Tennessee Firemen ignore burning house over unpaid subscription fee

[Mom who cares]

My son is a volunteer fireman, and he is appalled at the behavior of this fire department, or shall I say, this county. He showed me a news interview with Mr. Cranick and he stated he lost 4 animals in the fire. My son has fought fires where the trapped animals are literally screaming inside the building. Terrible and senseless. My sympathy to the family.

 

[southerngal]

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.

exactly!!!!!!!

 

[LinasK]

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.
.

And in San Bruno, they had more than one jurisdiction helping them fight the fire. I think CA Dep't. of Forestry helped out as well as city firefighters. They wouldn't think of not helping based on a person's ability to pay...:razz::razz::razz: (Not directed at you Nova, that's what I think of those firefighters in Tennessee!!!)

 

[Nova]

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.

You are absolutely right that the homeowners are to blame for not paying for fire coverage. That being said, one of the functions of government should be to see that costs for essential services are shared by all, so as far as I'm concerned, the county also shares some blame.

As you say, however, the city fire department is another matter. But I'm sure it was very difficult for those firefighters to stand around and watch a house burn down.

 

[Nova]

: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!!!....

Good point, LinasK. I am speculating, but I imagine the rebuttal will be that the city allocates fire fighting resources based on the total yearly sum collected from rural homeowners. They can't insure the necessary resources will be available if everyone operates on a pay-as-you-go basis.

NONETHELESS, the human thing to do would have been to take their money and put out the fire.

 

[Nova]

And in San Bruno, they had more than one jurisdiction helping them fight the fire. I think CA Dep't. of Forestry helped out as well as city firefighters. They wouldn't think of not helping based on a person's ability to pay...:razz::razz::razz: (Not directed at you Nova, that's what I think of those firefighters in Tennessee!!!)

I didn't take it as a slam against me, Linas. And you are absolutely right: cooperation between different departments is the norm out here rather than the exception. And should be, given the size of our wildfires.

ETA obviously fire doesn't respect municipal boundaries, so fire departments should expect to collaborate with one another as needed. This is all the more reason why the decision of the Tennessee county in question not to offer fire protection is grossly irresponsible! As this case proves, "county" fires can easily cross boundaries and become "city" fires. What right does the county to have to opt out of this essential service!?

 

[Lucid]

I guess I can kind of understand not giving the service if it wasn't paid (doesn't mean I think its right). I bet those firemen had a hard time ignoring it when the bosses told them to. I think the fee thing just isn't right. I get that there is no fire/rescue available in the area, but they still pay taxes... what are they paying for, if not for such things??

Anyway, I would think they would still have to respond just to save the danger of the fire spreading, as it did, and began to damage a neighbor's house. I wonder if the neighbor (or their insurance) will be going after the fire department for damages. It could have been prevented, after all.

 

[Quiche]

They need a good Samaritan law. mo

 

[LinasK]

They need a good Samaritan law. mo

Exactly! What about the 4 pets that perished in the fire because the stupid fire department was more concerned with teaching the homeowners a lesson over $75, than valueing life! Especially makes me mad, knowing the homeowners tried to pay, and they refused them!!!:furious:

 

[BadRx]

I just read about this at Comcast. Does anyone know if a fund has been set up for donations? I am sickened about this.

 

[passionflower]

Heartless, IMO..........bill him later!

 

[kgeaux]

I guess I can kind of understand not giving the service if it wasn't paid (doesn't mean I think its right). I bet those firemen had a hard time ignoring it when the bosses told them to. I think the fee thing just isn't right. I get that there is no fire/rescue available in the area, but they still pay taxes... what are they paying for, if not for such things??

Anyway, I would think they would still have to respond just to save the danger of the fire spreading, as it did, and began to damage a neighbor's house. I wonder if the neighbor (or their insurance) will be going after the fire department for damages. It could have been prevented, after all.

Oh, I'm sure there will be lawsuits. The inaction of this fire department endangered every subscription paying homeowner in the area. The inaction caused damages to a neighbor's home, and if I were theneighbor's insurance company, I'd ALREADY be at the courts filing suit! Also, if I were the company insuring the home which burned to the ground while firefighters sat by, I'd be filing suit.

I just read about this at Comcast. Does anyone know if a fund has been set up for donations? I am sickened about this.

I surely do hope that they get a fund set up to help this family. When I read that four pets died in the blaze, my stomach just flipped, how horrible for this family.

 

[Snick1946]

Good point, LinasK. I am speculating, but I imagine the rebuttal will be that the city allocates fire fighting resources based on the total yearly sum collected from rural homeowners. They can't insure the necessary resources will be available if everyone operates on a pay-as-you-go basis.

NONETHELESS, the human thing to do would have been to take their money and put out the fire.

My view exactly; put the damn fire out as long as you are there then sort out the financial angle later.
I don't mean to offend, but this jurisdiction sounds like it would be heaven for all the teabaggers to move to- total personal responsibility and a government that doesn't believe in shared values. I was sort of on the fence on this until I learned about the pets that burned to death in the home. Would the fireman have done the same if there had been kids inside? Welcome to America's possible future!

 

[Hopeful One]

What about the fire fighters as human beings? I think that if I were a ff in that situation, I would have gotten the hose out and started fighting the fire myself, no matter what the authority figures said. If they want to reprimand me afterwards, fine. I wouldn't stand by and allow someone's home to burn - especially with dying animals inside.

 

[Angels_Not_Forgotten]

ok, is there not any law or oath for a firefighter? about doing no harm? i mean docs and nurses, didn't know if firefighters did too. and i'm with you shamrock, they may have been following orders, but what the hell. where is our sense of compassion, and caring, and trying to do for other people. 75 dollars. The firefighters let their home, their life, be destroyed over 75 dollars the couple was willing to pay. it sickens me. it literally makes my stomach turn.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I cannot believe a firefighter would just stand there and watch a home burn to the ground over a $75.00 fee not being paid.

It goes against the grain of what a firefighter stands for imo.

This man even told them he would pay them the $75.00.

I guess they were so afraid of losing their jobs if they fought the fire. They must have a jerk for a Mayor.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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.....

I have never heard of that fee until today when I saw this story on HLN.

IMO

 

[Charlie09]

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.

Why should the county make other arrangements? Why shouldn't the property owners be responsible for protecting their own home or paying for the fire department's protection?

This doesn't have anything to do with taxes.

 

[Charlie09]

I cannot believe a firefighter would just stand there and watch a home burn to the ground over a $75.00 fee not being paid.

It goes against the grain of what a firefighter stands for imo.

This man even told them he would pay them the $75.00.

I guess they were so afraid of losing their jobs if they fought the fire. They must have a jerk for a Mayor.

IMO

There is a misunderstanding here -
If I don't pay for groceries, I can't take groceries out of the store.
If I don't pay for gasoline, I can't pump it at the gas station.
If I don't pay for my car insurance, I will either lose my license, or be personally responsible for any damage I do to not only my own car, but another car. No matter how nice I am, or the other things I do for people, these things are my responsibility.

It was their responsibility to provide a way to fight a fire, *IF* they didn't want to pay for the fire department.

It's a sad story, but it's ridiculous to think the mayor of the town had anything to do with it.

 

[Nova]

Why should the county make other arrangements? Why shouldn't the property owners be responsible for protecting their own home or paying for the fire department's protection?

This doesn't have anything to do with taxes.

Actually, your questions have been answered more than once in the posts above.

But I realize that in your world, it's 1827 and we're all homesteaders on the empty prairie. I assume you still want the government to protect us against the Indians, or shall we leave that to each homeowner and his musket?