Tennessee Firemen ignore burning house over unpaid subscription fee

New Posts

Blue_Dolphin308

Blue_Dolphin308

We can't help everyone, But everyone can help some
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
3,411
Reaction score
129
The fire department where my FIL lives will do the same thing. If you don't pay their annual dues, you're on your own if your house catches on fire. Terrible.....
 
Woah, I never thought anything like that was possible. I guess I take more for granted than I originally thought. I have never heard of anyone having to pay fees for fire rescue until now.
 
Wow, it sounds like the residents didn't want to pay for fire protection until their house was on fire. They chose not to pay for the subscription, even though it is only $75 per year. I wouldn't have put out the fire either.

Mr Cranick said: "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong." His wife said the couple had offered to pay the fire fighters whatever was necessary for them to extinguish the flames, but the officers refused.
Click to expand...
 
OMG ! I have never heard of such a thing !!! Over $75.00 dollars REALLY !!!
 
what?! isn't that what taxes are for?
 
This is disgusting. What if there had been people (or animals) trapped in the burning house? What if they were elderly people who had to choose between paying the fee and buying food? I honestly don't understand how anyone, especially firefighters who are trained and have the equipment, would refuse to help someone who's home is burning down. What a horrible place to live where officials think not paying a $75 fee is reason enough to let someone's home burn. I guess they really made their point...maybe they could publish a list of the people who haven't paid the police fee, that way the criminals will know who to victimize with no worry of being caught!
 
Perhaps a lawsuit will be in the works !

I know my taxes pay for the fire department among other things, I still am in awe over this.............................. floored would be more like it
 
LadyL said:
what?! isn't that what taxes are for?
Click to expand...

They don't have fire protection service where they live. They can pay to get service from the nearby city of South Fulton, but only if they subscribe.

Mr Vowell explained that there was no county-wide fire service and it was too expensive for the city's officers to serve surrounding rural areas like the Cranicks' as well.

Rural residents can gain access to the service by paying the annual fee. But "if they choose not to," Mr Vowell said, "we can't make them".
Click to expand...
 
Wow. I understand that in rural areas, you often have to pay for services that us city folk might take for granted (for example, my parents have to pay for waste removal, although where I live my taxes pay for the city to deal with it).

But as someone who survived a devastating house fire some years ago, I really feel for these folks. That was one of, if not the most, traumatic experiences of my life. There were two things that made it bearable for those of us involved: the support of housemates/family/friends/community/the Red Cross, and the extreme *niceness* of the first responders (police and fire). I'm willing to bet that the firefighters who could not respond are (almost) as devastated as these folks who lost their house.
 
And what if they couldn't afford the $75 fee- that's alot of money to some people, it might mean the choice between food & paying the fee. I think it's extortion, not insurance! Taxes should pay for it. Thank God the people in San Bruno, CA who had a natural gas pipeline explode in their neighborhood, where 38 houses were destroyed and 8 people killed didn't have such a policy!!! Criminal!:furious:
 
LinasK said:
And what if they couldn't afford the $75 fee- that's alot of money to some people, it might mean the choice between food & paying the fee. I think it's extortion, not insurance! Taxes should pay for it. Thank God the people in San Bruno, CA who had a natural gas pipeline explode in their neighborhood, where 38 houses were destroyed and 8 people killed didn't have such a policy!!! Criminal!:furious:
Click to expand...

If I understand what Tuffy is saying, this is more like the people of San Bruno complaining that the Palo Alto FD didn't put out the fire. The county in question doesn't offer fire protection, so a nearby city offers it to those who sign up and pay for it.

I can understand the city's point of view; it can't collect taxes from rural residents.

But the county should have made other arrangements that covered all structures in its jurisdiction. Even if it meant higher taxes.

IN FACT, this is the perfect example of why everyone-for-himself philosophies don't work for many types of services. Because the couple in question hadn't paid their $75 fee, the fire spread to the home next door. If fire coverage had been mandatory for all, it would have cost less than $75 in the first place and the neighbors (who had paid their fee) might not have been on fire at all.

Sorry, but this is what happens when the all-American hatred of taxes is allowed to run amok.
 
LadyL said:
what?! isn't that what taxes are for?
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I said! Our local fire depts are paid by tax money, no extra fees allowed. (our ambulance services are subscription service, but I have never heard of them refusing to pick up anyone, whether they've subscribed to the service or not.)

I guess we're just lucky, really lucky, that this house didn't start a wildfire that could've burned down the whole dang county.

EDITING TO ADD: I predict that WAY more people in this county are going to be paying for fire protection after this incident!
 
Sounds more like the mafia. Pay your protection fee, or else.

I understand budgetary concerns, but the fire truck was already at the scene and the firefighters were ordered not to put the fire out. Crazy weird imho.
 
I feel bad for them but the owners of the house are to blame not the fire dept IMO. If they had paid the fee then there wouldn't have been a problem. They knew they lived in the county, outside the city limits and that their county didn't have a fire dept. It's like not paying your auto insurance and expecting an insurance company to pay up if your car is totaled.
 
southerngal said:
I feel bad for them but the owners of the house are to blame not the fire dept IMO. If they had paid the fee then there wouldn't have been a problem. They knew they lived in the county, outside the city limits and that their county didn't have a fire dept. It's like not paying your auto insurance and expecting an insurance company to pay up if your car is totaled.
Click to expand...
:razz:
In fact, the article states the owners did try to pay up on the spot and were refused, instead the firefighters stood by and let their house burn!!!
And I re-iterate:
LinasK said:
And what if they couldn't afford the $75 fee- that's alot of money to some people, it might mean the choice between food & paying the fee. I think it's extortion, not insurance! Taxes should pay for it. Thank God the people in San Bruno, CA who had a natural gas pipeline explode in their neighborhood, where 38 houses were destroyed and 8 people killed didn't have such a policy!!! Criminal!:furious:
Click to expand...
 
LinasK said:
:razz:
In fact, the article states the owners did try to pay up on the spot and were refused, instead the firefighters stood by and let their house burn!!!
And I re-iterate:
Click to expand...

If they let people when their house is on fire, why would anyone pay a yearly subscription? Just give them $75 when and if your house catches on fire.
 



Posted on Tue, Oct. 05, 2010 03:29 PM


​

International Association of Fire Fighters General President Harold Schaitberger today issued the following statement on the September 29 fire in Obion County, Tennessee:
“The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family’s home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible. This tragic loss of property was completely avoidable. Because of South Fulton’s pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home.
“Everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities.
“Instead, South Fulton wants to charge citizens outside the city for fire protection. We condemn South Fulton’s ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go.”


Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/05/2279115/fire-fighters-condemn-south-fultons.html#ixzz11WJS9s2R​
 
LinasK said:
:razz:
In fact, the article states the owners did try to pay up on the spot and were refused, instead the firefighters stood by and let their house burn!!!
And I re-iterate:
Click to expand...


why should they be allowed to pay on the spot? I'll try that with Geico, not pay my insurance premium and if I have a wreck call them and see what they say when I tell them I didn't pay my yearly bill but I'll pay them on the spot since my car is totaled. While it's very unfortunate their house caught fire, paying the $75 could have avoided the whole thing, it's not like they have said they couldn't afford to pay it, they just didn't. I pay $153 a year because I love in a rural area also and I would never even think about NOT paying it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 174 more.
Total: 3,913 (members: 175, guests: 3,738)

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
3,738
Total visitors
3,913
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,835
Messages
17,959,810
Members
228,621
Latest member
Greer∆
Back
Top