to pay for mistakes people make in their personal business.
Kevin is right. We try to tell people to raise the coverage on their house and what do they say? “I do not want to do that. I have enough coverage. You just want more money out of me.” Well, I bet they wished they had taken responsibility and paid the $75. And, I bet they wish they had taken the agent’s advice to raise their coverage. Too late.
Cranick was an idiot and is now paying the price. If a man is living out in the middle of nowhere in a modular/mobile home with no hydrants and does nothing to protect himself by paying his FD fee,didn’t buy proper coverage for the home, then burns trash next to his home which started the house fire, I think he acted very irresponsibly and it is no wonder he had a bad outcome in this situation. Even Cassandra might agree with this.
Thank you, Gwen. I have a pretty thick skin, so didn’t take offense to your posts. It’s great to be able to have dialogues with people from all over that you would normally never cross paths.
It’s kind of chicken and the egg scenario. So many people look to government for assistance and there are less friends, family, church, community to help than there had been. Is government filling the role of the others, or have the others stopped assisting because government’s involved? I don’t know the answer to that. I do know that when people relied on others in times of need, they worked to get themselves out of their despair, and repaid the kindness when they could. Now, with government entitlements, people don’t work to improve their lot, and continue to expect more and more from the gov’t. And government continues to expand these social programs under the guise of helping those in need. Rather than helping, though, they continue to make citizens dependent on the government and little incentive is provided to end the dependence. It’s sad that this happens, and it’s robbing the will of generations of dependents.
Kevin and the rest of you are correct that the person didn’t pay the required fee and could have prevented all this. It is also correct to say someone has to be hard hearted to watch a home burn down while fireman were right there and could have put it out but instead watched it burn. Since you are all full of your righteous personal accountability I sure hope none of you even need even an ounce of compassion from someone someday or better yet I hope you run into someone just like you who won’t help anyone who needed it despite their poor choices. You are right about the choices made but others are right too for wanting to help a human being in need.
The Fire Dept could have put out the fire and charged a response fee to the guy. They could charge him $1,000 for their trouble and then he would think the $75 he didn’t pay twice would be a bargain. This guy was given every chance to be responsible and didn’t take it. I have a hard time feeling sorry for him.
It amazes me that some on this board are feeling more sorry about this than the homeowner. The Cranicks know they screwed up and accept the consequences.
When do we stop making up for the poor choices that others make? I’m tired of bailing out people who are too lazy, too stubborn, too selfish, or too stupid to take care of themselves. Nobody was in danger here. It was a matter of not protecting someone’s property because that person chose not to protect it themselves. Why is that my responsibility? I didn’t make these bad choices. In America, we’re moving to providing everything for everyone. Enough already. I have a pretty good life – nice home, some luxuries, etc. But nobody gave them to me. My wife and I worked our butts off for them, and still do. I don’t ask for help from anyone. I take care of myself. Why do I have to make sure so and so doesn’t lose their home to foreclosure. Buy what you can afford. The banks didn’t make you buy the house. I could be living in an even nicer house and be driving nicer cars. But we made the choice not to buy anything we couldn’t afford even if one of us lost our job. Yet, I’m supposed to pay for my neighbors’ homes because they weren’t as responsible. Baloney. Many of the same people in foreclosure still have cell phones, cable TV, nice cars, etc, and still get to keep them even when bailed out. What about personal sacrifice? Guess what, sometimes life gets hard. Sometimes things get really bad. But it’s not the end of the world. The strong pick themselves up and lift themselves out of the despair. The weak and lazy stay down crying “woe is me” and talk about the rich as if success is evil. It’s very sad that so many have become so wimpy.
I have compassion for my fellow man, but not when they’ve caused their problems. That’s just not my problem, and I don’t apologize for it. And don’t try to lay a guilt trip on me, it won’t work.
Well said Kevin. These bleeding heart bloggers think everyone should be rescued from all situations no matter how stupid or irresponsible they are or how many chances they were afforded to do the right thing. When you don’t show some personal responsibility for your actions or inactions, you deserve what you get. The government has been taking the American People towards total dependency for some time with all the give a way programs. Whatever tragedy that happens is always someone else’s fault. In this case, it was the HO’s fault and he is living with the consequences.
And to the homeowners credit, they’re not only living with it, they’ve admitted it was their fault and accept the responsibility and the consequences.
If you don’t like the way America is going, please feel free to move. Nobody is forcing you to stay here and “bail out” all of your fellow citizens. Maybe a communist country would be more up your alley, or perhaps a country that is so poor and famined, there is no organized government to force you to pay money towards anything, because money is non-existant. But don’t waste your time on here b!*ching about it. If you are so passionate, send letters to your congress representative, governor, etc. CHANGE STARTS WITH YOU! :)
Hey, never said I wasn’t for people being responsible for their own actions. You just take stuff to extreme examples. You are right that this family is taking responsibility. It is more to the point that the fire department was there watching it burn down and did nothing. If your home were on fire and I was your neighbor I would help as much as I could regardless of how the fire started or what you paid or didn’t. You wouldn’t have asked for my help but I would offer it. Maybe your own stupidity started said fire and if so I am not supposed to help because you deserved it for being stupid? I don’t want to bail out the world, bought a house I could afford too. I just couldn’t watch something like this happen and not do something to help. I still believe there can be a balance between not wanting to bail out the world and letting someones house and pets burn up while I stand there. I would not feel sorry for the guy who didn’t pay the $75 but I would also try to put out the fire. Balance. You can think anyway you want but that doesn’t mean either of us are wrong for our beliefs. I for one sure don’t expect you to feel any guilt. Believe and think what you want.
I suppose we, as a society should purchase HOBT’s for all the poor unfortunate apartment dwellers who invariably do not have insurance when there is a fire. Most of these people apparently can’t afford a $150 policy for their belongings, but they have flat screen TV’s and beer in the refrigerator at all times. News reports all the time state the people lost all their belongings in the fire and didn’t have insurance. These people are irresponsible as in this case.
What the hell are you talking about, Gwen? Let’s look at what the American government forced us to do this year to bail out people and unions:
1. Took over GM and made my GM stock worthless, while protecting the unions.
2. Made us finance the purchase of cars for others by offering tax-payer financed rebates, while at the same time required the destruction of perfectly good used cars.
3. Made us finance the purchase of appliances by offering rebates financed by taxpayers.
4. Made us finance the purchase of homes by offering, yes, you guessed it, taxpayer-financed rebates.
5. Screwed the bondholders of Chrysler by forcing them to take less than they were entitled and giving the benefit to the unions.
6. Do we even want to get into Obamacare?
These are just a few of the outlandish policies of our current Socialist government. I, unlike our leaders, think America is the greatest country of the world. And I am doing something about getting the country back. For the first time in my life, I’ve contributed to the campaigns of Conservatives all over the country. In fifteen days, if things go right, we should be able to restore a government that believes in the constitution, smaller government, lower taxes, and, yes, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
So, Gwen, sit back with the other bleeding hearts, feel sorry for all that’ wrong in your life, and think about how that hope and change is working out.
This wasn’t the first time this family tried to get away with not paying the fire fee. They had a previous fire, they hadn’t paid the fee, and the fire department put the fire out, allowing them to pay the next day. This time, they weren’t going to bail these people out. A fire department isn’t a charity. Nobody was in danger, only loss of property. I agree with the fire department.
Wow, Conservative. How ignorant for you to assume that all “apartment dwellers” that do not have renter’s insurance have large, flat screen TVs and fridges stocked with beer. You know the saying, about what happens when we assume? It makes an *** out of you and me, but in this case, it’s just you that looks like an ***. You are very lucky to have no struggles in life whatsoever, but there are people out there that genuinely have been dealt a bad hand, and are doing everything in their power just to make it from day to day.
I have a friend who just lost her house becasue she got laid off a year ago, has not been able to find a new job, and this is mainly because of health issues she has. She is 29. She has been undergoing surgeries for a medical condition that is extremely rare since she was 17. Luckily this disease has not totally crippled her, but it has impeded her ability to work.
The funny thing is, she isn’t getting any help from the state, her mortgage company, etc., and she has tried. So to think that all people that are having it rough get help from YOUR paycheck, you are desperately incorrect.
I’m just glad that I am well enough to work full time, earn the money that I earn, and have some compassion for people who truly are in a bad situation not brought on by themselves. I try not to judge and assume, as some others posting here do.
Kevin, my life is wonderful. That is why I like to help those less fortunate whenever possible. I contribute to the United Way, to Animal Shelters, to underprivileged women so they can receive mammograms, and many disease-related charities. You, my friend, come off sounding very selfish and greedy.
I am thankful to not be in a situation where I need assistance from the government. I also pray every day that I will never be in the situation to need government assistance. You really never know. Things could change drastically in an instant.
The funny thing is, I agree 100% that they should have paid the $75 fee. I also feel it should be made mandatory, because some people do and will not take personal responsibility. The family in this article (except the son, who punched the fire cheif in the face) are accepting responsibility for not paying the fee and their trailer home subsequently burning to the ground. Good for them.
It is simply a question of morals and ethics that is being debated here. It was a tough situation, I’m sure. The firefighters probably did want to put out the fire, but were not able to due to the residents not paying the fee. It’s basically a bad situation all around, and there are valid points on both sides of the fence. But this has turned into way more than the article at hand. It has jumped all the way into political madness.
There will always be many opinions on ANY subject put out to the public. People (and this is not necessarily directed at you, Kevin) need to learn that it will always be this way and accept it.
I’m glad your life is wonderful, Gwen, I really am. I wish everyone’s life was wonderful. Fact is, that’s not the case. There are many stories of hardship. Some tug at my heart; others don’t. Those that do generally involve unforeseen circumstances that affect life and health. Material losses don’t bother me as much, especially when those material losses could have been protected.
We all have definitions of what’s greedy and what’s selfish. To some, anyone that has more than them must be greedy and selfish. You don’t have any idea what I give to charities, and I choose to keep that private. Suffice to say I donate, including blood and I’m on the bone marrow registry. These things are more valuable than money.
Why is that we need to look to government if we need assistance? That was never the case before. Community, family, friends, and church was the only assistance and support we needed. Then, primarily in the twentieth century, government decided they needed to take care of us. It’s amazing we survived all those years without government handouts. This continual spoonfeeding has made us weak. I’ve been an insurance agent for 33 years. The most difficult product to sell is disability insurance, yet a person is 8x more likely to become disabled before 65 than die. Why, then, doesn’t everyone carry this insurance? Social Security is one reason. Why buy coverage when the gov’t will take care of you? Social Security, through changes and amendments, morphed into a far more encompassing program than originally designed. I carry disability insurance, live a lifestyle that enables me to survive if I became disabled, and to weather unemployment. My wife lost her job last year. Instead of milking unemployment, she got a part-time job. She has friends that tell her she’s crazy to work when she could get unemployment. Some of them rejoice when the benefits get extended, and don’t actively seek work. It’s not in my or my wife’s nature to live off others when we can provide for ourselves. Our life is impacted by her job loss (she did make a very good income) and adjusted to her much lower income. But since we never lived beyond our means and saved money “just in case”, we’re able to keep our home and other things.
I don’t believe this is a question of morals and ethics. I’ve never once questioned morality or ethics in these dialogues, though I, and others that agree with me, have been labled as greedy, selfish, uncompassionate, etc. And I’m not sure the firefighters lost sleep over it. There have been countless times that clients have suffered losses and did not have coverage. I feel a little badly, but then remember the choice not to have the coverage was their’s. If they bought the coverage, they’d be covered. Since they didn’t, they’re not. I’m not happy they suffered the loss, and wish they hadn’t, just like the firefighters, I’m sure, wished the Cranicks home hadn’t caught fire. But I doubt they lost sleep, either. It wasn’t their fault, it was the Cranicks’ fault.
Like you said, Gwen, there will always be opposing viewpoints on most subjects. But when I think some viewpoints and actions are harmful (like our current government), I’m not going to accept it. I’m going to try and change it.
Kevin,
First, I’m very sorry to hear about your wife losing her job. Secondly, I completely understand/agree with your first paragraph. Thirdly, I apologize for name calling. I do not know you except from your posts on this website. I’m sure you are a very nice person, and I did not mean to call into play whether or not you donate money to charities or any other worthy causes. I was more so trying to make a point.
When I said my life is wonderful, I did not mean it is without troubles. While I am not a rich person monetarily, compared to others less fortunate than me, I may be considered to be.
The Cranicks were not necessarily less fortunate. I do not know their money situation. As I said in my previous post, I agree 100% that they should have paid the $75 when it was due, or at the very least, if they could not, for some reason, afford the $75, contacted the county and asked if there was a payment plan they could get on, etc. Basically, they should have at least made ANY attempt to pay.
To quote you, you posed the question “Why is that we need to look to government if we need assistance? That was never the case before. Community, family, friends, and church was the only assistance and support we needed.” Unfortunately, that system has broken down in the past few decades, and I don’t necessarily think it has anything to do with government involvement. It has to do with people’s changing attitudes and looking out for one’s self and own interests. This is not to say that everybody is selfish and only cares about themselves. There are plenty of people out there willing to help. Sadly, you also have people that don’t have the resources you mentioned above available to them.
To quote you again, “And I’m not sure the firefighters lost sleep over it. There have been countless times that clients have suffered losses and did not have coverage. I feel a little badly, but then remember the choice not to have the coverage was their’s. If they bought the coverage, they’d be covered. Since they didn’t, they’re not. I’m not happy they suffered the loss, and wish they hadn’t, just like the firefighters, I’m sure, wished the Cranicks home hadn’t caught fire. But I doubt they lost sleep, either. It wasn’t their fault, it was the Cranicks’ fault.” You state that you do feel a little badly, but then move on, because you know it is not your fault they didn’t choose to have the coverage to begin with.
Kevin, that is all I wanted to hear from you! In your other posts, you come off sounding like a heartless person who could care less. I now know that you do care, just in a very logical way. I feel the same way. You feel bad for people that they lost whatever, but at the same time you know it’s because of their own accord.
I knew you weren’t a monster! :)
Gwen, I am glad you finally saw the light and stopped attacking Kevin for his views. There are many community organizations in most cities and towns to help the unfortunate in our society without resorting to the government for everything. My church helps many poor people down on their luck. United Way, Salvation Army and others also help. Somehow, this country needs to return to the idea of people helping people. The American people are the most generous on earth. Hopefully, you agree that we shouldn’t have 41.8 million people on food stamps. This is an indictment on our government putting Progressive policies in place to make people dependent on government. If we had a government which promoted and encouraged the free enterprise system, we would have much less unemployment and fewer people on the dole. 11-2 is a start to return to the proper role of government.
Note to Observer: I was never attacking Kevin for his opinions; I very much believe in everybody’s right to their opinion. What I was criticizing was his seeming lack of any compassion at all. I understand his views better now that he has said he does have sympathy/empathy for the people losing their home and belongings; and I agree with his view that you can feel bad for people, but at the same time realize that they brought it on themselves. I believe in both taking responsibility for one’s own actions, and also helping fellow mankind whenever possible. I agree with you that there should be less people on government assistance programs. I just hope the economy/government does change for the better.
Very well put, Kevin!
This is what we are in for.
Wow David, I thought this article and postings died a natural death in October. Were you on a world cruise or just catching up before Christmas break? You are right that this entitlement crowd wants the government to handle everything. Beware of the government employee who shows up and says “I am from the government and I am here to help”. They have an ulterior motive.