Firefighters let house burn down in Tennessee

Link.

Obion County, TN, requires that all residents pay $75 annually to receive fire coverage. If a resident does not pay, their house burns to the ground. Unlike what is standard for the rest of the country, where everyone is covered and no houses are allowed to burn down.

The Cranick family lost everything, including their three pets.

Discuss.

Ah, going back to the original firefighting model, I see!

Hmmm, if memory serves, this was the way the firefighting service worked in ancient Rome.

And here I had thought we had advanced more...

Edit: Sorta ninja'd.

edited 5th Oct '10 10:03:35 PM by TotemicHero

Yeah, Marcus Licinius Crassus. There were firefighters before, of course, just not as memorable.

Not to mention the early firefighting departments in US cities, if I remember correct. The fighting between rival fire corps and stuff like this is what prompted government-sponsored fire departments.

^^ Your signature is sort of funny with the whole "The empire never ended" line.

Anyway, I'd like to see these firefighters get nailed for animal cruelty. That's probably the best way to slam this program fast.

That $75 per household per year keeps the fire department going. If nobody pays it, the fire department cannot operate. I therefore hesitate to call this unfair.

I'm going to get shredded here, aren't I?

edited 5th Oct '10 10:52:53 PM by FeoTakahari

Yes we all hate you. (Seriously, don't do that, it's annoying)

It's obviously a stupid system. This is why we have taxes.

If you read the entire article for comprehension, the fire department is from a neighboring town. The $75 fee is what's called an Out Of Jurisdiction fee. The residents of Obion do not otherwise contribute to the costs of running that fire department.

Hm, that is different.

Why didn't they pay $75 annually, I wonder.

The article quotes the homeowner:

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

Incidentally, South Fulton, the town that supports the fire department, is 27 miles away from Obion.

edited 5th Oct '10 11:08:25 PM by Madrugada

So the system is stupid and evil, the firefighters are stupid and evil, and the homeowners are stupid and evil. Cue conservatives screaming 'good riddance,' in spite of the now-homeless children and dead animals.

What's stupid and evil about asking people to pay for a service that they want. The people of Obion only pay for the South Fulton Fire Department through that Out of Jurisdiction fee.

If people aren't paying the Out Of Jurisdiction fee, they should be hauled into court, but the fire department should still put out the fires. Preventing homes from burning to the ground is in everyone's interest.

Yeah, what happens if the fire spreads on to other people's property (or homes, for that matter).

Then the fire department puts out that fire. Never mind that, perhaps, homeowners might not want their houses to catch fire because their neighbor's place is burning?

The whole 'out of jurisdiction fee' rationale is mendacious. It allows South Fulton what in practice is extra revenue that subsidises their fire department, while making it so that Obion remains without a public fire department service.

(Seriously, don't do that, it's annoying)

Er, sorry. Won't happen again.

Whether or not the fee was reasonable in the first place, isn't this a disproportionate punishment? I mean, couldn't they just have put out the fire and then charged them? (I realize that would encourage people to not pay the fee, but srsly, charge them whatever you want. Charge them the full cost of the wages, water, mileage, etc needed to put out the fire. It'll still cost a lot less than the house.)

*shrug*
Would be one thing if they were broke or so, and couldn't pay - but wanting to save the money, and thinking "Ah, we won't be so stupid and pay like everyone else" and then going "Wait, we didn't pay so we didn't get the service?"...

Main fail is imho the local government (is that the correct way to call it...?) though, they should just force everyone to pay, and then put out every fire. Like it's apparently everywhere else in the USA.

They have a stupid system, but I feel no pity for the home owners.

edited 6th Oct '10 3:26:02 AM by Uchuujinsan

Yeah, what happens if the fire spreads on to other people's property (or homes, for that matter).

That was going to happen here, it's only when the fire started spreading to a neighbouring house that the Firefighters put it out.

I'm okay with this. Although, honestly, accepting the seventy five dollars on site wouldn't have messed things up too much.

edited 6th Oct '10 6:59:18 AM by Deboss

One wonders what would have happended had people (rather than 'simply' animals) been in the house when it burnt down.

^^
That was my first idea as well, but the problem is, a fire department is an insurance type of expense, not like everyone will need it. Well, indirectly, because if the fire spreads... but yeah.

So no, just paying the fee wenn it's burning doesn't work. Even demanding huge amounts of money is a problem, because money I might get in 10 years doesn't help to keep my firefighting equipment in shape NOW.

[edit] ^
I think they could be criminally charged if they didn't help. And there would REALLY be a shitstorm going on, and I would probably join. Hm... if I think about it probably a little bit hypocritical.

edited 6th Oct '10 7:58:24 AM by Uchuujinsan

I don't get it. Just tax people and use the taxes to pay for the firefighters. Laissez faire is a horrible way to run public services.

On the other hand, this is a predictable consequence of anti-taxation political platforms, so one might note this as an example of why such things are impractical.

As far as the homeowner and their $75 fee, they might be SOL with regard to insurance as well; if I were an insurer, I'd make having firefighter coverage a condition of paying out on a policy, were such known to me in advance.

As an aside, I heard about this case yesterday, and it reminded me that my local ambulance service recently sent a solicitation for a $50 annual "subscription" fee. I asked my friend about it, wondering if not paying it meant I couldn't get an ambulance if I needed one, but he said that it's more of a case of, if you pay the fee, you don't get charged the ambulance fee if you do need service. So, it's exactly a type of insurance.

This "pay us $75 or we'll let your house burn down" thing sounds more like extortion. I bet that lawsuits will be flying.

edited 6th Oct '10 8:02:07 AM by Fighteer