http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001

Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee.

Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat.

"They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.

The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.

"We wasn't on their list," he said the operators told him.

Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he "forgot" to pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee.

Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out.

His offer wasn't accepted, he said.

The fire fee policy dates back 20 or so years.

"Anybody that's not inside the city limits of South Fulton, it's a service we offer. Either they accept it or they don't," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker.

The fire department's decision to let the home burn was "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association representing firefighters.

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee.

"They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn," Cranick said.

South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

Cranick, who is now living in a trailer on his property, says his insurance policy will help cover some of his lost home.

"Insurance is going to pay for what money I had on the policy, looks like. But like everything else, I didn't have enough."

After the blaze, South Fulton police arrested one of Cranick's sons, Timothy Allen Cranick, on an aggravated assault charge, according to WPSD-TV, an NBC station in Paducah, Ky.

Police told WPSD that the younger Cranick attacked Fire Chief David Wilds at the firehouse because he was upset his father's house was allowed to burn.

WPSD-TV reported that Wilds was treated and released.

They are absolutely terrible people. To allow a person's home and life to be destroyed, pets to be killed, then have the audacity to show up an to watch it burn. What if there were people in there? I guess their lives aren't important because of a stupid $75 fee. A fee the man was willing to pay, he simply forgot. People forget things, it happens. You don't let their lives be ruined because of it, at least if you're a decent human being.

Maybe it's because I don't live in some backwater third world part of the country, but where I live fire department is a public service that is paid for by taxes, just like the police department. That stupid fee should just be part of the tax form anyway. Absolutely despicable.

Harsh.

I bet you that if this way the mayor's home or the fire chief's home they'd have waved the fee for a day.

I don't really get why people are outraged about this. He chose to not pay the fee. What did he think the consequence was going to be?

I don't really get why people are outraged about this. He chose to not pay the fee. What did he think the consequence was going to be?

Because they showed up and watched it burn. Its one thing, if they didn't go out... its another to watch it burn.

Even so... what if the situation was different... lets say he paid and they didn't credit his account properly. "Where's your proof of payment?" "Its in the house... BURNING, you F-ing idiot!!!"

Its getting to the point where safety regulation don't allow some firefighters to fight fires until the house is ash anyway. So its tough to say if anything was savable by the time they got there anyway.

Honestly I don't know how to feel. My immediate reaction is to be outraged, but then again what if this guy is a Tea Partier? Long live the Libertarian paradise...

I need more information.

Score one for Libertarianism!!!!!111!!1!!

Honestly I don't know how to feel. My immediate reaction is to be outraged, but then again what if this guy is a Tea Partier? Long live the Libertarian paradise...

I need more information.

We have a winner!

Leaving political cheap shots and assumptions aside, I just know one thing for certain:

There is no way, had I been a firefighter, that I could have stood by and watched that happen.

Sounds like the dynamics of local stupidity to me.

The county outsourced its fire protection to a neighboring town. This agreement means the neighboring town won't just put out fires for free--the county in question must have decided to implement a voluntary fire protection scheme. Since it sounds like the county is pretty rural, there is a small externality problem which is what leads to most places having universal fire protection. Now you can argue that the fire department should have been nicer and more compassionate, or $75 is a small price to pay to save someone's house. But operating under the system that has been the norm in the county for 20 years (voluntary fire protection), this is the result. If someone doesn't have AAA, do you tow their car for free anyway? Insurance is insurance.

If people knew the fire department would put out fires regardless of paying the charge, why would anyone pay?

Sometimes you just have to do what's right and sort the rest out later.

The county outsourced its fire protection to a neighboring town. This agreement means the neighboring town won't just put out fires for free--the county in question must have decided to implement a voluntary fire protection scheme. Since it sounds like the county is pretty rural, there is a small externality problem which is what leads to most places having universal fire protection. Now you can argue that the fire department should have been nicer and more compassionate, or $75 is a small price to pay to save someone's house. But operating under the system that has been the norm in the county for 20 years (voluntary fire protection), this is the result. If someone doesn't have AAA, do you tow their car for free anyway? Insurance is insurance.

If people knew the fire department would put out fires regardless of paying the charge, why would anyone pay?

Because if your AAA insurance has lapsed, they'll still tow the car for you and just bill you for it.

The same should have been done for this home.

Exactly - just give the guy a bill for whatever it cost for the truck to go out there, the water, the firefighters time, etc. I'm sure he'd be willing to pay it to save his house.

I second DF's words: Un F-ing Believable...

Edited October 6, 201015 yr by ZL-1

Because if your AAA insurance has lapsed, they'll still tow the car for you and just bill you for it.

The same should have been done for this home.

"South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire."

So file a lien on the property....

but hey, you defended BP by saying wind power was more destructive to the environment than the oil spill.... so what can we really expect from you.

So file a lien on the property....

but hey, you defended BP by saying wind power was more destructive to the environment than the oil spill.... so what can we really expect from you.

Yeah if it had BP's headquarters on fire he'd be sympathetic. Big corporation and all.

I'll outsource analysis to Tyler Cowen:

Any social system must, at some stage of interactions, impose some morally unacceptable penalties. If you are very hungry, and you shoplift food, they still might prosecute you. If you don't pay your taxes, and resist wage garnishes, they might put you in jail. If you resist arrest, they might, at some point in the chain of events, shoot you while trying to escape. Somewhere along the line there is a doctor who can treat your rare disease except he doesn't feel like working so much, and so he lets you die or suffer; you can find both private and public sector examples here.

Social systems proceed by (usually) covering up the brutalities upon which they are based. The doctor doesn't let you get to his door and then turn you away, rather his home address is hard to find. The government handcuffs you so they don't have to shoot you trying to escape. And so on.

Ok, but we're talking seventy-five dollars here. You'd think there'd be a mechanism in place for this exact sort of situation where the homeowner could pay up after the disaster; hell, make it a five hundred dollar penalty, which would still be far more preferable than a man losing his livelihood.

Now that his house is gone, chances are his ability to pay taxes has been diminished and his employment may be in jeopardy. Those are 'morally unacceptable penalties' that could have been avoided had the fire department used some common sense and implemented a system that would allow them to charge a fee (and/or penalty) while still saving the property.

Again, anybody have word on whether the hapless homeowner is an anti-government Tea Partier like C-Spec?? I really need to know if I need to book a flight to Tennessee to dance on the ashes or go to Rite Aid and buy the guy a Halmark card.

Edited October 6, 201015 yr by Croc

I don't know, I watched an interview of him on MSNBC, I recall nothing about politics being mentioned. I recall him calling 911 and they wouldn't answer. When he realized it was because of the bill he said e would pay whatever it took to save his home, but that obviously fell on deaf ears. He also said exceptions had been made before and they waved the fee.

And either way, what if their had been people in there? Their lives are worth less than $75. never mind that animals were killed. I'm sure people like CSpec could care less about them. However I think it's awful.

From what I heard mentioned about the tea party, in another story, the news anchor likened what the fire department did to what the tea party what. Don't quote me on this though. I'd have to find that video and see it.

I don't know, I watched an interview of him on MSNBC, I recall nothing about politics being mentioned. I recall him calling 911 and they wouldn't answer. When he realized it was because of the bill he said e would pay whatever it took to save his home, but that obviously fell on deaf ears. He also said exceptions had been made before and they waved the fee.

And either way, what if their had been people in there? Their lives are worth less than $75. never mind that animals were killed. I'm sure people like CSpec could care less about them. However I think it's awful.

From what I heard mentioned about the tea party, in another story, the news anchor likened what the fire department did to what the tea party what. Don't quote me on this though. I'd have to find that video and see it.

Wait...so he'd skipped out on his bill before and they made exceptions for him before?!?! Yeah feeling less sorry for this guy. Anyone find good deals on Southwest?? I have a celebration to plan...

Well he said he forgot to pay the bill and realized that was the reason for them not answering. People forget, it happens.

Even so, I don't think a loss of home, all possession and pets while the firefighters watch it burn is justifiable. Make him pay fines or something.

Or her's an idea. Incorporate the bill into the yearly taxes like the civilized world does. Then, unless he's evading taxes, he'd probably have paid for it with his taxes and wouldn't be without a home.

Or her's an idea. Incorporate the bill into the yearly taxes like the civilized world does. Then, unless he's evading taxes, he'd probably have paid for it with his taxes and wouldn't be without a home.

But that part of the country likely intentionally set themselves up that way because "Why should anyone have to pay for fire service they never use? My house has NEVER burned down, so why should I pay taxes for it? Get the government out of our lives!!!!!!!!!!!"

Edited October 6, 201015 yr by Croc

Way to be mature Croc. What's your response to the fact that no one would pay if they could get away with paying only if their house happens to catch fire?

Way to be mature Croc. What's your response to the fact that no one would pay if they could get away with paying only if their house happens to catch fire?

What do you think my response would be? Clearly, there would be no fire department due to lack of funding in your "hypothetical" situation.

Some things are a public good that warrant funding and taxes whether you end up needing it or not.

OK, so your complaint is that the town set up their outsourced fire protection scheme as an insurance product, not a universal good that is taxed. That's fine, most libertarians would agree that fire protection should be a universal good. But maybe the local people wanted it that way?

OK, so your complaint is that the town set up their outsourced fire protection scheme as an insurance product, not a universal good that is taxed. That's fine, most libertarians would agree that fire protection should be a universal good. But maybe the local people wanted it that way?

You're right, the local people wanted it that way, and wanted it that way like Mr. Stupid here because he thought he could get away with not paying for years and years and they'd put the fire out anyway. Oops. Actions have consequences. I don't feel bad for him, he made the bed he now can't sleep on because it burned.

Edited October 6, 201015 yr by Croc

....right, that's what I said originally.

Wait, did the guy not pay for it for years or just a one year laps?

....right, that's what I said originally.

...exactly, so what's up with the interrogation?? Never contradicted it in my posts.

Well, you said initially that you would only be outraged if they guy didn't like the Tea Party. You then decided that he does (for some reason), so you want to go and dance on the ashes. But if he agreed with your political views you would be outraged. So you're saying that a rational analysis of the situation is contingent on the guy being offensive to you.

Again, anybody have word on whether the hapless homeowner is an anti-government Tea Partier like C-Spec?? I really need to know if I need to book a flight to Tennessee to dance on the ashes or go to Rite Aid and buy the guy a Halmark card.

This speaks volumes...

I read this article in my local newspaper the other day. The firefighters didn't just show up to "watch" the house burn down, they were there because the neighbor next door (who had paid his $75 fee) called 911 because he was afraid the fire would spread to his house. The call was made not to save the man's house because of his not paying the fee on schedule. Harsh? Sure, especially since this is fire prevention week. But I'm sure all the other property owners in that county learned an important lesson that day - to pay on time!! Sometimes someone has to be the the point to a lesson, and unfortunately this guy was the one chosen.

Well, you said initially that you would only be outraged if they guy didn't like the Tea Party. You then decided that he does (for some reason), so you want to go and dance on the ashes. But if he agreed with your political views you would be outraged. So you're saying that a rational analysis of the situation is contingent on the guy being offensive to you.

No, you've completely missed the point. This has no bearing on whether or not he agrees with my political views, but whether or not he is a leach and a selfish piece of $h! or not. See, this is a very clear example of why a pure free market society sucks. This is a very tangible example of why the anti-tax, anti-government people are wrong.

Oh, and "for some reason" if you read the thread, you'd see that Dodgefan reported:

He also said exceptions had been made before and they waved the fee.

So it seems pretty clear he's an anti-fee, anti-tax government guy, but one who cries foul when the chickens come home to roost. Oops.

So in actuality, what I am actually saying is that a rational analysis of the situation is contingent BOTH on the actions/behaviors of the fire department AS WELL AS the actions/behaviors of the affected party. This man isn't offensive to me. I haven't seen his picture, smelled his body odor, observed his crazy personality flaws, or anything. I don't know him from Jurgis Rudkos. But if he's skipped his fire bills in the past and counted on waived fees in emergencies, then I find that pretty reprehensible behavior, a selfish leach, someone going around getting something for free, something that only costs $75 a year. If that's all it costs, I guarantee you that fire dept. is cash-strapped.

But I'm sure all the other property owners in that county learned an important lesson that day - to pay on time!! Sometimes someone has to be the the point to a lesson, and unfortunately this guy was the one chosen.

While that's not EXACTLY what I think the lesson is here, you get it. I think the lesson has more to do with trying to get out of paying for public services "because they're public" and then wishing they were there when THEY are affected, nevermind all the other people who suffered and lost out due to the selfish behavior.

Opt-in fire service will always be more expensive and less effective on a per customer basis than a uniform exaction paid by virtually all of a given population.

This is going to end up in Politics real soon. TRY to keep it civil in here.

This speaks volumes...

Yup, do I celebrate out of schadenfreude that policies that have caused undue hardship for other people are biting someone in the ass, or do I feel bad for him as one of the unfortunate "hapless others" who has fallen victim to the undue hardship caused by the selfish, short-sighted jackass policies enacted by others in his town?

From what Dodgefan reported, he turns out to be a hypocritical free rider.

Here's the difference, I would have helped him put out the fire without asking for any bonifides.

And I most certainly wouldn't dance in the ashes of someone else's life.

And guess what?

I'm a libertarian.

Camino, I'm so glad you would have done the right thing had you been in that situation. Unfortunately, many of the Libertarian positions you advocate for LEAD TO these situations that then rely on others to step up and go "above and beyond" or "ignore the rules" to do the right thing. And I don't think that's right.

Oh, and if you really think I have the free time and money lying around to go book a flight on Southwest to Tennessee just to dance on some ashes...wow you really are a very literal and gullible person. I'm seriously enjoying one of the biggest laughs in a long time over your apparent pearl-clutching because I "dared" to type what I typed. I mean CLEARLY that was not meant to be taken literally or seriously AT ALL

WOW

Literally?

No.

But the sentiment itself certainly came off as quite nasty, and frankly, I was shocked that you would say such a thing.

As for what I do, or do not, advocate politically - I doubt that you actually know what that is.

You read waaaaaay too much into it.

Edited October 7, 201015 yr by Croc

Could be.

But the impression was made.

Wow...

Sucks for him, and WTF has being going on on this site?

Seems like I've missed alot.