Resident claims she lost home because firefighters ignored blaze

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Geez people, this has nothing to do with political ideology.

It's simply a small county trying to deal with services the best way they can.

There are only about 32k people in the whole county, 18k are in one of the little towns with a fire dept. So, there are about 14k people spread out in rural areas outside of a little town.

I live next door in NC in a county that's considered small and rural and we have about 200k people, about 6 times larger. I understand their problem somewhat.

For a fire dept to be effective you need a fire dept station somewhat nearby so they can respond quickly enough. There's simply too few people for that in a county of their size, they'd never be able to afford it.

I bet there's a good chance most people living out in the county with a house fire would have their home destroyed even if they pay the $75. They're just not close enough to a station. The difference is most likely limited to how much is left over after a fire and needs to be bulldozed.

Most of you people seem like you're from urban areas and just don't understand the differences in living in sparsely populated rural areas.

While my county rural county is far larger than this guy's, we still have problems with ambulance service, which also requires quick response times. You just can't afford to place stations all over the place to guarantee quick response.

This situation is just a function of living in a sparsely populated rural area. Jeebus, it has nothing to do with political ideology.

Fern

This post pretty well nails it.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Geez people, this has nothing to do with political ideology.
True, yet you continue the partisanship by replying to someone blaming the right. Why didn't you reply to any of the people carping about "typical liberals, never want to pay for anything?" I think it could easily be spun the other way, as a typical wing-nut who doesn't want to pay his fair share. You can just hear him sputtering, "I already pay too much in taxes. Why should I pay more? Why aren't those free-loading apartment-dwellers paying anything?" Never mind, of course, that he as a home and property owner gets far greater value from fire protection than a renter would, just as the very wealthy gain far, far more value from tax-funded services and infrastructure than do the poor ... generally speaking.

But Fern is right, this topic really shouldn't be a partisan issue.


It's simply a small county trying to deal with services the best way they can.

There are only about 32k people in the whole county, 18k are in one of the little towns with a fire dept. So, there are about 14k people spread out in rural areas outside of a little town.

I live next door in NC in a county that's considered small and rural and we have about 200k people, about 6 times larger. I understand their problem somewhat.

For a fire dept to be effective you need a fire dept station somewhat nearby so they can respond quickly enough. There's simply too few people for that in a county of their size, they'd never be able to afford it.

I bet there's a good chance most people living out in the county with a house fire would have their home destroyed even if they pay the $75. They're just not close enough to a station. The difference is most likely limited to how much is left over after a fire and needs to be bulldozed.

Most of you people seem like you're from urban areas and just don't understand the differences in living in sparsely populated rural areas.

While my county rural county is far larger than this guy's, we still have problems with ambulance service, which also requires quick response times. You just can't afford to place stations all over the place to guarantee quick response.
Agreed, all true.


This situation is just a function of living in a sparsely populated rural area. Jeebus, it has nothing to do with political ideology.

Fern
Umm, it doesn't seem to be. The fire department was on the scene, yet chose to do nothing.

That said, I fully agree with those who think the fire department acted properly. Assuming they confirmed no human lives were at risk, I think they made the correct call.

The homeowner made a fully-informed decision to not pay for fire coverage. He chose to accept a direct and obvious risk. He therefore had no right to expect the fire department to magnanimously save his property from the consequences of that decision (plus the subsequent decision to do open burning knowing they had no fire protection). Fire equipment costs money, fighting fires is dangerous, and the homeowner decided that those costs and risks weren't worth the nominal cost to him. Oops. You chose poorly.

I agree it would have been a different story had there been imminent danger to human lives. I'm also pretty comfortable the fire department would have acted had that been the case. This was just about property, however, and property can be replaced.
 
Last edited:

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
This story is getting legs. Just heard about it on npr. I guess the guy actually paid every year but just forgot this one. The mayor and fire chief aren't taking calls from anyone.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
This story is getting legs. Just heard about it on npr. I guess the guy actually paid every year but just forgot this one. The mayor and fire chief aren't taking calls from anyone.

I think part of story here is overlooked: State and local governments are in really bad financial trouble now. Quite a bit of the Stim Bill money was sent their way, but that's gone now.

I imagine in this economic climate quite a few people 'forgot' to send their payment in. A lot of rual people are self-employed types; business isn't good anywhere that I can see.

I bet quite a lot of $75 checks are in the mail right now.

Fern
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,184
2,224
136
Geez people, this has nothing to do with political ideology.

It's simply a small county trying to deal with services the best way they can.

There are only about 32k people in the whole county, 18k are in one of the little towns with a fire dept. So, there are about 14k people spread out in rural areas outside of a little town.

I live next door in NC in a county that's considered small and rural and we have about 200k people, about 6 times larger. I understand their problem somewhat.

For a fire dept to be effective you need a fire dept station somewhat nearby so they can respond quickly enough. There's simply too few people for that in a county of their size, they'd never be able to afford it.

I bet there's a good chance most people living out in the county with a house fire would have their home destroyed even if they pay the $75. They're just not close enough to a station. The difference is most likely limited to how much is left over after a fire and needs to be bulldozed.

Most of you people seem like you're from urban areas and just don't understand the differences in living in sparsely populated rural areas.

While my county rural county is far larger than this guy's, we still have problems with ambulance service, which also requires quick response times. You just can't afford to place stations all over the place to guarantee quick response.

This situation is just a function of living in a sparsely populated rural area. Jeebus, it has nothing to do with political ideology.

Fern


This
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
That said, I fully agree with those who think the fire department acted properly. Assuming they confirmed no human lives were at risk, I think they made the correct call.

I think that's a pretty large assumption, considering they didn't even go to the scene until a second call was made by the neighbour (who had the insurance).

They weren't even going to go to the scene to insure the fire spread until someone asked them to do so. I'd be pretty pissed as the neighbour, with fire insurance, that they didn't immediately dispatch to control the blaze from spreading. If I'm not home to call they don't show up?
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=13266558


Good ol' compassionate conservatism in Tennessee.

hmmm... best check google there my friend. tennessee has had a democratic governor the last 8 years.

I grew up in a then rural part of virginia. Our house was serviced by an all volunteer fire dpeartment. Buying and maintaining trucks, training, facilities is not free... if no one pays or donates.. there would have been no fire department. If you live in the city limits... your taxes take care of this automatically. Outside the city limits... well you have to be more proactive.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,184
2,224
136
I think that's a pretty large assumption, considering they didn't even go to the scene until a second call was made by the neighbour (who had the insurance).

They weren't even going to go to the scene to insure the fire spread until someone asked them to do so. I'd be pretty pissed as the neighbour, with fire insurance, that they didn't immediately dispatch to control the blaze from spreading. If I'm not home to call they don't show up?


We don't know what was said in the 911 call. I would expect them to ask if anyone was in danger and at least dispatch the police and an ambulance if the answer was yes.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,184
2,224
136
This story is getting legs. Just heard about it on npr. I guess the guy actually paid every year but just forgot this one. The mayor and fire chief aren't taking calls from anyone.


They just didn't get around to it this time.

"I've paid it many, many times," Cranick said, "I just haven't gotten around to it (this year)." Cranick pointed out that the fire station is on the edge of town and "we don't go out that way every often."
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
hmmm... best check google there my friend. tennessee has had a democratic governor the last 8 years.

I grew up in a then rural part of virginia. Our house was serviced by an all volunteer fire dpeartment. Buying and maintaining trucks, training, facilities is not free... if no one pays or donates.. there would have been no fire department. If you live in the city limits... your taxes take care of this automatically. Outside the city limits... well you have to be more proactive.


Might want to hit that google again, the Gov had nothing to do with this. The Mayor of that town is Republican. Every seat of the commision (city gov) is also Republican.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,750
2,525
126
I'm surprised any insurers issue homeowners or fire insurance in the state of TN with this kind of stupid law. It puts a huge-and unnecessary-risk upon the insurers and one that is totally unnecessary. Fire and police services are essential components of government and shouldn't be offered on an ala carte basis.

My (rural) town has volunteer 911 and fire service, and a suggested annual fee, but that fee is voluntary. If you don't pay the fee and need ambulance services you will be billed. Otherwise you get billed nothing.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Might want to hit that google again, the Gov had nothing to do with this. The Mayor of that town is Republican. Every seat of the commision (city gov) is also Republican.

And nearly every rural county has a volunteer fire department or offers services for a fee outside city limits. I was repsonding to the typical welcome to the land of the tea party crowd. This is the way it rolls in rural america.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
I'm surprised any insurers issue homeowners or fire insurance in the state of TN with this kind of stupid law. It puts a huge-and unnecessary-risk upon the insurers and one that is totally unnecessary. Fire and police services are essential components of government and shouldn't be offered on an ala carte basis.

My (rural) town has volunteer 911 and fire service, and a suggested annual fee, but that fee is voluntary. If you don't pay the fee and need ambulance services you will be billed. Otherwise you get billed nothing.
As Fern and I already said, with rural response times what they are the damage to the structure is not all that likely to be reduced just because the fire department gets to a fire. The fire department will put out a fire and do their best to save lives, but they can rarely save a structure from being an insurance write-off unless they have much shorter response times. As in urban response times. Not to mention it's often the water damage that really does a house in. Fire departments are there to put fires out and save lives, not so much to save structures.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,747
579
126
Sounds like the owners/residents wanted to pay the $75 only when they needed to use it. That's not insurance.

I agree that common sense should have prevailed in this situation. Put out the damn fire and settle it later.

I'm surprised they didn't do that. However, I'd also be surprised if those same fire fighters ever saw a damn dime after the fact since the guy that is to fucking cheap to pay $75 a year for fire insurance probably is the same guy who will stiff you on the full bill.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,750
2,525
126
I'm surprised they didn't do that. However, I'd also be surprised if those same fire fighters ever saw a damn dime after the fact since the guy that is to fucking cheap to pay $75 a year for fire insurance probably is the same guy who will stiff you on the full bill.

The homeowner paid that bill in prior years, he just missed this one somehow. What if he never got mailed a bill this year by the fire dept?

I disagree with the whole concept of a la carte essential government services. Rural or urban has nothing to do with it. Should Detriot, NYC, etc. stop sending cops on calls into bad neighborhoods because the caller didn't pay some fee?
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
The homeowner paid that bill in prior years, he just missed this one somehow. What if he never got mailed a bill this year by the fire dept?

I disagree with the whole concept of a la carte essential government services. Rural or urban has nothing to do with it. Should Detriot, NYC, etc. stop sending cops on calls into bad neighborhoods because the caller didn't pay some fee?

And if he forgot to pay this years home owners insurance, should the insurance company still reimburse him?
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
So no one agrees that putting out the fire they weren't authorized to would have been stupid because the firefighters wouldn't have gotten any benefits if they were injured?
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,747
579
126
The homeowner paid that bill in prior years, he just missed this one somehow. What if he never got mailed a bill this year by the fire dept?

I disagree with the whole concept of a la carte essential government services. Rural or urban has nothing to do with it. Should Detriot, NYC, etc. stop sending cops on calls into bad neighborhoods because the caller didn't pay some fee?

I thought Detroit already did that.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
So no one agrees that putting out the fire they weren't authorized to would have been stupid because the firefighters wouldn't have gotten any benefits if they were injured?

Sure that's a valid excuse for the firefighters there on the ground, ordered not to fight the fire, but not necessarily for the chief to deny the response. I'm sure there is some discretion allowed on the part of the chief to respond to fires other than those where the fees have been paid up, as has apparently happened in the past.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Might want to hit that google again, the Gov had nothing to do with this. The Mayor of that town is Republican. Every seat of the commision (city gov) is also Republican.

once again republicans prove that government doesn't work ;)
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,184
2,224
136
Might want to hit that google again, the Gov had nothing to do with this. The Mayor of that town is Republican. Every seat of the commision (city gov) is also Republican.


This process and the policy were put in place back in 1990. Why are you trying to blame the current politicians because they are repubs?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
So no one agrees that putting out the fire they weren't authorized to would have been stupid because the firefighters wouldn't have gotten any benefits if they were injured?

Nah, I don't think so. Assuming the Fire Dept. provided coverage for the firefighters, I think you're either on official duty or not. If they're ordered to fight a fire, whether or not the $75 was paid, and someone was injured I think they'd be covered.

Sure that's a valid excuse for the firefighters there on the ground, ordered not to fight the fire, but not necessarily for the chief to deny the response. I'm sure there is some discretion allowed on the part of the chief to respond to fires other than those where the fees have been paid up, as has apparently happened in the past.

IDK if the Chief made the call to let the house burn, but whoever it was probably regrets that decision now. I think it was poor judgement.

They are now caught between a rock and a hard place. An awful lot of people seem really angry about this.

But they can't back down. If they now indicate a policy of fighting a fire even if the person didn't pay, other people will stop paying.

They can't just not charge these rural people, it wouldn't be fair for the city taxpayers to foot the bill for the rural people.

IMO, it was extremely poor judgement not to take a check/payment when offered it. The fire trucks were there (fuel costs), the firefighters were there etc. They pretty much incurred all the costs of fighting the fire anyway, water probably costs the city pretty much nothing.

Every Fire Dept will, from time to-time, pick out an abandoned/condemed house to set on fire and practice putting out. If nothing else they could have used this as practice.

Fern
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
So no one agrees that putting out the fire they weren't authorized to would have been stupid because the firefighters wouldn't have gotten any benefits if they were injured?

I'm not sure. The City Fire Department is a government organization, so I'm assuming the firefighters would have received benefits even if fighting an unauthorized fire. There's also every chance they would have been fired had they responded to a fire that by policy they should not have attended. This is a municipality and no one is arguing that the firefighters are not sufficiently serving the municipality; the only question is whether or not the municipality has a moral obligation to people who choose not to live inside its borders AND choose not to help defray the costs of providing the service. Since this fee is about what I pay for a volunteer fire department, the county residents apparently aren't even being asked to contribute equally, merely asked to defray the incremental costs to add those county residents choosing to participate. Seems like a bargain to me.

Live in the city and receive the services the city provides, live outside the city but help pay and receive the services the city provides, live outside the city and refuse to help pay and don't receive the services the city provides. Seems like a pretty clear choice to me. If we were discussing city garbage service only the very most Marxist would be arguing that county residents have a right to receive free that which city residents pay higher taxes to receive, but somehow some of us expect others to risk their lives for us for free simply because they risk their lives for others who pay them.

I know in my rural area the volunteer county fire department works by subscription and told me that if I did not subscribe and my house burned, they would send trucks to protect any subscribed neighbors' houses and would charge me for those costs (my actions endangering others' property) but would not put out my fire. I have absolutely no problem with that policy, and I pay my subscription fee every year to gain protection. They also have fund-raising traffic stops, to which I also contribute but for which I expect no consideration as it is a voluntary gift, NOT a contract. In general I am very happy to be offered a service that the County could not otherwise afford, at a reasonable price, with the freedom to decline it if I desire. Certainly I do not expect firemen to risk their lives on my behalf if I am not supporting them. After all, they don't ask me to design an electrical service for free, and that's pretty darned safe. There is no such thing as a free lunch, merely a lunch for which someone else has to pay.