I just found out about this story and found it disgusting. I guess it has been circulating around random political commentary shows. I think this makes the case for why everything can’t be privatized and some essential services really need to be paid for by everyone for the common good. Glenn Beck et al on the right side naturally took the firemen’s side and ridiculed the homeowners, but I just thought it was awful that the fire department showed up to protect the neighbors’ houses and just sat there and watched as these people’s burned and their three puppies died. You can preach rugged individualism all you want but there comes a point where if you’re in a position to help out your community, you do it and ask questions about the paperwork later. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2025342,00.html
It was one of the stranger news stories in a long time — and one of the most polarizing. Firefighters in rural Tennessee looked on as a house burned because the family who lived in it had not paid the $75 annual fire-protection fee. Their home was destroyed — along with three puppies that were inside.
What is more striking than the story itself is the debate it has set off, which has been raging now for more than a week. While the firefighters have come in for considerable criticism, a surprising number of commentators have come to their defense — and lashed out at the family that lost their home. (See pictures of crime in Middle America.)
Yet underlying the Tennessee fire debate is something much more serious and fundamental than the the back-and-forth, talking head battles about who was more at fault in this incident. At a time when lots of Americans are debating who should have citizenship, the case of Gene and Paulette Cranicks’ burnt-down house hints at the more profound issue of what that citizenship should mean.
The Cranicks live in Obion County, Tennessee, outside of the city limits. That means they do not automatically get fire service — they have to pay a special fee. The family says it has paid the fee in the past, but claims they simply forgot about it this year.
When the Cranicks’ home caught on fire, the firefighters showed up — but only to help out a neighbor, whose property was in the fire’s path, who had paid the fire fee. Gene Cranick says he offered on the spot to pay whatever it took to put out the fire, but the firefighters refused. It might seem that firefighters would have a legal duty to put out a fire. But in this case, the firefighters did not work for the Cranicks’ county — they worked for a nearby city. Their position was that they had no more obligation to put out the fire than New Jersey firemen would have to answer a call from New York.
Many observers were quick to find in the Cranicks’ burning house a parable for the increasingly harsh times in which we live. But some conservatives and libertarians had a different reaction to the Cranicks’ story: it actually gave them hope.
Glenn Beck, the conservative radio and television host, attracted the most attention. To prevent people from “sponging off” of their neighbors, he insisted, “we are going to have to have these kinds of things.” While Beck defended the firefighters, an on-air sidekick made fun of Mr. Cranick for trying to get the fire put out — and mocked his southern accent. (See portraits of the Tea Party movement.)
On conservative blogs, many of the commenters echoed Beck’s views. The loss of the home to fire “WAS INDEED a bad situation (for the homeowner — not for anyone else),” one poster declared on RedState, a right-leaning website. Jonah Goldberg, writing in National Review Online, said that letting the home burn was “sad,” but he argued that it would “probably save more houses over the long haul” since people will now have a strong incentive to pay their fees. Another writer on the same site was harsher, indicting people like the Cranicks as “jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates.” (See pictures of Republican memorabilia.)
After the fire, Paulette Cranick said that she is not angry at the firefighters. “You can’t blame them if they have to do what the boss says to do,” she told the Associated Press. It is a generous attitude, and fundamentally the right one: this is a failure of government policy, not of individual employees.
There is a major debate underway today about what citizenship should mean — and what you should get just for being an American. It’s not, of course, a new debate. During the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt expanded what citizens got through the New Deal: he created emergency assistance programs so people would not starve, and minimum wage and maximum hours laws to protect workers from the worst excesses of the free market.
Today, there are politicians and commentators who want to push in the other direction: to water citizenship down, and turn Americans into mere customers. In this view, you should get things — including basics like fire service — not as a right of citizenship, but as a privilege with a price. (Comment on this story.)
These are large national issues, but they are also questions that local governments are answering individually. Obion County, where the Cranicks live, has looked at a variety of ways of paying for fire services. If it put a small tax on electric meters, or simply raised the property tax modestly, it could do away with the fire fee entirely.
That is the right way to go. Living in a county — or city, or town — should bring with it a minimal level of rights that don’t depend on whether your check made it in the mail. Not luxuries, not frills — but things like having the flames put out when your house is on fire.
i think it was a necessary statement by the fire company. If it was somebody who was fighting for their life…it is a different story.
i bet a lot of people are choosing not to ignore that fee anymore. The homeowners took the risk, its the same for those who choose not to have insurance.
look at the extreme otherhand…if nobody paid the fee, (especially if all homeowners knew they would be taken care with or without the fee payment) the fire company wouldn’t be able to fight any fires outside of their district.
i just happen to have little sympathy lately for people who make the wrong decision in their life through ignorance. Maybe i’ll be a bit more sympathetic next week.
Why not just send them a bill for their services afterward if you want to make a statement? Not $75 but the actual cost, hundreds or thousands or whatever. That’s the system the medical community uses. This is also why people claim “Less government” and “individual freedoms” when they make the case that the $75 fee should be optional and the homeowner should have the right to decline it, but if it’s included in their property taxes this issue never comes up. I’m sure there would be people that would decline police protection too if they had to pay a subscription fee, but it’s not a bad thing for the government to prevent people from making stupid decisions in no-brainer situations over financial hardship or apathy.
Article clearly stated that they have paid it in the past, and offered to pay it on the spot. Accidents happen, and now as a result, their insurance company is going to be forking out quite a bit more money for recovery. So not only did 3 dogs, die, and ALL of their stuff burned…but an insurance company has to spend A LOT more money to fix the situation. And we as Americans wonder why insurance costs are so high…
How is that a necessary statement? You let the family’s home burn and dogs die over 75 dollars? Why not just put it out then take the homeowner to court for the total costs incurred saving the house- sort of like what would happen to an uninsured driver that got in an accident. After they win in court, they could take the house if the family doesn’t pay to recoup their costs.
EDIT: fuck, Joe beat me to it.
I’m a “less government” kind of guy. However, I do think there are certain services that the government should control. Including this in property taxes is the best way to protect everyone. If a person was stuck inside that house, this would be overturned in an instant.
Why not just pay the measly $75 and avoid the whole mess. The homeowner tried to save $75. Maybe they’ll rethink their priorities from here on out.
What if the FD put the fire out and billed them whatever afterwards? Would they actually pay? Doubtful.
It’s going to be an insurance mess. That is for sure. I agree that the south is indeed messed up. I’m glad I don’t have to deal with something like that.
see the point where nobody would pay if every homeowner could pay on the spot. If they have 100 fires a year…you’re supporting an entire community for only $7500. not gonna happen. that won’t even cover the fuel to get to each location. I can see it now…credit card swipes on every fire truck.
On the other hand, a bill after the fact would be a GREAT idea assuming it can be easily enforced. If i had to guess…i would say a single call would be in the neighborhood of $5K - $15K after labor, insurance, fuel, consumables, maintanence…etc.
As for the, “but they offered to pay on the spot”, what does it matter? If I stop paying my car insurance because I forgot and have an accident can I call Geico up and go, “yeah, I just totaled two cars in my car accident, can I pay my bill and get some insurance coverage”?
Yeah, it’s a shitty harsh lesson but sometimes there are serious consequences to bad decisions.
The idea with hitting them with a $5000 fire fighting fee for putting out the fire if they hadn’t signed up for coverage is ok, but chances are it would be more trouble than good trying to actually collect that money.
This is all prevented if the government just took away the “choice” on the fee though and just made them pay it in their property tax. Comes down to your views on government…do you think people should be free to make decisions that fuck up their life in any way possible, or does government have the right to make some of the no-brainers for them? If they mandated it in a Southern state like Tennessee the tea party types would probably protest for that freedom, but is it really in their best interest?
Don’t get me wrong, I do not think that you should have the option of paying on the spot. I know that it would not be the easiest thing to do but I think that the best avenue to take here would have been to put the fire out and sue them for the costs incurred. The Fire Dept would have won and I imagine would have been able to get the house if they weren’t payed. That is the statement that I would have made if it were my choice.
problem is…nothing says just because the fire company shows up that the homeowners aren’t going to loose everything anyway. How do you sue somebody that has nothing? can you see this being a simple decision to avoid “service now, sue later” that ever being an option?
it’s a PUBLIC service when it’s within your district and the same is for police within their own district. The problem here is that (i have to assume) this is a tiny town that can’t justify its own fire department…so you have to pay to get a neighboring FD to come out your way. At this point…it’s not a public service, but similar to a utility that you need to pay to have the right to use.
Off-duty police still have the obligation to intervene if they see a crime going down. I don’t see this as different. It was in their coverage district, they just weren’t serving one of their “customers.” Once they were out there there’s no reason to stand there and watch as the puppies and all of the priceless stuff that can’t be replaced burned. They can turn on a damn hose or two.
I don’t care if you live in Manhattan or west bumblefuck, this should be a service provided to you in the case of an emergency without paying a fee separate from property taxes. If the town/county wants to sub it out to another town, that’s fine, but the local government should pay for that relationship.
---------- Post added at 02:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------
Again, this debate is NOT about insurance, it’s about public safety services. In the end, their homeowners insurance IS going to cover the losses.
public safety does not equal insurance
To the people who say “tough shit”, what would your response be if there was a disabled person stuck inside the house?