Posted on 10/05/2010 2:32:07 PM PDT by Newton
Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee.
Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat.
"They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.
The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I’m surprised the mortgage company didn’t make the guy pay the $75. If the house is financed.
As for putting out the fire then filing a lien to recoup the costs, I don’t think that would be a legal lien.
The guy should have paid the fee. And I’ll bet there are a lot of $75 checks in the mail today.
There’s nothing conservative about letting a family home burn to the ground. Certainly not over seventy-five bucks. It’s not an ideological issue at all. That has to be the most small-minded thing I’ve ever heard of. It’s beyond pathetic. It is truly disgusting.
1. Homeowner doesn't pay his $75 fee.
2. House catches fire.
3. Fire company puts out fire.
4. Fire company bills homeowner for actual cost of putting out the fire, including labor and pro-rated share of equipment and operations cost (likely several thousand dollars).
5. If homeowner doesn't pay, fire company refers the case to the county.
6. County adds total due the fire company to the homeowner's tax assessment the next time it's due.
You see, there's a way to see that the fire company covers its losses and keeps its donation base WITHOUT letting someone's house burn down.
This was a DOUBLE WIDE mobile home, not a 200,000 house.
I agree with you. They’ll put a lein on your home for not paying HOA fees, or any number of things. (Mechanic’s lein?).
I will refrain from commenting on all of you people cheering the fact that the FD stood by and watched as FIRE consumed LIFE.
And the next year, NO ONE pays the $75 (opting to take their chances) and the FD goes bankrupt, sells the Fire Engine and now NO ONE has access to a FD.
On a personal note; I received a FREEPMAIL that stated that the Fire Department’s insurance carrier does not provide coverage to Firemen working on non-covered homes. Need to check that one out ... but this is a very KEY issue that the paper surprisingly didn’t bother to include.
You wuz right to the exponential degree.
Who needs personal responsibility? Why bother to pay those lousy insurance premiums ... just demand coverage retro-actively when something bad happens.
Push to halt foreclosures gains steam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2602159/posts
but this is OK and encouraged.
It’s a mad, mad world.
So, if you cannot debate an issue as SIMPLE as Personal Responsibility - you bravely attack me.
I think you need to visit the Democratic Underground - this is the level of maturity they show, I think you’ll fit right in.
No. The guy whose house burned wouldn't have gained anything... he would have been out several thousand dollars, plus the damage to his house. It's still a serious hit; it's just not a total loss.
He's a liberal - maybe this experience will help him grow up...
Are you so chock full of emotion that you cannot see straight?
Why should anyone buy car insurance, if all you have do is wait until you have an accident, then walk into State Farm with a check for $100 and demand them fix your car?
If you did this, then everyone else would too. The FD has bills that must be paid - like payments on that bright shiny new Fire Truck, the building and equipment. This is usually several million dollars worth of expenses that the country CAN NOT afford. These bills are due monthly, just like any other business. If no one pays the $75/yr; but opts to pay on an 'as-needed' basis; then the FD will not make the payments and go under.
And, instead of yelling at the FD, why no anger towards the idiot who has a $200,000 home and won't pay $75/yr to protect it against fire?
You did a nice job explaining this... Thanks.
I live in a rural area under the same fire protection rules as the homeowner. I pay the fee gladly. When I burn, it is with a 10’radius of mineral earth, a steady supply of water at hand and not in windy conditions. The consequences of idiocy can be severe.
If this idiot opts to not buy Fire Insurance, and gets the same level of service as someone who did pay - Why would anyone pay next year?
So, with no one paying the annual $75, the FD would go broke - and now NO ONE would have a FD to protect their homes.
My thoughts exactly, but consider ... the Local Gov't opted not to do this, and instead made this an optional service that people could chose to have.
It is NOT Gov't job to protect stupid people from committing stupid acts. You are free to be as stupid as you want to be. It is my understanding that the country simply did not have the revenue stream to provide this service.
You misunderstand.
Last year we both write checks for $75; and our neighbor doesn’t. He thinks we are fools for writing that check - it’s wasted money he says.
Then he has a fire, and the FD shows up - and puts the fire out. We look at each other and say “Wow, we are idiots, we’ve been throwing $75 down the hole every year, and we ain’t had no fire in 1-30 years”.
So, next year we don’t pay either, because we know that we’ll just depend on the good hearts of the FD to put our homes out, too. Trouble is, the FD is not supported by the county and has bills to pay. Without anyone paying their annual fee, the FD goes bandkrupt and now now one has a FD to call.
I call it “Personal Responsibility” vs “Nanny State”.
Except you could anticipate how the bleeding hearts would play this, as they have. This guy will end up suing the
county and probably win. Offering fire service as a voluntary service is just poor judgement.
“This was a DOUBLE WIDE mobile home, not a 200,000 house.”
And that pretty much partly explains why they didn’t do anything.
As a former volunteer firefighter, who attended many firefighting schools/classes, I was taught the ONLY time one enters a burning mobile home is when there is a person inside. The mobile home motto is “if it’s empty, let it burn.” They are so dangerous when on fire, no responsible fire department will send in firefighters if there is no one inside. The situation might be different in a city with a paid department, but I know of NO volunteer department that would risk the life of their firefighters for an empty mobile home. They will spray water on it, but not go in.
Even if the homeowner had paid the $75, the likelihood that firefighters would have gone into the trailer to fight the fire is slim to none.
Plain simple fact is, ya’ can’t really “save” a burning mobile home. Everything in it is extremely toxic, flammable and dangerous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.