# Tenn. Firefighters watch home burn to ground over $75 town fee



## packsaddle (Oct 5, 2010)

SOUTH FULTON — Authorities say firefighters in a far western Tennessee city let a mobile home burn down because the owner didn't pay a $75 yearly fee for fire protection.

Jeff Vowell, city manager of South Fulton, told the Union City Daily Messenger that the city fire department let Gene Cranick's doublewide trailer home burn last week because he didn't pay the subscription common in many rural areas.

Cranick's home is outside city limits, but South Fulton offers fire protection to nearby residents for a fee and did protect a neighboring house that paid.

Police say Cranick's son was so angry he later went to the fire house and punched the chief.

City officials didn't return calls and a message left at a phone listing for Gene Cranick was not immediately returned.

From an earlier USA Today report:

The mayor of South Fulton, Tenn., stands by his town's policy that led firefighters to watch from the sidelines while a man's county home burned to the ground because he hadn't paid the $75 fire protection fee, WPSD reports.

Gene Cranick, owner of the now-gutted house in Obion County, says he called 911 and offered to pay whatever it would take to get the firefighters to act, but they said they wouldn't do anything, WPSD reports.

They only responded when it looked as if the fire might spread to the house of a neighbor who had paid the fee.

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," Cranick tells the Paducah, Ky., TV station.

Mayor David Crocker says that's just city policy.

"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Crocker says.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20101005/NEWS01/101005079/Tenn.+Firefighters+watch+home+burn+to+ground+over++75+town+fee


----------



## conarb (Oct 5, 2010)

Colorado has he right idea:



			
				Contra Costa Times said:
			
		

> BOULDER, Colo.—Some homes  threatened by a wildfire in the Colorado foothills west of Boulder were  protected by a private team of firefighters hired by an insurance  company to look out for its clients' property.The crew hired by  Chubb Corp. was operating under an agreement the company has with  Boulder County, the Boulder Daily Camera reported Tuesday.¹


¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_16134045?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com


----------



## packsaddle (Oct 5, 2010)

> "When you don't have that policy and someone else does, it sets up a have and have-nots kind of feeling," she said.


It appears the thought of changing policies never entered her pea brain.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 5, 2010)

I don't agree with what they did but a mobile home would have probably burnt to the ground anyway.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 6, 2010)

packsaddle said:
			
		

> "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," Cranick tells the Paducah, Ky., TV station.


So basicaly, he expects the town he does not live in, and does not pay taxes for, to subsidize him. Welfare can take a variety of forms.


----------



## conarb (Oct 6, 2010)

We had that happen here a few months ago, I've searched the newspaper that I saw it in with no luck, but here's what happened as I recall.

In our delta area there are several islands with different fire districts, a home started burning and the residents called the fire department that they thought covered them, several engines showed up but refused to fight the fire because it was outside their boundaries, and no fire district covered that island. The residents thought they were covered because they paid a yearly tax on their property tax returns to the district that they called and did show up but stood and looked.  Come to find out the County Assessors' office had mistakenly taxed the island residents giving the money to the district that they called, but the fact remains that the island wasn't within the district. I hope someone has the wherewithal to bring a legal action against both the county and the fire district, the residents had paid taxes for many years for a service that they weren't entitled to, the fire district received money to protect people it wasn't bound to protect, this would make an interesting legal case.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Oct 6, 2010)

In that town; if someone has been taken to the emergency room before by the town's emergency service, and hasn't paid their bill; do they let them die of a heart attack the second time they are called out?

What the hell has this country come to?

So, Fire Fighters do not protect the public and their property from fires anymore.

Are they now, mercenaries?

When I was a volunteer fireman; we put out fires; regardless of where they were; and, we didn't ask if they had paid for the service.

That just makes me sick,

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Oct 6, 2010)

It has become a country that you have to pay to play. That is if you are a citizen. This exact thing has been in the back of my mind for years. I was not surprised at all to see it on the news last night. They should of had sprinklers. See the coalition was correct and we that opposed just had it wrong. I am sure the federal government will step in and see this doesn't happen again.


----------



## vegas paul (Oct 6, 2010)

Maybe the mobile home should have been required to have sprinklers...  :grin:


----------



## cda (Oct 6, 2010)

Sounds like old school days when you had a fire mark on your house and if you did not have one no firefight

Sounds like insurance if you do not pay got it they will not fix your house


----------



## Builder Bob (Oct 6, 2010)

Posts from another thread about the same thing



> It does go against what I believe in, however, the truth of the matter is that it costs money to drive and operate the big red trucks ---- At one Volunteer FD I was at, we use to take up collections to buy the next tank of fuel for big red and do fund raisers ---- This day and age, it takes to much time away from your primary job to do these types of activiies today- Today's work places are not as tolerent as they were when times were good.


Texas Transplant: Our City had a contract with the county to provide fire fighting in a certain area of the county. County cut the fee out of their budget this year and we have stopped responding to the calls in that area.I know it seems cruel to let a home burn, but the service was available for $75.00 per year and the family chose not to pay it. They made their own choice. Another angle to this is a lot of insurance companies for municipal corporations will not pay if a fire fighter or policeman etc. are injured or killed responding to a call that is outside the jurisdication unless an agreement is in place or mutal aid has been requested in the appropriate way. So what happens if a fire fighter is killed or injured fighting this fire, who takes care of the fire fighters family and health care cost.

Its a cold cold world out there, but this country is becoming more legalistic and sue happy and that happens to drive the decsions made all so often. If legal battles were decided on spirit and intent of the law with common sense being applied liberally, rather than laws being disected in the way that makes money for cheaters, liars and lawyers, things might be different.



> Not very common, but still exists in Rural USA...... Basically, why provide a free service if you aren't paid for it. Not any different than you having a business and requiring payment up front for your services. This area does not have a tax based milage for fire service - the City raises revenue by "contracting" services outside the city limits.
> 
> This has been in existance for a very long time ----- Benjamin Franklin days to be exact
> 
> http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedi...r-sign-plaque#


----------



## vegas paul (Oct 6, 2010)

Somewhat related - our county provides EMT/paramedic to any and all accidents that occur within the county on either of our two Interstates that intersect here (I-70 & I-135).  However, if the victim(s) aren't residents of the county (and many aren't, given that it is a major cross-country intersection), a $350 bill is presented - they ALWAYS respond, but payment is required if you aren't a county taxpayer.


----------



## Min&Max (Oct 6, 2010)

What a dumb--- situation. They need to write an interlocal agreement so that the fire department just goes out and does what they are supposed to do---fight fires. The residents pay the fee to the county with their taxes and the county remits the fire coverage fee to the fire department.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Oct 6, 2010)

When I read a discussion like this one it makes me wonder how much people really know about the history of the fire service. Most fire departments in the US are volunteer.

How many building departments are volunteer, or police departments? Some of those volunteer departments get by on donations only, some get taxes, and some collect fees.

Most states do not have laws requiring fire protection. It is a service that is provided if and only if an organization is willing to provide the service. So if some shlub does not want to pay for fire protection then he has that right. And when his home burns down that is also his right unless he causes damage to another. The owner of the double wide could have been charged with allowing a fire from his property to cause damage to another.

So who creates these laws? And who changes these laws?

Whens the last time you thanked some dumb volunteer fire fighter for giving up time and risking his/her life just so you could have a service that you really aren't paying enough for anyhow?

I know...  I have been a volunteer fire fighter/chief and have spent many days and nights doing hard risky work. Then we would have pancake breakfasts so that we could get enough money together to install a bathroom in the fire station.

$75.00 = ?


----------



## mark handler (Oct 6, 2010)

Welfare is Welfare.

If you don't pay taxes for the service, you are not entitled.

One interview I saw on TV of the fire chief, he said if there was a life safety issue they would have jumped in, but the *owner choose not to pay* for the fire service. They were *not entitled* to the service.


----------



## Coug Dad (Oct 6, 2010)

Sounds like our new medical plan.  Don't buy health insurance until you are sick and then the health insurance companies have to cover you, even with pre existing conditions.  Who would have covered the injured or killed firefighter operating outside of thier jurisdiction?  Would they, or their survivors then sue the fire district for operating outside of thier area.  Reality bites and that homeowner got a big taste of the consequences of irresponsible, but deliberate, decisions.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 6, 2010)

I was one of the first to post a WOW! on the other thread about this, but after builder bob and texas transplant posted replies, I had a change of heart. It is too bad this guys home burned down, but really, do you think he could have called his insurance agent in the middle of the fire and start a policy then? Who is responsible for the injured firefighters that should not have, by policy, fighting the fire? You' don't think the comp carrier isn't going to jump all over that?

He should have paid the $75, period. I do agree that it would make more sense to add it as a fee to the tax bills so that everyone is covered.


----------



## TJacobs (Oct 6, 2010)

If the locals want to pay taxes so the fire department comes regardless, then they need to set that up.  Otherwise, shut up and pay the subscription.

I'll bet the department sees a ***** in subscriptions...


----------



## beach (Oct 6, 2010)

.....................................................................................................................



> *Back To Obion County*
> 
> I wanted to add a new puzzle to the "Burn, Baby Burn" story from Obion County, Tennessee.  Yesterday the blogosphere buzzed with the story of a South Fulton fire department letting a man's house burn down becasue he had not paid the $75 fee to subscribe to the town's fire service (he lived out of town and was not a taxpayer.)
> 
> ...


----------



## rktect 1 (Oct 6, 2010)

I wonder if the same policy is in force with the police department.


----------



## beach (Oct 6, 2010)

I love this one:



> Why would anyone pay for a service if they could avoid paying taxes, not pay the user fees and still receive the services? I'm actually starting my own freeloader society on the just west of the South Dakota border. You see, my freeloader society will pay no taxes and support no social services. However, if we need anything, we will call Minnesota and have them send their fire & police to our community to service our needs. Finally, we will send our children to the nearby Minnesota schools (won't pay for that either). How charitable are you guys feeling now? You wouldn't deny my children the opportunity to go to school would you?


----------



## mark handler (Oct 6, 2010)

I want services but I don't want to pay for them.

What’s next, someone building unpermitted additions and asking the building department to inspect their work?

Someone coming across the border applying for food and shelter assistance while looking for work?


----------



## texas transplant (Oct 6, 2010)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> If the locals want to pay taxes so the fire department comes regardless, then they need to set that up.  Otherwise, shut up and pay the subscription.I'll bet the department sees a ***** in subscriptions...


And if the fire department had put the fire out anyway and taken the $75.00 the next day the City would have probably seen a large drop in the number of subscriptions paid next year.  Why pay $75.00 per year if I can get it by paying $75.00 only when I have a problem.   Besides fires never happen to me, its always the other guy.


----------



## Mech (Oct 6, 2010)

Mark - I agree.

What about fighting the fire for the $75, AND imposing a late fee - say $500?  Discourage people from milking the system.  Of course I'm sure the FD should have a policy signed before they hose down the structure for legal reasons.  And if the owners refuse to pay, put a lien on the property.

Maybe the FD could have two payment plans:

(1) $75 annual coverage.

(2) $500 per callout.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 6, 2010)

I believe the city is wrong to offer a subscribtion service to those you will pay. The city is using taxpayer funded equipment and employees outside its jurisdiction to provide a service. Will they do the same for snow plowing or garbage removal. How about cleaning drainage ditches or grading roads. If the city won't contract for those services then they shouldn't contract for fire either.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 6, 2010)

The city should be able to provide whatever services it can to help recoup costs.


----------



## Builder Bob (Oct 6, 2010)

Good or bad, decisions have been made and we can armchair the heck out of this one.....Local politics have set the stage and now opportunities are present to prevent this from happening in that area again.(If the politicians think so....)

I do find a bit of irony in this situation......   Severl people have posted in the past that a home is a man's castle and we shouldn't regulate it....(residential sprinkler rant for one, window guards another, etc.) Now that the realization that government didn't regulate or control something, people are in an uproar.

This is a case where a person had the aility to control his own risk management without alot of outside interference, it bit him in the foot. If insurance paperwork was falsified ---(i.e. we have contracted service and he didn't) insurance may very well deny payment.

(Another thing about two tier payment plans ----- If you are a true volunteer FD and you are having trouble placing fuel in the trucks, how the heck are you going to pay for an accounting person to keep track of payment(s) and can you afford to wait six months to get paid to refill thefuel tank o big red? Some fire Departments in Rural America might not have 6 fires a year >>>>>>


----------



## Mule (Oct 6, 2010)

$75 a year is cheap fire insurance.


----------



## texas transplant (Oct 6, 2010)

mtlogcabin,

Odds are the county provides some, if not all of the services that you mentioned.   It is pretty cheap to fund a road crew that can take care of ditches, plow snow etc. compared to even a trained volunteer fire department.  Road graders and dump trucks are cheap compared to fire trucks.

I am all for government bodies getting together in this economic climate and utilizing each others resources.  It has to be a fair give and take.   If government A doesn't have a service or piece of equipment to offset the a service that government B can provide, they better be ready to pony up some cash.

I applaude any government body that is offering to provide a service to non-citizens, on a payment basis. If government doesn't do it where they can it will be provided by the private sector.   Why not get more use out of the investment the City has made on Fire Equipment and fire personnel training.

And like Mule said, $75/year is cheap.   Is there even a single piece of equipment that a fire man uses that $75.00 will buy outside of a uniform shirt or something.  It would take a lot of $75.00 subscriptions to buy just one set of turn out gear.


----------



## Alias (Oct 6, 2010)

As someone who depends upon the local all volunteer rural fire department, I make a yearly contribution to them without being asked/required.  The county is covered by 13 volunteer fire districts and the city has its' own volunteer company.

Living on the frontier in CA where 75% of the land is owned by the government, our local jurisdictions have MOUs with each other plus we have CalFire, USFS, and BLM firefighters.  They all work together to protect life and property.

It is too bad that they don't have something like this where this fire occurred.  On the flip side, if it costs $75.00 a year for a subscription, I'd pay it in a heartbeat.

Sue, where the county wants subscription 9-1-1 for all special districts....but that's another story.......


----------



## brudgers (Oct 6, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> If you don't pay taxes for the service, you are not entitled.


Tough luck, children.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 6, 2010)

rktect 1 said:
			
		

> I wonder if the same policy is in force with the police department.


"If you don't pay for the laws, you're not entitled to be arrested under them."


----------



## packsaddle (Oct 6, 2010)

> As someone who depends upon the local all volunteer rural fire department, I make a yearly contribution to them without being asked/required.


And this is how the country should be run as well.

Overall, we are a moral people, preprogrammed to help others.

IOW, we are intrinsically altruistic.

We don't need to pay taxes for full-time firefighters, law enforcement, et al. to just sit around and wait for stuff to happen.

If you want fire protection, personal protection, or garbage pick-up, hire a private company to perform those services.

IMO, everything should be privatized.

That way you only pay for the services you want........and NOT pay for services you DON'T want.

The only exception would be the security of our nation, which is the only constitutionally defined role of government anyway.

Of course, that would require a higher level of personal responsibility.


----------



## Min&Max (Oct 6, 2010)

There are sure to be additional benefits by the county contracting with the neighboring fire department to provide fire service. I would have to believe that homeowners insurance is sky-high in an area without fire service. It is even likely that one would not be able to obtain insurance if fire service isn't provided. It seems archaic that a fire department would be receiving 75.00 from various homeowners for fire protection and before leaving the firehouse, researching who has or has not paid the fee.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 6, 2010)

> If government A doesn't have a service or piece of equipment to offset the a service that government B can provide, they better be ready to pony up some cash.


  Agree and the cities contract should be with the county and the county should be asseing the fee and paying the city not the individual property owner.


----------



## texas transplant (Oct 6, 2010)

mtlogcabin,

I agree.


----------



## karmann33 (Oct 7, 2010)

I've read most of the replies here and the only thing I have to say is why in the hell would the firefighters even drive to the structure knowing that they weren't going to put the fire out. If you're not going to put the fire out why waste city or county tax dollars in fuel and man hours to watch the fire. If they knew that this fella didn't pay the fee they shouldn't even have left the station but, then to show up and watch it burn only says ha ha stupid I guess you should have paid the toll. What if someone had died in this fire and all because of a measly $75.00? I guess you can't fix stupid now can You?


----------



## beach (Oct 7, 2010)

They showed up to protect the neighboring homes (that paid the $75.00) from exposure


----------



## texas transplant (Oct 7, 2010)

The Chief also was quoted something along the line that if a life had been in danger they would have taken steps to safe the life.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 7, 2010)

beach said:
			
		

> They showed up to protect the neighboring homes (that paid the $75.00) from exposure


They showed up to make an example of the person who didn't pay.

The most effective way to protect those homes would have been to put out the fire.

If it had been a wildfire, they would not have let it burn.


----------



## FM William Burns (Oct 7, 2010)

Didn't read all the posts but saw the story the other day when it hit the media.  This event is appalling and personally, I hope they get their asses handed to them in court when the guy files a lawsuit.  A sad day and situation for all fire service personnel out there.  Really, $75.00....... ah crap...I'm ticked and wish I was in front of the so called Chief right now..........sivilance...sivilance......


----------



## mark handler (Oct 7, 2010)

sivilance??????????


----------



## FM William Burns (Oct 8, 2010)

should have said "Serenity Now"...was thinking of Seinfeld and mixed it up with Tom Hanks on SNL as a roady. See that crap ticked me off.


----------



## Mech (Oct 8, 2010)

Be careful; "Serenity Now" is what put Lloyd Braun in the nut house.


----------



## FM William Burns (Oct 9, 2010)

Yep, this situation should have been handled like many would if faced with similar one.  Suppression and then leave it up to the courts to settle the payment schedule.  This is how it will most likely be handled suring the civil case in the near future.


----------



## Builder Bob (Oct 11, 2010)

I think that you really have to be careful in this litigation day and age ----- Wouldn't it be considered freelancing if they started operations at a building where basic liability insurance would not cover the employees since they did not have a mutual aid contract? (A subscription service is a mutual aid contract between property owner and the agency providing fire service when NONE is provided.) This contract legally bounds the workman comp, death benefits, and other insurances to cover the FF’s and the equipment.

If is a big word - IF he had paid, IF a firefighter got hurt, IF a Firefighter was killed, If the fire apparatus hit a car while responding, etc.................

HOWEVER, I am tired of bailing everybody out for making poor choices..... Banks, Motor Vehicle Companies, etc.  He failed to pay $75.00 ---- If you had a business, I am sure that you would give your time freely and not expect payment for the services provided, much less from the next 100 or so jobs you did because they heard you did the work for free.  If times were good, donations would have been sufficient so that subscription services would not have to be used in the first place.

The local politicians did not want to raise taxes... for fire protection in the unincorporated areas of the county. Don't blame the fire chief who was following orders from City Council's legislation and/or directives from Town Mayor.

I am truly sorry about what had happened to this gentleman and his family….

Not a popular position to be in with this discussion, But I have to speak out when we use to take money out of own pockets to put fuel in big red at the vollie department...


----------



## Min&Max (Oct 13, 2010)

It seems harsh but the homeowner had a decision to make and he chose to save $75.00. Its a pity but the chouce was his. If he would have had half a brain he might have said something like "I think my kid/grandkid is in there" and made an "attempt" to get back to the dwelling.


----------



## FM William Burns (Oct 13, 2010)

BB,

I totally understand the points made.  I could only speak for operations in the regions I've worked in.  When we would roll up for a fire in a neighbor's area even without a MA agreement, we would at least go defensive.  Regardless, it's still a sad state for the fire service as it pertains to this jurisdiction's operations and policies.


----------

