Tennessee Fire: Justice or Travesty?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:31 am

recovering conservative;1338133 wrote: [QUOTE=flopstock;1338102][QUOTE=recovering conservative;1338133][QUOTE=flopstock;1338102]I feel awful for the pets, but IMO the man let his house burn down, himself. I'm willing to change that opinion if someone can show me he'd been paying for years and truly forgot this one time, however. But if you have that many pets, you should have been able to come up with $75 a year.Personally, I don't care if he forgot to pay, or didn't want to pay; letting the house burn down could have led to a wider fire that burned down more homes......that's a big part of the reason why they did away with private fire companies years ago and made fire prevention a shared service.

It's deliberate cruelty to animals to allow the cats and dogs to burn to death inside that home! If there were children inside, would the firemen have refused to try to rescue them or put out the fire? If so, why should that make the situation different? Using pure Randian, Objectivist logic, no exceptions should have been made even if there were human lives at stake.[/QUOTE]They do need to make that part of a county tax rather than an option.[/QUOTE]Now why haven't they thought of this? The mayor says that they need the fees to pay for fire service, so why aren't they part of the tax bill?

As I understand it (and I've just read over this stuff quickly), the house is outside the area serviced by the fire department. Since the owner is in a rural area and isn't a resident of the town, the town can't impose a tax.

Here are some articles on the issue. They're as much comment as fact, but I'm too lazy to dig right now.

Andy Levy Defends Tennessee Fire Department's Decision To Allow Home To Burn (VIDEO)

Rural Residents Seek Changes in Fire Policy After House Allowed to Burn (Wizbang)

From what I can see, this is part of the price of living outside the city tax area - you also live outside the city service area. You can't have one without the other. The town is making an extraordinary gesture even offering the service to the rural area, imo.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:53 am

Tennessee Fire Ignites National Debate on Public Services - DailyFinance

Apparently the guy had paid in the past, had been behind payments in the past, and was helped when he had a fire. He paid up after that fire. He figured they would do the same this time.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:12 am

This would never had occurred on The Little House On The Prairie, Bonanza or The Big Valley. Whats happened to our values regarding community? Had I been there you would have found me spitting and urinating on the damn thing if nothing else. These are the choices capitalism forces us to make toward our neighbors. Its despicable in my eyes.

My solution is everyone's money is first directed to a central agency which then allocates all disbursements toward necessary bills, taxes and fees and the remainder is then handed down to the individual. All purchasing power with the exception of food and clothing is suspended until the end of the year. This way nobody's house is allowed to just burn down for failing to pay an insurance premium and we all get to appreciate our families and neighbors until the end of the year when we have a giant food fight and spending spree.

Who is with me?

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:52 am

Ahso!;1338170 wrote: This would never had occurred on The Little House On The Prairie, Bonanza or The Big Valley. Whats happened to our values regarding community? Had I been there you would have found me spitting and urinating on the damn thing if nothing else. These are the choices capitalism forces us to make toward our neighbors. Its despicable in my eyes.

My solution is everyone's money is first directed to a central agency which then allocates all disbursements toward necessary bills, taxes and fees and the remainder is then handed down to the individual. All purchasing power with the exception of food and clothing is suspended until the end of the year. This way nobody's house is allowed to just burn down for failing to pay an insurance premium and we all get to appreciate our families and neighbors until the end of the year when we have a giant food fight and spending spree.

Who is with me?

On a purly logical view, I can see the point of the fire dept, that if they just go out and put out a fire for someone who hasn't paid the fee, then no one will want to pay the fee.

Having got that out of the way, let me say, " BULL#@^T "

The guys were there with their equipment, and actually had to work to prevent the thing from spreading.

So how can you stand there and watch a house burn down?

If nothing else, it is good practice, and training for the rookies. Better than any drill you can come up with.

So put the thing out and send the guy a bill for the costs.

As to your solution, AHSO!, I lean to the left a bit but I can't go THAT far.

Personal responsibility has to be in there, somewhere.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:55 am

The Fire Department is there to put out fire that's their function they should never let this house burn down how could they. Sorry, work out the fees after they put it out and save a mans home.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:37 am

I would never let someone's home burn down...never !!!!

The fire department did the wrong thing....

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:41 am

Sorry guys, but I'm way past sick and tired of my continued slide down the economic scale because the rest of the world is 'entitled'. I'm sick of working my ass off to try and meet my obligations only to be told I have to carry your load too. I don't object to a shared load - but that isn't what is being asked of us anymore.

And who is expected to keep the trucks and equipment up and operating in between this times this guys family 'needs' them? Bullshit. What about all those neighbors he wasn't helping to protect by paying his fair share? He's the criminal, IMO. I'll need some serious convincing that the only two times this fella forgot to pay his share were coincidentally the two years he needed it.

Once again, I'm sorry as hell that his actions caused the loss of innocent animals. But if the jackass can't fork out $75 a year for folks to risk their lives for his property, to hell with his property.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:51 am

I think the FD could have been better served by extinguishing the fire, billing the guy for the actual cost and if he can't pay that then take possession of the property and auction it off if necessary. I wonder if his homeowners will pay out. If he has any.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:52 am

Ahso!;1338170 wrote: My solution is everyone's money is first directed to a central agency which then allocates all disbursements toward necessary bills, taxes and fees and the remainder is then handed down to the individual. All purchasing power with the exception of food and clothing is suspended until the end of the year. This way nobody's house is allowed to just burn down for failing to pay an insurance premium and we all get to appreciate our families and neighbors until the end of the year when we have a giant food fight and spending spree.

Who is with me?

It's an interesting idea. I suspect most people would actually see a better standard of living. Since, if people aren't as worried about personal survival, they are less easily exploited.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:59 am

Accountable;1338165 wrote: As I understand it (and I've just read over this stuff quickly), the house is outside the area serviced by the fire department. Since the owner is in a rural area and isn't a resident of the town, the town can't impose a tax.

What I don't get though, is that the fee/tax is only one form of payment.

If the fire dept was smart, they could have saved the house, and had something of value to barter against. They can always give the guy a bill afterwards (for total cost of services, plus profit), and could in theory make out better than if he paid. That's why plumbers/lawyers are rich. They can gouge a person when they are standing knee deep in sh!t.

Allowing the house to burn down only resulted in a net loss of value and reputation for the community.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:33 am

yaaarrrgg;1338217 wrote: What I don't get though, is that the fee/tax is only one form of payment.

If the fire dept was smart, they could have saved the house, and had something of value to barter against. They can always give the guy a bill afterwards (for total cost of services, plus profit), and could in theory make out better than if he paid. That's why plumbers/lawyers are rich. They can gouge a person when they are standing knee deep in sh!t.

Allowing the house to burn down only resulted in a net loss of value and reputation for the community.

Exactly.

Flopstock.

I am not proposing the the FD do everything for free, by any means.

They put the fire out, and send the guy a bill, and attach a lien on the property.

The guy pays the bill, or his property can be sold to pay the bill.

And then it looks a lot more attractive to the other folks around there to pay the annual fee, instead of paying the whole ticket.

Though, I suspect that, as usual, there is more to the story.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:40 am

LarsMac;1338228 wrote: Though, I suspect that, as usual, there is more to the story.

He may have been someone the Fire dept didn't take a liking to.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:06 pm

LarsMac;1338228 wrote: Exactly.

Flopstock.

I am not proposing the the FD do everything for free, by any means.

They put the fire out, and send the guy a bill, and attach a lien on the property.

The guy pays the bill, or his property can be sold to pay the bill.

And then it looks a lot more attractive to the other folks around there to pay the annual fee, instead of paying the whole ticket.

Though, I suspect that, as usual, there is more to the story.

So, in 2008 there was a fire and the department did not respond at another home that had not paid and the property burnt down.... that's right, two years earlier...

Apparently since rural dwellers are not located within the municipality, the towns have no way to force the buy in... it has to be voluntary.

They do have in the ordinance that if it is a life threatening call they will respond.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:07 pm

yaaarrrgg;1338233 wrote: He may have been someone the Fire dept didn't take a liking to.

I think they let themselves be taken advantage of by this family once and that was enough.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:13 pm

Ummmm ....I'm sorry........... speaking as a fire fighter it's goes against the grain of every FF to stand back and watch someones life burn to the the ground. What is wrong with you people? How the hell do you judge the destruction of a persons livelyhood/posessions/property based on whether they payed a tax or not?

The only reason I can see that the FF's did not save the house and took to stopping it spreading is because the house was already too far gone when they got there. Any other reason is shameful and these FF's need to be kicked out of the service.

recovering conservative · Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:13 pm

Accountable;1338165 wrote: As I understand it (and I've just read over this stuff quickly), the house is outside the area serviced by the fire department. Since the owner is in a rural area and isn't a resident of the town, the town can't impose a tax.

Here are some articles on the issue. They're as much comment as fact, but I'm too lazy to dig right now.

Andy Levy Defends Tennessee Fire Department's Decision To Allow Home To Burn (VIDEO)

Rural Residents Seek Changes in Fire Policy After House Allowed to Burn (Wizbang)

From what I can see, this is part of the price of living outside the city tax area - you also live outside the city service area. You can't have one without the other. The town is making an extraordinary gesture even offering the service to the rural area, imo.

And all of this is beside the point! As others are pointing out here, the firemen were there, with their equipment, fully capable of putting out the fire if they chose to. They did not, and let the house burn down, even killing the animals inside -- only acting when it appeared that the fire was about to spread to neighbouring property (which they had already checked to see if they had payed their fire protection fee.)

The question is -- is this the way you want a society to be run? Some people do, since there seem to be other like-minded libertarians here. But, this story is reminding a lot of people of the stories from those grand old libertarian days of the past, when private fire companies would show up and demand huge sums of money before putting out a fire.

There are two obvious problems with letting someone's house burn down for whatever reasons:

1. the fire could have easily got out of control, and burned down a vast number of properties -- fee payers or not!

2. the firemen ignored the shrieks from suffering animals inside the home (maybe some legal eagles can tell us whether there is a case to launch an animal cruelty lawsuit against those responsible), but what if there were people inside such a house? Would they have let the house burn if there were children inside? If not, why not? The fact of endangering human life would have no bearing on whether or not fires should be put out in homes of non-payers!

recovering conservative · Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:21 pm

yaaarrrgg;1338217 wrote: What I don't get though, is that the fee/tax is only one form of payment.

If the fire dept was smart, they could have saved the house, and had something of value to barter against. They can always give the guy a bill afterwards (for total cost of services, plus profit), and could in theory make out better than if he paid. That's why plumbers/lawyers are rich. They can gouge a person when they are standing knee deep in sh!t.

Allowing the house to burn down only resulted in a net loss of value and reputation for the community.

And here's why we shouldn't go there either: Marcus Crassus -- he was a Roman general and politician, who became the richest man in the Roman Empire because he owned the only fire company in Rome. Anyone who wanted a fire put out had to pay an extortionist price or give his men the deed to the property.

recovering conservative · Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:38 pm

flopstock;1338210 wrote: Sorry guys, but I'm way past sick and tired of my continued slide down the economic scale because the rest of the world is 'entitled'. I'm sick of working my ass off to try and meet my obligations only to be told I have to carry your load too. I don't object to a shared load - but that isn't what is being asked of us anymore.

I used to think like this, but I now believe that a lot of my bad feelings about "welfare people" taking my hard-earned money -- came after moving to an isolated suburb, where I did not have any direct connection with poor people, drug addicts, the mentally ill etc. -- who populate the margins of society.

Funny thing is that after my financial circumstances changed ten years ago, and I had to give up the dream home in the suburbs, and move into the city, and in close proximity to a lot of people who are living on welfare, disability pensions, and mother's allowance, I did not feel as motivated to cut off their financial support. Likely because when you get to know these people, and how they are actually living, you find many of them are unemployable anyway, and are not living very well -- they do not eat well, have no money to buy luxuries for their children, have poor health care (even in a country with socialized medicare...remember that!) and end up sicker, and die much younger than those of us who have managed to stay in the middle class.

The problem is that too much attention is focused downward at people living on the margins who are eeking out an existence, while right wing rhetoric says nothing, or even congratulates the sociopaths at the top of the financial pyramid who are stealing billions from us! I'd rather go after them, and shake them down for their ill-gotten gains than take more money from the poor?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:06 pm

recovering conservative;1338278 wrote: And all of this is beside the point! As others are pointing out here, the firemen were there, with their equipment, fully capable of putting out the fire if they chose to. They did not, and let the house burn down, even killing the animals inside -- only acting when it appeared that the fire was about to spread to neighbouring property (which they had already checked to see if they had payed their fire protection fee.)

The question is -- is this the way you want a society to be run? Some people do, since there seem to be other like-minded libertarians here. But, this story is reminding a lot of people of the stories from those grand old libertarian days of the past, when private fire companies would show up and demand huge sums of money before putting out a fire.

There are two obvious problems with letting someone's house burn down for whatever reasons:

1. the fire could have easily got out of control, and burned down a vast number of properties -- fee payers or not!

2. the firemen ignored the shrieks from suffering animals inside the home (maybe some legal eagles can tell us whether there is a case to launch an animal cruelty lawsuit against those responsible), but what if there were people inside such a house? Would they have let the house burn if there were children inside? If not, why not? The fact of endangering human life would have no bearing on whether or not fires should be put out in homes of non-payers!

Like I said before, the ordinance covers endangered humans

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:20 pm

recovering conservative;1338281 wrote: And here's why we shouldn't go there either: Marcus Crassus -- he was a Roman general and politician, who became the richest man in the Roman Empire because he owned the only fire company in Rome. Anyone who wanted a fire put out had to pay an extortionist price or give his men the deed to the property.

Yeah, I agree, it's not a good route to go down. I'm just offering that option to those who claim that doing the right thing for the family would be too costly for the fire dept. Somehow, money always is the issue, even when it isn't.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:16 pm

recovering conservative;1338287 wrote: I used to think like this, but I now believe that a lot of my bad feelings about "welfare people" taking my hard-earned money -- came after moving to an isolated suburb, where I did not have any direct connection with poor people, drug addicts, the mentally ill etc. -- who populate the margins of society.

Funny thing is that after my financial circumstances changed ten years ago, and I had to give up the dream home in the suburbs, and move into the city, and in close proximity to a lot of people who are living on welfare, disability pensions, and mother's allowance, I did not feel as motivated to cut off their financial support. Likely because when you get to know these people, and how they are actually living, you find many of them are unemployable anyway, and are not living very well -- they do not eat well, have no money to buy luxuries for their children, have poor health care (even in a country with socialized medicare...remember that!) and end up sicker, and die much younger than those of us who have managed to stay in the middle class.

The problem is that too much attention is focused downward at people living on the margins who are eeking out an existence, while right wing rhetoric says nothing, or even congratulates the sociopaths at the top of the financial pyramid who are stealing billions from us! I'd rather go after them, and shake them down for their ill-gotten gains than take more money from the poor?

Maybe if I'd ever experienced the prime real estate I'd feel a bit more sympathy for those not willing to do their part for themselves. I drive a 1997 vehicle to and from work and to and from the grocery store. I pay my own mortgage on a house that leaks top and bottom and yet I can always find a way to help someone I think might need it more than me today. I pay my utilities or do without from time to time.

And I no longer feel the need to apologize to the PC crowd who can't appreciate the damage that their attitude of entitlements is doing to our nation on an ongoing basis.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:28 pm

flopstock;1338331 wrote: Maybe if I'd ever experienced the prime real estate I'd feel a bit more sympathy for those not willing to do their part for themselves. I drive a 1997 vehicle to and from work and to and from the grocery store. I pay my own mortgage on a house that leaks top and bottom and yet I can always find a way to help someone I think might need it more than me today. I pay my utilities or do without from time to time.

And I no longer feel the need to apologize to the PC crowd who can't appreciate the damage that their attitude of entitlements is doing to our nation on an ongoing basis.
:-4:-4:-4

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:35 pm

flopstock;1338331 wrote: Maybe if I'd ever experienced the prime real estate I'd feel a bit more sympathy for those not willing to do their part for themselves. I drive a 1997 vehicle to and from work and to and from the grocery store. I pay my own mortgage on a house that leaks top and bottom and yet I can always find a way to help someone I think might need it more than me today. I pay my utilities or do without from time to time.

And I no longer feel the need to apologize to the PC crowd who can't appreciate the damage that their attitude of entitlements is doing to our nation on an ongoing basis.You're beautifully passionate when angry.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:58 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1338277 wrote: ... it's goes against the grain of every FF to stand back and watch someones life burn to the the ground. What is wrong with you people? ...

The only reason I can see that the FF's did not save the house and took to stopping it spreading is because the house was already too far gone when they got there. ...

These two bits were my first thoughts. I assumed the fire was already too far gone. It was a trailer home so it would have been consumed fast. Until I see a response from the firefighters or an inquiry confirming they rushed out and then sat there watching, I don't believe we have the details.

If any choice was made regarding payment of fees, I can only imagine it would have reduced their response time. Why on earth would they rush out to do nothing? Doesn't make sense... so I think it's missing facts.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:17 pm

Burning down the house: Beck and Olbermann are both wrong about the Cranick fire | Washington Times Communities

Interesting counter point of view to the standard rants in that article and it gave me facts I was looking for.

First, we've read that the dude already had the FFs put out a fire when he hadn't paid which means this guy has a habit of catching fire. You'd think after the first time he'd have made it a priority on his checklist. Also, they give lots of notice when it's due and overdue. So, they saved him once and decided he'd had his chance.

Second, he decided that paying his house insurance was important so, though the dogs are dead, his insurance company is reportedly all over paying for the loss.

How the heck does someone have a fire after letting his coverage lapse, get his ass saved, then make the same mistake twice?

recovering conservative · Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:53 am

flopstock;1338331 wrote: Maybe if I'd ever experienced the prime real estate I'd feel a bit more sympathy for those not willing to do their part for themselves. I drive a 1997 vehicle to and from work and to and from the grocery store. I pay my own mortgage on a house that leaks top and bottom and yet I can always find a way to help someone I think might need it more than me today. I pay my utilities or do without from time to time.
Okay! This rant doesn't add up to me. You start off saying your own feelings of deprivation make you less sympathetic to those you describe as not doing their part, but end with a comment about your own charitable work -- is that to the same kind of people who you think aren't willing to do their part? Who exactly is needing a handout from you?

I don't want to blow my own horn on this subject, but for what it's worth, my son and I spent a few hours yesterday volunteering at a local mission (yesterday was Thanksgiving Day here in Canada) and no doubt, the majority of the people who were there for a free Thanksgiving dinner were not "doing their part" either.

I mentioned previously that many of these people who are in an unemployed underclass are not going to pay their own way in this world. The question is how do we as a society deal with them. Do we provide at least a minimal amount of support to people who contribute little or nothing, or do we leave them to starve if they don't have family willing or able to support them?

And I no longer feel the need to apologize to the PC crowd who can't appreciate the damage that their attitude of entitlements is doing to our nation on an ongoing basis.
The people who do the most bitching about entitlements are usually ones who never meet people on welfare, or see what their lives are really like. They listen to right wing propaganda and imagine that they are living high on the hog!

recovering conservative · Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:07 am

flopstock;1338307 wrote: Like I said before, the ordinance covers endangered humans
So all the Cranicks had to do was say there was someone inside and they would have had to put out the fire! Did the fire chief consider that allowing houses to burn down can lead to fires that spread and threaten life and property of others?

There's a reason why the fire brigades of the 19th century were done away with! Eventually, everyone recognized that some services, like fire prevention, are for the common good; and it doesn't matter whether you pay for it through fees or taxes, no exceptions should be made when they are able to put out the fire.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:32 am

koan;1338356 wrote: Burning down the house: Beck and Olbermann are both wrong about the Cranick fire | Washington Times Communities

Interesting counter point of view to the standard rants in that article and it gave me facts I was looking for.

First, we've read that the dude already had the FFs put out a fire when he hadn't paid which means this guy has a habit of catching fire. You'd think after the first time he'd have made it a priority on his checklist. Also, they give lots of notice when it's due and overdue. So, they saved him once and decided he'd had his chance.

Second, he decided that paying his house insurance was important so, though the dogs are dead, his insurance company is reportedly all over paying for the loss.

How the heck does someone have a fire after letting his coverage lapse, get his ass saved, then make the same mistake twice?That's my thinking, as well.

recovering conservative;1338362 wrote: So all the Cranicks had to do was say there was someone inside and they would have had to put out the fire! Did the fire chief consider that allowing houses to burn down can lead to fires that spread and threaten life and property of others? There are some facts you're not taking into account, RC. They didn't respond until the fire actually had spread to a paying neighbor's property. I'm sure that by the time they got there the house was a loss. The job then was to contain the fire so that it wouldn't spread to other houses. This was not a suburban neighborhood but a rural area, with fields or pastures between the houses, not just a couple of yards.

I hit this link off of the story in koan's post:

Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground | WPSD Local 6 - News, Sports, Weather - Paducah KY | Local

It's clear that the fire dept was a city entity, not county, and that the house was outside their service area. They offer fire protection to every resident within the city and pay for the service with taxes. They offer the service to people outside the service area for a fee.

"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.

Maybe what we should be complaining about is how the city of South Fulton offered a false sense of security to the rural residents, who then became complacent and didn't form their own volunteer fire department, as so many other rural communities do.

This is the sense of entitlement that is causing so much damage. No one wants to take responsibility for themselves or their own actions, and they don't feel any obligation to pay for the services that come along to pick up their slack.

Yes, feed the hungry, house the homeless. But wiping the asses of the stupid is going too far.

As an aside, I got a chuckle out of this excerpt from the article:

"He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene." :wah:

recovering conservative · Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:07 pm

Accountable;1338367 wrote: That's my thinking, as well.
And not mine! Every issue these days with opposing sides is treated as the truth mush be in the mushy middle. Well, not every issue! Sometimes the truth is clearly on one side, and this is one of them! There is no moral argument for allowing a fire to burn down someone's house when there is the capability to stop it. There is a phony argument being made that the conduct of the Cranicks justifies allowing their house to burn, and it doesn't! Whatever the Cranicks did or did not do, failure to pay taxes or fees has to be treated as any other tax delinquency issue is treated, and does not justify withdrawing services that are for the common good.

There are some facts you're not taking into account, RC. They didn't respond until the fire actually had spread to a paying neighbor's property. I'm sure that by the time they got there the house was a loss. The job then was to contain the fire so that it wouldn't spread to other houses. This was not a suburban neighborhood but a rural area, with fields or pastures between the houses, not just a couple of yards.
It says: firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground. It doesn't say that the house was already a loss when they arrived. So, what's there to understand? Firemen standing around watching, means they are not doing the job they are supposed to do! They were fiddling while they let the house burn.

I hit this link off of the story in koan's post:

Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground | WPSD Local 6 - News, Sports, Weather - Paducah KY | Local

It's clear that the fire dept was a city entity, not county, and that the house was outside their service area. They offer fire protection to every resident within the city and pay for the service with taxes. They offer the service to people outside the service area for a fee.
And they are offering a service that is equivalent to search and rescue -- a service that should be contingent on whether they are able to provide the service, not whether the client has payed his dues. Growing up and living in Niagara Falls for many years, we are treated to regular stories of: daredevils trying to go over the falls in barrels, people trying to commit suicide by jumping into the Upper Rapids just above the Horseshoe Falls, idiot rockclimbers scaling the Gorge with improper equipment -- and in all of these cases the Niagara Parks Police, the Regional Police and the Marine Unit are obligated to try to rescue these people. They don't get to say it's their own fault, and let them drown or fall down the side of the Gorge -- they have to take care of business and try to rescue them, and press charges afterward, if it's applicable.

And this whole point about offering fire protection as a pay for service outside of the city would not have been necessary in the first place if it wasn't for an all-Republican county commission that rescinded a resolution that had been passed earlier, which would have established a county-wide fire dept. -- which would be the logical, sensible thing to do, to everyone except right wingers who want to dismantle every part of the commons. Think Progress » Tennessee County’s Subscription-Based Firefighters Watch As Family Home Burns Down

Maybe what we should be complaining about is how the city of South Fulton offered a false sense of security to the rural residents, who then became complacent and didn't form their own volunteer fire department, as so many other rural communities do.

This is the sense of entitlement that is causing so much damage. No one wants to take responsibility for themselves or their own actions, and they don't feel any obligation to pay for the services that come along to pick up their slack.

They had their choice. They chose more tax cuts to starve the beast, as rightwingers call it, rather than make sure that they can provide what should be essential services. The policy of not fighting fires of residents who did not pay their fees was a loaded gun, just waiting to go off, since it was inevitable that a fire would break out in a home of a delinquent payer.

Yes, feed the hungry, house the homeless. But wiping the asses of the stupid is going too far.
And what exactly do you consider "wiping the asses of the stupid?"

As an aside, I got a chuckle out of this excerpt from the article:

"He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene." :wah:
Aside from you and Glenn Beck, who finds this funny? The chief sure wouldn't have been laughing if Cranick was the kind of guy who would come after him with a loaded gun -- which there are lots of in that county!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:10 pm

recovering conservative;1338413 wrote: And not mine! Every issue these days with opposing sides is treated as the truth mush be in the mushy middle. Well, not every issue! Sometimes the truth is clearly on one side, and this is one of them! There is no moral argument for allowing a fire to burn down someone's house when there is the capability to stop it. There is a phony argument being made that the conduct of the Cranicks justifies allowing their house to burn, and it doesn't! Whatever the Cranicks did or did not do, failure to pay taxes or fees has to be treated as any other tax delinquency issue is treated, and does not justify withdrawing services that are for the common good.

It says: firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground. It doesn't say that the house was already a loss when they arrived. So, what's there to understand? Firemen standing around watching, means they are not doing the job they are supposed to do! They were fiddling while they let the house burn.Someone (was it Fuzzy?) mentioned that that is not the way fire fighters behave, and I agree. It is far more typical for newspaper reporters to spin the truth to make it more controversial.

recovering conservative wrote: And they are offering a service that is equivalent to search and rescue -- a service that should be contingent on whether they are able to provide the service, not whether the client has payed his dues. Growing up and living in Niagara Falls for many years, we are treated to regular stories of: daredevils trying to go over the falls in barrels, people trying to commit suicide by jumping into the Upper Rapids just above the Horseshoe Falls, idiot rockclimbers scaling the Gorge with improper equipment -- and in all of these cases the Niagara Parks Police, the Regional Police and the Marine Unit are obligated to try to rescue these people. They don't get to say it's their own fault, and let them drown or fall down the side of the Gorge -- they have to take care of business and try to rescue them, and press charges afterward, if it's applicable. The two examples aren't parallel because the Niagra guys actually have Niagra in their area of operations. Maybe the service should be offered for all, but it's not. Maybe the county should have a fire department but it's not. What we have instead is a city willing to offer a service beyond the city line, for a fee, to those willing to pay for it, and rather than being lauded for doing more than is required of them they are castigated for not offering freebies.

recovering conservative wrote: And this whole point about offering fire protection as a pay for service outside of the city would not have been necessary in the first place if it wasn't for an all-Republican county commission that rescinded a resolution that had been passed earlier, which would have established a county-wide fire dept. -- which would be the logical, sensible thing to do, to everyone except right wingers who want to dismantle every part of the commons. Feel better? You're right, it would've made far more sense.

recovering conservative wrote: They had their choice. They chose more tax cuts to starve the beast, as rightwingers call it, rather than make sure that they can provide what should be essential services. The policy of not fighting fires of residents who did not pay their fees was a loaded gun, just waiting to go off, since it was inevitable that a fire would break out in a home of a delinquent payer.It's hard to tell who you're referring to as "they," whether it's the rural residents (in which case I agree with you), the city (in which case your statement makes no sense), or the county commission (in which case you didn't even respond to the comment you quoted.

So I suppose the best decision would have been for the city to never have offered the service in the first place? Actually, that would have cut the legs out from under any argument the county council may have. It might have forced their hand.

recovering conservative wrote: And what exactly do you consider "wiping the asses of the stupid?"I have no problem at all seeing Cranick fitting this definition. He had a fire once and they pulled his ass out of it, but he didn't learn his lesson. He made his choice as an adult American of presumably sound mind. That choice, as with all choices, comes with consequences.

recovering conservative wrote: Aside from you and Glenn Beck, who finds this funny? The chief sure wouldn't have been laughing if Cranick was the kind of guy who would come after him with a loaded gun -- which there are lots of in that county!You might if you weren't wound so tight. I think the irony is really funny that the fire dept who refused service couldn't get service from their own police dept.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:16 pm

Politics is dependent on impeccable character now... or ability to feign ignorance of what "sex" is

Anyway, before I digress, I really really really don't think that this dude is going to pass as a heroic figure done wrong. Especially if we get the report on how the last fire went.

ps: thanks, Accountable, for an accurate example of what irony is lol

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:47 am

koan;1338486 wrote: Politics is dependent on impeccable character now... or ability to feign ignorance of what "sex" is

Anyway, before I digress, I really really really don't think that this dude is going to pass as a heroic figure done wrong. Especially if we get the report on how the last fire went.

ps: thanks, Accountable, for an accurate example of what irony is lolI doubt its seen like that. My interpretation is that people have been getting slapped in the face recently, and not only with this incident, that it really is a survival of the fittest attitude both financially and behaviorally. America has been heading in this direction for some time. I think its ironic that the U.S., as probably the most vehemently in denial concerning evolutionary selective process blindly exemplifies it in its most raw form.

You don't possess the tools of greed and knowhow to hoard and manage money, you lose, you don't get to survive, and we will stand by and permit you and your kind to die off. The resources are limited anyway, and as American's we honor nothing and nobody less than the best. That is what I can imagine the pledge will one day be.

The problem with this thinking is its short term. People need to ask themselves if thats the world they want to leave their offspring? Or are they so blindly arrogant as to think there can be no genetic variation within their own bloodline?

I say this may spell extinction of the human - or just America.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:34 am

Ahso!;1338510 wrote: .You don't possess the tools of greed and knowhow to hoard and manage money, you lose, you don't get to survive, and we will stand by and permit you and your kind to die off. Just a tad overstated, don't you think?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:44 am

I'm curious what Jesus would have done in this situation.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:45 am

Accountable;1338526 wrote: Just a tad overstated, don't you think?Nope. Most American people are completely unconscious of how much they are driven by their genes and emotions thereby neglecting reason, which is another function of our brain that separates us from other species. And whats worse is we fool ourselves by declaring the first reason. I'm personally torn between the two.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:46 am

Probably saved the dogs.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:52 am

Presumably God was aware of what was happening at the time

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:10 am

koan;1338535 wrote: Presumably God was aware of what was happening at the time :)Undoubtedly, however, the question is: did God let Jesus in on it? God apparently lacking in compassion and empathy needed to invent the two thus creating them and embodying them in the form of Jesus so he could have a clue into understanding this haphazard thing he'd done. He didn't only f@#k up the angel group , but he seriously screwed up the human one too. I wouldn't worship an idiot like that, in fact I'd deny his existence altogether.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:13 am

That'll teach Him.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:18 am

Accountable;1338538 wrote: That'll teach Him.:wah:

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:44 am

Speaking of the dogs, I wonder at how he kept three in a trailer home. Really? That's a lot of dog and very little space. I also wonder at the detail that the firemen stood there and listened to the dogs "scream" since a) the firemen wouldn't have been there until the dogs were dead already b) they should have been killed by smoke inhalation before they burned c) if they weren't killed by smoke first then the fire burned way too fast for the firefighters to have stopped any of it anyway.

Just mentioning it because I like my facts free of fiction.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:52 am

Sorry guys but I'm still trying to figure out how in the whole US a residence is not covered by it's own fire department. (and borrows , if you will ) a fire department that is already tied up in it's own area.

For example I live in an extremely remote area. I live between two fire stations both six minutes travel time from me. Both service my area. How is it that one fire department covers a city as well as the surrounding areas ? The responce time must be horrific even for those who do pay the levy.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:19 am

fuzzywuzzy;1338732 wrote: Sorry guys but I'm still trying to figure out how in the whole US a residence is not covered by it's own fire department. (and borrows , if you will ) a fire department that is already tied up in it's own area.

For example I live in an extremely remote area. I live between two fire stations both six minutes travel time from me. Both service my area. How is it that one fire department covers a city as well as the surrounding areas ? The responce time must be horrific even for those who do pay the levy.I'm with ya on that. I'm not familiar with Tennessee, much less that part of it. Anybody here know?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:48 pm

Ahso!;1338213 wrote: I think the FD could have been better served by extinguishing the fire, billing the guy for the actual cost and if he can't pay that then take possession of the property and auction it off if necessary. I wonder if his homeowners will pay out. If he has any.

Has my vote

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:50 pm

yaaarrrgg;1338233 wrote: He may have been someone the Fire dept didn't take a liking to.

That should never, ever, be an issue when it come to the emergency services doing their job!

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:02 am

fuzzywuzzy;1338732 wrote: Sorry guys but I'm still trying to figure out how in the whole US a residence is not covered by it's own fire department. (and borrows , if you will ) a fire department that is already tied up in it's own area.

For example I live in an extremely remote area. I live between two fire stations both six minutes travel time from me. Both service my area. How is it that one fire department covers a city as well as the surrounding areas ? The responce time must be horrific even for those who do pay the levy.

Accountable;1338734 wrote: I'm with ya on that. I'm not familiar with Tennessee, much less that part of it. Anybody here know?

In the States, the designation of town vs. city has little to do with population or geography. it is more a designation of the incorporation type.

I have seen cities with population in the tens, and towns with populations in the 100k's

The 'city' of south Fulton is about 2500 to 3000 people with another 1000 maybe in the rural region.

almost anywhere in the county is probably no more than ten minutes response time. And the South Fulton FD only covers within five miles of town.

And they are probably seldom very busy at the firehouse.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:36 am

He knew the situation, had required their services in the past, and chose to not buy the service anymore.

If he hadn't paid his insurance would we be sending hate mail to his insurance company?

It would be nice if everything was free by reason of compassion but that's not the way of the place he chooses to live in.

The only good argument here, and I do see one, is that if someone is in arrears on their taxes but lives in the boundaries of their service, they'd still get fire service even if their taxes weren't up to date. But he doesn't live in the safe zone and he knows it.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:40 am

Just thought of something...

How stupid is the insurance company that they didn't insist he have fire services to qualify. The bank insists that you have house insurance to grant a mortgage... you'd think they'd want to protect their liability.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:10 am

Its actually pretty dumb in my view. For a measly $75.00 the fire company saves it resources but we now have another homeless family for the taxpayers to support. Not that some of us mind helping out but the volunteering is beginning to become a little thin with all this tough love we're doling out. Think about it, we're justifying this because the guy didn't behave like we wanted and taught him to. There are other ways of dealing with situations such as this.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:07 pm

I read that 85% of the fire dept's resources go to the rural residents. One might also think that spending some of that money on a basic trash service would cut down on the fires too. Since, without trash service, they have to burn it all. In addition, breathing the smoke probably isn't good for health insurance premiums either.