Firefighters Watch Home Burn To The Ground

Story

Quote :

Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

I mean...this...they just sat and watched it burn? Despite having all the equipment necessary to save it?

Quote :

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.

Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.

This sounds like the way firefighting was done in the 1800's - a person bought "fire insurance" from a (privately-owned) fire "gang". And if your house caught fire, they would put it out. If you didn't have insurance...well, too bad so sad.

The whole point of government-run fire service was to stop this practice because if how corrupt and dangerous it was to the public.

Quote :

It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.

I have a solution chief, if you're so hell-bent on enforcing this moronic policy - fight the fire, and then bill the guy. It's a damn sight better than looking like jackasses.

This isn't the first time this has happened in that county, either.

So...if someone can't afford $75 for something that might happen, they're out of luck? WTF?! I thought firefighting was paid for by taxes, anyway.

Lady Anne wrote:

So...if someone can't afford $75 for something that might happen, they're out of luck? WTF?! I thought firefighting was paid for by taxes, anyway.

The $75 dollars is a tax, you math impaired, halfwitted dipshit. The only difference between this and property tax is that you HAVE to pay property tax. These people made the wrong decision and they got what they deserved.

I can't believe the likes of you and Spotts are somehow against giving money to the government.

Spotts' idea of fighting the fire THEN charging the owner isn't really a bad idea, however. Especially if they have reason to believe some one is still in the house. But still, it's just like not paying for any other service. You don't get it.

Maybe the rest of the retards in town who haven't dipped into the Fable III fund and paid the trivial fee will do so after seeing this.

Lady Anne wrote:

So...if someone can't afford $75 for something that might happen, they're out of luck? WTF?! I thought firefighting was paid for by taxes, anyway.

It is - the issue in this case seems to be that rural areas have to pay a surcharge in addition to the taxes (public safety tends to come out of property tax) because of the fact they live out-of-town.

What's the surcharge?

It makes sense though. You have to use more gas to haul ass out there, and there's probably fewer fire hydrants and whatnot to get water from, so you'd probably have to bring a tanker out there as well.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

What's the surcharge?

It makes sense though. You have to use more gas to haul ass out there, and there's probably fewer fire hydrants and whatnot to get water from, so you'd probably have to bring a tanker out there as well.

The surcharge is the $75 on top of the property taxes everyone has to pay. If you'd actually read the article for once, you wouldn't ask such patently moronic questions.

And they did bring a tanker, and firefighters, and everything else out there. Then they stood around and waited until the fire jumped onto property that did pay the $75 surcharge, at which time they put out that fire and left the rest to burn.

I'm glad firefighting isn't paid for that way here in SoCal. By the time the first property burned to the ground, flying sparks would have set everything else in the area on fire. This is especially true in what is known as fire season, which lasts from roughly July through October (sometimes starting earlier, sometimes ending later, depending on the weather conditions and the number of firebugs that year).

Fire protection should be a basic right of everyone, regardless of whether they can or will pay an extra fee, if only for the reason that under the right circumstances a fire can spread out of control, doing damage to everything in the vicinity regardless of whether any fees have been paid, and also costing lives.

So basically, the Obion County fire department is running a protection racket. Charming fellows.

The guy in the article said he didn't blame the firefighters--they were just doing their job. He blamed the people who are in charge, and rightfully so. If it's a rural community, there's often a volunteer fire department with equipment paid for by the city. They sometimes charge after the fact, but only to insurance companies; the owner of the property doesn't have to pay anything extra other than the property taxes everyone pays.

We come to you live from Libertopia,

Welcome to Rapture.

Lady Anne wrote:

So...if someone can't afford $75 for something that might happen, they're out of luck? WTF?! I thought firefighting was paid for by taxes, anyway.

But-but-but-but SOCIALISM!!!!! DAT'S BAAAAAD!!!!





What fucking retards. I only hope this family can sue the county or something.

I remember there being somebody on this site who supported privatizing the fire department.

I gloat.

A Note Chaotic!

I miss her frothing libertarianism.

Miss Prince wrote:

A Note Chaotic!

I miss her frothing libertarianism.

She had some odd notions, to be sure. "Privatizing the police" had to be my favorite.

Does a fire department have the power to tax? One would assume not, but that might not be the case. . .

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

This isn't the first time this has happened in that county, either.

And barring major reforms to the law in that county, it may not be the last time.

Miss Prince wrote:

A Note Chaotic!

I miss her frothing libertarianism.

We chased away our most fabulous village idiots.

Mafiosa wrote:

Miss Prince wrote:

A Note Chaotic!

I miss her frothing libertarianism.

We chased away our most fabulous village idiots.

We really did. My herd of lolcattle is bereft of its most prize specimens.

I WARNED YOU ABOUT PRIVATIZATION BRO!!!! I TOLD YOU DOG!

I TOLD YOU MAN

I TOLD YOU ABOUT PRIVATIZATION!

Since when is paying the government $75 bucks to do something privatizing?

Seriously, I still can't see what the problem is. It costs more for firefighters to fight a fire off in the middle of nowhere, those people should have to pay more.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Since when is paying the government $75 bucks to do something privatizing?

Since all the fire departments in the city are private contractors, and the fact that they charge the city's cash pool(made up of all 75bux's) as opposed to the people directly, doesn't make it any less private?

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Seriously, I still can't see what the problem is.

Quote :

Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground

No problem here.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

It costs more for firefighters to fight a fire off in the middle of nowhere, those people should have to pay more.

Fuckin' equality, how does it work?

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Seriously, I still can't see what the problem is. It costs more for firefighters to fight a fire off in the middle of nowhere, those people should have to pay more.

He offered to pay them the fee. He offered to pay them whatever they wanted to charge him to put the fire out. The chief said no, that it was too late, he had to suffer the consequences.

And the fire department still spent money to deploy firefighters, an engine, and all the other equipment. That's a cost. So the taxpayers still paid for them to stand around and wait until the fire crossed onto property that did pay the fee.

And do they fight fires on unowned land? Do they put out fires on foreclosed homes? I mean, nobody's paid the fee on those either.

And BTW, he had 2 pets in the house. Those pets died. A previous fire that happened in the county destroyed a barn that had horses in it because the homeowner hadn't paid the fee. My question: what if there was a person in there? Would the chief have allowed a rescue if someone's life was at stake? Would he allow his men to do their damn jobs?

Spotts1701 wrote:

My question: what if there was a person in there? Would the chief have allowed a rescue if someone's life was at stake? Would he allow his men to do their damn jobs?

Actually they required by law to intervene when a human life is in stake. Doesn't make what they did any less disgusting.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

My question: what if there was a person in there? Would the chief have allowed a rescue if someone's life was at stake? Would he allow his men to do their damn jobs?

Actually they required by law to intervene when a human life is in stake. Doesn't make what they did any less disgusting.

Actually, they're supposed to respond to every house fire as if a human were at risk if there is a chance that someone is trapped within the dwelling. They don't know when they roll up if someone is or is not inside - witnesses are not reliable in a situation like that.

"Risk a lot to protect 'savable' lives. Risk a little to protect 'savable' property. Risk nothing for anything that is already lost."

They chose to risk nothing instead of working to protect 'savable' property. Forget the legal ramifications - there's a moral or ethical obligation here. To paraphrase FDR, if your neighbor's house is on fire you don't dicker over the cost of him using your garden hose. You put the fire out and then worry about the cost.