Tennessee family home burns while firefighters watch

[Muddy]

A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department.

http://www.profilebrand.com/graphics/category/september-11th/4241_true-heroes-fireman.gif

Vicky Bell told the NBC affiliate WPSD-TV that she called 911 when her mobile home in Obion County caught fire. Firefighters arrived on the scene but as the fire raged, they simply stood by and did nothing. "In an emergency, the first thing you think of, 'Call 9-1-1," homeowner Bell said. However, Bell and her husband were forced to walk into the burning home in an attempt to retrieve their own belongings. "You could look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance," Bell said. "We just wished we could've gotten more out."

South Fulton Mayor David Crocker defended the fire department, saying that if firefighters responded to non-subscribers, no one would have an incentive to pay the fee. Residents in the city of South Fulton receive the service automatically, but it is not extended to those living in the greater county-wide area.

"There's no way to go to every fire and keep up the manpower, the equipment, and just the funding for the fire department," Crocker said.

The South Fulton policy produced precisely the same nightmare scenario last year, when homeowner Gene Cranick--who had likewise failed to pay the $75 annual fee for rural Obion County residents--saw his house engulfed by flames as South Fulton firefighter watched close by. That incident sparked a debate among conservative pundits over the limits of fee-for-service approaches to government.

For his part, Mayor Crocker stressed that the city's firefighters will help people in danger, even those who haven't paid the fee. "After the last situation, I would hope that everybody would be well aware of the rural fire fees, this time," Crocker said.

[KevinD]

Saw this a bit ago. As a retired Vol Firefighter, I can understand the Fire Dept's views here. As a home owner, I understand the couple view also.
My fire Dept was also in a rural area. There were times where we'd have to use personal $ to put fuel in the trucks. Not often, but sometimes. The only income was from county tax money, in our case 1/4 of 1% of all sales tax in the county. Other monies came from fundraising. There were grants sometimes from the Fed gov, but only to pay back approved money already spent. A good year would net a "profit" of $1,000 or so. A bad one would go red very, very fast.

[Hal-9000]

A 75 dollar annual fee (6.25 mo.) for fire protection for outlaying communities does not seem out of line to me.

[Muddy]

I can see if they didn't respond... But to just sit there and watch it burn..?

[Griffin]

They respond to prevent the fire from spreading to neighbors property.
Rural areas all across the country have volunteer fire departments. If everybody refused to pay there would be no protection
I live in a rural area, pay my annual fee but still hope I never have to call.

[Muddy]

I never had a fee in my rural county...

[RBP]

Burn motherfucker, Burn!

[Arkady Renko]

harsh...but I can't blame them. fucking freeriders.

[Godfather]

Interesting, wonder what the laws are down there. I know up here that in practice up here Fire Departments will sometimes charge fees like this, but it's actually legislated that they're not supposed to (people pay because it's reasonable and who wants to start a fight). If they did something like this I'm sure there could be one helluva law suit

[redred]

i wonder what they would have done if one of the people went back inside would they of had to put the fire out then?

[Godfather]

i wonder what they would have done if one of the people went back inside would they of had to put the fire out then?

I wondered the same thing... what if someone was in real danger? I'm going to show this to a couple friends who are fire fighters. I'm sure they'll be pretty disgusted.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

This story is old (late last year year, but still worth talking about), but you have to side with the fire department. It's just like car insurance, you can't decide to not pay it and then when you get into a wreck tell an insurance agent that "hey, I'll pay my premium now, just cover my car repairs." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If they put out this fire for someone that didn't pay, then what would be the incentive for anyone to pay? "They put out that guy's fire without him having to pay first, so why should I?" Then the fire department would get no money at all to operate until after the fact.

I saw in follow-ups about this incident that had someone been in the house, the firemen would have tried to rescue them, but they still wouldn't have put out the fire. Their sole reason for showing up is to keep the fire from spreading.

[Muddy]

It was posted on Yahoo yesterday..

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html

[Acid Trip]

It was posted on Yahoo yesterday..

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html

You are both right. This is almost identical to a story that ran a year or two ago. Different people, same result.

[JoeyB]

i wonder what they would have done if one of the people went back inside would they of had to put the fire out then?


I wondered the same thing... what if someone was in real danger? I'm going to show this to a couple friends who are fire fighters. I'm sure they'll be pretty disgusted.

The head of the department said that they WOULD have helped anyone in danger, there was never any question of that.


You are both right. This is almost identical to a story that ran a year or two ago. Different people, same result.

Which is also clearly stated in the article posted at the start of the thread.

OK, I'm going to place all other debates aside and post something I considered last night while mulling this over. If I was a fireman, and watched a home burn down, I would never feel quite so good about myself again. It saps some of the nobility of the firefighters cause.

[Hal-9000]

I can see if they didn't respond... But to just sit there and watch it burn..?

I initially thought that it was cruel of them to show up....and hang out for awhile :lol:

They probably were ensuring that no one was hurt or in danger, which is cool

[FBD]

OK, I'm going to place all other debates aside and post something I considered last night while mulling this over. If I was a fireman, and watched a home burn down, I would never feel quite so good about myself again. It saps some of the nobility of the firefighters cause.[/COLOR]

We love your heart, Joey.

[Godfather]

Ahh fair enough, as long as the fire dept has a policy of helping if someone's life is in danger. Pets should be included under that too :mrgreen:


Car insurance is an interesting comparison lance. Up here if you've someone screwed up your insurance (said it was Pleasure use when it was actually for Work purposes for example) the Insurance company can chose to offer you a 10:1 settlement. They'll pay the claim, but you owe them 10x the amount you saved by trying to cheat. That seems more than fair, given they could void your insurance all together

[Deepsepia]

I never had a fee in my rural county...

One of the aspects of government that not many people understand is "who do you get your services from, and how do they get paid?"

Where I live ("unincorporated King County") we're rural, and we get services through the County -- its on our tax bill. Other incorporated towns either provide these services themselves or contract for them with the County, or with neighboring towns.

It all shows up on your property tax bill. The insurance companies would go apeshit if a community decided not to fight fires . . . that's why they responded-- you get a fire starting in property A, ignore it, and it ignites something else, and you have a disaster.

More generally, the Tennessee response is an example of why private choice doesn't work in communal problems. Your "choice" not to pay for fire services doesn't make a fire in your home "safe" for your neighbors who did.

Very few communities make fire, police or ambulance service optional.

[Arkady Renko]

One of the aspects of government that not many people understand is "who do you get your services from, and how do they get paid?"

Where I live ("unincorporated King County") we're rural, and we get services through the County -- its on our tax bill. Other incorporated towns either provide these services themselves or contract for them with the County, or with neighboring towns.

It all shows up on your property tax bill. The insurance companies would go apeshit if a community decided not to fight fires . . . that's why they responded-- you get a fire starting in property A, ignore it, and it ignites something else, and you have a disaster.

More generally, the Tennessee response is an example of why private choice doesn't work in communal problems. Your "choice" not to pay for fire services doesn't make a fire in your home "safe" for your neighbors who did.

Very few communities make fire, police or ambulance service optional.

I absolutely agree, privatizing the bare necessities makes no sense at all. I don't mind these services (except for the cops) to be operated by private companies, but funding and regulations are core tasks for the state.