What services should you have to pay for?

[eliza61]

In a Rural Tenessee town residents are required to pay a $75 dollar fee for fire fighting service. One gentlemen refused. As luck would have it his house caught fire and he called 911. Fire trucks were dispatched but they did not put fire out. Long story short: his house burned down.

Now honestly, I could not simply watch some ones house burn down if I were a fire fighter with a truck and a hose but that's another issue.

So is he in a position to complain?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...e-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate

Here's the short version of what happened: In rural Obion County, homeowners must pay $75 annually for fire protection services from the nearby city of South Fulton. If they don't pay the fee and their home catches fire, tough luck -- even if firefighters are positioned just outside the home with hoses at the ready.

Gene Cranick found this out the hard way.

When Cranick's house caught fire last week, and he couldn't contain the blaze with garden hoses, he called 911. During the emergency call, he offered to pay all expenses related to the Fire Department's defense of his home, but the South Fulton firefighters refused to do anything.

My township we have volunteer firemen, they do have an annual fund raiser but it's completely up to the individual to contribute and of course when I'm in NYC we have a fire deptment.

 

[livie1205]

he SHOULD have paid...he was wrong BUT the firefighters were more wrong!! When they take that job they do it to help not sit and watch...my dh is a cop,he would never sit by and watch someone be robbed! nor would he be allowed too..he would be fired.I am not saying the guy should not have to pay,they could put a lien on his house but to watch someones home burn down is so wrong, I dont see how they can hold their head up and say they are firefighters I know many firefighters and they wold have at least attempted to do something even if they had to risk being fired.

 

[DawnCt1]

We pay for trash pick up and our local TAXES pay for the schools, police and FIRE protection. No one should have to pay an additional fee for fire protection. It is unconscienable that the fire department would stand by and watch his house burn down. After they extinguished the fire, they could have sent him a bill, put a lean on his house, started foreclosure procedures for non payment, but to not do their duty put lives at risk and allowed for the irresponsible destruction of property. I would sue the town.

 

[golfgal]

Some areas all of these fees are wrapped up in your taxes and some areas they charge a separate fee so the taxes look lower. You DO pay either way. I am sure this guy was protesting something or other but the fee was $75 and he should have paid. It isn't any different than someone not paying their property taxes.

 

[golfgal]

We pay for trash pick up and our local TAXES pay for the schools, police and FIRE protection. No one should have to pay an additional fee for fire protection. It is unconscienable that the fire department would stand by and watch his house burn down. After they extinguished the fire, they could have sent him a bill, put a lean on his house, started foreclosure procedures for non payment, but to not do their duty put lives at risk and allowed for the irresponsible destruction of property. I would sue the town.

On what grounds-he knew there was a $75 fee for fire service and he refused to pay. It would be different if he didn't know about it.

 

[HappyDznyCamper]

While I don't agree with the decision to let the home burn, and even other firefighters condemn the act, it is important for all of those saying your taxes should cover this, many rural areas cannot afford to pay a full time fireprotection. In this case, the fire department is question was payed for by the city taxes, the home that burned was in the COUNTY so he did not pay city taxes, the city department offered to cover homes outside there area for a very small fee of $75.00/year. The home owner either forgot as he said or simply played the odds that he would not need their help. We have many volunteer department around here, you pay a fee to subscribe, if you don't subscribe they will respond, but will charge several thousand dollars per hour they are on the scene.

 

[HelenePA]

oh wow we have ALL volunteer depts around me.. we dont pay to subscribe or pay for them to show up, or pay for anything they do while on scene... it blows my mind they just stood there and watched.. shame on them.

 

[dispor]

While I think it is BIZARRE to have a separate fee for fire, why should we blame the firemen themselves? They did what they were told to do. Why should they risk their livelihood because this man refused to pay $75/year? Part of that $75 goes to cover their insurances, I'm sure. It sounds like they were dispatched so that they could make sure no lives were in danger. I've got to believe that if they knew someone was in the house, they would have gone in to save their lives (not to save the house, though).

As for the man offering to pay for the services. First of all, how would they know he even had enough money? What incentive would he have to pay AFTER they've already saved is house? As for putting a lien on the house - please, how much is a fire-damaged property worth?

Sorry, this man gambled that nothing would happen to his house and he lost.

But like I said, I think it is BIZARRE that fire coverage is a separate fee.

 

[scrapquitler]

We pay for trash pick up and our local TAXES pay for the schools, police and FIRE protection. No one should have to pay an additional fee for fire protection. It is unconscienable that the fire department would stand by and watch his house burn down. After they extinguished the fire, they could have sent him a bill, put a lean on his house, started foreclosure procedures for non payment, but to not do their duty put lives at risk and allowed for the irresponsible destruction of property. I would sue the town.

I totally agree with Dawn.

 

[nancycg56]

The article I read said he didn't refuse to pay but forgot and offered to pay when he called 911. He was refused.

Our taxes pay for firemen here but where I grew up we had volunteer firemen and never paid a thing.

 

[IFLOSIRI]

Absolutely once you put on that uniform and badge your there to protect and serve you have to take action.

 

[golfgal]

While I think it is BIZARRE to have a separate fee for fire, why should we blame the firemen themselves? They did what they were told to do. Why should they risk their livelihood because this man refused to pay $75/year? Part of that $75 goes to cover their insurances, I'm sure. It sounds like they were dispatched so that they could make sure no lives were in danger. I've got to believe that if they knew someone was in the house, they would have gone in to save their lives (not to save the house, though).

As for the man offering to pay for the services. First of all, how would they know he even had enough money? What incentive would he have to pay AFTER they've already saved is house? As for putting a lien on the house - please, how much is a fire-damaged property worth?

Sorry, this man gambled that nothing would happen to his house and he lost.

But like I said, I think it is BIZARRE that fire coverage is a separate fee.

It is actually quite common to have a separate fee for fire service, especially in rural areas. There is also a good chance that if you need fire service that you will receive a bill AFTER the fact for the call-quite common in suburban and urban areas. ALL of these fees would be reimbursed under most home owner's insurance policies if you have a claim too. I know Minneapolis charges $250 if you have the fire department come to your home for a fire-after the fire.

 

[dispor]

It is actually quite common to have a separate fee for fire service, especially in rural areas. There is also a good chance that if you need fire service that you will receive a bill AFTER the fact for the call-quite common in suburban and urban areas. ALL of these fees would be reimbursed under most home owner's insurance policies if you have a claim too. I know Minneapolis charges $250 if you have the fire department come to your home for a fire-after the fire.

Oh, okay. I live in a large city and it just seemed strange to me. So, your homeowners would not only pay to repair the house, but would pay for firefighter's services, too?

I only read the "short version" of what happened. It will be interesting to know if he was just a few days late on ONE month's payment, or if he owed many months. I wonder if he had homeowner's insurance...

 

[NHdisneylover]

While I think it is BIZARRE to have a separate fee for fire, why should we blame the firemen themselves? They did what they were told to do. Why should they risk their livelihood because this man refused to pay $75/year? Part of that $75 goes to cover their insurances, I'm sure. It sounds like they were dispatched so that they could make sure no lives were in danger. I've got to believe that if they knew someone was in the house, they would have gone in to save their lives (not to save the house, though).

As for the man offering to pay for the services. First of all, how would they know he even had enough money? What incentive would he have to pay AFTER they've already saved is house? As for putting a lien on the house - please, how much is a fire-damaged property worth?

Sorry, this man gambled that nothing would happen to his house and he lost.

But like I said, I think it is BIZARRE that fire coverage is a separate fee.

I pretty much agree with this post--all but the part about it being so BIZARRE to have a fee to cover fire service--this is pretty common in rural areas.

Even if the man DID forget and DID offer to pay the insurance fee when he called 911 that is too late and not really the fire fighters' fault. You HAVE to pay insurance when you are not sure you will need it or else it cannot support itself. Can you imagine if people who forget to buy health insurance could just buy it (for the normal price even) right when they have a heart attack but not carry it otherwise? Or buy car insurance when calling 911 AFTER they are in a wreck. That is not how things work.

I think the policy, and how the firefighters handled it is okay SO LONG AS the policy includes that the firefighters WILL make all reasonable efforts to save lives (just like they would if insurance had been paid). I honestly am not always sure i understand why firefighters are ever expected to risk their lives to save property if all lives are safe anyway. NOTHING I own is worth more than the life of ANY firefighter. Risking lives to save lives I understand, but to save things--well not so much.

 

[mjkacmom]

Well, I pay over $12,000 in property taxes - but, in my small 3 miles area, we have both a paid firehouse (hazmat, rescue boat, several engines, median salary of over $80,000), and a few volunteer firehouses. If I smell smoke, I will have a full force at my home in a minute, with a couple of ambulances as well (I know this because I've had to call for little things - a puff of smoke out of an outlet, and as much as you beg, they're showing up with their gear on with full sirens). You get what you pay for. Maybe next year he'll pay teh $75.

 

[minkydog]

My understanding is that the firefighters were required by law to NOT fight this fire, since the fee had not been paid. I'm optimistic enough to believe that they would have gone in if someone's life was in danger. At least, I would HOPE no sane human would stand by and let another lose his life!~

 

[luvmyfam444]

I saw this story - soo sad! I can see a little of both sides. The bill wasn't paid & there was no service - no different than water being cut off/ elect. BUT around here if it is gonna effect someone's life they can't cut you off. (ya know when its freezing out they don't cut of the elect for nonpayment)

HOWEVER if they'd been paying the bill in previous years (which supposedly they had) then there should be an exception made.

I just think of all the bills out there that people take YEARS and YEARS to pay - that go to collections & they have no ill effects - other than maybe a tacked on fee.

I think the humane thing to have done was hit them with a bunch of fees - dbl the fee -whatever - but don't let their house burn down for a measly $75

Heck if I was the one that had to make the decision (I think it was city council) I would have forked up the $75 just so I could sleep @ night because I didn't let someone's house burn down - what would have happened if they couldn't get out in time?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[luvmyfam444]

Im kinda surprised they took the time to figure out if he'd paid the bill or not...surely they had to look it up once the call came in...

 

[Hannathy]

I think the humane thing to have done was hit them with a bunch of fees - dbl the fee -whatever - but don't let their house burn down for a measly $75

And couldn't the same be said for the homeowner? How about HE LET HIS house burn down for a measly $75.?

Why is everyone only putting the Fire Dept to blame? He CHOSE to let his house burn down.

Of course he offered to pay after the fact. But what if everyone did that then there would be no money to run the Dept. waiting on the fires.

I say it is about time we start holding Adults responsible for their own decisions and paying the consequences of them instead of saving everyone's butts all the time.

 

[allison443]

I saw the guy interviewed tv and he said he figured they would put it out even if he hadn't paid the fee. Well if they did that, why would anyone pay the fee?


Also, he lives in a rural county that doesn't provide fire protection services at all. Apparently he doesn't live in the city of South Fulton, but South Fulton will provide fire services to rural residents if they pay the $75 annual fee.

I just hope this guy didn't "forget" to pay his fire insurance policy.