• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Resident claims she lost home because firefighters ignored blaze

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ayrahvon said:
Isn't this the entire reason why firefighting in the US has been a public service? Historically fire-stations were run privately. In major cities like New York, multiple fire-stations would receive a call, show up at the doorstep, and then haggle with the owners for pricing. If the owner couldn't afford to put the fire out, they'd sit back and watch. This caused a few unruly fires in some major cities! It seems to me this in many ways was fairly similar. The owners of the house were willing "to pay any cost" to get them out, but because they hadn't paid prior couldn't.

Granted, this is a rural Tennessee county that for some reason hasn't built in the funding for their own fire-station. Why they aren't forced to pay the $75 annually I'm not sure. You aren't well protected if one or two of your neighbors have skimped out and can't receive the service until the fire is on your property.
Click to expand...

What kind of backward S...hole can't get their citizens to cough up $6.25 a month in added taxes for everyone to be covered.

This is your future if you vote for the tea party philosophy of everyone for themselves.
 
hal2kilo said:
What kind of backward S...hole can't get their citizens to cough up $6.25 a month in added taxes for everyone to be covered.

This is your future if you vote for the tea party philosophy of everyone for themselves.
Click to expand...

What was stopping the voters in that county from adding it as a standard tax?
 
Just another example of Republican governance. Sad thing watching this dumb hick sitting by the smoldering rubble that was his house. I bet two days ago this poor bastard was scoffing at the idea of a "nanny state". Oh well, go cry in your beer says the Republican.

But this is the way the Republican likes it. A country where you can save a few percent on taxes and perpetuate the paranoid fantasy of being some frontiersman on the Oregon trail. Where your neighbor is the enemy and a pervert. Where anybody unlike themselves deserves everything they get. They relish the misfortune of people where something like hurricane katrina is a aphrodisiac to the Republican. How else can you explain a fire department that comes out to watch your home burn down?

The Republican has no idea what it means to be a neighbor or a fucking human being.
 
BoberFett said:
What was stopping the voters in that county from adding it as a standard tax?
Click to expand...
The same backwater mentality that causes its residents to think a barrel is a reliable fire containment device.
Obion County resident Gene Cranick decided not to pay the $75 fee, and then he set a fire in his backyard in two large barrels. The fire began to spread, and he called 911. The 911 operator told him that because he hadn’t paid the fee, the fire department would not respond.
Click to expand...
I get a kick out of how this story is being played in the media when it was criminal negligence on the part of the "victims" in the first place.

It's also a stretch to think that in a rural area, outside of the responding fire department's regular service area no less, that the house could have been saved at all even if the fire department had come out. Smoke and heat are often sufficient to make a structure unsalvageable even if it doesn't collapse. In fact, in light of their insurer's generosity the Cranicks probably won the lottery on this one:
According to Simmons the insurance company would not refuse or reduce payouts on the fire loss just because the service wasn’t paid.
Click to expand...
link They are much better off building a new home with insurance money rather than refurbishing a smoke damaged structure.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
This article, and the articles linked within, cover pretty much all the arguments over this issue and it's pretty clear to me (and most others not blinded by political ideology) which side is right and which is wrong:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...e-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the link. So, this dumbass believed if he didn't pay for the service that he would still get the service.

"I hadn't paid my $75 and that's what they want, $75, and they don't care how much it burned down," Gene Cranick told WPSD, an NBC affiliate in Kentucky. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong."
Click to expand...
 
3 dogs and the cat dead. Damn lucky it was not a person. This is what you get when you let a libertarian mindset be in control of any public necessity. A third world shithole.
 
TheRedUnderURBed said:
3 dogs and the cat dead. Damn lucky it was not a person. This is what you get when you let a libertarian mindset be in control of any public necessity. A third world shithole.
Click to expand...

Actually this is what you get when you are criminally negligent and start a fire, on top of not paying your bills which include voluntary fire protection in which you can opt in or opt out because ::gasp:: we live in a free nation where adults make can decisions and then they have to deal with the outcomes good or bad ::gasp::.
 
DucatiMonster696 said:
Actually this is what you get when you are criminally negligent and start a fire, on top of not paying your bills which include voluntary fire protection in which you can opt in or opt out because ::gasp:: we live in a free nation where adults make can decisions and then they have to deal with the outcomes good or bad ::gasp::.
Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point.

Libertopia: A third world burned out shithole.
 
TheRedUnderURBed said:
Thanks for making my point.

Libertopia: A third world burned out shithole.
Click to expand...
Except... they are getting a nice settlement from their insurer who will be honoring the libertopian contract. After the media concert of sentimental bullshit subsides, these idiots will have a perfectly fine house to live in. Shithole not found.

If on the other hand they are found negligent and are denied a settlement, then they will be out one house - just like they likely would have been if the firemen had responded to their call.
 
Last edited:
Anarchist420 said:
This fire department is going to lose business. The market always corrects itself.
Click to expand...

Wow, talk about your libertarian cult. I'm sure many people will now give up fire coverage from the one service offering it over this. Wrong.

The market *does not* always 'correct itself'. In fact, the market often does quite the opposite, if not prevented by democratically elected government.

This isn't even really a market issue apparently, but one of how the government sets up the fire service. Hopefully they change it to a more universal coverage and fee.

Then we can have Anarchist protest about the dictatorial oppression of having to pay for fire service - when even this guy had meant to pay for it and just forgot.
 
Always easy to spot the free loaders, they probably think they should be covered by car insurance if they havent paid and get in a wreck.

The fact of the matter is the CITY police have went with an OPT IN system for people OUTSIDE THE CITY.

Funny how that works, now suddenly people OUTSIDE THE CITY want to use CITY ASSETS even after declining the service.

Its THAT simple. Anything beyond that is nothing but an entitlement mentality and feeloaders wanting to abuse the system.

Hope the home owner enjoys the 75 bucks he saved.
 
Since he pays taxes and I'm sure some of his tax money went to the fire dept. and also they have made exceptions to the rules in the past, I think he may be able to sue.
 
Someone on another forum brought up a good point.

They aren't supposed to fight fires if the owner doesn't pay for the service... So what happens if they break the rules and a firefighter gets injured or dies? No benefits.
 
Generator said:
Just another example of Republican governance.
-snip-
Click to expand...

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
 
Craig234 said:
Wow, talk about your libertarian cult. I'm sure many people will now give up fire coverage from the one service offering it over this. Wrong.

The market *does not* always 'correct itself'. In fact, the market often does quite the opposite, if not prevented by democratically elected government.

This isn't even really a market issue apparently, but one of how the government sets up the fire service. Hopefully they change it to a more universal coverage and fee.

Then we can have Anarchist protest about the dictatorial oppression of having to pay for fire service - when even this guy had meant to pay for it and just forgot.
Click to expand...
Actually, this was a city service. The home owner failed to pay tax, so he didn't get a benefit of the monopoly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top