Firefighters forced to let house burn down

[LaCroix]

Usually, they arrive and do the work, but for a hefty fee.

Not in this county

Firefighters let home burn over $75 fee -- again

Firefighters in Tennessee let a home burn to the ground because the owners did not pay a $75 fire subscription fee. WPSD-TV's Jason Hibbs reports.

By msnbc.com staff and WSMV-TV

SOUTH FULTON, Tenn. -- Firefighters stood by and watched a Tennessee house burn to the ground earlier this week because the homeowners didn't pay the annual subscription fee for fire service.

"You could look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance," Vicky Bell, the homeowner, said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Bell, that sight was almost as disturbing as the fire itself.

"We just wished we could've gotten more out," she said.

It's the second time in two years firefighters in the area have watched a house burn because of unpaid fees. Last year, Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in a house fire, along with three dogs and a cat, because the fire fee wasn't paid.


Related: No pay, no spray: Firefighters watch home burn

People in the city of South Fulton have fire protection, but those in the surrounding county do not unless they pay a $75 annual fee.

The city makes no exceptions.

"There's no way to go to every fire and be able to keep up the manpower, the equipment, and just the funding for the fire department," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker.

Crocker said that by now, everyone should know about the city's fire policy.

"After the last situation, I would hope that everybody would be well aware of the rural fire fees, this time," he said.

In a nearby county, rural homeowners can purchase a $110 subscription to cover fires, but they can also pay on the spot for fire protection: $2,200 for the first two hours firefighters are on the scene and $1,100 for each additional hour, according to dailytimes.com.

Bell and her boyfriend said they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them.

The city has received a lot of criticism over its policy, but has refused to change it.

DUMBASS MAYOR.

Letting the firefighters fight the fire and bill the guy 5000$ for it would have been much better for the budget as if he had payd 75$ per year and had gotten free service.

[Uraniun235]

It's not just the mayor; the county needs to step up and levy taxes to either run a rural fire service, or provide the additional funding to nearby municipalities so that they can respond to all nearby calls. The fire department shouldn't be letting houses burn, but the rural homeowners also shouldn't get a free ride.

That said, I really don't have any sympathy for the homeowners in this instance:

Bell and her boyfriend said they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them.

Paying taxes for firefighters isn't just to protect your own home, it's to contribute to a common service that protects the whole community. I would bet that these are the kind of clowns who would have voted against a county fire tax if one had been proposed as a ballot measure.

Letting the firefighters fight the fire and bill the guy 5000$ for it would have been much better for the budget as if he had payd 75$ per year and had gotten free service.

Odds are good they don't have $5000.

[Flagg]

Aside from this being a month old, this is the second time it's happened in this county. I still have sympathy for these people, but the fact is that they knew the fire department would let it burn due to the prior instance so they really should have coughed up the $75.

[FSTargetDrone]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, in general, how do these firefighters know for sure that no one remains in the building that they stand by and let burn? And don't tell me "well, the victims said there is no one else in the house" because people in distress may not be thinking clearly, or you may be dealing with someone who is not certain him or herself that someone else was inside. Or it may be an elderly victim who did get out who is suffering from dementia or some other mental impairment and is of no help. What happens when the fire department shows up at a non paid-up property but there is no one outside at all? What if the occupants were young children left alone and/or overcome by smoke? What happens when the fire starts to spread to adjoining property that is paid up? Are the firefighters going to hose down that home while allowing the other to burn?

Until and unless these people can guarantee that the only result of this policy is that that specific property alone is destroyed and that no one else is inside, the idea of letting a fire burn out of control is madness. And that doesn't even begin to address the morality of such a policy.

[Flagg]

Letting the firefighters fight the fire and bill the guy 5000$ for it would have been much better for the budget as if he had payd 75$ per year and had gotten free service.

Odds are good they don't have $5000.

So you put a lien on their property and if they don't pay you take the house.

[FSTargetDrone]

Odds are good they don't have $5000.

So you put a lien on their property and if they don't pay you take the house.[/quote]

This is perfectly good alternative, that's for sure.

[Sriad]

Not at all internet tough-guying here:

This is a good way to get firefighters murdered.

[J]

Odds are good they don't have $5000.

So you put a lien on their property and if they don't pay you take the house.

The house which just burned to the ground? I'm not sure how that works...

[Iroscato]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, in general, how do these firefighters know for sure that no one remains in the building that they stand by and let burn? And don't tell me "well, the victims said there is no one else in the house" because people in distress may not be thinking clearly, or you may be dealing with someone who is not certain him or herself that someone else was inside. Or it may be an elderly victim who did get out who is suffering from dementia or some other mental impairment and is of no help. What happens when the fire department shows up at a non paid-up property but there is no one outside at all? What if the occupants were young children left alone and/or overcome by smoke? What happens when the fire starts to spread to adjoining property that is paid up? Are the firefighters going to hose down that home while allowing the other to burn?

Until and unless these people can guarantee that the only result of this policy is that that specific property alone is destroyed and that no one else is inside, the idea of letting a fire burn out of control is madness. And that doesn't even begin to address the morality of such a policy.

I suspect then and only then would there be real movement to scrap the system, after a horrific death or two and mass media attention and public outcry. The excuse that the fire service is too expensive too run without subscription fees is bollocks. I have never heard such rubbish, and this is coming from a master of talking shit.
Unbelievable, disgraceful, and ridiculous.

[Sriad]

Odds are good they don't have $5000.

So you put a lien on their property and if they don't pay you take the house.

The house which just burned to the ground? I'm not sure how that works...

The system is that if someone ISN'T buying "fire insurance" they can pay out the ass for it on the spot, but the home-owners in the article didn't have the money to do so.

[Sriad]

suspect then and only then would there be real movement to scrap the system, after a horrific death or two and mass media attention and public outcry. The excuse that the fire service is too expensive too run without subscription fees is bollocks. I have never heard such rubbish, and this is coming from a master of talking shit.
Unbelievable, disgraceful, and ridiculous.

The cherry on top of the bullshit-sunday is that they were standing by, ready to go if someone threw money at them, not that they couldn't get there because they were underfunded/short-handed/whatever.

[AniThyng]

The principle at work there I guess would be if they did it for free once, no one would pay the protection money fee again because they know the FD will put out the fire for free if they had to. Also, they're also sure it wouldn't happen to them.

Granted this is something better applied to something more trivial, like MMO's or something.

[Flagg]

Odds are good they don't have $5000.

So you put a lien on their property and if they don't pay you take the house.

The house which just burned to the ground? I'm not sure how that works...

You put the fire out instead of letting it burn. And property is still worth money.

[Simon_Jester]

You put the fire out instead of letting it burn. And property is still worth money.

The house and property in question is a small plot with a fire-damaged trailer on it. It is not going to be worth much money. And driving people from their homes won't make the fire department look much if any better than letting their houses burn down, either.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, in general, how do these firefighters know for sure that no one remains in the building that they stand by and let burn? And don't tell me "well, the victims said there is no one else in the house" because people in distress may not be thinking clearly, or you may be dealing with someone who is not certain him or herself that someone else was inside. Or it may be an elderly victim who did get out who is suffering from dementia or some other mental impairment and is of no help. What happens when the fire department shows up at a non paid-up property but there is no one outside at all?

I do not know- they might well ask the residents, I'd hope. Then again, they might not, because they sound quite capable of being a bunch of bastards.

What if the occupants were young children left alone and/or overcome by smoke? What happens when the fire starts to spread to adjoining property that is paid up? Are the firefighters going to hose down that home while allowing the other to burn?

I imagine that's why they came out at all.

I suspect then and only then would there be real movement to scrap the system, after a horrific death or two and mass media attention and public outcry. The excuse that the fire service is too expensive too run without subscription fees is bollocks. I have never heard such rubbish, and this is coming from a master of talking shit.
Unbelievable, disgraceful, and ridiculous.

There is one mitigating factor.

All this is happening in Obion County, a rural part of Tennessee, with a population of thirty-two thousand. The county, due as far as I can tell to budget cuts caused by decades of antitax politicians, does not have a fire department.

The incorporated cities of the county (including the county seat, population ten thousand, and South Fulton, population 2500 or so) do have fire departments. However, knowing how small these 'cities' are, it should not surprise you that the fire departments are not well equipped. South Fulton offers fire service to unincorporated areas of the county- but its tax base is that of the city of South Fulton.

For South Fulton residents, the fire department's services are free- no subscription required, you pay your taxes and you get your firefighters.

But providing fire service for unincorporated parts of the county means that the South Fulton fire department must be prepared to drive out much farther and cover a lot of rural and semi-rural ground outside the city limits. If they do this, who's going to pay for it? If South Fulton is expected to provide fire service for free, then they might well do the same thing all the other towns in the county (and most incorporated cities I know of) do: stop bothering to provide fire service outside the city limits at all. Otherwise, the cost of thousands of people's fire service coverage lands solely on the taxpayers of South Fulton.

So there is a hard question here: should South Fulton be expected to provide fire service for free to anyone in the unincorporated county who asks? They have the equipment to do so, yes, but who's going to pay for the wear and tear on that equipment that comes from driving ten miles each way over rural roads every few days to go put out the fires?

Normally we would hold the county government responsible for this, since they're the ones who directly administer the unincorporated parts of the county. They have elected not to have a fire department; why does the burden of taking up the slack fall solely on South Fulton?

[Flagg]

You put the fire out instead of letting it burn. And property is still worth money.

The house and property in question is a small plot with a fire-damaged trailer on it. It is not going to be worth much money. And driving people from their homes won't make the fire department look much if any better than letting their houses burn down, either.

It's still better than letting the place burn down with everything in it, dumbass.

[lance]

The system is that if someone ISN'T buying "fire insurance" they can pay out the ass for it on the spot, but the home-owners in the article didn't have the money to do so.

No, "In a nearby county", thats the system. That county also has 110 dollar insurance instead of 75

[Uraniun235]

Letting the firefighters fight the fire and bill the guy 5000$ for it would have been much better for the budget as if he had payd 75$ per year and had gotten free service.

Odds are good they don't have $5000.

So you put a lien on their property and if they don't pay you take the house.

Does the city have the authority to do that? These people do live outside the city limits.

The house and property in question is a small plot with a fire-damaged trailer on it. It is not going to be worth much money.

The land would almost certainly be worth more than $5000, although the city would then have to spend time and money on selling the land. Worse, if there's nobody looking to buy the land, the city then has to put in time and money on upkeep of the land so that it's presentable to future potential buyers.

[Flagg]

So you put a lien on their property and if they don't pay you take the house.

Does the city have the authority to do that? These people do live outside the city limits.

I'm sure they could work something out with the county considering they have contracted with them for fire service. But I don't know real estate law so I could be wrong. It's just a much better solution than "HAHAHA sucks for you".

[Uraniun235]

I'm sure they could work something out with the county considering they have contracted with them for fire service.

Uh, does the county actually contract with the city? I thought the county residents were individually contracting directly with the city for fire service.

My point is and has been that this is fundamentally a county issue. The county needs to nut up here. Anything the city does should be regarded as an interim patch until the county/rural people unfuck themselves.

[Ahriman238]

Fun fact, the first Roman fire department was more-or-less run on extortion. It was made up of the slaves of a wealthy patriarch who would purchase the burning property cheap and only then losse his firemen on it. Attempts to haggle or negotiate resulted only in him lowering his offer.

Of course, now in developed regions we have an enlightened policy in which people pay taxes for the common good, most of it sticks to various fingers on the way and the fire departments are left with something a great deal like an operating budget, but much, much smaller. Hurrah for republic!

[Alkaloid]

Is there some sane reason that emergency services in the US are run by the city/county and not the state? Because it seems schizophrenic and disjointed at best.

[Simon_Jester]

It's still better than letting the place burn down with everything in it, dumbass.

Yes, but it's not a lot better (the family still loses their home), and it involves costly legal expenses for the city, so South Fulton may not want to go for it and have to actually file a lien to acquire a burnt out trailer in a park full of hicks.

By the way, the plan you're talking about, extorting property out of people by offering to save it from a fire, is not unheard of. Crassus did it in ancient Rome. He was not a popular or well-respected man. Doing things that way nets you about as much bad PR as letting houses burn down.

The land would almost certainly be worth more than $5000, although the city would then have to spend time and money on selling the land. Worse, if there's nobody looking to buy the land, the city then has to put in time and money on upkeep of the land so that it's presentable to future potential buyers.

The land a trailer occupies in rural Tennessee? That might not be worth much. And the homeowners might not actually own it; it might belong to a trailer park or landlord who honestly doesn't care if the trailer burns out, because he can just rent the plot to the next guy.

Also, the city can't count on everyone they call up actually owning property that can be used as collateral- as a policy, it is insufficient.

Is there some sane reason that emergency services in the US are run by the city/county and not the state? Because it seems schizophrenic and disjointed at best.

Just custom, really. The first fire and police departments were city-run, by cities like Philadelphia and New York. At the time, the bulk of the land in a given state was sparsely settled farms that would not benefit from such services, so there was no incentive for the state to create them. Gradually that changed, people moved into more built-up areas. But the custom of administering most public services at the local level didn't change.

Honestly, in a case like this a state fire department might not change much of anything, because the problems of budget shortfalls and radical antitax attitudes is present throughout the South.

[Alkaloid]

Honestly, in a case like this a state fire department might not change much of anything, because the problems of budget shortfalls and radical antitax attitudes is present throughout the South.

Centrally run fire services can cut down costs for small communities by huge margins because it allows a fire station that is funded and equipped by the state but staffed by volunteers, so communities that normally don't have the population to pay for or staff a fire service full time can get one for a fraction of the cost. Its not as responsive as a full time permanently staffed station with 20 professionals ready to go, but its much better than having to have someone drive in from 100 km away.

[Sea Skimmer]

Is there some sane reason that emergency services in the US are run by the city/county and not the state? Because it seems schizophrenic and disjointed at best.

US states are typically full of vast empty spaces, it doesn't make any sense to control coverage at the state level when requirements vary so radically.

[Alkaloid]

US states are typically full of vast empty spaces, it doesn't make any sense to control coverage at the state level when requirements vary so radically.

If Australia, a country of similar size, vastly lager states and vastly smaller population can set up state run fire services that don't leave anyone having to pay a subscription fee to get service ever, I don't see why it would be harder for the US.